On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 18:39:13 +0100, "tim \(not at home\)"
wrote:

Such journeys help the UK economy not one jot [1] (except in the way that
they change the profits of the above mentioned companies) but add
considerably to the loading on the airport. Such jouirneys should be
discouraged by HMG not encouraged.

Agreed. AMS has the capacity and sensible design for such activity,
so let such pax and airlines go to AMS instead.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

On Nov 23, 8:36 am, John B wrote:
On 22 Nov, 21:13, CJB wrote:

There's lies, damned lies, statistics and claims by Spanish-owned BAA
about not wanting a third runway if it got a T5. HOWEVER the latest
Govt. Consultation is for a new SHORT runway at Heathrow, and already
(during the Climate Camp) BAA announced that what it really wants is a
FULL-length runway. So the Govt. Consultation is a con. - it is for a
short runway. A full-length runway will hugely increase pollution,
noise and disruption; and will entail the demolition of Harmondsworth,
Sipson, Harlington and Cranford - about 35,000 houses, 7 schools, and
at least four historic churches. CJB.

Your irrelevant mentioning of BA's foreign ownership proves that
you're an ignorant bigot, and can therefore safely be ignored.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot orgwww.johnband.org

Hello? Yes - BA is UK-owned. But I said BAA - which is owned by
Spanish property development co. Ferovial - well actually two Spanish
who are billionaires. They couldn't be bothered to change its name
thereby allowing the less clear thinking public to believe that BAA
still means British Airports Authority.

Incidentally when Ferovial bought BAA it is rumoured that they also
inherited grandfather rights of compulsory purchase of properties in
the way of any development or expansion of their business. They are
thought to be the ONLY foreign owned company operating in the UK that
can compulsorily purchase UK citizen's property for demolition.

CJB.

On 26 Nov, 00:47, CJB wrote:
On Nov 23, 8:36 am, John B wrote:





On 22 Nov, 21:13, CJB wrote:

There's lies, damned lies, statistics and claims by Spanish-owned BAA
about not wanting a third runway if it got a T5. HOWEVER the latest
Govt. Consultation is for a new SHORT runway at Heathrow, and already
(during the Climate Camp) BAA announced that what it really wants is a
FULL-length runway. So the Govt. Consultation is a con. - it is for a
short runway. A full-length runway will hugely increase pollution,
noise and disruption; and will entail the demolition of Harmondsworth,
Sipson, Harlington and Cranford - about 35,000 houses, 7 schools, and
at least four historic churches. CJB.

Your irrelevant mentioning of BA's foreign ownership proves that
you're an ignorant bigot, and can therefore safely be ignored.

Hello? Yes - BA is UK-owned. But I said BAA - which is owned by
Spanish property development co. Ferovial - well actually two Spanish
who are billionaires. They couldn't be bothered to change its name
thereby allowing the less clear thinking public to believe that BAA
still means British Airports Authority.

Bother, that was a massively unhelpful typo on my part, sorry. The
point I was trying to make was that it's entirely irrelevant that BAA
is Spanish-owned - who cares whether the shareholders are British or
Spanish pension funds?

Incidentally when Ferovial bought BAA it is rumoured that they also
inherited grandfather rights of compulsory purchase of properties in
the way of any development or expansion of their business. They are
thought to be the ONLY foreign owned company operating in the UK that
can compulsorily purchase UK citizen's property for demolition.

1) rumoured by whom, thought by whom?
2) either it's acceptable for private companies to have compulsory
purchase rights or it isn't, but that has bugger-all to do with
nationality. Why the hell should it make a blind bit of difference
whether the chap who turfs me out of my house to build an airport is
called Dave or José?

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

John B wrote:
On 22 Nov, 23:14, JL wrote:
Stupid Heathrow, building a new Terminal 5 but not having any extra
capacity to operate flights with...

What they should get rid of... are the Absolutely Stupid Short-Haul
flights. Is it really that difficult to goto Euston to get a train to
Manchester/KX for Leeds/St P for East Midlands?* If only there was a
direct train to all those terminals (which would only be possible if
they combined the HEX with the Circle Line).

AIUI, the English domestic flights out of Heathrow are run for the
benefit of connecting passengers - if you want to go from Ghana to
Newcastle, the transfer within Heathrow (particularly when BA domestic
and international are combined in the same terminal) is a lot easier
than manhandling your luggage through KXSP (or Paddington and KXSP) in
the morning peak.

This is why routing HS2 via LHR would be a Very Good Idea.

When you said that, did you know Arup were about to suggest exactly that?
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle2982649.ece

On 5 Dec, 09:04, "John Rowland"
wrote:
John B wrote:
This is why routing HS2 via LHR would be a Very Good Idea.

When you said that, did you know Arup were about to suggest exactly that?
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle2982649.ece


I wish I could say yes - but no. It just seemed like a good idea (and
I think it's been floated in previous HS2 studies).

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

In article
,
(John B) wrote:

On 5 Dec, 09:04, "John Rowland"
wrote:
John B wrote:
This is why routing HS2 via LHR would be a Very Good Idea.

When you said that, did you know Arup were about to suggest
exactly that?


http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...y_sectors/tran
sport/article2982649.ece


I wish I could say yes - but no. It just seemed like a good idea
(and I think it's been floated in previous HS2 studies).

It was in one of Modern Railways or Railway Magazine within the last 3
months.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Wed, 5 Dec 2007, John Rowland wrote:

John B wrote:
On 22 Nov, 23:14, JL wrote:

What they should get rid of... are the Absolutely Stupid Short-Haul
flights.

This is why routing HS2 via LHR would be a Very Good Idea.

When you said that, did you know Arup were about to suggest exactly that?
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle2982649.ece

Funnily enough, i was thinking about that myself last night. I was
pondering a variety of high-speed routes on from London, and was thinking
that one to the west, along the GWML, should go via Heathrow, so you could
do Cardiff - Heathrow - London - Europe. Plus, with a route to the north
along the WCML and a triangular junction around Old Oak Common, you could
do The North - Heathrow, which you'd need to replace short-haul flights
within the UK. It didn't occur to me to actually run the north-south route
through Heathrow, which is a brilliant idea - simpler, allows trains from
the North to serve both Heathrow and London (and Europe!), means you can
do it before you build the western HSL.

I wonder if they're thinking about a station actually at Heathrow, in
which case i assume a new tunnel is called for, or a 'Heathrow
International' station on the GWML, where it's a bugger to get to.

How will they get from the GWML to the CML? Tunnel again? Hang on, this is
the proposed Central Railway route, isn't it? IIRC, there's a plausible
all-surface route, along the M25. Splendid.

I'll be interested to see how they deal with going through (or under?)
Birmingham.

In my scheming, i was thinking of an HSL up the Midland mainline, coming
off the WCML at Rugby and going to Leicester via a new route. I suppose
you could still do this with the Chiltern route, but you'd want the link
to run from Leamington Spa to Leicester (along the Fosse Way, nice and
straight!). Or from Birmingham to Derby/Nottingham; that might make more
sense either way.

tom

--
Every moloch that tends the great Machine down here in the darkness of the
Lower Shafts has a number. If a moloch is destroyed or decommissioned,
his number is given to another who is sent down from Above to take his
empty place. This is the normal procedure.

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007, John Rowland wrote:

John B wrote:
On 22 Nov, 23:14, JL wrote:

What they should get rid of... are the Absolutely Stupid Short-Haul
flights.

This is why routing HS2 via LHR would be a Very Good Idea.

When you said that, did you know Arup were about to suggest exactly
that?
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle2982649.ece

Funnily enough, i was thinking about that myself last night. I was
pondering a variety of high-speed routes on from London, and was
thinking that one to the west, along the GWML, should go via
Heathrow, so you could do Cardiff - Heathrow - London - Europe. Plus,
with a route to the north along the WCML and a triangular junction
around Old Oak Common, you could do The North - Heathrow, which you'd
need to replace short-haul flights within the UK.

The tracks are already there for Heathrow to the WCML (although new flyovers
might be needed if you wanted to do it frequently).

It didn't occur to
me to actually run the north-south route through Heathrow, which is a
brilliant idea - simpler, allows trains from the North to serve both
Heathrow and London (and Europe!), means you can do it before you
build the western HSL.
I wonder if they're thinking about a station actually at Heathrow, in
which case i assume a new tunnel is called for, or a 'Heathrow
International' station on the GWML, where it's a bugger to get to.

How will they get from the GWML to the CML? Tunnel again? Hang on,
this is the proposed Central Railway route, isn't it? IIRC, there's a
plausible all-surface route, along the M25. Splendid.

I doubt if that route would be straight enough for high speed.

On Dec 5, 3:09 pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
In my scheming, i was thinking of an HSL up the Midland mainline, coming
off the WCML at Rugby and going to Leicester via a new route.

This could use the Great Central alignment - take it from Rugby then
alongside the M1, past Lutterworth, joining up with the Nuneaton-
Leicester line just north of Whetstone (the old trackbed has been
built on by Whetstone, so it'd need to be a new alignment more closely
following the M1). I don't know how the Rugby end works, or how it'll
be affected by their new relief road. There's also another Rugby-
Leicester alignment that criss-crosses that and could serve Magna
Park, which might be a more interesting destination than Lutterworth.

I suppose you could still do this with the Chiltern route, but you'd want the link
to run from Leamington Spa to Leicester (along the Fosse Way, nice and
straight!). Or from Birmingham to Derby/Nottingham; that might make more
sense either way.

--
Abi