Boris wants to close Heathrow

[Spacecadet]

Certainly the idea of just keeping Heathrow and building a third runway seems like insanity, when so many passengers already have to take shuttle flights from other parts of the country just to get to Heathrow to get their flight.

Why would that change with the new airport?

There might be high speed rail links, It'll probably still be cheaper and quicker for a lot of people to book their flight to depart from their local airport and connect in the new airport.

If I check international flight prices from BA for flights which only depart from Heathrow, adding a Manchester to Heathrow flight adds about £50-£100

[snaw]

I'm all for it - more you read into it, the more I reckon it's a good idea - plus I live in SW London so I'm kinda biased against the idea of another runway, given how many planes we get now ...

[Troll]

In August 1944, the USS Richard Montgomery on what was to be its final voyage, left Hog Island, Philadelphia, where it had been loaded with 6,127 tons of munitions.

* 13,064 general purpose 250 lb (113 kg) bombs filled with TNT
* 9,022 cases of fragmentation bombs
* 7,739 semi-armour-piercing bombs
* 1,522 cases of fuses
* 1,429 cases of phosphorus bombs
* 1,427 cases of 100 lb (45 kg) demolition bombs
* 817 cases of small arms ammunition
* 240 mustard gas bombs

It travelled from the Delaware river to the Thames Estuary, then anchored while awaiting the formation of a convoy to travel to Cherbourg, France, which had already fallen to the Allies (on July 27, 1944) during the Battle of Normandy.

When it arrived off Southend, it came under the authority of the Thames naval control at HMS Leigh, located at the end of the Southend Pier. The harbour master, responsible for all shipping movements in the estuary, ordered the Montgomery to a berth off the north edge of Sheerness middle sands, where it ran aground in a depth of 24 ft. (7.3 m) of water at low tide.

The general dry cargo liberty ship had an average draught of 28 ft (8.5 m), the Montgomery was trimmed to a draught of 31 ft (9.4 m) however, and at low water, at the height of a spring tide with a northerly wind it was inevitable the ship would run aground at its shallow mooring.

When it ran aground on August 20, 1944, the Montgomery broke its back on sand banks near the Isle of Sheppey, about 1.5 miles (2.5 km) from Sheerness and 5 miles (8 km) from Southend.

Current status
3,173 tons of munitions containing 1,400 tons of TNT remain on the wreck. One of the reasons why the explosives have not been removed was the unfortunate outcome of a similar operation in July 1967 to neutralize the contents of the Kielce, a ship of Polish origin, sunk in 1946 off Folkestone in the English Channel. During preliminary work the Kielce, containing a comparable amount of ordnance, exploded with force equivalent to an earthquake measuring 4.5 on the Richter scale, digging a 20-foot (6 m) deep crater in the seabed and bringing "panic and chaos" to Folkestone, although no injuries.

In 1970 it was determined that if the wreck of the SS Richard Montgomery exploded, it would throw a 1000-foot (300 m) wide column of water and debris nearly 10,000 feet (3,000 m) in the air and generate a wave 16 feet (5 m) high. Almost every window in Sheerness (pop. c20,000) would be broken and buildings would be damaged by the blast.

Critics of government assurances that the likelihood of a major explosion is remote argue that there is a possibility that over time a partially flooded fuze in at least one of the 2600 fuzed fragmentation devices will become less stable owing to its lead azide constituent reacting with water vapour (rather than liquid seawater) to form hydrazoic acid. This will react with copper in the detonating cap, to form extremely sensitive copper azide.
A knock, such as caused by the ship breaking up further, or a collision on the busy shipping lane, could cause the copper azide to explode, triggering an explosive chain reaction resulting in the detonation of the bulk of the munitions.

Similarly, when the condition of the munitions was originally assessed there was concern that copper azide would be produced through reaction between the lead azide and copper from brass fuse components. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency argue that the fuses will probably have been flooded for many years and consequently the hazard is insignificant since these chemicals are water soluble[5] and will have been washed away.

HTH

[expat]

Why would that change with the new airport?

There might be high speed rail links, It'll probably still be cheaper and quicker for a lot of people to book their flight to depart from their local airport and connect in the new airport.

If I check international flight prices from BA for flights which only depart from Heathrow, adding a Manchester to Heathrow flight adds about £50-£100

I suppose I was just doing an anti-Heathrow rant. I should have added that a better solution would be to scale down Heathrow and add extra capacity around the country, especially near motorways and railway lines.

I dislike the UK's operating principle that London is a great city, so what we need is more London. Decentralise a bit!

Fine example of how not to do it: British Airways (paper) timetable for Scotland used to have an entry in the contents: "International ...... p7". When you went to p7, it was a note to the effect that BA ran regular flights to Heathrow, from where you could get connections to anywhere in the world. I think they finally realised how risible that was, so they removed it.

[BrilloPad]

"Almost every window in Sheerness (pop. c20,000) would be broken and buildings would be damaged by the blast."

So about £5 worth of damage then?

Its going to happen at some point - why not just explode it now and get it over with?

[Spacecadet]

I've no problems with London being the hub for air travel, however it does need to have a decent airport capable of acting as a hub.

Heathrow is a mess and Boris is quite right with his proposal, a new airport might actually be up to the standard set by some of the other hubs.

One thing that should be avoided though is watching it turn into Dubai airport.
Lovely building, just far too busy and I hate the people sleeping everywhere

[BrilloPad]

I dislike the UK's operating principle that London is a great city, so what we need is more London. Decentralise a bit!

Part of Heathrow's attraction is as a central hub so people can change planes - a bit like Singapore for cargo.

Dubai already trying to snatch this position from Heathrow - BAA hardly help!

[Troll]

"Almost every window in Sheerness (pop. c20,000) would be broken and buildings would be damaged by the blast."

So about £5 worth of damage then?

Its going to happen at some point - why not just explode it now and get it over with?

Agreed..the whole of Sheppey is such a dump it may actually help

[BrilloPad]

Agreed..the whole of Sheppey is such a dump it may actually help

This is one reason I would like an airport there. I live on Kent/London border and drove onto Sheppey once. It was a nice sunny day - until I reached Sheppey. It needs changing one way or another.....

[Troll]

I actually think Lydd stands a better chance of succeeding due to being already being built & having a link to the high speed rail system would be a very easy upgrade via Ashford.

Also Lydd has been recently upgrading its landing systems to come up to commercial specification and has a plan already submitted to lengthen the runway to handle bigger aircraft.although the plans are currently being fought by the usual bunch of bird watchers and environmentalists