New Thames Airport for London
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just imagine how many challenges a Thames estury site would have. It is never going to be built.
The former only gave one route for consultation - take it or leave it. So the protestors have a point in that they were treated with utter contempt by the government. In 2003, various options were considered, including Cliffe, and a 2nd runway at Gatwick - again, after a legal challenge to include it.
I am assuming that the upcoming consultation will include more than just one option - or to paraphrase Mr Ford, you can have any airport you like, but we've taken Heathrow off the menu and we're not putting it back
Paxing All Over The World
Good point jabird. If they really want to try and have an estury port, then they will offer multiple versions and permutations. If they don't - they'll only offer one as it will get shot down!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The foot of Mt. Belzoni.
Posts: 2,001
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have to laugh at Paul Keyhole's comments.
"Birmingham is a hidden gem and the missing part in the UK's aviation capacity jigsaw"
Boll*cks.
I have heard Birmingham and Elmdon described as many things, but a "hidden gem" is not one of them.
On our early spotting trips, Elmdon was noted as being not actually an airport, but more like an excuse for one. The Who's 'Let's See Action' was an appropriate theme song for this sleepy backwater.
Latter, at university, a fellow geographer remarked that "If Britain had piles, they would be in Birmingham".
A true statement. Mr. Keyhole is probably aware that the tired motorway system, which enables Birmingham to be by-passed, and exited quickly, is built on piles. Thereby generating that lovely G'Dunk, G'Dunk, G'Dunk, noise as you speed past Fort Dunlop, heading north or south.
If EGBB is such a gem, why are it's air traffic controllers paid less than those at say, Gatwick and Manchester?
Forget Silver-Boris-Foster. Why not develop Shannon into a 6 Runway airport like EHAM?
Loads of space available, part of the UK/Ireland FAB. All traffic from the west could land at EINN, from where Fly(may)be can whisk the pax into the UK regions. Similarly from the east, PAX would land at Clogport, (EHAM, 6 runways there already). Fly(may)be would then whisk punters westward onto the Eurozone offshore islands. Planes from the south would use LFPG. High-speed rail links already in place to Asford and London.
- Just like those innovative Victorians (of which the Transport Munchkin
is a big fan) did with the London Railway Termini, only on a larger scale.
"Birmingham is a hidden gem and the missing part in the UK's aviation capacity jigsaw"
Boll*cks.
I have heard Birmingham and Elmdon described as many things, but a "hidden gem" is not one of them.
On our early spotting trips, Elmdon was noted as being not actually an airport, but more like an excuse for one. The Who's 'Let's See Action' was an appropriate theme song for this sleepy backwater.
Latter, at university, a fellow geographer remarked that "If Britain had piles, they would be in Birmingham".
A true statement. Mr. Keyhole is probably aware that the tired motorway system, which enables Birmingham to be by-passed, and exited quickly, is built on piles. Thereby generating that lovely G'Dunk, G'Dunk, G'Dunk, noise as you speed past Fort Dunlop, heading north or south.
If EGBB is such a gem, why are it's air traffic controllers paid less than those at say, Gatwick and Manchester?
Forget Silver-Boris-Foster. Why not develop Shannon into a 6 Runway airport like EHAM?
Loads of space available, part of the UK/Ireland FAB. All traffic from the west could land at EINN, from where Fly(may)be can whisk the pax into the UK regions. Similarly from the east, PAX would land at Clogport, (EHAM, 6 runways there already). Fly(may)be would then whisk punters westward onto the Eurozone offshore islands. Planes from the south would use LFPG. High-speed rail links already in place to Asford and London.
- Just like those innovative Victorians (of which the Transport Munchkin
is a big fan) did with the London Railway Termini, only on a larger scale.
Paxing All Over The World
Of course the problem with the London Railway Terminii is just that - the plural. All in competition, so no one wanted to touch each other, then you have to get from one to t'other. But the Circle line does not cross the river and so that's two of the biggest missed, for starters.
Yes, when it comes to major terminals for the capital, the Brits have form.
Yes, when it comes to major terminals for the capital, the Brits have form.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Zooker, you can NOT be serious! (with apologies to John McEnroe).
Why so negative? there's no need to slag off Elmdon Airport and the city of Birmingham, neither is nearly as bad as you suggest.
BHX is not relevant to this thread, BHX is not about to become London's 9th (or is it 10th?) airport.
Why so negative? there's no need to slag off Elmdon Airport and the city of Birmingham, neither is nearly as bad as you suggest.
BHX is not relevant to this thread, BHX is not about to become London's 9th (or is it 10th?) airport.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The foot of Mt. Belzoni.
Posts: 2,001
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It Certainly isn't.
That will be 'London Oxford', or as it might be known, 'Endeavour Morse International'.
G'Dunk, G'Dunk, G'Dunk.
That will be 'London Oxford', or as it might be known, 'Endeavour Morse International'.
G'Dunk, G'Dunk, G'Dunk.
Last edited by ZOOKER; 13th Feb 2012 at 23:49.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In no particular order: LHR, LGW, LCY, LTN, STN, SEN, LYX and OXF (Endeavour Morse International) already claim to be "London" airports.
NHT (maybe one day), FAB, MSE, SOU and BOH ("London West" in FR-speak?) probably have have a prior claim to this status ahead of BHX.
Bizarrely LHR doesn't need to use the "London" prefix any more because the name "Heathrow" is so well-known worldwide.
NHT (maybe one day), FAB, MSE, SOU and BOH ("London West" in FR-speak?) probably have have a prior claim to this status ahead of BHX.
Bizarrely LHR doesn't need to use the "London" prefix any more because the name "Heathrow" is so well-known worldwide.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SOU and BOH ("London West" in FR-speak?) probably have have a prior claim to this status ahead of BHX
One has grandiose ambitions to develop a long haul network to places well beyond realistic demands, whilst spending millions on a runway, and relying on the government's heavily discredited rail project to make it happen. In the meantime, countless European capitals and major cities get ignored. Number of destinations served from BHX but not from LON?
The other has an incredibly diverse selection of routes considering its size, especially if you want to go to rural France. Airport management know pax can use the M3, M27 or an existing rail route, which stops right outside the terminal, and not in some stinking rubbish tip two km away, combined with an easy to use compact terminal. So a good proportion of passengers no doubt do consider SOU as a 'London' area airport.
And which airport does the transport sec visit as an example of how best to use our infrastructure?
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Birmingham is a hidden gem and the missing part in the UK's aviation capacity jigsaw"
"Birmingham has many hidden gems" - of course it does, just like any medium-large sized city. I think the canals are great for urban walks.
=> "Birmingham" - the UK's second city, well known to all who need to - a) hidden? Come on
And b) a gem? Now that is really stretching it - good parts yes, but a gem? Rough diamond at best!
And this 38 mins rail link still doesn't explain how people are going to fork out £2-300 for a cab fare to London or why outbound pax would drive so far up the M40 / M1&6 to take a flight which is guaranteed to be available from another LON airport (why would that change?), and is unlikely to be much more expensive anyway (if at all) due to economies of scale*.
*Caveat - some flights will always be cheaper from BHX some of the time, I gather this happens with EK every now and then. But these are still the exceptions (high freq route), and any price differences are still counterbalanced by the cost of getting to / from BHX.
Right, where were we? Let's get back to Boris Island. Not sure which is more idiotic - London Johnson International (LJI) or LBI? At least LBI is only throwing £130m odd at the extension - less than 0.5% of LJI - and the HS2 project simply stops at Rubbish Dump Interchange because it suits the planners, serving the airport is just a co-incidence - otherwise they'd actually stop near the terminal.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jabird, for those of us in West Middlesex, SOU is definitely much more of a "London" airport than say LTN or STN, certainly in terms of proximity and accessibility.
Rubbish Dump Interchange (sic) is just one example: HS2 in London will be at Euston not St Pancras, so no link to HS1, at Birmingham itwill be at Curzon Street so no access to the New Street interchange, HS1 at Stratford is nowhere near the existing Stratford interchange.
We never use railway interchanges to their best potential - there are countless examples, and that pushes people off rail and onto the roads.
There's no joined up thinking on the railways, so don't expect it in aviation. So in the unlikely event of SILVERing Sands ever being built, DO NOT expect any associated infrastructure to accompany it!
Rubbish Dump Interchange (sic) is just one example: HS2 in London will be at Euston not St Pancras, so no link to HS1, at Birmingham itwill be at Curzon Street so no access to the New Street interchange, HS1 at Stratford is nowhere near the existing Stratford interchange.
We never use railway interchanges to their best potential - there are countless examples, and that pushes people off rail and onto the roads.
There's no joined up thinking on the railways, so don't expect it in aviation. So in the unlikely event of SILVERing Sands ever being built, DO NOT expect any associated infrastructure to accompany it!
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We never use railway interchanges to their best potential - there are countless examples, and that pushes people off rail and onto the roads.
There's no joined up thinking on the railways, so don't expect it in aviation. So in the unlikely event of SILVERing Sands ever being built, DO NOT expect any associated infrastructure to accompany it!
There's no joined up thinking on the railways, so don't expect it in aviation. So in the unlikely event of SILVERing Sands ever being built, DO NOT expect any associated infrastructure to accompany it!
Where's Silver, we need to start arguing again!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jabird
But as for serving London airports, passengers will want an airport that is actually in, or near, London.
But as for serving London airports, passengers will want an airport that is actually in, or near, London.
In some respects, I might disagree. A Global hub could easily be in Birmingham or East Mids, and work faily well. The reason for choosing the Thames is:
a. Landspace, which the UK is rapidly running out of. This is mostly new reclaimed land.
b. Reduced noise problems.
c. Cheaper land costs.
d. Easier planning, with fewer objections.
e. Easy land connections into Europe, which is easier to serve from the south. As I don't like commuter flying, I will often choose TGV tranport rather than flying, and I am sure many others do likewise.
f. It is closer to London, and therefore can serve London easier that BHX.
In short, of all the possible locations for a UK world hub, east London makes the most sense. Not perfect, but the best of all the options.
.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Silver, wow - you've toned down a bit 
a. Landspace, which the UK is rapidly running out of. This is mostly new reclaimed land. - At huge cost. Seems they learned a bit from KIx at HKG, but the Japanese kept building them, running up ridiculous debts for totally uncommercial projects.
b. Reduced noise problems - agreed, but how do you factor the cost of noise at LHR, unless govt imposed a specific noise tariff ontop of APD - like ZRH?
c. Cheaper land costs - false, see A
d. Easier planning, with fewer objections - there would still be loads of challenges from environmental groups, not so simple.
e. Easy land connections into Europe, which is easier to serve from the south. - we want an airport for London, not whole of Europe. Limited benefits, as discussed.
f. It is closer to London, and therefore can serve London easier that BHX - and LGW can serve London more easily than either at a fraction of the cost.
Now LGW isn't perfect either - but it is the least bad of all the options.
a. Landspace, which the UK is rapidly running out of. This is mostly new reclaimed land. - At huge cost. Seems they learned a bit from KIx at HKG, but the Japanese kept building them, running up ridiculous debts for totally uncommercial projects.
b. Reduced noise problems - agreed, but how do you factor the cost of noise at LHR, unless govt imposed a specific noise tariff ontop of APD - like ZRH?
c. Cheaper land costs - false, see A
d. Easier planning, with fewer objections - there would still be loads of challenges from environmental groups, not so simple.
e. Easy land connections into Europe, which is easier to serve from the south. - we want an airport for London, not whole of Europe. Limited benefits, as discussed.
f. It is closer to London, and therefore can serve London easier that BHX - and LGW can serve London more easily than either at a fraction of the cost.
Now LGW isn't perfect either - but it is the least bad of all the options.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eas Anglia
Age: 64
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.....And all this pre-supposes that we close down Heathrow (AND probably a few other airports) in order to make room in the air !
It always amases me that nobody ever seems to consult ATC who have to sort all this stuff out in the London TMA.
Rather than a fact-finding visit to Birmingham which anybody with an ounce of common-sense knows is a non-starter we could look at other options.
Maybe the MPs could start with a view from NATS as to what is practical ?
Maybe its me, but their take on this never seems to get much airplay !
One other point can't recall the figures but by way of example circa 160,000 pax a year travel from the N West to use one of about 8 daily LHR - Hong Kong services. From the airlines point of view absolutely logical but why not put at least some of that demand where it originates....Manchester!
Why on earth clog up Heathrow with "Northerners", this at least would make room for a few more flights that the Southerners could take then take advantage of ...just a thought !
It always amases me that nobody ever seems to consult ATC who have to sort all this stuff out in the London TMA.
Rather than a fact-finding visit to Birmingham which anybody with an ounce of common-sense knows is a non-starter we could look at other options.
Maybe the MPs could start with a view from NATS as to what is practical ?
Maybe its me, but their take on this never seems to get much airplay !
One other point can't recall the figures but by way of example circa 160,000 pax a year travel from the N West to use one of about 8 daily LHR - Hong Kong services. From the airlines point of view absolutely logical but why not put at least some of that demand where it originates....Manchester!
Why on earth clog up Heathrow with "Northerners", this at least would make room for a few more flights that the Southerners could take then take advantage of ...just a thought !
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jabird
Now LGW isn't perfect either - but it is the least bad of all the options.
Now LGW isn't perfect either - but it is the least bad of all the options.
If you can get the locals to agree to a 6-runway airport I might agree, to a degree, but the planning makes this idea dead in the water. Even the STN idea just will not run.
The only option is to place the airport somewhere remote, and in the UK the Thames estuary is about as remote as you can get (while still being just 20km from London). The Thames is the only option, and the only real decision to be made is whether to go for the Isle of Grain or the actual estuary itself.
Navpi
One other point can't recall the figures but by way of example circa 160,000 pax a year travel from the N West to use one of about 8 daily LHR - Hong Kong services. From the airlines point of view absolutely logical but why not put at least some of that demand where it originates....Manchester!
One other point can't recall the figures but by way of example circa 160,000 pax a year travel from the N West to use one of about 8 daily LHR - Hong Kong services. From the airlines point of view absolutely logical but why not put at least some of that demand where it originates....Manchester!
But it does not happen because LHR does not have the capacity to accept the commuter flights, and LHR is not on a mainline railway. To get in to LHR for an 0700 departure, you would need to leave Manch at about 01:00 (to get to Euston and then back out to LHR via the tube !! ). But I seem to remember that such an early train does not exist, and so now you are in for a nightstop at LHR to catch the flight the next day.
And even if you do manage to get an interline flight from Man, LHR will either:
a. Fail to interline your bag and then take 1hr to get it to the reclaim, so you miss your HK flight.
b. Close the transit corridor at 23:00 so that you get stuck in a transit lounge deep inside the terminals, with locked doors all around. We had to call the police to rescue us, and only caught the outbound flight because the company heard of our woes and held the flight.
So the answer is not to use MAN for more HK flights, which may be thin routes and unreliable/unprofitable, but to get a decent world hub in the UK that actually works.
.
Last edited by silverstrata; 14th Feb 2012 at 18:51.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The foot of Mt. Belzoni.
Posts: 2,001
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hub airports are great in theory, but can be a problem for ATC with the repeated convergence and divergence of traffic.
There is much spare capacity at EGCC. A 3000m runway is standing idle for most of the day at present.
No-one from the north of England/Scotland wants to route via London.
There is much spare capacity at EGCC. A 3000m runway is standing idle for most of the day at present.
No-one from the north of England/Scotland wants to route via London.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: LONDON, U.K.
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If, and it is a mighty big if, this Thames Estuary airport is ever built how long would it take to build and open if permission was given in, say 2014, which of course it won't
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Silver,
I never said 6 runways - they are nice to have when the room is available, but the only way you will get such a facility in London is to consider all the London area airports as a single entity.
I remind you - we can all have our ideas, but the only option actually on the table at the moment is the one proposed by Lord Foster, partially on the Isle of Grain. So although it will have 4 runways, 2 of them replace LHR, net gain two runways. As already discussed, net terminal space gain around 50% compared to Heathrow.
To build 3 x 2 parallel wide spaced runway pairs on that site would effectively mean damming the Thames. That is the sort of stuff for Sim City geeks, not a serious proposition.
You say LGW would have problems with planning but there would still be incredible objections to your project from environmental groups.
Now you might say build further out - fine, but the Thames Estuary is not Kansas prairie so the cost is going to shoot up even more, over and above the 1:2 ratio you already have to deal with of capacity increase to Heathrow replacement.
I don't for one minute think extra capacity at LGW would be an easy sell, but take a look at a map of either LGW or STN, look at the number of houses underneath the approach paths and then compare that with LHR.
Then look at the political map around LGW - all blue, so a Tory government could piss on their own doorstep and be unlikely to suffer major seat loss. And do you think a Labour government would be bothered? On the other hand, LHR is a double-edged sword - allow a 3rd runway, and you would almost certainly lose any marginal seats. Even worse would be to close LHR and cause such massive relocation - LHR is the airport people love to hate, but watch the uproar if you actually proposed closing it.
I think the much bigger problem for LGW would be one of finance. The airport was bought iirc for £1.5bn, so to add a new runway would probably mean an investment bigger than what was spent on the airport itself. Ditto for a new terminal of the size needed to benefit from the new runway (25-40m pax pa) and create a hub operation. Then you'd have to tempt someone from LHR.
But all of this is pocket change compared to what is being proposed on Foster Island - which is more like £30bn compared to £3bn. And you'd have to force all airlines at LHR to move there - simply far too tall an order given London's disparate airports market and the realities of UK politics.
If you can get the locals to agree to a 6-runway airport I might agree
I remind you - we can all have our ideas, but the only option actually on the table at the moment is the one proposed by Lord Foster, partially on the Isle of Grain. So although it will have 4 runways, 2 of them replace LHR, net gain two runways. As already discussed, net terminal space gain around 50% compared to Heathrow.
To build 3 x 2 parallel wide spaced runway pairs on that site would effectively mean damming the Thames. That is the sort of stuff for Sim City geeks, not a serious proposition.
You say LGW would have problems with planning but there would still be incredible objections to your project from environmental groups.
Now you might say build further out - fine, but the Thames Estuary is not Kansas prairie so the cost is going to shoot up even more, over and above the 1:2 ratio you already have to deal with of capacity increase to Heathrow replacement.
I don't for one minute think extra capacity at LGW would be an easy sell, but take a look at a map of either LGW or STN, look at the number of houses underneath the approach paths and then compare that with LHR.
Then look at the political map around LGW - all blue, so a Tory government could piss on their own doorstep and be unlikely to suffer major seat loss. And do you think a Labour government would be bothered? On the other hand, LHR is a double-edged sword - allow a 3rd runway, and you would almost certainly lose any marginal seats. Even worse would be to close LHR and cause such massive relocation - LHR is the airport people love to hate, but watch the uproar if you actually proposed closing it.
I think the much bigger problem for LGW would be one of finance. The airport was bought iirc for £1.5bn, so to add a new runway would probably mean an investment bigger than what was spent on the airport itself. Ditto for a new terminal of the size needed to benefit from the new runway (25-40m pax pa) and create a hub operation. Then you'd have to tempt someone from LHR.
But all of this is pocket change compared to what is being proposed on Foster Island - which is more like £30bn compared to £3bn. And you'd have to force all airlines at LHR to move there - simply far too tall an order given London's disparate airports market and the realities of UK politics.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a. Fail to interline your bag and then take 1hr to get it to the reclaim, so you miss your HK flight.
b. Close the transit corridor at 23:00 so that you get stuck in a transit lounge deep inside the terminals, with locked doors all around.
15 daily commuter flights in from MAN and BPL
Now your airport is the wrong side of London, so any long distance rail link is going to cost even more. And you want that on top of 15 shuttle flights?
Manchester would be one thing, but Bole, Xingjiang?
Did you mean Blackpool? Far too thin, lost STN route yonks ago, direct train even further back.Time to get real!
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Beyond the Blue Horizon
Age: 63
Posts: 1,251
Received 147 Likes
on
91 Posts
If it was in the Far or Middle East 5-6 years, North America slightly longer but not much. The UK God knows, some time never. This is based on working on airport construction projects in these areas, and the UK. My general observation would be that in the UK projects are run as a "demorcracy" in that everybody gets a say in what they want, and a design is finalized, which is the same as in the other areas. However where as in other areas a design freeze is applied at that stage, on UK projects variouse groups continue to dable / change items through out the design / construction phase leading to job over runs, and resultant extra costs. The latter in the UK invaribly seems to end up in court or the contractor / sub contractor goes bust ie Wembly and variouse Olympic projects.
Simple recipe in developing world. Decide what you want (arrange finance), where you want it, design it to cover what you need, and a view to future requirments where known, and build it.
Uk recipe. Start debate as to what you want with no idea of budget. Finaly get idea of what you want and then discuss where you are going to build it and have typical North / South argument at the same time with a dash of Green policy on the side. Hold public enquiry which takes years to allow every party to comment / disagree and drags on as we all know making some consultants very rich ( I know one individual who has consulted on infrastructure projects all their life and has yet to have anything built but lives very well on it!.) After protracted expensive navel gazing decide on what, where, and when ,but still do not freeze design. Start project construction with ongoing issues still in the air, and face cost and time overuns as a result, coupled with press comments about poor state of managment in UK construction industry which is often unjustified.
My own view re Borris Island is build it by all means another London centric project like the Channel Tunnel (Northern line extension in my book) . But it will not get me to use it no matter what transport link there is from the rest of the country, as I do, and always will, use Manchester or Leeds / Bradford as they are closer and currently offer flights to the places I need to go.
Will get off hobby horse now.
Simple recipe in developing world. Decide what you want (arrange finance), where you want it, design it to cover what you need, and a view to future requirments where known, and build it.
Uk recipe. Start debate as to what you want with no idea of budget. Finaly get idea of what you want and then discuss where you are going to build it and have typical North / South argument at the same time with a dash of Green policy on the side. Hold public enquiry which takes years to allow every party to comment / disagree and drags on as we all know making some consultants very rich ( I know one individual who has consulted on infrastructure projects all their life and has yet to have anything built but lives very well on it!.) After protracted expensive navel gazing decide on what, where, and when ,but still do not freeze design. Start project construction with ongoing issues still in the air, and face cost and time overuns as a result, coupled with press comments about poor state of managment in UK construction industry which is often unjustified.
My own view re Borris Island is build it by all means another London centric project like the Channel Tunnel (Northern line extension in my book) . But it will not get me to use it no matter what transport link there is from the rest of the country, as I do, and always will, use Manchester or Leeds / Bradford as they are closer and currently offer flights to the places I need to go.
Will get off hobby horse now.