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.

http://wordlesstech.com/wp-content/u...-2-620x396.jpg



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.


http://i.thisislondon.co.uk/i/pix/20...ex_415x275.jpg



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).


.

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 ?

In my opinion, the Thames Estuary is a Non-Starter anyway! :confused:

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. :eek:

And the City of London is still at the Western-end of the Estuary! :ugh:

If someone could come up with an underground airport it would solve a lot of the problems - but it might cause a few others :O

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 :ugh:

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 :rolleyes:.

This will rule out any Thames Estuary development. A few years ago, a certain Mr Darling proposed a major new (London) airport at Rugby, my neck of the woods, (prompting a plethora of signs in the area stating "Not now Darling!" It was clearly a red herring as is any proposal to build in/on the Thames. Similar to Rugby, it will be used as a lever to develop one of the existing airports, extra runways, new terminals etc.

Unless of course the powers that be have invented a way of controlling the weather and training the local waterfowl.

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.

With most aircraft having CAT 3 capability and much enhanced systems which be around in ten years time I don't think this would be a major issue - there are times when the current London airports become fogbound which slows down the flow rate - another reason for having more runway capacity in the SE.

Has any informed risk assessment been done on the bird hazard?

Hopefully fog is less of a problem with modern Cat IIIB autoland systems. Fogs are only a problem at LHR because the airport is operating at saturation levels, and cannot cope with the extra spacing required for low-vis opps. But with double the inbound capacity, that should not be a problem at Boris Island - the Thames airport.

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).


.

.

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:


http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f7...ERS_78481a.jpg




** 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.



.

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.

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.


.

<<Likewise the approach spacing of 1.5nm>>

Novel, but nonsense.

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.

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.

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! :D

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.

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.

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.

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.

Don't mention Thurleigh and Little Staughton for gawds sake. I live there ! No hope for Luton ?

So I assume the new Airport would replace LHR?

I do think the airport would be the wrong side of London and just a bit too far from Central London.

LHR is in the wrong place but at the same time in a great place for business with access to the Thames Valley corridor and West London.

Also what will happen to the 80,000 workers who live this side of London and the thousands more workers in industries that will be affected by the eventual closure of LHR if this goes ahead?

Gatwick have special permission from the CAA to run 'reduced wake vortex separation minima' of 2.5nm (and I have heard of less than that).
But certainly in regard to arriving/departing aircraft, that reduces to 1.5nm. Many is the time I have landed while the departing is still on the runway (a 'land after' clearance). Or indeed, the landing aircraft in front is still on the runway.






I see nothing at the end of Lap Kok runways, for overrunning aircraft to run into.

And while being nice to everyone is very New Labour, it gets nothing done. Why do you think that no UK infrastructure was built over the last decade, while China has built 40 cities the size of Birmingham? (Even if some of them remain empty.)
This is a city built for a million people - but no one lives here | Mail Online





Ok.... American businessman in Heathrow, short-haul connection in Gatwick, bags at Manston. Brilliant. With thinking like that, the future of Schiphol is assured.



.

Why not move it further out and South East, say just to the East of Paris??

LGW ATC best in the world? er no, their good and make good use of single runway ops, but not a patch on Malaga who likewise for a single runway (for now) can really pack them in, no where else in the world can get close to simultaneous approaches on opposite ends of the same runway:eek::eek::eek:

Err, yes! The capacity of even a large helicopter is ..........?

Yes, it would replace LHR.

Passengers from the Thames airport would access the Thames valley corridor by Cross-rail. The M25 is more problematic, because of capacity restrictions. I did tell planners back in the late 1970s that the M25 needed 6 lanes a side, but again they thought they knew better.

The old LHR will become a boom-town, as it is re-designated as the largest industrial park and housing estate in the S.E. So not all the workers will need to relocate, there will be plenty of jobs around Heathrow. The money from this new estate, is what will pay for Boris Island and the Thames airport infrastructure.

Aviation workers will need to relocate, of course, and new-towns will need to be constructed in Kent and Essex to house them - with rapid transit links via the new rail system to the island, from car parks and bus terminals to the north and south. This is a 10 - 15 year project. The most difficult period will be the switchover, but many large corporations have moved their head office without too much difficulty.


.

That, my dear Facelook, is the entire problem in a nutshell.
The trouble is, all the businesses, all the jobs, and all the money, relocate to Paris too. Now while New Labour tried to destroy Britain by fancy political footwork like this, it is my desire to preserve the ancestral lands. Because they are worth it....






Err, you do jest, surely. Or are you on medication?

Gatwick movements 2010 - 240,000
Malaga movements 2010 - 105,000

That makes Gatwick nearly 2 1/2 times busier than Malaga. And if you had ever operated from there, you would not question those statistics or the efficiency of the operation.


.

Silverstrata
Why oh why do you think that you have all the answers concerning a new airport. Discussing it with people who have experience in this kind of work is common sense and has nothing to do with New Labour. Comparing China's building programme with our's is a red herring. They are in a completely different development phase to us. Also we have a thing called democracy and large projects rightly are very closely scrutinized. It's one way of ensuring that people who know little about the real issues don't ruin our environment.
Maybe you ought to ring up Norman and tell him where he has gone wrong am sure he will be glad of your help.
Am beginning to think it's you that are brain dead an insult you are quite willing to freely throw about.
I would take your comments more seriously if you could base them on some real evidence. Have you ever been involved in designing and procuring large civil engineering and Architectural projects? I some how doubt it

There will be no new airport. I'd don't think any financial institution would stump up enough cash to pay for it unless it was 120% or more underwritten by UK taxpayers with guaranteed future returns. Banks will only invest if there is no risk and a return within five years. And as the government doesn't have enough (of my) cash, it won't make these assurances and fortunately the days of Blair are well gone. So it won't be happening. But fortunately the public toilet called Heathrow will continue to soldier on and provide me with a living.

PM

As someone who has been involved with Bird Hazard Control for over 20 years, upon reading this thread my initial thoughts were to launch head long into a lecture on the subject, however it's pleasing to see Birdstrike concerns have been raised quite clearly already.

For the Ornithologists amongst you here is a website of interest :)

http://www.rspb.org.uk/news/details....d=tcm:9-203710

Ranger 1 :ok:

Silverstrata
 

T'was all in jest........and yes i have and do operate into both, LGW ATC are excellent, AGP (controller on the job monitoring) less so!! will be interesting to see how they go on when the 10 or11 runway opens next year!

<<Gatwick have special permission from the CAA to run 'reduced wake vortex separation minima' of 2.5nm (and I have heard of less than that).
But certainly in regard to arriving/departing aircraft, that reduces to 1.5nm. >>

Heathrow can also employ 2.5nm spacing. I know - I did it for many years. I have never seen less than 2.5nm and I do not believe that it is authorised anywhere in the UK. I don't know what you mean by the second sentence above..?? The final approach spacing would never intentionally be reduced to 1.5nm or the go-around rate would be enormous. Under normal wind conditions 5-6nm is needed to get departures away in the gaps. In very strong wind this can be reduced slightly..

"China in a Different Development Phase".
Ah yes, I remember this - it was a New Labour buzzphrase for: "we are incapable of making a difficult decision". And with certain ministers it also implied: "we agree with the Greens that we should all go back to the Dark Ages and mud huts".

Just what the hell was the purpose of spending 10 years and £250 million on various public enquiries, when everyone knew Terminal 5 would be built anyway? A classic case of kicking a difficult decision into the long grass - almost on a par with the absurd Bloody Sunday enquiry. So T5 took 13 years to build, while China built a much larger new Beijing terminal in 2 years.

Do you think, in your heart of hearts, that the UK can maintain our standard of living and quality of life, if every tiny infrastructure project takes 13 years to build? To politicians everywhere - Rediscover your b*lls, and make a decision.


Shenzhen by night:
http://undeadastronauts.com/wp-conte...3/shenzhen.jpg


Dalian by night:
http://www.chinese-in-china.com/uplo...lian_night.jpg


Chongqing by night:
http://mychinaconnection.com/wp-cont...file-photo.jpg

etc: etc: etc: (x50)


Oh, and Birmingham by night:
http://politicalsciencejuniorfellows...color_web1.jpg


Enough said, I think.



This has everything to do with New Labour.

Instead of wasting ten years doing nothing and £trillions on social engineering projects, New Labour should have been building projects like this new Thames Airport.

Where is the New Labour high speed rail network?
Where is the New Labour motorway network?
Where are the New Labour sea ports?
Where are the New Labour airports?
Where is the New Labour space agency?
Where are the New Labour nuclear power stations?
Where are any New Labour power stations?
Where is the New Labour electrical distribution network?
Where is the New Labour Thames sewer system (which is urgently needed)?

A nation does not move forward by standing still - it actually goes backwards. This is what destroyed the old USSR, which had not updated its major infrastructure for 50 years, and eventually fell apart.

Now I know that is what New Labour wanted for the UK, to undermine the fabric of the nation for Marxist ideological reasons, but it is not what the people of this country want.





The airport is not going to be in the 'Thames estuary environment', it is going to be 'in the North Sea environment'.

Give us some details about the number of birds in the 'middle of the North Sea', between Shoeburyness and Sheerness.




Then you need to attach a /sarc tag - and I apologise. But honestly, judging by some of the defeatist comment we see here, I did think you were serious.

As an aside - I do wonder what the hell is going on when the controllers are 'on the job'. I always imagine the tower all steamed up and swaying side to side slightly.


.


.

<<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. >>

Hmmm.. I was on watch early one morning when we had a record 210 bird strikes in 5 minutes and both runways had to be closed!

I take it you will be moving to China in the near future then?

I'm sure your quality of life will improve dramatically when your entire village is bulldozed without so much as a 'by-your-leave' to make way for the next big development that no one will use.



Anyway, back to the thread...

Only one runway has been built in the UK since the war, If the highspeed rail link lives up to expectations then MAN will become your overspill for leisure travellers leaving LHR and LGW to cope with the business traveller. As everyone knows there are no businesses in the rest of the country........



Tin hat on. :E

Most of Heathrow's hard surface runways were constructed immediately post WWII.

Gatwick 1950s

East Midlands, Newcastle, Luton and Liverpool 1960s

Edinburgh 1970s

London City 1980s

Sheffield City 1997 (Closed 2008)

Manchester 2001

silverstrata, that statement is a distortion of the facts.

The crew observed a murmuration on short final and elected to GoAround (follow Boeing and Company SOPs at the time) - during this maneuver the aircraft sustained multiple bird strikes and the engines suffered major loss of thrust and the GoAround was abandoned for a crash landing on the runway.

Errrm, you mean like LHR today?

Remember that LHR's fog problem today is due low-vis procedures and its limited capacity (operating at max even on a good day).

If this were the Thames Airport, in similar conditions, it would be able to handle all flights. (Did not see this morning's RVRs at LHR, but BRU was around 250m)


.

Sorry, did I forget the /sarc tag?



Yep - and you do much the same with new aircraft or new inventions.
As I said previously, going backwards....


.

<<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.