London Heathrow LHR replacement.

[nomorecatering]

Just reading some documents on a possible Thames Estuary airport. Its seems most of the current proposals are based on resuming land on the existing coast line.

My question is, since the Thames Estuary is very shallow, only about 5-10m out to a distance of 20 miles or so. You could build an artificial island airport 6miles of the shore, due north of Margate and the water depth is only 7m.

Surely a Kansai Airport style development is the way to go. Heck they built Kansai in much deeper water. Added benefit is that airport would be far enough off sure than the mainland would experiance almost zero noise.

[Charles Norrie]

This is the Goodwin Sands Airport solutions 10km off deal in the English Channel 8miles by 3, so drained and turned into a polder would have space for 2 4 runway airports and a Europort at the southern end. No problem with birdstrike as the darined polder will be covered with a solar panel array 24 sq mles in area, and wind ryrbines will line the dam of the polder. Easily connected to HS1 and then to a Europe-wide maglev vactraintain line connected to Europe and the UK. Would swallow up all UK air-traffic and most of that of northern Europe and all take off would be either NW wards or SE wards over the sea.

What's the problem. Just get on and do it.

[Piltdown Man]

The technical problems are not that great. The biggest problems will be environmental, political and financial reality. Foulness sands (more like mud actually) are a valuable food source for many animals and the "save the whale/hug a tree" brigade will be out in force. Politically, it could be given permission. But you have consider who will use it and why? For access to London you'll have to have a railway line - queue the railway thieves. The scum who run the service between LHR and London's low-end red light district currently screw you for £18 (AMS to city = €3.60). And this will probably be the hardest sell and the most difficult to get the funding for. Then you have to have the staff to run it - Foulness is in the arse end of Essex. Being realistic, it would be easier for airline passengers to use AMS/CDG or LHR. An LHR replacement is really a non-starter. The best thing LHR could do (for the country) would be to chop the runways in half to stop the heavies and "move" to somewhere like Blackpool. Develop an airport in this region into a major long-haul airport (I'm discounting MAN because of the crap positioning of runways vs terminals). Then have proper high-speed rail links with Europe. In a stroke you make Britain a competitive European transport hub.


(There's more to life than London)

[Agaricus bisporus]

There are several options available. The one that is not a goer is prevaricating another decade and doing nothing, that will simply lose the UK its status as the worlds No 1 hub, if it even has that accolade now which will be to the direct detriment of the country's geopolitical and economic health. ie commercial and political insanity.
Heathrow is simply in the wrong place these days, too constrained by chronic access problems and is incredibly valuable land for development.

New Thames estuary hub is the ideal answer but start it NOW, not in 25 yrs time after five five-year public enquiries.

A new runway and proper transport links at STN is second best, virtually nil impact on property apart from farmland and by far the cheapest option. Nimbys will squeal but there is little population in the region so we have to tell them to lump it. A new runway is an insignificant area of land in the vastness of rural E Anglia and wails about concreting over the countryside need to be firmly scoffed down as the fatuous irrational nonsense they are, as every one of us who flies over that part of the world can see.

Bentwaters & Woodbridge are already there, need infrastructure and transport links.

3rd runway at LHR involves erasing an entire large village which seems a bit much, will be hugely unpopular with Millions and will do nothing but delay the inevitable.

Blackpool??? When the Thames Estuary which is accessible to the continent and London in minutes id too far? Why not Prestwick or Macrihanish? D'oh!

Build STN runway and terminals or Estuary option, close LHR and develop it as a "Docklands West" style project. It would work and be a success and rejuvenate that part of London too. The begrudgers scoffed at Docklands and had to eat humble pie didn't they? They would do the same there I reckon.

But doing nothing or prevaricating is a suicide option.

[fireflybob]

Much discussion re this subject here:-

New Thames Airport for London (http://www.pprune.org/airlines-airports-routes/469575-new-thames-airport-london.html)

[Fairdealfrank]

Silver, where are you?!

Oh dear, we've been through all this before!

Why would BAA close LHR?
Why would the airlines leave LHR?
Why would business invest in an estuary airport?

Britain's premier airport doesn't have to be in London!
Yes, it does! Well nearish at least, within 20 mi. or so.

Quote: "The technical problems are not that great. The biggest problems will be environmental, political and financial reality. Foulness sands (more like mud actually) are a valuable food source for many animals and the "save the whale/hug a tree" brigade will be out in force. Politically, it could be given permission. But you have consider who will use it and why? For access to London you'll have to have a railway line - queue the railway thieves. The scum who run the service between LHR and London's low-end red light district currently screw you for £18 (AMS to city = €3.60)."

That one is easily explained: the airport spur and the overhead cabling up to London was privately built, by BAA, IIRC. They have to get a return on their investments. It would be the same with airport charges at any estuary airport (just one reason why the airlines wouldn't move there).

Schiphol up to Amsterdam for about £3.00ish is (1) that route is part of a publicly-owned integrated railway, and (2) it's about about a third of the distance compared to Heathrow up to London.

You can argue the pros and cons of privatised railways (and airports) but these are the consequences.

Quote: "And this will probably be the hardest sell and the most difficult to get the funding for. Then you have to have the staff to run it - Foulness is in the arse end of Essex. Being realistic, it would be easier for airline passengers to use AMS/CDG or LHR. An LHR replacement is really a non-starter."

Exactly. But from here we disagree.

Quote: "The best thing LHR could do (for the country) would be to chop the runways in half to stop the heavies and "move" to somewhere like Blackpool. Develop an airport in this region into a major long-haul airport (I'm discounting MAN because of the crap positioning of runways vs terminals). proper high-speed rail links with Europe. In a stroke you make Britain a competitive European transport hub."

No, LHR has to stay as the nation's hub airport, there is no alternative. Well there is: no world hub in the UK, just a small regional one. In a stroke you make the UK a backwater.

Ironically, if there was a case for a northern hub to replace LHR, it would be MAN!

Proper high-speed rail links with Europe costs billions, who on earth will finance this?



Quote: "There are several options available. The one that is not a goer is prevaricating another decade and doing nothing, that will simply lose the UK its status as the worlds No 1 hub, if it even has that accolade now which will be to the direct detriment of the country's geopolitical and economic health. ie commercial and political insanity.
Heathrow is simply in the wrong place these days, too constrained by chronic access problems and is incredibly valuable land for development."

No, there are not several options, just one.

LHR is not in the wrong place. It's the best place for expansion: existing world hub airport already there, required infrastructure already there, transport links already there, experienced workforce already there, but most importantly, it's where the airlines and pax want to be.

It's only incredibly valuable land for development because of the airport. Without an airport, it's just another brownfield site ripe for conversion to green belt.

Quote: "New Thames estuary hub is the ideal answer but start it NOW, not in 25 yrs time after five five-year public enquiries.

A new runway and proper transport links at STN is second best, virtually nil impact on property apart from farmland and by far the cheapest option. Nimbys will squeal but there is little population in the region so we have to tell them to lump it. A new runway is an insignificant area of land in the vastness of rural E Anglia and wails about concreting over the countryside need to be firmly scoffed down as the fatuous irrational nonsense they are, as every one of us who flies over that part of the world can see."

Both options are useless and will not happen.

Quote: "Build STN runway and terminals or Estuary option, close LHR and develop it as a "Docklands West" style project."

Again, why would BAA close LHR? This is not rational!

Quote: "It would work and be a success and rejuvenate that part of London too. The begrudgers scoffed at Docklands and had to eat humble pie didn't they? They would do the same there I reckon."

You underestimate the importance of LHR to the region. No LHR would turn the area into a ghost town, it would need more than "rejuvenation"!

That in itself would concentrate the minds of politicians big time, so even if they had the power to do it (which they don't), LHR will not close.

Without LHR closing, there will be no estuary airport. It's that simple!

Quote: "But doing nothing or prevaricating is a suicide option."

Agreed! So, two more rwys at LHR, do it now.

[Heathrow Harry]

"LHR is not in the wrong place. It's the best place for expansion:"

surrounded by housing, approach over the centre of the biggest city in Europe just off the M4 ("the Road to hell"), poor railway links......... grossly overcrowded landside and airside

It's a dump of an airport, 4 terminals scattered at the 4 corners and badly linked up

It ain't fixable

Lease the Thames Estuary to the Govt of Hong Kong and we'd hav a new airport in 5 years

[DaveReidUK]

Much discussion re this subject here:-

New Thames Airport for London (http://www.pprune.org/airlines-airports-routes/469575-new-thames-airport-london.html)

With 712 posts and counting - difficult to see what useful purpose is served by repeating all the arguments in a new [this] thread.

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "It's a dump of an airport, 4 terminals scattered at the 4 corners and badly linked up "

Yet it's where airlines and pax want to be. Airlines pay millions for slot pairs. As the saying goes: 70,000,000 pax cannot be wrong.

Surely it's operating at capacity because it is sucessful. We're too good at knocking sucess instead of building on it.

Quote: "Lease the Thames Estuary to the Govt of Hong Kong and we'd hav a new airport in 5 years"

Please be realistic, who pays for this?

Incidentally, if you're refering to Chek Lap Kok, unlike any of the proposed estuary airport sites, it's not in the middle of nowhere, it's about as far from Hong Kong as Heathrow is from London, and was mostly built before the handover, under the colonial government.

You also fail to explain why the airlines would be motivated to leave what you call "a dump of an airport". You say "Thames estuary airport", but the words "Mirabel (YMQ) part 2" spring to mind.

[Skipness One Echo]

http://www.pprune.org/airlines-airports-routes/469575-new-thames-airport-london.html

As has already been said, it's all in the thread above. Let's not go over the same ground yet again for the sake of it.