Silver,
I merely repeat your quote from earlier: -
larger Thames site (4 international runways and 2 domestic runways)
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.