Heathrow - 2000 Years of History

[airsmiles]

I'm reading the book above which has some interesting information about the Heathrow area before the airport was built, as well as about the airport itself.

One thing I couldn't understand is why the first runway built was never actually used and the authorities seemed to be aware of the fact it wasn't needed but still spent £400,000 on it in 1944. This was the 'central' NW/SE aligned runway (15/33?) and would now be known as 15C/33C and now lies under the central terminal area.

It was all something to do with the pretence that Heathrow was for the RAF but was all along secretly planned to be London's new civil airport. Apparently BOAC subsequently complained that the runway was unsuitable for civil operation but I'm at a complete loss why this should be.
Does anyone know why this runway had to be built and why it wasn't suitable for civil operations? Presumably it was suitable for RAF use?

[Proplinerman]

I think it was something to do with the plans showing the then standard RAF wartime airfield triangular runway layout, to maintain the fiction that LHR was intended to be a new RAF transport aerodrome, hence all that wasted money (and £400,000 in 1944 would equate to vastly more in today's money of course). A very interesting book, "Heathrow, 2000 years of history," for a propliner enthusiast with some environmental leanings-myself.

[Jig Peter]

In the '40s, the triangular layout was "standard issue" design at the Ministry for Aeroplanes, because tailwheeled aircraft (and their pilots) preferred taking off and landing as nearly into wind as possible - a sensible policy, specially as British manufacturers and/or operators were to go on thinking in terms of "a little wheel at the back" (think Viking, Tudor and Hastings) for quite some time. The tricycle types of the era, like the DC-4 and Constellation, less sensitive to cross-winds, were probably not even considered, even though they were clearly "the wave of the future" - touch of NIH, or just ignorance ?
But who on earth was responsible for siting the terminals in the middle - apart from the wooden huts beside the A4 while the "magnificent" buildings were erected ...
Even though I was still in my teens at the time (but an ardent subscriber to aviation magazines for years) I thought then that the decision was "odd", but also realised that making Gatwick, with its train connection, the Airport for London would mean having a big civil aerodrome in SURREY would just "not be on" - better to disturb the proles in the far west of London ...

[airsmiles]

I understand about the standard RAF runway layout but I'm just not clear why that would be unsuited to civil aircraft operation. They're still perfectly usable runways so why did BOAC kick-up such a stink about it.

As for the central terminal layout, it is actually a very efficient design which other airports have used. It, in theory, means aircraft are much closer to the runways and have less distances to taxy from their parking stand. The problem is the original Heathrow design never envisaged the massive expansion of traffic over a long period of time, so the central area became rapidly space constricted. This isn't a problem in places like Dallas-Fort Worth where they left huge amounts of space in the central area for long-term development. Simply not possible in dear old blighty.

[A30yoyo]

I think BOAC were probably talking rubbish....however the need for ANY NW-SE runway is debatable....the wind doesn't blow that way very often at LHR! so why build 3? :-)
A central terminal between 2 parallel runways is a good layout...I think T4 would have gone where T5 is now but they couldn't get rid of the Perry Oaks Sewage plant at the time

[airsmiles]

Having taken many a BA flight from T4 in the past, I think having a terminal outside of the two runways is counter-productive from an operational point of view. Nearly every time I flew from/to T4 there were lengthy delays if using 27R/10R then having to cross the active 27L/09R.

[A30yoyo]

The 3rd runway up at Sipson would have been especially awkward for T4

[airsmiles]

Yes, they should have built T4 on the north side by demolishing something else? Is there any space left (I daren't say why not convert Waterside!). Or perhaps moving out some of the vast maintenance hangers and building a terminal between 27L and 27R.

Failing that, I'll stir the pot good and proper by suggesting building the 3rd runway south of T4. Fill in a few reservoirs and we could have our very own "Stainesbaan" to rival Schipol.

Sorry - feeling a bit mischievous today.

[Wind Sock]

One thing I couldn't understand is why the first runway built was never actually used and the authorities seemed to be aware of the fact it wasn't needed but still spent £400,000 on it in 1944. This was the 'central' NW/SE aligned runway (15/33?) and would now be known as 15C/33C and now lies under the central terminal area.

I think that runway shows up on an old map from 1948 I found on Wiki.

File:Heathrow 1948.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Heathrow_1948.jpg)


There is also some interesting information on the history of the area on this page:

Heathrow (hamlet) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heathrow_%28hamlet%29)

[teeteringhead]

I also seem to recall seeing a plan - clearly never adopted - of runways at Heathrow which were (about 6?) as tangents to a sort of circular central taxiway, so each of the 3 directions had 2 runways, one starting, and one finishing at the central circle.

Very easy to draw on a beer mat, rather more difficult to describe - as you can see from the above!

Is this just a senior moment of "remembering with clarity something that never happened!", or does anyone else recall something similar .......

[airsmiles]

Yes, I've seen a planned layout which I think had another Star of David runway pattern north of the initial runway pattern. Quite why they thought they needed all of those runways is completely beyond me. It's not as if there were many aircraft movements in the first few decades of Heathrow (or LAP as it was).

[DaveReidUK]

Yes, I've seen a planned layout which I think had another Star of David runway pattern north of the initial runway pattern. Quite why they thought they needed all of those runways is completely beyond me.


Are you thinking of the 9-runway plan (the Star of David south of the A4, plus 3 in a triangle to the north) ?

I've never seen a plan for 12 runways, that really would be OTT. What's your source, if you don't mind me asking ?

[A. Le Rhone]

Heathrow 2000 years ago......

At approximately the location of the current T3 site, there was a rock-pit quarry where stones for the region were mined.

Circa 1850 years ago a tribe moved just to the east of the pit and immediately began to complain about the noise from the pit*. Alleged problems were extensive cracking in their caves and interference with their smoke signals.

English history is fascinating.

Ref: "Whining Bastards throughout History" Allen & Unwin 1978

[airsmiles]

Yes, I think it must have been the 9 runway plan. Still 9 is quite a lot for any airport!

Same applies : what on earth were they thinking they'd need 9 for?

[DaveReidUK]

Same applies : what on earth were they thinking they'd need 9 for?


To improve connectivity to emerging markets, of course ! :O

[Exnomad]

Also remember that Gatwick was originally built as an alternative to Heathrow, because it had better weather.
It was never envisaged that both would be full,
I can remember visiting the old grass Gatwick just after the war.

[Warmtoast]

Heathrow Runways

I took this photo of Heathrow looking east in June 1956. A collection of runways is shown.

http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r231/thawes/RAF%20Bovingdon/BovingdonRadarCalibrationVarsity-LA.jpg

My album also contains an earlier photo (1950?), but I don't know its provenance. Looks very similar to the layout shown in the 1948 Ordnace Survey map linked in Wind Sock's post #9 above.

http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r231/thawes/RAF%20Bovingdon/Heathrowc19502.jpg

[Wind Sock]

Brilliant photos from the historic point of view.

A pity that big puff of cloud in the first photo got in the way of Heston Aerodrome.

It would go to show just how close together the two aerodromes were and why it was that Heston just had to shut shop.

[A30yoyo]

I think about 2/3 of Heston Aerodrome is peeking out from under the big cloud at about 7 and 8 o'clock

[Dan Winterland]

Rather than why build that seventh runway, perhaps the question should be why build a completely new airport from scratch when many current airfields were being decommissioned and which could easily be adapted.

Perhaps the answer is that large civil engineering projects were thought to be the way out of the recession caused by the end of the war. America had the same idea with the construction of the Hoover dam.

[Swedish Steve]

Yes, I've seen a planned layout which I think had another Star of David runway pattern north of the initial runway pattern.

BBC NEWS | UK | England | London | The lost villages around Heathrow (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/7831231.stm)

Here is the 9 runway plan.

[296fmj]

I have been researching wind direction for south west England re Heathrow. This shows that wind is currently predominantly from the south west. Has the wind direction changed over the years or was it, in earlier days [1929 onwards], predominantly from the west to cause the two surviving runways to be sited east/west [09/27] rather than with the prevailing wind being from the south west?

[Asturias56]

I very much doubt that the wind direction has changed significantly - Google Met Office Historical records.

I think they were laid out that way due to space considerations - with the two main roads (at the time) to the west out of London where they are they'd have had to juggle things quite a bit to fit in NE-SW runways of any length

[DaveReidUK]

I think they were laid out that way due to space considerations - with the two main roads (at the time) to the west out of London where they are they'd have had to juggle things quite a bit to fit in NE-SW runways of any length

That's my understanding, too.

Pretty well from the start, the two E-W runways were longer than the other 4 (5) and were the only pair that it was relatively easy to extend further (in a westerly direction) in stages because of the open countryside in that direction.

[Asturias56]

Here are three early pictures from 44-46 - one shows the second E_W runway under construction. You can see that there is almost nothing in the way to the west whereas to the east there are roads, villages and factories.

he old sewage works (front in second picture) - now the location of T5 (I say nothing) - was a major driver as the Council wanted a very significant amount of cash to move it elsewhere - which wasn't forthcoming until the 1980's

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/730x473/screen_shot_2017_05_17_at_14_25_43_1b934117e23612022a9be3eb7 6d977a95f78a557.png
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/640x360/p01kw3tc_94abff451c98b64e57e68dab8bec75108c051988.jpg
https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1000x500/1023842_cfdeb7b9523dd92423cd063a3c84d07b31c5538f.jpg

[Asturias56]

Oddly enough they were planning to build N of the Batch Road (the proposed location for R3) as early as 1944. In all the discussions it seems that the old A4 road was sacrosanct - I can't find any discussion of rerouting it or putting it in a tunnel,

[DaveReidUK]

Oddly enough they were planning to build N of the Bath Road (the proposed location for R3) as early as 1944. In all the discussions it seems that the old A4 road was sacrosanct - I can't find any discussion of rerouting it or putting it in a tunnel,

I believe the 9-runway plan (referenced above) involved putting the A4 into a tunnel.

[Asturias56]

thanks Dave

[Kemble Pitts]

Of course, in amongst all of this, the Fairey Aviation Company was very shoddily treated. They had their factory aerodrome nicely sited close to their factory at Hayes and 'someone' (I've never heard exactly who) decided that Fairey were to be turfed out to make way for a, ahem, much needed RAF aerodrome. I've read that it took until the 1960s for the Company to get compensation.

[DaveReidUK]

Of course, in amongst all of this, the Fairey Aviation Company was very shoddily treated. They had their factory aerodrome nicely sited close to their factory at Hayes and 'someone' (I've never heard exactly who) decided that Fairey were to be turfed out to make way for a, ahem, much needed RAF aerodrome. I've read that it took until the 1960s for the Company to get compensation.

Yes, for that reason the Fairey hangar survived (on the edge of the old T2 apron) until the mid-1960s.

[Duchess_Driver]

I have a book at home “Heathrow through the ages” (can’t remember off hand the author) which suggests the area was once the stomping ground of Dick Turpin.

Nice to see his tradition lives on today in some of the shops in the terminals! ;)

[Asturias56]

LHR is apparently he biggest source of Business Rates in the UK - and LGW is 2nd

[DaveReidUK]

I have a book at home “Heathrow through the ages” (can’t remember off hand the author) which suggests the area was once the stomping ground of Dick Turpin.

So the legend goes - and kept alive in The Ballad of Dick Turpin:

"On Hounslow Heath as I rode o'er
I spied a lawyer riding before
Kind Sir says he Aren't you afraid
Of Turpin, that mischievous blade"

et seq