Road, Rail & Access

[DarloPlaneBoy]

The big problem with the WCML, is that Birmingham and the West Midlands aren't really on it. Between Rugby and Stafford, the WCML splits in two, with the line through Birmingham being only 2 tracks (one North, one south). this means that the high speed intercity trains get slowed behind local and freight trains. They can only pass at major stations e.g. Birmingham International. This causes longer journey times for passengers between London and Birmingham.

There is a few lines Frieght could use If they were reopened. The Bescot Curve could reopen the Staffs line past Round Oak the Sutton Park Line could help divert from Wolverhampton via Walsall to Wolverhampton Line and Bescot through Walsall on to it to head out to Lichfield onto the Trent Valley. They could also divert some Avanti Services not calling at Sandwell and Dudley Via the Walsall to Wolverhampton Line via Bescot and Darlaston up to Wolverhampton joining it near Crane Street I believe and even then when the Trent Valley section was closed Trains mostly Avanti bypassed Wolverhampton to join back at Stafford but did still run via the Walsall to Wolverhampton Line atm this doesn't have any slow local services and shouldn't do for a while as the company building Darlaston and Willenhall have gone bust.

 

[Timberwolf]

There is a few lines Frieght could use If they were reopened. The Bescot Curve could reopen the Staffs line past Round Oak the Sutton Park Line could help divert from Wolverhampton via Walsall to Wolverhampton Line and Bescot through Walsall on to it to head out to Lichfield onto the Trent Valley. They could also divert some Avanti Services not calling at Sandwell and Dudley Via the Walsall to Wolverhampton Line via Bescot and Darlaston up to Wolverhampton joining it near Crane Street I believe and even then when the Trent Valley section was closed Trains mostly Avanti bypassed Wolverhampton to join back at Stafford but did still run via the Walsall to Wolverhampton Line atm this doesn't have any slow local services and shouldn't do for a while as the company building Darlaston and Willenhall have gone bust.

Four more freight routes announced yesterday to Birmingham, so probably won't help.

 

[DarloPlaneBoy]

Four more freight routes announced yesterday to Birmingham, so probably won't help.

No it won't

 

[TM3]

By way of note, this discussion started on the MAN thread, so it maybe useful to check there to get an idea of the discussion that has already taken place.

In essence the point made was that Manchester would prefer to be seen as a completely distinct location in the UK and that people there have no desire for their airport to be used as a gateway for London traffic.

When you look at the situation now in London there is very little opportunity for significant expansion by any carriers at LHR or LGW. Some full service carriers like Emirates and Royal Jordanian are have started operations from Stansted, which is now as big as MAN in terms of passenger movements.

My point was that BHX is not a lot different to the existing London Airports for travel time to central London, in particular I feel that when arriving in London by train BHX is actually better than Stansted on top of having it's own large conurbation to service, where as Stansted itself is basically in the middle of nowhere.

Further with HS2 coming in a few years time you will be able to travel between most areas of London and BHX in shorter times than it takes to get to LHR.

HS2 has 4 stops, 2 in Birmingham (including the airport) and 2 in London. Regardless of the physical distance to London, any passenger boarding a train at BHX going south is going be presented with a non-stop train to London, arriving at Euston in 37 minutes, if the official publications are to be trusted.

It's my opinion that given there are not going to be any new airports built in the London area anytime soon and that LHR & LGW expansion looks like it's never going to happen, should BHX position itself as next in line for London traffic?

One area that I think needs consideration is the naming of the stations and possibly more contraversially the naming of the airport itself.

It is reported intermitently that the name given to the airport railway station in 1976, "Birmingham International" creates confusion with passengers with many thinking this is the main station serving the city and that "Birmingham Airport" would be a clearer name for international passengers https://www.thebusinessdesk.com/wes...obby-for-birmingham-international-name-change

With this in mind I note that the new HS2 station is currently being frequently referred to as "Solihull Interchange".

What is everyone's view on using a name like "Birmingham Airport - London Gateway / Interchange etc." such as to promote the viablily of the airport as the next in line to capitalise on overspill of demand that London is currently experiencing.

I know some people are going to hate having the "London" name in there but I think the question should be, would you prefer keep the airport distinct from London airports (not the city), even if it was at the expense of missing out on regular long hall services to the US for example?

 

[Aviador]

The Manchester routes thread is currently closed. Please refer to your DMs

 

[Aviador]

@TM3 The point you made regarding the time it takes to get to London will make a difference once HS2 to Birmingham is complete. Although somebody said, ah but it's 100 miles away is, their point is irrelevant if the journey time is only 35 minutes, which as you pointed out would be similar to the travel time from Gatwick. That said, as I mentioned in the Manchester thread, alternative London airports struggle to entice anything away from London Heathrow airport so it's difficult to see how Birmingham could change that, unless Birmingham is seen as a destination in it's own right.

 

[gulftraveller]

From a PR perspective, referring to to BHX as a gateway to London, would be disastrous and would look like desperation - cf. London Southend or London Oxford.

The problem with HS2 is that it is likely to pull even more passengers to LHR rather than v.v.

 

[Aviador]

From a PR perspective, referring to to BHX as a gateway to London, would be disastrous and would look like desperation - cf. London Southend or London Oxford.

The problem with HS2 is that it is likely to pull even more passengers to LHR rather than v.v.

That was my view of HS2, not necessarily just associated with aviation matters generally, but clearly London Heathrow does have capacity restrictions and will continue to do even if a third runway goes ahead so could BHX potentially benefit from that? The HS2 link will be significantly more favourable than the rail link connecting with Stansted airport which I understand can be a bit of a pig.

 

[TM3]

From a PR perspective, referring to to BHX as a gateway to London, would be disastrous and would look like desperation - cf. London Southend or London Oxford.

The problem with HS2 is that it is likely to pull even more passengers to LHR rather than v.v.

I think Southend has potential to develop routes out of London, but at the moment doesn't have the portfolio to compete with Stansted or Luton but it is restricted by runway length such that limit's it's ability to accomodate a variety of aircraft.

London - Oxford got a lot of critism in the press but it is now seeing a lot of growth in business aviation https://www.corporatejetinvestor.com/news/london-oxford-to-build-new-mro-facility-and-hangar/

It's not the sort of growth everyone talks about but never the less building on the location's relative proximity to London seems to have been successful for them.

I would say using the the "London" tag in front of the airport is a proven way to get business. It means for a start you get considered as a possible entry location for passengers to London. Adopting the "London" tag was one of the very first thing Stansted did when they opened their new terminal in 1991 https://simpleflying.com/london-stansted-airport-history/

I think your assertion on HS2 is simplistic and doesn't consider the following:

LHR remains quite a long way from Euston and the 25/30 minute time saving does not make the entire journey to get to LHR significantly more appealing. It's not as if LHR has it's own station on HS2 like BHX does. You might also consider the positives for Birmingham in that it will have 2 rail links in different parts of the city, both providing links to the airport in less than 10 minutes. In fact I can't think of a major city that has anywhere near such convenient links to it's main airport than Birmingham.

The journey to LHR from the West Midlands is likely to stay within the 2-3 hr bracket by any means. Passengers arriving at BHX will however be able to expect to get to central London in 37 minutes on a comfortable train designed for long distance journeys rather than the tube.

But the main thrust of the point is really not about passengers choosing one airport or another it's about capacity for new routes and any airline looking to expand their route portfolio at LHR or LGW is going to find it very challenging and expensive. Other airports like Luton and Southend don't have large enough runways to deal with heavily loaded widebodies and Luton is in any event reaching capacity itself.

It's not so much about where passengers are going to go next, rather where are airlines going to go next to service demand out of London? Like I said, no-one is building any new airports.

 

[Aviador]

Good point about the London tag. We know Luton was laughed at when it adopted London into its brand but they seem to have done well out of it. I'm not sure too many people are actually looking to visit Luton itself. (Sorry Luton)

 

[tompo]

Excellent point regarding the ‘London‘ tag. I have previously commented on the huge benefit the tag affords Luton and how it has been highly instrumental to the airport’s inexorable expansion. The majority of it‘s passengers have no knowledge of its geographical location, distance from Central London etc. All they recognise is the hook (London). My view, and this will be controversial, is that BHX designates itself as a London gateway to coincide with the HST opportunity that will be presented.The traditionalists will scoff at the loss of their parochial pride but market forces will avail. Incidentally, when my staff were passenger-facing at LUT in the late 1970’s they would spend considerable time explaining to bewildered passengers that they had indeed arrived at (then) London’s third airport.

 

[gulftraveller]

The general observation is that transport links favour traffic from the smaller towards the larger. On one level it is psychological: if you are in London, you will never look up fares from BHX and if you are from overseas you are even less likely to do so, regardless of the speed of the rail connection.

During the third runway debate, expansion at STN was considered but firmly ruled out. Connections from there to the London Underground are actually rather straightforward. Its current success depends largely on FR and my guess would be that the question of expanding STN could be revisited. Except for FR, its offering for passenger services is a little meagre, particularly on long haul, so plenty of expansion is possible.

I would stick with your current branding which seems to do perfectly well. I can just see the headlines in the Daily Mail deriding ‘Birmingham - Gateway to London’.

 

[Jon Dempsey]

HS2 has 4 stops, 2 in Birmingham (including the airport) and 2 in London. Regardless of the physical distance to London, any passenger boarding a train at BHX going south is going be presented with a non-stop train to London, arriving at Euston in 37 minutes, if the official publications are to be trusted.

I hate to play devil's advocate here, but I see this as an opportunity in the other direction. Long haul flights from BHX are largely dictated by the route network of the ME3.

A thirty minute journey to Old Oak Common puts you onto the Heathrow Express line and your options expand massively. If I wanted to visit Japan (for example), I would no longer need to precede the flight with a journey to Jeddah/Doha/Dubai and would have many more options for lay/stop overs.

 

[TM3]

I hate to play devil's advocate here, but I see this as an opportunity in the other direction. Long haul flights from BHX are largely dictated by the route network of the ME3.

A thirty minute journey to Old Oak Common puts you onto the Heathrow Express line and your options expand massively. If I wanted to visit Japan (for example), I would no longer need to precede the flight with a journey to Jeddah/Doha/Dubai and would have many more options for lay/stop overs.

I don't agree that for that specific route most passengers are flying via the gulf. I think many if not most already drive to LHR for direct connections to Japan, other more convenient and direct connections exist from BHX via AMS, CDG, FRA, MUC, IST, ZRH and VIE right now.

I'm really talking here about this as an improvement in BHX's when pitching for new routes to unserved markets. I'm not saying the benefits of the link are going to cancel out the limitations and inconveniencies of travelling via a 1 stop.

The rail connection and the name is mainly pitched as travellers originating from markets outside the UK, flying long haul.

In those situations you've also got to consider the alternative to a 2hr journey through Old Oak Common to get to Birmingham City centre could be a 6 or 7 minute train journey to the centre of Birmingham, if that was their intended destination.

 

[TM3]

Excellent point regarding the ‘London‘ tag. I have previously commented on the huge benefit the tag affords Luton and how it has been highly instrumental to the airport’s inexorable expansion. The majority of it‘s passengers have no knowledge of its geographical location, distance from Central London etc. All they recognise is the hook (London). My view, and this will be controversial, is that BHX designates itself as a London gateway to coincide with the HST opportunity that will be presented.The traditionalists will scoff at the loss of their parochial pride but market forces will avail. Incidentally, when my staff were passenger-facing at LUT in the late 1970’s they would spend considerable time explaining to bewildered passengers that they had indeed arrived at (then) London’s third airport.

Thanks, it's useful to get the input of someone with your experience in the industry.

Whether the name of the airport can be changed or not, the main thrust of my point was the naming of the HS2 station at BHX/NEC. People appear to be referring to as either Birmingham Interchange or Solihull Interchange.

I think using either of these names would be a mistake. I think the station absolutely needs to have the name "Birmingham Airport" in it's title, otherwise it's not going to be absolutely clear that is has a direct connection to the airport. This will allow it to be found on rail booking tools like Trainline, etc.

I also think the name needs to reference that the station is a "London Gateway" as this is clearly what it is intended to be and is certain to be very useful for.

 

[rollo]

How about Birmingham & Airport Interchange covers both bases?
Definitely not Solihull Interchange too parochial.

 

[Nibbles]

I also think the name needs to reference that the station is a "London Gateway" as this is clearly what it is intended to be and is certain to be very useful for.

Maybe this is right in the short term to try and bring passengers in. But the biggest problem the UK has is that everything, absolutely everything, is assessed on its value to London. Not surprising, given a major worldwide city (though personally I think that's more on its past rather than its current or future). For long term success of the UK, the various UK regions need to stand on their own legs.

BHX, and Interchange station, is a gateway to the Midlands and all of the things that brings - the cultural heritage, arts, engineering, motorsport, the Cotswolds, etc. Arguably, its also a gateway to much of Wales.

Of course, you cant land that change overnight - but the long term desire is that e.g. the american tourist who wants to holiday in the UK chooses to fly to Birmingham because they want to spend time in this part of the world. Not that they fly to Heathrow and get a coach up one day to see Shakespeares house as their sole experience of this region.

 

[gulftraveller]

Of course, you cant land that change overnight - but the long term desire is that e.g. the american tourist who wants to holiday in the UK chooses to fly to Birmingham because they want to spend time in this part of the world. Not that they fly to Heathrow and get a coach up one day to see Shakespeares house as their sole experience of this region.

But that will never happen. It’s all about human nature in making a choice of where to fly to. Your average American does not know the distance from BHX to London, probably not even there is an airport in Birmingham.

How about ‘Heathrow Central - Gateway to the Midlands.’

 

[Nibbles]

But that will never happen. It’s all about human nature in making a choice of where to fly to. Your average American does not know the distance from BHX to London, probably not even there is an airport in Birmingham.

How about ‘Heathrow Central - Gateway to the Midlands.’

Never is not the word i would use. Definitely that is the case currently, but we need to be thinking long term future (i.e. 30 years hence) and thinking about how we make the area a desirable place for people across the world to visit by then - and then make decisions on everything aligned with that. But we wont because, as above, everything in the UK is focused around benefits to and impact on London. For this reason, shifting parliament and the centre of government from London would do wonders for the appeal of the rest of the country almost overnight. But that probably wont happen.

'Heathrow Central' is an interesting idea. It removes London from name, but gets the brand recognition.

 

[TM3]

Maybe this is right in the short term to try and bring passengers in. But the biggest problem the UK has is that everything, absolutely everything, is assessed on its value to London. Not surprising, given a major worldwide city (though personally I think that's more on its past rather than its current or future). For long term success of the UK, the various UK regions need to stand on their own legs.

BHX, and Interchange station, is a gateway to the Midlands and all of the things that brings - the cultural heritage, arts, engineering, motorsport, the Cotswolds, etc. Arguably, its also a gateway to much of Wales.

Of course, you cant land that change overnight - but the long term desire is that e.g. the american tourist who wants to holiday in the UK chooses to fly to Birmingham because they want to spend time in this part of the world. Not that they fly to Heathrow and get a coach up one day to see Shakespeares house as their sole experience of this region.

Don't want to labour it I think we are probably on the same page here on most of this but I would say that London is a major (which may even undersate it a bit) international draw for business and tourism.

I think Birmingham has a competitive offer for inward business vs London, and Manchester for that matter, on the grounds that, it's very conveniently located for the rest of the UK as well as London.

You can't understate the importance of a certain proximity to London to any business operating in the UK due to the massive population imbalance, the fact remains that it is the seat of government and that many UK and international businesses have already chosen London for their UK head offices and that isn't really going to change in a massive way.

The West Midlands conurbation vs London does however have similarly qualified and competent workers to London but it doesn't have London rents (business and residential), London hotel prices, London beer prices, London house prices, London salary weightings etc... I'd further agree that despite being known as an industrial area most places in the West Midlands conurbation are still actually quite close to the countryside and AONB's, as well as having plenty of it's own history sites, top flight sports, shopping and enterainment venues.

That said London clearly has, for the first-time visiting international tourist some bucket list attractions like Buckingham Palace, Big Ben, Tower Bridge and the Houses of Parliament that are very difficult for any city to compete with. With that in mind I am pragmatic and reaslistic about the challenges surrounding promoting Birmingham as a stand alone destination to international tourists, it does however present and excellent entry point to see sites in various parts of the England, including London, if not Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Personally I don't care about being a stop over point for travellers to London, as Manchester is clearly fine with taking some passengers with Birmingham as an origin and destination and LHR has clearly been benefiting from Birmingham traffic for years.

Regarding the name Midlands gateway, and I'm happy to take stick for this, but this seems quite parochial and along the lines of the long forgotten acronym the area adopted rather than being known as "Greater Birmingham".*

At the end of the day HS2 goes to 4 places, Birmingham City Centre, BHX and 2 London stations, it doesn't even connect directly to the wider network at New St. Whether it is a London gateway or vice versa (I would say it is strictly speaking both) I just see it a the best potential angle to promote the airport and our regional economy to make a big deal about the convenience and proximity to London. I think the fact that LHR is, for all intents and purposes full, a very relevant argument for the need for extra capacity anyway.

* BTW I am from the West Midlands but definately not an 021er and I would relate the same argument here as West Mids vs Birmingham as I do to London vs Birmingham.

Surprisingly (to us maybe) many people outside of the UK have a limited knowledge of the cities and they may only know London. Similarly many people outside of the UK recognise the names of cities from premier league football teams, which without making any partizan statement here, maybe favours cities like Liverpool and Manchester for recognition of the names (sharing the same name as the city name). Typically if I'm explaining to an American for example where I am from I will just say Birmingham as I know they are unlikely to understand or appreciate the regional distinction I grew up using. Sometimes they don't know the name Birmingham at all and I often find myself explaining that for convenience as "near London". For an American in particular 100 miles isn't necessarily a long way to travel to an airport by car, even though it takes a lot longer than 35 minutes.