Bristol Airport - Filton

[Joseph_Pestell]

8 minutes ago, RJS1977 said:

 

My understanding of the thread was that the OP was looking to design a 'what if' layout based on a fictional Filton Airport station. Clearly the location of that station and the design of it would depend on where the terminals were located. So I wasn't so much suggesting building an airport at Filton now as how a 'might have been' layout based on such an airport might look.

You may be right but, if so, he did not make it clear.

If only an opportunity to discuss a missed opportunity for SW England & South Wales, we should have been on Wheeltappers.

Probably my fault if we have gone off piste. But it is a subject that has always grated with me.

[Joseph_Pestell]

1 hour ago, Edwin_m said:

The fact of the matter is that a medium-sized regional airport is going to struggle to justify a dedicated train service. 

 

Agreed. But Filton could have been rather more than a "medium-sized regional airport" given its excellent rail and road connections. A huge opportunity missed for what could have been a huge driver for the South West and S Wales economies.

[Pacific231G]

3 hours ago, Satan's Goldfish said:

Having worked on/at a couple of airfields during this latest century, that picture just looks all levels of wrong! Was definitely a different time back then.

 

 

On the subject of rail access to airport terminals, a good example of how to do it right would be Zurich. If I remember rightly, an existing rail line was diverted to run it directly under the terminal (the original route still exists for freight to bypass the station), and rather than it being just for a shuttle to the nearest major station it serves destinations all over Switzerland. I'm not familiar with the area around Filton, but if the imagined station is the Southside of the runway and the imagined passenger terminal is to the north, would there be an option there to reroute the rail line under the terminal instead and make it even more convenient for passengers?

It's not as wrong as it looks. Filton had an unusually long displaced threshold on runway 27 (westerly) I believe as a "starter extension" for the Brabazon and later Concorde so you'd still have been quite high on final approach while crossing the former filling station. I flew into there in a light aircraft a couple of times towards the end of 1998 when it was still open for General Aviation (I'd also flown into Lulsgate the year before) The GA apron was well to the left of the photograph. The lead on to the actual runway was so long that I could easily have taken off well before the threshold (though of course I didn't) Approaching it for the first time I'd never seen so much concrete in front  of me and realised when I thought I was on very short final that I still had a couple of miles to go. I didn't experience anything like that flying into Lulsgate. 

 

Whatever the local politics I simply couldn't (and still don't) understand why Lulsgate rather than Filton is Bristol's airport but it's worth remembering that the idea of airports needing rail connections (except perhaps for fuel) is relatively recent. At the time when they were developed, particularly in the 1950s and 60s but even into the 1970s, railways were very much seen as 'yesterday's technology' while aviation belonged in the sleek modern world of cars, buses, trucks and motorways. Air travel also wasn't mass transport (the term "jet set" would be meaningless today) so, apart from Gatwick, it was assumed that most travellers would arrive by private car, taxi or for the less well heeled, airline bus. (Despite Birmingham Airports proximity to the WCML, Birmingham International Station didn't open till 1976)

Airports were also not the major employment hubs that the largest of them now are.

So, Filton's proximity to good rail connections simply wouldn't have been considered as a factor in planning where the city's airport should be. Had it though been chosen for other reasons then a Bristol International Station (or even a smaller version of Gatwick) would make perfect sense.

Edited August 15, 2020 by Pacific231G

[Pacific231G]

22 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

Sometimes, it does not matter if an airport is quite close to housing. It is the direction of the runway that matters so that aircraft are not taking off over housing. As pointed out, Filton had a very long runway, so many aircraft would be at height already before passing over any houses.

It's really landings that cause the problem over a larger area as airliners are at relatively high power over a long shallow (typically 3 degree) ILS glidepath all on the same line  whereas on take off, though at full power, they climb fairly quickly (even before crossing the perimeter fence)  and peel off in various directions. If you know the London suburbs on the 26 approaches to Heathrow the  aircraft noise over north Richmond is almost constant whereas when the wind is easterly you're just not that aware of them. You're right about direction though. I don't think even Brentford suffers that much from Heathrow.

[Joseph_Pestell]

31 minutes ago, Pacific231G said:

It's really landings that cause the problem over a larger area as airliners are at relatively high power over a long shallow (typically 3 degree) ILS glidepath all on the same line  whereas on take off, though at full power, they climb fairly quickly (even before crossing the perimeter fence)  and peel off in various directions. If you know the London suburbs on the 26 approaches to Heathrow the  aircraft noise over north Richmond is almost constant whereas when the wind is easterly you're just not that aware of them. You're right about direction though. I don't think even Brentford suffers that much from Heathrow.

Interesting point, David.

 

Aircraft make less noise when landing but spread over a wider area. When I lived in Central London (Victoria) the noise could be pretty constant and that was in the 1960s when aircraft were noisier than now. Specially noticeable early in the morning in summer when the dormitory windows were open. The parents lived in Surrey and that could be noisy when aircraft were "stacked" waiting for a landing slot.

[RJS1977]

2 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

At the time when they were developed, particularly in the 1950s and 60s but even into the 1970s, railways were very much seen as 'yesterday's technology' while aviation belonged in the sleek modern world of cars, buses, trucks and motorways.

So, Filton's proximity to good rail connections simply wouldn't have been considered as a factor in planning where the city's airport should be. Had it though been chosen for other reasons then a Bristol International Station (or even a smaller version of Gatwick) would make perfect sense.

 

Southampton Airport station opened in 1966, so someone then clearly saw the potential for rail travel to airports.

[Edwin_m]

2 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

Agreed. But Filton could have been rather more than a "medium-sized regional airport" given its excellent rail and road connections. A huge opportunity missed for what could have been a huge driver for the South West and S Wales economies.

So essentially a south-western equivalent to Manchester.  There's some logic to that, although it would be harder for Filton given the lower population served (essentially Bristol and Cardiff versus Manchester, Liverpool and Leeds) and much of it having reasonably easy access to Heathrow.  

[The Johnster]

Sort of, but better rail connections than Manchester for through train Paddington/Bristol/South Wales and Cross Country, and with less of a population difference.  Liverpool and Cardiff are about the same dap, and I don't think Bristol and Manchester are that different; on top of that you have to compare Greater Manchester and Greater Leeds/Sheffield with Newport, the Valleys, and 'Greater Swansea'.  Filton is restricted by having one runway, and in this scenario we are transferring all of Lulsgate and Rhoose's combined traffic there for a start, before new international flights are attracted, so there is a limit to how much traffic increase can be expected, especially in a post Covid world.

 

But yes, I reckon Filton could do for South Western Britain what Manchester does for the Northwest of England, and be a viable diversionary point for Heathrow, Gatwick, Birmingham and even East Midlands.  In Ryanair geography it'll do for Paris and Rome...

[br2975]

STOP PRESS

.

The Welsh Assembly Government, owners and operators of Cardiff International Airport today announced a deal which will see a new, low cost airline basing its' operations at the Rhoose site.

.

Initially, two return flights per day will link Cardiff with the following locations, Cardiff (Pengam), St. Athan, Llandow, Flat Holm and Lundy.

.

Welsh Assembly Government transport minister Ken Skates-On said today...."this is a major coup for Cardiff Airport, and Wales, our research has indicated that few, if any South Walians wish to use Bristol's routes to unattractive destinations such as Alicante, Murcia, Malaga, Valencia, Krakow, Berlin and Rome."

.

We wish the new venture every success.

.

A photograph of the new carriers state of the art aircraft is shown below.

[Zomboid]

3 hours ago, RJS1977 said:

 

Southampton Airport station opened in 1966, so someone then clearly saw the potential for rail travel to airports.

Southampton really is a no brainer though, with the terminal being so close to the railway. I once managed to catch a train which left the station 15 minutes after the wheels hit the runway.

 

Very few airports other than Gatwick are so well sited for a station on a trunk railway. And those that are near to railways often have the terminal on the other side or something. Prestwick is pretty good, but it's so far from Glasgow or anywhere else of any real population that the simple train to plane transfer is negated.

[Andy Kirkham]

6 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

it's worth remembering that the idea of airports needing rail connections (except perhaps for fuel) is relatively recent. At the time when they were developed, particularly in the 1950s and 60s but even into the 1970s, railways were very much seen as 'yesterday's technology' while aviation belonged in the sleek modern world of cars, buses, trucks and motorways. 

 

The strongest demonstration of this is Prestwick which has a busy railway line passing right in front of the terminal's main entrance, while  the station was not built there until 1994.

[Pacific231G]

7 hours ago, RJS1977 said:

 

Southampton Airport station opened in 1966, so someone then clearly saw the potential for rail travel to airports.

Indeed

Southampton Airport Station was the exception (with Gatwick) that proved the rule. I've never been quite sure why but it may haveh ad something to do with the "local" air links to the Channel Isles.

There have been other special cases, the best know being Le Touquet where a short branch line was built from the Paris-Boulogne-Calais main line for the 1956-1980 "Silver Arrow"  London-Gatwick-Le Touquet-Paris service. The line ran across the airport's main apron to a simple station at the side of the terminal building and meant that all the intermodal connections could be made on foot. I suspect that it was the development of the hovercraft service with a special station at Boulogne that finished it off as the Silver Arrow's London-Paris timings were probably not sufficiently shorter to make the extra cost of the air leg worthwhile. Both rail services on the French side used high speed gas turbine autorails at least for some of the time. Given the time wasted at large airports it would be interesting to know how the Silver Arrow's London-Paris city centre timing compared with  a conventional flight from Gatwick to Charles de Gaulle before that airport got its RER service. 

 

Some of the "civic" airports built before the war were intended to have a rail connection. I think Portsmouth may have done and at Shoreham Aerodrome (now Brighton City Airport) there was a halt just in front of the art deco terminal whose name was changed in 1935 Shoreham Airport.  That closed in 1940 and never re-opened and the nearest rail access is now a mile away.

Those "civic airports" were of course before the days when railways were though to be obsolete .

[Joseph_Pestell]

11 hours ago, br2975 said:

 

 

My first ever plane journey was in one of those: Ashford - Beauvais. 1967 or 1968. Ryanair was not the first airline to invent major city airports. 

[jonny777]

2 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

My first ever plane journey was in one of those: Ashford - Beauvais. 1967 or 1968. Ryanair was not the first airline to invent major city airports. 

 

HS748. Dan Air had plenty of those, and so did the RAF at one time - but they called them Andovers (or something like that). However, I am straying O/T. 

 

 

Edited August 16, 2020 by jonny777
Brain fade

[KeithHC]

There are a couple of issues that prevented Felton being used.

 

1. Logic- Logic would say that Felton is ideal co-located next to a major motorway complex and close to mainline railways. But logic never is used as a sound argument.

 

2. Nimbyisum - No mater where you want to build a railway/motorway/airport it will not be wanted and not only at the will of the locals but also at the will of the political parties. Look at Heathrow runway 3 it has been needed for at least 20 years but will it ever happen.........

 

3. Filton is/was owned by BAE/EADS. They ran the airfield as a private field so could refuse permission the same as they do at Hawarden. When the WAG wanted to set up PSO air routes one proposal was to sever Hawarden as well as Valley but BAE flatly refused permission despite getting millions of subsidy from WAG yet the MOD agreed.

 

Yes Lusgate Bottom is wrong and yes Rhoose is wrong but you have to work with what you are given. As has been mentioned Severnside could have closed both down and would have been a nightmare for operations think of sea mists. Rhoose has a very good weather record in fact much better than Bristol. The road issue is no worse than Bristol. Airports can live without a rail connection the majority of Welsh passengers have to drive from rural areas to any airport.

 

Keith

 

ps. Vested interest in airports former ops manager of a couple of uk regional airlines now retired

 

pps Also Stanstead rail connected.......

[RJS1977]

1 hour ago, jonny777 said:

 

HS748. Dan Air had plenty of those, and so did the RAF at one time - but they called them Andovers (or something like that). However, I am straying O/T. 

 

 

 

I remember 'crashing' in the 748 simulator at Woodford when I did work experience there in the 90s....

[Edwin_m]

15 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Sort of, but better rail connections than Manchester for through train Paddington/Bristol/South Wales and Cross Country, and with less of a population difference.  Liverpool and Cardiff are about the same dap, and I don't think Bristol and Manchester are that different; on top of that you have to compare Greater Manchester and Greater Leeds/Sheffield with Newport, the Valleys, and 'Greater Swansea'.  Filton is restricted by having one runway, and in this scenario we are transferring all of Lulsgate and Rhoose's combined traffic there for a start, before new international flights are attracted, so there is a limit to how much traffic increase can be expected, especially in a post Covid world.

 

But yes, I reckon Filton could do for South Western Britain what Manchester does for the Northwest of England, and be a viable diversionary point for Heathrow, Gatwick, Birmingham and even East Midlands.  In Ryanair geography it'll do for Paris and Rome...

Manchester is the principal airport for the North West (pop 7 million) and Yorkshire/Humber (6m), despite there being several other commercial airports in those regions.  If Filton had a similar role it would serve the South West (6m) and South Wales (only 2 million according to Wikipedia, although definitions vary).  Heathrow has vastly more than either so will always have the best selection of flights, which will syphon off much of the potential catchment to the east of Bristol.  

[fiftyfour fiftyfour]

1 hour ago, Edwin_m said:

Manchester is the principal airport for the North West (pop 7 million) and Yorkshire/Humber (6m), despite there being several other commercial airports in those regions.  If Filton had a similar role it would serve the South West (6m) and South Wales (only 2 million according to Wikipedia, although definitions vary).  Heathrow has vastly more than either so will always have the best selection of flights, which will syphon off much of the potential catchment to the east of Bristol.  

That very much depends on where you are going - the regional airports are very much in a different market to Heathrow. I once flew Heathrow to Dublin (using up a free reward flight accrued from a major carrier) and the journey time from the terminal to the end of the runway at Heathrow was longer (by one minute) than the journey time from the end of the runway at Heathrow to the start of the runway at Dublin. Given that is the norm it would be quicker, for example, for me to invest an extra 60 mins of travel time to an airport that isn't Heathrow for a quicker overall journey time.

 

[Fat Controller]

5 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

My first ever plane journey was in one of those: Ashford - Beauvais. 1967 or 1968. Ryanair was not the first airline to invent major city airports. 

Which of Ashfords's two International airports did you fly from- Lydd or Lympne? The latter's an industrial estate now, but Lydd advertises itself as London (Ashford) International Airport on all the road signage.

[Joseph_Pestell]

33 minutes ago, Fat Controller said:

Which of Ashfords's two International airports did you fly from- Lydd or Lympne? The latter's an industrial estate now, but Lydd advertises itself as London (Ashford) International Airport on all the road signage.

 

That flight was from Lympne, which was also known as Ashford Park.

 

At that time, international flights from Lydd were the car carriers which crossed to Le Touquet. Never travelled on that but did make the Airfix kit. 

 

About 14 years later, I used Lydd-Beauvais as I had to get to a friend's wedding and the French fishermen were blockading the Channel Ports, again! That was quite a handy trip with free car parking at Lydd. The "terminal" was (and probably still is) just a couple of portakabins. Full marks to my local travel agent, Kestours, who thought of it and arranged at short notice

 

I rather like using small airports in preference to the route march at places such as Gatwick North. I use Beziers/Agde/Vias quite a lot. Like Southampton and Prestwick, a main line railway runs within a few yards of the terminal but sadly no platforms so unless I am hiring a car it means a shuttle bus to the station in town.

Edited August 16, 2020 by Joseph_Pestell

[Edwin_m]

6 hours ago, fiftyfour fiftyfour said:

That very much depends on where you are going - the regional airports are very much in a different market to Heathrow. I once flew Heathrow to Dublin (using up a free reward flight accrued from a major carrier) and the journey time from the terminal to the end of the runway at Heathrow was longer (by one minute) than the journey time from the end of the runway at Heathrow to the start of the runway at Dublin. Given that is the norm it would be quicker, for example, for me to invest an extra 60 mins of travel time to an airport that isn't Heathrow for a quicker overall journey time.

 

If Filton had grown to be the sort of airport that justified multiple rail services each hour then it might also have suffered from similar airside congestion.  

[pwilson]

This is certainly an interesting discussion I've provoked.  Looking again at the map and going into pure hypotheticals, if an airport station - "Bristol International" was to be built, would situating the station on the Stoke Gifford / Avonmouth line even work?

 

 

My initial comment suggested reversing mainline trains using the spurs but would train operators allow for this?  Or would a passenger transfer at Parkway onto a sprinter / 158 shuttle work if it can't even justify its operating costs?

 

Bristol Parkway' location itself presents issues as an airport station as trains from the south west to Wales don't stop there unless they reverse?

 

Personally, I thought transfer from Parkway would be the most likely using trains down the line to Avonmouth or trams / monorails right into the aiport complex.

 

Or....Purely hypothetical.

 

Would a re-modelling of the entire track layout have worked better so as to allow no reversing and all main line services to stop and carry on? The diamond area between the tracks used to be FIlton CE tip and lots of waste land so it could have been very different.  Thoughts?

 

I like the idea of Bristol becoming the equivalent of Manchester, claiming Lulsgate and Rhoose traffic and maybe some other stuff.  Also the idea of a station beneath the runway like Zurich would have been amazing but not really the best potential model railway.  All a dream now anyway as they're just going to build houses on it.

Edited August 16, 2020 by pwilson

[RJS1977]

As I said earlier, it would depend where the terminal was. From a railway point of view, the optimal approach would be to have the terminal in the NW corner at the site, and use the existing Patchway station, though this would not be ideal for motorway connections, and trains from the south west wouldn't stop there (possibly they could have bus transfers from Parkway).

 

The two options for terminals south of the runway could use a station on the Avonmouth line. However as that line is single track, capacity would be very limited, and there are no existing through services in that direction.

[Coppercap]

37 minutes ago, RJS1977 said:

The two options for terminals south of the runway could use a station on the Avonmouth line. However as that line is single track, capacity would be very limited, and there are no existing through services in that direction.

 

It's double track, has been for the best part of 20 years now, if not longer.

[RJS1977]

4 minutes ago, Coppercap said:

 

It's double track, has been for the best part of 20 years now, if not longer.

 

I wondered who'd be the first to spot that....