New Thames Airport for London
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New Thames Airport for London
.
A report in today's Sunday Times says that Boris Johnson will make a new proposal for a new Thames Airport for London (Boris Island).
Clearly, London needs a new airport.
Heathrow:
Heathrow is bulging at the seams, and taxying there is a nightmare, with the ever present danger of wing-tip collisions. While terminals 1,2 & 3 are a national disgrace. Plus the approach and take off can both be over central London. Had this Korean Air 747 crashed on take-off from Heathrow, rather than from Stanstead, the results could have been dire.
Stanstead Boeing 747 crash.
BBC News | UK | Crash jet 'on fire at take-off'
Gatwick:
Gatwick probably has the slickest ATC in the world. But this does mean that "take-off immediate" actually means "why are you still here? you should already be half way down the runway". Likewise the approach spacing of 1.5nm means that the landing is often made with another aircraft still on the runway ("land after"). It is not an airfield for beginners or pilots from 'nations unacquainted with efficient operations'.
Stanstead:
Stanstead could be a major airport, but it needs another 4 runways, and is positioned in the wrong location. Many passengers want to get to the north and west, or to the continent, and that is not easy from Stanstead.
New London Airport:
A new London airport is definitely required, if London is to maintain its position as a world hub and a world business center. The central locations for world business are not enshrined in stone, and London is relying on borrowed time and yesteryear's legacy. Businesses and banks can go anywhere, and if Schiphol is a better hub, they will go there - especially since the Dutch speak better English than the English, and their education is streets ahead of Blair's dumbed-down education system (where a 25% grade is a 'C' pass, and 'speaking a foreign language' includes understanding BBC English - innit).
The plans:
Foster's Thames design:
Unfortunately, Lord Foster's concept for a Thames airport is a non-starter. The runways are too close together, which would greatly impede taxying aircraft and increase the danger of air-ground collisions. The terminal is at the end of the runway, which is both daft and dangerous in equal measure. And the site is next to a potentially highly explosive oil and gas terminal and a WWII wreck containing thousands of tonnes of explosives. And the westerly runways still require all flights to overfly central London (why are they so stupid?).
Clearly, Lord Foster needs fewer planners and lawyers on his team, and a few more pilots and air-traffic controllers.
Boris' Thames design:
This is a better idea - a new island in the Thames estuary with as many runways as you like (preferably 6), all facing southwest, and with the terminal buildings joined into the UK's new high speed rail network. This proposal takes the noise and danger away from London, allow 24-hour operations, and would reinstate the UK as a world aviation hub (and therefore a world business hub).
But please, Boris, do make sure the cross-rail project links into this new airport, and do make sure that the TGV Channel rail-link and proposed TGV Manchester rail-link also converge here. Some brain-dead planning plonker has already built the TGV Channel link too far to the west of this site, which has wasted £billions, so please do not allow the new Manchester TGV link to be built without a link to the Thames airport.
If Cross-rail will allow high speed trains, then link the Thames airport to Cross-rail, towards the west of London, and then up through the proposed Manchester TGV route. If not, then you will need a N.E. london bypass line, to link up with the Manchester TGV line.
P.S. The idea of two terminals in this plan is a non-starter. People want to come from Europe, from the UK's north, west and south, and arrive at the airport. Guiding all the TGV rail lines and motorways so they pass through two terminal sites on either side of the Thames is just crazy. You need one large airport complex, with the terminal(s) at the center.
Oh, and since I know that planners and architects are generally brain-dead - please add another 3m of height to all your plans and calculations, to allow for the settlement that planners never allow enough for. (Google Kansai Airport).
.
A report in today's Sunday Times says that Boris Johnson will make a new proposal for a new Thames Airport for London (Boris Island).
Clearly, London needs a new airport.
Heathrow:
Heathrow is bulging at the seams, and taxying there is a nightmare, with the ever present danger of wing-tip collisions. While terminals 1,2 & 3 are a national disgrace. Plus the approach and take off can both be over central London. Had this Korean Air 747 crashed on take-off from Heathrow, rather than from Stanstead, the results could have been dire.
Stanstead Boeing 747 crash.
BBC News | UK | Crash jet 'on fire at take-off'
Gatwick:
Gatwick probably has the slickest ATC in the world. But this does mean that "take-off immediate" actually means "why are you still here? you should already be half way down the runway". Likewise the approach spacing of 1.5nm means that the landing is often made with another aircraft still on the runway ("land after"). It is not an airfield for beginners or pilots from 'nations unacquainted with efficient operations'.
Stanstead:
Stanstead could be a major airport, but it needs another 4 runways, and is positioned in the wrong location. Many passengers want to get to the north and west, or to the continent, and that is not easy from Stanstead.
New London Airport:
A new London airport is definitely required, if London is to maintain its position as a world hub and a world business center. The central locations for world business are not enshrined in stone, and London is relying on borrowed time and yesteryear's legacy. Businesses and banks can go anywhere, and if Schiphol is a better hub, they will go there - especially since the Dutch speak better English than the English, and their education is streets ahead of Blair's dumbed-down education system (where a 25% grade is a 'C' pass, and 'speaking a foreign language' includes understanding BBC English - innit).
The plans:
Foster's Thames design:
Unfortunately, Lord Foster's concept for a Thames airport is a non-starter. The runways are too close together, which would greatly impede taxying aircraft and increase the danger of air-ground collisions. The terminal is at the end of the runway, which is both daft and dangerous in equal measure. And the site is next to a potentially highly explosive oil and gas terminal and a WWII wreck containing thousands of tonnes of explosives. And the westerly runways still require all flights to overfly central London (why are they so stupid?).
Clearly, Lord Foster needs fewer planners and lawyers on his team, and a few more pilots and air-traffic controllers.
Boris' Thames design:
This is a better idea - a new island in the Thames estuary with as many runways as you like (preferably 6), all facing southwest, and with the terminal buildings joined into the UK's new high speed rail network. This proposal takes the noise and danger away from London, allow 24-hour operations, and would reinstate the UK as a world aviation hub (and therefore a world business hub).
But please, Boris, do make sure the cross-rail project links into this new airport, and do make sure that the TGV Channel rail-link and proposed TGV Manchester rail-link also converge here. Some brain-dead planning plonker has already built the TGV Channel link too far to the west of this site, which has wasted £billions, so please do not allow the new Manchester TGV link to be built without a link to the Thames airport.
If Cross-rail will allow high speed trains, then link the Thames airport to Cross-rail, towards the west of London, and then up through the proposed Manchester TGV route. If not, then you will need a N.E. london bypass line, to link up with the Manchester TGV line.
P.S. The idea of two terminals in this plan is a non-starter. People want to come from Europe, from the UK's north, west and south, and arrive at the airport. Guiding all the TGV rail lines and motorways so they pass through two terminal sites on either side of the Thames is just crazy. You need one large airport complex, with the terminal(s) at the center.
Oh, and since I know that planners and architects are generally brain-dead - please add another 3m of height to all your plans and calculations, to allow for the settlement that planners never allow enough for. (Google Kansai Airport).
.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: FUBAR
Posts: 3,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Off topic, but the link you provided to the STN Korean Air crash is a lovely example of how the Press & eye witnesses get it so completely wrong.
Engine & fuselage debris all over the runway is seldom caused by the failure of the Capt's ADI.
But why let that get in the way of a "sensational" story ?
Engine & fuselage debris all over the runway is seldom caused by the failure of the Capt's ADI.
But why let that get in the way of a "sensational" story ?
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Horsham, England, UK. ---o--O--o---
Posts: 1,185
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
In my opinion, the Thames Estuary is a Non-Starter anyway! 
The place would be frequently Fog Bound and Highly Dangerous with the number of Sea Birds that happen to live there; the Bird-strike Risk would be a major concern.
And the City of London is still at the Western-end of the Estuary!
The place would be frequently Fog Bound and Highly Dangerous with the number of Sea Birds that happen to live there; the Bird-strike Risk would be a major concern.
And the City of London is still at the Western-end of the Estuary!
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: S E Asia
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New Airport for London..
Plus ca change, plus le meme chose.
This debate has been going on since the early-60's and the Roskill Commission. Maplin Sands was suggested then as a site for a new London Airport, along with Stansted, Thurleigh,and another site north of London in Bedfordshire, whose name escapes me (possibly Little Staughton?). Politicians were too wet to make a decision then, and we're now paying the price instead of reaping the economic rewards of a bold investment choice. An assortment of tree-huggers, twitchers, frog fans and tadpole lovers (not to mention nimby stockbrokers and retired Colonels) effectively obstructed the project
Anyone really think we'll get such a decision now?
Meanwhile, our civil aviation industry gets battered by taxes and over-stretched facilities ( ATC - my hat off to you guys, definitely the worlds best), while AMS,CDG, and,yes, DXB,AUH and DOH benefit from our lack of foresight and action. I'll wager that the debate is still raging in ten years time, shortly after T6 is finished at LHR
.
This debate has been going on since the early-60's and the Roskill Commission. Maplin Sands was suggested then as a site for a new London Airport, along with Stansted, Thurleigh,and another site north of London in Bedfordshire, whose name escapes me (possibly Little Staughton?). Politicians were too wet to make a decision then, and we're now paying the price instead of reaping the economic rewards of a bold investment choice. An assortment of tree-huggers, twitchers, frog fans and tadpole lovers (not to mention nimby stockbrokers and retired Colonels) effectively obstructed the project
Anyone really think we'll get such a decision now?
Meanwhile, our civil aviation industry gets battered by taxes and over-stretched facilities ( ATC - my hat off to you guys, definitely the worlds best), while AMS,CDG, and,yes, DXB,AUH and DOH benefit from our lack of foresight and action. I'll wager that the debate is still raging in ten years time, shortly after T6 is finished at LHR
.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Rugby
Posts: 883
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The place would be frequently Fog Bound and Highly Dangerous with the number of Sea Birds that happen to live there; the Bird-strike Risk would be a major concern.
Unless of course the powers that be have invented a way of controlling the weather and training the local waterfowl.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At least Boris is trying to sort out the mess and understand how important aviation actually is to the economy of a modern country. The rest of the political system seems to regard aviation as nothing more than a convenient cash cow.
This has been rumbling on for years and there are massive problems to overcome for a Thames Estuary airport, but they are not insurmountable and with LHR maxed out, something needs to happen.
This has been rumbling on for years and there are massive problems to overcome for a Thames Estuary airport, but they are not insurmountable and with LHR maxed out, something needs to happen.
The place would be frequently Fog Bound and Highly Dangerous with the number of Sea Birds that happen to live there; the Bird-strike Risk would be a major concern.
Has any informed risk assessment been done on the bird hazard?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Out of trim:
In my opinion, the Thames Estuary is a Non-Starter anyway!
The place would be frequently Fog Bound and Highly Dangerous with the number of Sea Birds that happen to live there; the Bird-strike Risk would be a major concern.
And the City of London is still at the Western-end of the Estuary!
In my opinion, the Thames Estuary is a Non-Starter anyway!
The place would be frequently Fog Bound and Highly Dangerous with the number of Sea Birds that happen to live there; the Bird-strike Risk would be a major concern.
And the City of London is still at the Western-end of the Estuary!
Birds like open grassland (airfields), as much as they do the sea, so that is a known and manageable problem.
And if the airport is orientated to the southwest (as it should be, into the prevailing winds), the vast majority of take-offs will miss London entirely - including all the suburbs. The quality of life and quality of air will be improved for millions of people (the prevailing SW winds will take any pollution away from London, instead of over it).
.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.
Has any informed risk assessment been done on the bird hazard?
Dealing with birds is not unique to coastal locations - this is simply an excuse by Greens** and Nimbys to prevent any improvement in UK infrastructure.
This was a regular sight in the autumn over the Mersey Bridge just east of LPL airport (another estuary airport that seems to operate ok) - Skip to 2:00 in:
If the aircraft at LPL can dodge that lot (starling flocks), I am sure Boris Island will be ok.
Note: Only Ryanair dares fly through a 'starling murmuration', as they are known:
** The great goal of the Greens, is to take us back to a 'golden age' located somewhere between the Dark and Middle Ages - a golden age wracked by poverty, famine, disease and an average life expectancy of 40 years.
.
Has any informed risk assessment been done on the bird hazard?
Dealing with birds is not unique to coastal locations - this is simply an excuse by Greens** and Nimbys to prevent any improvement in UK infrastructure.
This was a regular sight in the autumn over the Mersey Bridge just east of LPL airport (another estuary airport that seems to operate ok) - Skip to 2:00 in:
If the aircraft at LPL can dodge that lot (starling flocks), I am sure Boris Island will be ok.
Note: Only Ryanair dares fly through a 'starling murmuration', as they are known:
** The great goal of the Greens, is to take us back to a 'golden age' located somewhere between the Dark and Middle Ages - a golden age wracked by poverty, famine, disease and an average life expectancy of 40 years.
.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Rugby
Posts: 883
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Birds on a land based airfield can be discouraged by keeping the grass at the rght length. They don't seem to like six inch high grass as they can't see predators arriving. I don't believe the same precautions would be available over wetlands.
Far from being a NIMBY's or "Greens" reason to oppose the development, I would contend that it is a real obstacle, not one invented to scupper the airport. Wetland birds also tend to be bigger and heavier than the main inland varieties. Hit a sparrow, starling etc you will probably get away with it, I wouldn't have the same confidence after hitting a Greylag or Canadian goose.
Far from being a NIMBY's or "Greens" reason to oppose the development, I would contend that it is a real obstacle, not one invented to scupper the airport. Wetland birds also tend to be bigger and heavier than the main inland varieties. Hit a sparrow, starling etc you will probably get away with it, I wouldn't have the same confidence after hitting a Greylag or Canadian goose.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dawdler:
Birds on a land based airfield can be discouraged by keeping the grass at the rght length. They don't seem to like six inch high grass as they can't see predators arriving. I don't believe the same precautions would be available over wetlands.
Wetland birds also tend to be bigger and heavier than the main inland varieties. Hit a sparrow, starling etc you will probably get away with it, I wouldn't have the same confidence after hitting a Greylag or Canadian goose.
Birds on a land based airfield can be discouraged by keeping the grass at the rght length. They don't seem to like six inch high grass as they can't see predators arriving. I don't believe the same precautions would be available over wetlands.
Wetland birds also tend to be bigger and heavier than the main inland varieties. Hit a sparrow, starling etc you will probably get away with it, I wouldn't have the same confidence after hitting a Greylag or Canadian goose.
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.
Apart from birds migrating from shore to shore, which can be dealt with, there should be no greater bird threat on an isolated island, than at Heathrow. As an aside, the area for this new island is predominantly saline, and most geese (apart from the brent) do not like saline water.
.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Cardiff UK
Age: 69
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Silverstrata you may well be able to fly a plane but since when has that made you an expert on planning, civil engineering and architectural matters. Have you studied Lord Foster's proposals in detail. The newish Hong Kong airport designed by Foster has it's terminal at one end and works well. A terminal in the centre of the airport will as in Heathrow at some point restrict future expansion. As for your comments re settlement I guess you must have a beta version of the yet to be released Microsoft Civil engineering simulator, but what do I know am only a "brain dead Architect"
If you want a meaningful discussion on a new London Airport I suggest you would be wise not to alienate the very people who can contribute something to the debate.
If you want a meaningful discussion on a new London Airport I suggest you would be wise not to alienate the very people who can contribute something to the debate.
I wonder if perhaps that this is a problem that has no solution? As a Yank I hedge a bit of admiration for those who are tackling this issue but do the geographical realities of greater London simply prevent a magic bullet solution? One simply might not be able to find enough land (or Estuary) space onto which to plop 4 runways/terminals/access roads & rail etc.
Maybe a stretch with the analogy, but New York and Washington have the same problem. Domestic passangers prefer Laguardia but the international has to be handled out at JFK which, as many readers here know, adds a LOT of transit time to downtown Manhattan.
Washington has Dulles well to the west of downtown and domestic passangers doing business in the city prefer National.
Short of building a runway 18 at LHR through the resevoir what, at this point, can be done?
If I were King for a day I would tax the masses and build an elevated motorway from LHR to downtown. I hate for my memory of life to be sitting in traffic staring at the sign for the Hammersmith flyover...
That all having been said, I would like to see a Boris island solution. Clear out Westminster (no need for the MPs anyway) and pour the runways there.
Maybe a stretch with the analogy, but New York and Washington have the same problem. Domestic passangers prefer Laguardia but the international has to be handled out at JFK which, as many readers here know, adds a LOT of transit time to downtown Manhattan.
Washington has Dulles well to the west of downtown and domestic passangers doing business in the city prefer National.
Short of building a runway 18 at LHR through the resevoir what, at this point, can be done?
If I were King for a day I would tax the masses and build an elevated motorway from LHR to downtown. I hate for my memory of life to be sitting in traffic staring at the sign for the Hammersmith flyover...
That all having been said, I would like to see a Boris island solution. Clear out Westminster (no need for the MPs anyway) and pour the runways there.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Regrettably far from 50°N
Posts: 917
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My solution:
Heathrow - long/medium-haul flights only.
Gatwick - short/medium-haul flights only.
Manston - overflow.
One of the largest runways in the UK, two miles from a high-speed trainline which is 35mins from Central London. 'All you need' is a new terminal. And, before you complain about noise: Heathrow is to Hatton Cross as Manston is to Ramsgate. The latter airport is no closer to conurbations than Heathrow...
My solution would cost less than 10% of Boris Island... but it wouldn't provide a port or a new Thames Barrier. Any thoughts?
It leaves Stansted, Luton and Southend untouched to do whatever the hell they like and we don't even have to tarmac over swathes of the countryside or destroy hundreds of houses!
Heathrow - long/medium-haul flights only.
Gatwick - short/medium-haul flights only.
Manston - overflow.
One of the largest runways in the UK, two miles from a high-speed trainline which is 35mins from Central London. 'All you need' is a new terminal. And, before you complain about noise: Heathrow is to Hatton Cross as Manston is to Ramsgate. The latter airport is no closer to conurbations than Heathrow...
My solution would cost less than 10% of Boris Island... but it wouldn't provide a port or a new Thames Barrier. Any thoughts?
It leaves Stansted, Luton and Southend untouched to do whatever the hell they like and we don't even have to tarmac over swathes of the countryside or destroy hundreds of houses!
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your solution only allows for point to point travel. All very well, but hardly a solution when you want there to be a proper hub airport in the UK.
All that happens there is that LHR and LGW become purely for Brits and people travelling to Britain. Rather limiting really.
All that happens there is that LHR and LGW become purely for Brits and people travelling to Britain. Rather limiting really.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Regrettably far from 50°N
Posts: 917
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now you're gonna laugh at me, but this is where my other scheme comes in... do what BAA did in the 1980s and run a regular helicopter shuttle between the three airports. As it turned out, the M25 wasn't the be all and end all for airport transfers but nobody has ever got round to reinstating it.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How realistic a propostion is that really? A nice idea of course, but there are enormous problems with this from cost, to getting this past greenies and then there's the small issue of aircraft and helicopter movements.
I'd love to see it, but I just can't see it working nowadays.
I'd love to see it, but I just can't see it working nowadays.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There must be more renderings of 'Norm island' to analyse re: just what is at the end of the runways, and what is between them.
HKG is great engineering, and great architecture, but it came at a massive price, in a city that didn't have other greenfield sites to continue, and that really did have a dangerous approach.
I'm not sure how much 'not now Darling' was relevant re: Cliffe and Rugby, both came from private consultants, and he won't have got a look in - iirc, the report pre-dated his tenure in the transport job anyway, which only seems to be a staging post to other positions these days.
The cost of the Foster proposals has been put at upto £50bn (+where do you go from here), Boris Island not much less. Rugby was far cheaper at c. £6bn, and it too was close to high speed rail lines (forget about TGVs through Crossrail, that really is a non-starter, fast and slow don't mix).
However, when I saw the RUG plans, and the then loyal poodle MPs bark out their cries against them, it was obvious that the government wasn't serious. you only had to ask any airline if they wanted to move from Heathrow to the middle of Warwickshire, and the answer was obvious.
So we're back to making the best of LHR - who says air travel is going to grow anyway, there are plenty of reasons (fuel, tax, CO2, high speed trains) why demand may well stagnate at best, and quite possibly shrink. Let LHR take the transfer pax, and allow limited expansion at STN, LTN, and to a lesser extent (given current usage of single runway) LGW. Oh, and overflow to SEN, then MSE................
London has enough airports!
PS - re: birdstrike, plenty of interesting developments in this field, by time this airport did get off the estuary bed, engine technology should have advanced to being able to cope with this problem.
HKG is great engineering, and great architecture, but it came at a massive price, in a city that didn't have other greenfield sites to continue, and that really did have a dangerous approach.
I'm not sure how much 'not now Darling' was relevant re: Cliffe and Rugby, both came from private consultants, and he won't have got a look in - iirc, the report pre-dated his tenure in the transport job anyway, which only seems to be a staging post to other positions these days.
The cost of the Foster proposals has been put at upto £50bn (+where do you go from here), Boris Island not much less. Rugby was far cheaper at c. £6bn, and it too was close to high speed rail lines (forget about TGVs through Crossrail, that really is a non-starter, fast and slow don't mix).
However, when I saw the RUG plans, and the then loyal poodle MPs bark out their cries against them, it was obvious that the government wasn't serious. you only had to ask any airline if they wanted to move from Heathrow to the middle of Warwickshire, and the answer was obvious.
So we're back to making the best of LHR - who says air travel is going to grow anyway, there are plenty of reasons (fuel, tax, CO2, high speed trains) why demand may well stagnate at best, and quite possibly shrink. Let LHR take the transfer pax, and allow limited expansion at STN, LTN, and to a lesser extent (given current usage of single runway) LGW. Oh, and overflow to SEN, then MSE................
London has enough airports!
PS - re: birdstrike, plenty of interesting developments in this field, by time this airport did get off the estuary bed, engine technology should have advanced to being able to cope with this problem.