New Thames Airport for London
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually LCY is fog bound much more than LHR due to it's surroundings.
I know what you write makes good sense from LA but frankly come live in London for a bit, get to know the politics of the situation and you'll have your eyes opened.
Stansted on Sea has a nice ring to it?
What to do about Heathrow? Close it? Cut West London off from an airport where as South London has Gatwick and the East has City, Stansted and Southend? So from the M4 corridor, it's Crossrail from Reading all the way to the coast and beyond now is it?
Why would BA move? They could stay behind and make LHR what they've always wanted, a tailored monopoly. Let STAR go sailing in the North Sea, BA's clients are in West London alongwith the entire maintenance base.
OK so that won't work, for the strategy to work, you need to shut LHR. Ooops suddenly tens of thousands on the dole in West London. None of our Elite remembered that Cs, Ds and Es don't tend to commute 50+ miles to get to their jobson that kind of salary. Well at least Kensington and Richmond are jolly quiet and our masters can sit outside Starbucks listening to birdsong again.
London isn't short of runway capacity, not with SEN, LTN and STN around. Nor at STN is it short of terminal capacity as there's loads of room to expand into land rather than sea. London is short of politicians willing to tell people painful truths which is why we have the appaling Chris Huhne building windfarms everywhere.
I know what you write makes good sense from LA but frankly come live in London for a bit, get to know the politics of the situation and you'll have your eyes opened.
Stansted on Sea has a nice ring to it?
What to do about Heathrow? Close it? Cut West London off from an airport where as South London has Gatwick and the East has City, Stansted and Southend? So from the M4 corridor, it's Crossrail from Reading all the way to the coast and beyond now is it?
Why would BA move? They could stay behind and make LHR what they've always wanted, a tailored monopoly. Let STAR go sailing in the North Sea, BA's clients are in West London alongwith the entire maintenance base.
OK so that won't work, for the strategy to work, you need to shut LHR. Ooops suddenly tens of thousands on the dole in West London. None of our Elite remembered that Cs, Ds and Es don't tend to commute 50+ miles to get to their jobson that kind of salary. Well at least Kensington and Richmond are jolly quiet and our masters can sit outside Starbucks listening to birdsong again.
London isn't short of runway capacity, not with SEN, LTN and STN around. Nor at STN is it short of terminal capacity as there's loads of room to expand into land rather than sea. London is short of politicians willing to tell people painful truths which is why we have the appaling Chris Huhne building windfarms everywhere.
Last edited by Skipness One Echo; 21st Nov 2011 at 16:37.
Fair point speksoftly, I was taken in by the hype at the time it was built.
According to Wiki this is more accurate..
According to Wiki this is more accurate..
The second runway, initially designated 06R/24L, opened in February 2001[20] at a cost of £172 million,[20] and was the first full-length commercial runway to open in Britain for over 20 years.[
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Horsham, England, UK. ---o--O--o---
Posts: 1,185
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
Silvastrata, I'm no nimby - I work at Gatwick!
I stand by my first comments. The North Sea / Estuary area is extremely prone to fog. Even if CAT3b gets all these aircraft landed, Low Vis procedures would still make taxy to and from stands difficult and slow.
The Airport itself would indeed not be a wetland, but the area is surrounded by mudflats and sandbanks which is prime Wildfowl Wetland. They would be constantly crossing the Approach & Departure Runway Climb-out Areas. Even if engines can be made to withstand the odd goose or three; they could still penetrate the Radome and end up in the Flight Deck!
Plus, the wreck of the Montgomery full of unstable explosives would have to be dealt with. Not sure where the money is going to come from.
Much cheaper to build another Runway at LHR and LGW and may be Stansted too!
I stand by my first comments. The North Sea / Estuary area is extremely prone to fog. Even if CAT3b gets all these aircraft landed, Low Vis procedures would still make taxy to and from stands difficult and slow.
Birds like estuary wetlands, as you say. But this airport will not be a wetland, it will be a concrete slab in the coastal North Sea. There will be no wetlands, no reed beds, no shallow waters - nothing of interest to most sea birds.
Plus, the wreck of the Montgomery full of unstable explosives would have to be dealt with. Not sure where the money is going to come from.
Much cheaper to build another Runway at LHR and LGW and may be Stansted too!
Last edited by Out Of Trim; 21st Nov 2011 at 18:24. Reason: fixed typo
I agree with Skipness's comments. The only thing likely to cause more outrage in West London than building a third runway (apart possibly from unlimited mixed mode operation) is closing LHR. Looks like you are stuck with a two runway Heathrow. With the new East terminal this could handle 90m pax p.a with an average of just under 200 per atm which is achievable by replacing 319s with 321s & 772s with 773s - nothing drastic really.
If the number of transfer pax remains constant that would equate to a 50% increase in terminal pax which may be 20 years growth. Its not exatly the long term planning you see in France or the Middle East, but it I suspect that we can muddle through for a while yet.
Obviously UK aviation will suffer from loosing transfer traffic - unless someone can develop MAN as a credible hub (perhaps, as suggested on the Virgin thread, it could be VS). Its interesting that the proportion of seating on KLM long haul devoted to premium is just over half that of BA so perhaps the lower business traffic base could be overcome. It would require a high proportion of premium traffic to be transfer though as O&D premium traffic outside London is low. AMS, FRA & ZRH all have environmental constraints whilst CDG is not user friendly. MUC & Berlin are ones to watch. If everywhere is environmentally constrained a "green field" transfer hub combined with more Air Transat style infrequent operations which includes secondary airports may be the way ahead.
The trouble is airline business models are based on high frequency. Championing the free market approach but constraining capacity don't go together.
As a frequent leisure traveller I worry about business traffic squeezing on leisure seats hence an increase in costs but as long as business traffic is peaked airlines will upsize to meet the peak in demand so it may not be a big an issue as I fear.
Current aviation policy - muddling through. Future aviation policy - muddling through. Don't say we don't have the experience of how to get through.
If the number of transfer pax remains constant that would equate to a 50% increase in terminal pax which may be 20 years growth. Its not exatly the long term planning you see in France or the Middle East, but it I suspect that we can muddle through for a while yet.
Obviously UK aviation will suffer from loosing transfer traffic - unless someone can develop MAN as a credible hub (perhaps, as suggested on the Virgin thread, it could be VS). Its interesting that the proportion of seating on KLM long haul devoted to premium is just over half that of BA so perhaps the lower business traffic base could be overcome. It would require a high proportion of premium traffic to be transfer though as O&D premium traffic outside London is low. AMS, FRA & ZRH all have environmental constraints whilst CDG is not user friendly. MUC & Berlin are ones to watch. If everywhere is environmentally constrained a "green field" transfer hub combined with more Air Transat style infrequent operations which includes secondary airports may be the way ahead.
The trouble is airline business models are based on high frequency. Championing the free market approach but constraining capacity don't go together.
As a frequent leisure traveller I worry about business traffic squeezing on leisure seats hence an increase in costs but as long as business traffic is peaked airlines will upsize to meet the peak in demand so it may not be a big an issue as I fear.
Current aviation policy - muddling through. Future aviation policy - muddling through. Don't say we don't have the experience of how to get through.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Newcastle
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Upper Heyford / HS2
All completely mad - third runway at Heathrow, and/or reinstate Upper Heyford with Shanghai-type ultra-high speed monorail linking the lot to London, running beside the M40 which can be enhanced at certain points as well. Your £50 billion would go one hell of a lot further on infrastructure the right side of London. Indeed move HS2 a bit to the west and add a spur through Upper Heyford halfway to Birmingham having touched Heathrow. Heathrow 10 mins from central London, Upper Heyford 25 mins and Birmingham 45 mins.
If 45 million UK citizens need to go all the round or through the middle of London to get to a new Boris/Foster island in the north sea, that does come across as being a bit nuts?
If 45 million UK citizens need to go all the round or through the middle of London to get to a new Boris/Foster island in the north sea, that does come across as being a bit nuts?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All completely mad
I've stared at the map of Britain and tried to work out how/why you would posiibly want to route every single passenger (who's not from east of the A1) around London to travel to a new airport when there is one there. Already. On the West bit. Where everybody lives...!
Yes the prevailing winds are a bit of a bugger and means Richmond and Barnes get the occasional whistle. But I'm completely stumped at our total inability to grasp this dilemma which hands billions in lost business to Paris, Frankfurt and Amsterdam.
How can we, as a nation, be seriously proposing that we can justify cutting swathes across the entire country to build a double hi-speed railway (which is long overdue anyway), but not a short one-mile strip of concrete to alleviate the 20 stacked disaster that is Heathrow.
The irony is that (one of) the arguement (s) preventing the 3rd runway is environmental, yet we'd rather have Heathrow chokka with tons of aviation fuel a day wasted in the holding, circling, taxying, holding nonsense.
Ah, Great Britain. Home of procrastination and inquiries...!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LHR Director:
<<Remember that LHR's fog problem today is due low-vis procedures>>
An interesting statement. I'm sure many on here would be glad if you would elaborate, please.
<<Remember that LHR's fog problem today is due low-vis procedures>>
An interesting statement. I'm sure many on here would be glad if you would elaborate, please.
Low vis procedures require greater inbound spacing, and thus slow down arrivals - they very thing that LHR cannot afford to do. Less arrivals = more cancellations.
Indie Cent:
How can we, as a nation, be seriously proposing that we can justify cutting swathes across the entire country to build a double hi-speed railway, but not (a third runway) at Heathrow.
How can we, as a nation, be seriously proposing that we can justify cutting swathes across the entire country to build a double hi-speed railway, but not (a third runway) at Heathrow.
And where would these extra passengers go to? If no more international flights are possible, why bring in more interlining passengers? Do they just stay there, and make LHR their home? I don't understand.
Plus LHR has a considerable noise problem. It blights the lives of millions, and so has a highly limiting night curfew. A Thames airport would have no such restrictions, and would operate 24hr.
Indie Cent:
I've stared at the map of Britain and tried to work out how/why you would posiibly want to route every single passenger around London to a new airport.
I've stared at the map of Britain and tried to work out how/why you would posiibly want to route every single passenger around London to a new airport.
This larger airport will also provide easier links for regional passengers to fly in and interline out to the world. At present you are limited in carriers into LHR, and the last time I tried this, my bags were late and I missed my flight (bags were not even able to be checked through to destination!). LHR is a crappy, crappy airport.
And the eastern location of a Thames airport, will also allow easy TGV routes into Europe.
Anyway, from the M1 and A1, a Thames location is no different to travelling to a LHR location. Only the M3, M4 and M40 would have longer travel times (if they used a car). And why not leave a Cross-rail station and car-park on the old LHR site, to whisk you straight to the Thames terminals?
Peter47
Its not exatly the long term planning ... but it I suspect that we can muddle through for a while yet.
Its not exatly the long term planning ... but it I suspect that we can muddle through for a while yet.
Out of trim:
I stand by my first comments. The North Sea / Estuary area is extremely prone to fog. Even if CAT3b gets all these aircraft landed, Low Vis procedures would still make taxy to and from stands difficult and slow.
I stand by my first comments. The North Sea / Estuary area is extremely prone to fog. Even if CAT3b gets all these aircraft landed, Low Vis procedures would still make taxy to and from stands difficult and slow.
In the contrary view, an estuary site may be prone to sea fogs, but it does not get radiation fog - the bane of LHR and LGW. Those airport, sited on the Staines reservoirs and the Mole valley, are notorious for radiation fogs - which the Thames airport will not get. I seem to remember that our primary London diversion airport, in smaller aircraft days, was Southend - because it never had (radiation) fog.
And taxying? A new large airport with LGW's "follow the greens" system would be a doddle.
Skipness:
Why would BA move? They could stay behind and make LHR what they've always wanted, a tailored monopoly. Let STAR go sailing in the North Sea, BA's clients are in West London alongwith the entire maintenance base.
Why would BA move? They could stay behind and make LHR what they've always wanted, a tailored monopoly. Let STAR go sailing in the North Sea, BA's clients are in West London alongwith the entire maintenance base.
Besides, travellers want a choice of airlines and destinations, not a monopoly carrier with limited interline destinations, operating from an out-of-date airport.
.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Newcastle
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I dont get this shutting down Heathrow business in order to justify/finance/build a Thames estuary new four runway megahub? Why not leave Heathrow alone but reduce the throughput a tad whilst still having your four runway euro megahub in the Thames Estuary? If it's mainly for interlining for other international flights, let it focus on that, whilst Heathrow can be left for those wanting to get off and come into blighty. It just seems utterly insane to close down Heathrow - have both. Heathrow may be grim, but why on earth would you just stop using it when it has so much infrastructure that would be extraordinarily difficult to utilise/convert into anything else but an airport - absalutely insane to contemplate it becoming any kind of industrial park - what planet are they on?
In the meantime, although they're scattered about a bit, there still is quite a lot of runway capacity unused all over the southeast - Biggin, Manston, Lydd, Oxford, Cambridge, Farnborough, Southend for starters - several hundred thousand additional unused movements permissable amongst that lot. A bit of Government support and they can all persue their commercial dreams without the bucket load of red tape in the planning system.
Then you have the woefully underutilised RAF Northolt WHICH IS HEATHROW'S THIRD RUNWAY!
Then you have a raft of used and unused military sites such as Brize, Benson, Upper Heyford etc.
In the meantime, although they're scattered about a bit, there still is quite a lot of runway capacity unused all over the southeast - Biggin, Manston, Lydd, Oxford, Cambridge, Farnborough, Southend for starters - several hundred thousand additional unused movements permissable amongst that lot. A bit of Government support and they can all persue their commercial dreams without the bucket load of red tape in the planning system.
Then you have the woefully underutilised RAF Northolt WHICH IS HEATHROW'S THIRD RUNWAY!
Then you have a raft of used and unused military sites such as Brize, Benson, Upper Heyford etc.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Silver,
I believe we may be in disagreement about timescales only.
Although you can't argue against expansion with the gem:
Haha!
Yep to this...
...but the 3rd runway was planned with an additional Terminal and it's own taxiways.
Crossrail can mitigate the road congestion and really is being built in the near to medium term. The regional bus services to T5 are actually rather remarkable.
Notwithstanding all of the above. I believe the offer was to build the extra runway to alleviate congestion for minimal expansion of actual movements. So I don't believe all your analysis is correct.
We have the congestion problems (you rightly mention) now. Here and present in glrious technicolour (or color, if you prefer).
Due to nimbyism, lobby groups, stagnant political thought etc etc etc. We have no plan. None. Nothing. That is why IAG are buying a loss making company. For slots. Meanwhile UK PLC, which desperately needs income is throwing it away.
The island airport is not a completely flawed plan. There's merit in the high speed rail links to N Europe and the 24 hour operation will be a competitive necessity in a future world with Dubai's Al Maktoum International...
But at the moment, last time I looked, at the end of the Thames there is a windfarm and a few blotches of sand.
The estuary project - if it's agreed - will need an unbelievable amount of infrastructure that doesn't even exist. Hasn't been planned, or approved, or costed. The roads to the North of London aren't exactly desolated either. Just to remind you that we're at a population of over 62 Million. I could go on, but you get the picture.
So yup, I hope we do get a new airport. But I don't see the need to crucify ourselves whilst we dither over what to do because we left it all too late! ...Groan!!!
iC
I believe we may be in disagreement about timescales only.
Although you can't argue against expansion with the gem:
Because LHR is simply too small
Yep to this...
The taxiways are full, the stands are full,
Crossrail can mitigate the road congestion and really is being built in the near to medium term. The regional bus services to T5 are actually rather remarkable.
Notwithstanding all of the above. I believe the offer was to build the extra runway to alleviate congestion for minimal expansion of actual movements. So I don't believe all your analysis is correct.
We have the congestion problems (you rightly mention) now. Here and present in glrious technicolour (or color, if you prefer).
Due to nimbyism, lobby groups, stagnant political thought etc etc etc. We have no plan. None. Nothing. That is why IAG are buying a loss making company. For slots. Meanwhile UK PLC, which desperately needs income is throwing it away.
The island airport is not a completely flawed plan. There's merit in the high speed rail links to N Europe and the 24 hour operation will be a competitive necessity in a future world with Dubai's Al Maktoum International...
But at the moment, last time I looked, at the end of the Thames there is a windfarm and a few blotches of sand.
The estuary project - if it's agreed - will need an unbelievable amount of infrastructure that doesn't even exist. Hasn't been planned, or approved, or costed. The roads to the North of London aren't exactly desolated either. Just to remind you that we're at a population of over 62 Million. I could go on, but you get the picture.
So yup, I hope we do get a new airport. But I don't see the need to crucify ourselves whilst we dither over what to do because we left it all too late! ...Groan!!!
iC
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you leave LHR open, then you need to regulate massively.
Otherwise BA would simply stay and help themselves to the current traffic that currently fly with their competitors.
I live in London, I know public transport well. Making the economic driver of the M4 corridor head for the East Coast is a politicians fantasy. So if BA stays in West London, who else is "allowed" to stay? Let the fun begin!
Incidentally makes T2 and T5 all a bit of a waste of time if this was serious.....
Otherwise BA would simply stay and help themselves to the current traffic that currently fly with their competitors.
I live in London, I know public transport well. Making the economic driver of the M4 corridor head for the East Coast is a politicians fantasy. So if BA stays in West London, who else is "allowed" to stay? Let the fun begin!
Incidentally makes T2 and T5 all a bit of a waste of time if this was serious.....
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<<You are in ATC, I presume?
Low vis procedures require greater inbound spacing, and thus slow down arrivals - they very thing that LHR cannot afford to do. Less arrivals = more cancellations.>>
Retired after 31 years dealing with Heathrow traffic. LVPs slow down traffic anywhere, not just Heathrow. There's nothing much one can do about fog, but it doesn't happen every day.
Low vis procedures require greater inbound spacing, and thus slow down arrivals - they very thing that LHR cannot afford to do. Less arrivals = more cancellations.>>
Retired after 31 years dealing with Heathrow traffic. LVPs slow down traffic anywhere, not just Heathrow. There's nothing much one can do about fog, but it doesn't happen every day.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
London does not serve England, it serves NW Europe. A larger Thames site (4 international runways and 2 domestic runways), and a 24hr operation, can provide routes to all of Europe - which LHR cannot do at present.
Since when are runways designated according to the traffic they serve - that is a matter for the terminals, or zones within them. To suggest such a use of runways really reveals a complete lack of knowledge of how the industry works. And you keep asking for data on fog?Also, London already does serve Europe very well, but not every city through LHR as would be ideal, if the space was there. Last time I counted, every country in Europe that had at least one commercial airport had a link to London - except for Bosnia-Hg and Wales (if that counts!).
Some airlines have to make do with LGW or STN, but LHR still has tremendous frequency on many routes.
This larger airport will also provide easier links for regional passengers to fly in and interline out to the world. At present you are limited in carriers into LHR
Not really, most of the major interline players operate through LHR, the other airports take more point to point - alhough yes, there are several players at LGW who would rather be at LHR, and some LGW BA destinations which also might otherwise be at LHR, BUT.....And the eastern location of a Thames airport, will also allow easy TGV routes into Europe.
Again, I'm getting you on a technicality, but it shows your lack of knowledge. The TGV does not, and cannot operate through the Channel Tunnel, due to voltage issues. CDG is a rail transfer hub because it has fast, direct links to many other cities, but also because it is a stop on routes, such as between Lille and Lyon. For services through the Channel Tunnel to be viable, they have to be able to buy the track paths, and this is easier to pay for when you have 400m long trains, but they would be hard to fill on a spur into this new airport, not to mention that given the current tax regime, flights from Thames Island would be less competitive than CDG or AMS - but by the time it was built, that may change.And why not leave a Cross-rail station and car-park on the old LHR site, to whisk you straight to the Thames terminals?
Because Crossrail is already likely to be extremely busy by the time it opens. It makes no sense to load so much extra traffic onto London's congested rail network by sending so many people from west to east.
And that, I'm afraid is the biggest problem with the new airport - build this amazing feat of engineering and architecture, if you can get the funding AND the planning approval (I doubt it could get either), but it could only ever work commercially if LHR closed, and the displacement of so many people would not be met by a commensurate upgrade of the surface infrastructure.
Just look at the fantastic Denver Airport, still not due to get its rail link until 2015.
The TGV does not, and cannot operate through the Channel Tunnel, due to voltage issues.
For services through the Channel Tunnel to be viable, they have to be able to buy the track paths, and this is easier to pay for when you have 400m long trains,
I also don't agree with the proposal, but when arguing against it, you need to get your facts right!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No 10 backs the new airport
It looks like the government is swinging its weight behind the new airport.
George Osborne backs 'Boris Island' airport | Mail Online
The task now, is to make it work properly, instead of it becoming another ill-planned, on-the-cheap, in-the-wrong-place construction (like the M25, the Dartford tunnel, Birmingham airport, Bristol airport, or Luton airport).
Let's do this properly, with proper rail links to Europe and the UK, a terminal double the size required, and a site twice as high above sea-level as the planners recommend.
.
George Osborne backs 'Boris Island' airport | Mail Online
The task now, is to make it work properly, instead of it becoming another ill-planned, on-the-cheap, in-the-wrong-place construction (like the M25, the Dartford tunnel, Birmingham airport, Bristol airport, or Luton airport).
Let's do this properly, with proper rail links to Europe and the UK, a terminal double the size required, and a site twice as high above sea-level as the planners recommend.
.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Groundloop,
I am always happy to stand corrected, so you are right in that voltage is no longer a concern, as the LGVs, Chunnel and HS1 all use the same. I was under the impression the voltage was different in the tunnel.
However, there is a previous safety restriction about the trains needing to be able to split in the middle and for one half to exit the tunnel. As I understand it, the new Class 407 ICEs have fireproofing to enable them to meet updated regulations, but the TGV sets used in France & neighbours do not.
D-Bahn want to run a service through the tunnel which will then split / join at Brussels to form shorter sets.
Although it always seems good logic to have surface links to airports, they are not as big a traffic generator as the cities they serve - in other words, as a rail destination, LHR is much smaller than London. Therefore, running services through the tunnel, even to a mega-hub airport, which terminate at the airport, is going to be a commercially weaker proposition than running straight through to St Pancras (I'll leave hs2 for another debate).
Of course, some Eurostar services could be diverted into the new airport, and then could proceed to St Pancras, but that would add to journey time and create a security / immigration challenge. This just isn't such an issue for rail services through AMS, CDG, FRA etc as they are all operating within the Schengen zone.
The current APD regime favours people taking Eurostar or budget flights to airports like CDG or AMS in order to make cheaper long haul onward journeys, but it does not work the other way round. A new airport of this size would not be a low cost facility by any stretch of the imagination, so it would have to charge a hefty PSC, making it less competitive, compared to what we have with the devil we know at LHR.
Therefore, I stand by my point (with slight factual correction) that a new Thames Airport would not be likely to attract significant enough numbers of passengers by rail to make a direct link through the Chunnel viable.
I am always happy to stand corrected, so you are right in that voltage is no longer a concern, as the LGVs, Chunnel and HS1 all use the same. I was under the impression the voltage was different in the tunnel.
However, there is a previous safety restriction about the trains needing to be able to split in the middle and for one half to exit the tunnel. As I understand it, the new Class 407 ICEs have fireproofing to enable them to meet updated regulations, but the TGV sets used in France & neighbours do not.
D-Bahn want to run a service through the tunnel which will then split / join at Brussels to form shorter sets.
Although it always seems good logic to have surface links to airports, they are not as big a traffic generator as the cities they serve - in other words, as a rail destination, LHR is much smaller than London. Therefore, running services through the tunnel, even to a mega-hub airport, which terminate at the airport, is going to be a commercially weaker proposition than running straight through to St Pancras (I'll leave hs2 for another debate).
Of course, some Eurostar services could be diverted into the new airport, and then could proceed to St Pancras, but that would add to journey time and create a security / immigration challenge. This just isn't such an issue for rail services through AMS, CDG, FRA etc as they are all operating within the Schengen zone.
The current APD regime favours people taking Eurostar or budget flights to airports like CDG or AMS in order to make cheaper long haul onward journeys, but it does not work the other way round. A new airport of this size would not be a low cost facility by any stretch of the imagination, so it would have to charge a hefty PSC, making it less competitive, compared to what we have with the devil we know at LHR.
Therefore, I stand by my point (with slight factual correction) that a new Thames Airport would not be likely to attract significant enough numbers of passengers by rail to make a direct link through the Chunnel viable.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Technically, the Eurostars are derivatives of the TGV, and the term is understood to mean high speed train, being the French acronym for that term. However, the implication of using such could be that that high speed rail is a French invention, which it is not - the first high speed 'proper' trains originated in Japan, and the first dedicated high speed lines in Europe were in Italy.
And WE still have the world steam speed record
And WE still have the world steam speed record
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Idie Cent
...but the 3rd runway was planned with an additional Terminal and it's own taxiways.
...but the 3rd runway was planned with an additional Terminal and it's own taxiways.
In other words, a new runway for short haul will bring extra demand for long haul, which LHR simply cannot deal with. LHR is too small, as I said.
Jabird
Since when are runways designated according to the traffic they serve. To suggest such a use of runways really reveals a complete lack of knowledge of how the industry works.
Since when are runways designated according to the traffic they serve. To suggest such a use of runways really reveals a complete lack of knowledge of how the industry works.
Err, to say such a thing means you are not an aviator. Never been to CDG, have you !!! Ha, ha, ha. Oh, these threads do bring out the spotters.
For your info, the short runways at CDG are for short-haul aircraft. You could try taking off in a 747, but the results might be interesting. Glad you are not in aviation.
And the reason for having separate long-haul and short haul runways?
a. Its cheaper. Shorter runway = less cost, especially if you have to build the island to contain it.
b. Customs and immigration. It is still advantageous to separate domestic (small aircraft) and international traffic (big aircraft), for immigration reasons.
c. Wake vortex separation. If you mix heavies and lights, half of the aircraft on the approach need greater separation. A small turboprop behind an A380 needs 8 nm, while an A380 behind and A380 needs only 4 nm. It is much more efficient to have two short haul runways (and their terminal) and a separate group of long-haul runways (and their terminal).
It is a shame that idiots like Lord Foster did not ask aviators, before designing his absurd Thames airport proposal. Just how does a Saab 2000 make an approach into an airport like this?? Does the whole airport sit and wait, for ten minutes, doing nothing? Does the Saab get blown over, or its tail knocked off, as it taxies?
Jabird
Not really, most of the major interline players operate through LHR, the other airports take more point to point - alhough yes, there are several players at LGW who would rather be at LHR, and some LGW BA destinations which also might otherwise be at LHR, BUT.....
Not really, most of the major interline players operate through LHR, the other airports take more point to point - alhough yes, there are several players at LGW who would rather be at LHR, and some LGW BA destinations which also might otherwise be at LHR, BUT.....
As far as I am aware, the whole reason for the BA-Iberia marriage, is that BA was desperately short of S American routes. A larger airport could sort out that situation, but LHR is desperately short of slots for new routes - hence the absurd price placed upon a failing operator like BMI.
Jabird
Again, I'm getting you on a technicality, but it shows your lack of knowledge. The TGV does not, and cannot operate through the Channel Tunnel, due to voltage issues.
Again, I'm getting you on a technicality, but it shows your lack of knowledge. The TGV does not, and cannot operate through the Channel Tunnel, due to voltage issues.
Oh, please do not be stupid.
The Eurostar trains that go from Paris to London are TGV373000 rolling-stock - and yes, they go through the Channel Tunnel.
Here is a TGV at London St Pancras. How do you think it got there - by boat? by air?
Jabird
Although it always seems good logic to have surface links to airports, they are not as big a traffic generator as the cities they serve - in other words, as a rail destination, LHR is much smaller than London.
Although it always seems good logic to have surface links to airports, they are not as big a traffic generator as the cities they serve - in other words, as a rail destination, LHR is much smaller than London.
Yes, because you cannot catch a train from Manchester to LHR !! This is the stupidity of the UK transport 'system'.
From Manchester, you go to Euston, then walk down the road in the rain to a tube station (the Euston tube is not direct), get the tube to Paddington, then get a train to LHR. You think this is easy, with four bags falling off the trolly and three kids running down the wrong escalator and ending up in Charing Cross??
And please do not expect to make this journey to get to LHR for a 6am departure - IT AINT GOING TO HAPPEN.
Do you wonder why people drive?
.
Last edited by silverstrata; 22nd Nov 2011 at 09:32.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Silverstrata stop calling people you disagree with "stupid". A few of your own opinions are demonstrably wrong.
LHR does not have a lot of domestic, it is overwhelmingly international and this is anything from a Fokker 70 / A318 to an A380, often using the same gates, split Left and Right for the smaller aircraft. There are no "short" runways at CDG, they land on the outer and depart on the inner as per LAX.
IAG runs a two hub strategy, South American focus at MAD, North American at LHR, it's already fixed.
Lord Foster is not an " idiot". Can I ask, what part of aviation are you in and how did you miss the sight of the B744 landing on the outer runways at CDG?
LHR does not have a lot of domestic, it is overwhelmingly international and this is anything from a Fokker 70 / A318 to an A380, often using the same gates, split Left and Right for the smaller aircraft. There are no "short" runways at CDG, they land on the outer and depart on the inner as per LAX.
IAG runs a two hub strategy, South American focus at MAD, North American at LHR, it's already fixed.
Lord Foster is not an " idiot". Can I ask, what part of aviation are you in and how did you miss the sight of the B744 landing on the outer runways at CDG?
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Silver,
I merely repeat your quote from earlier: -
That's what you said, NOT short haul and long haul, two entirely different concepts. SVO to VVO is domestic, as is CDG to FDF, but short haul?
CDG is one of the many airports I have been to, but I have also taken a twotter to SAB, and then back SXM-NEV (oh, sorry, that's international too) so I know all about short runways!
The implication in your post was of TGV branded trains, which I have since clarified. So let's get back to the viability of such services which I dispute, as I do the idea of the airport. I also question the benefits of bringing in more transfer passengers - look at ny fares, and the yield is virtually always less on the indirect service, but the costs of two take-off and landing cycles usually higher, especially for SH-SH.
And as for Lord Foster, if you knew anything about the man, you would know that he is a qualified pilot, both of helicopters and jets, aswell as the designer of many of the world's finest buildings.
As it happens, I don't agree with this proposal, nor do I understand the choice of location (surrounding hazards), or what the structures are at the end of the runways. Frankly, even the terminal itself is boxy and bland - Stansted may now be a cramped mall, but the design as originally developed was beautifully symmetrical.
However, it is the job of architects to come up with imaginative schemes, so the engineers, the planners, the politicians and the accountants can work out which ones will get built. It is a shame that this plan is only imaginative because of the price tag and the engineering, for big terminal architecture that impresses, I'll go back to Denver, or on to Beijing.
I merely repeat your quote from earlier: -
larger Thames site (4 international runways and 2 domestic runways)
CDG is one of the many airports I have been to, but I have also taken a twotter to SAB, and then back SXM-NEV (oh, sorry, that's international too) so I know all about short runways!
The implication in your post was of TGV branded trains, which I have since clarified. So let's get back to the viability of such services which I dispute, as I do the idea of the airport. I also question the benefits of bringing in more transfer passengers - look at ny fares, and the yield is virtually always less on the indirect service, but the costs of two take-off and landing cycles usually higher, especially for SH-SH.
And as for Lord Foster, if you knew anything about the man, you would know that he is a qualified pilot, both of helicopters and jets, aswell as the designer of many of the world's finest buildings.
As it happens, I don't agree with this proposal, nor do I understand the choice of location (surrounding hazards), or what the structures are at the end of the runways. Frankly, even the terminal itself is boxy and bland - Stansted may now be a cramped mall, but the design as originally developed was beautifully symmetrical.
However, it is the job of architects to come up with imaginative schemes, so the engineers, the planners, the politicians and the accountants can work out which ones will get built. It is a shame that this plan is only imaginative because of the price tag and the engineering, for big terminal architecture that impresses, I'll go back to Denver, or on to Beijing.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skipness:
LHR does not have a lot of domestic, it is overwhelmingly international and this is anything from a Fokker 70 / A318 to an A380, often using the same gates, split Left and Right for the smaller aircraft.
There are no "short" runways at CDG, they land on the outer and depart on the inner as per LAX.
LHR does not have a lot of domestic, it is overwhelmingly international and this is anything from a Fokker 70 / A318 to an A380, often using the same gates, split Left and Right for the smaller aircraft.
There are no "short" runways at CDG, they land on the outer and depart on the inner as per LAX.
Because LHR is so limited in arrivals, it does not have so much domestic - AND IS THEREFORE MISSING OUT ON A GREAT DEAL OF INTERLINING TRAFFIC.
Why do you think that people now fly to AMS or CDG to pick up a State-side flight? Because it is so damn difficult to get a cheap flight into LHR - whereas Easyjet and BMI-B fly direct to CDG and AMS.
And regards the layout of CDG, this was the situation the last time I went there.
Now sorry, but looking at that Jeppy, I distinctly see long runways and short runways. Is that just my eyes, or are you talking rot again?
And yes, I have also seen a 747 landing on the short - but I did not say that, did I. I said taking off on the short, which would be most interesting.
And the logic still stands. Separating light and heavy traffic speeds up arrivals to an airport. And so anyone who designs a nice new airport with all the runways so close together that there cannot be any separation, is, well, stupid. Foster included.
In addition, Foster's absurd creation appears to have runways so close together, that you could not do simultaneous approaches. Do you think that is a good idea? Do you think Foster should get a plastic medal for creating an airport that may actually end up as a complete White Elephant??
Skipness:
Silverstrata stop calling people you disagree with "stupid".
Silverstrata stop calling people you disagree with "stupid".
I am not calling people who disagree with me 'stupid'. I am calling people who present wholly incorrect or even deceitful information 'stupid'.
Plus Lord Foster, who appears to have used lawyers and media consultants to advise on the construction of a new airport - instead of pilots, controllers and airport managers. Now THAT is 'stupid'.
.
Last edited by silverstrata; 22nd Nov 2011 at 10:35.
