On Sun, 25 Jan 2009, Paul Terry wrote:

In message , Tom Anderson
writes

Based on what the article says about Southend and Sheerness being the
closest towns, i'd guess that the islands would be built on either side of
the Medway channel, at about 45-50 minutes east of the meridian.

Unless there are rival proposals, I think you may be far too far east.

West, you mean.

See:

http://www.teaco.co.uk/siteplan.pdf

That plan puts the airport nearest to Herne Bay and Whitstable; the
article explicitly says Southend and Sheerness. The article could be
wrong, but i suspect this is a different plan. Particularly since the
article says Boris claims the plan is feasible, and even he could see that
that one's bonkers - the amount of tunnel involved would be immense.

tom

--
In the long run, we are all dead. -- John Maynard Keynes

Tom Anderson wrote:


http://www.teaco.co.uk/siteplan.pdf

That plan puts the airport nearest to Herne Bay and Whitstable; the
article explicitly says Southend and Sheerness. The article could be
wrong, but i suspect this is a different plan. Particularly since the
article says Boris claims the plan is feasible, and even he could see
that that one's bonkers - the amount of tunnel involved would be immense.

tom


Looking around the place, that PDF is about as near to a genesis of the
project as you can find - Marinair have been around a while and tried to
get noticed in 2002, but were rejected. They seem to have found ready
ears among Conservatives, though, which probably explains it. Remember,
the level of technical knowledge and experience in the Boris camp is
near-zero. Bags of zeal and gung-ho
with-a-bit-of-courage-we-can-do-anything stuff, but seriously short on clue.

It's difficult to know exactly what Boris is proposing in geospatial
terms, but if you start sketching things out there aren't *that* many
places to put an airport - you're constrained by the shipping channels,
the S.S. Richard Montgomery, the built up area around Chatham and
Rochester and the desirability of at least being close to the M2 and
HS1. You can run your land access west of the built up area (across the
Isle of Grain and between Gravesend and Rochester) or east across
Sheppey, via the gap between Sittingbourne and Faversham*, but that's
about it. My original finger-in-air guess was along the A289/A228
corridor, but that hits the wreck and means a very long under/overwater
stretch along the Sheppey sea-front if Boris really is as far out to sea
as his dredger's path took him :

[see he http://tinyurl.com/af5guc]


The farthest point was due north of Whitstable, about 7-8 miles from
both coasts. Just because a plan's bonkers doesn't mean Boris won't
take it seriously.

There is another plan floating about that I'd like to see again, which
was a tidal barrage in roughly the same area. There are elements of
that in the plan glimpsed today.

Tom

* or Rainham and Sittingbourne, but HS1 is in the North Downs Tunnel at
a likely junction. Mind you, a 200+km/h underground flying junction is
not going to be the most loony part of the proposal.

On 25 Jan, 22:09, Tom Barry wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:

http://www.teaco.co.uk/siteplan.pdf

That plan puts the airport nearest to Herne Bay and Whitstable; the
article explicitly says Southend and Sheerness. The article could be
wrong, but i suspect this is a different plan. Particularly since the
article says Boris claims the plan is feasible, and even he could see
that that one's bonkers - the amount of tunnel involved would be immense.

Looking around the place, that PDF is about as near to a genesis of the
project as you can find - Marinair have been around a while and tried to
get noticed in 2002, but were rejected. *They seem to have found ready
ears among Conservatives, though, which probably explains it. *Remember,
the level of technical knowledge and experience in the Boris camp is
near-zero. *Bags of zeal and gung-ho
with-a-bit-of-courage-we-can-do-anything stuff, but seriously short on clue.

Nicely put! It's this rousing good-old inventive British spirit stuff
that he loves. In his mind I suspect this is how he thinks he'll
govern Britain from Number 10.

Tom Anderson wrote:

Not that i'm complaining - more smaller islands means more
coastline, which i hope will be constructed as ecologically vital
saltmarsh.

Unless they invent a new engine which is birdproof, I think not.

Would Crossrail trains run through to the airport?

Good thinking - I'd say so.

And what happens on the Essex side? A connection to one of the
existing Southend stations? Somehow connecting to Stansted - two
sides of a triangle via Stratford, or some new line running along the
M25/M11 to join the existing line at Harlow?

NIOL [Not In Our Lifetimes].

On Mon, 26 Jan 2009, John Rowland wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:

Not that i'm complaining - more smaller islands means more
coastline, which i hope will be constructed as ecologically vital
saltmarsh.

Unless they invent a new engine which is birdproof, I think not.

I was hoping nobody'd think of that!

From what i remember of my biology lessons, and a youth spent living next
to one, salt marshes are not enormously brilliant habitats for birds;
they're mostly about invertebrates and simple plants, and doing all sorts
of valuable but dull low-level nutrient recycling (including selenium - i
don't know why i remember thus, but basically, without saltmarshes, the
selenium cycle is stuffed). If birds are a problem, then salt marsh
covered with acres of chicken wire slung between low poles would still be
hugely ecologically valuable.

Would Crossrail trains run through to the airport?

Good thinking - I'd say so.

I worry it might be a bit far for what is really a suburban railway. But
then i'm someone who thinks Maidenhead is too far.

And what happens on the Essex side? A connection to one of the
existing Southend stations? Somehow connecting to Stansted - two
sides of a triangle via Stratford, or some new line running along the
M25/M11 to join the existing line at Harlow?

NIOL [Not In Our Lifetimes].

Sad but true.

tom

--
Finals make a man mean; let's fusc up and write!

On Sun, 25 Jan 2009, Tom Barry wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:

http://www.teaco.co.uk/siteplan.pdf

That plan puts the airport nearest to Herne Bay and Whitstable; the
article explicitly says Southend and Sheerness. The article could be
wrong, but i suspect this is a different plan. Particularly since the
article says Boris claims the plan is feasible, and even he could see
that that one's bonkers - the amount of tunnel involved would be
immense.

Looking around the place, that PDF is about as near to a genesis of the
project as you can find - Marinair have been around a while and tried to
get noticed in 2002, but were rejected. They seem to have found ready
ears among Conservatives, though, which probably explains it.
Remember, the level of technical knowledge and experience in the Boris
camp is near-zero. Bags of zeal and gung-ho
with-a-bit-of-courage-we-can-do-anything stuff, but seriously short on
clue.

But he's got this Douglas Oakervee, who is apparently an actual engineer
of some standing (eg he runs Crossrail), on board, which means it can't be
completely pie-in-the-sky, doesn't it?

It's difficult to know exactly what Boris is proposing in geospatial
terms, but if you start sketching things out there aren't *that* many
places to put an airport - you're constrained by the shipping channels,
the S.S. Richard Montgomery,

How much of a problem is that, really? Could it not be dealt with?

the built up area around Chatham and Rochester and the desirability of
at least being close to the M2 and HS1. You can run your land access
west of the built up area (across the Isle of Grain and between
Gravesend and Rochester) or east across Sheppey, via the gap between
Sittingbourne and Faversham*, but that's about it. My original
finger-in-air guess was along the A289/A228 corridor, but that hits the
wreck and means a very long under/overwater stretch along the Sheppey
sea-front if Boris really is as far out to sea as his dredger's path
took him :

[see he http://tinyurl.com/af5guc]

Good data!

The farthest point was due north of Whitstable, about 7-8 miles from
both coasts.

And a nearer point is the one i was suggesting, roughly. Could also be a
site on the Kentish Flats, north of or replacing the wind farm.

However ...

Just because a plan's bonkers doesn't mean Boris won't take it
seriously.

.... the Staaaahnrd has an article:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...ort/article.do

With a map:

http://i.thisislondon.co.uk/i/pix/20...an-800x353.jpg

That puts the airport at the far end of the dredger's trip, with the
tunnels making landfall at the eastern tip of Sheppey and near
Shoeburyness.

* or Rainham and Sittingbourne, but HS1 is in the North Downs Tunnel at
a likely junction. Mind you, a 200+km/h underground flying junction is
not going to be the most loony part of the proposal.

The ES map certainly suggests a junction like that. But it doesn't suggest
that its indications are very detailed.

tom

--
Finals make a man mean; let's fusc up and write!

"Tom Barry" wrote:
Mind you, a 200+km/h underground flying junction is not going to be the
most loony part of the proposal.

The real killer for Boris is a much, much simpler one; it doesn't have to be
a castle in the air; even an airport built on sand will fail.

The cost of underpinning both (all three?) runways to the seabed, at one
pile every twenty metres or so, will make costs astronomical, and put
building times well into the cathedral class.

Even a Low Tide Only Airport will need to be raised some 15 - 20 metres
*above* the level of the migrating sand, and firmly anchored 15 - 20 metres
*below* it .

It Ain't Gonna Happen.

--

Andrew

Tom Anderson wrote:

* or Rainham and Sittingbourne, but HS1 is in the North Downs Tunnel
at a likely junction. Mind you, a 200+km/h underground flying
junction is not going to be the most loony part of the proposal.

The ES map certainly suggests a junction like that. But it doesn't
suggest that its indications are very detailed.

tom


It is indeed rather indistinct, but it's clear that the M2 and HS1 links
follow different routes, the former to about the nearest available
junction point, the latter having to go further south to avoid the tunnel.

Tom

"Andrew Heenan" wrote in message

"Tom Barry" wrote:
Mind you, a 200+km/h underground flying junction is not going to be
the most loony part of the proposal.

The real killer for Boris is a much, much simpler one; it doesn't
have to be a castle in the air; even an airport built on sand will
fail.
The cost of underpinning both (all three?) runways

Four, actually, a pair on each of two separate islands (probably built
in two phases).

Mizter T wrote:

"Airport Boris"? "Borisport", please!

Boris Ostrova?