Rail to a new airport?

[HSTEd]

Once this megahub airport has opened a large number of these other airports could be disposed of, assuming capacity has been provided at the megahub to absorb those flights without forcing landing charges prohibitively high.
(The connections for the hub are likely the really expensive part, adding additional runways and termini to the plan is unlikely to cost as much as it would first appear if they are all added at the start).

Although it is not as urbanised as Heathrow's environs are, I imagine Gatwick would bring in a pretty penny for developers since it has even better transport links (if that is possible).

 

[d5509]

Once this megahub airport has opened a large number of these other airports could be disposed of, assuming capacity has been provided at the megahub to absorb those flights without forcing landing charges prohibitively high.
(The connections for the hub are likely the really expensive part, adding additional runways and termini to the plan is unlikely to cost as much as it would first appear if they are all added at the start).

Although it is not as urbanised as Heathrow's environs are, I imagine Gatwick would bring in a pretty penny for developers since it has even better transport links (if that is possible).

The megahab should be designed to replace the other airports as well but the first phase need only replace Heathrow.
Once that function is up and running, pre-planned additional phases can assimilate the other airports, one by one - according to a pre-existing master plan, certainly not as afterthought add-on runways and terminals.

There has to be a vision for the whole project but no need to complete it all before the first flight.
Since it will cost the Earth, it would be nice to have some revenue back from flights as soon as possible And yes, as Heathrow's land is sold, the cash is used to finance assimilating the next airport and so on.

As mentioned up-thread, with a high speed loop line in place, as the other airports close, they remain as park-ride stations for the megahab.

 

[HSTEd]

To replace Heathrow you already need two or three runways (even with no restrictions on night flights).

So the first phase could be ~50% of the projected project cost by itself (even if you only build one half of the Loop to link to the Heathrow site only in the first phase)

 

[HowardGWR]

The proposal for the western replacement of Heathrow seemed to me to be quite attractive as it would not waste connections already built and planned.

You could also have an afternoon snooze at Kew as the planes would come in higher.
See this here.
http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/?p=332

 

[HSTEd]

The proposal for the western replacement of Heathrow seemed to me to be quite attractive as it would not waste connections already built and planned.

You could also have an afternoon snooze at Kew as the planes would come in higher.
See this here.
http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/?p=332

But noone would want to live on the site of the existing airport since the jets would be a couple of hundred feet up....

It doesn't really solve any problems, and it can't use the existing connections since they would be miles away from the new terminal buildings.

The estuary option they compare it to is the one where they build it on the of Sheppey/Grain, it is not the "Boris Island" proposal that would not necessarily result in the demolition of any houses at all

 

[John07]

The megahab should be designed to replace the other airports as well but the first phase need only replace Heathrow.
Once that function is up and running, pre-planned additional phases can assimilate the other airports, one by one - according to a pre-existing master plan, certainly not as afterthought add-on runways and terminals.

There has to be a vision for the whole project but no need to complete it all before the first flight.
Since it will cost the Earth, it would be nice to have some revenue back from flights as soon as possible And yes, as Heathrow's land is sold, the cash is used to finance assimilating the next airport and so on.

As mentioned up-thread, with a high speed loop line in place, as the other airports close, they remain as park-ride stations for the megahab.

What happens if the airlines decline to relocate to the new airport and decide to stay at Gatwick or Stansted?

 

[HSTEd]

What happens if the airlines decline to relocate to the new airport and decide to stay at Gatwick or Stansted?

An act of parliament called the "Airport Consolidation and Compensation (Operating Licence Withdrawal) Act" or similar takes care of this problem.

Ie. nationalise the airports by act of parliament and then close them down.

 

[jopsuk]

That would of course be rather more expensive that it would have been when BAA was property of the state...

 

[starrymarkb]

Also it's interesting that the last US carrier has left Gatwick for Heathrow this week. US Airlines was the last to hold out but has of this week they only fly from Heathrow.

And you still are avoiding how to relocate the workers and businesses that depend on Heathrow. Eg the Hotels around Heathrow. The multinationals in Reading, Slough and West London (because of the proximity of Heathrow), it'll be a big hit to the economy of that region regardless of where you move the airport.

 

[John07]

Once this megahub airport has opened a large number of these other airports could be disposed of, assuming capacity has been provided at the megahub to absorb those flights without forcing landing charges prohibitively high.
(The connections for the hub are likely the really expensive part, adding additional runways and termini to the plan is unlikely to cost as much as it would first appear if they are all added at the start).

Although it is not as urbanised as Heathrow's environs are, I imagine Gatwick would bring in a pretty penny for developers since it has even better transport links (if that is possible).

The development value of both the Hearthrow and the Gatwick sites would be undermined since the local economy of both highly dependent on the airport and associated industries such as warehousing and distribution. I am sure that both areas would recover eventually, however in the short to medium term to think you would get high land values is pie in the sky optimism.

Given the massive compensation that would be due to HAA Ltd and GIP, this would cost a fortune to the public purse.

 

[HSTEd]

And you still are avoiding how to relocate the workers and businesses that depend on Heathrow. Eg the Hotels around Heathrow. The multinationals in Reading, Slough and West London (because of the proximity of Heathrow), it'll be a big hit to the economy of that region regardless of where you move the airport.

The Hotels would presumably still have some custom based on the number of people parking at Heathrow and using it as a Park and Ride for the megahub.

The companies relocations would not all happen overnight, especially since they will only be 25 minutes further away from an estuary airport than they would be at Southend or Sheerness.

But any loss to West London would be counteracted by the benefits in East London/Kent/Essex, so its not going to be an overall loss.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The development value of both the Hearthrow and the Gatwick sites would be undermined since the local economy of both highly dependent on the airport and associated industries such as warehousing and distribution. I am sure that both areas would recover eventually, however in the short to medium term to think you would get high land values is pie in the sky optimism.

Heathrow is ten square kilometres of relatively flat ground with very good motorway connections and access to two tube lines. (Crossrail and the Jubillee line).

Gatwick is also a large piece of relatively flat partially cleared ground straddling one of the busiest railway lines in the UK, less than an hour from central London.

Both sites have major value as commuter developments, especially since you could probably fit atleast a hundred thousand people on Heathrow.

Given the massive compensation that would be due to HAA Ltd and GIP, this would cost a fortune to the public purse.

Being that BAA was required to sell Gatwick, Stansted and either Glasgow/Edinburgh for around £3.5-4.5bn and Glasgow is similarly busy to Luton, that would be a reasonable estimate for how much it would cost to forcible shut down all three airports.

And when you consider how much the project is going to cost anyway... it's peanuts.

 

[ian959]

I think that any thoughts of building a new, land-based, modern, well designed, well connected international airport for London can be forgotten. It will never happen as it would be bogged down in consultation, planning, conservation and environmental committees for so long that by the time a decision ever got made, the whole point of the process would have shifted again.

Best bet is to take places like Birmingham, who have unused capacities, slowly acquire and demolish surrounding housing areas like the enclave of Marston Green shoved between the airport runway and the WCML and gradually free up area for further expansion that way.

In the meantime all domestic flights are banned from Heathrow and are shifted to Gatwick. Heathrow becomes essentially just a destination airport not a connection airport. Natural attrition then sees airlines either staying at Heathrow as that is what their passenger flow is or else they move to Gatwick/Birmingham/Manchester/Stansted or wherever if they need onward/inward connections. Heathrow also massively increases landing fees for aircraft of less than 757 size or similar so that smaller airlines flying smaller aircraft such as 737s are pushed out to Gatwick or elsewhere.

As a passenger I stopped flying into Heathrow a decade ago as it was even then getting to be too much of a nightmare. Now it is much easier and less stressful to fly into Birmingham and catch a train down to Euston, or fly into Manchester and catch a train to wherever I want to go.

Realistically that is about all you can do even though logic has for 40 years been saying build one huge MegaLondon airport and sell off Gatwick, Stansted and Heathrow for redevelopment which would go some small way towards covering the cost of a new airport. Site availability alone will determine the placing of a such an airport - existing transport connections will be of a secondary consideration.

 

[HowardGWR]

But noone would want to live on the site of the existing airport since the jets would be a couple of hundred feet up....

It doesn't really solve any problems, and it can't use the existing connections since they would be miles away from the new terminal buildings.

The estuary option they compare it to is the one where they build it on the of Sheppey/Grain, it is not the "Boris Island" proposal that would not necessarily result in the demolition of any houses at all

Nobody need live on the old site, some of which could be greened (should be greened). Most of it is proposed to be used for existing terminal facilities anyway.

Also, the existing connections (and planned) are existing (and planned), so I don't understand you. When they wrote about Boris Island, matters were different but it will not surprise me if Davies does not consider this plan very seriously.

You seem to have an agenda but I can't work out what you are after yourself. What is your own plan and what rail connections do you propose? Refer me to an earlier post if I missed it - apologies in that case.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I should explain that Hsted is referring to mine of 19 13, 7/4/13 (yesterday). See the link there.

 

[HSTEd]

Nobody need live on the old site, some of which could be greened (should be greened). Most of it is proposed to be used for existing terminal facilities anyway.

The minimum spacing for ILS/LAAS landing runways for multi engined jets is something approaching ~1050m.
This means there is plenty of space between runways for terminal facilities without using the existing site.

And if nobody ends up living on the old site, you throw away several square kilometres of prime land with great transport connections within the M25.
That land is desperately needed for housing.

Also, the existing connections (and planned) are existing (and planned), so I don't understand you. When they wrote about Boris Island, matters were different but it will not surprise me if Davies does not consider this plan very seriously.

That link you linked suggests that fewer houses would have to be demolished by this plan compared to the "Estuary Plan".
You have to demolish a village to build those runways in the positions suggested.
An estuary airport could potentially require no demolitions at all if built at Shivering Sand.

And no, I doubt Davies will consider "Boris Island" seriously, since his job is to rubberstamp the third runway at Heathrow like Number 10 and BAA (or whatever they call themselves now) want.

You seem to have an agenda but I can't work out what you are after yourself. What is your own plan and what rail connections do you propose? Refer me to an earlier post if I missed it - apologies in that case.

Its fine, I think it was somewhere on the first stage:

My plan is a six runway airport at Shivering Sand linking to the coast both on both the north and south sides of the Thames (Sheerness and Southend-on-Sea probably).
The rail connections from both bridges would form an expanded loop around London connecting to relevent railway lines using stations or junctions as appropriate, the line would be far enough out to go through the sites of all four major London Airports (Heathrow, Gatwick Luton and Stansted) which would be closed and used partially as park-and-ride facilities for the new airport.

A rail connection from whichever bridgehead was most convenient would be built to a London terminus and another connection from the southern Bridge would link into HS1 (I unfortunately doubt that the domestic platforms at St Pancras could support the additional 4tph+ required for an airport shuttle, so a new link is regrettably required)

Roads would also be provided on the bridges, which would, in a roundabout way, provide for the oft proposed "Lower Thames Crossing" and allow people to drive to the airport if they wish.

The absurd cost of this project would be very partially offset through redevelopment of the existing airport sites by a corporation modelled on the one that regenerated the Docklands, with high density residential at Heathrow and more traditional "eco towns" at the other sites.

It would be very expensive but not unaffordably expensive.

And it would solve a lot of other infrastructure problems that are currently evident in South East england if executed correctly.

 

[HowardGWR]

Thanks for your 16 58 today HSTed.

You misunderstood me (my fault). I was saying that I thought Davies would consider the western replacement Heathrow 'out over the reservoirs' seriously, but not any of the Thames islands / bridges schemes.

I think your ideas have some merit (all the ideas have that) but I do feel that there is too much of 'a sledgehammer to crack a nut' about it.

I believe the AirportWatch scheme or similar does make use of planned rail connections and I think it is rail to which we should look for the future, not car, and we should set our faces against any encouragement for car transport, especially when the main raison d'etre is as a hub (so mainly changing pax and longer distance business /cultural / political traffic who can afford taxis, if they must use petrol). The A.W. scheme does remove the worst side of the environmental approach problems of Heathrow.

Might be a bit noisier take-offs for Her Maj, mind, in Windsor Castle.

 

[Bald Rick]

.

A rail connection from whichever bridgehead was most convenient would be built to a London terminus and another connection from the southern Bridge would link into HS1 (I unfortunately doubt that the domestic platforms at St Pancras could support the additional 4tph+ required for an airport shuttle, so a new link is regrettably required)

And it would solve a lot of other infrastructure problems that are currently evident in South East england if executed correctly.

Assuming this new airport is taking most of the traffic from the 4 main London airports, and that 60% of the airport travellers use the train (a somewhat higher proportion than for any of the 4 today, but given where it is, quite necessary), you are going to need a fully loaded 12 coach high capacity train arriving there every 8mins for 20 hours a day, every day, on average. So at busy times, twice that. And that's before anyone who works there has got there, or any growth. So probably twice again.

And the other 40% would need 2 dedicated 3 lane motorways. Would love to see how that lot feeds into the M25 without creating a whole lot of new infrastructure problems in the south east.

 

[HSTEd]

Assuming this new airport is taking most of the traffic from the 4 main London airports, and that 60% of the airport travellers use the train (a somewhat higher proportion than for any of the 4 today, but given where it is, quite necessary), you are going to need a fully loaded 12 coach high capacity train arriving there every 8mins for 20 hours a day, every day, on average. So at busy times, twice that. And that's before anyone who works there has got there, or any growth. So probably twice again.

I thought the Domestic platforms at St Pancras are built to handle full sized High Speed trains?

If not then the new terminus would be built to High speed standards to accept 400m long double decker trains.
Additionally not everyone would be coming out of central London to the airport, significant traffic would arrive over the loop lines.

And the other 40% would need 2 dedicated 3 lane motorways. Would love to see how that lot feeds into the M25 without creating a whole lot of new infrastructure problems in the south east.

Aggressive pricing of the loop line services and of the park and ride facilities at the closed airports would prevent huge amounts of people having to drive to the airport from the other side of London.

Remember that the M25 already has to support massive traffic flows en-route to the other airports so it could be expected that the loads would reverse direction but it should not cause massive problems in connection with the previously detailed park and ride facilities.

EDIT:

You would of-course need a pair of motorways, although you might be able to tap into the M2 on the south bank of the river, the northern bank would rather harder to engineer but you could probably rig something up to join the M25 near the A12/M25 junction.

 

[Bald Rick]

I thought the Domestic platforms at St Pancras are built to handle full sized High Speed trains?

If not then the new terminus would be built to High speed standards to accept 400m long double decker trains.
Additionally not everyone would be coming out of central London to the airport, significant traffic would arrive over the loop lines.



Aggressive pricing of the loop line services and of the park and ride facilities at the closed airports would prevent huge amounts of people having to drive to the airport from the other side of London.

Remember that the M25 already has to support massive traffic flows en-route to the other airports so it could be expected that the loads would reverse direction but it should not cause massive problems in connection with the previously detailed park and ride facilities.

The domestic platforms can take a 12 car 395. I wasn't suggesting that everyone would be coming from central London, far from it, but a network to support 30 (high speed, quarter mile long) trains an hour to a single destination is going to be substantial. Even if half of them come from Central London we're still looking at finding 6x400m platforms somewhere (that isn't Euston).

The M25 doesn't work well now with 4/5 lanes and 4/5* airports spread relatively evenly around it. Concentrating all that traffic into one...

(counting Southend now)

 

[HSTEd]

I make the total passenger numbers for the airports to something like ~130m/yr.
Assuming passenger numbers counts a round trip twice (I can't get any information on that topic?) that is 65m passengers per year in each direction.

If the airport is open to 360 days a year that is roughly 180,500 passengers per day or ~9000 passengers per hour.
If we assume a 50% capacity factor but with only 50% of passengers coming out of central london that leaves us at 9000 seats per hour.

400m double deck trainsets could easily get ~1500 seats with such short journeys as the ones we are proposing, which means 6 trains per hour or something.

So something like 3 platforms with rapid turnarounds?

A better idea might be an attempt to work out how many people use the rail services to the existing airports, and then assume that the remaining passengers either use the parks and rides or drive all the way to the airport.

EDIT:

Gatwick Airport station has 13 million passengers per year
Stansted Airport station is 3.8 million passengers per year
Luton Airport station is 2.4 million passengers per year
I have no information that is reliable for Heathrow station.

So that is 19.2 million passengers plus however many for Heathrow.

I will just fudge Heathrow by adjusting the 68 million passengers to about 44 million (to account for the transfer passengers), then set the number of passengers using rail to about 40%, taking us to 17.6 million passengers for Heathrow.

Giving us 36.8 million passengers for rail services out of the centre of the city. (Ofcourse some Gatwick passengers would be coming from the south).

That takes us about a 100,000 passengers per day, or roughly 50,000 passengers each way, or roughly 40 full trainloads a day, or perhaps 4 per hour.

EDIT #2:

I say we could set:

6tph Central London
6tph Gatwick
6tph Heathrow
6tph Luton/Stansted (stopping twice)

Which leaves plenty of room on the loop for other high speed services and international runs. As the lines out of the airport have 36tph potential capacity and majority of the loops would be loaded at far lower than the 24tph that suggests on the face of it.

 

[eps200]

If we are this far into all out may as well run high speed 2 via the proposed euston cross plan and use that for extra capacity. I'd assume various other lines are going to be run in as well.

 

[HSTEd]

If we are this far into all out may as well run high speed 2 via the proposed euston cross plan and use that for extra capacity. I'd assume various other lines are going to be run in as well.

Unfortunately the rolling stock used for HS2 will probably not be suitable to this ultra high capacity short distance journey proposal.

We are probably looking at RER/commuter style units more than anything InterCity related.
This is Overground but with double decker high speed trains.
Some High Speed trains would undoubtedly run to the airport for more distance destinations but probably not enough to justify that insane Euston through station.

 

[LE Greys]

You would of-course need a pair of motorways, although you might be able to tap into the M2 on the south bank of the river, the northern bank would rather harder to engineer but you could probably rig something up to join the M25 near the A12/M25 junction.

Sounds a bit like the original plan for Maplain Sands, the M13.

http://pathetic.org.uk/unbuilt/m13/
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Unfortunately the rolling stock used for HS2 will probably not be suitable to this ultra high capacity short distance journey proposal.

We are probably looking at RER/commuter style units more than anything InterCity related.
This is Overground but with double decker high speed trains.
Some High Speed trains would undoubtedly run to the airport for more distance destinations but probably not enough to justify that insane Euston through station.

That sounds quite likely. I would assume some form of tunnel to get on and off the island. Ideally, it should head up to Stratford and then run parallel with Crossrail to Liverpool Street (or take over part of Crossrail, depending on tunnel diameters) and ultimately along the Circle at least as far as Euston, preferably all the way out to Paddington. An alternative would be to head south to Ebbsfleet and blend into HS1 there. Whether an on-then-off service is possible remains to be seen, but it would give Eurostar a way to access the market for Paris and Brussels.

 

[HSTEd]

That sounds quite likely. I would assume some form of tunnel to get on and off the island. Ideally, it should head up to Stratford and then run parallel with Crossrail to Liverpool Street (or take over part of Crossrail, depending on tunnel diameters) and ultimately along the Circle at least as far as Euston, preferably all the way out to Paddington. An alternative would be to head south to Ebbsfleet and blend into HS1 there. Whether an on-then-off service is possible remains to be seen, but it would give Eurostar a way to access the market for Paris and Brussels.

Taking over Crossrail would kill travel times and be far too expensive since it would mean the route was unable to support 400m double deck trains.
Going all the way to Paddington would also be pointless since it would then be quicker to run 15 minutes from Paddington out to Heathrow and then run around the proposed Loop to the airport.


The cheap option is to just pick one of the existing termini and build a new line into it. (Either Liverpool Street or perhaps divert C2C in their and put it in Fenchurch Street)


The loop line I propose would mean that you would need two routes off the "island" which would also be road bridges, I propose a low level box girder viaduct north to Southend and a similar low level bridge to Sheerness with a central cable stayed high level span to allow ships in and out of the Estuary.
You could easily put in a junction between HS1 and the Loop where it crosses to allow Eurostar trains through if required.

This M13 sounds similar to what I propose but it might be a little insane with its southern bypass of Southend thing. The route of the proposed M12 seems more reasonable.

I really ought to draw this up...

 

[cjp]

The area I am thinking about is north of the Chilterns.
As a nation we would have to do the right thing towards people whose lives would be adversely affected by new infrastructure developments. I am not sure this is the case with HS2 at the moment.
I am reminded of what Aneurin Bevan said when he explained how he managed to persuade the doctors to play their vital role in the new NHS :
"How did I persuade them? I stuffed their mouths with gold!"

Hmm, looked at a half mil chart recently? I think your suggestion would seriously impinge GA airflields, the Brize Zone, Kidlington and the microlite & BGA sites at in the vicinity to say nothing of Weston and Little Ris.

Play what if and all that but I think hope and expect your suggestion to be non starter

If the purpose of the new airport is to be an interchange then it need not be in London at all.
THe London airports (Gatwick, City, Luton, Stansted, Heathrow, Southend? Oxford?) should be for those travelling two or from London. Elsewhere in the country can grow as a hub.
The owners of Heathrow would like it to expand so they make more money (by trampling over the little people - first Terminal 4 and then Terminal 5 followed by a wish to demolish a pretty nearby ancient village to create a third money making runway.)
If that many people travel from far afield to catch a flight ex London why is that flight starting in London??
Hello Birmingham, Coventry, Turnhouse East Midlands and Prestwick -
which have halfway decent transport connections

 

[HSTEd]

People want a hub they can establish headquarters buildings near.


A hub in some random place would not fulfil this requirement, they would just shift to Amsterdam or Frankfurt.
And remember a hub must be enormous by definition.

Four runways at minimum.

 

[cjp]

People want a hub they can establish headquarters buildings near.


A hub in some random place would not fulfil this requirement, they would just shift to Amsterdam or Frankfurt.
And remember a hub must be enormous by definition.

Four runways at minimum.

SOME people might want a headquarters near a hub.
If the requirement for a headquarters is simply a hub then any place will do and of course that includes Amsterdam and Heathrow. Should we care given some international companies' perchant for not paying UK taxes whilst enjoying the benefits of our civilised country paid for by the little people's taxes.
So back to the original question a hub need not be near London at all but I see a possible case for good communications.

 

[HSTEd]

SOME people might want a headquarters near a hub.
If the requirement for a headquarters is simply a hub then any place will do and of course that includes Amsterdam and Heathrow. Should we care given some international companies' perchant for not paying UK taxes whilst enjoying the benefits of our civilised country paid for by the little people's taxes.
So back to the original question a hub need not be near London at all but I see a possible case for good communications.

A hub must have significant entry/exit traffic otherwise it will struggle to generate the traffic necessary to support the connections it requires to be viable.

I doubt Manchester can support sufficient traffic to support flights to say... Chengdu even with major transfers.

 

[LE Greys]

Taking over Crossrail would kill travel times and be far too expensive since it would mean the route was unable to support 400m double deck trains.
Going all the way to Paddington would also be pointless since it would then be quicker to run 15 minutes from Paddington out to Heathrow and then run around the proposed Loop to the airport.


The cheap option is to just pick one of the existing termini and build a new line into it. (Either Liverpool Street or perhaps divert C2C in their and put it in Fenchurch Street)


The loop line I propose would mean that you would need two routes off the "island" which would also be road bridges, I propose a low level box girder viaduct north to Southend and a similar low level bridge to Sheerness with a central cable stayed high level span to allow ships in and out of the Estuary.
You could easily put in a junction between HS1 and the Loop where it crosses to allow Eurostar trains through if required.

This M13 sounds similar to what I propose but it might be a little insane with its southern bypass of Southend thing. The route of the proposed M12 seems more reasonable.

I really ought to draw this up...

Someone already has (I googled 'Boris island map').

http://www.estatesgazette.com/blogs/london-office-database/assets_c/2011/11/foster_map-145743.html

The M13 idea seems totaly nuts, I'm not really sure what they were thinking with that one. And of course it was planned for the north side of the Thames rather than the south (although a downstream crossing at about the same location might be a good idea). The reason I added Paddington was to try to link the airport to as many major terminals as possible. It needs Liverpool Street for the City and 'Euston Cross' for various links to the north. Stratford seemed like a convenient point to connect it to the rest of the network, although Ebbsfleet could do a similar job for the southern side.

However it's done, it does rather go against the OP's and others' points, that a new airport should be located to be convenient for rail links to the rest of the country.

 

[HSTEd]

That is not the Boris Island proposal involving Shivering Sand.

That is the Isle of Grain proposal.

We need motorways and railways on both sides of the Thames to spread the load.

 

[LE Greys]

That is not the Boris Island proposal involving Shivering Sand.

That is the Isle of Grain proposal.

We need motorways and railways on both sides of the Thames to spread the load.

TBH, I have considerable difficulty keeping track of all the 'airport in the river' schemes, none of which are ever likely to see the light of day (I hope).