In message <LOOdneZMF5AJRuzUnZ2dnUVZ8qXinZ2d>, at 13:22:01 on
Sat, 17 Jan 2009, Recliner <recliner2-news> remarked:
>>> Not on the flood plain, but on an artificial island, like Hong Kong.

>Also Kansai and Kobe airports, which really are artificial islands.

And Incheon (aka Seoul International)

[url down]

Maybe we could do something similar - fill in the whole Thames Estuary?

feebo wrote:
>On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 11:54:39 -0800 (PST), thunderbird57303
>wrote:
>>and his credibility is based on...?
>
>close Heathrow?
>
>Don't think so - if the land is so desperately needed and they are
>looking to close airports, why not close Northolt (right next to the
>A40, Central, Met & Piccadilly lines A312 etc. etc. or any number of
>airfields in plum spots.


Northolt is busier than ever, now that government ministers have claimed
use of the Queen's Flight.

It even has a recently built high security terminal building with an
established customs and immigration presence.

"Recliner" <recliner2-news> writes:
> Also Kansai and Kobe airports, which really are artificial islands.

Isn't the Kansai airport sinking? A bit of miscalculation etc.

-Miles

Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <LOOdneZMF5AJRuzUnZ2dnUVZ8qXinZ2d>, at 13:22:01 on
> Sat, 17 Jan 2009, Recliner <recliner2-news> remarked:
>>>> Not on the flood plain, but on an artificial island, like Hong
>>>> Kong.
>
>> Also Kansai and Kobe airports, which really are artificial islands.
>
> And Incheon (aka Seoul International)
>
> [..]
>
> Maybe we could do something similar - fill in the whole Thames
> Estuary?

Why, when we have the whole of the Isle Of Grain to build an airport on?
(Just noticed there's a munitions store near Cliffe... that's only about 8
miles from the SS Richard Montgomery.)

On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 12:20:15 +0000, Neale Harrison
<deltic9012-crepello> wrote:

>RAF Lyneham closes in a couple of years - shame it wasn't a bit nearer
>London.

London Lyneham? Probably close enough for RyanAir.

On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 14:50:08 +0000, mcp wrote:

>On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 12:20:15 +0000, Neale Harrison
><deltic9012-crepello> wrote:
>
>>RAF Lyneham closes in a couple of years - shame it wasn't a bit nearer
>>London.
>
>London Lyneham? Probably close enough for RyanAir.

Nice one!

On Sat, 17 Jan 2009, Roland Perry wrote:

> In message <LOOdneZMF5AJRuzUnZ2dnUVZ8qXinZ2d>, at 13:22:01 on Sat, 17
> Jan 2009, Recliner <recliner2-news> remarked:
>>>> Not on the flood plain, but on an artificial island, like Hong Kong.
>>
>> Also Kansai and Kobe airports, which really are artificial islands.
>
> And Incheon (aka Seoul International)
>
> [..]
>
> Maybe we could do something similar - fill in the whole Thames Estuary?

I think i was pimping this idea a while ago. I'd been looking at the
various epic works the Dutch did, particularly the building of the
IJsselmeer, and it occurred to me that we could do something similar. Not
just to the Thames estuary - to the entire Channel, between East Anglia
and the Netherlands. As with the IJ, you'd not totally close up the space,
but leave large canals running along the line of the existing coast (some
of it, at least), so that there was still access to the ports (and to
hydraulically separate the polders from the existing land).

This would not only create land for housing in the overcrowded southeast,
as well as a huge amount of agricultural land, but enable direct rail
links to northern Europe (including a Felixstowe - Rotterdam freight
line), provide opportunities to create huge amounts of ecologically vital
wetlands, and effectively eliminate the flood and erosion risk to the
Thames estuary and East Anglia. We could even build a new home for the
Trident fleet at the same time, to shut the jocks up.

I shall write to the environment secretary immediately. Where can one buy
a pen with green ink these days?

tom

"Miles Bader" <miles> wrote in message
news:87skni3tbd.fsf
> "Recliner" <recliner2-news> writes:
>> Also Kansai and Kobe airports, which really are artificial islands.
>
> Isn't the Kansai airport sinking? A bit of miscalculation etc.

I believe so. As I recall, they did allow for some sinking, but the real
problem is that it's not sinking uniformly, which is much worse.

"Tony Polson" <docnews2011> wrote in message
news:sep3n4pm4e0lgjvgmvm98pmmquehnsl0jb
> feebo wrote:
>> Northolt is busier than ever, now that government ministers have
> claimed use of the Queen's Flight.
>
> It even has a recently built high security terminal building with an
> established customs and immigration presence.

I live under the Northolt flight path, and can confirm that it's pretty
busy, but mainly with private exec jets. The RAF planes are now a real
minority. Occasionally, you get a real biggie, as when George Bush was
recently in town, when large USAF transporters used it, presumably to
fly in his armoured limos, etc.

"John Rowland" <johnr> wrote in message
news:0289
> Roland Perry wrote:
>
> Why, when we have the whole of the Isle Of Grain to build an airport on?

Because the people on the "island|" kicked up a fuss,

(and I think there might be some nature reserve there)

tim

"Recliner" <recliner2-news> wrote:
>"Tony Polson" <docnews2011> wrote:
>
>I live under the Northolt flight path


Not too close, I hope. I used to live in Northolt (just off Church Road
between the Target and White Hart roundabouts) but far enough away from
the flight path not to hear any aircraft noise, unless the wind was
blowing directly towards my flat. Even then it was never loud.

It was a different matter when the old secondary runway (05/23) was in
use at Heathrow. The flight path was probably no nearer, and the
aircraft were higher up, but they were much noisier, so overall the
noise levels were quite noticeable. I have relations living in
Greenford, Perivale, Harrow and Wembley; they were all affected to
varying degrees when the secondary runway was being used. It was closed
as recently as 2002.

"Recliner" <recliner2-news> wrote
>> You ve got to hand it to those Tories, first they play the environment
>> card to stop expansion at Heathrow whilst Boris goes off and builds
>> another airport in the Thames flood plain.
> Not on the flood plain, but on an artificial island, like Hong Kong.

They could build a peak-hours only airport at Goodwin Sands.

Sorry, I meant low tide only.

"tim....." <tims_new_home> wrote...
>>> Maybe we could do something similar - fill in the whole Thames
>>> Estuary?
>> Why, when we have the whole of the Isle Of Grain to build an airport on?
> Because the people on the "island|" kicked up a fuss,

There's always Sheppey - fairly flat.
But there's already an airport at Manston, Thanet - just 68 minutes* out of
St. Pancras via class 395s.

They even called it "London Manston" for a while.
I think they stopped when the one passenger airline that flew there went
bust.

*Plus a short bike ride past the potato fields**.
But they could easily build a short rail link to Minster-ish.

**Bicycle not supplied.

"Andrew Heenan" <fire> wrote
>
> They even called it "London Manston" for a while.
> I think they stopped when the one passenger airline that flew there went
> bust.
>
> *Plus a short bike ride past the potato fields**.
> But they could easily build a short rail link to Minster-ish.
>
There was at one time a branch from near Birchington (facing Faversham) to
Manston Airfield, but I don't know either when it was built, orwhen it was
closed and lifted.

Peter

Tom Anderson wrote:
[..]
> This would not only create land for housing in the overcrowded
> southeast, as well as a huge amount of agricultural land, but enable
> direct rail links to northern Europe (including a Felixstowe - Rotterdam
> freight line), provide opportunities to create huge amounts of
> ecologically vital wetlands, and effectively eliminate the flood and
> erosion risk to the Thames estuary and East Anglia. We could even build
> a new home for the Trident fleet at the same time, to shut the jocks up.
>
> I shall write to the environment secretary immediately. Where can one
> buy a pen with green ink these days?

It's been suggested before!

http://strangemaps.wordpress.com/200...of-doggerland/

“If the extensive schemes for the drainage of North Sea are carried out
according to the plan illustrated above, which was conceived by a group
of eminent English scientists, 100,000 square miles will be added to the
overcrowded continents of Europe. The reclaimed land will be walled in
with enormous dykes, similar to the Netherland dykes, to protect it from
the sea, and the various rivers flowing into the North Sea will have
their courses diverted to different outlets by means of canals.”