New Thames Airport for London

[andyy]

So up for discussion then: BBC News - Thames Estuary airport plans to be examined (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16606212)

I guess they wouldn't be wasting time & money with a consultation if there wasn't some realistic prospect of it happening.

Now, I am not any sort of Airport or transport planning professional but from this amateur viewpoint I'd have thought that a better strategic location for the UK would be to have had THE major international airport in the South Midlands area somewhere BETWEEN London & the Midlands. I know that an airport was previously proposed in the Rugby area but I wonder whether somewhere like RAF Wyton and/or Alconbury could have been developed as a major hub to serve 2 of the UKs major citys. Some runways already in place; space to build or extend (even between the two); A1, A14 & major railway routes nearby & therefore good links in to both The City and to Brum and the north.

Keep Heathrow & Gatwick. Close Luton, Stansted and Coventry and develop a new international place in a location where it can serve a greater need.

Discuss! Its OK, I'm standing by to be flamed.

[Skipness One Echo]

I guess they wouldn't be wasting time & money with a consultation if there wasn't some realistic prospect of it happening

They are politicians, all they need to do is be seen to be doing something. Tags will be "green", "new", "carbon neutral", "worth kajillions to the economy" and so forth. As to making Heathrow work better, well there's just too many voters that moved near an airport that's been making too much noise since 1946. Once the massive cost comes in, using the patented Scottish Parliament and Olympics public sector fantasy budgeting formula, triple the figure. Oh and that's taxpayers money incidentally when we're broke. Building a new airport in the sea in Hong Kong didn't have our uneconomic and inflated labour costs and Health and Safety was not so stringent. The price comparison does not fly.

One thing London doesn't lack is capacity, Luton and Stansted all have plenty of room and Southend is coming on stream. Runway three at Heathrow would have been financed by the private sector as well.

This is just a sop to have the same questions asked of Mapiln yet again. A massive vanity project that would be up there with the channel tunnel and HS2. Meanwhile, Oyster's gone up again....different budget if course.

[JTONeil]

It would be good to have a new airport somewhere most of us would like to live. I'm sure Kent and Essex are lovely places, but I prefer the sound of an airport between London and Birmingham.

[Chidken Sangwich]

but I prefer the sound of an airport between London and Birmingham.

...like Bedford Thurleigh, after they've cleared all the scrappage cars that didnt need to be there off the runways / taxiways following that failed government project.

[jabird]

Geographically, Rugby would make more sense than Boris, but neither really make sense for reasons already well discussed.

And Boris said the cost is 'not an issue'.

I think it is Boris! Where's Silverstrata, he must be having a field day today - maybe he'll be around later!

[Skipness One Echo]

And Boris said the cost is 'not an issue'.

Be honest, once Boris is re-elected, do you think you'll be hearing more about this? It's politics, pure and simple. By the time the reality hits that the only cost effective option is Heathrow, regardless of NIMBYs who moved there knowing there was the worlds busiest international airport nearby, Boris plans to be in Number 10 so as opposed to a London plan, it becomes a UK strategy.

Behind the scenes, most Tory MPs and many Labour MPs do not believe this is is anything more than a joke project.

[Fairdealfrank]

Yeah - where is good old Silver!?

Skipness is spot on as always.

Let's have some political reality here:

(1) As Skipness says, Boris is up for re-election and it's likely to be close, so, naturally, cost won't be "an issue". He may think (or be advised) that this idea will shore up the West Middlesex/North Surrey vote, but for every one who supports the idea, there will be those who have concerns about job losses.

There will be a question mark over the future economy of the above-mentioned area (and the rest of the Thames Valley as well) should the aviation and ancilliary industries up and leave, unlikely though it is. The amount of jobs generated by the aviation industry and large amount of companies that locate near Heathrow should not be underestimated.

(2) A consultation in March, an election in May - excellent timing. The first kicks it into the "long grass" long enough to be quietly ditched after the second. Boris can say that he has influence over the government and that Ken clearly does not.

(3) The government realises that its "no new runways in the south east" policy is unsustainable and may be softening the public up for the desperately needed U-turn.

It works like this:
(a) the consultation spells out the obvious;
(b) the government welcomes its conclusions;
(c) the government accepts that its "no new runways in the south east" policy is unsustainable and is holding the country back;
(d) the government caves in to the inevitable and "reluctantly" accepts that Heathrow expansion is the only viable alternative;
(e) transport Secretary Justine Greening gets promoted out of the way.

(4) Labour has seen this coming and so is now against Heathrow expansion so as to oppose the government for the sake of it.


The government often repeats the mantra of "better airports not bigger airports". In the case of Heathrow, bigger IS better, because it is the only workable way to deal with an airport that has been allowed to operate at virtually 100% capacity.

Are we talking about a "new hub airport for the south east" or specifically about an estauary airport? If it's the latter, is it the artificial island south east of Southend, or the reclaimed land north east of Chatham? If we are talking about the former, then the only sustainable location is immediately north of Heathrow, between the A4 and the M4.

Finally, will this white elephant be built before the other one (HS2)?

[pottwiddler]

Getting back to aviation.

I think Boris Island is a stupid idea.

Reason 1 Southend,

Reason 2 Manston

Reason 3 It's just a simply 80110cks idea,

[crippen]

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02113/190112-MATT-INSIDE_2113226a.gif

[PAXboy]

Never going to happen.

Just think of the number of votes of every householder in the M4 corridor whose property will be devalued?

Just think of the behind the scenes lobbying power of every business in the M4 corridor whose airport will disappear?

How many companies with regular international links will consider that moving away from the UK is better than trying to move across London? They would be going to a rather large building site where the new business parks are being hurriedly put together and an airport that may, or may not, meet all the hype for connections and where are all the new houses for the staff who are going to have to be paid to relocate?

Never going to get off the paper.

[silverstrata]

.

Avast ye, sky-lubbers, Silver be working for a living, Jim lad.

Let me get to somewhere with a decent internet, where I can read what Boris Boy has been saying....

;-)



Update:
I like this article. The main opposition to this proposal is from the unions. Not content with destroying all our industry in the '80s (and all their members jobs), they want to destroy the regeneration of Britain too:
'Boris Island' Thames Estuary airport plan to be included in official Government consultation | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/article-2088318/Boris-Island-Thames-Estuary-airport-plan-included-official-Government-consultation.html?ITO=1490)

This is perhaps why the Labour Party did nothing - not one single major infrastructure progect - in their 12 years in power. Like the Communists of Russia, they thought we could live of the hard industry of the Victorians (Tsars) for the next 200 years.

Ain't going to happen chaps. We either invest, or die - like The USSR did in the early '90s (a supposed world power without a motorway or a train that could do more than 60mph).

Learn from history, folks. We either invest, or die.

.

[silverstrata]

Andy:
Now, I am not any sort of Airport or transport planning professional but from this amateur viewpoint I'd have thought that a better strategic location for the UK would be to have had THE major international airport in the South Midlands area somewhere BETWEEN London & the Midlands.


This is not a regional airport, Andy, this is a World Airport. It has nothing to do (much) with commuters to and from the Midlands.

This is an international hub where people from all over the world will interline into Europe and beyond. Yes, we need more regional activity at this airport (which Heathrow cannot provide at present, due to slots), but the main international traffic is into London and the other major capitals of Europe.

In short this airport has to be a replacement for Heathrow and in the southeast, near London. Now because Labour have crammed this small island to the brim with ethnic ghettos left right and center, there is no room left, which is why a Thames Estuary site is the only realistic option.

Please read thebother 12 pages for greater info....

.

[silverstrata]

Skipness:
One thing London doesn't lack is capacity, Luton and Stansted all have plenty of room and Southend is coming on stream. Runway three at Heathrow would have been financed by the private sector as well.


Yes it does.

How many Regional turboprops opperate out of Heathrow?? Name them !!

This is the whole problem with London's airports. There is absolutely no point in flying international into Heathrow, if your regioal connection is from Luton or Gatwick !! You may as well fly into CDG or AMS and get an easier connection.

Thus Heathrow has slipped from being an international hub, to merely being a national hub, and is losing out on at least another 50% of traffic (and UK revenue). Even this month, I hubbed through AMS, because there were no easy connections from LHR.

LHR - crappy airport, crappy country - the two go hand in hand. If we want to be a World Class nation, we need a World Class aviation hub.

.

[silverstrata]

Fairdeal:
As Skipness says, Boris is up for re-election and it's likely to be close, so, naturally, cost won't be "an issue". He may think (or be advised) that this idea will shore up the West Middlesex/North Surrey vote, but for every one who supports the idea, there will be those who have concerns about job losses.



I think you have Boris all wrong there.

Whether you like him or not, I think he is one of the few politicians who believes in the future of this nation, and cares more about its future than his career.

This is not about winning votes, because in many respects this issue is not a vote winner - it will certainly cause political and also some social divisions (see these blog pages). This is a proposal that a politician will have to force through in the face of plenty of nay-sayers, criticism and divisions.

So yes, I think Boris believes that Silver-Boris Island will be good, in the long term, for the UK.

.

[silverstrata]

.

Oh, if you are listening, Mr glass-fronted Foster .........

THIS SILVER-BORIS AIRPORT ON THE ISLE OF GRAIN HAS TO BE ORIENTATED SOUTH WEST, AND NOT DUE WEST AS HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY DEPICTED.


Did I make that clear enough? The westerly proposal is a nonsense, and will give as much noise, polution, safety and security issues to central London as Heathrow does at present. See the previous maps on this thread delineating the tracks to and from the southwesterly runways from the Silver-Boris airport on the Isle of Grain site.


.

[Skipness One Echo]

Thus Heathrow has slipped from being an international hub, to merely being a national hub, and is losing out on at least another 50% of traffic (and UK revenue). Even this month, I hubbed through AMS, because there were no easy connections from LHR.

Do try harder please, at least make some effort to keep up. BA has maintained international short haul connectivity from LHR, even LUX moved back from LGW recently. It is regional domestic connections that we have lost, MME, LBA, INV, IOM etc
Hence it is easier to connect Europe-LHR-intercontinental than it is from Inverness, which makes it an international hub at the expense of domestic connectivity, where the best bet is often AMS with KLM.

You have concatenated London's airport capacity with hub connectivity, they are not the same thing and you ought to know that given your many thousands of words on this matter.

. Now because Labour have crammed this small island to the brim with ethnic ghettos left right and center, there is no room left, which is why a Thames Estuary site is the only realistic option.
Utter racist bollocks and you need to stop peddling claptrap. How dare you? Am I ethnic being a Scot or is it just non whites you are objecting to? Frothing at the mouth like a Daily Mail reading pensioner gives you no credibility on these boards. I dare you to post the list of ethnic types you would let in, in this brave new world of yours. This is pprune not the Daily Mail message boards, raise your game!

LHR - crappy airport, crappy country - the two go hand in hand.
Just out of curiosity, remind us how long it's been since you even used Heathrow? Post T5? Post T4 redevelopment?
Be under no doubt that the many and varied problems facing this country are caused in the main by well educated white people (like me !) who had all the opportunities and made some very poor strategic decisions. To blame the unlike, the foreign, to look down upon those who are different is abhorrent and the most un-British behaviour if I may say.

Lastly, here's what someone who has a direct commercial stake in matters thinks :
BA's Willie Walsh says he will not be checking in at 'Boris Island' - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/9023843/BAs-Willie-Walsh-says-he-will-not-be-checking-in-at-Boris-Island.html)

Mr Walsh was asked :
So he'd be pretty reluctant to leave Heathrow?
His reply is devastatingly simple.
"Not pretty reluctant. We wouldn't leave. If others left we'd have Heathrow to ourselves. That would be fantastic. BA won't leave, so other airlines won't leave either."

Some Tories come to their senses today.
BBC News - Conservative MPs urge rethink on Heathrow third runway (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16629194)

[andyy]

Silver, I'm aware that we are talking about a WORLD airport & I have read the previous 12 pages. My point is that an airport located in, say, the Huntingdon area can serve London better than Heathrow due to far better & quicker links into central London & The City (just 40 mins by train into Kings-Cross at the moment, & that could be upgraded). Such a location will also be able to serve the industries & business of the Midlands AS WELL.

Keep Heathrow as a large international/ regional airport (like Gatwick) but invest in new strategic infrastructure where it can best serve London AND the rest of the UK. Build a new INTERNATIONAL STRATEGIC Airport Hub, but put it in a better location for all. My opinion is that that location is best in the South Midlands rather than in the Thames estuary (probably far cheaper as well) & we are all entitled to our opinions.

[jdcg]

Well said Skipness. I don't think I've ever read anything quite so offensive and inaccurate on the site as the previous replies.

The most vocal opponents of airport expansion and major infrastructure development are white middle class Britons, particularly those living in West London under the Heathrow flight path and in Justine Greening's constituency. All of whom are vital for Boris's hopes for re-election.

Boris has no interest in anything other than his own venality. He's given London nothing except a load of annoying bikes (admittedly quite nice for tourists but useless for most commuting Londoners), a new, expensive and pointless and, as yet, untested Routemaster and a cable car. All flashy and eye-catching, especially with his name attached (as in Boris Island). All at the cost of the poorest commuters in London whose fares have risen out of all proportion and at a time of recession. Meanwhile Boris says it's time to stop banker bashing. By contrast, all the major transport infrastructure projects (Overground renewal expansion, bus route expansion and Crossrail) were initiated by his predecessor.

The only future Boris believes in is his own, at the expense of anyone else.

[Dairyground]

If Boris Island goes ahead, then vast amounts of material will be needed to raise the runways and other structures above sea level. Some could probably be found by dredging, but probably not enough, and more likely, insufficient with the right mechanical properties. For Chep Lap Kok they found enough hard rock fill by taking the top off a (small) mountain, but there are no comparable mountains in Kent or Essex that could be beheaded.

Coincidently, there is currently a search going on for a place to excavate a long-term store for long-life radioactive waste. The favourite at present seems to be the coastal fringes of the Lake District. However, if the dump were to be moved to the south-east, the problems of where to dump spoil from the excavation and where to acquire fill for the airport island would solve each other. After all, south-east England has everything else, so why not let it have the radioactive dump as well.

On a slightly different theme, business and high-tech industry tend to locate where there are good air services, and additional air services are devloped where business and high-tech industry provide a demand. Despite short-term tweaks, the limits on capacity at Heathrow are tending to break this positive feedback loop. Either a solution will be found in less time than it would take to open Boris Island or build a third runway, or things will go elsewhere. If that elsewhere is not to be outside the UK, then there must be investment in at least one other UK hub outside the London area.

Both the midlands and north-west england, or even central Scotland, could already provide the traveller seed to support a hub. What is needed is provision and promotion of regional and long-haul services from one of those potential hubs.

Manchester is already attracting long-haul operations by non-uk airlines, so perhaps with a relatively small investment the two runways at Manchester could provide the UK with the capacity and flexibility the third LHR runway would have produced without the expense and disturbance of building Boris Island.

[silverstrata]

Skipness:
Do try harder please, at least make some effort to keep up. BA has maintained international short haul connectivity from LHR, even LUX moved back from LGW recently. It is regional domestic connections that we have lost, MME, LBA, INV, IOM etc


But it has nothing like the domestic/regional capacity of, say AMS or CDG, especially since the Locos have moved in (much as I hate them). So, as you say, it is easier to interline from many airports around Europe via AMS and CDG than it is via LHR. That is a loss of prestige and revenue to UK Plc every time that happens.




Utter racist bollocks and you need to stop peddling claptrap. How dare you? Am I ethnic being a Scot or is it just non whites you are objecting to? Frothing at the mouth like a Daily Mail reading pensioner gives you no credibility on these boards.


Since when has it become 'racist' to say that the UK is FULL? Is it 'racist' to say Hong Kong is FULL? No, it is the truth (unless you like living like termites).

The truth, Skippy, is not an 'ism' created by New Labour, it is simply the truth. And if you cannot stand the truth, then take yourself back to your Grauniad fantasy-land. And this matter, that you find so distasteful, is important to this thread because if European populations were in decline then there would probably not be a need for a new Heathrow. So it is the very policy of the Greens (yes it is) that is forcing us to concrete over the south east with new runways (and destroying their precious environment).

BTW. The Scots are not a separate race, and therefore I can call you what I like and it could under no circumstances be called 'racism' - so please wind your Grauniad-orientated neck in and observe the reality of today's Europe.




Be under no doubt that the many and varied problems facing this country are caused in the main by well educated white people (like me !) who had all the opportunities and made some very poor strategic decisions. To blame the unlike, the foreign, to look down upon those who are different is abhorrent and the most un-British behaviour if I may say.


Did I blame the present debacle that is Heathrow on skin pigmentation?? Read again, and wind your holier-than-thou neck in.





Lastly,
BA's Willie Walsh says he will not be checking in at 'Boris Island' - Telegraph



Come off it Skippy, do get real. Willy Walsh has 10,000 (??) stroppy cabin staff and flight crew who all live around Windsor. There is no way he will openly endorse Silver-Boris Island, however muchbhe thinks it is a good idea. He will go privately to Boris, and ask him to twist his hand a little.

Sorry, unions, its not my fault, I did fight this proposal (just a little).....

.

[silverstrata]

Andyy

My point is that an airport located in, say, the Huntingdon area can serve London better than Heathrow due to far better & quicker links into central London & The City (just 40 mins by train into Kings-Cross at the moment, & that could be upgraded). Such a location will also be able to serve the industries & business of the Midlands AS WELL.


Do you really think you can get planning permission for the world's biggest airport around Huntingdon? Good luck to you if you eant to try.

It is political suicide; the land costs would be stratospheric; the high powered opposition would be insurmountable; there would be endangered species discovered everywhere.......

It ain't going to happen. It will be hard enough to push through in the unpopulated and impoverished Esturary - but Middle England??

.

[silverstrata]

Dairyground

vast amounts of material will be needed to raise the runways and other structures above sea level. Some could probably be found by dredging, but probably not enough, and more likely, insufficient with the right mechanical properties.



Sand is all you require, as the Dutch have adequately demonstrated. See the rest of this thred for details.


.

[beeg0d]

Do you really think you can get planning permission for the world's biggest airport around Huntingdon? Good luck to you if you eant to try. It is political suicide; the land costs would be stratospheric; the high powered opposition would be insurmountable; there would be endangered species discovered everywhere....... When RAF Alconbury was first being mooted as a likely new regional airport (though i beleave the plan at the time was a new luton rather than a new heathrow) it actually received WIDE local approval. Most people in Huntingdon/St Neots and surroundings seemed to support the plan. Along with that the land purchace woulnt hae been an issue as the government already owned most of the land needed, though they dont anymore as the site has now/is now being developed into a private business park.

[ETOPS]

silverstrata

10,000 (??) stroppy cabin staff and flight crew who all live around Windsor.

Point of order .... the stroppy Cabin Crew all live in Glasgow and the Flight Crew mainly live in France.

Do agree on runway alignment though 25/07 would seem about right..

[Skipness One Echo]

Since when has it become 'racist' to say that the UK is FULL? Is it 'racist' to say Hong Kong is FULL? No, it is the truth (unless you like living like termites).
Now now, I took issue with your use of the term "ethnics" which we all know means non whites. You gave yourself away, and like the rest of your analysis, your take on me is wrong. I am a right wing Tory voter, but living in London I see what attitudes like yours mean to real people. As a Scot I would not claim to be a separate race of course, that's silly, however different ethnic group yes.

The UK is not full, it is unbalanced around the London area. The rest of the country is rather empty by comparison!

OK back to topic, explain to me why BA would move if Heathrow doesn't close? And if Heathrow does close, what happens to the jobs? It's that simple really. Mind you what does Willy Walsh know in comparison to you, he's only the CEO of IAG...You didn't answer my question, are you American or British?

[Aero Mad]

New Labor

Skippy, either he's American or he's sh*t at spelling. Either way, you're all getting far too buried in your own respective holes regarding race issues - I don't agree with the 'ghetto' idea which SS (your initials are so ironic) seems to believe in... very few towns I know have had such a thing since about 1950.

[Skipness One Echo]

For the record, I don't read The Guardian, nor am I the biggest racist on the site, nor am I of Scandinavian descent..... I just work in a place where I know how to respect people and what not to say. That might be censorship or plain old good judgement but I will let the rest of you decide whether I am in the KKK.....
Enough said on this, SS shouts but will not listen but you're right, it's way off topic, so "I'm out." I'm off to airliners.net to begin a thread on my cunning plans to sort out Southern California's airports.

[silverstrata]

Skippy

For the record, I don't read The Guardian, nor am I the biggest racist on the site,



Like most Guardianistas, you like to dish out the dirt, but when the truth blows back into your face you throw a hissy-fit (and deleting my posts that prove you to be a hypocrite).

But I expect that your true motivation in hurling insults, was to divert attention away from your failed arguments against the Siver-Boris Island. And the truth here is that it is becomming an undeniable imperitive that the UK has a major world hub with room for expansion and sufficient capacity to not cancel flights because of low-vis procedures.

Silver-Boris Island will be built. Not next year perhaps, but in the near future.

.

[Capetonian]

Airline cost blow for 'Boris island'
The enormous cost of building a new airport in the Thames estuary will mean airlines paying seven times as much for landing fees compared with the present costs at Heathrow, an industry analysis has revealed.

Senior figures in the UK airports sector have told The Sunday Telegraph that the present cost of landing at Heathrow for airlines is about £15 per passenger.

That figure could rise to £100 per passenger for any new airport .........


Airline cost blow for 'Boris island' - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/9029773/Airline-cost-blow-for-Boris-island.html)

Hardly an incentive to airlines to use it, those that have a choice will simply go to other airports, which may not even be in the UK. Shouldn't the government be absorbing some of the costs and thus incentivising airlines to use it rather than trying to recoup the cost in a short time period? But of course the money they might have used for that incentive has been blown on a pointless useless isolated rail link so that people can save 40 minutes going from the outskirts of London to Birmingham.

[pwalhx]

I am sorry but is it not niaive to think they would even consider increasing landing fee's 7 fold. Just lazy journalism again to stir up trouble.

[Capetonian]

I am sorry but is it not niaive to think they would even consider increasing landing fee's 7 fold

Given the way that successive governments are trying to tax air travel out of existence, I don't think it is naive to expect a massive increase, but maybe 7 fold is a bit much.

[vulcanised]

All this speculation is pretty pointless over something that will be kicked into the long grass as soon as it's politically expedient.

[NWSRG]

Have you guys never watched "Yes Minister"?

David Cameron has said publicly that there won't be a 3rd runway at Heathrow. That was good for votes, but he really knows that a 3rd runway is the only short term option that makes sense.

So what does he do? He does what any government does...hold an inquiry! The outcome of said inquiry can almost be written now...Thames Estuary airport would be vastly expensive, heavily impact on the environment, would cause massive demographic shifts in the South East, leave the Heathrow corridor a ghost town etc. etc.

Dave now has an independant voice saying that Thames Estuary is not viable...and that Heathrow R3 is the only realistic option (with STN R2 maybe in the longer term). Dave then says that, reluctantly, he accepts that the new runway must go ahead, despite his concerns for the residents around Heathrow...the decision wasn't his, but the view of "independant experts".

We all get a new runway (and a little breathing space) at Heathrow, and Thames Estuary gets canned for another thirty years.

Simples!!

Am I being too cynical?

[jabird]

NWRSG,

I agree with your analysis, except that as I've said above (or back in December), I think Gatwick is much more politically acceptable, and Stansted the outsider. But yes, another runway at any existing airport is always going to look like a more acceptable deal, cf BI.

But I expect that your true motivation in hurling insults, was to divert attention away from your failed arguments against the Siver-Boris Island. Silver-Boris Island will be built. Not next year perhaps, but in the near future.

Silver, as John Major used to say endlessly in PMQs (if you know what they are) - 'I refer you to the answer I gave moments ago' - or in this case a month or two ago.

The case for BI is far from watertight, it is full of very large holes. This government is strapped for cash - so much so that it is even considering selling the family jewels! Can you imagine Obama selling the White House?

So, I ask you again. If the case of BI is so good - what rate would you set the average PSC at?

[Heathrow Harry]

more Labour voters around LHR cp LGW

[jabird]

more Labour voters around LHR cp LGW

And that's why Gatwick is more acceptable, and HS2 is going ahead.

Q: If surrounded by a sea of safe blue seats, what is the worst that can happen?

A: They become slightly less safe.

LHR is a surrounded by a sea of marginals, all colours are represented, so a hell of a lot to lose by building a new runway.

Foster Island is also surrounded by blue, although Cliffe was Labour in 2003. My thinking at the time, and ditto for Rugby was:

Take one marginal seat, propose something outrageous, and then make a hero out of the local MP(s) for 'saving' their constituents for the David v Goliath battle, in which Goliath had no plans to actually turn up.

The reality was that Rugby, Warwick & Leamington (adjacent) and Cliffe have all gone from red to blue, so that particular cunning plan, if it was intended wasn't actually that cunning.

[jabird]

Capetonian,

I am heavily critical of hs2 too, but I don't accept your assessment. Old Oak Common is one of the better parts of the project, as it would allow easy cross-platform interchange onto Crossrail. Tunnelling through to Euston on the other hand, is exorbitantly expensive for relatively small gains, as you are still on the northern side of Zone1 - but I wouldn't call Euston, where services are currently planned to terminate - the 'outskirts'. It just isn't the best place either - and no consideration has been given about the need to rotate Euston if Boris Island goes ahead.

Also, it isn't about saving 20 mins to Birmingham - the time benefits are much more significant once it extends to Leeds & Manchester, and even more so to Scotland.

Having said that, the first bit does indeed just go to Birmingham, with a spur stopping short of Colwich where the Manchester and Stafford lines meet - so much for capacity!

I could go on, but there is a Jetblast thread on that topic.

With respect to this airport though, there is no provision for a central London terminus for a link from this airport as part of either the first or second phase - everything is hinged on Heathrow, which is going to get even busier with its improved links via Crossrail.

[silverstrata]

Jabird:

Silver, as John Major used to say endlessly in PMQs (if you know what they are) - 'I refer you to the answer I gave moments ago' - or in this case a month or two ago.

The case for Silver-Boris Island is far from watertight, it is full of very large holes. This government is strapped for cash - so much so that it is even considering selling the family jewels! Can you imagine Obama selling the White House?



Please see the large article in Today's Sunday Times. There the case for doing SOMETHING was made as watertight as possible - listing all the important destinations in South Ameica and China that LHR cannot service because of capacity constraints (and noting that both CDG and AMS do service these destinations. They also had quotes indicating that Chinese tourism and trade is being diverted away from London, because of the poor state of LHR (queues, gridlock etc).


The clear message from the Sunday Times was that a new airport MUST be built, but the amount of money we wish to invest is open to discussion. However, I was not so happy with the suggestion that the Chinese should pay for it. All this 'inward investment' through the purchasing UK businesses may give us jam today, but it also makes us slaves of the Chinese for the future (and the future's future).


.

[silverstrata]

pwalhx

I am sorry but is it not niaive to think they would even consider increasing landing fee's 7 fold. Just lazy journalism again to stir up trouble.



Absolutely.

Even if there was going to be an increase in landing fees, there is a good case to be made for the government providing the basic infrastructure, upon which private enterprise creates the airport, to make the project 'cheaper' to the end user.

The government does this with motorways and rail (in return for certain fees), so why not air travel too? Remember the government could, if it put uts 'greater good' specs on, look at a payback time of 50 - 100 years, rather than a standard business plan of 10 years. It would ba absurd to build a world-class facility, and then price it out of the market.

[silverstrata]

Jabird:

With respect to this airport though, there is no provision for a central London terminus for a link from this airport as part of either the first or second phase - everything is hinged on Heathrow, which is going to get even busier with its improved links via Crossrail.




Well said, Jabird. We have a distinct lack of joined-up thinking in government.


Firstly, we had a proposal for CrossRail, which had limited goals, other than to drive a tunnel E-W through London.


Then there was the Chunnel link, which inexplicably terminates as Kings Cross, rather than joining onto Crossrail. So Western commuters cannot ride onto Paris. Why? What was the point of Crossrail, in this case?


Then we had a proosal for HS2, which seems to totally ignore the fact that CrossRail is in progress and the Chunnel link finishes at Kings Cross!! HS2 will stop at Euston, which is what, 2km from Kings Cross and the Chunnel line!! Why no union here? And why no link to Crossrail either?? Are the tracks, voltages and and rolling-guage the same?? If not, then why not?? And if so, then why do they not join up?? What is the point of three totally independent projects that appear to ignore each other completely! - all having different termini (Kings Cross, Euston and somewhere in East London) !!


And then there is a parallel discussion about a Silver-Boris Island. But the Chunnel link, Crossrail and HS2 all completely ignore the distinct possibility that LHR may move eastwards by several kilometers !!

.. Chunnel is already built, but did nobody think of asking about the future of LHR before the plans were drawn up? Did nobody think of making a 5km diversion in the line to the N.E. (as it crosses the Thames), just in case?
.. CrossRail stops some 10km short of the Isle of Grain (the Silver-Foster proposal) and a couple of km short of the Chunnel link - so are they planning for a possible extension of the CrossRail line, just in case? And if not, why not?
.. Meanwhile HS2 is going its merry own way and does not link with Heathrow, CrossRail, Chunnel, and nor with Silver-Boris !! Just what is the point of HS2??


A rational government would link HS2 to the Crossrail project at the present LHR site, and then run the trains all the way through London to Silver-Boris Island - where they could link up with the Chunnel line and run onto Brussels and Paris (and Amsterdam). Now that would be joined up thinking.

But will the engeneering allow this?
Are the dimensions, guages and votages on these lines compatible?
Is there sufficient capacity on Crossrail to run all the trains from the north and west of the UK through to Paris??
Have they built 'sideings' on CrossRail, to allow express trains to pass through, on the otherwise slow (multistopping) CrossRail traffic?

Hello - is anyone thinking, out there??


.

[silverstrata]

Jabird:

Take one marginal seat, propose something outrageous, and then make a hero out of the local MP(s) for 'saving' their constituents for the David v Goliath battle, in which Goliath had no plans to actually turn up.



I think, and I do hope, that you are wrong here.

I think, at last, that someone is thinking about the long-term future of UK Plc. I only hope that they make the right decisions, and create a interconnected 21st century transport system.


.

[Fairdealfrank]

NWSRG, very pleased to see you endorse my "Yes Minister" procedure(post #259) in your post #285, you just forgot to mention the shifting of Justine!! Quote:

-------------------------------------------------------------
"(3) The government realises that its "no new runways in the south east" policy is unsustainable and may be softening the public up for the desperately needed U-turn.

It works like this:
(a) the consultation spells out the obvious;
(b) the government welcomes its conclusions;
(c) the government accepts that its "no new runways in the south east" policy is unsustainable and is holding the country back;
(d) the government caves in to the inevitable and "reluctantly" accepts that Heathrow expansion is the only viable alternative;
(e) transport Secretary Justine Greening gets promoted out of the way.
---------------------------------------------------------------------


Silver, don't like or dislike Boris and and possibly don't misunderstand him that much. The man's a canny operator, some say he's after "Call me Dave's" job. Who can say?

As for the £100/pax landing fees at Boris/Silver Island, it may be lazy journalism. On the other hand, any backers of Silver Island need a return on their investment. This is one way of achieving this, IF the airlines choose to move there and pay it.

Any potential investors would clearly think they will or they would not bankroll the project, but it is by no means certain that they will. Apart from any other considerations, shifting airports involves huge expenditure for airlines, particularly for those shifting their hubs: BA, BD (yes, probably "BA-BD" by then) and VS. If they don't go, or certainly if BA/"BA-BD" doesn't go, nor will the others, as there are would little point. Think three little letters: YMQ (Montreal-Mirabel)

As for the closing down of Heathrow, dream on. As a privately owned entity, the government would need to take it into public ownership to do this. How many billions would that cost!!

In prime ministers questions on 18-1-12, "Call-me-Dave" stated that Labour Leader Miliband was incapable of doing a U-turn properly. Let's see if he can!

[jabird]

Silver,

There the case for doing SOMETHING was made as watertight as possible - listing all the important destinations in South Ameica and China that LHR cannot service because of capacity constraints (and noting that both CDG and AMS do service these destinations

For a long while, I remained pessimistic about the future of UK aviation. Think of the serious challenges - rising fuel costs, global warming (I know you don't believe in it, but most people do, and so does the government), and the clobbering from APD.

However, there are the plus sides too - namely people living longer and having more leisure time. That is where the 400m pax per year comes from, not from China - although I still think that is way to optimistic.

Recently, there has been an up-surge in routes from Asia, in particular recent routes announced to LGW from ICN, HKG and PEK, joining last year's new routes from HAN & SGN.

Throw these together, and I think London could do with another runway - but four would be overkill imho.

None of us have crystal balls, but the government doesn't have cash either, so airport development has to have a solid business case. Decisions will therefore, for better or worse, be taken by accountants, and they will be conservative.

Also, LHR can serve whatever routes the airlines using it want to - but in order to add a destination, somewhere else needs to be cancelled, or moved to another airport. As we are seeing, this doesn't always mean AMS / CDG etc, sometimes it is just LGW!

They also had quotes indicating that Chinese tourism and trade is being diverted away from London, because of the poor state of LHR (queues, gridlock etc).

They are also investing £1bn in the new 'T2' - which apparently is the same size as T5, but less than 1/4 of the cost - WITH inflation! Wish I could say the same about costs of HS2 re: HS1!

(or is there a lot less ground work / airbridges / rail tunnels etc on this project - could anyone enlighten me?)

T5 gave LHR a lot more space, but pax numbers remained the same - I assume this is due to runway usage restrictions, and that the same applies to the T2 / central complex. Was this planned in anticipation of R3 and then built anyway?

Either way, under the current arrangement, LHR should end up with the same no of pax using a lot more space - better for the Chinese that can get in, better for everyone else too.

Not sure where we got to re: mixed use of LHR runways?

And as for other tourists using other European hubs, do the maths. You are spending a fortnight driving around Europe - do you get stung by UK APD and pick up a right hand drive car, or do you fly into CDG?

It isn't all about capacity!

[jabird]

. Chunnel is already built, but did nobody think of asking about the future of LHR before the plans were drawn up? Did nobody think of making a 5km diversion in the line to the N.E. (as it crosses the Thames), just in case?


Silver,

Infra is built based on policy at the time, diverting HS1 east on the off-chance the govt would ressurrect a long-since dismissed idea would be ridiculous extra expense, and even with this new airport, Eurostar would not want to divert their services through it, as that would lose the very advantage they have of being quicker than flying in the first place!

HS1 opened in two phases - 2003, then 2007. The design phases was long before the 2003 White Paper, which proposed, and then dismissed an airport at Cliffe, very near to the Foster proposal.

.. CrossRail stops some 10km short of the Isle of Grain (the Silver-Foster proposal) - so are they planning for a possible extension of the CrossRail line, just in case? And if not, why not?

Crossrail doesn't even go as far as Reading, a major interchange point in all directions! Why would they build out to a fantasy airport project long before its proposed opening date?

and a couple of km short of the Chunnel link

It would appear logical to have a junction between Crossrail and HS1 at Ebbsfleet, but that station doesn't even link with the nearby conventional line just round the corner.

Which goes part of the way towards explaining why it, combined with Stratford Int, is such a White Elephant/

Meanwhile HS2 is going its merry own way and does not link with Heathrow, CrossRail, Chunnel, and nor with Silver-Boris !! Just what is the point of HS2??

Silver, I suggest you do a bit more reading on the HS2 plans before dismissing it completely.

HS2 and Crossrail will meet at Old Oak Common - and from there, HS2 passengers can transfer to LHR. However, there is no guarantee they will be able to make a single transfer to T5 - unless the LHR express also stops there, or is integrated into Crossrail. As with Ebbsfleet, a number of other lines pass by - North London, Central tube line, Bakerloo too - which would enable a sizeable London West interchange, but the beancounters have sadly left these out.

There is a thread about HS2 in Jetblast, where I have made many criticisms, including the suggestion that if they are serious about BI - or a second runway at STN as the cheapy option - Euston needs to rotate 90deg quicksmart!

Are the dimensions, guages and vo(l!)tages on these lines compatible?

No. Crossrail already provides relatively few continuation benefits outside the existing TfL zones, as mentioned above. One of the reasons it is so expensive is that it uses 6m diameter twin tunnels - and this is so that it can take overhead electrification - even though 3rd rail is used throughout the south east, and may well have resulted in a much lower build cost, although the trains would have cost more.

Traditional tube tunnels are much thinner at just 3.8m - could they have done a similar job - in effect an express service running past smaller stations, just like NYC?

HS1 & 2 are built to European loading guages, which make it possible to run double-decker trains. Afaik, all are 25KV AC. High speed trains could not run through the Crossrail line - far too many stops, and different train layout - I presume Crossrail platforms will have anti-jump barriers too, like the Jubilee line xn.

However, if BI results in a substantial demand for trains to it from west of London, could a link be provided between the HS1 line and the (by then) electrified line to Reading and beyond? I don't know the technicalities of that, nor do I know if there will be any domestic link between HS1 & 2.

[jabird]

Is there sufficient capacity on Crossrail to run all the trains from the north and west of the UK through to Paris??

I don't think capacity is the problem, it is initially a question of train type. Look at the issues with the border agency re: Amsterdam & Frankfurt to London trains. To be viable anyway, these would join / split in Brussels, where I assume they would also enable BRU pax to (dis) embark.

The market for flights to Paris from BHX is essentially a monopoly tie-up with 6 x approx. 100 seats per day. Also known as half a train load.

So to have any change of working, trains would need to split / join at Brum's M42 station, except that only the hybrid trains can start at Manchester, and will these be capable of going through the tunnel? Come 2032, when phase 2 opens, trains might be able to run through, but given the pressures by then to run clockface timetables, how would they squeeze the slots in? Much easier to run more services on HS1 starting at St P's, which could move to services running at set frequencies - Paris currently 20/day, Brussels 10, but they don't always run at same time past each hour.

So the simplest question would be how to enable an easy transfer between Euston and St P's - again, haven't seen that one in the plans.

Have they built 'sideings' on CrossRail, to allow express trains to pass through, on the otherwise slow (multistopping) CrossRail traffic?

You would never pull a train into a siding to allow a faster one to pass through. That is what stations are for, but no, that just wouldn't work on Crossrail - far too many stops, different purpose.

However, the French do engineer their TGV stations to allow a fast train to come through, but you still have the issue of acceleration and deceleration. That is why there is no HS2 station between OOC and Brum M42 - much as though some of us in Coventry would like one! There are a few of us here who are imbys rather than nimbys!

[silverstrata]

Jabird

It would appear logical to have a junction between Crossrail and HS1 at Ebbsfleet, but that station doesn't even link with the nearby conventional line just round the corner.

Which goes part of the way towards explaining why it, combined with Stratford Int, is such a White Elephant.


I was not thinking there. The southern branch of Crossrail ends at Abbey Wood, whichbis only a couple of miles from the Chunnel line. But no thought of linking the two, of course, for that would be far too logical.




Silver, I suggest you do a bit more reading on the HS2 plans before dismissing it completely.

HS2 and Crossrail will meet at Old Oak Common - and from there, HS2 passengers can transfer to LHR. However, there is no guarantee they will be able to make a single transfer to T5.




And wherenis Oak Common? Since they will not publish the two maps overlaid, it is very difficult to see. I presume you mean somewhere close to Acton/Paddington, as that appears to be the closest approach.

But nobody wants a transfer - they want to get off at their destination. Spur lines are a complete nonsense.

What do you do - catch a Chunnel train from Paris to Kings Cross, then a tube from Kings to Euston, then HS2 to the spur junction on HS2, and then a train to LHR and then another train or bus to T5?? Its a nonsense.

Would someone consider such a trip if there was a direct train? I might. I hate all the security issues and waiting at airports, so if I could do a 3-4 hour train journey to catch a long haul, I would do it rather than fly in. But the tortuous links being proposed here make the whole enterprise a nonsense, wherever you live.





No. Crossrail already provides relatively few continuation benefits outside the existing TfL zones, as mentioned above. One of the reasons it is so expensive is that it uses 6m diameter twin tunnels - and this is so that it can take overhead electrification - even though 3rd rail is used throughout the south east, and may well have resulted in a much lower build cost, although the trains would have cost more.

HS1 & 2 are built to European loading guages, which make it possible to run double-decker trains. Afaik, all are 25KV AC. High speed trains could not run through the Crossrail line - far too many stops, and different train layout - I presume Crossrail platforms will have anti-jump barriers too, like the Jubilee line.



As far as I am aware.

a. TGV and Eurostar use the good old Stevenson (of Rocket fame) track gauge, the same as all UK lines.
b. The Eurostar trains uses UK rolling gauge dimensions, so will run on UK lines. European rolling gauge would be better, if Crossrail and the Chunnel will accept it.
c. The Crossrail, as you say, can take pantograph trains.

So there is no reason why HS2 cannot link up with CrossRail at Heathrow (further west than currently proposed). From there the trains could run into London (not stopping at every junction). They would stop in the city, and in Docklands, and from there they would go to Abbey Wood to link up with the Chunnel line. And if the Chunnel line was deviated slightly to the NE, the line would join up with Silver-Boris Island too.

This would negate the need for all that work taking HS2 in through London into Euston (and stopping 2 km short of HS1 at Kings Cross). Why bother, when Crossrail already does this??

I still think nobody is thinking about this, otherwise someone would be publishing the integrated transport map. Where is it?



.

[jabird]

Silver,

Yes, they are thinking about this, and I'm afraid most of your suggestions have been dismissed - either by the engineers, by the beancounters, or both.

One thing for sure - Crossrail and HSR are NOT compatible - period! You just can't shove high speed trains down tunnels with lots of stoppers in them, any more than you would let a Q400 takeoff 30 secs behind an A380. Now you know full well the reasons for the latter, please try and understand the reasons for the former. Or if you prefer, you wouldn't bring an A380 into LCY either, and nor would LCY mgmt want to deal with one, even if it could make it in and out of their runway.

I was not thinking there. The southern branch of Crossrail ends at Abbey Wood, whichbis only a couple of miles from the Chunnel line. But no thought of linking the two, of course, for that would be far too logical.

It was originally planned. If BI ever takes off, it will need local AND high speed service, so I expect Xrail WOULD be extended out that way - but we're talking four tracks, not two.

And wherenis Oak Common? Since they will not publish the two maps overlaid, it is very difficult to see. I presume you mean somewhere close to Acton/Paddington, as that appears to be the closest approach.

They HAVE published detailed maps of the whole damned route!

Old Oak Common (I'd prefer Acton Interchange, take the Old out, Common doesn't imply much room for development) is here:

http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/hs2-maps-20120110/hs2arp00drrw05301issue3.pdf

NB - sometimes I get a file corrupted message - if you get that, try again later, but the maps are there to digest.

But nobody wants a transfer - they want to get off at their destination. Spur lines are a complete nonsense.

Problem is, LHR already has 3 stations. Where would you put a high speed one? Also, the PRIME role of high speed rail is to link city centres to each other, serving airports is a bonus. France has built LGVs which skirt the city centres of Paris & Lyon, and doing so has also meant they could serve the airports - but the planning of CDG predates the TGV by a decade or so.

I don't think transfers from LHR to Europe is the primary goal of HS2, but it will bring Heathrow within easier reach of Brum, Manchester, Leeds etc.

Boris Island would be quite a bit further east, so it might get some traffic from France, Belgium etc, but you would still need to be filling 20 car long Chunnel trains, or you'd need to stop & split. Quite messy I think - remember the LHR Exp only has 4 cars per train.

As far as I am aware.

a. TGV and Eurostar use the good old Stevenson (of Rocket fame) track gauge, the same as all UK lines.
b. The Eurostar trains uses UK rolling gauge dimensions, so will run on UK lines. European rolling gauge would be better, if Crossrail and the Chunnel will accept it.
c. The Crossrail, as you say, can take pantograph trains.

a) Yes, the lines are spaced apart at the same width - Brunel used broadguage, but eventually this was torn up and replaced.
b) Yes, the Eurostar trains do, but they are, iirc, 17 cars long - not viable north of London for international services. There were a few shorter sets designed to be used for through services, they were leased to GNER - let me look up what they are doing now. But they would have to pay the same for the track path to go through the Chunnel, and if I recall right from our debate pre-xmas, they either would have to be joined, or there would be issues with fire regs. There are various complications which make Eurostar beyond London (north) a major challenge.

c) As said above. No! Not compatible. Period!

Earlier versions of HS2 did go through Heathrow, but they did a consultation with only one option for everyone living on the line to grumble about, but no room for informed debate. It would add 7 minutes to the journey time of every train heading north, whereas it would only provide a saving for those who wanted to go to LHR.

Also, I think somewhere deep in politics land, they realised that Crossrail is already going to make LHR much easier to get to, at the expense of other London airports -except perhaps LCY. This then re-opens the demand for the third runway - which of course Boris Island may well be a big smokescreen for anyway.

Still, you are right - they really haven't thought all of this through. HS2 +7 mins should still save a lot of time, and bringing a spur down from HS2 into Heathrow is going to cost billions. I still think we'll end up with another runway at Gatwick. One easy link to Gatwick would be from Old Oak Common via Olympia. Better would be to continue HS2 past Euston and on to LGW & possible Brighton - the £5bn planned for the utterly pointless Heathwick should be a good deposit for that one!

And of course, BHX think that HS2 will allow them to become London's 8th (or are we upto 9 now?) airport, negating the need for BI or any other runway.

This would negate the need for all that work taking HS2 in through London into Euston (and stopping 2 km short of HS1 at Kings Cross). Why bother, when Crossrail already does this??

I still think nobody is thinking about this, otherwise someone would be publishing the integrated transport map. Where is it?

Again, please take a look at a map! For starters, Eurostar and SE HS use St Pancras - to the WEST of King's Cross. I've done Euston from there in about 5 mins, but with bags allow 10. Or build a travelator - now that would be integrated transport, but the beancounters would argue for years about who should pay.

However, yes, I agree that the billions (I have heard as many as 6) to go from OOC to Euston is poor value, as it still only leaves you on the NORTHERN side of Zone1. This is where Foster needs to go back to his bosses at DB, and look at what they did in Berlin. There is no point in having a swanky airport without a properly connected rail hub to link it in to.

And whether for a domestic link between HS1 & 2, BI, a fast link to STN, or Eurostar running north which is viable because it also stops in a central London location - to accommodate any of this, Euston needs to make that sharp turn!

[silverstrata]

Jabird


a. You just can't shove high speed trains down tunnels with lots of stoppers in them.


b. They HAVE published detailed maps of the whole damned route!


c. the PRIME role of high speed rail is to link city centres to each other, serving airports is a bonus.


d. Or you'd need to stop & split. Quite messy I think - remember the LHR Exp only has 4 cars per train.


e. Yes, the Eurostar trains do, but they are, iirc, 17 cars long - not viable north of London for international services.


f. For starters, Eurostar and SE HS use St Pancras - to the WEST of King's Cross. I've done Euston from there in about 5 mins, but with bags allow 10. Or build a travelator.


g. There is no point in having a swanky airport without a properly connected rail hub to link it in to.




a. You can run local and express trains if you have station sidings. Standard practice all over the world. Local train waits for the express to speed through.

b. They have not explicity published the two routes (HS2 and Crossrail) combined and anotated, so one can see the grand plan (if such a thing exists). Does Crossrail appear on that map-link you gave? If it does, it is not obvious.

c. Not necessarily. When ever I travel on TGV, the main northern hub in France appears to be CDG - I have not been linked through Gard du Nord once. If you want to go to Paris you take a Paris train, while everything else goes via CDG.

d. Nearly every TGV I have been on has stopped and split, and it takes less than 5 mins. Besides, if Silver-Boris Island is planned as a rail hub (as is CDG), rather than a lonely spur (as we seem to be planning here), then trains much longer than 4 cars can go there. I would imagine a 17-car train splitting at Silver-Boris, with 5 going to London and the remaining 12 carriages carring on to the North of England.

e. Since the northern England tracks will be new, they can make the stations as large as they wish, just as they did in France. All 17 carriages, if there is the traffic to support them. Ever been to Lyon station - the dinosaur carcass??

f. St Pancras and King's Cross are one and the same (300m between them), and I call it Kings Cross as that is the name of the tube stop.

And surely you cannot be serious that a 2km gap between HS2 and HS1 (the Birmingham line and the Chunnel line) is acceptable. If travelling from Bordeaux to Brussels, do you have to get off (with all your bags) and catch the metro for 2km in Paris, to rejoin your train?? So why should you do so when travelling from Paris to Manchester??
Such a stupid gap in the line will completely undermine the logic of high speed rail in N Western Europe, and make the nation a laughing-stock. UK TGV, the only high speed rail network where you have to catch a taxi (with all your bags and screaming children) in the middle of your journey. And what is so difficult, about joining HS1and HS2, that we will actively encourage ridicule from across the world??

g. And the emphasis here is on 'HUB'. CDG TGV is not simply an airport station, it is the northern hub for the TGV system.

[Aero Mad]

All that aside... what happens if some terrorist comes and sets a large bomb off? Don't you immediately destroy London's infrastructure... main airport shut, main railway station shut, road links shut etc.?

[Baltasound]

Firstly, we had a proposal for CrossRail, which had limited goals, other than to drive a tunnel E-W through London.


Then there was the Chunnel link, which inexplicably terminates as Kings Cross, rather than joining onto Crossrail. So Western commuters cannot ride onto Paris. Why? What was the point of Crossrail, in this case?


Then we had a proosal for HS2, which seems to totally ignore the fact that CrossRail is in progress and the Chunnel link finishes at Kings Cross!! HS2 will stop at Euston, which is what, 2km from Kings Cross and the Chunnel line!! Why no union here? And why no link to Crossrail either?? Are the tracks, voltages and and rolling-guage the same?? If not, then why not?? And if so, then why do they not join up?? What is the point of three totally independent projects that appear to ignore each other completely! - all having different termini (Kings Cross, Euston and somewhere in East London) !!


And then there is a parallel discussion about a Silver-Boris Island. But the Chunnel link, Crossrail and HS2 all completely ignore the distinct possibility that LHR may move eastwards by several kilometers !!

.. Chunnel is already built, but did nobody think of asking about the future of LHR before the plans were drawn up? Did nobody think of making a 5km diversion in the line to the N.E. (as it crosses the Thames), just in case?
.. CrossRail stops some 10km short of the Isle of Grain (the Silver-Foster proposal) and a couple of km short of the Chunnel link - so are they planning for a possible extension of the CrossRail line, just in case? And if not, why not?
.. Meanwhile HS2 is going its merry own way and does not link with Heathrow, CrossRail, Chunnel, and nor with Silver-Boris !! Just what is the point of HS2??


A rational government would link HS2 to the Crossrail project at the present LHR site, and then run the trains all the way through London to Silver-Boris Island - where they could link up with the Chunnel line and run onto Brussels and Paris (and Amsterdam). Now that would be joined up thinking.

But will the engeneering allow this?
Are the dimensions, guages and votages on these lines compatible?
Is there sufficient capacity on Crossrail to run all the trains from the north and west of the UK through to Paris??
Have they built 'sideings' on CrossRail, to allow express trains to pass through, on the otherwise slow (multistopping) CrossRail traffic?

Hello - is anyone thinking, out there??




This is not perhaps the thread to do this, but by the maker I have never read so much cobblers.....
:E

[PAXboy]

silverstrata However, I was not so happy with the suggestion that the Chinese should pay for it. All this 'inward investment' through the purchasing UK businesses may give us jam today, but it also makes us slaves of the Chinese for the future (and the future's future).Too late!! The Chinese have been quietly colonising the world for more than a decade. They have got most of Africa sewn up and are now working their way through the other continents.

The expansion forces in this country that have driven demand for a proper hub are no longer there. In the next ten years, the economy of the country is going to stagnate as we haul ourselves through the recession - which will probably come to be seen as the Second Great Depression.

The demand for hub connections that we failed to provide has already moved to the usual suspects on the Continent. We cannot get it back and the demand still seen is residual but America is in the same economic state as ourselves, so they are not going to be needing the kind of capacity that people talk about.

So ... there is no money to build an island and there will be shown to be no demand for such capacity. In the end, the lack of a 3rd at LHR is not a problem as the traffic goes elsewhere. Yes, some folks have lost out on jobs but most will not notice.

The politicians have made a comprehensive hash of civil aviation from the second war onwards. They have meddled with the airlines, merging them and then selling them. They have meddled with the manufacturers, supporting them and then not supporting them. They have not bravely built airports when needed.

And, as we know, they have completely stuffed up the railways too. So, I would not get too bothered about all of this, because the time has past and nothing will be done, whilst wasting money that could have built runways!

[jabird]

Paxboy,

The demand for hub connections that we failed to provide has already moved to the usual suspects on the Continent. We cannot get it back and the demand still seen is residual but America is in the same economic state as ourselves, so they are not going to be needing the kind of capacity that people talk about.

I don't agree - LHR is still Europe's busiest airport, and London the world's busiest aviation city, both measured by pax numbers. Also, CDG, AMS, MAD etc all have a fair amount of space given over to LCCs, artificially inflating their figures. Even FRA has Condor, Tuifly etc - and would AB get slots @ LHR?

You have to see the whole London picture - and that is both the problem and the solution. No other city has so many airports, we haven't learnt from the mess the Victorians left with so many different railway terminals!

But that is our lot, and we have to work with it - that is why BI can't work because it will be at such a massive cost disadvantage against all these other locations. LHR may get its 3rd runway, and BAA / FV seem to think there's a business case, although I still can't see the politics working.

Other commentators have suggested that LGW couldn't work either, as it is 'too far' from central London. LGW too far? And Boris Island?

[jabird]

Aero Mad,

All that aside... what happens if some terrorist comes and sets a large bomb off? Don't you immediately destroy London's infrastructure... main airport shut, main railway station shut, road links shut etc.?

If we planned like that, we'd never build anything, and we might aswell go back to the Stoneage without even letting them have the satisfaction of sending us there.

[jabird]

a. You can run local and express trains if you have station sidings. Standard practice all over the world. Local train waits for the express to speed through.

As I said - stations yes, sidings no. However, I think the kind of passing loop you are talking about may exist on HS1 to allow limited freight services through. HS1 has 30 Eurostars daily + 4 SE HS trains each hour - a little room for manoevre. They want 24-30 tph on Crossrail, 18tph on HS2 - remember it isn't just about getting out the way, when one train runs slower or is decelerating, the other catch up very quickly.

Also, tunnels are bored using TMBs - I imagine more tricky to keep boring out parallel tunnels. It really isn't a runner, forget it.

b. They have not explicity published the two routes (HS2 and Crossrail) combined and anotated, so one can see the grand plan (if such a thing exists). Does Crossrail appear on that map-link you gave? If it does, it is not obvious.

That is because they are two separate projects - Crossrail is already being built, HS2 needs to go through the Commons, then the Lords to become a hybrid bill / act.

Yes - at this stage, Crossrail is out of the tunnel (that is just west of Paddington), so the 8 platforms to the south are for Crossrail, heathrow Connect and FGW (or their successor) services. Big if - will they roll Heathrow Express in for T5 access - they certainly should!

c. Not necessarily. When ever I travel on TGV, the main northern hub in France appears to be CDG - I have not been linked through Gard du Nord once. If you want to go to Paris you take a Paris train, while everything else goes via CDG.

When I have looked at timings, trains from the south usually stop at CDG and then continue on to Lille etc, so they are not just serving the airport. A through station is much more flexible than a stub - and that is why I think the rail link that runs through LHR needs to continue to Reading and onwards. AMS, FRA, CDG are all through stations.

I would imagine a 17-car train splitting at Silver-Boris, with 5 going to London and the remaining 12 carriages carring on to the North of England.

But a train needs a nose at each end - so that would be completely un-even, and also, demand would be the other way round. Also, calling at this island would add - I guess a good 25 minutes to the time of any train using the HS1 line. Totally different to skirting round Lyon and Paris, where the mileage might be a bit more, but you are cutting out a very slow trundle through the city.


e. Ever been to Lyon station - the dinosaur carcass??

As it happens yes, and it was the inspiration for a major decision I made a few years ago. It is a wonderful piece of sculpture. However, LYS is a REGIONAL airport, which has only just build a rail link to the city.

La gare est un éléphant blanc

f. St Pancras and King's Cross are one and the same (300m between them), and I call it Kings Cross as that is the name of the tube stop.

Well done, we've gone down from 2km to 300m now :D

No, the tube is King's Cross - St Pancras.

If there was a 767 next to an A380 on the stand, would you call the Boeing an Airbus? In aviation terms, EWR is right next to JFK, but would you try and check in at one for the other?

[PAXboy]

I accept your point jabird but I really don't think that the business is going to expand in the way that some folks think. We are seeing ULH and thin routes increasing in a way that was not technically possible before. The Middle East has a perfect hub operation for it's side of the globe and, I maintain, the recession will continue for many years.

[silverstrata]

Baltasound:

This is not perhaps the thread to do this, but by the maker I have never read so much cobblers.....



A criticism without reasoning is simply purile drivel of the most infantile variety.


.

[silverstrata]

Paxboy

The expansion forces in this country that have driven demand for a proper hub are no longer there. In the next ten years, the economy of the country is going to stagnate as we haul ourselves through the recession - which will probably come to be seen as the Second Great Depression.

So ... there is no money to build an island and there will be shown to be no demand for such capacity. In the end, the lack of a 3rd at LHR is not a problem as the traffic goes elsewhere. Yes, some folks have lost out on jobs but most will not notice.




While I agree that the UK is stagnating and may go into recession, the Silver-Boris airport is supposed to be a World Hub rather than a regional airport. As such, its success will rest on the economic health of the rest of the world, rather than the UK's economy.

In the next 20 years, the Chinese will become the big tourists and businessmen, visiting the Third World nations of Britain, Italy and France, and pointing at all the poor people living and begging on the streets (as we used to do in China). But we are not going to be able to attract all these wealthy tourists to our poverty-stricken nation (and get their tourist Yuans), if we do not have a decent airport that connects with China (which Heathrow does not do).


And actually, while the UK is technically bankrupt, we may well need to create some more money (paradoxically) to inflate our way out of debt. All Merv King has to do is waive his magic financial wand, and he can conjour another £250 billion into existence (quantitively). And if we spent that money on infrastructure this time (instead of social engineering and banks), we may actually get something built for once.

.

[silverstrata]

Jabird

Other commentators have suggested that LGW couldn't work either, as it is 'too far' from central London. LGW too far? And Boris Island?



LGW is not too far from London, it is too far from Heathrow.

There is no point flying from Beijing to Heathrow, if your shorthaul flight to Denmark is from LGW. May as well interline through AMS instead.

And that, is the whole problem with London. Brit Airways loses a flight, BAA loses the landing fee and all those shop sales, and the government loses all those taxes. So UK Plc goes bankrupt, while the Cloggies are rolling in clover.

Nice forward planning, eh?


.

[silverstrata]

Jabird

But a train needs a nose at each end - so that would be completely un-even, and also, demand would be the other way round. Also, calling at this island would add - I guess a good 25 minutes to the time of any train using the HS1 line. Totally different to skirting round Lyon and Paris, where the mileage might be a bit more, but you are cutting out a very slow trundle through the city.




The TGVs do have a nose at each end. They run two trains joined together, nose to nose. Then when it gets to Lyons or perhaps CDG, they split the train into two smaller ones. Simples.

And I do not see this adding much time to the Paris-London journey. Supposing the Isle of Grain site for a minute, the track only needs deviating by, say 10km. Train pulls into Silver-Boris, train is split while the passengers alight and board, and off it goes again - one half to the north of England and the other half to London.

Extra 5 mins at most. And you can always have an express that does not stop at Silver-Boris.



Jabird

La gare est un éléphant blanc
.
Well done, we've gone down from 2km to 300m now



Apples and Oranges.

The 2km is between Euston and Kings Cross, the 300m is between St Pancras and Kings Cross. Effectively, the latter pair are the same station, with a road running between them.

The 2km between Euston and Kings Cross is important, because this is the gap between HS1 and HS2. You have still not addressed this problem at all -- it is completely unacceptable to have a high speed rail network, with a thumping great 2km gap in the middle of it. It is madness in the extreme, and nobody will say why this is being contemplated.


P.S. Lyon is not a white elephant, it is a white dinosaur. And while it is rather empty at times, the trains that run through it are not. Almost full every time I go on it, and not just with businessmen either - every man and his dog uses the TGV.

.

[Baltasound]

Quote:
Baltasound:

This is not perhaps the thread to do this, but by the maker I have never read so much cobblers.....

A criticism without reasoning is simply purile drivel of the most infantile variety.



OK - I said I wouldn't respond on this thread as it has very little to do with aviation....

True, but going off on an ill conceived rant, without doing a modicum of basic research and living 8000 miles away from the decision is not going to help your cause either. I better put a disclaimer in here and I thought that Crossrail would not happen, so take the following with a dose of salt. But where shall we start...

Firstly. There will be a link between High Speed One and High Speed Two. So, let us bury that piece of misinformation. If in doubt, look at the maps supplied on the website - http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/hs2-maps-20120110/hs2arp00drrw05001issue3.pdf.

Secondly - learn the difference between track gauge and loading gauge. 4ft 8 1/2 is indeed standard gauge and used throughout Europe, and indeed we don't need to regauge our trains. However the British Loading gauge is smaller and narrower than it's continental cousins. This is because we built our railways on the cheap, as a result it costs a huge sum of money to carry out the work require to make them fatter. For instance, it has cost the best part of £200m to make the route from Southampton to Birmingham vaguely passable for 9"6 containers on W10. So for crossrail to be built to full blown continental gauge will require rebuilding of large parts of the London suburban network. Crossrail is also being designed as a shoprt headway, heavy interruban service whose destination and starting points are NOT fixed because of the interoperable nature of suburban rolling stock, the trains will be stopping at lots of stations with veruy short headways. This is not a High Speed railway and the stations are being built with that in mind. So, the idea of "sidings" - I presume you mean passing loops? - underneath Tottenham Court Road with the space required to pass trains at speed, plus the engineering involved is not terribly practical is it?

3. High Speed 2 does not ignore the fact that Crossrail is in progress - it will connect at Old Oak Common with Crossrail and at Stratford International as well (Link via HS1).

4. When the "chunnel" was built (or even planned) I would have thought (and am open to correction here) that LCC were in their infancy, Open Flies was a gleam in a civil servants eye and LHR and it's attendant problems were a can to be kicked down the road. Besides as a fixed Link between the UK and France would prima facie have little impact on aviation policy, as it's prime aim was to expedite the flow of goods and services on a more terra firma basis between here and the continent. I am not sure how long you have been in the US, or if indeed you are a Brit, but there was a considerable dealy before HS1 was built, and originally that link was to avoid east London altogether and BR favoured a route approaching London south of the river. It was only routed via Ebbsfleet and across the murky Essex marshes as a regeneration project. So to castigate the planners for not thinking ahead by missing out on a theoretical airport to replace(?), add capacity to Heathrow is, I dare to suggest, missing the point entirely.

5. HS2 is being built to relieve congestion in many cases. It's business case is dependant on the full Y to Manchester/ Leeds and then Scotland coming on stream. The reason why they have decided to build a new railway rather than faff with an old one (the WCML) is that it cost £10bn just to "upgrade" the West Coast - messing about with a heavily used, mixed traffic railway and trying to keep it open at the same time is asking for trouble as Railtrack found out. However taking it in and out of Heathrow is also asking for trouble and in the governments eyes, not worth the expense. If in doubt read Hansard.

Finally, I have a feeling that Crossrail will extend to Reading and that sanity will prevail. I also have a feeling that Heathrow express will be merged into crossrail - especially T5 with a westerly link built toward Reading, so there will be an easy connection from that hub as well as OOC.

It would not surprise me in the least to find Crossrail extending to all parts of the London suburban network and that seemed to be the hint from Ms. Greenings statement.

[happyberks]

Sorry to be the one to pull this thread back on track (pardon the pun) but rail links, important as they are can be changed to suit any location - with planning and money admittedly. Placing an airport on the Essex or Kent coast or even in the Thames itself certainly makes sense in regards to the available land mass and away from denser areas of populous but where does Boris think the 100,000 workers who are required to make said airport and associated businesses operate come from? You could be looking at 500,000 people migrating into North Kent. Land and house prices would sky rocket, the local roads would become clogged and destroy many local communities. Is there really enough room anywhere near London for a whole new airport and a new city to support it? Sorry I just can't see this happening.:=

[jabird]

Baltasound,

Thanks for helping to ram the point home - Silver tends to get these things in the end!

OK - I said I wouldn't respond on this thread as it has very little to do with aviation....

The thread is about a new London airport - no surface access, no airport - I have suggested to Silver that he makes his HS2 comments on the thread about that in JB though.

There will be a link between High Speed One and High Speed Two

Probably. I have seen the maps, but I don't think they have costed it yet. They have not proposed HS2-HS1 domestic services, and there are a lot of technical challenges re: the case for a Chunnel - Mids & Ne continuation.


tbc.... back later

[jabird]

happy,

Sorry to be the one to pull this thread back on track (pardon the pun) but rail links, important as they are can be changed to suit any location

They need to be thought through just as much as the issues you mention - but I don't see a new town of that size being built either, so fast links need to be built throughout the London area, and beyond, so that workers and passengers alike can easily get to and from the new site.

Crossrail can provide a regional stopping service - but to compensate for the displacement such an airport would cause, there needs to be something much faster for people living north and west of London, and there needs to be a non-stop (or 1 at max) service to central London.

The logical place for such a station would be in what I call the SPEKX complex - and yes, you do need to focus now to get this right! Plans for Euston at the moment are for another stub, and an uncosted link between HS1 & 2, which may handle a train or two per day from north of London into the Chunnel under current plans.

A much better option would be to re-think the Euston design - turn it to face east-west, and use the airport or Ashford as a terminus for HS2, with many more Eurostar / DB etc trains then being able to run north as they are able to set down and load again in this station.

I still don't think this airport will happen, but there is no doubt that this government is very much more serious about it than the last one was about Cliffe.

For these reasons, planning to get rail access right needs to be considered before the HS2 hybrid bill goes through parliament.

If, on the other hand, LHR gets its 3rd, then one planning condition maybe improved surface access, including a spur from HS2 - but that would not have a major impact on the layout of the planned stations. As for LGW, they should start thinking about a north-south continuation of HS2 for that, again needing a re-think of Euston's stub platforms - and a runway at STN would also need a high speed link, probably from HS1 at Stratford, so that would also need a terminus or a continuation onto HS2.

Airport access isn't the primary goal of HS2, but it would be much better to consider these options now, rather than to pay a fortune to adapt lines / stations for this extra traffic (if you'll excuse my pun now) further down the line.

[jabird]

Baltasound,

It's business case is dependant on the full Y to Manchester/ Leeds and then Scotland coming on stream.

But I think this is where the government has come un-stuck, and I have yet to see a poll showing commited support for it. The proposal on the table, as consulted, was just Phase 1 - and that is all that is going ahead initially.

I understand that the BCR (benefit-cost) for this project is now down to 1.4 - now I know these things can be taken with a pinch of salt too, but it isn't surprising to see such low benefits, given that there are other ways of finding capacity to Birmingham, and that time savings and capacity gains beyond are marginal.

However, I do agree - Phase 2 is much better value - I make it four times better, once you add in that Manchester and Leeds can have full sized trains, and that significantly better use will also be made of the original line.

But I still have my doubts as to whether or not we'll get this far.

messing about with a heavily used, mixed traffic railway and trying to keep it open at the same time is asking for trouble

But it isn't all mixed traffic, very little freight between Birmingham and Rugby, The Pendolini usually get a free run south of Rugby and afaik, Rugby - Colwhich is 3 tracks, the 3rd used for freight, and easily upgradeable to four.

I think there were a lot of us at the time thinking - this ' downgraded upgrade' - to take trains capable of 140mph, but only to let them run at 125mph - is costing so much, we could have had a new line.

Then the cost of the new line (Part1) comes to a whopping £150m per mile (if it stays on budget), and the very simple measures which could be taken now won't be done, because, apparently they aren't good value for money!

I hope you can see why many of us here who would otherwise support rail improvements are so cynical about hs2.

OK, back to airports then:

Finally, I have a feeling that Crossrail will extend to Reading and that sanity will prevail. (+left turn ex LHR)

Amen to that! Much needed. Trains could be run again from MK through OOC and beyond - a simple cheap interchange for LGW at the least.

[silverstrata]

Baltasound



a. OK - I said I wouldn't respond on this thread as it has very little to do with aviation....


b. There will be a link between High Speed One and High Speed Two. So, let us bury that piece of misinformation.



c. learn the difference between track gauge and loading gauge. 4ft 8 1/2 is indeed standard gauge and used throughout Europe, and indeed we don't need to regauge our trains. However the British Loading gauge is smaller and narrower than it's continental cousins.


d. So to castigate the planners for not thinking ahead by missing out on a theoretical airport to replace(?), add capacity to Heathrow is, I dare to suggest, missing the point entirely.


e. HS2 is being built to relieve congestion in many cases. It's business case is dependant on the full Y to Manchester/ Leeds and then Scotland coming on stream. The reason why they have decided to build a new railway rather than faff with an old one (the WCML) is that it cost £10bn just to "upgrade" the West Coast - messing about with a heavily used, mixed traffic railway and trying to keep it open at the same time is asking for trouble as Railtrack found out. However taking it in and out of Heathrow is also asking for trouble and in the governments eyes, not worth the expense. If in doubt read Hansard.

.



a. So the fate and location of the UK's largest airport has 'little to do with aviation'. You're not filling us with confidence about your level of wisdom here, Baltasound.


b. Ok, so there is a link between HS1 and HS2 - thanks for the map.
But I am still confused. If Chunnel trains call in at Kings Cross-St Pancras, and can then go on to Manchester, then why have two London termini?? If you want to catch the train to Manch, and then hopefully to Glasgow, why have a choice of two stations? It does not seem logical. We already have a TGV terminus at KC-SP, so why build another at Euston?


c. If you would have the courtesy to read my previous posts, you will find that I know that, and have diferentiated the two gauges on numerous occasions. The difference in loading gauge is only pertinent to the Chunnel and Crossrail, as all the other tracks will be new. One presumes that all the UK trains will be of the Chunnel loading gauge dimensions, to allow easy operability through to Europe.


d. They were planning a major infrastructure route that will have a service life of 100-200 years, they deserve to be castigated. As I said before, it is like planning the M25 with only 3 lanes, which was so obviously inadequate that a 6-year old could have done better.


e. Blah, blah. Yes, we know why HS2 needs a new track - and you could have added that it needs to be straighter and more accurately laid than the Current westcoast line - have you ever been on a TGV?

But the point is that a major transport project that does not go to where people want to travel, is like building a city in the Sahara. Honestly, would you build a new motorway and deliberately make it NOT go anywhere near any cities??

The only thing I can deduce from this, is that the government already knows that LHR is to be moved to Silver-Boris Island, and so there is no point taking HS2 all the way out to LHR, as there will not be an airport there to service. I presume, therefore, that the government will announce the Silver-Boris go-ahead shortly.


.

[silverstrata]

Happyberks

Sorry to be the one to pull this thread back on track (pardon the pun) but rail links, important as they are can be changed to suit any location - with planning and money admittedly. Placing an airport on the Essex or Kent coast or even in the Thames itself certainly makes sense in regards to the available land mass and away from denser areas of populous but where does Boris think the 100,000 workers who are required to make said airport and associated businesses operate come from?



You might have said the same about relocating the City of London to London Docklands, but it worked, eventually.

There would have to be a couple of newtowns built, of course, but the government is always saying we need new towns to cope with the huge influx of immigrants (one new Birmingham every 5 years is the requirement).

Strategic staff would have to be relocated, but with property prices being lower in Kent and Essex, that should not be such a problem. Although we might get a 'BBC to Salford' effect here [Salford, daarrling? Ooop north? Daarrling, I would rather be lashed with a whip (much rather) ]. Other workers would have to decide if they would rather keep eir jobs, or take a chance on Heathrow becomming the biggest technology park in the UK.

It may sound daunting, but many is the large company that has moved city, or even moved country, and still kept the operation running smoothly.


.

[silverstrata]

Jabird

An uncosted link between HS1 & 2, which may handle a train or two per day from north of London into the Chunnel under current plans.

A much better option would be to re-think the Euston design - turn it to face east-west, and use the airport or Ashford as a terminus for HS2, with many more Eurostar / DB etc trains then being able to run north as they are able to set down and load again in this station.




I don't think it has to be this complicated, Jabird.


London is a major stop, so I see little reason for a through track. Just make all the TGVs stop at London.

Ok, so:
The trains come in from the Chunnel.
They stop at Silver-Boris (or most of them do), and split there.
Half the train goes north (Foster's new northern bypass), and half the train goes to London.
The London train loops into Kings Cross-St Pancras from the northeast, as usual.
Outbound, it goes north and loops west to join the current HS2 track, up to Birmingham and beyond.


Why bother with Euston at all? Its a waste of time, energy and space. We already have a perfectly serviceable London TGV terminus at KC-SP, so why not use it? Besides, KC-SP is a much better terminus to use as it is on 6 metro lines. Euston is an absolute pain in the a*se, as it is not on the circle line and nigh on impossible to get to.

.

[Aero Mad]

the government is always saying we need new towns to cope with the huge influx of immigrants (one new Birmingham every 5 years is the requirement).


What?? Where have they said that? I get the feeling this is more Schutzstaffel racist hype again. If you'd care to look at the departures hall of Luton Airport every morning, you'd see that there are also an awful lot going home - seen our unemployment figures recently (and don't blame it on the immigrants, as they're statistically more likely to work harder for jobs so we get a better quality workforce)?? I get the feeling that your armchair in LA is rather comfortable... perhaps before making sweeping statements about the United Kingdom like these it would be a good idea to look at the facts? I'm sorry SS but your rhetoric is starting to get on my wick.

[jabird]

Aero Mad,

Afaik, UK population is still going up, and to some extent for the better. There is an HSBC report out there somewhere pointing out that because of previous immigration, and our now increased birth rate, the UK economy is going to look a lot better in 2050 than, for example, France or Italy.

Milton Keynes, Northants, eastern Warwickshire for starters all have extensive housing developments planned.

Immigration is always a touchy subject, but Silver may not be too far off with the Birmingham figure - are we talking city or metro though, quite a big difference, easily puffed up.

[jabird]

But I am still confused. If Chunnel trains call in at Kings Cross-St Pancras, and can then go on to Manchester, then why have two London termini??

Silver - you need to take another look at the plans. The current idea is that any trains linking between HS1 and HS2 would not call at either Euston or St Pancras - and there lies the problem!

We already have a TGV terminus at KC-SP, so why build another at Euston?

Beautiful though it is, because it only has 6 platforms. The newly developed Euston will have at least 10 for HS2. If they need an average window of 30 mins to be cleaned and turned round + a buffer to absorb delays, 10 platforms would serve 20 trains per hour. Current proposals are for around 14tph after phase 2, 18 max line capacity, although I understand it could go as high as 30. So Euston has the right number of platforms, they are just facing the wrong way to link into possible future airport expansion (imho).

One presumes that all the UK trains will be of the Chunnel loading gauge dimensions, to allow easy operability through to Europe.

I'm afraid they won't:

1) Special adaptations need to be done to fit through the tunnel, afaik, largely due to fire regs - so standard TGVs wouldn't work either, the 3 Capitals variants are ok.

2) Initially, a lot of services will be operated by hybrid trains, which are backwards compatible with the existing lines - 8 cars long (11 max), no tilting, so they are actually slower than the Pendolini on classic tracks. I could go on here, but this really belongs on the hs2 thread.......

I presume, therefore, that the government will announce the Silver-Boris go-ahead shortly.

Firstly, they couldn't just do that. There has to be some form of consultation, and this may well be challenged, as if it is one sided - ie Boris Island yes or no, it is not letting other options be examined.

Look at a good year to hold and process the consultation, starting from March.

Whilst I think the government are serious about Boris Island, I just don't see how it would actually work in reality. Just because LHR has a noise problem doesn't mean you can just move the airport east, and all goes quiet. There are serious environmental concerns with the site, and these were all brought up in the 2003 White Paper.

And as for the economics, which usually win through - there may or may not be investors, but they can only get an ROI if the airlines want to move there. Otherwise there will be another monumental battle getting LHR to close. We know where BA stand, we know there is no low cost interest, so who wants in on BI?

Euston is an absolute pain in the a*se, as it is not on the circle line and nigh on impossible to get to.

Oh please! When was the last time you were actually in central London? Euston effectively has 3 tube lines underneath, and 3 more a very short walk away - C/M/H&C at Euston Square. The new station will link directly to these lines, if you care to to take the time to review the plans before commenting on them.

There is a bus station right infront of the concourse, and a Boris Bike stand on either side. As it happens, most of the time I go to London, I finish up around Covent Garden, from where I can walk to Euston in around 30 mins.

The problem with what they are proposing is not that Euston isn't central, which it clearly is. The problem is that they are not providing the very through links which make high speed rail so advantageous in the first place - whether to airports or anywhere else people want to go.

[ETOPS]

Guys

This Govenment briefing document makes fascinating reading and partly explains how we've got into this mess - over the preceding 60 years.

Aviation proposals for an airport in the Thames estuary, 1945-2012 - Commons Library Standard Note - UK Parliament (http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN04920)

[silverstrata]

Aeromad:


Silver:
The government is always saying we need new towns to cope with the huge influx of immigrants (one new Birmingham every 5 years is the requirement).


What?? Where have they said that? I get the feeling this is more Schutzstaffel racist hype again. ..... I'm sorry SS but your rhetoric is starting to get on my wick.



The truth always hurts, I know, but just do the math instead of the stormtrooping ad hominems. Or I'll turn the tables on you, just as I did with Skippy.

The official figures show that nett immigration is some 350,000. Add a very conservative 100,000 illegal and undetected immigration to that, and you get around 450,000 immigrants per anum - net. Now five years of this, equals about the population of Birmingham - which is why we need many more towns anyway, and is also one reason why we need bigger airports.

Don't get mad with me, Aeromad, it was not my policy. If you don't like it, write to your MP.


.

[silverstrata]

Jabird

Oh please! When was the last time you were actually in central London? Euston effectively has 3 tube lines underneath, and 3 more a very short walk away - C/M/H&C at Euston Square. The new station will link directly to these lines, if you care to to take the time to review the plans before commenting on them.


"short walk away" ... Have you ever tried to get from Euston to Euston Square, with four bags and three children, in the rain - and no trollies??

Are you saying that Euston TGV will link to the circle lines? If so, then why was this not done 50 years ago? Why wait until the nation is bankrupt, before someone decides to put in some necessary infrastucture? Nice to know that the authorities have their finger on the pulse of the nation's needs.


BTW: In the light of the UK hitting the £1 trillion debt mark, it has been announced that Edward George is seriously considering printing more £billions (I did warn of this counter-intuitive tactic a few days ago). In which case, if the government is sensible, the money may be available to build Silver-Boris without too much private investment. To do it properly, instead of on the cheap, this should be a government project anyway.





Silver - you need to take another look at the plans. The current idea is that any trains linking between HS1 and HS2 would not call at either Euston or St Pancras - and there lies the problem!


Nice to know that the authorities have their thinking-caps on !! No matter what happens with Silver-Boris, I can see an absolute c*ck-up comming.


.

[silverstrata]

Etops:

This Govenment briefing document makes fascinating reading and partly explains how we've got into this mess - over the preceding 60 years.



Thanks, Etops, I'll take a read on my next flight.

.

[jabird]

Silver,

I'm afraid one of our biggest flaws in the UK is that we just don't do joined up thinking very well - but I'm afraid the US doesn't either, DEN is the largest airport site in the western world, but despite the huge dislocation moving out to that site caused, where is the TGV there? You'll get a tram in 2015.

So I can only comment in two ways - what is planned, or is being considered, and how I would like to do it, given the combined powers of the Mayor of London, the Treasury and the DfT.

Why hasn't Euston Square been linked before? TfL beancounters will have said 'costs too much, people who want to go there will get there anyway, so there's no revenue gain'.

However, with HS2 plan, a Euston Square link will cost perhaps £5m, peanuts to add on to an overall budget for the station which I expect will be around the £1bn mark. As for heavy bags, I'm more concerned about the constant stop-start, uneven pavements on the link in the other direction - that needs travelators too.

Given my magic want, I'd get rid of the British Library and put Euston 2.0 there. That would also grant me permanent favour with King Charles forever - but it won't happen.

[ETOPS]

permanent favour with King Charles forever - but it won't happen.

That's because he will be King George :p

[jabird]

ETOPS, yes, that looks like it may be the case - George VII. And who says you can't learn about royalty from an airlines forum?

[silverstrata]

Jabird

permanent favour with King Charles forever - but it won't happen.

Etops:

That's because he will be King George


Both wrong - it will be King Harry, because he is the only true British royal (red hair).


.

[jabird]

Silver, try googling Harry + Hewitt.

Now can we get back to airports now?

I still await your business plan. UK govt will never pay for this, but they may, against their better judgement pay for the ground access, and let these sovereign wealth funds pay for the island and the airport that sinks, sorry, stands on top of it.

How will they get their money back? What would you set PSC at to make it work? How would you woo BA, who have clearly said they won't budge? Or are we going down the 2 hub system now, in which case why go to all the expense when you could just add a runway at LGW or STN?

[silverstrata]

Jabird:

I'm afraid one of our biggest flaws in the UK is that we just don't do joined up thinking very well - but I'm afraid the US doesn't either, DEN is the largest airport site in the western world, but despite the huge dislocation moving out to that site caused, where is the TGV there? You'll get a tram in 2015.


Whilst I agree with you, I don't think we should look to the Yanks for advice here. One look at almost any American town or city will tell you that the Yanks don't do (can't do?) town planning.

America is a Capitalist free-for all where nothing is planned, and it simply does not work. The USSR was Socialist control-freakery, and that did not work either. Somewhere in the middle will do just fine.




Jabird:

Why hasn't Euston Square been linked before? TfL beancounters will have said 'costs too much, people who want to go there will get there anyway, so there's no revenue gain'.



And therein lies the Capitalist-Socialist conundrum. The Socialists often do nothing, because there is no personal loss to them if they sit on their backsides and do nothing all day. While the Capitalists will only get out of bed to design a project when there is a buck to be made. And the needs of the people in many cases can go to hell.




Jabird:

Given my magic want, I'd get rid of the British Library and put Euston 2.0 there. That would also grant me permanent favour with King Charles forever - but it won't happen.


The British Library? Oh, you mean that Sainsburys Grocerystore in-between Euston and King's Cross? Is that what it is? Hell, yes, smash that monstrosity down tomorrow (and produce something more neo-classical). And if you had a thinking cap, you might even envisage a station below, and the new neo-classical library on top (with suitable fire-proofing in between). (If 'new neo' is not a tautology...)


But whatever the decision: you cannot have two TGV termini serving the same TGV line!! That would be like placing the new international aviation hub on Silver-Boris Island, and placing the new commuter-aircraft hub at Manston (with a travellator between the two).

No, no, I did not say that (I should not give these numbskulls any bright ideas).


.

[silverstrata]

Jabird:

Silver, try googling Harry + Hewitt.



Yes, I know the conspiracy theory, which is inviting, but it is also a truism that nearly all the British Monarchs from William the Conquerer onwards were redheads. William the Conquerer was a Scando-Viking, the Stuarts were Scando-Scots and William III was Saxon-Dutch. (Hint, the later monarchs often wore wigs.)


And yes, airports are more interesting.

.

[jabird]

And therein lies the Capitalist-Socialist conundrum.

I think you are going soft on us now Silver! Next thing you'll be signing up to the Guardian Online, watching bbcqt on iplayer and telling us the audience isn't remotely biased!

[jabird]

It looks like Boris Island does have one airline backer - I suppose the one with the most to gain. Any guesses before I paste the link?

[Skipness One Echo]

British Airways won't abandon Heathrow for 'Boris Island' - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/9023825/British-Airways-wont-abandon-Heathrow-for-Boris-Island.html)

This is the only one that really matters.

[Dan Dare]

From the RAeS (http://media.aerosociety.com/aerospace-insight/2012/01/13/not-so-fast-boris/6122/?utm_source=The+Royal+Aeronautical+Society+E-Newsletter&utm_campaign=5b5a76a991-20120130_RAeS_HTML_Newsletter_Jan_121_30_2012&utm_medium=email)

Not so fast, Boris – the CAA and UK airport debate

Proponents of airport expansion in SE England have felt bolstered by a new report from the CAA this week on the future of aviation and air traffic capacity issues in the UK. But should they be that confident?


The Government ruling out expansion at Heathrow has increased attractiveness of a new Thames Airport.
Headlines like ‘Regulator adds thrust to airport capacity debate’ seemed to indicate that the UK’s independent aviation regulator had suddenly taken sides and confirmed there was a need for a new airport or runways in UK. However a closer reading of its report, ‘Aviation Policy for the Future’ showed that the CAA’s observation were a lot more subtle and nuanced.

It is true that it did point out the obvious (namely that there is a capacity issue, and that without action, growth in the long-term will suffer) but it stopped short of recommending a particular solution – whether it be a third runway at Heathrow, Gatwick expansion or the much-hyped ‘Boris International’ airport concept on the Thames – now given extra weight thanks to a proposal from Lord Foster, the architect behind other reclaimed airport projects.

However – it did deal a blow to hopes that regional airports might take up the slack – noting that the UK regional airports are unlikely to provide the ‘hub & spoke system’ needed for a true hub in the future.

But missed by most of the commentators was a hint that given the Single European Sky, perhaps the solution could be found in networked hubs with other European countries. This in fact already happens to some extent. The UK, for example, because of its geographic location is the natural entry/exit point to North America. Similarly (and because of historic cultural ties as well) Spain’s Madrid airport has become the European gateway to South America. Indeed, the decline in domestic services at Heathrow means already that those from the north of the country are in some cases finding it easier to hub and connect using continental hubs.

Says the report: “The UK’s geographical position on the North-West of Europe means that airlines operating out of London can offer competitive journey times for connections to North America compared to other European hubs. Geography, and other factors such as economic, historical and cultural links, would suggest that other European airports might represent more convenient transfer points for routes to other world regions such as Asia, Africa and South America.”

It goes on: “There may therefore be merit in considering a network approach in order to ensure connections for UK regional consumers to a variety of hubs. Such an approach would better take account of the cross-border nature of some of the challenges facing UK aviation in meeting the needs of consumers and would also be consistent with the joined-up approach taken with the Single European Sky airspace initiative.”

The CAA, then seems to be saying that one solution (which would not involve building new airports or runways) would be to use Europe’s existing hubs more efficiently, so that passengers heading East or West would land at the nearest main hub within Europe, before transiting (by air or train).

However, two problems emerge with this. Firstly could the political compromise be found for Heathrow to swap its Singapore services for say Frankfurt’s New York slots? Who would get the most benefit from these trades? Especially given the fastest-growing markets are now to the east of Europe in Asia-Pacific and the Middle East.

Second, what happens to the airports in the middle? This seems to indicate that a Europe with a peripheral ring of mega hubs would be the ideal solution, yet in reality the biggest hubs, London, Paris, Amsterdam and Frankfurt are situated geographically quite close. Would this create new megahubs on the outskirts of Europe?

Finally it could be argued that the northern countries (such as the UK) might also have better access to the Far East (Hong Kong for example) because of new extended ETOPS regulations which will allow long-range twins to forge routes over the north pole, cutting flight times by going direct. The world is, after all, a sphere.

That said, the report by the CAA, and its warnings over future growth, has only intensified the debate further on the future of UK airport, capacity issues and the need for some sort of long-term aviation strategy.

[ETOPS]

Firstly could the political compromise be found for Heathrow to swap its Singapore services for say Frankfurt’s New York slots?

I very much doubt our London based premium passengers would consider flying to FRA to commence their onward eastbound journeys.

The idea is a non-starter commercially............

[Torquelink]

Interesting piece from the RAeS but, as long-suffering SLF, if I want to go from London to, say, Buenos Aires I'd take the direct non-stop flight offered by any competent carrier rather than connect through Madrid (or anywhere else) which is why I can't get my head around this multi-hub strategy - whether BA's or anyone else's. If there are no direct services then there are a myriad of potential connections through other hubs which are at least as convenient as Madrid, some of which are feasibly accessible by HST, so there's no guarantee that (in this example) IAG would retain my custom. And if there's a single reason why BA needs considerably more slots it's that - business travellers at least want frequent direct services. So WW ought not to be so dogmatic about staying at LHR - provided that if he moved to Boris Island for virtually unlimited slots, LHR would then close.

[silverstrata]

Torquelink:

Interesting piece from the RAeS but, as long-suffering SLF, if I want to go from London to, say, Buenos Aires I'd take the direct non-stop flight offered by any competent carrier rather than connect through Madrid (or anywhere else) which is why I can't get my head around this multi-hub strategy - whether BA's or anyone else's. If there are no direct services then there are a myriad of potential connections through other hubs which are at least as convenient as Madrid


I you were a civil servant or a BBC executive, I'm sure you would. But for us mere mortals, cost comes into consideration. The last three times I have long hauled, I have gone via a hub rather than direct, because it was nearly half the price.

If hubs are more efficient, and thus cheaper, people will use them.

The only caveat here, is the hassle. Why do I have to 'enter' a country if I am not going there? If I am inbound international and outbound international two hours later, why cannot I just jump from one aircraft to the next? (Perhaps with a security screen.)


.

[Skipness One Echo]

So WW ought not to be so dogmatic about staying at LHR - provided that if he moved to Boris Island for virtually unlimited slots, LHR would then close.

Why would he move? All he wants is enough space for BA and partners to serve the world, that's not 100% of LHR capacity. He has all the maintenance hangars at home base already in place, the Heathrow Express and the M4 corridor. They have a world class terminal that is under four years old.
Now I am not trying to be awkward, but what commercial reason would make BA wish to give this up? They have been seeking a LHR to themselves my whole life. They could consolidate at even LHR and close LGW.
What commercial independent analysis has been undertaken to see what happens to the high yields that London's hub needs if the operation is split between this new place and LHR?
Would BA's LHR yields improve if they stayed and everyone who has fought for LHR access for decades got kicked out? Is that even legal?

Also, please stop calling it Boris Island, or Silver-Boris. Boris may be about to lose the mayoral election as he's so complacent with one eye on his natural destiny at Number 10, added to the fact he cannot do detailed policy ( i.e. the hard work bit) in any way shape or form. This is not about some blonde sex-mad yet loveable buffoon, this is people's livelihoods and jobs.

If BA stay in West London, the case for a new hub airport, upon which this project rests completely, is nonsense. No other carrier hubs in London. What's left is then a great new and expensive airfield out at sea, for who?
STAR? They're moving into the new world class Heathrow Terminal 2 in 2013.
Skyteam? Seem happy in the refurbished T4. We do have runway capacity at Stansted already in place and expansion is possible for a fraction of the cost of Fantasy Island.

If not the alliances, then who? All of this for Ryanair? They wouldn't pay the fees. easyJet?
I honestly do not understand how this stands up commercially. Who decides who gets turfed out of LHR if they don't close it and if they do, God help anyone standing in a West London seat as a mass of often low paid jobs disappears.

Those in favour? Architects who stand to make millions and politicians with no commercial experience and a five year fixed strategy of saying one thing and doing something possibly different.

Those against? The very businessmen who run the airlines upon which this depends. Anyone working at or near Heathrow. I am genuinely baffled and I have been reading this thread with interest.

[silverstrata]

Jabird:

It looks like Boris Island does have one airline backer - I suppose the one with the most to gain. Any guesses before I paste the link?


Well that must be Boris Backer. But I thought he played tennis and went out with multiple lookalike wives?




Skippy

Also, please stop calling it Boris Island, or Silver-Boris. Boris may be about to lose the mayoral election as he's so complacent with one eye on his natural destiny at Number 10, added to the fact he cannot do detailed policy ( i.e. the hard work bit) in any way shape or form. This is not about some blonde sex-mad yet loveable buffoon, this is people's livelihoods and jobs.



Welcome back, Skippy, you were missed.

And I disagree. Every project needs a catchy title. "Project Alpha 957" is going nowhere, but "Silver-Boris Island" stands a fighting chance.

Plus, as I said before, I cannot believe Boris is doing this for political gain. As you rightly pointed out, the proposal is contentious and will meet with lots of opposition. Politicians who just want to be elected, like Tony Blair*, do not do 'contentious' projects.



* Blair's Iraqi expedition was indeed contentious, but there were other imperatives for this crazy adventure.


.

[Skipness One Echo]

I cannot believe Boris is doing this for political gain

He's up for election before the Olympics and he needs a big idea as the details of his accomplishments thus far are pretty thin.Making Ken's already implemented Barclay's Cycle Hire as "Boris Bikes" isn't enough to get him back in.

Strata what airlines do you see using this facility and you agree we need to close LHR and force them to move? All of them? You can't expect the new facility to compete with LHR surely?

[silverstrata]

Skippy:

Strata what airlines do you see using this facility and you agree we need to close LHR and force them to move? All of them? You can't expect the new facility to compete with LHR surely?



Yes, of course. This is one time when a governernment has to take the lead and make a command decision.

LHR has to be closed in order to make Silver-Boris a success, and in order to free up land in the west for a new regeneration project - for housing and a new high tech industrial estate. This is the Thames corridor, if anywhere can become the new silicon valley (with all the wealth and education present in that area) it is the LHR site.

In fact, you could say that LHR is a complete waste of space that is holding back the west of London from becoming the the most advanced area in Britain. Don't we have a duty to release that potential, and allow the Thames coridor to spread its wings and achieve its full potential?


.

[PAXboy]

Agreed SOE, this is a paper airport. Always has been and always will. BECAUSE of the continued fudge and mudge of the past 60 years. The time is past and the M4 corridor is the Heathrow corridor.

[Skipness One Echo]

Would the forced closure of Heathrow be legal? Ferrovial would need to be paid billions! I am just imagining BA telling their nowadays lower paid and often female cabin staff that all of them need to move across London or find another job.

[PAXboy]

Nice point SOE!!!

And who will compensate all the home owners in the area and M4 corridor + West London whose property will drop in value?

And who will make loadsamoney as the property on the other side of London increases?

This is NEVER going to happen.

[Prophead]

When you see tories buying up propert in Gravesend you know this may actually happen.

Seriously though, its not just airport staff, theres the hotels, catering, cargo companies etc. All sorts of businesses moved to the Thames valley because Hethrow was there. What are the proposals for these businesses.

I have yet to see anything that looks at the effect that closing LHR would have on this area. This is what tells me it is not going ahead. All the plans and documents that I have seen have just been outlining the benefits for the communities to the East of London. Where is the serious study that shows how closing LHR will effect the areas to the west. This shows it is just a political exercise to win votes.

Silver, I know you want to turn LHR into Silicon valley but just because you build the place doesn't mean all the ex LHR related employees would suddenly want to work there in a different profession.

What we really should be asking is how much of who's money has been spent on this political campiagn that will never see the light of day.

[Torquelink]

Why would he move? All he wants is enough space for BA and partners to serve the world, that's not 100% of LHR capacity . . .

He doesn't want to move but, if you accept that London's future as a world financial hub will be jeopardised by a deteriorating level of air service compared to elsewhere, then it's more than just what suits BA. If I was WW, I'd be happy mopping up all available slots at LHR, knowing that I was growing a share of an artificially restricted market leading to higher yields so why would I move? That's why for the Thames Estuary Site (TES - formerly known as Boris Island) to succeed, LHR will have to close. I recognise that that in itself is full of mind-boggling implications - Ferrovial, jobs etc but there's no point in progressing plans for TES if this nettle isn't grasped and WW or his successors will have to be sufficiently incentivised to accept it. This would be a 50 year project and some relatively short term issues will need to be seen in this context.

And who will compensate all the home owners in the area and M4 corridor + West London whose property will drop in value?

Wot - all those home owners complaining about aircraft noise blighting their properties?! :)

[EGCA]

Build second runway at Birmingham, run HS2 via Heathrow, and Birmingham is then probably nearer to Heathrow than Gatwick timewise.

Simples....and much less expensive than Boris Island.

[silverstrata]

Skippy:

Would the forced closure of Heathrow be legal? Ferrovial would need to be paid billions!



Hey, Skippy, we are a sovereign nation - we can make any law we like. (Well, until the EU gets its grubby fingers on the levers of power in the UK.)

Just like the compulsory purchase laws designed to turn people out of their houses (originally designed for slum clearance), we can also turf Heathrow off its land. And we can do so at a huge profit, however much compensation is given to Ferrovial, if the government does it right.

.

[silverstrata]

EGCA:

Build second runway at Birmingham, run HS2 via Heathrow, and Birmingham is then probably nearer to Heathrow than Gatwick timewise.


Oh, yes? Just where exactly will this runway go?

The whole problem with BHX is that there is no room there at all, sandwiched as it is between the A45 and the town center, with the runway pointing completely out of wind. (If you want to see some exciting landings, put your anorak on and go to BHX or LBA.)

In fact, what needs to be done here, is while they are building Silver-Boris, someone needs to close BHX completely and move the whole ensemble down to Gaydon. There, they will find a 4,000m runway, pointing into wind, with no noise problems, that can run 24 hr, and no flights will fly over the city center, right next to the M40 and a mainline railway. Job done, as they say.

They could then create a whole new suburb of Birmingham on the vacated airport site, which could hold at least another 400,000 people (or the number of people that will immigrate to the UK this year.)


.

[silverstrata]

Torqulink:

Wot - all those home owners complaining about aircraft noise blighting their properties?! :)



Ha, ha, ha.

Yes those very same nimbys who will campaign vigorously to save the very noise nuisance that they are presently campaigning to stop. And the very worst will be those who only moved into the area last year: "Wot! nobody told me no airport would have dem big aircraft flying next it ... " :ugh:


.

[silverstrata]

Prophead:

Seriously though, its not just airport staff, theres the hotels, catering, cargo companies etc. All sorts of businesses moved to the Thames valley because Hethrow was there. What are the proposals for these businesses.



Look at what cane be achieved in 10 years, if you put your mind to it....



http://www.electricbikee.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/china-city.jpg


http://www.businessnewsshanghai.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Shanghai-travelnews-skyline.jpg


http://www.echinacities.com/cityguide/FreeTextBox/uploads/whatson/201006/2010065/20100624101852.jpg



http://images.travelpod.com/users/rcys/2.1301992529.brand-new-city-of-dreams.jpg



http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/1791/kunming.jpg





.


Its only Britain that takes 26 years to build one terminal.


.

[jdcg]

I think the "development" above may have had something to do with the exponential growth in manufacturing exports / profits not just the political "will" to do something.
Besides, who wants to live in a one-party state where people have zero say?
If China is your vision of utopia you can keep it

[EGCA]

Silverstrata: Yes, apology offered, my "Birmingham" comments were made in an off-hand moment.
Dont want to detract from a serious discussion.

EGCA

[controlx]

Silver - would suggest Upper Heyford better location than Gaydon? Gaydon too close to BHX and Coventry?

[PAXboy]

Reported in The Guardian today: London slow to become the 'electric car capital of Europe' | Environment | guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/01/electric-cars-carbon-emissions)

Gosh, I wonder which politician that could be:
Nearly three years ago, the mayor of London told fellow international mayors in Seaul that he would ensure 100,000 electric vehicles were in London "as soon as possible". But the London assembly's environment committee found that since Johnson's announcement, only 588 extra electric cars were registered in London. There are now 2,313 electric cars in the capital, just 0.08% of the city's total 3m cars.
So, it looks as if you can have big ideas and then find the public don't want to pay considerably more of a car in the middle of a terrible recession. Who'd have thought it? Now, back to planning that wonderful airport ...

[Fairdealfrank]

Interesting comments about the future of the Thames Valley. Suspect that shifting the majority of the jobs out of there AND having the residents put up with plunging house prices (thus preventing them being able to move to an area of rising house prices should they wish to) would have a much greater effect on marginal constituencies then any amount of LHR expansion, and this will concentrate the minds of politicians.

Any suggestions that LHR would close is a bigger fantasy than the "white elephant" island. "Silicon valley" expanding into a vacated LHR site is also nonsense: like all high tech industries, "silicon valley" needs an airport nearby. BA, BD (or BA-BD) and VS aren't moving their hubs, the other airlines, many of which have already paid millions for slot pairs (and need to recoup their investment) aren't going either. Charter and no frills are staying at LGW, LTN and STN, and business short haul won't leave LCY.

We are a sovereign country up to a point, increasingly less so because of the EU of course. We could pass a law to close LHR, but MPs in the often-mentioned marginal seats would doubtless have something to say about that, as would other MPs because of the precedent it could set. Even if the law passed, would it not be challenged in the courts? Like all large companies, Ferrovial, and other companies have access to top lawyers, litigation could go on for years!

Is all this a sensible use of public money? Clearly not. Whether we waste millions on Boris's vanity project or not LHR stays open. So that raises the possibility of a twin-hub arrangement. Can only think of one example of this working: at Idlewild JFK/Newark EWR in New York, and that only works because of the vast amount of domestic traffic at each airport.

Let's face it, LHR expansion is the only game in town, we need a third runway yesterday and a fourth one today and they do not have to be as long as the existing ones. Cameron stated at PM questions a couple of weeks ago that Miliband is incapable of doing a U-turn properly. It's time for him to show that he can!

PS love the photographs of Shanghai.

[Fairdealfrank]

Gaydon vs. Upper Heyford

Birmingham-Gaydon (William Shakespeare) International has a nice ring to it! It's on the M40, with a railway nearby. Airport staff could (at a push)transfer from Elmdon without having to move house. Upper Heyford is a bit too far out. However BHX is not operating at 99% capacity like LHR or 95% capacity like LGW, so there's no desperately urgent need for a second runway or a new airport.

[jabird]

Build second runway at Birmingham, run HS2 via Heathrow, and Birmingham is then probably nearer to Heathrow than Gatwick timewise.

Simples....and much less expensive than Boris Island.


Whether it's BHX, LGW, Northolt or wherever, I really don't buy the twin hubs + train concept - there will always be some pax doing this, esp with BA & Virgin having ops @ LGW, but it should be the exception, not the main. Where does this work well in practice? ICN + GMP?

On the other hand, two separate hubs, whilst not ideal, may be the most practical answer - and by this, I mean each handling their own onward connections. That does work in NYC, and to a lesser extent TYO.

I'm not sure that BA's short haul routes from LGW deliver that much into the market, but some of those routes could feed long haul if they were at LHR. The long haul leisure routes can also all be fed, as GLA-ANU isn't going to happen point to point.

A number of airlines are starting to show that they will accept routes into LGW, as they can't get LHR slots - as we've seen new routes to HAN, SGN, ICN, HKG, PEK etc. Eventually, as LGW added more capacity, it could keep drip feeding this demand, but this would be an odd way to expand an airport - basically any new routes which were overspill would go there, long established routes stay at LHR. Talk about sloppy seconds!

It also seems odd that, as the govt first proposed the utterly pointless Heathwick, and then Boris Island, there has been little response from any of the established airports suggesting one extra runway at either of them might do the trick.

I think STN & LTN could continue to take more loco traffic, the former with a new terminal. but the commercial case for a new runway there, based on Ryanair yields, would be very weak.

Remember though that all this talk of AMs, FRA, MAD etc 'catching up' on London is slightly misleading - all those airports have a fair chunk of loco traffic, LHR has almost none (TS, 4Y). The only real comparison is with Paris - still take off 5m for loco @CDG? - but CDG has room to expand, LHR doesn't it. CDG can feed through fast train links in 4 directions, spanning into Belgium, Lux, Switzerland etc and most of France, it will take 30 years for LHR or to develop such a network, and even if that was done, that just feeds more people into a crowded space. At least UK regional airports have much more established loco routes, compared to their French equivalents.

2019 will come and go long before any new runway at LGW could get built, but how would a new runway & terminal there attract airlines from LHR by choice, rather than overspill? Skyteam could work with Flybe to feed into LGW, and they'd have a lot more space than at T4, but it would need to be the deal of the century to bring them over - and how could that be done in a way which left enough profits to pay for all the new construction? Still, no villages or sweage farns to move @LGW. LGW would also need much better rail links, and again, BAA/FV would scream about infrastructure being built to subsidise the case for a competing airport (pot, kettle, black!).

I can't see how LHR could be forced to close either, it would be challenged in the high courts. Govt lawyers would argue it had to close in order to protect this new national asset (owned by the Chinese). BAA/FV lawyers would say 'you can't compulsory purchase one business just to protect the future viability of another, larger, business'. That is called a monopoly!

So there's still no easy answers. But whether we call it Boris Island, Thames Airport, or even if we let Silver continue his ego trip and call it Silver Island - it is still no closer to being a viable proposition.

PS: Architects make very little from large construction projects - combined with the engineers, you are looking at about 10%. Building contractors stand to gain much more, if they get their sums right. But if I wanted to be on the take for this, you can bet that with so much emphasis on the rail links, combined with a planning agreement you can guarantee limits on-site parking, any vacant land within 20 miles of the new site, especially near a station, could turn into a nice little earner - but you'd be in for a hell of a long wait.

[jabird]

Gaydon vs. Upper Heyford

Birmingham-Gaydon (William Shakespeare) International has a nice ring to it! It's on the M40, with a railway nearby. Airport staff could (at a push)transfer from Elmdon without having to move house. Upper Heyford is a bit too far out. However BHX is not operating at 99% capacity like LHR or 95% capacity like LGW, so there's no desperately urgent need for a second runway or a new airport.

I wish BHX would just concentrate on serving the BHX market, instead of these London ambitions. As it is, BHX is nice and close to the city it service + half way between Brum & Cov by train or car, short drive to Solihull + easy access to the rest of the West Mids. Not to mention being next to what must surely be the largest exhibition complex in Europe?

It would be utterly daft to move all this, just as it is equally daft to pretend it will serve the London market. Why will people pay upto £100 for a return train fare to come OUT of London for a route network which is far inferior to London airports (I think at one stage, we had the sole UK route to ASB, but that was about it!).

If you wanted to name an airport after Shakespeare, do that for BHX, or find a way to bring an airline into CVT, and call it what you want!

[jabird]

This is the Thames corridor, if anywhere can become the new silicon valley (with all the wealth and education present in that area) it is the LHR site.

In fact, you could say that LHR is a complete waste of space that is holding back the west of London from becoming the the most advanced area in Britain. Don't we have a duty to release that potential, and allow the Thames coridor to spread its wings and achieve its full potential?

I'm not sure that you can describe what is still the world's busiest international airport, and which as Skippy says is able to maintain consistently higher yields than other comparable airports, as waste of space?

You seem fixated on this idea that LHR would release vast tracts of land for re-development. For better or worse, LHR is about as compact as it is possible for such a large airport to be. Where else will you find so many large aircraft jammed in between two runways, with a few others overspilling into T4 / cargo / mainternance areas?

Unlike surface transport infrastructure, those runways enable connections to most of the globe - all within what - 6 sq miles approx?

I challenge you to come up with another airport which generates the kind of yield / economic opportunity per square mile that LHR does - as there aren't many if any that do it outright. Maybe LCY would be up there! Ans as for this Silicon Valley - they need connections too, and LHR does that.

[silverstrata]

Controix:

Silver - would suggest Upper Heyford better location than Gaydon? Gaydon too close to BHX and Coventry?


Perhaps, but I always thought that Gaydon and Bruntingthorpe, or perhaps Gaydon and Finningley (Robin Hood) were very nicely spaced and very nicely placed airports.

Far better sites than BHX and LBA.

P.S. I was not thinking about Gaydon competing with BHX and CVT, but replacing them. Just think how much dosh you could raise, if you sold BHX and CVT as industrial/housing estates...


.

[silverstrata]

Jabird:

Where else will you find so many large aircraft jammed in between two runways, with a few others overspilling into T4 / cargo / mainternance areas?



Thanks Jabird - you have sealed the demise and fate of LHR better than I could ever have done. A perfect description of everything that is wrong with LHR. But it would make a lovely industrial estate.... :D




Jabird:

I can't see how LHR could be forced to close either, it would be challenged in the high courts. Govt lawyers would argue it had to close in order to protect this new national asset (owned by the Chinese). BAA/FV lawyers would say 'you can't compulsory purchase one business just to protect the future viability of another, larger, business'. That is called a monopoly!


The government can do what it likes, and it is about time that some of our senior judges got a severe slapping. The judges are failing to see the distinction between the legislative and executive roles of government, and are increasing assuming the former role instead of the latter. It is not for judges to challenge governments, if the law is clear. The courts are there to implement law, not to make it.



And there is no monopoly being made here. At present there is only one owner of Heathrow. But there is no reason why the government cannot run all the basic airport infrastructure at Silver-Boris - just like they run the basic railway tracks through Network Rail. And there is no reason why you cannot have multiple owners of one airport, just as you sometimes get abroad (each terminal having a different owner-operator).

On top of this, you have multiple handling agents, multiple retail outlets, and multiple airlines. So where is this monopoly, exactly? Is Network Rail a monopoly? Is the motorway network a monopoly?


.

[Fairdealfrank]

Jabird, not serious about Will Shakespeare airport, was just intended as an illustration as how silly all this could become! Had commented that Gaydon could be feasible, for the sake of discussion, but also pointed out that it is unnecessary. Actually agree with your comments about Elmdon 100%. Don't give Ryanair ideas about renaming BHX to "London North".

As for airport names, the best and simplest is to use accurate geographical locations: the name of the city and the name of the location. There is little point in naming airports after politicians, famous people, not-so-famous people, local heroes, etc..

This means no "Heathrow (Dick Turpin) International", but maybe "Silver International" can be an exception. There's a way to get back on-thread!

[Fairdealfrank]

Silver, government-owned airports were "off-loaded" by the Conservative government in the 1980s (along with British Airways) and had local councils sell-off their airports as well, thus cutting off a useful local stream of income to take pressure off the rates.

Yes Railtrack/Network Rail are in public ownership, but rail privatisation is not generally seen as a great success, not least because it requires a much larger government subsidy than in the British rail days. The bureaucracy involved shuffling bits of paper/invoices between the various companies is a nightmare. Let's not have airport infrastructure organised on the same basis.

On the other hand, if you're arguing for public ownership, that is a completely different agenda.

[silverstrata]

Paxboy:

Reported in The Guardian today: London slow to become the 'electric car capital of Europe' | Environment | guardian.co.uk

Quote:
Nearly three years ago, the mayor of London told fellow international mayors in Seaul that he would ensure 100,000 electric vehicles were in London "as soon as possible".



Yes, but please remember that Boris-boy and most of the media are technical and scientific amoebas. If they knew anything about electric vehicles, they would have known they were a non-starter and not promoted them. So it mattered not how much Boris liked them or promoted them, they were never going to sell.


a. Electric vehicles are primarily coal and gas powered - and thus do absolutely nothing to 'Save the Planet'. (If you believe in this Green 'scientific funding' scam.) All they do is pump the pollutants into the countryside instead of the city - so you eat the pollution instead of breathing it.

b. The average turbo diesel does much better mpg than any electric vehicle (up to 30% better). The losses on making, transmitting, storing, and using electricity are enormous. Thus electric vehicles actually destroy the planet (if you believe in this Green 'scientific funding' scam).

c. The milage claims on electric vehicles are pure spin, smoke, mirrors and lies - this is New Labour technology, pure and simple. Take a 4-year old battery pack, and then go out in -5oc conditions with the lights, heater and demister on, and your 90-mile range has suddenly become 10 miles range. Suddenly, your wonderful eco-machine has become a deadly liability (especially if you are stuck in a snow-drift, with no heater).



P.S. Boris' hydrogen busses are even worse. They are powered by gas (by the gas reforming method of hydrogen production), and do some 40% less mpg than a diesel bus (energy equivalent). Now this would not be so bad if the pollutants were emitted way out on the east coast somewhere (so Denmark gets them). But no, Boris bought a mobile hydrogen generator, and it is located somewhere in central London (its exact location is a closely guarded secret) !! So the hydrogen busses actually pollute central London more than the diesel busses do (except in particulates).


Don't you love politics, and the brain-dead political classes...



.

[silverstrata]

Fairdeal:


Silver, government-owned airports were "off-loaded" by the Conservative government in the 1980s (along with British Airways) and had local councils sell-off their airports as well, thus cutting off a useful local stream of income to take pressure off the rates.



Yes, I know - an asset sale too far in my opinion.

Not because airports should generate profits - they may, they may not. But government should run some basic infrastructure, just as they run the motorways.

The complete rail sell off was another asset sale too far, and they finally realised their mistake and had to re-nationalise them (the tracks, that is). The National Grid should be government operated too.


.

[Fairdealfrank]

Silver, agreed.

An addition to the grid there is a case for including the central electricity generating board, the railways, NATS, the utilities (electricity, gas and water and telecommunications companies), in other words, the "natural" monopolies and strategic infrastructure.

It doesn't necessarily need to be nationalisation for some or all of these. Municipalisation, co-operatives, not-for-profit companies, wholly publicly-owned companies are some of the other ways this could be achieved, but please, no more disasterous public-private partnerships (PPP) or private finance initiatives (PFI)!

However, it is unlikely to happen as none of the political parties are accross this agenda, and it certainly smacks too much of "socialism" to be of interest to the Labour Party.

[jabird]

P.S. I was not thinking about Gaydon competing with BHX and CVT, but replacing them. Just think how much dosh you could raise, if you sold BHX and CVT as industrial/housing estates...

Silver, you are back to the same over-inflated values of dead airports as you have with LHR!

CVT's value as an airport isn't much - unlike LHR or BHX it isn't a going concern - but there may be some useful minerals under the runway. I'll leave that for the CVT thread if anyone fancies going there, we're pretty good at sending ourselves to Coventry these days - home of the jet engine but no commercial flights, home of the bike but no bike lanes and soon to be the largest city in Europe with high speed rail on our doorstep but no station :D:D:D

As for BHX, you have to look at the site as a whole - very much an early adopter of the 'airport city' concept everyone else is trying to follow. Airport + NEC + arena + station + hotels + biz park - the sum of the whole is greater than the parts.

And ditto of course for the way LHR interacts with its surroundings. Yes, it is crowded, but being so makes it an exceptional user of land on a gross value add per square mile basis.

There's nothing in the Foster Island plans for any kind of significant commercial development to support the airport - just warehousing for cargo ops, very much a CTRL C + CTRL P from HKG - very different geography, different government, different economics.

That's why Foster / Boris / Silver Island remains weak.

[PAXboy]

Yes indeed silverstrata, I only mentioned the egregious Boris for a laugh! ;)

[silverstrata]

Paxboy:

Yes indeed silverstrata, I only mentioned the egregious Boris for a laugh!



Frank:

Silver, agreed.



Two posts agreeing with me? Sorry, I'll have to sit down for a rest, to calm the palpitations. I must have said something wrong here....



.

[jabird]

First silverstrata turns into a commie, then people start to agree with him :D:D:D

I'm getting worried too? Maybe he's got a rescue plan for Malev - the first tenant for Silver Island?

[Fairdealfrank]

Thought as much, Silver, as John McEnroe would say: "you cannot be serious". Have long suspected that you've been playing devil's advocate throughout this thread and winding it up. LOVE IT!

[jabird]

Thought as much, Silver, as John McEnroe would say: "you cannot be serious". Have long suspected that you've been playing devil's advocate throughout this thread and winding it up. LOVE IT!

There's no harm in that, this project needs to be debated within the industry. Apart from Flybe, no airlines seem to be taking it seriously, but the government clearly is.

Now, back to the arguments...

Silver, remind me how much space you'd have between the two inner runways.

I can't get a scale plan of the Foster proposals, but the general format for a midfield terminal between parallel runways seems to be to go for around 1km.

If 1.5k is needed for widespaced operations, this seems to be workable when a four runway pattern of 2 + 2 is used.

The Foster proposals seem to be pasted from HKG, whose two runways are about 1k apart -and ditto for KIX. That has to be the precedent, as they use reclaimed land. Even ATL's inner runways are only about 1k from each other.

The exception seems to be CDG - for all its faults, still well ahead of its time. There's a good 2k between the inner runways here - but that is much easier when you're the centrally controlled French government, and you have the land.

So Silver, I refer you back to the point I made about LHR being crowded - runways there are also only about 1.2k apart.

I know you've proposed 6 runways and two terminal areas, but if we are going to have a serious debate, we have to run with what Foster has suggested.

What is the difference between the overall amount of space for terminals between Foster Island and Heathrow? Granted, two extra runways, but you need the terminals to handle the traffic.

Otherwise, Flybe's aim to offer feeders in to this airports is just as much a fantasy as the project itself.

Disclaimer - this should be my last post before winding down for the weekend. Any measurements above are crude estimates only!

[Fairdealfrank]

No harm in it all, Jabird, Silver is proving to be an excellent devil's advocate and as you say, it's needed.

Have doubts about Flybe's willingness to pay the exhorbitant airport charges that the Silver Island owners would doubtless have to charge in order to recoup its investment.

Does or could BE's business model include feeding the nation's hub airport? Is it just the cost of acquiring enough landing slots that stops Flybe offering feeders at LHR (bearing in mind their links with BA)? Put it another way, would an expanded, less slot-constrained LHR attract other UK airlines?

If so feeding Silver Island could be feasible for BE and other UK carriers because APD and issues associated with operating out of the nation's hub airport would apply equally to LHR and Silver Island. However, as the airlines won't leave LHR, there is nothing to feed.

As for the government, it cancelled LHR expansion a little prematurely without thinking it through properly and has got itself into one hell of a mess on aviation policy.

It is now desperately trying to square a circle it knows that it can't. Hence it is finally taking Silver Island/Foster "seriously" (allegedly) and coming up with daft nonsense like "Heathwick", and the Northolt satelite/overspill airport idea. It's done what all governments do: kicked it into the "long grass" in the form of the consultation in March.

[silverstrata]

Jabird:

I can't get a scale plan of the Foster proposals, but the general format for a midfield terminal between parallel runways seems to be to go for around 1km.



This is one of the big problems with Foster, which I have been trying to tell them about for months. The minimum requirement for simultaneous opps is 1.5 km between the runways, and this is why Heathrow has a problem, being only 1.4 km between the runways.

So Foster is not only proposing an airport that cannot run simultaneous opps, he is also inviting the same huge LHR problems of narrow taxiways and not enough stands. Not sure if you are all aware, but B747s were not allowed to taxi on the LHR inner until 1995, because there was no room. And even after the amended the layout to allow it, I always got the feeling that someone not on the centerline would take our tail off.

If we are designing an airport for the next century, we need as much room as possible, which is why I had the 5-6 runway layout, and an airport at least 4 km across (three groups of runways with 2km between each group).


Plus, of course, this layout will allow separation of domestic short-haul mediums and long-haul heavies - for greater traffic flow. And also for overcoming this mad idea that someone coming in international, and going out international has to clear customs and immigration. Why? Nobody has explained to me why so many countries do this. With a fully international terminal, someone coming in from the States and going out to the Middle East could stay airside with no checks (apart, perhaps, from a security screen.)


Foster is simply not looking ahead enough. Simply moving LHR to the Isle of Grain, while retaining all the limitations and restrictions that LHR has, will not help anyone.


.

[ZOOKER]

If we are designing an airport for the next century, we first need a viable alternative to Jet A1. :E

[jabird]

If we are designing an airport for the next century, we need as much room as possible, which is why I had the 5-6 runway layout, and an airport at least 4 km across (three groups of runways with 2km between each group).

If we want another DEN, we'll have to find the land to build it, which we haven't got. In which case, we have to make do with an island or partially reclaimed land.

Because the amount of space is constrained, the airport will be too - although I had assumed airports like HKG & KIX would have been built for parallel ops. So ATL too - can only do so on the two outers - correct? Surely, tht is what Foster is thinking of?

My issue is that with only around 1k between the runways, total available space for terminals is about 4 sq kms. We've discussed LHR, HKG would need to fill the midfield to move towards 80/100m pax pa.

Silver, I remind you that the proposal on the table is Fosters, not yours (when you say you've been telling Foster, have you pointed him to this thread? :cool:)

CDG looks like a better model, but how do you pay for the extra approx 4km sq?

And also for overcoming this mad idea that someone coming in international, and going out international has to clear customs and immigration.

My understanding is that this is an American problem, not a British one. Fly BA BOS-LHR-AUH, if it's all through T5, do you not stay airside? If you have to fly, say, IAD-LHR 3 (UA), then LHR (1) - NCE (BD), then if the only way between them is landside, you could 'escape' into the UK, so you have to go through the checks.

Afaik, any airside transfer would not warrant further security checks. I've been checked twice at LGW to go to ATL, then again just for the privilege of arriving at ATL - afaik, the second checks don't take place anymore?

[jabird]

If we are designing an airport for the next century, we first need a viable alternative to Jet A1.

Maybe, but we could have a whole debate about this and the other challenges the industry faces. I think we've done pretty well on this thread so far to all work on the assumption that the demand is there, and that the technology will be there to meet it.

[PAXboy]

If this recession turns into the 2ns Great Depression, there will not be any demand! The Western Economies are in deep trouble and, in my view, some way yet to go. Until the Euro and Southern European States issue is resolved - no one knows what will happen next.

Talk by all means, but sit tight and wait to see if the West has an economy where people are able to pay even a LoCo fare.

[silverstrata]

Frank:

Does or could BE's business model include feeding the nation's hub airport? Is it just the cost of acquiring enough landing slots that stops Flybe offering feeders at LHR (bearing in mind their links with BA)? Put it another way, would an expanded, less slot-constrained LHR attract other UK airlines?



I think so. That is the primary role of an international hub, and the reason LHR needs to move and expand. I have used Flybe on many occasions for routes such as Manch to regional airports in Spain and Italy, where we interlined through Brussels of all places, if I remember correctly.

Ok, nowadays some unmentionable Locos go direct to many odd places in Europe (but I refuse to go with them, as a matter of principle.) But if not, you have to go via a hub.

So you could go via another European hub, like AMS or BRU. But you should be able to go via LHR, and you simply cannot at present - and I am sure Flybe would love to pick up more international traffic from a UK hub. With an expanded Thames-based Silver-Foster you should be able to interline through this new hub to many regional airports in Europe (picking up onward international passengers en-route).



Think of this the other way around too. A Frenchman wants to go from Lyon to Exeter. At present this is not possible through LHR as there are no Exeter-LHR flights. (In fact, to get from EXT to LHR, you have to go via CDG !). So the only option is Lyon-EXT via Air France and CDG. So UK airlines and UK Plc loses out yet again.

There must be so many similar interline connections that are not really possible through the UK, because there is no one large hub with enough routes and enough regional airlines to accommodate this traffic. And if regional passengers cannot interline, then think of the problems that international passenger have, if they arrive at LHR and want to go to the likes of Exeter or Lyon.



.

[silverstrata]

Jabird:

Because the amount of space is constrained, the airport will be too - although I had assumed airports like HKG & KIX would have been built for parallel ops. So ATL too - can only do so on the two outers - correct? Surely, tht is what Foster is thinking of?



I don't think even the outers are far apart enough, with the original Foster proposal. But even if they were, you could not use them for quick parallel approaches, because you would have to hold all outbounds until the inbounds had landed (because of the potential conflict for go-arounds) - which defeats the whole idea of an efficient high capacity airport.

If the landings are on the inners, then the outers can take off with a 15 degree turn away from the centerline, because the inbound on the inner now has enough clearance for any go-arounds.

But if you are in Foster's Isle of Grain site, you would have to check when the left runway can make that initial left turn, because there is some higher ground to the SE of the climb-out. The right runway is not so constrained in its right turn, and can operate simultaneous on the inner with no problem.

This means the inner runways need to be at least 1.5km apart. And if we are to prevent the taxiway/terminal overcrowding that we see at LHR, then they need to be at least 2km apart. And to really prevent overcrowding and improve flow, we need a domestic/short-haul runway another 2km to the NW (with its own terminal, and a really fast rapid-transit).


.

[Gonzo]

If the landings are on the inners, then the outers can take off with a 15 degree turn away from the centerline, because the inbound on the inner now has enough clearance for any go-arounds.

Care to expand your thinking on that one?

[Geffen]

I have a vague memory that ICAO stipulates 30 degree turns for missed approaches but stand to be corrected.

[EGCA]

I know this will upset Silverstrata somewhat, but on the BBC Midlands news this evening Transport minister Justine Greening, visiting BHX today commented that with the runway extension and more long-haul destinations served, passengers from Heathrow might want to hop on HS2 and be at BHX quicker that using the Piccadilly line to London. Or at least words to that effect.

Dont shoot the messenger. I am only reporting this, not passing an opinion.

[silverstrata]

Gonzo:

Can you expand your thinking on that one?


Sure.

Aircraft on finals to the left outer, and one ready for take off on the left inner. Once the inbound is within 5nm the outbound cannot take off, as there will be a less-than-5nm conflict if the inbound goes around instead of landing. nb ... The left outbound will have a SID that includes a left turn, because it will need that for separation from the right runway. If there is no turn in SID, then the two runways cannot do simmultaneous departures.

But if the inbound is bound for the left inner, the aircraft ready for take off on left outer can depart if its SID has an immediate turn away from the centerline. So if the inbound goes around (straight ahead), they will be on diverging tracks.

Geffen has said this difference in track has to be 30 degrees, but I am sure I have done SID departures where the stipulation was a 15 degrees turn. Anyone know differently?

And you might ask about sites like LGW, where the guy in front takes off only 2nm in front of you. But as I understand it, this is ok because if you go around ATC will give you an immediate turn away from the aircraft just airborne. But ATC cannot do that at a multi-runway airport, when there are aircraft opperating simultaneously on the right runway.

I hope this sort of makes sense.

.

[silverstrata]

EGCA.

I know this will upset Silverstrata somewhat, but on the BBC Midlands news this evening Transport minister Justine Greening, visiting BHX today commented that with the runway extension and more long-haul destinations served, passengers from Heathrow might want to hop on HS2 and be at BHX quicker that using the Piccadilly line to London.


Are you (thus the Transport Minister) suggesting that people will fly into BHX to get to London?? I think not. Are international passengers going to interline into Europe via BHX? I think not. Are international passengers going to use BHX twice, after suffering a 35-knot cross-wind, which is usual at BHX? I think not.

As far as air travel is concerned HS2 will only carry passengers to and from either LHR or Silver-Foster.


And I hope that the Transport Minister was implying that people would fly in international to LHR, and then catch the HS2 to go to BHX in order to catch their 'domestic' flight to Denmark or some other small 'regional' place not currently served by LHR !!

What passengers want, is to fly in international into Silver-Foster, and find a nice little Flybe turbo-prop sitting at the 'domestic' terminal next door (perhaps under some code-sharing agreement with BA), and waiting to whisk them into Europe.


.

[Fairdealfrank]

That comment along with the less than impressive appearance on "Sunday Politics" suggests that Justine may be out of her depth.

Wasn't there a comment in this thread about her cutting the grass? She could cut mine and realise that aircaft noise under the flightpath isn't that bad - unless you're at Colnbrook, Cranford, Hatton Cross or Stanwellmoor. But at Putney? or Clapham Junction? Do me a favour!

What happened to "no new runways in the south east"? Now it appears to be "maybe four more runways in the south east". Pity that two of them won't be at LHR.

[ZOOKER]

silverstrata,
Why can't the inbound on the left outer execute a 140 degree left turn at the R/W threshold or 500 ft AAL, (whichever is the later), when it goes around? This would be similar the standard missed approach at EGCC, where the R/W centre-lines are 390m apart.

What passengers want is to fly into a big airport in the country that they're going to, and then get a domestic flight, bus, train, tram, hire-car, taxi, bicycle, camel or donkey*, (*delete as applicable) to take them to where they want to be.

[controlx]

‘Real’ commuting time to BHX from London pre and post HS2 (2026)
From 2026, assuming HS2 is on time, one should be able to get from Euston station to the proposed Birmingham Interchange station to the east of the National Exhibition Centre in 38 minutes. A proposed new extension to the current SkyRail (AirRail) people-mover train link to the Airport terminal will go via the current Birmingham International Rail station. That link today runs at around every two minutes and takes around 2 minutes from the terminal to the current train station.
However, the extension to the new HS2 Birmingham Interchange Station will make that whole run about 1.4 miles, so the trip from the HS2 station (Birmingham Interchange) to the terminal could take 8-10 minutes with the drop-off/stop at the Birmingham International Station and/or outside the NEC, if there was another stop there. Accordingly, allowing for walking off the HS2 platform to the people-mover/SkyRail platform, waiting up to 2-3 minutes, then getting to the terminal’s SkyRail platform, the London Euston station to BHX terminal journey will take at least 50 minutes – not the ‘40 minutes’ that has been quoted by BHX directors (Paul Kehoe & others).
Today, trains take 1hr10mins from Euston to Birmingham International rail station, so perhaps 1hr 15 mins from London Euston to the BHX terminal if you are lucky.
The question therefore is whether shaving 25 minutes off a commute from London to an International Airport most likely in the opposite direction to where most travellers are going (south or east) will change the habits of those travellers? Living/staying in central London, you’ll need to give yourself arguably three hours perhaps from leaving your front door to take-off time to catch that BHX flight, even post HS2. Why would anyone do that, especially if the plane they are about to take is likely to be flying back over the top of London in 3.5 hours time?
Sorry, not going to happen, even post HS2

[EGCA]

Silverstrata: To be honest I didn't understand Ms Geening's logic, comparing the tube journey into London from LHR to the HS2 journey to BHX. You dont journey into central London to catch an ongoing flight!

I'll try and find the programme on the BBC news website and listen to her again. See if I can get a better understanding of what her point was.

[Fairdealfrank]

Why would anyone go via BHX, an airport with far fewer destinations than LHR, whether by HST or not, when one can go via LHR or several other London airports.

Obviously the idea of flying to/from BHX would only ever apply to someone starting/ending their journeys in the centre of London and Controlx mentions that 3 hours would be needed. It would realistically have to be more than 3 hours, unexpected events have to be allowed for.

Anyone travelling from the conurbation can forget it, as it could easily take up to 2 hours just to get to Euston.

Even in the unlikely event of the flight being dirt cheap, this would be more than wiped out by the high train fare.

Think again Justine.

[EGCA]

I have not been able to find the Midlands News item on iplayer or whatever, but on reflection Ms Greening made her strange comment after saying something about new destinations in the Far East from "BHXplus". Surely she doesn't think that pax only fly "one-way" round the World? ie Fly into Heathrow from the West and then HS2-it to an expanded BHX for a long-haul flight to the Far East?

On reflection I am not sure she was sure what she was saying, but without a transcript we had better leave her to it!

[silverstrata]

Zooker:

Why can't the inbound on the left outer execute a 140 degree left turn at the R/W threshold or 500 ft AAL, (whichever is the later), when it goes around? This would be similar the standard missed approach at EGCC, where the R/W centre-lines are 390m apart.



Well, I suppose you could. There are not that many international airports that have such large close-in turns, but if it works and everyone is happy, then I suppose it is possible. In which case, the arrival runways would be the outers.

Manch approach plates:
http://www.fly-sea.com/charts/EGCC.pdf






Zooker:

What passengers want is to fly into a big airport in the country that they're going to, and then get a domestic flight, bus, train, tram, hire-car, taxi, bicycle, camel or donkey*, (*delete as applicable) to take them to where they want to be.


Not if it is half the price to fly into a neighbouring country, and catch the 'local' connection from there. Check out the interlining possibilities worldwide on a search engine, and see the differences in price.


.

[jabird]

I know this will upset Silverstrata somewhat, but on the BBC Midlands news this evening Transport minister Justine Greening, visiting BHX today commented that with the runway extension and more long-haul destinations served, passengers from Heathrow might want to hop on HS2 and be at BHX quicker that using the Piccadilly line to London. Or at least words to that effect.

Then she really is more clueless than her previous utterances have metioned - and all because she's bought a few clumps of grass near Heathrow to show her solidarity with the local antis.

Let's face it - I still don't agree with Boris Island, but it is a London answer to a London problem. BHX management need to stop pursuing long haul fantasies and serve the local market - but that is for the BHX thread!

As FDF points out - even if someone were ill-informed enough to compare travel times to Heathrow on the Picadilly line with HS2 to Birmingam (err, hello Justine, have you not heard of the Heathrow 'Express'?) - they could still have to fork out £100 rtn for a peak train fare to match an early morning or mid afternoon departure.

The other problem is that afaik, LHR, LGW & STN expresses + trains from NCL down to MAN run 24/7 - ok, big gaps in service in the dead of night, but you can still make a 6am flight. The first HS2 won't leave Euston until around 5, arriving M42 station 5:38, then imagine the panic waiting for the people mover to turn up, and rushing through security to arrive at the gate at 5:59. Sorry - gate well and truly closed!

Also, there's the small question of frequency. If there's problems with the tube, usual consequence is wait a few more minutes for the next one, suffer like sardines, but still get there. Allowing 30 mins leeway should cover it, but an hour is best. Now here's the part they don't mention - if HS2 is built to phase 2, and if it runs according to projections (two big ifs) - there's going to be huge pressure between M42 and Old Oak Common. How do you shove so many trains through a busy line? Answer - don't have any stations. They've done that - but M42 station will have a through line, so only some will stop there. An ICE train needs 30k to reach 300kmh, on HS2 they want 400kmh. So to cater for the rail equivalent of the wake turbulence this will create, departures from M42 will be spaced within 2-3 minutes of each other. So you'll get the train from Curzon St whizzing through (why would it stop?) - then they'll stop one from York, Leeds, Manchester and Glasgow respectively. Yeah - four trains per hour is the sell, but the reality is dash for the 10:00, if you miss it, you've got 10:02, 10:05 and 10:08 - then 52 minutes to the next one.

As a faster link from Brum to London, northern England and Scotland, hs2 can be useful - but as an airport shuttle, forget it.

[jabird]

Think of this the other way around too. A Frenchman wants to go from Lyon to Exeter. At present this is not possible through LHR as there are no Exeter-LHR flights. (In fact, to get from EXT to LHR, you have to go via CDG !). So the only option is Lyon-EXT via Air France and CDG. So UK airlines and UK Plc loses out yet again.

Silver, not the best example, but let's run with it.

Why are there no flights from EXT to LHR or any other LON airports? Simply not worthwhile, far too short a sector. So going via CDG would be pointless, we have these things called trains. Also, for that route in question, I'd do LYS - CDG by train, then CDG-EXT.

Now BE have a major presence at EXT, SOU, BHX and a few routes from NWI too. All of these airports are too close to London to feed it by air - but apart from NWI, they are also to the west of London, so any fast rail link is going to work far better going into LHR, not Boris Island. Same also for BRS, BOH etc.

So there's no point in bleating about the hub traffic 'lost' to CDG or AMS - London would never handle them anyway. And I also totally refute your point about interlining - people want to go direct, the Q400s interiors may look a bit cheap and nasty, and some people will grumble about turboprops, but most people just look at the headline price and go for the direct route if it is there. You are right in that sometimes an interline fare is cheaper than a direct service on a loco, especially during busier terms, but these are the exceptions not the norm.

Most pax don't give a damn about BHX's crosswinds either.

Now to go back to what I asked you about the island size - I will continue to base my critique on the proposal as it stands, not the alternatives you have suggested, but are not in a position to cost.

So I put it to you that, in their present form, Foster's plans might provide 2 extra runways, but they do little to provide enough terminal space to handle the extra flights. Therefore, it is hard to imagine the new airport handling over 100m pax pa (lets say 105m for good measure), and even if it does, they will have to use the largest aircraft available (ok, A380 is longer and fatter than a Q400, but they both have wings. As A380 is double deck, it surely offers the best pax# to space ratio?) - a method of adding capacity which LHR could also use.

Now do the maths - even if you were building on terra firma - why would you invest £xx billion in infrastructure to grow capacity from 70m pax pa to 105 m pax pa, when you are spending as if you are growing from zero? In other words, for every £3 spent, only £1 is going on new passengers?

[jabird]

Also, re: transfer pax.

I think their benefits are over-stated. They aren't spending money outside the airport unless there is a major delay. I have done a same day transfer (ATL), and headed downtown for a bit of sightseeing. IIRC, I spend about $3 on metro fares and $8 in a fast food joint. Visited the MLK memorial, which was free. Maybe airports themselves prefer the transfer crowd - usually a little more dwell time, and maybe an overnight? Would love to see the stats of who actually stays in airport hotels. I know airlines usually charge for 2 sets of PSC, but what are they actually paying? If they also don't have to be screened, then it starts to look juicy - except that there's one thing airports love more than anything else, and transfer pax never use them - cars! No parking charges, no hire cars to pick up, no cab fees.

Surely what we want is o&d, and really more d than o, as o sucks money out of UK plc. Forget the willy waving about who's airport is biggest - let Beijing take that crown from Atlanta. So what - Atlanta is nowhere on the world cities list, and it never will be. The world's most 'useful' airport - ie with the most O & D - not transfers? Somewhere near you perhaps SS?

I've never seen a figure on which airport actually brings in the most visitors (outright, not as a %age - saying 95% of passengers at LDE are inbound in meaningless). One figure is that for every £1 tourists spend in the UK, £3 is spent abroad. I think the scales are more balanced in London.

Of course I don't want to put people off from visiting. The govt are perfectly good at that as it is - and the fact they are even looking at this is totally inconsistend compared with their no runways in SE & APD policies - almost to the point of being bizarre, or as if no-one can resist the temptations of a megaproject.

So the French can keep their transfer passengers, and we can just muddle by letting LGW fill up, then STN, then LTN and so on. Sexy it ain't, reality it is.

[Fairdealfrank]

Amazed that Justine has bought "a few clumps of grass" near LHR to "show solidarity" with the anti-expansion lobby and the so-called tree-huggers. It smacks of one of the worst examples of gesture politics of recent times!

Could it be that "transport secretary makes killing out of Heathrow compulsory purchase" doesn't make a good headline?

With reference to the LYS-CDG-EXT journey it's a pity that CDG cannot be avoided at all costs, it's a truly awful airport. Considering that it is purpose-built from scratch, there is no excuse. It's strange because the French are usually top-notch when it comes to infrastructure.

It's tragic that a LYS-LHR-EXT journey cannot be made. It's not just a question of a short hop (there were LHR-BHX flights 20 odd years ago), there is also the question of whether it is just the astronomically high cost of acquiring slot pairs that keeps non-LHR based UK airlines from operating thin domestic routes to/from LHR.

Put it another way, LHR had become a 4 runway airport back in the day and slot availability was not an issue, would there be a business case for connecting regional UK airports to the main hub, for example, BE feeding BA's long haul routes or WW feeding BD? Would the no-frills big boys have moved in?

Who knows in years to come, with increasingly unreliable journey times because of road congestion and rail overcrowding/engineering works, short hop feeder routes and thin domestic routes may once again become viable.

These questions would, of course, apply equally to a potential Shivering Sands (or should that be "SILVERing Sands"?) island airport.

As for transfer pax and their usefulness, from an airline point of view, they allow it to offer routes from its hub that may not be viable solely on origin-destination traffic. For example, would BA's BLR and HYD routes be viable without transfer traffic to/from North America? Would it be able to serve 20 or so North American destinations without transfer traffic to European destinations not directly served from there?

Transfer pax are good business and there are many carriers that would not exist without them. EK, EY, QR, SQ, etc., come to mind, but there are many others.

[jabird]

FDF,

CDG cannot be avoided at all costs, it's a truly awful airport.

I always love airport I can look up at and say 'wow' - and that applies to both terminals at CDG. But airports loved by passengers AND architects are rare. What makes you dislike it so much - at least LYS-CDG-EXT would be within T2 - BE used to use T1.

Put it another way, LHR had become a 4 runway airport back in the day and slot availability was not an issue, would there be a business case for connecting regional UK airports to the main hub, for example, BE feeding BA's long haul routes or WW feeding BD? Would the no-frills big boys have moved in?

Of course there would - it is always natural for carriers to use regional routes to feed their home market. National pride / loyalty / - more likely language for one, and there is latent demand for o&d on these routes too.

But the simple reality is that domestic routes in the UK are under threat from too many angles. Trains get overcrowded because our system allows people to board without reservation - the French would just make all long distance services reservation only - but doing that here would send fares through the roof! Most people will still take standing like cattle for the first hour or so (many trains empty as they head away from London) over all the hassles of domestic flying - train must have about 80% market share by now on MAN-LON?

More likely is that eventually, as HS2 turns into something useful and evolves into HS3 & 4 (if all the optimistic predictions turn true) - then routes like NCL & then EDI & GLA from LHR will become much thinner too.

[jabird]

As for transfer pax and their usefulness, from an airline point of view, they allow it to offer routes from its hub that may not be viable solely on origin-destination traffic.


I don't doubt that. My question was about whether or not it was worth building a superhub just to server more transfer passengers, as opposed to making do with what we have, and ending up with more point to point routes moving in to LGW & others. As long as it remains open, LHR is always going to have a certain %age of transfer pax, and a lower number will also pass through LGW. Afaik, even at STN, where the locos officially want nothing to do with people making connections, 16% of traffic is air-air transfer.

Transfer pax are good business and there are many carriers that would not exist without them. EK, EY, QR, SQ, etc., come to mind, but there are many others.

All those airlines are focused on long haul. LHR-SYD would need a tech stop anyway, so much less difference between 'direct' and 'connecting'.

So whilst BA may well feed, say PHX from various points in Europe, they would much rather have o&d. Why? a) They are only paying one set of airport charges, and b) they will get much higher yields on the direct traffic as they are the only airline doing the route (from UK).

[silverstrata]

Jabird

Now BE have a major presence at EXT, SOU, BHX and a few routes from NWI too. All of these airports are too close to London to feed it by air - but apart from NWI, they are also to the west of London, so any fast rail link is going to work far better going into LHR, not Boris Island. Same also for BRS, BOH etc.


I chose EXT because it is generally a terrible place to get to. The road route is long, crowded and hoplessly unreliable if you are catching a flight. The south coast line (the way I went last time) is slow and tortuous, and often stopped by rough seas.

I put it to you that the real reason that there is no Flybe turboprop to LHR is that LHR is full, and there are no slots. Personally, I think that demand would be there, if LHR could cope with more arivals.

Note that during the recent snow, LHR cut flights IN ADVANCE, because it knew that ANY significant weather would impact arrival rates - and since LHR is already running at 98% of capacity, it cannot cope with anything less than perfect conditions.

Silver-Boris, with its dedicated 'domestic' runway and terminal, could accomodate any number of shorthaul routes to the regions.



.

[PAXboy]

Any regional turboprop service into LHR was:


Bought up by BA
Routes shifted to LGW
Bingo 'new' slots at LHR
Simples!

They did that for years and no one stopped them, now, AFAIK, there aren't any such feeder services left.

[jabird]

Silver,

he south coast line (the way I went last time) is slow and tortuous, and often stopped by rough seas.

You are talking about the South Devon Sea Wall around Dawlish Warren - that is beyond Exeter, plenty of dramatic photos of that section exist, it is perhaps the rail equivalent of SXM or Kai Tak. Anyone, back to airports:


I put it to you that the real reason that there is no Flybe turboprop to LHR is that LHR is full, and there are no slots.

No, not for the very short hops - APD, fuel costs, the whole wastefulness of such a short rotation, - that is why none of the airports I mentioned have service to any other London airport either.

So I put it back to you - even if it might be desirable to have service through LHR, from CAX, MME, LDY and so on - they are all a bit further away, the huge investment which would be needed in a new airport, spending £2 on relocation for every £1 spent on expansion, combined with the costs of an island location - just aren't worthwhile.

[jabird]

Obviously LBA & MME have been & gone from LHR, as the routes became unviable for various reasons, including the challenges of making optimal use of LHR's slots.

Problem is - build a new airport, and you still have to deal with the huge increases in PSC that would be needed. So the thinner routes would go from being unviable due to slot restrictions to being unviable due to the cost (in addition to all the othe challenges)>

Where's the gain?

[silverstrata]

Jabird:

No, not for the very short hops - APD, fuel costs, the whole wastefulness of such a short rotation, - that is why none of the airports I mentioned have service to any other London airport either.



I think you will find that the main cost of these 'domestic' routes is the vast cost of the slots at LHR (even if a slot were available). You are talking about £millions in investment, just for the right to fly there, and no short-haul route can justify that.

And such a route is hardly 'wasteful' for a business commuter. The train from EXT puts you into London, which is not exactly where you want to be. A commuter flight will put you straight into the airport, and hopefully with baggage and bording passes already checked into your final destination in South America.

Now THAT is what customers would like, and THAT is what LHR cannot provide. And no amount of building extra capacity at other airports around London or Birmingham can provide that service, either.

.

[silverstrata]

.

It looks like my prediction for another £50 billion in quantitive easing (printing cash) has come true, as it has been announced by the BofE.

So we now await the further prediction that this money can be used for infrastructure projects like Silver-Boris-Foster Island. The problem for the government, is that it has categorically stated that it will reduce spending, and so if they are to spend £50 billion on an airport, they will have to conceal the spending in some manner.

I would predict them perhaps getting 'inward investement' from 'abroard', while simultaneously funnelling funding out to these same foreign investors via the overseas aid budget. At £12 billion a year, the ruinously expensive overseas aid budget could pay for Silver-Foster airport in just four years. The only problem here, would be the eventual owners of the airport, for it would be galling in the extreme for the British taxpayer to pay foreign institutions hard cash so that they can own our own infrastructure (as the government has already done with Jaguar Cars and British Steel). Its a bit like you taking a month's salary in cash every year, and scattering it from the roof of an office block - utterly pointless, and ruinous to your own family.


.

[PAXboy]

For as long as politicians in the 21st century, continue to take the same actions of politicians in the 20th, we shall continue to go round in circles.

I am emphatically NOT asking for a retread of one or another brand of what has gone before, nor any mish-mash in the middle. Sadly, any attempt at new thinking is always going to get bashed by the vested interests in not changing anything. That starts with the banks and the press and goes on from their. Things have to get very much worse, before the pressue to do it differently will be big enough.

Look at poor Obama, anything he tried to do has been trashed by vested interests. He will get re-elected by a reduced majority but there is no chance that he can fulfil the promise. Now, I am not trying to make a JetBlast style political row, just saying that £50 Bn thrown the same was as the last will have no effect.

As I have said, this airport is not going to be built.

[jabird]

Silver,

And such a route is hardly 'wasteful' for a business commuter. The train from EXT puts you into London, which is not exactly where you want to be.

Well, a lot of the time, London is exactly where the business traveller from Essex wants to be, and even though Paddington is on the western edge of Zone 1, it is still Zone 1. The City & Docklands will become much closer with Crossrail. For these short journeys, the train also wins on convenience - no downtime for security clearance, no queing at the gate, no long walks to faraway stands, no need to turn off the electronics for acceleration and breaking.

In terms of fuel usage, operating such a short sector is indeed inherently wasteful, and the UK govt also levies an APD charge of £12 for the privilege.

Those are two very key factors which weigh just as heavily against such flights operating as the PSC (which ultimately bears the cost of the slots) does.

Short sectors can still make sense when there is a body of water between the two cities in question - so actually, if you want to complain about the slot issue, go to JER / GCI / IOM etc.

But please don't make a business case based on the niche destinations which can't have access to Heathrow. We all agree that, given an absence of nimbys, Heathrow could do with an extra runway or two.

Where we won't agree is on what if anything can be done about it. So I simply take you back to the question I must have asked you about five times now. Given that £2 out of every £3 spent on the new airport will be replacing, not exanding capacity, at what level would you set PSC to make this airport work?

[jabird]

Well, a lot of the time, London is exactly where the business traveller from Essex wants to be

I should add - It is utter madness that Crossrail is not continuing at least as fas as Reading, which is a major junction and a key commuter destination (in and out).

Electrification to Reading would also enable a Reading to LHR through train, instead of the horrible bus link provided at present. Given that Exeter St Davids to Reading takes about 90 minutes, I think this train connection would be much more convenient than flying, especially as there would be no room for BE in T5, even if they wanted it.

[silverstrata]

Paxboy

Look at poor Obama, anything he tried to do has been trashed by vested interests. He will get re-elected by a reduced majority but there is no chance that he can fulfil the promise. Now, I am not trying to make a JetBlast style political row, just saying that £50 Bn thrown the same was as the last will have no effect.



A few thoughts.

The 'promise' of Obama was 'We Want Change' !! The most vaccuous election 'promise' ever devised, and how people fell for it, one will never know. When I run for president, I will campaign under a banner saying 'We Will Do Something'...

Brown did not throw £50 billion at anything - he threw £250 billion at something. Which is why some helpful wag left a note on the desk of the Treasury, when Labour left office, saying: 'there is no money left'.

You are right, if we make the same mistakes as Brown, then the new money will again dissapear into the Aether the same as the old. But Brown's folly was to use borrowing for daily expenditure, which never works. Borrowing has to be for special infrastructure - where is does work. Like Silver-Foster.

Think about it. If a factory borows to pay the wages, it is simply delaying the day it will go bust. But if a factory borrows to invest in new machinery, to make the precise knurled flange brackets that everyone needs, they are on the road to fame and fortune.

That, was Brown's folly, and the folly of every Labour government.


.

[Bagso]

We have trodden this path before, they built Stansted !

THe 3RD London Airport Except......

Nobody Moved !

No services to US, Asia, South Africa, India Japan, Australia !

Not one LHR based airline uses STN !

Complete waste of time "if the argument was to replace LHR which at the times it was , it failed"

If the LoCo revolution had not happened it would still be empty !

[BHX5DME]

The Secretary of State for Transport, Rt Hon Justine Greening MP, visited Birmingham Airport today to learn more about the huge capacity that is available immediately, and how Birmingham Airport can take pressure off creaking South East airports.

The debate about recently-launched plans for a “Boris Island” has ignited a fierce debate about Britain’s aviation strategy and events of the weekend have heightened worries about the resilience of the UK’s airport infrastructure.

This is a debate worth having. The crisis of Britain’s airports threatens to derail economic growth. We cannot place all of our eggs in one basket.

Whatever the merits of an Estuary Airport, two important questions remain unanswered by London’s Mayor.

Firstly, there is a question of timing. Department for Transport projections, announced in December 2011, forecast that the number of passengers using the UK's airports could reach 540 million a year by 2040, ahead of the 2008 figure of 372 million. With the best will in the world, it hardly seems possible that an Estuary Airport could be built within twenty years. So how is Boris going to fill the gap in the meantime?

Birmingham’s nine million passengers could be doubled today, on existing infrastructure. Its approved ‘Master Plan’ sees over 27 million using the Airport by 2030, and this could increase to over 35 million. Boris will need this capacity to fill the gap.

Second, there is the question of location. Whilst a high-speed rail link would do much to link an Estuary Airport to other parts of Britain, it is critical that Britain maintains airport capacity near its manufacturing base to create swift, affordable links with our export and import partners.

Mayor Boris should accept that it is no longer desirable for millions of passengers from the North and the Midlands to clog London’s overwhelmed airports, particularly those travelling to destinations well-served by airports like Birmingham.

He should also support the possibility that some London-based passengers would be better off travelling to Birmingham Airport. After all, with a one-hour journey-time from Euston, travelling from central London to a plane at Birmingham Airport is often quicker than the complicated trip to a Heathrow boarding gate. Particularly if you consider the crowded check-in queues and long slog to many gates at Heathrow.

CEO of Birmingham Airport, Paul Kehoe, said, “We were delighted to host the Secretary of State’s ‘fact finding’ visit. Birmingham is a hidden gem and really is the missing part in the aviation capacity jigsaw.

“Boris is right to ask how Britain’s airports can meet growing demand, and to think in ambitious terms about the answer. Because, as he rightly acknowledges, the answer is not a third runway at Heathrow. Everyone accepts that option is now closed.

“Our message to Boris is simple. Britain’s long-term aviation problem requires courageous thinking. But make best use of underused assets, rather than simply adding to the imbalance that has taken place.

“And our message to Justine Greening, the Transport Secretary, is that the forthcoming Aviation White paper must recognise the opportunity to distribute aviation in a way that economically benefits the whole UK – not just the South East!"

[silverstrata]

Bagso.

We have trodden this path before, they built Stansted !
THe 3RD London Airport Except...... Nobody Moved !
If the LoCo revolution had not happened it would still be empty !




Precisely, which is why LHR has to be closed if Silver-Foster is built.

I suppose you could make a case for just building another 5 runways at Stanstead, which would be a cheaper option (except good surface links would be more problematic). The only trouble would be that the planning enquiry would last 60 years, and still not come toma conclusion..





BHX

Birmingham’s nine million passengers could be doubled today, on existing infrastructure. Its approved ‘Master Plan’ sees over 27 million using the Airport by 2030, and this could increase to over 35 million. Boris will need this capacity to fill the gap.




Except that BHX is not where international passengers want to go.

Have they never heard of interlining? Do they think everyone wants to visit the UK Midlands or the S.E., and that's it? Almost every international flight I have undertaken over the last 3 years has involved an element of interlining - and I never even bother about considering LHR because it is an awful airport that will lose your interlining baggage, and it does not go to where I want to go.

Simply put LHR does not have the capacity to suit the modern traveller, and splitting its capacity with BHX makes the situation WORSE, not better.


.

[Navpi]

I agree with "STRATA" why on earth would you go to Birmingham ?:=

Its transit facilities are mediocre, interline connections are also poor , local roads are appalling, and the City itself is well to be honest dismal, its hardly a magnet for tourism so there is no incetive for inward traffic (sorry).

I just cannot see the argument for this ?

Put capacity where demand ALREADY exists whether that be the South East or infact ........Manchester !

It ALREADY has TWICE the capaciity available NOW that Birmingham could only offer on a "what if", basis.

It has fantastic domestic and European connections, with multiple daily flights to all major US cities. With the recent massive expansion via the Middle East it can at least demonstrate considerable outbound demand. It's also massively poplular as an inbound destination with a host of major attractions.

Airlines, Business and indeed passengers vote with their feet, the only two players in town are Heathrow and Manchester.

I have suggested before build a new airport AKA O'Hare 6/8 runways
and close Luton Stansted, Heathrow Gatwick, City, Southend etc etc.

...will not happen !

[jabird]

Department for Transport projections, announced in December 2011, forecast that the number of passengers using the UK's airports could reach 540 million a year by 2040, ahead of the 2008 figure of 372 million. With the best will in the world, it hardly seems possible that an Estuary Airport could be built within twenty years. So how is Boris going to fill the gap in the meantime?

That is if you believe the DfT projections. Considering the state of the economy, the ongoing rises in APD, not to mention the cost of fuel - what on earth lead them to the conclusion of revising them upwards?

Now let's take the scenario that there is still some growth, and come 2017, Thai Airways want to add more capacity for UK to BKK, and they can't get slots at LHR. They consider LGW v a regional link from either BHX or MAN.

Ryanair have a few routes left at LGW, and Thai approach mgt about the route. Do they keep serving Ryanair at £10 a pop or do they tell MOL to get lost and go for the £20 a pop Thai are happy to pay + increased likelihood of catering, shop spend and parking.

So we play pass the airport - LHR to LGW, then maybe MOL, who has already got his budget terminal at STN, goes there. Maybe, and it is still a big maybe - STN and LTN are by now full, and only then would the low cost routes get farmed out to airports like BOH and BHX. Why on earth to BHX think the premium traffic will go there, just because they have an HS2 link?

If I was BHX mgt, I'd be looking for a Prestwick type deal with whoever takes on the Virgin franchise, which by 2026 will be the 2nd tier operator - and I'd be looking at offering cheap rail deals for anyone using the airport from London or Manchester.

[jabird]

I agree with "STRATA" why on earth would you go to Birmingham ?

Birmingham's city centre has improved much in recent years, but I think that increases its appeal as a domestic destination for conferences and so on.

We're talking about a global hub here, and I'm afraid London is the only game in town here. Manchester does extremely well out of its links to the east coast - and iiirc from the Thai example I mentioned, has it not had a BKK route a long while back?

Realistically though, if airlines want to serve the BHX or MAN markets, they can and will do so, and BHX's runway extension will add a handful of extra destinations not currently served.

But as for serving London airports, passengers will want an airport that is actually in, or near, London. Comparisons between walking out to LHR's more distant stands aren't relevant - the walking pace is controlled by the passenger. In the unlikely event that any airport people mover stalls, the flights will be held. HS2 is an entirely separate system - chances are that it will be very reliable, but it won't be infallible. At the moment, less than 20% of BHX pax use public transport to get there - even with HS2, this is unlikely to go much above 30% - so the majority will still use other means, and they will still want their flight to leave on time.

[Fairdealfrank]

Jabird, had to use CDG a few times while there were no LHR-ORY flights. Always experienced long delays waiting to take off and land despite 4 parallel runways; always used remote stands when plenty of contact stands were available; long bus rides to/from remote stands (thought we were being taken to the Channel tunnel on one return leg!). CDG also has the worst reputation for losing baggage (not mine, was hand baggage only), and for those unfortunate to be passing thru CDCG1 and using the RER train, there's the hassle of a shuttle bus. An airport built
from scratch should be much better organised, so, a truly awful airport!

As for reservation-only trains there a couple of problems with this: not everyone can plan in advance, the advantage of rail is the ability to "walk-on" even if it costs more. The other problem is that on some train services, it is difficult to differentiate between long distance, commuter
and short-hop journeys. A compulsory rail reservation system would push up prices by restricting supply, and be guaranteed to drive people onto domestic flights (where available) and the motorways.

Not convinced that airlines do not value transfer pax. Obviously carriers like EK, EY, QR, SQ, and more recently TK, have transfer pax as a business model, but suspect that it is likely that the likes of BA, AF, KL, LH, etc., probably benefit from a mix. Some routes only exist because
of transfer traffic potential, but they can also generate origin/destination traffic. Obviously in the case of no frills there is no such thing as a transfer pax, even those that are actually doing a transfer.



Silver, your choice of EXT for a EXT-CDG-LYS was a good one not just for the reasons you stated but also because it illustrates the stupidity of "airport junction" being left "unfinished". It only allows rail access to/from LHR to the main line in one direction (to/from Hayes, Ealing, and London).

To save money on a short chord, it is impossible to run trains from a whole swathe of the country to LHR: the West Country (including Exeter), the Severn estuary, south and west Wales and the southern part of the West Midlands, either directly or with one change at Reading. It also doesn't help that long-distance trains do not stop at Hayes. No joined up railway there, no joined-up thinking either! Has no one heard of integrated public transport?



On the subject of a lack of joined-up thinking/integrated public transport agree 100% with Jabird's comment ("utter madness") on the ludicrous decision not to run the Crossrail as far as Reading (or Southend on the other side), as existing commuter trains run up to London from both Reading and Southend on what will become Crossrail.



Silver, you state that LHR has to close for SILVERing Sands to work. That is the biggest fly in the ointment -it won't happen, it's too late. The previous estuary plans were for additional capacity, not to replace LHR. Eventually, STN was chosen instead as a "THIRD London airport" (what did they think LTN was?), and as Bagso stated, STN was chronicly underused until FR and U2 moved in.

[jabird]

those unfortunate to be passing thru CDCG1 and using the RER train, there's the hassle of a shuttle bus. An airport built
from scratch should be much better organised

Last time I used CDG it was T1, and I took the RER, then the VAL. An iconic terminal just as much as T2, but I somehow think those escalators were more for show than practicality - the actual piers weren't so good. T3 looks pretty horrible, but that is only for the real cheapo airlines (apart from BVA of course!).

I know AF like to operate through connections in waves, so I wonder if the 'hog' a lot of the contact stands? Similar to many US airports where the airline leases out the gates?

As for reservation-only trains there a couple of problems with this:

As I said in my post - it would present a new set of problems, but it is what SNCF use, and it would mean no standing.

Not convinced that airlines do not value transfer pax.

I doubt you will ever find Mr Walsh saying 'we hate transfer' passengers at a press conference, but the maths should spell it out - do you want higher yields and lower costs of the other way round?

Airlines like EK have to rely mainly on transfer passengers as there just wouldn't be a big enough market just to serve O&D. Having said that, as a result of these airlines existing, DXB has become a major destination in its own right, so now you have VS & BA flying there from LHR too.

To save money on a short chord

Unfortunately, it isn't quite as simple as that:

* At the time the LHR express opened (98?), the only overhead wires west of Paddington were just the ones serving LHR. It is only recently that the project has begun to electrify the great western route, and even this will only reach certain stations.
* The LHR Exp is a four car unit, so you can't just shove in the kind of trains which currently operate the longer routes anyway (HSTs / Voyagers) - even if they were electrically powered.
* Most people heading on trains into PAD at present want to go to central London and beyond - only a small proportion actually want to go into Heathrow.
* Operating trains into LHR and then back out again would add to journey times - people would change onto direct services.

Ideally, when it comes round to HS4 or 5, they will operate through LHR and beyond. Until then, the most realistic option is for a four car service from a station that already has at least 4 trains per hour - so something like Oxford - Reading - Slough - Heathrow might work.

[jabird]

For similar reasons, it is going to be a challenge to get an HS2 spur into LHR. They are talking about only one train per hour, one from Manchester, one from Leeds - with a join / split at the Birmingham 'M42' station. HS2 uses quite a lot of existing corridor to get as far as Ruislip - but at some point they will have to drop a brand new spur across a new alignment to get into the LHR complex. That would cost a few billion for starters, then they've got a tunnel under the northern runway and somehow distribute a new line to the three terminal areas.

Can you really see that happening just to run one train per hour, without continuation anywhere else (like HS4 as mentioned above?).

Much cheaper to just interchange at Old Oak Common.

And there's Silver thinking 'yet another reason to close LHR'. Except that they haven't considered how to bring high speed rail into the new airport either.

[PAXboy]

From The Independent of today's date: The Government may face a legal challenge to its £33 billion HS2 high-speed rail project, it was revealed today.

Opponents of the scheme are also contacting the European Commission over concerns about HS2's environmental impact.HS2 rail link may face legal challenge - UK Politics - UK - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/hs2-rail-link-may-face-legal-challenge-6862590.html)


Just imagine how many challenges a Thames estury site would have. It is never going to be built.

[jabird]

Just imagine how many challenges a Thames estury site would have. It is never going to be built.

Paxboy, although we're in agreement about the eventual outcome, there is a big difference in the HS2 process and the original 2003 Aviation White Paper.

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 :=

[PAXboy]

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!

[ZOOKER]

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 :E is a big fan) did with the London Railway Termini, only on a larger scale.

[PAXboy]

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. :rolleyes:

[Fairdealfrank]

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.

[ZOOKER]

It Certainly isn't.
That will be 'London Oxford', or as it might be known, 'Endeavour Morse International'.

G'Dunk, G'Dunk, G'Dunk. :E

[Fairdealfrank]

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.

[jabird]

SOU and BOH ("London West" in FR-speak?) probably have have a prior claim to this status ahead of BHX

Difference between SOU & 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? :D:D:D

[jabird]

"Birmingham is a hidden gem and the missing part in the UK's aviation capacity jigsaw"

He has clearly had a logic bypass in the rush to get a crass soundbite:

"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.

[Fairdealfrank]

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!

[jabird]

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!

FDF, I think we are too much in agreement - see any of my previous posts or the Hs2 thread on Jetblast. :D

Where's Silver, we need to start arguing again! :ok:

[silverstrata]

Jabird

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.


.

[jabird]

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.

[Navpi]

.....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 !

[silverstrata]

Jabird

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!


What should be happening, Navpi, is that there should be 15 daily commuter flights in from MAN and BPL and the like, all converging on LHR and then taking those passengers onwards to HK. Plus a TGV rail link doing likewise.

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.



.

[ZOOKER]

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.

[LEWIS APPLEBY]

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

[jabird]

Silver,

If you can get the locals to agree to a 6-runway airport I might agree

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.

[jabird]

a. Fail to interline your bag and then take 1hr to get it to the reclaim, so you miss your HK flight.

Bags can get lost at any hub airport. Are we not over T5 teething problems? Or are brand new airports (as opposed to terminals) immune to such occurences? Remember Denver?

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.

Oh please! Can we focus on the day to day passenger experience, not some extreme case which is an operational matter anyway, nothing to do with the regular functionality of the airport.

15 daily commuter flights in from MAN and BPL

And a high speed train? The kind of high speed train link proposed to LHR will consist of 2x8 coach sets on an hourly rotation from Manchester Piccadilly and Leeds (join / split at Birmingham Parkway. Two rail coaches alone carry the equivalent of an A320. The link is likely to cost around £4bn - watch when it quietly gets cast aside.

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!

[Mr Mac]

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. :confused:

[jabird]

Using Japanese maths:

KIX took 7 years to build, initially for one terminal and one runway, don't have history, but current throughput is 13.5m, clearly below terminal capacity. We're in same ballpark as BHX. Original cost $20bn - runway 2 since added.

BI is at least 4x this in terms of terminal size + 4 runways. However, KIX went first, and was probably more of an engineering challenge compared to a partially reclaimed / island / estuary location. However, ultimate objective (claimed) is still 10x current KIX throughput. So when it comes to cost, can this really get done for less than $40bn / £25bn (2x KIX?).

Now we haven't built any mega airports lately, but we are proposing to build approx 170k of high speed railway, to be ready by 2026. This still has to go through parliament, then a detailed design process. Say Liz signs it off in 2014, and we start building in 2016 + two years (yes two years) of testing at the other end.

So still 8 years. Again, just as they later pioneered offshore airports, the Japanese pioneered high speed trains, long before we had sophisticated CAD modelling, not to mention more powerful machinery. The Tokaido Shinkansen, opened in 1964, took just 5 years, but at 515k is around 3x longer than HS2.

So even 60 years before HS2 gets opened, the Japanese were building 103km / year compared to our proposed 21k / year - so 5x as fast.

By that logic, Boris Island could take 7 (KIX) x 5 (x slower) x 4x (as large) = 140 years.

I hope it is a little bit quicker than that!

[Dannyboy39]

140 years will probably be the length of the public enquiry!

Edit: Just a quick question - I posted a message on another thread, but didn't come up because of moderation?

[silverstrata]

Zooker.

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.



Sorry, Zooker, but you are behind the drag-curve on this one.

MAN has very limited routes, and so if you want to go anywhere unusual or remote you MUST interline though an international hub somewhere - be that LHR, AMS, CDG or, indeed, some American hub.

But the trouble with UK hubs, is that they are all hopeless, and as international hubs go MAN is probably the worst of all. You can go to the US and to Pakistan, but thats about it.

Face facts, the UK needs a decent world hub with a multitude of destinations, and splitting that hub between LHR, MAN and BHX makes things WORSE, not better. There is no point flying from Knock or Cork to MAN, if the international leg of your journey is from LHR.




Jabird

Oh please! Can we focus on the day to day passenger experience, not some extreme case which is an operational matter anyway, nothing to do with the regular functionality of the airport.


Sorry, that has been my everyday experience of LHR, I have never had a simple flight through that accursed airport. Every visit has been an ordeal, which is why I avoid thebplace like the plague.

And my crazy transit experience is very real and pertinent. How many international hubs to NOT have an internal train system, to get from terminal to terminal? How many airports force you to go landside, to get from terminal to terminal, via the local tube system? The whole place is an embarrasement.




Mr Mac.

My own view re Borris Island is build it by all means another London centric project like the Channel Tunnel.



Unfortunately, this is typical of misplaced northern envy (and I used to be a northerner). Where did you think they would build the Channel Tunnel from, Newcastle?? The clue to the most logical location, lies in the name....


.
.

[Navpi]

and as international hubs go MAN is probably the worst of all. You can go to the US and to Pakistan, but thats about it.

Very true, oh and multiple daily flights to Dubai, Doha, Abu Dhabi, Istanbul, TelAviv, Singapore, Dhaka......

All MAJOR European Capitals every hour or so (....are these International ?) even Keflavik !

plus.......3/4 weekly/daily

Alicante, Barcelona , Bezier, Biarritz , Budapest, Bremen, Faro, Ibiza, Katowice, Malaga, Memmingen, Milan, Murcia, Oslo, Palma, Paris, Reus, Rome, Rzeszow , Tallinn , Tours, Tenerife, Valencia .

60 + destinations.

And for good measure THEE best connected Domestic airport in the UK with hourly flights from Aberdeen to Southampton and all points in-between.

Suprised at you Strata, "normally balanced and factual", I blame the sherry ;)

....I have excluded cargo to avoid further embarrasment !

[Skipness One Echo]

THEE best connected Domestic airport in the UK with hourly flights from Aberdeen to Southampton and all points in-between.

Um....that's Glasgow.

[jabird]

Alicante, Barcelona , Bezier, Biarritz , Budapest, Bremen, Faro, Ibiza, Katowice, Malaga, Memmingen, Milan, Murcia, Oslo, Palma, Paris, Reus, Rome, Rzeszow , Tallinn , Tours, Tenerife, Valencia .

Hang on a minute - you are confusing low cost base with transfer hub - i.e. a through ticket and the ability to through-check baggage (see thread - what makes a hub). :=

A twice weekly Ryanair hop to Bezier does not count at all.

Most of the other routes are feeding somebody else's hub. What do you have left - predominantly leisure routes from Virgin and a bit of a hybrid operation from Flybe.

Manchester airport punches well above its weight compared to what we have here - but interline hub it is not!

[jabird]

Sorry, that has been my everyday experience of LHR, I have never had a simple flight through that accursed airport.

Well maybe, but a simple BA-BA transfer should keep you in T5 (bar a few exceptions), and there you have your choo-choo train too.

Star are being brought together in the new T2 - now what does that tell you? Ongoing investment programme.

I know you want to throw all this away and start again, but unless you can make the figures add up, customer service is irrelevant as there won't be any airport to serve them.

[PAXboy]

Mr Mac you are soooo right! That is a very neat setting out of the British Disease of capital project development. The MoD still haven't learnt how to do this. (Do you remember when it was discovered that they paid extra to have their own recipe of Baked Beans made and canned?)

Everyone knows that we have enough London airports and in pretty good places. What took ages to develop was good rail links to them and, for EGLL, there is still no mainline station or any realistic prospect of one!

For better or for worse, we allow lots of people to protest and, consequently, our infrastructure is decades behind others. The examples given of the Shinkansen are useful and there are many others. Lastly, if this project gets the go ahead, it will be as a private company and the chances of that going bust are very, very high.

[Mr Mac]

Silverstrat
Not northern envy re tunnel just an observation - London aqaintances us it often to visit houses in northern France as well as for business. However not really practical from North of the Trent. When the project was being floated there was mention of trains from Manchester and Leeds to Paris and sleepers from Scotland to Europe - even built the carriages I am informed - where are they now - Canada !. Transport infrastructure should be based on plans for the whole country not just the SE. I work extensivly in the SE and even have a house there but prefer to live in the North (even lived near you in San Diego for a while) so it is not a northern bias on my part just an observation. If you live outside the SE of the UK the infrastructure is know where near as good, limited light rail systems and limited rail routes and services and M62 corridor can match M25 for traffic and gets worse weather ! . Manchester will never be a HUB but is a large regional airport with reasonable connections which allow travel to most parts of the world with 1nr change. I just chose to make that change some where other than LHR if I am flying from the north. I do use LHR when in the south during the week but not that often.:ugh:

[Mr Mac]

Pax Boy
Do not even mention MOD procurment projects as they have lives and budget control or lack of which to me are unbelivable. Have only done 3nr MOD jobs two for the Army and one Navy all over budget, over specified for what was required, and ran over time. Inveterate tinkerers at the MOD / Services IMHO. I also remember the beans scandal which is funny but not when you are a tax payer in the UK !. :ok:

[silverstrata]

Jabird

Well maybe, but a simple BA-BA transfer should keep you in T5 (bar a few exceptions), and there you have your choo-choo train too.



Never used T5, I must admit. But with BA's limited domestic network from LHR, I bet I would end up comming in on BMI or whatever, and then getting stuck in T1 again, with my BA flight imminently departing from T5.

Sorry, no thanks, I would rather take my chances in some other European hub.


.

[PAXboy]

Mr Mac, working for MoD? My condolences! I worked in I.T. for 27 years, mainly UK companies but also international and internationally. Doing a project in Hong Kong (mid-90s) was bliss. The client told me what they wanted, listened and got the building works done as requested on time. They didn't change their mind and when a really tough deceision had to be made - he made it on the spot and carried it through. :ok:

[jabird]

with BA's limited domestic network from LHR, I bet I would end up comming in on BMI or whatever, and then getting stuck in T1 again,

Well BMI's is pretty poor too - LBA. MME, INV all gone, no more competition on GLA. So the only place they can feed from that BA don't is BHD.

Now here's the reality - you can keep on hating LHR, that's fine, you aren't alone. Others tolerated, and some even love it. For now though, it is still Europe's busiest airport, and the others are "catching up" as much due to having loco flights as due to expanding their status as a hub.

Some people hate CDG - see above.
Some hate AMS - long walks.
Some hate MAD (maybe it just drives them mad).
Some hate FRA - and so on.

Why? Is there some serious design flaw with all of these airports that Foster's recycled HKG design could somehow miraculously solve?

No - the biggest reasons why people hate these airports relate to the fact that they are too big, too crowded, too impersonal and so on.

You still haven't given me your PSC figure - and like Paxman I'll keep asking. I think we're upto about #12 now, so to beat Michael Howard you've got about 5 to go.

Until then, we can only assume that charges will be high, and the overcrowding won't be solved because designers will be under pressure to get as many stands in as possible in the constrained space between the runway pairs, as this reclaimed land will be at a premium.

[Skipness One Echo]

One thing that I think a lot of you are missing is that LHR has come on leaps and bounds recently. Now it's not in the right place and the flight paths are far from ideal if you are lucky enought to live in Hounslow or Slough.....

Anyway my point is that the passenger experience is improving as T5 has been a game changer. It has allowed space to breathe in a refurbished (and occasionally QUIET) T4 where only the arrivals is a let down. Departures is very nice and modern indeed. T2 is gone and being replaced by a new T2 for STAR, up to T5 standards (but with gaterooms, I hate gaterooms.....)
That leaves T3 which is going to be next on the list. I know a lot of you hated LHR in the past but the key pain points, the BA T1 / T4 shuffle are no longer in play. The underground car park check in that was T2 is dust and rubble and the crowded mayhem that was T1 in BA days is now a more relaxed STAR ALLIANCE environment.
So by all means I accept some of the criticism, just be aware that many of the issues that caused so much grief are history.

From the 1990s, domestic from LHR looked like this :
ABZ current BA / BD
BFS dropped by BA taken up by EI
BHX dropped by BD
EDI current BA / BD
EMA dropped by BD
GCI dropped by UK to focus on STN if I recall.
GLA current BA, dropped by BD
INV DA-> BA-> LGW
IOM JE->BA->LGW
JER BA -> LGW
LBA dropped by BD
MAN current BA / BD
MME dropped by BD
NCL current BA
NQY/PLH BC->BA->LGW

It's clear the slots BA got by moving the Brymon, Manx and Dan Air inherited routes to LGW were used for long haul expansion.
EMA, BHX, MME and LBA are unsustainable with the improvements in the railways. Flying to BHX is just not realistic nowadays! It's not the dramatic loss of capacity that some people imply. I suspect PLH would still be open if the LHR link was still an option.

1992 : 16
2012 : 6

[blbl8326]

very ironic that BD is called British Midlands, but does not operate from midlands airport....

[jabird]

very ironic that BD is called British Midlands, but does not operate from midlands airport....

Baby have retreated to BHX & EMA + BHD

Or that BA no longer have any kind of hub operation outside London (don't count Openskies). Or that Virgin Atlantic don't just fly across the Atlantic. Or QANTAS fly beyond Queensland & the Northern Territories.

Airline chop and change all the time. SOE - I agree that LHR is an improved experience, and a BHX feeder a total non-starter.

[Fairdealfrank]

Silver, you’re being way too subjective! All your arguments appear to be based on a particular loathing of LHR. Can understand exactly where you’re coming from (would always move heaven and earth to avoid CDG) but I am not, and could not, objectively contribute to a CDG thread!

The main problems with LHR:
(1) it is running at 98-99% capacity so the slightest problem has dire consequences;
(2) there are often long waits to take off and land, though not as bad as at CDG in my experience (sorry!);
(3) occasional waits for a stand to become available on arrival because the previous occupant is still waiting to join the queue for take off;
(4) there are not enough destinations compared to the other 4 main European hubs;
(5) an appalling lack of domestic connections, just 7 airports in 6 cities;
(6) a lack of any non-LHR-based UK carriers operating to/from the airport, including “no frills“, although high airport charges and APD may also have a bearing on this (as well as slot costs of course);
(7) there are sometimes queues at border control (as at many airports);
(8) a lack of dedicated landside terminal transfer buses requiring the use of public buses/trains, some of which are only a half-hourly service but are free, or the underground which isn’t.
(9) scattered terminals require airside transfers by bus, although grouping airlines by alliance is reducing this;
(10) public transport access could be improved.


Numbers 1-6 could be resolved by runway expansion so that the airport no longer runs at capacity and the scarcity, and therefore the cost, of slots is no longer an issue. Silver could then have his much needed commuter flights. Number 7 is the responsibility of the Home Office, and number 10 can apply anywhere.

Zooker is clearly right that no one from the North/Scotland WANTS to “route via London”, and for many destinations they do not need to. But where it is necessary to change planes, they should at least have the option of changing at LHR. For example, KL links 15 UK airports to AMS, 9 of which are in the North/Scotland. It should be about choice and LHR’s lack of capacity is stifling it. Lack of connectivity to LHR is affecting the viability of smaller regional airports, for example, MME. PLH, as mentioned above, has already closed.

Skipness’s listing of the domestic routes that have gone makes tragic reading (wasn’t LPL on that list, or did that finish earlier?). It also illustrates for how long LHR has had capacity problems. Even if the these were addressed soon, reinstating domestic routes could be problematic because of high airport charges and the absurd expense and structure of air passenger duty (APD).

It is good that Jabird has mentioned Japan, because it illustrates well the fact that the existance of high speed rail does not eliminate the need for domestic flights as is constantly suggested by pro-HS2 lobbies, anti-LHR lobbies, and some government ministers who ought to know better.

The main Japanese trunk route Tokyo-Osaka, illustrates this well. A high speed train leaves every 10 minutes. There are also around 50 flights between the two cities (all airports) most days, about half of which are “wide-body” aircraft. HND is still mostly domestic and is handles nearly as many pax as LHR.

Similarly, despite Madrid and Barcelona having a new high speed train link, there are still some 40 flights/day between them. If the HS2 is ever built, provided that Heathrow expansion is completed by then, it will be the same in the UK.

Why? it’s obvious, because new routes and links open up new opportunities and make new journeys viable. This explains the success of the “no-frills” operations and why new motorways fill up so quickly.

By the way, forget about LHR closing, even if Silver’s island is built.

[PAXboy]

There's just one problem with a 3rd runway at LHR. Let us assume that it is railroaded through (pun intended!) and opens on 1st April 2012.

BAA plc will immediately over sell it by oferring more slots than they can handle at the terminals, taxiways and stands (as they have done with the two primaries). So the capacity would have been expanded but the capacity issue would remian the same. If they then built a 4th, the same would happen. :}

It would happen because there is no policy on air traffic in the UK and has not been a policy since the airports and BA were sold off. The vested interests are not too great and can weild too big a financial imposition to change it.

[Fairdealfrank]

Paxboy, this is always a possibility because private operators naturally want to maximise profits for their shareholders.

However if a third runway is railroaded through...oh, be quick, look at that flock of pigs!...there are likely to be conditions, one of which would be a raising of the limit of 480,000 movements.

If this limit is set at a lower figure than 720,000, with a third runway, the airport can be required to operate at an optimal operational capacity (say 80%) rather than an optimally profitable one (100%), whilst keeping alternation on the two primary runways and the overnight closure.

That said, there is still plenty of scope for expansion and the owners can still make money.

[Navpi]

Glasgow best connected domestics....

I think thats stretching things if we include daily flights to the Isle of Aggis or downtown Balamory etc

[jabird]

BAA plc will immediately over sell it by oferring more slots than they can handle at the terminals, taxiways and stands (as they have done with the two primaries). So the capacity would have been expanded but the capacity issue would remian the same.

This is exactly where the problem lies - let LHR have a third runway and it will fill up. Yet Boris island might only have a similar capacity to an expanded Heathrow because it faces its own internal constraints too.

However, we shouldn't confuse real demand with the natural ability of hubs to bloat themselves because as they expand they bring in more routes and thus more connections so they expand further. As this expansion is fed by the less valuable transfer traffic, it massively over-inflates the true value such a hub would have to London Plc.

In terms of the direct demand for point to point routes into London as a destination and out of London as an origin, we still have a little bit more room.

[PAXboy]

I agree Fairdealfrank, but if there was a 3rd at LHR, I can see them being at limit and I can see them exceeding that limit!

[jabird]

FDF has raised an interesting point about slots on the "hub" thread:

The airlines have invested millions acquiring slots, so they aren't going, especially those recently transferred over from LGW

FDF - We both know LHR isn't going anywhere just yet, I was just saying what would happen if it closed. In that respect, Silver is right about it becoming a major redevelopment zone, but he is wrong about its value for change of use from inherently complex and highly customies airport terminal.

I've always felt the compulsory purchase issue would be the biggest stumbling block to making LHR close. Now as for slots - how would you transfer an asset who's value depends on there being congestion at the tangible asset that the airport is?

How can you transfer these over to the new airport?

Scenarios:

* New airport opens but weak demand in industry means loads more space than needed, so no value in slots.
* New airport opens, but LHR never closes. BA stay, some other airlines move, so no pressure for slots.
* Everything goes to plan - airport opens on time and even on budget and then LHR closes the next day. From a passenger point of view, it all looks very smooth. As the new hub somehow manages to keep the PSC to within 30% of LHR, it is still attractive and it grows, thus creating pressure for slots, which must be purchased. But who is going to operate the new airport? Unlikely to be BAA / Ferrovial who don't seem to have anything like the cash needed. So BA shareprice dives as the value of their slots is wiped out and they have to buy new ones.

I can see a few problems here, no wonder BA want to stay put so badly!

[Skipness One Echo]

I think thats stretching things if we include daily flights to the Isle of Aggis or downtown Balamory etc

Oh I am sorry, are these people not allowed to be part of the UK? Exactly how well connected is East Anglia into the UK domestic network? GLA puts Scotland one stop from the UK, ie SOU-GLA-BRR with Loganair, believe me there's a demand.

For the record : Glasgow domestics

Belfast BFS EZY
Belfast BHD BE
Derry BE / LC

Kirkwall BE / LC
Sumburgh BE / LC
Stornoway BE / LC
Benbecula BE / LC
Tiree BE / LC
Barra BE / LC
Islay BE / LC
Campbeltown BE / LC

Manchester BE
Leeds-Bradford BD
East Midlands WW
Birmingham BE
Cardiff BE
Bristol EZY
Newquay BE / LC
Exeter BE
Norwich BE / LC
London LHR BA
London LGW BA EZY
London LTN EZY
London LCY BA
Southampton BE


I make that 25 non stop domestic UK routes, it goes up if you add in

Jersey BE
Isle of Man BE / LC

You might snidely laugh at what Loganair does but their ability to work with competitors / partners to connect the Highlands and Islands to the rest of the country is classic hub and spoke. Something we would all love LHR to be able to do !

[Fairdealfrank]

Skipness, your comprehensive list of domestic destinations from GLA makes me quite envious, wish LHR was similar!

Paxboy, not sure what happens if an airport exceeds its movements limit, but imagine there would be fines to pay. LHR has not yet exceeded its limit but is perilously close at 478,000. Guess we’ll find out soon?


Jabird, there would be no money for a compulsory purchase of LHR. Any government wanting to support a Shivering/SILVER-ing sands airport (and that is a highly contentious proposition), will need to do so by paying for transport links, not by buying off Ferrovial.

As for slots, there would be no financial value in slots at SILVER-ing sands if it is as big as Silver would like it to be. He envisages that there would be room enough for the much needed commuter/feeder flights from several UK airports that are missing from LHR, so it would have to be as big or bigger than LHR.

Runway expansion at LHR would be similar to that at FRA, or MAN. Slot value is scarcity value. Say that airline A sells/leases a LHR slot to airline B. B pays A, no money goes to the airport owners or to the government. With a third/fourth runway, this market would be eliminated and would open up all sorts of possibilities. Not convinced that slot availability would adversely affect the BA share price. After all, they are one of the biggest supporters of LHR expansion.

Three points need to be made.

First, it would be very difficult to force airlines to move airports because UK airports are privately owned having been sold off in the 1980s. Only a handful of municipally owned airports remain, MAN for example, and even that is set up as a company (with several councils being the shareholders). Most countries have publicly owned airports, even where they are privately operated, making it easier to order the airlines to move if required.

Second, the construction of Silver Airport would have to be paid for so that shareholders can recoup their investment. Therefore it is likely that airport charges will be much higher than at LHR and this will not encourage carriers to move there.

Third, consider these examples from all over the world going back to the 1940s:

La Guardia/Idlewild - New York 1948
Santos Dumont/Galeao - Rio de Janeiro 1952
Wilson/Embakasi - Nairobi 1958
Ciampino/Fuimicino - Rome 1961
Orly/Roissy - Paris 1974
Dorval/Mirabel - Montreal 1975
Haneda/Narita - Tokyo 1978
Songshan/Taoyuan - Taipei 1979
Congonhas/Guaralhos - Sao Paulo 1985
Kemayoran (closed)/Cangkerang - Jakarta 1985
Reim(closed)/Frazheim - Munich 1992
Kai Tak (closed)/Chep Lap Kok - Hong Kong 1998
Fornebu (closed)/Gardermoen - Oslo 1998
Subang/Sepang - Kuala Lumpur 1998
Hongqaio/Pudong - Shanghai 1999
Gimpo/Incheon - Seoul 2001
Don Muang/Suvarnabhumi - Bangkok 2006


Notice any trends? In the majority of cases where new airports have opened, supposedly as a replacement, the original has remained open, in either a diminished or domestic-only role.

The one exception is Mirabel. Airlines directed there from Dorval stopped Montreal flights rather than move there. Of course the “Bloc Quebecois” was riding high and this would have had a bearing on this. Potential secession issues in Quebec at that time created much uncertainty, resulting in the “flight” (pardon the pun) of business, commerce, etc., to Toronto. This eventually cost Montreal its position as Canada’s number one city.

These airports were publicly owned at the time as were most of the “flag carrier” airlines based at each, enabling governments to dictate policy. these conditions that no longer apply in the UK.

So, based on these precedents, the balance of probability overwhelmingly suggests that LHR will not close if Silver Island is built.

[silverstrata]

Fairdeal

Silver, you’re being way too subjective! All your arguments appear to be based on a particular loathing of LHR.



Not at all. If you go back through my posts I list all of your 1-10 points aout LHR in some detail. When taken together, these points result in the 'subjective' opinion I have of LHR. Its just an awful international hub.

Oh, and if Silver-Boris does get built, LHR WILL close. It has to.




Fairdeal

Jabird, there would be no money for a compulsory purchase of LHR.



You have this the wrong way around. It is the purchase and sale of LHR as an industrial/residential site that would pay for Silver-Boris. That site is a goldmine, and anyway, it would HAVE to be redeveloped to maintain the wealth of that area. If it staggered on as a third-rate international airport, the whole area would decline. But as a new Silicon Thames Valley, it would boom like no other area in the UK.


.

[Navpi]

Skippy

Once again you diminish your undoubted knowledge of the aviation industry by reducing your arguement to a level of sillyness which even by your standards is beyond belief !

My reference to Manchester (as you are i'm sure aware related to "major conurbations" )

Manchester serves ;

Aberdeen
Belfast City
Belfast Int
Edinburgh
Exeter
Glasgow
Guernsey
Inverness
IOM
Jersey
Gatwick
Heathrow
Newquay
Norwich
Southampton


The frequency and size of aircraft using GLA does not compare if by way of example we contrast Barra, Tiree etc to frequency and size of aircraft to say Norwich OR Southampton.

Manchester connects to MORE major cities in the UK than anyother airport including Glasgow; FACT

And I am not being snide re Loganair !

[jabird]

Subang/Sepang - Kuala Lumpur 1998

And what about Sungai Besi / Simpang, its predecessor?

I totally agree (and have said so earlier in this thread) that it would be difficult to imagine LHR closing. However, in respect to the "hub" thread, how many of the other airports on your list had substantial surface rail access at the time of closure? This would make the existing LHR site more attractive to developers, but they'd still have the problem of what to do with the terminals. There are examples of station sheds that have been re-used - e.g. Manchester GMEX (or Central), or Orsay in Paris. Why not - big space, nice roof, just block each end and adapt. What is the alternative use for long corridors, zones blocked off by security measures and jetways?

Silver, I put it to you that your notion of the LHR site being the basis of your island airport is even more of a fantasy than the airport itself. I don't doubt that the site could be redeveloped, if someone taps Justine Greening on the shoulder and tells her HS2 needs to enable a fast link to the new airport and it also needs to link back to the places currently relying on LHR.

Right now though, given the density of the site (1000ha compared to 14,000ha for DEN), it cannot possibly be worth more closed than it is open.

[jabird]

Manchester connects to MORE major cities in the UK than anyother airport including Glasgow; FACT

Can we leave the willy waving to the respective airport threads? The question is - could a new island airport offer useful domestic feeder routes that LHR can't.

The answer is - given the likely PSC, which Silver repeatedly refuses to quote, and the space constraints that an island airport would face, clearly not.

Now about those slots - good point, their value would indeed vanish with a new runway at LHR. But BA would still face huge costs if forced to move to the new airport - more so than any other airline.

[ZOOKER]

"Manchester connects to MORE major cities in the UK than anyother airport including Glasgow"

And that's just by road! :E

[Skipness One Echo]

Aberdeen
Belfast City
Belfast Int
Edinburgh
Exeter
Glasgow
Guernsey
Inverness
IOM
Jersey
Gatwick
Heathrow
Newquay
Norwich
Southampton

That's 15 versus Glasgow's 25, all of which are in the above Glasgow list save Aberdeen, Edinburgh, Gurensey and Inverneess, so sorry, but that's an awful lot more domestic connectivity than MAN regardless of spin.

It also shows that London is missing some major connectivity from the likes of GCI / JER / IOM / INV, unlikely to be connected by rail.....

[PAXboy]

FDF not sure what happens if an airport exceeds its movements limit, but imagine there would be fines to pay. LHR has not yet exceeded its limit but is perilously close at 478,000. Guess we’ll find out soon?I doubt it!! The limit was set so high that the place works (it is regularly reported) at 98/99% of capacity, so they don't need to break the limit as they have all that they want!

If the limit had been set at a level that allowed spare capacity for problems and reduced stacking (saving fuel/time/money)??? But that, of course, would mean the govts of 1980s and 90s actually having a policy about air traffic! We know that they didn't, any more than they had/have a policy for the railways.

Your tally of new airports wheere the old one did not close is MOST instructive and a detailed explanation behind all of those should be compulsory reading for Boris. But, since he doesn't care if the airport is built, he does not have to read anything!

[Fairdealfrank]

Silver, with reference to the compulsory purchase of LHR, it's not “the wrong way around“. You imply that Ferrovial would willingly sell LHR or that it could be nationalised by the government in order just to close it.

You also state that “it is the purchase and sale of LHR as an industrial/residential site that would pay for Silver-Boris“ but do not explain (1) the mechanics and timing of transferring money from the owners of Silver Island to Ferrovial, (2) why on earth Ferrovial would accept it (it could never be enough!), and (3) how the Silver Island owners would have so much money sloshing around despite the expense of building the airport, and having no substantial income until the airport is up and running and successful.

To assume that it will all be funded by the government is fantasy. Your premise that Silvering Sands requires the closure of LHR to be successful is probably correct. That is the main reason it will never happen.

It just does not add up.



Jabird, good point about Sempang. It illustrates well that growth in civil aviation is always underestimated by governments, and has been for a long time, and not just in the UK.

BA, VS, but regrettably not BD would indeed face huge costs to move out of LHR, so why would they? As airports and airlines are privately owned businesses they will make decisions that favour their passengers and therefore their shareholders. Not surprisingly, that means staying put.

Ferrovial, also a private company, will also have shareholders’ interests at heart, and would move heaven and earth to ensure that airlines stay at LHR. The presence or possibility of Silver Island could, ironically, make LHR even more attractive to airlines!



Paxboy, think that the 480,000 ceiling was set years ago, perhaps back in the 1960s. Suspect that at the time, short-sighted functionaries never considered that the limit would ever be reached!

This was the time of the government’s ludicrous and damaging “second force” aviation policy, which was intended to promote growth at LGW at the expense of LHR, by building up LGW as a hub for a private UK airline.

Perhaps the “second force” policy was a forerunner of the JFK/EWR dual hub that works well in New York today, because of the availability of a continent's worth of domestic connectivity. Back in the UK, a succession of airlines were based at LGW: BUA, BCal, Laker, VS, etc.. VS only survived because it was able to move its hub to LHR. As a result of this policy, there was inadequate expansion at LHR when it was needed and led to the situation we find ourself in today.

At this time the “flag carrier” airlines, BEA and BOAC, and most major airports were government-owned, so they could dictate the base airports for each British carrier and the destinations they could fly to. Business and economics did not come into it at a time when fares were the same on all airlines and fixed by IATA. It was simple: first class fares were double those in ecomony. For example, South America and West Africa destinations were "given" to BUA ex LGW. BOAC ex-LHR was excluded from those routes.

Agree 100% with your comments about Boris, particularly the last sentence!

[Gulfstreamaviator]

A new out of town airport will be built, eventually.

So why not start on the project sooner rather than later.

We need major re-employment so any major project will employ workers, and regenerate the economy.

So when the five ring circus is complete, start on the new airport, and infra structure.

just my 5 euro's worth.

glf

[jabird]

It illustrates well that growth in civil aviation is always underestimated by governments, and has been for a long time, and not just in the UK.

+

A new out of town airport will be built, eventually.

Whilst I'm doubtful that the former will go on for ever (fuel costs, taxes, environmental concerns and so on), even if we do have growth to the tune of, say, +50% on current London capacity - 70m pax pa, this can still be met by the other airports in the London area. Whilst this isn't the perfect solution in terms of hubbing, it is still a solution and it is far more practical - just doesn't appeal to the big ego types, hence:


Your tally of new airports wheere the old one did not close is MOST instructive and a detailed explanation behind all of those should be compulsory reading for Boris. But, since he doesn't care if the airport is built, he does not have to read anything!

Say what you like about Boris and his preference for big books with pictures in them over detailed technical documents (loads of us are like that too!). Are you really saying you don't think Boris cares less whether it gets built or not? Surely the first thing politicians look for when they reach high office is something that will give them a legacy. What bigger legacy than Boris Island Margaret Thatcher Intercontinental Airport - after all, one thing guaranteed is that she will be dead by then!

[PAXboy]

Well, politicians will continue to say that they want something done/built until after they are dead - by saying it in their memoire! Of course, if those nasty capitalists won't spend the money? If those terrible Tory henchmen who run the big companies won't invest in what is, plainly, a jolly good idea? Well, then at least Boris has clean hands.

It's like Blair supporting the Olympic bid. If they failed, he would have been cheered for helping them. If they won, he would not be there when the financial pigeons come home to roost.

[jabird]

It's like Blair supporting the Olympic bid. If they failed, he would have been cheered for helping them. If they won, he would not be there when the financial pigeons come home to roost.

The Olympics is pocket change compared to Boris Island. I remain doubtful about overall benefits, but it will give worldwide attention to London, and the net result will be more much needed development around Stratford.

With the new airport, you have a very real risk of billions being poured into nothing:

What happens if?

* Geologists get it wrong and it simply sinks in the mud. Either the commercial backers will need to go back to The City, or they will need a govt bailout promise from the start - and that is going to cause all kinds of political stink if it is promised as not costing the taxpayer a penny.
* Demand for flights fails to pick up from current levels, for numerous reasons already discussed? We're back to Mirabel.
* They can't get suitable purchase order for LHR to close. We might not quite be in Mirabel terrain, but you would basically have the throughput of LGW with the costs of KIX. So holding company goes under, bailed out again?

Even if all goes well, what's total investment in Olympics to date? £3-4bn. So multiple x10 for the airport project.

Also, politically, why take the risk? People love to slag off the Olympics because of the cost, but find me people who are actually against the very nature of the competition in the first place. A few extreme lefties who say competitive sport is a bad thing or it is too commercialised, or a few greenies going on about the carbon footprint - but that will be it.

Airports are obviously popular in a forum like this, but they also engage huge opposition. We've been so focussed on Silver's numbers not adding up (attempt 14 now Silver - please give us your proposed PSC) - that we've given little consideration to the huge local environmental objections this will create. Even if you plonk it right in the middle of the estuary, you still have the surface access problem and there's always going to be noise, even if much less than EGLL.

[Fairdealfrank]

Leave him alone Jabird, poor old Silver can't answer. It's exactly like Michael Howard ("it's alright, I'm not going to hurt you") and Paxo on newsnight all those years ago.

[jabird]

Leave him alone Jabird, poor old Silver can't answer. It's exactly like Michael Howard ("it's alright, I'm not going to hurt you") and Paxo on newsnight all those years ago.

That is why I said I was going to Paxman him a few posts back ;).

It is a legitimate question, without which the airport can't function. So I'll open it out to the floor then, What would PSC be for a long haul flight from SIA?

I'll start the bidding - do I hear 50, 50, anyone for 50 - gentlemen at the back..........:D

[Fairdealfrank]

Jabird, it is definitely a legitimate question, but Silver can't answer it, and nor can I. The balance of probability is that it would be a hell of a lot more than we can imagine, so:

higher, higher.... (with apologies to "play your cards right").

[silverstrata]

.

Cameron signals backing for the new Silver-Boris airport.
New towns to 'disfigure' UK: Fury over move to ditch 60 years of planning law in bid to construct new garden cities | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2117393/New-towns-disfigure-UK-Fury-ditch-60-years-planning-law-bid-construct-new-garden-cities.html)


Likewise on Newsnight, Paxo asked the Conservative spokesman how Cameron can be promoting new airport capacity in the S.E., while simultaneously blocking plans for LHR expansion. The answer, with a wry smile, was: "there are more airports in the southeast than Heathrow..."


.

[PAXboy]

Paxo asked the Conservative spokesman how Cameron can be promoting new airport capacity in the S.E., while simultaneously blocking plans for LHR expansion. The answer, with a wry smile, was:...because he is a politician. Simples! ;)

[silverstrata]

Paxboy (or is that Paxman?)

I am sure there is more to it than this.

Political initiatives come in waves and bandwagons. The Labour bandwagons were Diversity and Climate, and everyone jumped on. The Conservative bandwagons are rapidly becoming: rebalancing the economy (more industry), and infrastructure.

There is no doubt that the S.E. needs more aviation capacity, but the question is will Cameron be bold, or simply fudge like all previous governments. Cameron will be looking for a legacy project - if he thinks Silver-Boris is uncertain as a success story, he will drop it - but if he thinks it will be a success he will do everything he can to make it happen. Just think - JFK airport DWDC airport - it has a nice ring to it.....

We wait and see what he decides.


.

[Fairdealfrank]

Welcome back Silver, you've been conspicuous by your absence since the announcement of the "Silver Island Site of Special Scientific Interest"!

Realistically, it is probable that the estuary island airport plan will fly until Boris has won the election. Coincidentally, the "review" will report soon after that and will sensibly recommend LHR expansion on the grounds that is urgently required and can start as soon as the go-ahead is given.

[silverstrata]

Fairdeal

Realistically, it is probable that the estuary island airport plan will (not?) fly until Boris has won the election. Coincidentally, the "review" will report soon after that and will sensibly recommend LHR expansion on the grounds that is urgently required and can start as soon as the go-ahead is given.



Don't believe a word of it.

Firstly, expanding LHR will be a complete U-turn and make Cameron look a fool.
Secondly, expanding LHR is not a legacy project. Cameron will never get his name in lights simply for building a new runway. Its Silver-Boris or bust (or should that be Silver-Cameron?).

.

[vulcanised]

How are they going to fit it around the huge craft that are going to be using the new dock being created?

[vulcanised]

Heathrow Third Runway 'Back On The Table' - Yahoo! News UK (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/think-heathrow-third-runway-pledge-043045304.html)

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "Don't believe a word of it.

Firstly, expanding LHR will be a complete U-turn and make Cameron look a fool.
Secondly, expanding LHR is not a legacy project. Cameron will never get his name in lights simply for building a new runway. Its Silver-Boris or bust (or should that be Silver-Cameron?)."

silverstrata, no problems with a U-turn, they are soon forgotten, who remembers the forest selloff, the EU (Lisbon) referendum, repatriation of powers from the EU, getting tough with the European judges, and the fuel duty stabiliser? Continue? Thought not.

Also there is no need to worry about coalition splits, the Libdems are going nowhere. Even if they did, Call-Me-Dave could easily run a minority government. Labour has no money and will not bring the government down and risk an early election it could lose, nor will the increasingly unpopular Libdems who would be "slaughtered". Justine could "fall on her sword" or be moved out of the way if neccessary.

Quote: "There is no doubt that the S.E. needs more aviation capacity, but the question is will Cameron be bold, or simply fudge like all previous governments. Cameron will be looking for a legacy project - if he thinks Silver-Boris is uncertain as a success story, he will drop it - but if he thinks it will be a success he will do everything he can to make it happen. Just think - JFK airport DWDC airport - it has a nice ring to it.....

We wait and see what he decides."

No, silverstrata, if Silver-Boris is ever built, it would be the legacy of a politician not yet born. No one will remember that Livingstone brought the Olympics to London in 2005 unless it is a fiasco, then it will be "Ken's folly" or Livingstone's vanity project. If successful, this will be Dave's legacy.


Interesting article, vulcanised, Osborne is of course correct on this one, there is no realistic alternative to LHR expansion. The idea of re-opening NHT to civil aviation has merits in its own right. It could become a LCY- or SEN-type operation, potentially opening up a large wealthy catchment area to the west of London (for a change) to no-frills carriers and smaller carriers operating thin domestic routes. These are currently excluded from LHR mainly for financial reasons (high airport charges for small aircraft, slot costs, etc.).

Thin domestic routes providing connectivity between regional airports and London and the Thames Valley are desperately needed to boost the economy and the export drive, (region to region is generally well served). LHR can no longer provide these unless it is expanded. An airport station on the Chiltern line could provide a convenient 17-minute link to London.

A high speed link between LHR and NHT (as mentioned in the article) could provide transfer potential to/from overseas flights at LHR. Unprofitable commuter-only or feeder-only flights thus become viable as combined commuter/feeder flights. Of course this depends on whether carriers can see business potential.

Clearly, the development of NHT is not a substitute for LHR expansion, NHT would be a small scale operation and new flights to Asia and South America cannot go from there. The two projects are complementary, both could be completed relatively quickly, and both play a part in addressing lack of capacity in the south east.

A joint military-civil airport at NHT could also bring in revenue for the military, take general aviation and VIP travel away from LHR, and keep a defence capability close to London, a far better alternative to the possible closure of NHT.

It's win-win all round.

[nigel osborne]

Am I being cynical or are they backing the Thames estuary airport feasibility study just to boost Boris bid for mayor. Politics huh :yuk:

Expect them to say after that election the new airports far too expensive and it has to be a 3rd LHR runway :ok:

Nigel

[Fairdealfrank]

Spot on Nigel!!

[PAXboy]

In this article: Heathrow: Tories (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/heathrow-tories-secret-plot-to-build-third-runway-7584591.html) Boris says:
Boris Johnson, in an interview yesterday, suggested he had changed his position supporting the Thames airport. He said: "Contrary to popular belief I am not the slightest bit wedded to some remote archipelago in the Thames estuary" – indicating he could support expansion at Heathrow or Gatwick. Tim Yeo, chairman of the Commons environmental audit committee, said recently it was "more practical to build a third runway".Do you think he might be a politician? If No.10 wants to support LHR then it would make more sense for Boris to join them as he cannot beat them. What fun ... :rolleyes:

[Fairdealfrank]

What larks indeed! Silver-Boris is sinking without trace.......

[Barling Magna]

Silver-Boris never had a chance. It is purely part of a political game of smoke and mirrors to ensure that Boris gets re-elected. I'm really surprised that the government has let its "we're all in this together" mask slip so badly with Osborne's budget boosting wealth and privilege at the expense of the squeezed middle and the elderly. Add to this the sleaziness of Cruddas and the nasty party is revealing itself again. With the Lib-Dems ruined for a generation that means Labour are the only alternative government - and what a shower they currently are. They did at least support a third runway at LHR, but dumped it once they sensed it was unpopular with marginal constituencies - although I guess the same could be said for Cameron. Depressing.....

On the other hand Northolt could fulfil the role I speculated about a few weeks ago, both as a stand alone LoCo airport and as a transfer point for passengers from the UK regions who wouldn't object to a short journey to LHR in order to benefit fromt he hub connections. But maybe Amsterdam has got too much of a stranglehold on this now......

For the moment let's sit back and enjoy the growth of the new Southend Airport from next Monday. Real jet airliners climbing out over the Thames Estuary, not some architect's dream.....:)

[compton3bravo]

Personally I just cannot see a third runway at Heathrow (some of us remember when 05/23 was active then somebody decided to build a terminal at one end - foward planning I don´t think so) being built. Nimbys and public enquiries etc spring to mind. As for Northolt another non starter I´m afraid just would not work. The only solution to my mind is joint runway operations at Heathrow (take-offs and landings on both runways) but we know that won´t happen because the CAA (Campaign Against Aviation) would not allow it on safety grounds - but it happens in other countries.
Going back to see Barling Magna eulogise over easyJet´s Southend operation may I remind everyone that the three aircraft operating from that airport were transferred from Stansted but good luck to Southend I think they will need it in the long term when the introductory deal from Stobart runs out.

[PAXboy]

HOLD THE FRONT PAGE
Boris has spoken: I won't allow third Heathrow runway, says Boris Johnson - UK Politics - UK - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/i-wont-allow-third-heathrow-runway-says-boris-johnson-7585498.html)

So he wants ...


Expansion to airport capacity in the South East
He is not wedded to the Island
He won't allow 3rd at EGLL

At least he is being consistent with all the politicians of the last 40 years. :hmm:

BUT, what I take from this is that they are going to give Northolt a bash and see if that works. It probably won't but it will show them doing something and giving time for another NIMBY group to shout and then it will be time for the general election.

At least they are being consistent with all the politicians of the last 40 years. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/yeees.gif

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "Personally I just cannot see a third runway at Heathrow (some of us remember when 05/23 was active then somebody decided to build a terminal at one end - foward planning I don´t think so) being built."

05/23 did not allow for three runways to be used simultaneously: it was either 09L/27R and 09R/27L or 05/23. That's why it had to go, in order to facilitate terminal expansion. A new 10/28 would allow all three to be used together.

Quote: " Nimbys and public enquiries etc spring to mind. As for Northolt another non starter I´m afraid just would not work. The only solution to my mind is joint runway operations at Heathrow (take-offs and landings on both runways) but we know that won´t happen because the CAA (Campaign Against Aviation) would not allow it on safety grounds - but it happens in other countries."

It has nothing to with safety, mixed mode is banned to allow residents a noise-free period either before 1500 or after, alternating daily. No third runway would almost certainly lead to the adoption of mixed mode eventually - they're already experimenting with it. Mixed mode would be the only way to increase capacity. The congestion at LHR, however, would get worse with longer queues to take off and land.

Quote: "Going back to see Barling Magna eulogise over easyJet´s Southend operation may I remind everyone that the three aircraft operating from that airport were transferred from Stansted but good luck to Southend I think they will need it in the long term when the introductory deal from Stobart runs out"

Let's hope SEN is a success, it could be a template for NHT.

[jabird]

There is no doubt that the S.E. needs more aviation capacity

Well actually, there are lots of doubts - rising fuel costs, environmental concerns not being limited to those under the flight paths, ETS and APD to name but a few. Oh, and economic woes to boot.

I think we really need to have a debate about just how big this future capacity demand is really going to be before we plough head first into expensive new construction projects.

Obviously, there are reasons for growth too, primarily based around increased leisure time. The internet is reducing the need for some journeys whilst creating demand for others. Some aviation markets, especially in the Middle and Far East are clearly growing, but others are stagnant, so what is the net effect on the UK?

Rather than fuss about having to kill domestic routes in order to open up new Oriental ones, might some services to the USA cull themselves of natural causes before this?

If, and I still think it is a big if, the net effect of all these threats and opportunities is still growth, then is it in the traditional legacy market, or will moves towards more ptp flying continue, as the trend of the last decade has shown?

Somehow, I don't think LHR3 and Boris Island are the only options on the table.

[jabird]

As for the NHT + LHR "combo", I think it might look good on paper until you actually get a calculator out and get a costing on some form of highly complex people mover to link between what would effectively be T6 and the other terminals, with sections for domestic / international zones + what about landside movements too?

Remember the tiny spur from hs2 to T5 has been costed at £4bn, nearly as much as T5 itself cost, and that is before Beardie screams blue murder about the unfair advantage it will yield to BA.

The HS2 T5 station would not need any extensive tunneling under the runways, unlike a system serving the CTA.

I doubt you'd see any change out of £4bn for such a system, all for limited benefits compared with LHR R3. That's not to say I'm sold on R3 either, but it is a much better bet compared to LHR+NHT.

[jabird]

From the Mail article:

‘We need to retain our status as a key global hub for air travel, not just a feeder route to bigger airports elsewhere, in Frankfurt, Amsterdam or Dubai.’

All of which are still smaller than Heathrow, which itself only handles around half of the SE market. LGW, STN + LTN all somewhat bigger than HHN, are they not, and unlike AMS, CDG, MAD and to a lesser extent FRA, LHR has next to no lca traffic.

[jabird]

So Boris definetely not going for a 3rd runway at LHR? To what extent is it really his decision to make? Maybe we should just trust the transport secretary to make an unbiased decision - not!