London Hauptbahnhof
 

Mizter T wrote:

I'm fascinated by these postwar notions of STOLports everywhere!
Reading about the development of London City Airport it would seem that
in the 80's people were pretty certain that STOLports were going to be
big as well - but whilst LCY is doing well STOLports haven't cropped up
everywhere else as was predicted. I'm not an expert on LCY, but as it's
had a runway extension to enable it to take larger aircraft perhaps it
doesn't really qualify as a STOLport anymore. Or maybe the term just
never really caught on!

Probably that. Notably, Schiphol's website (I think) still refers to
it as "London City Stolport". It certainly is still one, and the
largest aircraft you tend to see there is the BAe-146 (I think) small
quad-jet. Approaches are still steep and rough, but one of the most
spectacular and impressive I've seen. The runway is short (but longer
than it was) - but many of the aircraft you get there now can take off
and land using probably about half to 2/3 of it (the Fokker 50s
certainly can, being well off the ground before getting even near the
terminal when doing a London-direction takeoff).

Apparently, though, Airbus did a successful test with an A318 (small
version of the A319/20) with a software mod for steeper descents, so
perhaps some of those will be seen there soon, especially as the F50s
and BAe jets are getting on a bit.

Neil

London Hauptbahnhof
 

"John Rowland" wrote in message
...
sweek wrote:
i don't see the point in this. There is so much congestion on stations
already that we should work on actually spreading people around more
stations, not trying to centralise it. As long as the termini are
interconnected I think you're fine. And of course Crossrail schemes
can help with that as well.

Actually, it's best if all main lines passed through London, and all lines
interchanged with each other and with all tube lines, but not too many
lines interchanging at the same station. That way a terrorist strike on a
single station causes minimal disruption. A single London Central station
has no benefits and huge disbenefits.

Planning rail routes and services around terrorism? Does it really happen
that frequently? :)

London Hauptbahnhof
 

On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 08:40:15AM -0700, Earl Purple wrote:

Perhaps now there's a congestion charge and internet shopping and all
the shops in Oxford Street are doing so badly, we should bulldoze is
all down to make that the common London terminus then?

Not only do the shops claim to be doing badly (although I don't see them
all closing, so they must still be making some money from the hordes of
tourist scum) certainly the vast majority of them, especially east of
oxford circus, are just plain crap, selling nothing but poor quality
clothes, phones, "sports" shoes and stolen goods to, to be blunt, poor
quality people. Flattening them all would be a good thing even if we
didn't build a huge Victorian-style temple of gleaming wrought iron and
glass on the site.

--
David Cantrell | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david

When a man is tired of London, he is tired of life
-- Samuel Johnson

London Hauptbahnhof
 

Mizter T wrote:
I'm fascinated by these postwar notions of STOLports everywhere!
Reading about the development of London City Airport it would seem that
in the 80's people were pretty certain that STOLports were going to be
big as well - but whilst LCY is doing well STOLports haven't cropped up
everywhere else as was predicted. I'm not an expert on LCY, but as it's
had a runway extension to enable it to take larger aircraft perhaps it
doesn't really qualify as a STOLport anymore. Or maybe the term just
never really caught on!

Off the top of my head, they have them in Belfast and Toronto too - and
probably other places with disused docklands.

London Hauptbahnhof
 

d wrote:

Planning rail routes and services around terrorism? Does it really
happen that frequently? :)

In the 70s and 80s it did happen that frequently. We don't know what the
future will hold.

London Hauptbahnhof
 

d wrote:
"John Rowland" wrote in message
...
sweek wrote:
i don't see the point in this. There is so much congestion on stations
already that we should work on actually spreading people around more
stations, not trying to centralise it. As long as the termini are
interconnected I think you're fine. And of course Crossrail schemes
can help with that as well.
Actually, it's best if all main lines passed through London, and all lines
interchanged with each other and with all tube lines, but not too many
lines interchanging at the same station. That way a terrorist strike on a
single station causes minimal disruption. A single London Central station
has no benefits and huge disbenefits.

Planning rail routes and services around terrorism? Does it really happen
that frequently? :)

*Attacks* don't happen that frequently. There have been periods where
disruption due to phoned-in (fake) bomb threats happened on a very,
*very* regular basis.

--

Stephen

Dolly: A kebab? It's hardly a sex life.
Twinkle: Depends what you're into.

London Hauptbahnhof
 

London Hauptbahnhof
 

On Thu, 26 Oct 2006, Stephen Farrow wrote:

d wrote:
"John Rowland" wrote in message
...

Actually, it's best if all main lines passed through London, and all lines
interchanged with each other and with all tube lines, but not too many
lines interchanging at the same station. That way a terrorist strike on a
single station causes minimal disruption. A single London Central station
has no benefits and huge disbenefits.

Planning rail routes and services around terrorism? Does it really happen
that frequently? :)

*Attacks* don't happen that frequently. There have been periods where
disruption due to phoned-in (fake) bomb threats happened on a very,
*very* regular basis.

Phoning in fake bomb threats for multiple stations doesn't seem much
harder than phoning in for one.

tom

--
Tomorrow has made a phone call to today.

London Hauptbahnhof
 

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006, Stephen Farrow wrote:

d wrote:
"John Rowland" wrote in
message ...

Actually, it's best if all main lines passed through London, and all
lines interchanged with each other and with all tube lines, but not
too many lines interchanging at the same station. That way a
terrorist strike on a single station causes minimal disruption. A
single London Central station has no benefits and huge disbenefits.

Planning rail routes and services around terrorism? Does it really
happen that frequently? :)

*Attacks* don't happen that frequently. There have been periods where
disruption due to phoned-in (fake) bomb threats happened on a very,
*very* regular basis.

Phoning in fake bomb threats for multiple stations doesn't seem much
harder than phoning in for one.

It isn't, and that certainly used to happen as well - but the fact
remains that funnelling all routes through a single station makes
causing disruption easier.

--

Stephen

Fire bad. Tree pretty.

London Hauptbahnhof
 

Paul Terry wrote:
In message , Ian Jelf
writes

Wasn't it Charing Cross that Abercrombie wanted to abolish?

According to the map of the proposals, the line from London Bridge to
Charing Cross would have gone, along with the Thames bridges into Cannon
Street, Blackfriars and Charing Cross. However, all three would have
survived as deep-level through stations on the southern loop.


Are there maps of those proposals online anywhere?

Or, come to that, the Bartlett School of Planning RER plans?

My extensive googlings have let me down.

Jonn