Boris Island

[swamp]

So the airlines don't make enough money unless they have the transfer passengers at a 'hub' airport, and the UK wants more direct flights to cities in emerging economies, and (apparently) there is little appetite for a third runway at LHR.

Why not just spend the all those billions of pounds for the new Thames Gateway airport on subsidised flights from Stanstead (say) to the BRIC countries...?!

[hidetheelephants]

109er said:

Boris Island

Problems, at the moment there is only one 'major' road in and out of the area, a dual carriageway part of the way, normal two way the remainder. Gets very congested during rush as it is. To 'widen' this road means house, farms, villages and garages being destroyed, moved or redesigned. Main problems are going to be bird strikes (Large gathering of geese) and an area prone to fog.

This applies to pretty much any expansion programme; the UK needs London to have more runways because that's where the business wants to fly to.

109er said:

See pic below as to another problem. The River Thames is tidal which in laymans language means it moves/flows at a fair rate of knots.

If and when this airport is built the water when the tide comes in will be pushed to the North shore, Canvey Island is there, and they have a problem with possible flooding on Spring Tides as it is With the water being deflected towards them how long before Canvey Island gets flooded
and possibly washed away.

That is one of the possible advantages of Boris Island; there is already a need for 'Thames Barrage II; this time it's Estuarial', adding the necessary civil works onto land reclamation for Boris Island gives some economy of scale.

[V8 Fettler]

The Don of Croy said:

Croydon Aerodrome is the answer. Easy access to the A23 and just down the road from the cosmopolitan nirvana that is Thornton Heath.

My charge for this consultation excercise is £125million. Cash only, no amex.

Could we not have a combination of the various proposals? Boris Island for the washing away of Canvey and Croydon Aerodrome for the demolition of large parts of Central Croydon?

[hairyben]

Magog said:

The cost of the rail project you're suggesting would probably be similar to, or at least the lions share of, the £50bn cost that's currently being touted around for Boris Island.

How so? If we take HS1, which included miles of underground & urban routing as it came into london, my line could roughly follow the M25 and be a far less complex task, but evan using HS1's enormous £80M/mile each leg can be done for about £2B.

It's no more actual railway than would be required with boris island, only a much easier route, but without the cost of building an artificial island, an airport, and new and improved motorways, so I'd be fascinated to learn how you're costing this..

And besides, with all that above- do you really think boris island will be completed for £50B? Or be completed before the widescale adoption of teleporters in 2267? My sums based on actual costs of something we recently built, and is probably a kindly over-estimate given other countries are building HS rail projects for a quarter of this amount.

We could do the LHR-LGW leg first and when thats judged to be a stunning success build on it. It can be done comparatively cheaply and quickly and be addressing todays air travel needs.

[JB!]

Genuinely like the idea of linking Gatwick-Heathrow-Luton-Standstead.

Could be tied in with Crossrail as well to provide easy access to Central London.

[109er]

hidetheelephants said:

109er said:

Boris Island

Problems, at the moment there is only one 'major' road in and out of the area, a dual carriageway part of the way, normal two way the remainder. Gets very congested during rush as it is. To 'widen' this road means house, farms, villages and garages being destroyed, moved or redesigned. Main problems are going to be bird strikes (Large gathering of geese) and an area prone to fog.

This applies to pretty much any expansion programme; the UK needs London to have more runways because that's where the business wants to fly to.

109er said:

See pic below as to another problem. The River Thames is tidal which in laymans language means it moves/flows at a fair rate of knots.

If and when this airport is built the water when the tide comes in will be pushed to the North shore, Canvey Island is there, and they have a problem with possible flooding on Spring Tides as it is With the water being deflected towards them how long before Canvey Island gets flooded
and possibly washed away.

That is one of the possible advantages of Boris Island; there is already a need for 'Thames Barrage II; this time it's Estuarial', adding the necessary civil works onto land reclamation for Boris Island gives some economy of scale.

As to 'Thames Barrage II; Pray where may I ask is the water that flows into the Thames as for as Teddington Lock
supposed to go. Any area on the seaward side of said barrier with low lying land would be in danger of flooding.
Don't mention 'seawall barriers' for low lying areas, could you picture a 'wall' about 7-8' high along a stretch
of 'prime' seaside coast about 20 miles long

If 'Thames Barrage II; was built between Boris Island and the opposite shore (possibly dissecting Southend), one
other way for the water to go is up the River Medway, prone to flooding some sections even now. Would you then build
a 'wall' on either side and make nothing more than a 'drainage culvert' and no longer usable as a normal river used
even now for commerce (large boats still dock - load and unload at docks) and all the pleasure boats and sailing and
yachting clubs.

There is much more involved than just knocking up an island for planes and a barrier for water than meets the eye.
Cost wise, this project if as you say could include 'Thames Barrage II; would run into the £100's of billions which,
seeing as the 'country is skint' would come from where

[johnfm]

I think the idea of spending billions on yet another 'blue tac and staples bodge job' at HEathrow or Stanstead or similar would be daft.

Investing £40-£50billion on an airport in teh middle of the Thames estuary, ne rail links etc etc is exactly what I want my taxes being spent on. Investment. Some homegrown engineering. Some ambition.

Thinking big never hurt any nation.

[johnfm]

109er said:

As to 'Thames Barrage II; Pray where may I ask is the water that flows into the Thames as for as Teddington Lock
supposed to go. Any area on the seaward side of said barrier with low lying land would be in danger of flooding.
Don't mention 'seawall barriers' for low lying areas, could you picture a 'wall' about 7-8' high along a stretch
of 'prime' seaside coast about 20 miles long

If 'Thames Barrage II; was built between Boris Island and the opposite shore (possibly dissecting Southend), one
other way for the water to go is up the River Medway, prone to flooding some sections even now. Would you then build
a 'wall' on either side and make nothing more than a 'drainage culvert' and no longer usable as a normal river used
even now for commerce (large boats still dock - load and unload at docks) and all the pleasure boats and sailing and
yachting clubs.

There is much more involved than just knocking up an island for planes and a barrier for water than meets the eye.
Cost wise, this project if as you say could include 'Thames Barrage II; would run into the £100's of billions which,
seeing as the 'country is skint' would come from where

Who do you think uses the airport? I expect any project would involve a large chunk of private funding provided by the various airport operators.

[109er]

johnfm said:

Who do you think uses the airport? I expect any project would involve a large chunk of private funding provided by the various airport operators.

It certainly would not be funded by big business's as two thirds of them say its to far from London (where they are based) and also on the wrong side of London.

That would leave greedy 'airport operators' who couldn't really care where it is built as they are in it just for the money.

[Magog]

hairyben said:

How so? If we take HS1, which included miles of underground & urban routing as it came into london, my line could roughly follow the M25 and be a far less complex task, but evan using HS1's enormous £80M/mile each leg can be done for about £2B.

It's no more actual railway than would be required with boris island, only a much easier route, but without the cost of building an artificial island, an airport, and new and improved motorways, so I'd be fascinated to learn how you're costing this..

And besides, with all that above- do you really think boris island will be completed for £50B? Or be completed before the widescale adoption of teleporters in 2267? My sums based on actual costs of something we recently built, and is probably a kindly over-estimate given other countries are building HS rail projects for a quarter of this amount.

We could do the LHR-LGW leg first and when thats judged to be a stunning success build on it. It can be done comparatively cheaply and quickly and be addressing todays air travel needs.

By Hyper-rail I assumed you were aiming for speeds up to 300mph. Heathrow to Gatwick would probably be close to 100% tunnelled, and quadruple tracked from your own description. Lets say you're taking another two tracks north to Luton, perhaps you'd need four if you were thinking of expanding Luton with another runway and using it as a northern gateway to a dispersed airport complex, these would need to be tunnelled as far north as St Albans. The logic of your scheme would be to take it from Luton to Stansted as well, you could probably get away with doing this in open country however. You also have the issue of separating security and immigration cleared transfer passengers from domestic passengers, this is going to vastly inflate the cost of the station and airport infrastructure and probably the rolling stock too.

I'd say the massive amount of tunnelling required would increase the cost significantly, add in the high speeds and I would think the project cost would likely be somewhere between Crossrail and HS2.

[hairyben]

Magog said:

By Hyper-rail I assumed you were aiming for speeds up to 300mph. Heathrow to Gatwick would probably be close to 100% tunnelled, and quadruple tracked from your own description. Lets say you're taking another two tracks north to Luton, perhaps you'd need four if you were thinking of expanding Luton with another runway and using it as a northern gateway to a dispersed airport complex, these would need to be tunnelled as far north as St Albans. The logic of your scheme would be to take it from Luton to Stansted as well, you could probably get away with doing this in open country however. You also have the issue of separating security and immigration cleared transfer passengers from domestic passengers, this is going to vastly inflate the cost of the station and airport infrastructure and probably the rolling stock too.

I'd say the massive amount of tunnelling required would increase the cost significantly, add in the high speeds and I would think the project cost would likely be somewhere between Crossrail and HS2.

Okay, hyper's my imagination gone mad, 150mph or so would be ample for a 25 mile or so run which would allow more curves/contours (easier cheaper build) and still give 10 mins or so transit time. (An experimental prototype maglev train running alongside would be awesome but we don't do that kind of stuff anymore)

Why tunnelling LHR-LGW? you could follow the M25 possibly elevating it then peel off going west of leatherhead and south across countryside to gatwick. Same to LTN, it's practically a straight line M25/M1

As for security the whole railway could operate on a secure pre-immigration basis which you'd want for connecting flights anyway, while there are security concerns they're addressable.

[JB!]

hairyben said:

Okay, hyper's my imagination gone mad, 150mph or so would be ample for a 25 mile or so run which would allow more curves/contours (easier cheaper build) and still give 10 mins or so transit time. (An experimental prototype maglev train running alongside would be awesome but we don't do that kind of stuff anymore)

Why tunnelling LHR-LGW? you could follow the M25 possibly elevating it then peel off going west of leatherhead and south across countryside to gatwick. Same to LTN, it's practically a straight line M25/M1

As for security the whole railway could operate on a secure pre-immigration basis which you'd want for connecting flights anyway, while there are security concerns they're addressable.

8 efficient runways all linked with something we know how to build. 150mph is easily achieved.

Security is a minor issue.

[ViperDave]

Dig a trench, put tracks in, cover over with a concrete slab and lay the M25a express route on top with links to the M25 every third exit. The tracks are protected from the weather, we get another project that's badly needed and only talked about.

Build a new runway at LGW and LHR for capacity, Consider a couple of north south ones at LHR as well, I know the current ones are east west due to prevailing winds but modern jets surely can handle quite a bit of cross wind and a north south approach would take arriving and departing traffic over the M25 and less populated areas.

I do wonder if Boris island will suffer badly with the weather, No only is it likely to suffer more fog, but isn't the east coast more prone to snow when we have north or east winds. Whilst LHR has had some snow issues it takes a lot to get proper snowfall at LHR

Edited by ViperDave on Thursday 14th November 13:40

[johnfm]

109er said:

johnfm said:

Who do you think uses the airport? I expect any project would involve a large chunk of private funding provided by the various airport operators.

It certainly would not be funded by big business's as two thirds of them say its to far from London (where they are based) and also on the wrong side of London.

That would leave greedy 'airport operators' who couldn't really care where it is built as they are in it just for the money.

The airport operators would part fund it, as airports are their revenue stream.

Why are they 'greedy'?

[hairyben]

ViperDave said:

Dig a trench, put tracks in, cover over with a concrete slab and lay the M25a express route on top with links to the M25 every third exit. The tracks are protected from the weather, we get another project that's badly needed and only talked about.

Build a new runway at LGW and LHR for capacity, Consider a couple of north south ones at LHR as well, I know the current ones are east west due to prevailing winds but modern jets surely can handle quite a bit of cross wind and a north south approach would take arriving and departing traffic over the M25 and less populated areas.

I do wonder if Boris island will suffer badly with the weather, No only is it likely to suffer more fog, but isn't the east coast more prone to snow when we have north or east winds. Whilst LHR has had some snow issues it takes a lot to get proper snowfall at LHR

Edited by ViperDave on Thursday 14th November 13:40

one of the beauties of the plan is it'd reduce M25 traffic by removing most airport commuters- those in the SE would park at gatwick, those from the north at luton, regardless of where they need to be. Heathrow wouldn't need more runways because thats exactly what the current row is about, now we turn it to our advantage as one of the big benefits of the idea is that diverged runways give more scope for dealing with the unexpected, such as one airport being shrouded in fog or having an emergency. I'm not saying there aren't pro's/cons but I can guarantee there would be days when the big 4-runway hub superairports we're trying to emulate would be shut for whatever reason and they'd be looking at london and going "why the hell didn't we do that?

[ViperDave]

hairyben said:

one of the beauties of the plan is it'd reduce M25 traffic by removing most airport commuters- those in the SE would park at gatwick, those from the north at luton, regardless of where they need to be. Heathrow wouldn't need more runways because thats exactly what the current row is about, now we turn it to our advantage as one of the big benefits of the idea is that diverged runways give more scope for dealing with the unexpected, such as one airport being shrouded in fog or having an emergency. I'm not saying there aren't pro's/cons but I can guarantee there would be days when the big 4-runway hub superairports we're trying to emulate would be shut for whatever reason and they'd be looking at london and going "why the hell didn't we do that?

you still need more runways, both LHR and LGW are maxed out, Joining LHR and LGW by HS rail was a suggestion I made back in July in response to building a new runway at LGW, as LGW growing on its own is pointless in terms of keeping us on the world stage.

[greygoose]

The idea of integrating high speed rail with the airports (or a new airport) is obviously attractive, but does anyone actually think that the politicians have any interest in seeing the issue of airport expansion tackled anytime soon? It just appears to me that they commission endless reports and kick the issue into the long grass as it is too difficult.

[hairyben]

ViperDave said:

you still need more runways, both LHR and LGW are maxed out, Joining LHR and LGW by HS rail was a suggestion I made back in July in response to building a new runway at LGW, as LGW growing on its own is pointless in terms of keeping us on the world stage.

You'd open capacity with economies of scale on destinations both airports fly to right now. A quick glace at the arrivals boards for the last couple of hours, I've probably missed a few shows overlap for Milan, Madrid, Glasgow, Belfast, Paris, Dublin, Edinborough, Prague, Oslo, Amsterdam. Factor in Luton to that list and it grows more. Also the point of the hub is that the joined airport would offer more destinations and more connections, so evan with existing schedules intact the linked airport becomes one of the most versitile places to connect.

doesn't the second runway at LGW have a lot less opposition too?

[oyster]

hairyben said:

Magog said:

By Hyper-rail I assumed you were aiming for speeds up to 300mph. Heathrow to Gatwick would probably be close to 100% tunnelled, and quadruple tracked from your own description. Lets say you're taking another two tracks north to Luton, perhaps you'd need four if you were thinking of expanding Luton with another runway and using it as a northern gateway to a dispersed airport complex, these would need to be tunnelled as far north as St Albans. The logic of your scheme would be to take it from Luton to Stansted as well, you could probably get away with doing this in open country however. You also have the issue of separating security and immigration cleared transfer passengers from domestic passengers, this is going to vastly inflate the cost of the station and airport infrastructure and probably the rolling stock too.

I'd say the massive amount of tunnelling required would increase the cost significantly, add in the high speeds and I would think the project cost would likely be somewhere between Crossrail and HS2.

Okay, hyper's my imagination gone mad, 150mph or so would be ample for a 25 mile or so run which would allow more curves/contours (easier cheaper build) and still give 10 mins or so transit time. (An experimental prototype maglev train running alongside would be awesome but we don't do that kind of stuff anymore)

Why tunnelling LHR-LGW? you could follow the M25 possibly elevating it then peel off going west of leatherhead and south across countryside to gatwick. Same to LTN, it's practically a straight line M25/M1

As for security the whole railway could operate on a secure pre-immigration basis which you'd want for connecting flights anyway, while there are security concerns they're addressable.

The North Downs are in the way to start with, so that would need tunnelling.

And I'm not so sure the residents of Cobham aqnd Weybridge would like it too much.

[bad company]

I still say that Stansted is the obvious solution. There is room to widen the M11 and trains run from the airport into the City of London at Liverpool Street.

Stansted expansion has so far been prevented by a very well organised and loud minority.