On 3 Jan, 21:01, "Richard J." wrote:
Terry Harper wrote:
On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 15:10:35 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at
13:43:13 on Thu, 3 Jan 2008, Tom Anderson
remarked:
surely it is time to revisit the case for a new airport to *be
built in the Thames estuary.

What, actually in the estuary? I've heard of this idea before,
but it's basically potty. Firstly, building an island in the
estuary would be phenomenally expensive

On Maplin Sands. Not quite as daft as you apparently think. Heck,
you could even name a chain of electronics stores after the
project.

Another advantage of building a new island is that you don't have to
buy ridiculously expensive land on which to site the airport. I
suspect that it would be cheaper than building on-land.

I can think of few places in the UK less suitable for building a huge
airport than an estuary that is liable to tidal surges that threaten to
inundate the capital city, and where the land and sea-bed are sinking.
The Thames Barrier will not be able to protect London adequately by the
end of this century, yet you are proposing to reduce the capacity of the
estuary. *Have you factored in the £20bn cost of an estuary barrage?
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

In the 1970s this project was researched at length and the conclusion
you reach here was reached in 1975 by the Hydrology Research
Establishment at Wallingford. I visited the establishment a few times
in 1974 and 1975 and they built a huge scale model of the Thames
Estuary and the coastline as far as Dover to the south and Lowestoft
to the North. It was very impressive. The tides were recreated several
times a day and a years worth could be created within a week running
24 hours a day. This took account of the various "spring tides" and
could also factor in weather related tidal surges such as we witnessed
a few weeks ago. Apart from the safety concerns of huge numbers of
seabirds and waders flying up into approaching aircraft, the main
objection was the adverse effect the airport would have on the tidal
flow. One of those working on the project, an old student friend and
now my brother in law helped prepare the report which was passed to
the then Labour Government. The objections relating to wildlife
habitat destruction, cost of transport links etc. were all adressed
and overruled. What swung the decision against Maplin was the
destructive effect it would have on tidal flows over a huge area and
the flood risk to large parts of the South East.

On Thu, 3 Jan 2008, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 15:55:01 on
Thu, 3 Jan 2008, Tom Anderson remarked:
On Maplin Sands. Not quite as daft as you apparently think. Heck, you
could even name a chain of electronics stores after the project.

What, because it's a disastrous British aviation project? Yes, you're
right, i suppose 'Comet' would be a decent name.

Whoooosh!!

Now, i'm not sure if that means you think your joke went over my head (i
can assure you it did not, sir!), because mine went over yours, or just
because we're talking about aeroplanes and you felt like making a
whooshing noise.

tom

--
Linux is like a FreeBSD fork maintained by 10 year old retards. --
Encyclopedia Dramatica

In message , Richard
J. writes

I can think of few places in the UK less suitable for building a huge
airport than an estuary that is liable to tidal surges that threaten to
inundate the capital city, and where the land and sea-bed are sinking.
The Thames Barrier will not be able to protect London adequately by the
end of this century, yet you are proposing to reduce the capacity of
the estuary. Have you factored in the £20bn cost of an estuary barrage?

Is Maplin Sands really in the Thames estuary, though? Its east of
Foulness Island, after the point at which the coast has turned N-N-E and
so is virtually in the North Sea. I can't imagine an estuary barrage
would be necessary (or possible) - there's 17 miles of water south of
Maplin before you reach the Kent coast at Whitstable.

I always thought that the reason why Labour cancelled the Maplin project
was the mistaken belief that air travel would not continue to expand so
rapidly after the 1973 oil crisis, hence the smaller and much cheaper
alternative of developing Stansted was adopted.
--
Paul Terry

"826" wrote in message
...
What swung the decision against Maplin was the
destructive effect it would have on tidal flows over a huge area and
the flood risk to large parts of the South East.

Fascinating, thanks Mr Jupiter ;-)

--
Tim

Selective killfiling - because life's too short

http://tim-fenton.fotopic.net
http://timsworkspace.fotopic.net