New Thames Airport for London
Paxing All Over The World
silverstrata
Too late!! The Chinese have been quietly colonising the world for more than a decade. They have got most of Africa sewn up and are now working their way through the other continents.
The expansion forces in this country that have driven demand for a proper hub are no longer there. In the next ten years, the economy of the country is going to stagnate as we haul ourselves through the recession - which will probably come to be seen as the Second Great Depression.
The demand for hub connections that we failed to provide has already moved to the usual suspects on the Continent. We cannot get it back and the demand still seen is residual but America is in the same economic state as ourselves, so they are not going to be needing the kind of capacity that people talk about.
So ... there is no money to build an island and there will be shown to be no demand for such capacity. In the end, the lack of a 3rd at LHR is not a problem as the traffic goes elsewhere. Yes, some folks have lost out on jobs but most will not notice.
The politicians have made a comprehensive hash of civil aviation from the second war onwards. They have meddled with the airlines, merging them and then selling them. They have meddled with the manufacturers, supporting them and then not supporting them. They have not bravely built airports when needed.
And, as we know, they have completely stuffed up the railways too. So, I would not get too bothered about all of this, because the time has past and nothing will be done, whilst wasting money that could have built runways!
However, I was not so happy with the suggestion that the Chinese should pay for it. All this 'inward investment' through the purchasing UK businesses may give us jam today, but it also makes us slaves of the Chinese for the future (and the future's future).
The expansion forces in this country that have driven demand for a proper hub are no longer there. In the next ten years, the economy of the country is going to stagnate as we haul ourselves through the recession - which will probably come to be seen as the Second Great Depression.
The demand for hub connections that we failed to provide has already moved to the usual suspects on the Continent. We cannot get it back and the demand still seen is residual but America is in the same economic state as ourselves, so they are not going to be needing the kind of capacity that people talk about.
So ... there is no money to build an island and there will be shown to be no demand for such capacity. In the end, the lack of a 3rd at LHR is not a problem as the traffic goes elsewhere. Yes, some folks have lost out on jobs but most will not notice.
The politicians have made a comprehensive hash of civil aviation from the second war onwards. They have meddled with the airlines, merging them and then selling them. They have meddled with the manufacturers, supporting them and then not supporting them. They have not bravely built airports when needed.
And, as we know, they have completely stuffed up the railways too. So, I would not get too bothered about all of this, because the time has past and nothing will be done, whilst wasting money that could have built runways!
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Paxboy,
I don't agree - LHR is still Europe's busiest airport, and London the world's busiest aviation city, both measured by pax numbers. Also, CDG, AMS, MAD etc all have a fair amount of space given over to LCCs, artificially inflating their figures. Even FRA has Condor, Tuifly etc - and would AB get slots @ LHR?
You have to see the whole London picture - and that is both the problem and the solution. No other city has so many airports, we haven't learnt from the mess the Victorians left with so many different railway terminals!
But that is our lot, and we have to work with it - that is why BI can't work because it will be at such a massive cost disadvantage against all these other locations. LHR may get its 3rd runway, and BAA / FV seem to think there's a business case, although I still can't see the politics working.
Other commentators have suggested that LGW couldn't work either, as it is 'too far' from central London. LGW too far? And Boris Island?
The demand for hub connections that we failed to provide has already moved to the usual suspects on the Continent. We cannot get it back and the demand still seen is residual but America is in the same economic state as ourselves, so they are not going to be needing the kind of capacity that people talk about.
You have to see the whole London picture - and that is both the problem and the solution. No other city has so many airports, we haven't learnt from the mess the Victorians left with so many different railway terminals!
But that is our lot, and we have to work with it - that is why BI can't work because it will be at such a massive cost disadvantage against all these other locations. LHR may get its 3rd runway, and BAA / FV seem to think there's a business case, although I still can't see the politics working.
Other commentators have suggested that LGW couldn't work either, as it is 'too far' from central London. LGW too far? And Boris Island?
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aero Mad,
If we planned like that, we'd never build anything, and we might aswell go back to the Stoneage without even letting them have the satisfaction of sending us there.
All that aside... what happens if some terrorist comes and sets a large bomb off? Don't you immediately destroy London's infrastructure... main airport shut, main railway station shut, road links shut etc.?
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a. You can run local and express trains if you have station sidings. Standard practice all over the world. Local train waits for the express to speed through.
Also, tunnels are bored using TMBs - I imagine more tricky to keep boring out parallel tunnels. It really isn't a runner, forget it.
b. They have not explicity published the two routes (HS2 and Crossrail) combined and anotated, so one can see the grand plan (if such a thing exists). Does Crossrail appear on that map-link you gave? If it does, it is not obvious.
Yes - at this stage, Crossrail is out of the tunnel (that is just west of Paddington), so the 8 platforms to the south are for Crossrail, heathrow Connect and FGW (or their successor) services. Big if - will they roll Heathrow Express in for T5 access - they certainly should!
c. Not necessarily. When ever I travel on TGV, the main northern hub in France appears to be CDG - I have not been linked through Gard du Nord once. If you want to go to Paris you take a Paris train, while everything else goes via CDG.
I would imagine a 17-car train splitting at Silver-Boris, with 5 going to London and the remaining 12 carriages carring on to the North of England.
e. Ever been to Lyon station - the dinosaur carcass??
La gare est un éléphant blanc
f. St Pancras and King's Cross are one and the same (300m between them), and I call it Kings Cross as that is the name of the tube stop.
No, the tube is King's Cross - St Pancras.
If there was a 767 next to an A380 on the stand, would you call the Boeing an Airbus? In aviation terms, EWR is right next to JFK, but would you try and check in at one for the other?
Paxing All Over The World
I accept your point jabird but I really don't think that the business is going to expand in the way that some folks think. We are seeing ULH and thin routes increasing in a way that was not technically possible before. The Middle East has a perfect hub operation for it's side of the globe and, I maintain, the recession will continue for many years.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Baltasound:
This is not perhaps the thread to do this, but by the maker I have never read so much cobblers.....
This is not perhaps the thread to do this, but by the maker I have never read so much cobblers.....
A criticism without reasoning is simply purile drivel of the most infantile variety.
.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Paxboy
The expansion forces in this country that have driven demand for a proper hub are no longer there. In the next ten years, the economy of the country is going to stagnate as we haul ourselves through the recession - which will probably come to be seen as the Second Great Depression.
So ... there is no money to build an island and there will be shown to be no demand for such capacity. In the end, the lack of a 3rd at LHR is not a problem as the traffic goes elsewhere. Yes, some folks have lost out on jobs but most will not notice.
The expansion forces in this country that have driven demand for a proper hub are no longer there. In the next ten years, the economy of the country is going to stagnate as we haul ourselves through the recession - which will probably come to be seen as the Second Great Depression.
So ... there is no money to build an island and there will be shown to be no demand for such capacity. In the end, the lack of a 3rd at LHR is not a problem as the traffic goes elsewhere. Yes, some folks have lost out on jobs but most will not notice.
While I agree that the UK is stagnating and may go into recession, the Silver-Boris airport is supposed to be a World Hub rather than a regional airport. As such, its success will rest on the economic health of the rest of the world, rather than the UK's economy.
In the next 20 years, the Chinese will become the big tourists and businessmen, visiting the Third World nations of Britain, Italy and France, and pointing at all the poor people living and begging on the streets (as we used to do in China). But we are not going to be able to attract all these wealthy tourists to our poverty-stricken nation (and get their tourist Yuans), if we do not have a decent airport that connects with China (which Heathrow does not do).
And actually, while the UK is technically bankrupt, we may well need to create some more money (paradoxically) to inflate our way out of debt. All Merv King has to do is waive his magic financial wand, and he can conjour another £250 billion into existence (quantitively). And if we spent that money on infrastructure this time (instead of social engineering and banks), we may actually get something built for once.
.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jabird
Other commentators have suggested that LGW couldn't work either, as it is 'too far' from central London. LGW too far? And Boris Island?
Other commentators have suggested that LGW couldn't work either, as it is 'too far' from central London. LGW too far? And Boris Island?
LGW is not too far from London, it is too far from Heathrow.
There is no point flying from Beijing to Heathrow, if your shorthaul flight to Denmark is from LGW. May as well interline through AMS instead.
And that, is the whole problem with London. Brit Airways loses a flight, BAA loses the landing fee and all those shop sales, and the government loses all those taxes. So UK Plc goes bankrupt, while the Cloggies are rolling in clover.
Nice forward planning, eh?
.
Last edited by silverstrata; 24th Jan 2012 at 06:00.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jabird
But a train needs a nose at each end - so that would be completely un-even, and also, demand would be the other way round. Also, calling at this island would add - I guess a good 25 minutes to the time of any train using the HS1 line. Totally different to skirting round Lyon and Paris, where the mileage might be a bit more, but you are cutting out a very slow trundle through the city.
But a train needs a nose at each end - so that would be completely un-even, and also, demand would be the other way round. Also, calling at this island would add - I guess a good 25 minutes to the time of any train using the HS1 line. Totally different to skirting round Lyon and Paris, where the mileage might be a bit more, but you are cutting out a very slow trundle through the city.
The TGVs do have a nose at each end. They run two trains joined together, nose to nose. Then when it gets to Lyons or perhaps CDG, they split the train into two smaller ones. Simples.
And I do not see this adding much time to the Paris-London journey. Supposing the Isle of Grain site for a minute, the track only needs deviating by, say 10km. Train pulls into Silver-Boris, train is split while the passengers alight and board, and off it goes again - one half to the north of England and the other half to London.
Extra 5 mins at most. And you can always have an express that does not stop at Silver-Boris.
Jabird
La gare est un éléphant blanc
.
Well done, we've gone down from 2km to 300m now
La gare est un éléphant blanc
.
Well done, we've gone down from 2km to 300m now
Apples and Oranges.
The 2km is between Euston and Kings Cross, the 300m is between St Pancras and Kings Cross. Effectively, the latter pair are the same station, with a road running between them.
The 2km between Euston and Kings Cross is important, because this is the gap between HS1 and HS2. You have still not addressed this problem at all -- it is completely unacceptable to have a high speed rail network, with a thumping great 2km gap in the middle of it. It is madness in the extreme, and nobody will say why this is being contemplated.
P.S. Lyon is not a white elephant, it is a white dinosaur. And while it is rather empty at times, the trains that run through it are not. Almost full every time I go on it, and not just with businessmen either - every man and his dog uses the TGV.
.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Dodging Flybe at EHASC
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
Baltasound:
This is not perhaps the thread to do this, but by the maker I have never read so much cobblers.....
A criticism without reasoning is simply purile drivel of the most infantile variety.
True, but going off on an ill conceived rant, without doing a modicum of basic research and living 8000 miles away from the decision is not going to help your cause either. I better put a disclaimer in here and I thought that Crossrail would not happen, so take the following with a dose of salt. But where shall we start...
Firstly. There will be a link between High Speed One and High Speed Two. So, let us bury that piece of misinformation. If in doubt, look at the maps supplied on the website - http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publication...5001issue3.pdf.
Secondly - learn the difference between track gauge and loading gauge. 4ft 8 1/2 is indeed standard gauge and used throughout Europe, and indeed we don't need to regauge our trains. However the British Loading gauge is smaller and narrower than it's continental cousins. This is because we built our railways on the cheap, as a result it costs a huge sum of money to carry out the work require to make them fatter. For instance, it has cost the best part of £200m to make the route from Southampton to Birmingham vaguely passable for 9"6 containers on W10. So for crossrail to be built to full blown continental gauge will require rebuilding of large parts of the London suburban network. Crossrail is also being designed as a shoprt headway, heavy interruban service whose destination and starting points are NOT fixed because of the interoperable nature of suburban rolling stock, the trains will be stopping at lots of stations with veruy short headways. This is not a High Speed railway and the stations are being built with that in mind. So, the idea of "sidings" - I presume you mean passing loops? - underneath Tottenham Court Road with the space required to pass trains at speed, plus the engineering involved is not terribly practical is it?
3. High Speed 2 does not ignore the fact that Crossrail is in progress - it will connect at Old Oak Common with Crossrail and at Stratford International as well (Link via HS1).
4. When the "chunnel" was built (or even planned) I would have thought (and am open to correction here) that LCC were in their infancy, Open Flies was a gleam in a civil servants eye and LHR and it's attendant problems were a can to be kicked down the road. Besides as a fixed Link between the UK and France would prima facie have little impact on aviation policy, as it's prime aim was to expedite the flow of goods and services on a more terra firma basis between here and the continent. I am not sure how long you have been in the US, or if indeed you are a Brit, but there was a considerable dealy before HS1 was built, and originally that link was to avoid east London altogether and BR favoured a route approaching London south of the river. It was only routed via Ebbsfleet and across the murky Essex marshes as a regeneration project. So to castigate the planners for not thinking ahead by missing out on a theoretical airport to replace(?), add capacity to Heathrow is, I dare to suggest, missing the point entirely.
5. HS2 is being built to relieve congestion in many cases. It's business case is dependant on the full Y to Manchester/ Leeds and then Scotland coming on stream. The reason why they have decided to build a new railway rather than faff with an old one (the WCML) is that it cost £10bn just to "upgrade" the West Coast - messing about with a heavily used, mixed traffic railway and trying to keep it open at the same time is asking for trouble as Railtrack found out. However taking it in and out of Heathrow is also asking for trouble and in the governments eyes, not worth the expense. If in doubt read Hansard.
Finally, I have a feeling that Crossrail will extend to Reading and that sanity will prevail. I also have a feeling that Heathrow express will be merged into crossrail - especially T5 with a westerly link built toward Reading, so there will be an easy connection from that hub as well as OOC.
It would not surprise me in the least to find Crossrail extending to all parts of the London suburban network and that seemed to be the hint from Ms. Greenings statement.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: LHR
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry to be the one to pull this thread back on track (pardon the pun) but rail links, important as they are can be changed to suit any location - with planning and money admittedly. Placing an airport on the Essex or Kent coast or even in the Thames itself certainly makes sense in regards to the available land mass and away from denser areas of populous but where does Boris think the 100,000 workers who are required to make said airport and associated businesses operate come from? You could be looking at 500,000 people migrating into North Kent. Land and house prices would sky rocket, the local roads would become clogged and destroy many local communities. Is there really enough room anywhere near London for a whole new airport and a new city to support it? Sorry I just can't see this happening.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Baltasound,
Thanks for helping to ram the point home - Silver tends to get these things in the end!
The thread is about a new London airport - no surface access, no airport - I have suggested to Silver that he makes his HS2 comments on the thread about that in JB though.
Probably. I have seen the maps, but I don't think they have costed it yet. They have not proposed HS2-HS1 domestic services, and there are a lot of technical challenges re: the case for a Chunnel - Mids & Ne continuation.
tbc.... back later
Thanks for helping to ram the point home - Silver tends to get these things in the end!
OK - I said I wouldn't respond on this thread as it has very little to do with aviation....
There will be a link between High Speed One and High Speed Two
tbc.... back later
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
happy,
They need to be thought through just as much as the issues you mention - but I don't see a new town of that size being built either, so fast links need to be built throughout the London area, and beyond, so that workers and passengers alike can easily get to and from the new site.
Crossrail can provide a regional stopping service - but to compensate for the displacement such an airport would cause, there needs to be something much faster for people living north and west of London, and there needs to be a non-stop (or 1 at max) service to central London.
The logical place for such a station would be in what I call the SPEKX complex - and yes, you do need to focus now to get this right! Plans for Euston at the moment are for another stub, and an uncosted link between HS1 & 2, which may handle a train or two per day from north of London into the Chunnel under current plans.
A much better option would be to re-think the Euston design - turn it to face east-west, and use the airport or Ashford as a terminus for HS2, with many more Eurostar / DB etc trains then being able to run north as they are able to set down and load again in this station.
I still don't think this airport will happen, but there is no doubt that this government is very much more serious about it than the last one was about Cliffe.
For these reasons, planning to get rail access right needs to be considered before the HS2 hybrid bill goes through parliament.
If, on the other hand, LHR gets its 3rd, then one planning condition maybe improved surface access, including a spur from HS2 - but that would not have a major impact on the layout of the planned stations. As for LGW, they should start thinking about a north-south continuation of HS2 for that, again needing a re-think of Euston's stub platforms - and a runway at STN would also need a high speed link, probably from HS1 at Stratford, so that would also need a terminus or a continuation onto HS2.
Airport access isn't the primary goal of HS2, but it would be much better to consider these options now, rather than to pay a fortune to adapt lines / stations for this extra traffic (if you'll excuse my pun now) further down the line.
Sorry to be the one to pull this thread back on track (pardon the pun) but rail links, important as they are can be changed to suit any location
Crossrail can provide a regional stopping service - but to compensate for the displacement such an airport would cause, there needs to be something much faster for people living north and west of London, and there needs to be a non-stop (or 1 at max) service to central London.
The logical place for such a station would be in what I call the SPEKX complex - and yes, you do need to focus now to get this right! Plans for Euston at the moment are for another stub, and an uncosted link between HS1 & 2, which may handle a train or two per day from north of London into the Chunnel under current plans.
A much better option would be to re-think the Euston design - turn it to face east-west, and use the airport or Ashford as a terminus for HS2, with many more Eurostar / DB etc trains then being able to run north as they are able to set down and load again in this station.
I still don't think this airport will happen, but there is no doubt that this government is very much more serious about it than the last one was about Cliffe.
For these reasons, planning to get rail access right needs to be considered before the HS2 hybrid bill goes through parliament.
If, on the other hand, LHR gets its 3rd, then one planning condition maybe improved surface access, including a spur from HS2 - but that would not have a major impact on the layout of the planned stations. As for LGW, they should start thinking about a north-south continuation of HS2 for that, again needing a re-think of Euston's stub platforms - and a runway at STN would also need a high speed link, probably from HS1 at Stratford, so that would also need a terminus or a continuation onto HS2.
Airport access isn't the primary goal of HS2, but it would be much better to consider these options now, rather than to pay a fortune to adapt lines / stations for this extra traffic (if you'll excuse my pun now) further down the line.
Last edited by jabird; 24th Jan 2012 at 18:13.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Baltasound,
But I think this is where the government has come un-stuck, and I have yet to see a poll showing commited support for it. The proposal on the table, as consulted, was just Phase 1 - and that is all that is going ahead initially.
I understand that the BCR (benefit-cost) for this project is now down to 1.4 - now I know these things can be taken with a pinch of salt too, but it isn't surprising to see such low benefits, given that there are other ways of finding capacity to Birmingham, and that time savings and capacity gains beyond are marginal.
However, I do agree - Phase 2 is much better value - I make it four times better, once you add in that Manchester and Leeds can have full sized trains, and that significantly better use will also be made of the original line.
But I still have my doubts as to whether or not we'll get this far.
But it isn't all mixed traffic, very little freight between Birmingham and Rugby, The Pendolini usually get a free run south of Rugby and afaik, Rugby - Colwhich is 3 tracks, the 3rd used for freight, and easily upgradeable to four.
I think there were a lot of us at the time thinking - this ' downgraded upgrade' - to take trains capable of 140mph, but only to let them run at 125mph - is costing so much, we could have had a new line.
Then the cost of the new line (Part1) comes to a whopping £150m per mile (if it stays on budget), and the very simple measures which could be taken now won't be done, because, apparently they aren't good value for money!
I hope you can see why many of us here who would otherwise support rail improvements are so cynical about hs2.
OK, back to airports then:
Amen to that! Much needed. Trains could be run again from MK through OOC and beyond - a simple cheap interchange for LGW at the least.
It's business case is dependant on the full Y to Manchester/ Leeds and then Scotland coming on stream.
I understand that the BCR (benefit-cost) for this project is now down to 1.4 - now I know these things can be taken with a pinch of salt too, but it isn't surprising to see such low benefits, given that there are other ways of finding capacity to Birmingham, and that time savings and capacity gains beyond are marginal.
However, I do agree - Phase 2 is much better value - I make it four times better, once you add in that Manchester and Leeds can have full sized trains, and that significantly better use will also be made of the original line.
But I still have my doubts as to whether or not we'll get this far.
messing about with a heavily used, mixed traffic railway and trying to keep it open at the same time is asking for trouble
I think there were a lot of us at the time thinking - this ' downgraded upgrade' - to take trains capable of 140mph, but only to let them run at 125mph - is costing so much, we could have had a new line.
Then the cost of the new line (Part1) comes to a whopping £150m per mile (if it stays on budget), and the very simple measures which could be taken now won't be done, because, apparently they aren't good value for money!
I hope you can see why many of us here who would otherwise support rail improvements are so cynical about hs2.
OK, back to airports then:
Finally, I have a feeling that Crossrail will extend to Reading and that sanity will prevail. (+left turn ex LHR)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Baltasound
a. OK - I said I wouldn't respond on this thread as it has very little to do with aviation....
b. There will be a link between High Speed One and High Speed Two. So, let us bury that piece of misinformation.
c. learn the difference between track gauge and loading gauge. 4ft 8 1/2 is indeed standard gauge and used throughout Europe, and indeed we don't need to regauge our trains. However the British Loading gauge is smaller and narrower than it's continental cousins.
d. So to castigate the planners for not thinking ahead by missing out on a theoretical airport to replace(?), add capacity to Heathrow is, I dare to suggest, missing the point entirely.
e. HS2 is being built to relieve congestion in many cases. It's business case is dependant on the full Y to Manchester/ Leeds and then Scotland coming on stream. The reason why they have decided to build a new railway rather than faff with an old one (the WCML) is that it cost £10bn just to "upgrade" the West Coast - messing about with a heavily used, mixed traffic railway and trying to keep it open at the same time is asking for trouble as Railtrack found out. However taking it in and out of Heathrow is also asking for trouble and in the governments eyes, not worth the expense. If in doubt read Hansard.
.
a. OK - I said I wouldn't respond on this thread as it has very little to do with aviation....
b. There will be a link between High Speed One and High Speed Two. So, let us bury that piece of misinformation.
c. learn the difference between track gauge and loading gauge. 4ft 8 1/2 is indeed standard gauge and used throughout Europe, and indeed we don't need to regauge our trains. However the British Loading gauge is smaller and narrower than it's continental cousins.
d. So to castigate the planners for not thinking ahead by missing out on a theoretical airport to replace(?), add capacity to Heathrow is, I dare to suggest, missing the point entirely.
e. HS2 is being built to relieve congestion in many cases. It's business case is dependant on the full Y to Manchester/ Leeds and then Scotland coming on stream. The reason why they have decided to build a new railway rather than faff with an old one (the WCML) is that it cost £10bn just to "upgrade" the West Coast - messing about with a heavily used, mixed traffic railway and trying to keep it open at the same time is asking for trouble as Railtrack found out. However taking it in and out of Heathrow is also asking for trouble and in the governments eyes, not worth the expense. If in doubt read Hansard.
.
a. So the fate and location of the UK's largest airport has 'little to do with aviation'. You're not filling us with confidence about your level of wisdom here, Baltasound.
b. Ok, so there is a link between HS1 and HS2 - thanks for the map.
But I am still confused. If Chunnel trains call in at Kings Cross-St Pancras, and can then go on to Manchester, then why have two London termini?? If you want to catch the train to Manch, and then hopefully to Glasgow, why have a choice of two stations? It does not seem logical. We already have a TGV terminus at KC-SP, so why build another at Euston?
c. If you would have the courtesy to read my previous posts, you will find that I know that, and have diferentiated the two gauges on numerous occasions. The difference in loading gauge is only pertinent to the Chunnel and Crossrail, as all the other tracks will be new. One presumes that all the UK trains will be of the Chunnel loading gauge dimensions, to allow easy operability through to Europe.
d. They were planning a major infrastructure route that will have a service life of 100-200 years, they deserve to be castigated. As I said before, it is like planning the M25 with only 3 lanes, which was so obviously inadequate that a 6-year old could have done better.
e. Blah, blah. Yes, we know why HS2 needs a new track - and you could have added that it needs to be straighter and more accurately laid than the Current westcoast line - have you ever been on a TGV?
But the point is that a major transport project that does not go to where people want to travel, is like building a city in the Sahara. Honestly, would you build a new motorway and deliberately make it NOT go anywhere near any cities??
The only thing I can deduce from this, is that the government already knows that LHR is to be moved to Silver-Boris Island, and so there is no point taking HS2 all the way out to LHR, as there will not be an airport there to service. I presume, therefore, that the government will announce the Silver-Boris go-ahead shortly.
.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Happyberks
Sorry to be the one to pull this thread back on track (pardon the pun) but rail links, important as they are can be changed to suit any location - with planning and money admittedly. Placing an airport on the Essex or Kent coast or even in the Thames itself certainly makes sense in regards to the available land mass and away from denser areas of populous but where does Boris think the 100,000 workers who are required to make said airport and associated businesses operate come from?
Sorry to be the one to pull this thread back on track (pardon the pun) but rail links, important as they are can be changed to suit any location - with planning and money admittedly. Placing an airport on the Essex or Kent coast or even in the Thames itself certainly makes sense in regards to the available land mass and away from denser areas of populous but where does Boris think the 100,000 workers who are required to make said airport and associated businesses operate come from?
You might have said the same about relocating the City of London to London Docklands, but it worked, eventually.
There would have to be a couple of newtowns built, of course, but the government is always saying we need new towns to cope with the huge influx of immigrants (one new Birmingham every 5 years is the requirement).
Strategic staff would have to be relocated, but with property prices being lower in Kent and Essex, that should not be such a problem. Although we might get a 'BBC to Salford' effect here [Salford, daarrling? Ooop north? Daarrling, I would rather be lashed with a whip (much rather) ]. Other workers would have to decide if they would rather keep eir jobs, or take a chance on Heathrow becomming the biggest technology park in the UK.
It may sound daunting, but many is the large company that has moved city, or even moved country, and still kept the operation running smoothly.
.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jabird
An uncosted link between HS1 & 2, which may handle a train or two per day from north of London into the Chunnel under current plans.
A much better option would be to re-think the Euston design - turn it to face east-west, and use the airport or Ashford as a terminus for HS2, with many more Eurostar / DB etc trains then being able to run north as they are able to set down and load again in this station.
An uncosted link between HS1 & 2, which may handle a train or two per day from north of London into the Chunnel under current plans.
A much better option would be to re-think the Euston design - turn it to face east-west, and use the airport or Ashford as a terminus for HS2, with many more Eurostar / DB etc trains then being able to run north as they are able to set down and load again in this station.
I don't think it has to be this complicated, Jabird.
London is a major stop, so I see little reason for a through track. Just make all the TGVs stop at London.
Ok, so:
The trains come in from the Chunnel.
They stop at Silver-Boris (or most of them do), and split there.
Half the train goes north (Foster's new northern bypass), and half the train goes to London.
The London train loops into Kings Cross-St Pancras from the northeast, as usual.
Outbound, it goes north and loops west to join the current HS2 track, up to Birmingham and beyond.
Why bother with Euston at all? Its a waste of time, energy and space. We already have a perfectly serviceable London TGV terminus at KC-SP, so why not use it? Besides, KC-SP is a much better terminus to use as it is on 6 metro lines. Euston is an absolute pain in the a*se, as it is not on the circle line and nigh on impossible to get to.
.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Regrettably far from 50°N
Posts: 917
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the government is always saying we need new towns to cope with the huge influx of immigrants (one new Birmingham every 5 years is the requirement).
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aero Mad,
Afaik, UK population is still going up, and to some extent for the better. There is an HSBC report out there somewhere pointing out that because of previous immigration, and our now increased birth rate, the UK economy is going to look a lot better in 2050 than, for example, France or Italy.
Milton Keynes, Northants, eastern Warwickshire for starters all have extensive housing developments planned.
Immigration is always a touchy subject, but Silver may not be too far off with the Birmingham figure - are we talking city or metro though, quite a big difference, easily puffed up.
Afaik, UK population is still going up, and to some extent for the better. There is an HSBC report out there somewhere pointing out that because of previous immigration, and our now increased birth rate, the UK economy is going to look a lot better in 2050 than, for example, France or Italy.
Milton Keynes, Northants, eastern Warwickshire for starters all have extensive housing developments planned.
Immigration is always a touchy subject, but Silver may not be too far off with the Birmingham figure - are we talking city or metro though, quite a big difference, easily puffed up.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But I am still confused. If Chunnel trains call in at Kings Cross-St Pancras, and can then go on to Manchester, then why have two London termini??
We already have a TGV terminus at KC-SP, so why build another at Euston?
One presumes that all the UK trains will be of the Chunnel loading gauge dimensions, to allow easy operability through to Europe.
1) Special adaptations need to be done to fit through the tunnel, afaik, largely due to fire regs - so standard TGVs wouldn't work either, the 3 Capitals variants are ok.
2) Initially, a lot of services will be operated by hybrid trains, which are backwards compatible with the existing lines - 8 cars long (11 max), no tilting, so they are actually slower than the Pendolini on classic tracks. I could go on here, but this really belongs on the hs2 thread.......
I presume, therefore, that the government will announce the Silver-Boris go-ahead shortly.
Look at a good year to hold and process the consultation, starting from March.
Whilst I think the government are serious about Boris Island, I just don't see how it would actually work in reality. Just because LHR has a noise problem doesn't mean you can just move the airport east, and all goes quiet. There are serious environmental concerns with the site, and these were all brought up in the 2003 White Paper.
And as for the economics, which usually win through - there may or may not be investors, but they can only get an ROI if the airlines want to move there. Otherwise there will be another monumental battle getting LHR to close. We know where BA stand, we know there is no low cost interest, so who wants in on BI?
Euston is an absolute pain in the a*se, as it is not on the circle line and nigh on impossible to get to.
There is a bus station right infront of the concourse, and a Boris Bike stand on either side. As it happens, most of the time I go to London, I finish up around Covent Garden, from where I can walk to Euston in around 30 mins.
The problem with what they are proposing is not that Euston isn't central, which it clearly is. The problem is that they are not providing the very through links which make high speed rail so advantageous in the first place - whether to airports or anywhere else people want to go.