On Jan 15, 10:23*am, wrote:
When you're in a bust you don't start spending billions on vanity
projects.

JM Keynes called. He'd like a word.

Even in the boom years heathrow could cope with the
passenger numbers so why build a new runway now when they're
dropping?? Its like saying "oh , theres less traffic on the roads -
lets build some bypasses!"

Have you ever been to Heathrow? The suggestion that it's been able to
cope with passenger numbers at *any* point in the last 25 years is,
erm, counter-intuitive.

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

On Jan 15, 3:45*pm, Roland Perry wrote:
You may not have noticed the number of layoffs in banking and retail,
and the reduction of consumer spending (shops in Oxford St need
customers as well as staff).

So the tube is now nice and relaxed then in the rush hour? Everyone
can get a seat , there are no packed platforms and the trains all run
on time? That would be a first.

Heathrow is far from being essential and isn't overloaded anyway.

It's severely overloaded, and "essential" for UK plc's international
business ambitions.

Yeah right. We keep hearing that , I'd love to see some figures and
explanations of how a single runway is suddenly going to rescue our
economy. Southern briitain is already the biggest airport hub in the
whole of europe so if we can't sort the economy out based on that then
this will do naff all.

*The amount of economic activity provided to the economy by air travel
*is minimal... Even most business can be done using phone or email.

*From these remarks I can see you are completely out of touch with
reality. Although large volumes of "grunt trading" can be done
hands-off, you can generally only set up the initial relationships in
person.

I'm not saying theres *no* business travel, but the amount of
essential business travel is minute compared to the overall traffic
flows at heathrow. When you turn up at the airport how many people do
you see in suits compared to jeans and t-shirts with optional kids in
tow? Ok , some are off in first or business class lounges but thats a
small minority compared to economy.

Once upon a time the answer was a third airport - which ended up at
Stansted. You may have noticed that Stansted has expansion plans too.

Right , so the expansion that was Stansted didn't work so now we need
yet more. Tell me, where does it stop?

You're not good with analogies are you.

Hoon has just announced more roadbuilding.

Thats just road widening , not new roads. These plans have been on the
cards for ages and would probably have happened bust or not. Also
roads are a lot more important than airports to the economy.

B2003

On Jan 15, 3:45*pm, Roland Perry wrote:
In message
, at
03:44:34 on Thu, 15 Jan 2009, remarked:

Heathrow is far from being essential and isn't overloaded anyway.

It's severely overloaded, and "essential" for UK plc's international
business ambitions.

Is it really? Please name all the companies deserting the UK because
their CEOs have to wait around a bit at Heathrow. In fact, just one
will do. It seems the pro camp continually switches its argument
between the importance of transit traffic (a blinkered obsession with
competition with Frankfurt and Schiphol) and the collapse of UK
business if the runway doesn't happen.

As for the growth forecasts, a better example of a self-fulfilling
prophecy is hard to imagine now, with no pricing strategy to lock-in
the benefits, such as they are, of additional capacity.

Then there's the small issue of the net present value of carbon
emissions. If the 2003 White Paper's ambitions are realised in full,
the cost will be minus £18bn, excluding additional radiative forcing
[1]. Wonderful for UK Plc, coming on top of the perverse subsidies for
aviation resulting from a lack of taxation on fuel and tickets.

Wasn't the Climate Change Act enacted last year too? Which sectors are
expected to make cuts of 80% to allow aviation's to increase?

Bloody hell, our only hope is the Tories getting in and sticking to
their pledges.

[1] Environmental Audit Committee (2003): Budget 2003 and Aviation.

On 15 Jan, 16:29, "Peter Masson" wrote:

(snip)

I really can't see how a HSL from St Pancras, or more likely Euston as
that's the only obvious space for the terminus, via Heathrow, will work. It
would have to be in tunnel at least pretty well all the way to Heathrow, and
with a stop there is only going to be marginally quicker to the West
Midlands than going at 125 mph down the WCML. The Greengauge proposals (head
out of London via Northolt Junction, and follow the general alignment of the
Chiltern Line/M40, serving Heathrow with a branch, joining the main HSL in
the vicinity of Denham) seem to me to be more rational.


Quite - the basic fact that is that none of these places fall neatly
in a straight line. No spin can change that.

I suppose Heathrow could be a branch off a more direct Brum to London
HS2 line, perhaps as a simple terminus. Obvious this would mean
separate train services would need to run from either Heathrow or
Euston to and from points north.

If the CTRL had been built via a southern route then this Heathrow
branch could have been extended on to meet the CTRL, perhaps in a
subterranean junction somewhere under south London. This could have
provided for through international services via Heathrow to the
continent and beyond. But it wasn't so it can't!

wrote in message

On Jan 15, 3:45 pm, Roland Perry wrote:

From these remarks I can see you are completely out of touch with
reality. Although large volumes of "grunt trading" can be done
hands-off, you can generally only set up the initial relationships in
person.

I'm not saying theres *no* business travel, but the amount of
essential business travel is minute compared to the overall traffic
flows at heathrow. When you turn up at the airport how many people do
you see in suits compared to jeans and t-shirts with optional kids in
tow? Ok , some are off in first or business class lounges but thats a
small minority compared to economy.

Most C, J and F class pax check-in online, travel with little luggage
and go straight to the lounge, so they're not visible for long (though
that can be a bit of hike in LHR T5, as you have to come down and then
go up again after going through security -- they don't want you to
bypass the shops). And most no longer wear suits to fly.

And, of course, many/most Y class LHR pax are also travelling on
business, specially on the European routes (leisure pax take a more
convenient, cheaper flight from their local airport). You don't see many
families in LHR, except those travelling on long-haul routes which only
fly from Heathrow.

In message , at 16:34:39 on
Thu, 15 Jan 2009, Recliner remarked:
I doubt that the current St P has enough domestic platforms (on
either side) to be the London Terminus for the high speed link to
the north. Also, are they long enough?

Not enough of them, and they are approx 10 carriages long - is that
sufficient?

I would have thought new high speed trains would be longer than that
(even the Pendos will soon be 11 cars long).

It would be awkward if the Javelins were longer.
--
Roland Perry

In message
, at
09:19:06 on Thu, 15 Jan 2009, remarked:
On Jan 15, 3:45*pm, Roland Perry wrote:
You may not have noticed the number of layoffs in banking and retail,
and the reduction of consumer spending (shops in Oxford St need
customers as well as staff).

So the tube is now nice and relaxed then in the rush hour? Everyone
can get a seat , there are no packed platforms and the trains all run
on time? That would be a first.

The downturn has not fully impacted those journeys. In any event, surely
everyone *expects* the tube to be crowded.

Heathrow is far from being essential and isn't overloaded anyway.

It's severely overloaded, and "essential" for UK plc's international
business ambitions.

Yeah right. We keep hearing that , I'd love to see some figures and
explanations of how a single runway is suddenly going to rescue our
economy.

It's not about "rescue", but "continuing to keep our head above
turbulent waters".

--
Roland Perry

In message
, at
09:20:48 on Thu, 15 Jan 2009, EE507 remarked:

Heathrow is far from being essential and isn't overloaded anyway.

It's severely overloaded, and "essential" for UK plc's international
business ambitions.

Is it really? Please name all the companies deserting the UK because
their CEOs have to wait around a bit at Heathrow.

Name those who will do the same if we cancel Crossrail.
--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" wrote in message

In message , at 16:34:39 on
Thu, 15 Jan 2009, Recliner remarked:
I doubt that the current St P has enough domestic platforms (on
either side) to be the London Terminus for the high speed link to
the north. Also, are they long enough?

Not enough of them, and they are approx 10 carriages long - is that
sufficient?

I would have thought new high speed trains would be longer than that
(even the Pendos will soon be 11 cars long).

It would be awkward if the Javelins were longer.

The Class 395 trains are six cars long, but I don't know if they'll be
running doubled up for some services. If so, I assume the Kent platforms
can handle 12 trains.

In message , at 18:02:32 on
Thu, 15 Jan 2009, Recliner remarked:
The Class 395 trains are six cars long, but I don't know if they'll be
running doubled up for some services. If so, I assume the Kent platforms
can handle 12 trains.

I think that needs verifying, as I don't think there's much room left at
the end of the similar EMT platforms when there's 4+5 car Meridian
parked there.
--
Roland Perry