Bozza on Crossrail
 

From:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...your-feet.html

Quote:
"Last week I went to see the Crossrail excavations at Canary Wharf, four
years after we had officially got them going, and I remembered how fragile
the project had seemed. There was a time when we had to fight for
Crossrail, when senior cabinet ministers were denouncing it as a mad plan
to build a pointless trench across London. It was an easy way to save
£16 billion, they said. Axe it now, they said, and no one will even miss
it.

Well, thank heavens we didn’t listen to that guff. Crossrail’s tunnel is
now a giant and growing fact, that will revolutionise east-west transit in
the greatest city on earth, pinging you from Heathrow to the City in about
half an hour. Its fast air-conditioned network will run from Maidenhead in
the west to Shenfield in the east.

Crossrail will increase London’s rail capacity by about 10 per cent, and
generate an estimated £42 billion worth of growth across the country. Even
in its construction phase, Crossrail is good for the whole of Britain. Of
its 1,600 contracts, 62 per cent have gone to firms outside London – more
than half of them small and medium enterprises (SMEs). There are bridges
from Shropshire, cranes from Derbyshire, grouting from Coventry, piling
from Oldham, lifts from Preston and vast quantities of lubrication from
Bournemouth.

The project is responsible for about 55,000 jobs across the country, and it
would have been utter insanity to cancel it – not just because of the jobs
it creates, but because it is essential if we are to cope with the demands
on our transport network.

London will have a million more people in the next 10 years, and without
Crossrail the Central line would become so packed and overheated that it
would not be fit, under EU rules, for the transport of live animals. It is
a vivid and powerful lesson in the vital importance of investing in
transport infrastructure, and of driving on ruthlessly with essential
schemes: the Tube upgrades, new river crossings, Crossrail Two, and others.
They are not just good for London, but for the whole of Britain.

And yet none of these Crossrail statistics do justice to what is being
achieved. When Patrick McLoughlin, the Secretary of State for Transport,
and I went into the new station box at Canary Wharf, I felt a sense of
primeval awe, like a Neanderthal stumbling into the gloom of Lascaux. It is
akin to a gigantic subterranean cathedral several times the size of
Chartres. The boring machine is like a colossal steel-toothed remora or
lamprey, grinding her way through the clay.

I stood beneath her jaws, and fingered some of that thick black Bournemouth
lube, and they told me how the machine had driven with such accuracy that
when she entered the station box she was only 5mm off target. This is the
biggest engineering project in Europe, an amazing advertisement for British
construction; and when you look at it you wonder why we are sometimes so
prone to self-doubt.

When the next coronation rolls round, we won’t need a new mountain to
climb. We’ll have the joy and excitement of Crossrail Two, as she chomps
her way from Hackney to Chelsea; and unlike climbing Everest, the scheme
will be of practical benefit to all.

In the meantime, we need a proper name for Crossrail, the vast new line on
London’s underground network – and who better to give her name to that line
than someone who has served her country so unfailingly and well for 60
years?"

More in
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...your-feet.html

Bozza on Crossrail
 

Very Keynsian.

Bozza on Crossrail
 

In message

, at 18:03:01 on Sun, 2 Jun 2013, Recliner
remarked:

There are bridges from Shropshire, cranes from Derbyshire, grouting
from Coventry, piling from Oldham, lifts from Preston and vast
quantities of lubrication from Bournemouth.

That'll be from the Ringwood Brewery, I suppose?
--
Roland Perry

Bozza on Crossrail
 

On Monday, 3 June 2013 07:08:44 UTC+1, Offramp wrote:
Very Keynsian.

Is the project still 'black listing' workers? I heard that there were (still are?) a number of lockouts and use of non-unionised labour due dracnian management. And are there still health and safety issues in the tunnels?

http://uk.search.yahoo.com/search?ei...listing+unions

http://shopstewards.net/2012/12/cros...ease%E2%80%8B/

Bozza on Crossrail
 

spelling correction: "draconian management"

Bozza on Crossrail
 

On Monday, 3 June 2013 07:08:44 UTC+1, Offramp wrote:
Very Keynsian.

I notice that Ferrovial is also involved with Crossrail. They are notorious for part-owning Heathrow and promoting its vast expansion to the detriment of the life=style and well-being of at least 2 million residents of London and surrounds.

Bozza on Crossrail
 

On 03/06/2013 00:03, Recliner wrote:
From:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...your-feet.html

Quote:
"Last week I went to see the Crossrail excavations at Canary Wharf, four
years after we had officially got them going, and I remembered how fragile
the project had seemed. There was a time when we had to fight for
Crossrail, when senior cabinet ministers were denouncing it as a mad plan
to build a pointless trench across London. It was an easy way to save
£16 billion, they said. Axe it now, they said, and no one will even miss
it.

Well, thank heavens we didn’t listen to that guff. Crossrail’s tunnel is
now a giant and growing fact, that will revolutionise east-west transit in
the greatest city on earth, pinging you from Heathrow to the City in about
half an hour. Its fast air-conditioned network will run from Maidenhead in
the west to Shenfield in the east.

Crossrail will increase London’s rail capacity by about 10 per cent, and
generate an estimated £42 billion worth of growth across the country. Even
in its construction phase, Crossrail is good for the whole of Britain. Of
its 1,600 contracts, 62 per cent have gone to firms outside London – more
than half of them small and medium enterprises (SMEs). There are bridges
from Shropshire, cranes from Derbyshire, grouting from Coventry, piling
from Oldham, lifts from Preston and vast quantities of lubrication from
Bournemouth.

The project is responsible for about 55,000 jobs across the country, and it
would have been utter insanity to cancel it – not just because of the jobs
it creates, but because it is essential if we are to cope with the demands
on our transport network.

London will have a million more people in the next 10 years, and without
Crossrail the Central line would become so packed and overheated that it
would not be fit, under EU rules, for the transport of live animals. It is
a vivid and powerful lesson in the vital importance of investing in
transport infrastructure, and of driving on ruthlessly with essential
schemes: the Tube upgrades, new river crossings, Crossrail Two, and others.
They are not just good for London, but for the whole of Britain.

And yet none of these Crossrail statistics do justice to what is being
achieved. When Patrick McLoughlin, the Secretary of State for Transport,
and I went into the new station box at Canary Wharf, I felt a sense of
primeval awe, like a Neanderthal stumbling into the gloom of Lascaux. It is
akin to a gigantic subterranean cathedral several times the size of
Chartres. The boring machine is like a colossal steel-toothed remora or
lamprey, grinding her way through the clay.

I stood beneath her jaws, and fingered some of that thick black Bournemouth
lube, and they told me how the machine had driven with such accuracy that
when she entered the station box she was only 5mm off target. This is the
biggest engineering project in Europe, an amazing advertisement for British
construction; and when you look at it you wonder why we are sometimes so
prone to self-doubt.

When the next coronation rolls round, we won’t need a new mountain to
climb. We’ll have the joy and excitement of Crossrail Two, as she chomps
her way from Hackney to Chelsea; and unlike climbing Everest, the scheme
will be of practical benefit to all.

In the meantime, we need a proper name for Crossrail, the vast new line on
London’s underground network – and who better to give her name to that line
than someone who has served her country so unfailingly and well for 60
years?"

More in
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...your-feet.html

If jobs in its construction are a main justification for the colossal
expenditure, why not just dig large holes by manual labour which would
otherwise be unemployed, and then fill them in again?

Fifty-five thousand jobs at "only" forty-two thousand million pounds
(current estimates).

Wow... that's only £763,636 per job.

Bozza on Crossrail
 

CJB wrote:
On Monday, 3 June 2013 07:08:44 UTC+1, Offramp wrote:
Very Keynsian.

I notice that Ferrovial is also involved with Crossrail. They are
notorious for part-owning Heathrow and promoting its vast expansion to
the detriment of the life=style and well-being of at least 2 million
residents of London and surrounds.

Vast expansion??? Heathrow has fewer runways than any other major hub
airport in the world and is bursting at the seams. Many London residents
either work at or use Heathrow regularly, and so benefit from it, and would
benefit more from its expansion. As a Londoner, I certainly want it to have
another runway, both for my own convenience and because it would benefit
the city and the country as a whole.

Bozza on Crossrail
 

JNugent wrote:
On 03/06/2013 00:03, Recliner wrote:
From:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...your-feet.html

Quote:
"Last week I went to see the Crossrail excavations at Canary Wharf, four
years after we had officially got them going, and I remembered how fragile
the project had seemed. There was a time when we had to fight for
Crossrail, when senior cabinet ministers were denouncing it as a mad plan
to build a pointless trench across London. It was an easy way to save
£16 billion, they said. Axe it now, they said, and no one will even miss
it.

Well, thank heavens we didn’t listen to that guff. Crossrail’s tunnel is
now a giant and growing fact, that will revolutionise east-west transit in
the greatest city on earth, pinging you from Heathrow to the City in about
half an hour. Its fast air-conditioned network will run from Maidenhead in
the west to Shenfield in the east.

Crossrail will increase London’s rail capacity by about 10 per cent, and
generate an estimated £42 billion worth of growth across the country. Even
in its construction phase, Crossrail is good for the whole of Britain. Of
its 1,600 contracts, 62 per cent have gone to firms outside London – more
than half of them small and medium enterprises (SMEs). There are bridges
from Shropshire, cranes from Derbyshire, grouting from Coventry, piling
from Oldham, lifts from Preston and vast quantities of lubrication from
Bournemouth.

The project is responsible for about 55,000 jobs across the country, and it
would have been utter insanity to cancel it – not just because of the jobs
it creates, but because it is essential if we are to cope with the demands
on our transport network.

London will have a million more people in the next 10 years, and without
Crossrail the Central line would become so packed and overheated that it
would not be fit, under EU rules, for the transport of live animals. It is
a vivid and powerful lesson in the vital importance of investing in
transport infrastructure, and of driving on ruthlessly with essential
schemes: the Tube upgrades, new river crossings, Crossrail Two, and others.
They are not just good for London, but for the whole of Britain.

And yet none of these Crossrail statistics do justice to what is being
achieved. When Patrick McLoughlin, the Secretary of State for Transport,
and I went into the new station box at Canary Wharf, I felt a sense of
primeval awe, like a Neanderthal stumbling into the gloom of Lascaux. It is
akin to a gigantic subterranean cathedral several times the size of
Chartres. The boring machine is like a colossal steel-toothed remora or
lamprey, grinding her way through the clay.

I stood beneath her jaws, and fingered some of that thick black Bournemouth
lube, and they told me how the machine had driven with such accuracy that
when she entered the station box she was only 5mm off target. This is the
biggest engineering project in Europe, an amazing advertisement for British
construction; and when you look at it you wonder why we are sometimes so
prone to self-doubt.

When the next coronation rolls round, we won’t need a new mountain to
climb. We’ll have the joy and excitement of Crossrail Two, as she chomps
her way from Hackney to Chelsea; and unlike climbing Everest, the scheme
will be of practical benefit to all.

In the meantime, we need a proper name for Crossrail, the vast new line on
London’s underground network – and who better to give her name to that line
than someone who has served her country so unfailingly and well for 60
years?"

More in
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...your-feet.html

If jobs in its construction are a main justification for the colossal
expenditure, why not just dig large holes by manual labour which would
otherwise be unemployed, and then fill them in again?

Fifty-five thousand jobs at "only" forty-two thousand million pounds (current estimates).

Wow... that's only £763,636 per job.

Where does he claim that the construction jobs are the *main* justification
for the cost?

Bozza on Crossrail
 

On Sun, 02 Jun 2013 18:03:01 -0500, Recliner
wrote:

From:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...your-feet.html

Quote:
[...]
In the meantime, we need a proper name for Crossrail, the vast new line on
London’s underground network – and who better to give her name to that line
than someone who has served her country so unfailingly and well for 60
years?"

It's already got a name -- I hope the TfL board can at least stand up
to him on this matter!

Richard.

Bozza on Crossrail
 

On 03/06/2013 10:36, Recliner wrote:
If jobs in its construction are a main justification for the colossal
expenditure, why not just dig large holes by manual labour which would
otherwise be unemployed, and then fill them in again?

Fifty-five thousand jobs at "only" forty-two thousand million pounds (current estimates).

Wow... that's only £763,636 per job.
Where does he claim that the construction jobs are the*main* justification
for the cost?

The Ian Batten school of project evaluation.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

Bozza on Crossrail
 

On 03/06/2013 10:36, Recliner wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 03/06/2013 00:03, Recliner wrote:
From:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...your-feet.html

Quote:
"Last week I went to see the Crossrail excavations at Canary Wharf, four
years after we had officially got them going, and I remembered how fragile
the project had seemed. There was a time when we had to fight for
Crossrail, when senior cabinet ministers were denouncing it as a mad plan
to build a pointless trench across London. It was an easy way to save
£16 billion, they said. Axe it now, they said, and no one will even miss
it.

Well, thank heavens we didn’t listen to that guff. Crossrail’s tunnel is
now a giant and growing fact, that will revolutionise east-west transit in
the greatest city on earth, pinging you from Heathrow to the City in about
half an hour. Its fast air-conditioned network will run from Maidenhead in
the west to Shenfield in the east.

Crossrail will increase London’s rail capacity by about 10 per cent, and
generate an estimated £42 billion worth of growth across the country. Even
in its construction phase, Crossrail is good for the whole of Britain. Of
its 1,600 contracts, 62 per cent have gone to firms outside London – more
than half of them small and medium enterprises (SMEs). There are bridges
from Shropshire, cranes from Derbyshire, grouting from Coventry, piling
from Oldham, lifts from Preston and vast quantities of lubrication from
Bournemouth.

The project is responsible for about 55,000 jobs across the country, and it
would have been utter insanity to cancel it – not just because of the jobs
it creates, but because it is essential if we are to cope with the demands
on our transport network.

London will have a million more people in the next 10 years, and without
Crossrail the Central line would become so packed and overheated that it
would not be fit, under EU rules, for the transport of live animals. It is
a vivid and powerful lesson in the vital importance of investing in
transport infrastructure, and of driving on ruthlessly with essential
schemes: the Tube upgrades, new river crossings, Crossrail Two, and others.
They are not just good for London, but for the whole of Britain.

And yet none of these Crossrail statistics do justice to what is being
achieved. When Patrick McLoughlin, the Secretary of State for Transport,
and I went into the new station box at Canary Wharf, I felt a sense of
primeval awe, like a Neanderthal stumbling into the gloom of Lascaux. It is
akin to a gigantic subterranean cathedral several times the size of
Chartres. The boring machine is like a colossal steel-toothed remora or
lamprey, grinding her way through the clay.

I stood beneath her jaws, and fingered some of that thick black Bournemouth
lube, and they told me how the machine had driven with such accuracy that
when she entered the station box she was only 5mm off target. This is the
biggest engineering project in Europe, an amazing advertisement for British
construction; and when you look at it you wonder why we are sometimes so
prone to self-doubt.

When the next coronation rolls round, we won’t need a new mountain to
climb. We’ll have the joy and excitement of Crossrail Two, as she chomps
her way from Hackney to Chelsea; and unlike climbing Everest, the scheme
will be of practical benefit to all.

In the meantime, we need a proper name for Crossrail, the vast new line on
London’s underground network – and who better to give her name to that line
than someone who has served her country so unfailingly and well for 60
years?"

More in
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...your-feet.html

If jobs in its construction are a main justification for the colossal
expenditure, why not just dig large holes by manual labour which would
otherwise be unemployed, and then fill them in again?

Fifty-five thousand jobs at "only" forty-two thousand million pounds (current estimates).

Wow... that's only £763,636 per job.

Where does he claim that the construction jobs are the *main* justification
for the cost?

Research the distinction between the definite article and the indefinite
article in English. Once acquired, the knowledge will be a useful skill
for you.

Bozza on Crossrail
 

On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 04:33:53 -0500
Recliner wrote:
benefit more from its expansion. As a Londoner, I certainly want it to have
another runway, both for my own convenience and because it would benefit
the city and the country as a whole.

Also as a Londoner, you can speak for yourself. Anyone who thinks the economy
will be rescued by an extra runway at an airport is living on a cloud higher
than any 747 can reach.

--
Spud

Bozza on Crossrail
 

On Mon, 3 Jun 2013 10:01:14 +0000 (UTC), d
wrote:

On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 04:33:53 -0500
Recliner wrote:
benefit more from its expansion. As a Londoner, I certainly want it to have
another runway, both for my own convenience and because it would benefit
the city and the country as a whole.

Also as a Londoner, you can speak for yourself. Anyone who thinks the economy
will be rescued by an extra runway at an airport is living on a cloud higher
than any 747 can reach.

Presumably, as a potato farmer, you have no interest in increasing the
UK's exports?

Bozza on Crossrail
 

On 2013\06\03 00:03, Recliner wrote:
From:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...your-feet.html

In the meantime, we need a proper name for Crossrail, the vast new line on
London’s underground network – and who better to give her name to that line
than someone who has served her country so unfailingly and well for 60
years?"

The Petula Clark Line certainly has a ring to it.

Bozza on Crossrail
 

On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 11:19:31 +0100
Recliner wrote:
On Mon, 3 Jun 2013 10:01:14 +0000 (UTC), d
wrote:

On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 04:33:53 -0500
Recliner wrote:
benefit more from its expansion. As a Londoner, I certainly want it to have
another runway, both for my own convenience and because it would benefit
the city and the country as a whole.

Also as a Londoner, you can speak for yourself. Anyone who thinks the economy
will be rescued by an extra runway at an airport is living on a cloud higher
than any 747 can reach.

Presumably, as a potato farmer, you have no interest in increasing the
UK's exports?

99.9% of the UKs exports go by ship. And I'm afraid if you've fallen for the
"more businessmen from china will fly into london" BS put out by the vested
interests then more fool you. London is far better served for airports than
ANY other city in europe (heathrow, gatwick, luton, stansted, city, southend)
and frankly there are enough bloody planes in the skys over london as it is.
We don't need any more.

--
Spud

Bozza on Crossrail
 

On 03/06/2013 11:51, wrote:
On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 11:19:31 +0100
Recliner wrote:
On Mon, 3 Jun 2013 10:01:14 +0000 (UTC), d
wrote:

On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 04:33:53 -0500
Recliner wrote:
benefit more from its expansion. As a Londoner, I certainly want it to have
another runway, both for my own convenience and because it would benefit
the city and the country as a whole.

Also as a Londoner, you can speak for yourself. Anyone who thinks the economy
will be rescued by an extra runway at an airport is living on a cloud higher
than any 747 can reach.

Presumably, as a potato farmer, you have no interest in increasing the
UK's exports?

99.9% of the UKs exports go by ship. And I'm afraid if you've fallen for the
"more businessmen from china will fly into london" BS put out by the vested
interests then more fool you. London is far better served for airports than
ANY other city in europe (heathrow, gatwick, luton, stansted, city, southend)
and frankly there are enough bloody planes in the skys over london as it is.
We don't need any more.

Add Biggin Hill and Lydd to those. BH is actually inside the London
boundary.

Bozza on Crossrail
 

On 03/06/2013 11:27, Basil Jet wrote:
On 2013\06\03 00:03, Recliner wrote:
From:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...your-feet.html


In the meantime, we need a proper name for Crossrail, the vast new
line on
London’s underground network – and who better to give her name to that
line
than someone who has served her country so unfailingly and well for 60
years?"

The Petula Clark Line certainly has a ring to it.

The Downtown Line?

--
Dave,
Frodsham
http://s1213.photobucket.com/albums/cc461/Davy41/

I think you need to read posts more carefully before you respond to them with
such venom. He wrote that an extra runway "would benefit . . . the country"
which is something most sensible people agree with. Transforming the
economy will take more than any one project or policy, as George Osborne is
slowly and painfully learning.

Bozza on Crossrail
 

On 03/06/13 12:17, Dave Jackson wrote:
The Petula Clark Line certainly has a ring to it.

The Downtown Line?

The Boris Folly Line.

Bozza on Crossrail
 

On Mon, 3 Jun 2013 16:56:55 +0200
Robin9 wrote:
;137181 Wrote:
On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 04:33:53 -0500
Recliner wrote:-
benefit more from its expansion. As a Londoner, I certainly want it to
have
another runway, both for my own convenience and because it would
benefit
the city and the country as a whole.-

Also as a Londoner, you can speak for yourself. Anyone who thinks the
economy will be rescued by an extra runway at an airport is living on a
cloud
higher than any 747 can reach.

--
Spud

I think you need to read posts more carefully before you respond to them
with
such venom. He wrote that an extra runway "would benefit . . . the
country"

Wasn't meant to be venomous , just robust :o)

Anyway, I disagree. The only people an extra runway would benefit are
the shareholders and directors of Ferrovia and even that would be marginal
since AFAIK air traffic control in the southeast is getting close to its
limit too.

which is something most sensible people agree with. Transforming the
economy will take more than any one project or policy, as George Osborne
is
slowly and painfully learning.

Well quite.

--
Spud

Bozza on Crossrail
 

On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 10:01:14AM +0000, d wrote:
On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 04:33:53 -0500
Recliner wrote:
benefit more from its expansion. As a Londoner, I certainly want it to have
another runway, both for my own convenience and because it would benefit
the city and the country as a whole.
Also as a Londoner, you can speak for yourself. Anyone who thinks the economy
will be rescued by an extra runway at an airport is living on a cloud higher
than any 747 can reach.

London's economy doesn't need rescuing.

--
David Cantrell | Bourgeois reactionary pig

All children should be aptitude-tested at an early age and,
if their main or only aptitude is for marketing, drowned.

Bozza on Crossrail
 

On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 10:51:54AM +0000, wrote:

and frankly there are enough bloody planes in the skys over london as it is.
We don't need any more.

And the reasoning behind these statements is what?

--
David Cantrell | Cake Smuggler Extraordinaire

Blessed are the pessimists, for they test their backups

Bozza on Crossrail
 

On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 10:30:19AM +0100, JNugent wrote:

Fifty-five thousand jobs at "only" forty-two thousand million pounds
(current estimates).

Wow... that's only £763,636 per job.

Construction started in 2009, and will finish in 2018. That's 9-ish
years of work, so 85 grand per year per job on average. When you consider
things like employer's NI, overheads such as paying for office space and
power, the cost of equipment used and materials consumed, and the cost of
land purchased, it seems quite a reasonable rate per hour worked to be
honest.

--
David Cantrell | semi-evolved ape-thing

I'm in retox

Bozza on Crossrail
 

On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 12:00:03 +0100
David Cantrell wrote:
On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 10:51:54AM +0000, wrote:

and frankly there are enough bloody planes in the skys over london as it is.
We don't need any more.

And the reasoning behind these statements is what?

Look out the window right now. Can you see that smeary haze where there should
be blue sky? Apart from looking vile, for all that ice from the vapour trails
you can see theres just as much CO2 released that you can't see. Not to mention
all the other pollutants being shoved into the stratosphere.

Plus I'm currently working virtually right under the heathrow flight path and
its not much fun. Thank god I don't live here.

--
Spud

Bozza on Crossrail
 

In message , at 11:45:42 on Tue, 4 Jun
2013, d remarked:
Look out the window right now. Can you see that smeary haze where there should
be blue sky? Apart from looking vile, for all that ice from the vapour trails
you can see theres just as much CO2 released that you can't see. Not to mention
all the other pollutants being shoved into the stratosphere.

Wrong on two counts. The ice reflects the sun and cools the earth, and
the jet engines draw in and burn methane, which is a much more powerful
greenhouse gas than CO2.
--
Roland Perry

Bozza on Crossrail
 

On Tue, 4 Jun 2013 15:01:44 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:45:42 on Tue, 4 Jun
2013, d remarked:
Look out the window right now. Can you see that smeary haze where there should
be blue sky? Apart from looking vile, for all that ice from the vapour trails
you can see theres just as much CO2 released that you can't see. Not to
mention
all the other pollutants being shoved into the stratosphere.

Wrong on two counts. The ice reflects the sun and cools the earth, and
the jet engines draw in and burn methane, which is a much more powerful
greenhouse gas than CO2.

I'd change your pot dealer if I were you, clearly he's selling you something
a bit too strong.

- The ice might reflect the sun but it disperses in a few hours so its a
temporary effect whereas the CO2 however will be around for thousands of
years. Moreover the ice clouds also reflect heat back down to the ground
so the jury's out on whether they're good or bad during the day. At night
it'll be bad.

- Your burning methane comment is farcical. The amount the engines will suck up
is miniscule and even allowing for its stronger greenhouse effect it will be
outweighed by orders of magnitude compared to that of the CO2 generated. Plus
methane has a half life in the atmosphere of about 10 years so in the scheme
of things its pretty irrelevant.

--
Spud

Bozza on Crossrail
 

In message , at 14:20:17 on Tue, 4 Jun
2013, d remarked:
Look out the window right now. Can you see that smeary haze where there should
be blue sky? Apart from looking vile, for all that ice from the vapour trails
you can see theres just as much CO2 released that you can't see. Not to
mention
all the other pollutants being shoved into the stratosphere.

Wrong on two counts. The ice reflects the sun and cools the earth, and
the jet engines draw in and burn methane, which is a much more powerful
greenhouse gas than CO2.

I'd change your pot dealer if I were you, clearly he's selling you something
a bit too strong.

- The ice might reflect the sun but it disperses in a few hours so its a
temporary effect whereas the CO2 however will be around for thousands of
years. Moreover the ice clouds also reflect heat back down to the ground
so the jury's out on whether they're good or bad during the day. At night
it'll be bad.

- Your burning methane comment is farcical. The amount the engines will suck up
is miniscule and even allowing for its stronger greenhouse effect it will be
outweighed by orders of magnitude compared to that of the CO2 generated. Plus
methane has a half life in the atmosphere of about 10 years so in the scheme
of things its pretty irrelevant.

What science do you base these comments on - mine is a university
research project that came to the conclusions above.
--
Roland Perry

Bozza on Crossrail
 

On Tue, 4 Jun 2013 15:33:40 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
What science do you base these comments on - mine is a university

Basic physics my friend. And googling will back me up.

research project that came to the conclusions above.

Care to post a link to it? I need a laugh.

--
Spud

Bozza on Crossrail
 

In message , at 14:50:25 on Tue, 4 Jun
2013, d remarked:
What science do you base these comments on - mine is a university

Basic physics my friend. And googling will back me up.

research project that came to the conclusions above.

Care to post a link to it? I need a laugh.

You need a reality check.
--
Roland Perry

Bozza on Crossrail
 

On Tue, 4 Jun 2013 16:03:14 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:50:25 on Tue, 4 Jun
2013, d remarked:
What science do you base these comments on - mine is a university

Basic physics my friend. And googling will back me up.

research project that came to the conclusions above.

Care to post a link to it? I need a laugh.

You need a reality check.

That'll be a "no" then.

--
Spud

Bozza on Crossrail
 

On Tue, 4 Jun 2013 16:03:14 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:50:25 on Tue, 4 Jun
2013, d remarked:
What science do you base these comments on - mine is a university

Basic physics my friend. And googling will back me up.

research project that came to the conclusions above.

Care to post a link to it? I need a laugh.

You need a reality check.

Just for fun I did the calcs for your methane suggestion:

methane it atmosphere = roughly 1.8ppm

A commercial a jet engine takes in roughly 1 ton of air per second (going by
online figures) which for a high bypass turbofan means 100kg of air gets into
the compressor per second.

For a 10 hour flight that'll be 0.1 * 3600 * 10 = 3600 tons of air in
which there'll be 3660000 * .0000018 = 6.6 tons of methane.

Assuming all that methane gets burned (it won't but hey) thats equivalent
to about 165 tons of CO2.

A 747 uses 150,000 litres of kerosene on a 10 hour flight which will create
about 400 tons of CO2 which will be in the atmosphere on average for the next
10K years.

Therefor I think to sum up one can say nice idea, but no cigar.

--
Spud

Bozza on Crossrail
 

In message , at 15:11:56 on Tue, 4 Jun
2013, d remarked:
What science do you base these comments on - mine is a university

Basic physics my friend. And googling will back me up.

research project that came to the conclusions above.

Care to post a link to it? I need a laugh.

You need a reality check.

That'll be a "no" then.

Not every truth has a handy link.
--
Roland Perry

Bozza on Crossrail
 

In message , at 15:34:50 on Tue, 4 Jun
2013, d remarked:
Just for fun I did the calcs for your methane suggestion:

methane it atmosphere = roughly 1.8ppm

A commercial a jet engine takes in roughly 1 ton of air per second (going by
online figures) which for a high bypass turbofan means 100kg of air gets into
the compressor per second.

For a 10 hour flight that'll be 0.1 * 3600 * 10 = 3600 tons of air in
which there'll be 3660000 * .0000018 = 6.6 tons of methane.

Assuming all that methane gets burned (it won't but hey) thats equivalent
to about 165 tons of CO2.

A 747 uses 150,000 litres of kerosene on a 10 hour flight which will create
about 400 tons of CO2 which will be in the atmosphere on average for the next
10K years.

Therefor I think to sum up one can say nice idea, but no cigar.

You appear to have ignored the greater greenhouse effect of methane,
versus Co2.
--
Roland Perry

Bozza on Crossrail
 

On Tue, 4 Jun 2013 21:41:47 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 15:34:50 on Tue, 4 Jun
2013, d remarked:
Just for fun I did the calcs for your methane suggestion:

methane it atmosphere = roughly 1.8ppm

A commercial a jet engine takes in roughly 1 ton of air per second (going by
online figures) which for a high bypass turbofan means 100kg of air gets into
the compressor per second.

For a 10 hour flight that'll be 0.1 * 3600 * 10 = 3600 tons of air in
which there'll be 3660000 * .0000018 = 6.6 tons of methane.

Assuming all that methane gets burned (it won't but hey) thats equivalent
to about 165 tons of CO2.

A 747 uses 150,000 litres of kerosene on a 10 hour flight which will create
about 400 tons of CO2 which will be in the atmosphere on average for the next
10K years.

Therefor I think to sum up one can say nice idea, but no cigar.

You appear to have ignored the greater greenhouse effect of methane,
versus Co2.

Which bit of 6.6 tons of methane is equivalent to 165 tons of CO2 did you
not understand?

And of course this is ignoring the other pollutants jets give out such as
NOx and soot which also contribute to the greenhouse effect.

--
Spud

Bozza on Crossrail
 

On Tue, 4 Jun 2013 21:39:02 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 15:11:56 on Tue, 4 Jun
2013, d remarked:
What science do you base these comments on - mine is a university

Basic physics my friend. And googling will back me up.

research project that came to the conclusions above.

Care to post a link to it? I need a laugh.

You need a reality check.

That'll be a "no" then.

Not every truth has a handy link.

Most serious peer reviewed university research projects do however.

--
Spud

Bozza on Crossrail
 

In message , at 10:34:49 on Wed, 5 Jun
2013, d remarked:
What science do you base these comments on - mine is a university

Basic physics my friend. And googling will back me up.

research project that came to the conclusions above.

Care to post a link to it? I need a laugh.

You need a reality check.

That'll be a "no" then.

Not every truth has a handy link.

Most serious peer reviewed university research projects do however.

They might have a link (are all academic journals online now?) but this
particular one certainly isn't handy. I did attend a one-hour public
lecture on the topic, by the researcher, at Cambridge University a
couple of years ago though.
--
Roland Perry

Bozza on Crossrail
 

In message , at 10:33:21 on Wed, 5 Jun
2013, d remarked:
Just for fun I did the calcs for your methane suggestion:

methane it atmosphere = roughly 1.8ppm

A commercial a jet engine takes in roughly 1 ton of air per second (going by
online figures) which for a high bypass turbofan means 100kg of air gets into
the compressor per second.

For a 10 hour flight that'll be 0.1 * 3600 * 10 = 3600 tons of air in
which there'll be 3660000 * .0000018 = 6.6 tons of methane.

Assuming all that methane gets burned (it won't but hey) thats equivalent
to about 165 tons of CO2.

A 747 uses 150,000 litres of kerosene on a 10 hour flight which will create
about 400 tons of CO2 which will be in the atmosphere on average for the next
10K years.

Therefor I think to sum up one can say nice idea, but no cigar.

You appear to have ignored the greater greenhouse effect of methane,
versus Co2.

Which bit of 6.6 tons of methane is equivalent to 165 tons of CO2 did you
not understand?

Doesn't a 747 have four engines?
--
Roland Perry

Bozza on Crossrail
 

On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 11:45:42AM +0000, d wrote:
On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 12:00:03 +0100
David Cantrell wrote:
On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 10:51:54AM +0000, wrote:
and frankly there are enough bloody planes in the skys over london as it is.
We don't need any more.
And the reasoning behind these statements is what?
Look out the window right now. Can you see that smeary haze where there should
be blue sky?

No. I see a coupla contrails, and some very light cloud.

Apart from looking vile

No. That's not vile. This is vile http://poetry.rotten.com/meat-grinder-ii/.
I think you meant "a little bit unpleasant", although I disagree with
even that.

for all that ice from the vapour trails
you can see theres just as much CO2 released that you can't see.

A whole 2% of anthropogenic CO2 production. Even if we could magic it
all away, the power stations that release 15 times as much would still
be there, so I refuse to care about the 2%. I especially refuse to care
when that 2% is actually caused by something useful and is very hard to
get rid of without getting rid of the useful. By comparison, the 30%
vomited out by power stations is easy to get rid of. The technology
exists right now, and we know how to do it. It's just that NIMBYs and
tree-huggers don't like nukes. But replacing fossil fuel power stations
with nuclear ones is, I think, far easier to do than magicking away air
travel, and so on the rare occasions that I do something Environmental,
it's with that aim in mind.

Not to mention all the other pollutants being shoved into the stratosphere.

Meh. Again, fix the power stations if you give a ****.

Plus I'm currently working virtually right under the heathrow flight path and
its not much fun. Thank god I don't live here.

My grandparents lived right under the Heathrow flight path. I noticed
when I visited. I noticed for a few minutes, and then it was just
background noise, no worse than that from people walking past in the
street talking to each other, just the occasional rumble. I get more
noise in my flat from trains whizzing past a few hundred feet away, and
I assure you, it causes no hardship whatsoever.

I'm sure that it's really bad under the part of the flight path that is
really close to the ground - the last coupla kilometres or so - but
otherwise it's irrelevant. If it was relevant further out, then Kew
Gardens, which is directly under the flight path, would be a blighted
hell-hole. It isn't. Therefore you are either exaggerating, lieing,
or are one of the very few people in a very small area for whom it is
a real issue. Expanding Heathrow will make that last category bigger,
but the scale of the problem is nothing like that which the tree-huggers
say it is. There are certainly not millions of peoples' lives ruined
by the airport nor will there be. Not even hundreds of thousands.

--
David Cantrell | London Perl Mongers Deputy Chief Heretic

It wouldn't hurt to think like a serial killer every so often.
Purely for purposes of prevention, of course.

Bozza on Crossrail
 

On Wed, 05 Jun 2013 12:21:12 +0100, David Cantrell
wrote:

On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 11:45:42AM +0000, d wrote:
On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 12:00:03 +0100
David Cantrell wrote:
On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 10:51:54AM +0000, wrote:
and frankly there are enough bloody planes in the skys over london as it is.
We don't need any more.
And the reasoning behind these statements is what?
Look out the window right now. Can you see that smeary haze where there should
be blue sky?

No. I see a coupla contrails, and some very light cloud.

Apart from looking vile

No. That's not vile.

For the record, this is a wide-angle view (an 18mm equivalent in 35mm
terms) upstream from Southwark Bridge this morning:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/recline...5548/lightbox/
I think the contrails look quite pretty against the brilliant blue
sky.

This was the downstream view (the contrails are less visible as the
shot is into the sun):
http://www.flickr.com/photos/recline...ream/lightbox/
I think that shot's interesting as it includes several generations of
London's tallest office buildings: Tower 42 (completed in 1980),
Canary Wharf (completed in 1991) and the Shard (this year), as well as
the curiously shaped new Cheesegrater and Walkie-Talkie buildings
(likely to be completed in 2014).

In contrast to London's relatively clean air, this is a pic I took a
month ago of Beijing's tallest office building:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/recline...57633508953848

And this is what they have to do to try and keep the once-pristine
Bird's Nest stadium looking somewhat presentable:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/recline...57633508953848
http://www.flickr.com/photos/recline...3848/lightbox/