On Nov 3, 12:00*pm, wrote:

Currently if heathrow or gatwick is fogbound or has some other problem then
aircraft can land at the other. A single airport is a single point of
failure.

You'll note I don't propose closing LTN or STN. Those are alternative
airports that are not congested.

Neil

On Thu, 3 Nov 2011 04:01:55 -0700 (PDT)
Neil Williams wrote:
On Nov 3, 12:00=A0pm, wrote:

Currently if heathrow or gatwick is fogbound or has some other problem th=
en
aircraft can land at the other. A single airport is a single point of
failure.

You'll note I don't propose closing LTN or STN. Those are alternative
airports that are not congested.

If heathrow or gatwick closed today there is no way luton and stansted could
handle all the extra flights. If an airport with more flights than heathrow or
gatwick combined closed it would be chaos.

B2003

Mike Bristow wrote:
In article ,
Bruce wrote:
What's not to like? :-)

The fact that it's east of London. Given that the prevailing winds
are east/west, it seems silly to put an airport to the east (or
west) of London, rather than North or South - it means that the
noise will impact more people.


The noise would impact only a tiny fraction of the number of people
whose quality of life is significantly degraded by the noise from
Heathrow Airport.

But this isn't just an airport. It's a carefully worked out proposal
for a genuine high speed rail network going far beyond HS1 and HS2,
fast rail freight links to a major container port and radial routes
out of London, an orbital railway paralleling the M25, a new Thames
Flood Barrier, a new Thames crossing to relieve Dartford-Thurrock, a
tidal stream power station and regeneration of the Medway Towns. It
is a visionary proposal that shows outstanding strategic thinking.

As I said, what's not to like?

On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 12:33:44 +0000
Bruce wrote:
As I said, what's not to like?

Apparently you haven't read anything anyone has written.

B2003

In article , d
wrote:

On Wed, 2 Nov 2011 17:26:38 -0700 (PDT)
Bruce wrote:
opportunity to regenerate the depressed Medway Towns. Proper
consideration has been given to protecting existing habitats.

That'll be a bit tricky given that they'll be dumping a couple of million
tons of concrete on top of them and they'll have to get rid of all the
birds unless they want a load of airliners coming down in the estuary due
to bird strikes.

Perhaps they can get Chesley Sullenburger in as a consultant.

Sam

On Nov 2, 4:26*pm, Bruce wrote:
Lord Foster, chairman and founder of Foster + Partners, has launched
the proposals for the Thames Hub – an integrated vision for the UK.

An interesting read. Though I'm not sure about the "high speed" aspect
of the orbital. At the M25 the radial main lines aren't very far
apart, so unless you have rail gun acceleration you'll not get
anywhere near to line speed before having to slow for the next
station. I've proposed a similar route in the past, but using
conventional rail standard lines. All still very interesting though.

I'm also an advocate of a Thames airport, so it's good to see this
concept explored further.

On Nov 3, 3:22*pm, Jamie Thompson wrote:

An interesting read. Though I'm not sure about the "high speed" aspect
of the orbital. At the M25 the radial main lines aren't very far
apart, so unless you have rail gun acceleration you'll not get
anywhere near to line speed before having to slow for the next
station. I've proposed a similar route in the past, but using
conventional rail standard lines. All still very interesting though.


Also, I'm not sure how much of a market there is for high speed trains
that by-pass London or at best stop at some peripheral London
location. Ring roads may be fine for motorway networks but railways
don't work like that. we already have cross country trains to
interconnect different parts of the country without going through
London. Although there is room for improvement in how things are set
up, I doubt re-routing such trains over a London orbital line would be
the solution.

If you're going to be spending billions on interconnecting main line
railways in London it might be better spent on tunnels between the
existing terminii, a bit like the Germans have done in Berlin.
(admitedly Berlin does have an orbital railway, but it is used for the
S-Bahn and only individual sections of it for long distance trains).

On 2011\11\03 16:18, amogles wrote:

If you're going to be spending billions on interconnecting main line
railways in London it might be better spent on tunnels between the
existing terminii, a bit like the Germans have done in Berlin.
(admitedly Berlin does have an orbital railway, but it is used for the
S-Bahn and only individual sections of it for long distance trains).

Well, I can't see how a long distance train could use all of it!

On 2011\11\03 08:14, Graeme Wall wrote:

I read through the glossy brochure, which admittedly doesn't give a lot
of detail, and as far as I can make out the airport is going to be
practically on top of the SS Richard Montgomery! Also there is no
mention of the bird problem in the Thames Estuary.

The SS Richard Montgomery will get rid of the bird problem...

On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 16:44:03 +0000, Basil Jet wrote:

On 2011\11\03 16:18, amogles wrote:

If you're going to be spending billions on interconnecting main line
railways in London it might be better spent on tunnels between the
existing terminii, a bit like the Germans have done in Berlin.
(admitedly Berlin does have an orbital railway, but it is used for the
S-Bahn and only individual sections of it for long distance trains).

Well, I can't see how a long distance train could use all of it!

That's just because you're not off your box^W^W^W thinking outside the
box. In this group we've been provided - at excruciating length - with
proposals in which long-distance trains would go around and around a ring-
shaped route, though I have no doubt that their originator would be
mortified at the idea of his plans being applied to the Hated South.

And no, this is ¦not¦ an endorsement of the ringpiec^W ringby proposal

--
Speaking only for myself