A new £500m rail link to Heathrow Airport has been given the go-ahead which will cut journeys by up to 30 minutes for travellers.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-18817874
Why spend £500m when Boris island is the future ??
Is the third runway in sight again?
|
Yes the third runway is looming - again.
All the infrastructure and support is in place at Heathrow, why build it all again elsewhere? Third runway is the way.
There was some bloke on the tele the other day moaning about the noise and the plan to allow dual working of runways. He bought his house near Heathrow under the flightpath 6 months ago.
Edit, funny you mentioned the Heathrow rail link, I was looking at where they would spur the line and what would need to be knocked down. Surprisingly little.
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 12 Jul 12 at 23:00
|
|
Yeah it was on the news, thinking seems to be to ram it through to boost jobs economy etc. I can't see what has changed to allow it. I can't say I followed all the arguements but I know it was a big issue fought all the way. To revisit it now and try to restart seems odd.
|
funny you mentioned the Heathrow rail link, I was looking at where they would
>> spur the line and what would need to be knocked down.
>>
Slough, hopefully.
(With apologies to Sir John Betjeman)
|
The "Slough" of despond?
Vide: The Pilgrim's Progress.
|
I loved the latest spin by Justine Greening :-(((
"Third runway would be half a runway."
"A new runway would not be long enough to accommodate new, larger planes."
What a load of twaddle. The third runway would take "SMALLER" aircraft thus freeing slots on the existing two runways for large aircraft.
Perhaps she is not aware that London City Airport has, in her terms, only half a runway. So why do so many airline use it?
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19394340
Having lived near Heathrow all my life I am aware of its impact.
I bought my first house at Hounslow, between the main flight paths and a 2/3 miles from the runways.
I miss the last of the noisy jets, the RAF VC10 on VIP duties to Heathrow. It was a stark reminder of the norm re noise levels in the old days.
Cameron "You have a problem !" in addition to Cloggy.
|
I've used Heathrow for several years as my hub airport. Living in southwest Ireland, my (any many others') best option for tavel to the UK and europe is usually to fly via LHR.
A new hub airport won't work, unless you're an airfreight igloo - that's what East Midlands was supposed to become, but the only connecting flights there are run by DHL, FedEx etc.
I think Heathrow will go like this:
1. BA bought BMI, BA-BMI/Iberia/American Airlines now hold a significant majority of slots.
2. New rail link is built, obstensibly to allow passengers come to Heathrow.
3. Third runway is vetoed so BA redirects point-to-point flights that don't generate transfer passengers to other airports.
4. BA and BAA buy the rail link to LHR and the franchise to run services on it. Competitors complain, but they counter argue "we have no choice - you wouldn't give us an extra runway so we need to bring passengers in by train instead".
5. BA Rail sells onward shorthaul connections from LHR by train, not plane, freeing up slots to hub more longhaul flights through London.
6. Airfreight is distributed by rail at night while ground movements on the airfield are restricted so there are no passengers using the line.
Result: BA and BAA operate from/own only one airport in London, with a minimal overall increase in aircraft movements. The competition and planning authorities have no grounds to object, and both get the lions' share of both airfreight and passenger business into London.
Long term, it makes sense...
|
>>Third runway is vetoed
>>
It must be climate change as the veto appears to be melting fast.
IMO there is certainly a softening up process going on.
George Osborne says Heathrow third runway is an option
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19455195
|
As noted above, a small(er) runway can be used by short haul and feeder flights. However, I understand that the punitive level of Air Passenger Duty is making many passengers, even those living in the London Area, consider short haul to Schipol/Frankfurt/Paris and going on to their long haul destination without paying the tax, except on their short haul flight.
Going over 6000 miles will be £94 from April 2013, the short haul flights (above) will stay at £13.and then connect in Europe to Aus/NZ USA West coast etc
|
|
Yes a new shorter runway would free up lots of slots on the main two runways, but the cost (mainly here political and social) of building an additional shorter runway is much the same as building a longer runway. It would be shortsighted to restrict yourself to building a shorter third runway.
|
|
I have read today that consultants suggest a Boris Island type 4 runway airport could be built in 2 years less than a LHR 3rd runway, planning enquiries and objections etc. Don't know how the costs compare. I understand that an Estuary airport might result in the closure of LHR but others are saying Estuary for Eastbound flights and LHR for Westbound with Stansted for LoCo flights
|
|
Nearly every significant air route city (specially those with airports conceived in the 40's, 50's and early 60's) has had to move its major hub airport.
|
Yes indeed! New Munich airport is 20+ miles out of the City. Reinvention of the wheel goes on! When I was working near Aylesbury in the 60s there was serious discussion of siting a new airport based on an old WW2 airfield called Wing. Crested newts and pipistrelle bats saved the day!
At the time the old airfield was a free range pig farm; by the look of this view there is some sort of intensive rearing going on in sheds on the old runways
tinyurl.com/8nwobmy
|
>> Yes indeed! New Munich airport is 20+ miles out of the City. Reinvention of the
>> wheel goes on! When I was working near Aylesbury in the 60s there was serious
>> discussion of siting a new airport based on an old WW2 airfield called Wing.
Wing/Cublington was the choice of the Royal Commission under Lord Roskill set up to decide a site for London's third airport. One reason for the Commission being set up was opposition to use of the existing long runway at a former bomber base called Stansted. The Govt of the day rejected Roskill's recommendation in favour of a new airport at Maplin or Foulness in the Thames estuary, an idea not far removed from Boris island. The next government, Wilson 74, regarded the idea as Ted Heath's white elephant and cancelled it (along with the Channel Tunnel)*.
Come 79/80 all the same options were reconsidered, hence the words 'No Airport Here' visible to this day on a bridge over the WCML near Leighton Buzzard. Eventually Stansted was chosen.
There are only so many options.....
*They'd have cancelled Concorde too except for (a) punitive terms in the original Anglo/French agreement and (b) Tony Benn being a Bristol MP.
|
>>Wing/Cublington was the choice of the Royal Commission under Lord Roskill set up to decide a site for London's third airport.
and the probable reason that the two miles of the Tring bypass was built to motorway standard in 1973 even though it connected long stretches of urban roads on either end of it. The airport went to Stansted, and the A41 dual from Tring to the M25 was not opened until 20 years later, and to a lower standard.
|
>> and the probable reason that the two miles of the Tring bypass was built to
>> motorway standard in 1973 even though it connected long stretches of urban roads on either
>> end of it. The airport went to Stansted, and the A41 dual from Tring to
>> the M25 was not opened until 20 years later, and to a lower standard.
I'd forgotten the A41M until last year when cycling round there with a group. The junction coming into Tring from Wendover needed a bit of care - cars come on/off like poo off a shovel.
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 5 Sep 12 at 01:36
|
>>cars come on/off like poo off a shovel.
I've just been out in the garden cleaning up dog poo before a barbecue, and can I just say that poo doesn't come off a shovel very easily or very quickly.
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 5 Sep 12 at 01:36
|
|
In Marks parts, you have to rope, kill, butcher and brand your own.
|
|
Zero knows nothing. If you brand it, you're just asking for some git to claim it.
|
>>We have burgers.
How passé.
|
>> >>cars come on/off like poo off a shovel.
>>
>> I've just been out in the garden cleaning up dog poo before a barbecue, and
>> can I just say that poo doesn't come off a shovel very easily or very
>> quickly.
>>
OTH, it does REALLY stick to a blanket (or so I have been told!)
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 5 Sep 12 at 01:35
|
A Concorde mention! Coincidence...
Friday was annual works outing day (yes, we still have them). Got taken to the seaside, and spent a fortune (£2.40) on the Cromptons, who for the uninitiated are the company that make the now incorrectly named Penny Falls.
Shoved twopences in repeatdly and eventually, astonishingly, won a little aeroplane, which turned out not only to be Concorde, with a droopy snoot and everything, but is in shocking pink.
I think I must have the last Concorde souvenir in Britain. The damn thing had probably been in the machine since 1969.
It will have pride of place on my desk tomorrow.
Last edited by: Crankcase on Sun 2 Sep 12 at 22:29
|
>> I have read today that consultants suggest a Boris Island type 4 runway airport could
>> be built in 2 years less than a LHR 3rd runway, planning enquiries and objections
>> etc. Don't know how the costs compare. I understand that an Estuary airport might result
>> in the closure of LHR but others are saying Estuary for Eastbound flights and LHR
>> for Westbound with Stansted for LoCo flights
I don't think an East/West bound split will begin to work. The whole point of a hub is to allow interchange. Gromit points out upthread that he travels EI/UK/US. Anybody looking to Schipol as a model will also see large numbers of flights to UK via the former Air UK/KLM UK routes; many pax from those will interline to KLM & partners to US.
The problem between LHR and Boris is the about set up of the whole of the London TMA, not the origin/destination of flights.
|
IMHO it would be better to leave London airports alone, and extend capacity in the Midlands.
Not only would more aircraft movements down south, cause issues with airspace, but by moving capacity to say Birmingham, HS2 would actually get some customers....
|
|
No-one wants to fly to the midlands. Excess capacity at Birmingham, East Midlands and Robin Hood is testimony to that.
|
>>No-one wants to fly to the midlands.
True, but holiday makers are flexible. Give the tour companies financial advantages and they'll shift.
Then you may generate capacity in Gatwick.
However, I think the problem is more complex. There's an argument that says there is no point in building new roads, because if you do you make drivng more acceptable, so more people do it, and the road fills up again - and the cycle continues.
I wonder if the same is true of air travel - make more capacity, more people do it, it fills up again and repeat.
Clearly we need to invent matter transporters. I can't believe nobody else has thought of this.
|
>> >>No-one wants to fly to the midlands.
>>
>> True, but holiday makers are flexible. Give the tour companies financial advantages and they'll shift.
>>
>> Then you may generate capacity in Gatwick.
They have already used and popularised non Heathrow locations. Stanstead, Luton all have capacity, all mostly catering for sleazy jet / charter / holiday work.
We are talking long haul Hub airport here, different ball game.
|
It may be that a large long haul tax (as I think Meldrew suggested was happening) is the way forward.
Get all the big stuff out, lumber France, Germany, Spain and the Nethlerands with it. And we just keep the nice easy short haul stuff.
It seems that none of the trips I take involve direct flights anyway.
|
>
>> Clearly we need to invent matter transporters. I can't believe nobody else has thought of
>> this.
Gene Roddenberry did. Most of his inventions have come true, Holodecks, Communication things screwed in your ear, doors that go "swiiiiiish"
The transporter will come.
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 2 Sep 12 at 15:58
|
|
Oh - I forgot, - and Klingon cloaking devices. They exist.
|
>> The transporter will come.
"Just step into the Amstrad Instaport sir, your atoms will be disassembled in seconds and before you know it you'll be at your holiday hotel".
I won't be testing it. I can just imagine all the dead mice rematerialising while they try to get it working.
|
>> The transporter will come.
"Mum? Where's Dad?"
"Oh he got dematerialised in the transporter on the way home from work darling, trouble is it froze while he was in little bits and I can't get him back at the moment"
"Have you tried turning it off and then on again Mum?"
|
|
your 26 miles took a while there Humph, slowing down in your old age?
|
|
28 axshully. Cleaned two cars since then too.
|
Rumblings in the Independent on Sunday re a new London airport to the North or West. I can't think of a suitable "airport" sized area/space there.
tinyurl.com/8qlnoro
|
>> No-one wants to fly to the midlands. Excess capacity at Birmingham, East Midlands and Robin Hood is testimony to that.
>>
Is it so difficult ? Airlines want to operate out of Heathrow. That is why some pay a vast amount of ££££s for slots there.
BA use Gatwick for long haul bucket n spade routes and free up Heathrow for business routes. The airlines operate where the (their) business is.
American tried Stansted - it did not work. BA used to operate long haul out of Manchester and Glasgow - what now? Not a lot.
BA use dedicated aircraft from London City airport to New York because they believe the business is their.
BA now only fly to Sydney and all other Australian routes were chopped so no route is sacred.
I wonder why Virgin do not use Stansted???
|
>
>> I wonder why Virgin do not use Stansted???
Oh don't mention that, I couldn't stand any more of Branson's tantrums and whining
|
>> I wonder why Virgin do not use Stansted???
moving a virgin into Essex may be a step too far? :)
|
|
She would have been lonely.
|
Grant Shapps, the new Conservative Party chairman, said
"There will not be a third runway at Heathrow. We have made that commitment for this Parliament and there is no chance of it being broken whatsoever."
"The third runway will not be built in this Parliament, that is absolutely guaranteed."
Don't you just love the politicspeak.
The planning process will take longer than this Parliament so how many years will it be before the third runway would be useable?
Does anyone know what the westward development from T5 is about?
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7722164.stm
M25 in a tunnel and what is the area gained to be used for?
|
"There will not be a third runway at Heathrow"
Of course not - so they're systematically demolishing and rebuidling terminals 1, 2 and 3 just to keep the builders occupied ;-)
Mind, the other option is to offer a 'compromise', allowing both take-off and landing on both existing runways - which local residents have resisted until now, but might swallow as the lesser of two evils. I believe that would increase capacity approx 25% with no major expense involved.
|
Slough to Heathrow rail link (2021) - Zero
