I think that there was a suggestion, round about 1870, that
Farringdon be such a thing. Didn't the Circle Line have broad gauge
tracks, as well as standard, at one time?

The only thing I remember about the Abercrombie plan of 1943 was that
it proposed to abolish Waterloo.

I liked its plan to have aeroplane landing strips on the roof of all
the main line terminals, for the taxi planes bringing people into
town from the long-haul airports.

Jeremy Parker

Jeremy Parker wrote:
I think that there was a suggestion, round about 1870, that
Farringdon be such a thing. Didn't the Circle Line have broad gauge
tracks, as well as standard, at one time?

The only thing I remember about the Abercrombie plan of 1943 was that
it proposed to abolish Waterloo.

I liked its plan to have aeroplane landing strips on the roof of all
the main line terminals, for the taxi planes bringing people into
town from the long-haul airports.

This was standard thinking for some time - the French government
considered not building the first TGV line to Lyon because there would
be dozens of STOL runways on roofs across Paris allowing people to get
to and from Lyon much more quickly.


--
Dave Arquati
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

Dave Arquati wrote:

Jeremy Parker wrote:
I think that there was a suggestion, round about 1870, that
Farringdon be such a thing. Didn't the Circle Line have broad gauge
tracks, as well as standard, at one time?

The only thing I remember about the Abercrombie plan of 1943 was that
it proposed to abolish Waterloo.

I liked its plan to have aeroplane landing strips on the roof of all
the main line terminals, for the taxi planes bringing people into
town from the long-haul airports.

This was standard thinking for some time - the French government
considered not building the first TGV line to Lyon because there would
be dozens of STOL runways on roofs across Paris allowing people to get
to and from Lyon much more quickly.


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!

Given the environmental damage that flying does perhaps it's just as
well these ideas didn't materialise. That said the aviation industry
has managed to expand massively anyway without STOLports so perhaps it
doesn't really make much of a difference anyway.

Indeed there is a slightly contradictory view that's comes across on
this newsgroup - on the one hand public transport is approved of given
it's environmental credentials, yet people are very keen to ensure
there are good public transport links to airports so people can fly
more. An argument can be made saying that the better the public
transport links are the more people will be encouraged to fly (and fly
more often) - an argument which could particularly be made in the case
of LCY - but I've don't think I've ever read any such notions expressed
on utl.

I'm not rabidly anti-flying, but the truth is this method of transport
has significant negative effects on the environment. The problem is
people are now hooked on air travel so such arguments often cut a
little too close to the bone for some.

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

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.

wrote:
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.


True, though there is only very limited scheduled airline service from
Toronto Island airport at the moment (and there has been none for a big
chunk of this year). It's a big political hot potato at the moment,
since a start-up airline is planning to introduce a great deal more
service next year to a much larger range of destinations, using aircraft
which, fully laden and fuelled, need a longer runway (the runway is
*short*).

--

Stephen

We had a fairy, not a Gary Lineker.

Mizter T wrote:
Dave Arquati wrote:

Jeremy Parker wrote:
I think that there was a suggestion, round about 1870, that
Farringdon be such a thing. Didn't the Circle Line have broad gauge
tracks, as well as standard, at one time?

The only thing I remember about the Abercrombie plan of 1943 was that
it proposed to abolish Waterloo.

I liked its plan to have aeroplane landing strips on the roof of all
the main line terminals, for the taxi planes bringing people into
town from the long-haul airports.
This was standard thinking for some time - the French government
considered not building the first TGV line to Lyon because there would
be dozens of STOL runways on roofs across Paris allowing people to get
to and from Lyon much more quickly.


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!

Given the environmental damage that flying does perhaps it's just as
well these ideas didn't materialise. That said the aviation industry
has managed to expand massively anyway without STOLports so perhaps it
doesn't really make much of a difference anyway.

Indeed there is a slightly contradictory view that's comes across on
this newsgroup - on the one hand public transport is approved of given
it's environmental credentials, yet people are very keen to ensure
there are good public transport links to airports so people can fly
more. An argument can be made saying that the better the public
transport links are the more people will be encouraged to fly (and fly
more often) - an argument which could particularly be made in the case
of LCY - but I've don't think I've ever read any such notions expressed
on utl.

I don't think you've framed the argument quite right there - it's not
that public transport links should be provided to airports because we
want people to fly more - we want to provide PT links to airports
because we want people to drive less. The airports are there and aren't
going away, so the best approach is to stave off explosive car (and
taxi) traffic growth for access to them, as poor PT links to the airport
will result in increased private traffic in the city itself.

Whilst you are right that better transport to the airport will
potentially result in more air travel from the airport, some judgment
must be made as to what level of air traffic growth would have taken
place anyway (with access to the airport by car/taxi). I don't imagine
that airport access concerns play very strongly on people's minds when
they decide to take a flight - just look at Ryanair's success, despite
dropping people off at tiny airports in the middle of nowhere.

For shorter journeys where a train alternative is available, if PT were
not available to the airport, rather than thinking therefore that they
must go by train, it is more likely that they will consider driving or
taking a taxi to the airport.

In fact, I'm constantly amazed by how much people are taken in by the
shockingly misleading headline fares from some budget airlines. The idea
that "I can get to Paris for a pound!" has bamboozled many into
forgetting about not only the additional charges, but also the costs of
airport access at both ends. If people don't think about that, then PT
access considerations to airports will be very low on the list when it
comes to deciding to fly in the first place.

I'm not rabidly anti-flying, but the truth is this method of transport
has significant negative effects on the environment. The problem is
people are now hooked on air travel so such arguments often cut a
little too close to the bone for some.

I totally agree with you. Flying has brought large benefits and
disbenefits in one package, just like widespread car travel - but whilst
people can see, hear and smell the negative effects of high levels of
car traffic, many of the negative effects of air travel are either
confined to communities around airports or are basically invisible - so
people just don't care. People are increasingly concerned about
environmental issues and climate change - but I hardly ever hear anyone
express any concern over their or others' decision to fly.

--
Dave Arquati
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

In message , Jeremy Parker
writes
The only thing I remember about the Abercrombie plan of 1943 was that
it proposed to abolish Waterloo.

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

(My copy of the County of London Plan is currently inaccessible due to
planned engineering works in what used to be our dining room.......)
--
Ian Jelf, MITG
Birmingham, UK

Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk

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.

(I can't see any sign in the plan of Waterloo being demolished.)
--
Paul Terry

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