PDA

View Full Version : Heathrow expansion and the land adjacent to King George VI reservoir


Anansis
31st May 2012, 14:54
Hi. Forgive me if this question has an obvious answer but I've trawled the internet and can't seem to find a satisfactory answer.

Much has been written about the woes of Heathrow. First there was the aborted attempts to build a third runway to the north of the current site, then there was Boris Island. Following that there was 'Heathwick'. Now the buzz seems to be about some sort of connection to RAF Northolt. None of these seem to be viable acceptable solutions to the long term capacity issues that Heathrow faces.

A casual glance at a satellite image of Heathrow shows a relatively large expanse of open space to the south-west of the airport. Superimposing the footprint of one of Heathrows existing runways, it seems to me that a third runway would fit relatively comfortably into the space between the M25 and King George VI reservoir. A bit more civil engineering work (i.e. putting sections of the M25 into tunnel and reclaiming land from some of the reservoirs) would, as far as I can tell, provide enough space for at least two further runways of comparable length to the existing ones. These runways, if built, would have a north/south alignment, reducing the impact of extra air traffic on Greater London. Although such an undertaking would be a major construction project, it would still be much smaller undertaking than, for example, creating an artificial island in the Thames.

I'm sure the powers that be have considered and rejected this solution but to me it seems to be the obvious solution. Maybe I'm missing something?

Tableview
31st May 2012, 15:06
That debate has taken place over the years, and if I recall correctly the problem is St Mary's Church in Stanwell Moor and the village, which would be impacted, if not destroyed.

A better solution would be to build it due south of the King George VI reservoir. To save anyone looking it up, that would mean building it where Staines is now, as apart from the Arapaho Spur, Staines has nothing to commend it!

Anansis
31st May 2012, 15:22
Thanks Tableview- I'll look that up (although they seemed more than happy to bulldoze Hammondsworth, Sipson and Harlington for the original runway three proposals).

The land adjacent to Junctions 14/15 of the M25 could also hold a runway and failing that, the reservoirs themselves could be scrapped to make way for expansion. I'm sure these options have been considered but why were they rejected? If not expanding Heathrow is going to cost the UK economy as much as some posts elsewhere on PPrune suggest, will they perhaps be reconsidered?

Tableview
31st May 2012, 15:42
It's unfortunately more about pressure from powerful and influential lobby groups than about common sense and economics.

Ancient Observer
1st Jun 2012, 10:24
er, you can't have a North South runway anywhere within many, many miles of an East West runway. It would rather mess up the safety case.

Rwy in Sight
1st Jun 2012, 11:22
Ancient Observer,

I thought a North-South runway would be used to maintain capacity during days that prevaiiing winds restrict the traffic flow on existing runways.

DaveReidUK
1st Jun 2012, 11:41
I thought a North-South runway would be used to maintain capacity during days that prevaiiing winds restrict the traffic flow on existing runways.

In an ideal world, Heathrow would have six runways, cunningly arranged in pairs, at 60° to each other, so that aircraft could land and take off in any wind conditions.

I can't understand why nobody has ever though of that.

Andy_S
1st Jun 2012, 11:43
er, you can't have a North South runway anywhere within many, many miles of an East West runway. It would rather mess up the safety case.

Depends which way the aircraft are taking off and landing.....

Hotel Tango
1st Jun 2012, 11:49
In an ideal world, Heathrow would have six runways, cunningly arranged in pairs, at 60° to each other, so that aircraft could land and take off in any wind conditions.

I can't understand why nobody has ever though of that.

Heathrow did originally have 3 sets of parallels if I remember correctly. Lack of space and the need for terminal expansions over the years saw the closures of those runways deemed surpuflous.

DaveReidUK
1st Jun 2012, 11:54
Heathrow did originally have 3 sets of parallels if I remember correctly.

Now you come to mention it, I vaguely recollect that too. :O

PAXboy
1st Jun 2012, 12:41
It was a 6-pointed star arrangement and visible in these various places:
Cassini Maps - Online Historical Map Shop - High Quality Old Maps (http://www.cassinimaps.co.uk/news/heathrow/default.asp?id=40#NPO)

The caption on this ismage is:
The pattern was used so two runways would always be within 30 [degrees] of the wind direction. Source: Heathrow Airport in 1955Heathrow Airport History (http://airport-parking.hubpages.com/hub/Heathrow-Airport-History#slide4973924)

If the airport had been allowed to expand naturally, we might still have two sets of parrallels! This aerial shows the pattern is still visible, although they are now (mostly) taxiways.
London Heathrow Airport (LHR) - Review - A lot of history (http://www.dooyoo.co.uk/airports/london-heathrow-airport/272572/)

Dave Barnshaw
1st Jun 2012, 15:15
Hi Dave, Remember LHR's "Star of David" ?,if only we could turn the clock back and experience the real aircraft again.:rolleyes:

Crazy Voyager
1st Jun 2012, 18:11
In theory, wouldn't it be possible (in theory) to have to north/south runways to complement the current ones? That way you could have departures to the south and arrivals to east or west or arrivals from the south and departuers to the east/west.

All in a hypothetical scenario. I'm, just intrested if it would work at all, I'm not saying it's the best option (because I don't know:p)?

Skipness One Echo
1st Jun 2012, 23:38
In theory, wouldn't it be possible (in theory) to have to north/south runways to complement the current ones?
Seriously? We're having enough bother selling the idea of a new one that would be used intensely and benefit the economy?

There's already a few pain points of interaction over my house with 27 departures off London City climbing towards descending traffic on right base for Westerlies at Heathrow, the added complexities of a North South runway alignment would complicate Heathrow airspace to the nth degree, added to the fact it would cut straight across the Northolt extended centreline. There are only a handful of days when the prevailing wind isn't east / west.

FlyingEagle21
2nd Jun 2012, 00:25
Forget airspace issues, this would't even be considered. How many people live North/south of LHR and are largley unaffected from noise and would be.

Crazy Voyager
2nd Jun 2012, 09:14
Seriously? No. I don't think there's any way it's ever going to happen with the political cilmate being the way it is (not to mention it seems to be a rubbish idea anyway). I was just intrested in hearing if it's even possible to do.

Ancient Observer
2nd Jun 2012, 10:48
"er, you can't have a North South runway anywhere within many, many miles of an East West runway. It would rather mess up the safety case."

I would bet my modest savings that N/S and E/W will never happen at lhr.

Hotel Tango
2nd Jun 2012, 11:22
"er, you can't have a North South runway anywhere within many, many miles of an East West runway. It would rather mess up the safety case."

Try Frankfurt for starters! N-S runway used in southerly directionfor departures only. Doesn't interfere with ops on the remaining 3 runways.

DaveReidUK
2nd Jun 2012, 12:59
Try Frankfurt for starters! N-S runway used in southerly direction for departures only. Doesn't interfere with ops on the remaining 3 runways.

Strangely enough, the proposals for Heathrow haven't included building a third runway that could only be used for departures, not landings, and only in one direction.

Dont Hang Up
4th Jun 2012, 11:05
Why dont they just do a Schipol and build a taxiway to Northolt. Problem solved.:ok:

WHBM
5th Jun 2012, 10:35
"er, you can't have a North South runway anywhere within many, many miles of an East West runway. It would rather mess up the safety case."

I think this will come as a surprise to a considerable number of major airports around the world. Look, for example, at the busiest, Chicago O'Hare, which is a variation on the "Star of David", and often uses all six runways simultaneously for both arrivals and departures.

Gonzo
5th Jun 2012, 12:37
.....but even KORD are moving towards 4x parallels...

Ancient Observer
5th Jun 2012, 16:54
Heathrow is not O'Hare. Have a look at the airspace around them, and the proximity of other places that need a bit of class A and class C.

Anansis
7th Jun 2012, 21:06
Thanks for the replies. Some interesting comments on this thread (Dont Hang Up's suggestion of 'doing a Schipol to Notholt' made me laugh and I enjoyed reading some of the links posted by PAXboy :ok:). I suppose any question regarding the future of Heathrow will inevitably provoke passionate responses!

I did not pose the question of a North/South "Western" runway as a suggestion- I started this thread to enquire as to why this option had not (as far as I was aware) been considered, and what the potential issues might be. Someone commented earlier that it was a "rubbish" idea. I'm inclined to agree to a certain extent but I don't think it's any worse than 'Boris Island', Northolt or 'Heathwick'.

I don't know much about the effects of crosswinds but as far as I am aware, different airlines and aircraft have different operational limits as to wind speed and direction. How often would these limits constrict operations on a hypothetical "Western" runway? I don't know the answer to this question but I suspect it wouldn't be very often. Pilots are highly trained professionals who often have to use runways which are not aligned with the prevailing winds.

As Hotel Tango pointed out, Frankfurt has a similar layout to the one I have described and it works fine. Heathrow has an additional advantage over FRA- it's parallel runways are so far apart that it is theoretically possible to operate them independently (e.g. for simultaneous take-offs and landings on the same runway (http://www.uk-airport-news.info/heathrow-airport-news-161206a.htm)). This gives various options for operations. The parallels could be used for departures with a new Western for arrivals or vice versa. If aircraft depart and/or arrive on the Western runway from the south then I don't see how this would interfere with flight operations on the parallels or threaten safety. WHBM describes how this is done at Chicago O'Hare. I've never flown there but it seems to happen pretty frequently in North America. La Guardia (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/LGA_airport_map.svg) (which I have visited) uses one runway for departures, the other for arrivals. Both runways are at a 90* angle to one another and actually cross in the middle! Heathrow might not be O'Hare, but both airports handle a similar amount of passengers. LHR does it with two runways which are at 98% capacity. ORD has six. Surely something's got to give?

With regards to traffic in the airspace above London, the only potential problem that I can see with a Western runway (located adjacent to M25 J14/15 and/or around the King George VI reservoir) is that approaches or departures could interfere with the holding stacks at Ockham and Bovingdon. Could these stacks be relocated? In any case, if runway capacity is increased it should do away with the need to stack aircraft over London (an environmental argument that is sadly never made when discussing runway expansion :ugh:).

After doing a considerable amount of reading, I'll stick my neck out and suggest that that although building one or two Western runways might be technically feasible, politics will more than likely ensure it will never happen. Terminal 5 took 19 years and a four year, £80 Million public inquiry to come to fruition. I doubt we'll see a solution to the problem of airport capacity in the South East for a long time. :rolleyes:

DaveReidUK
7th Jun 2012, 22:39
Heathrow has an additional advantage over FRA - it's parallel runways are so far apart that it is theoretically possible to operate them independently

No, they aren't and it isn't. That's one of the reasons capacity is constrained.

Anansis
7th Jun 2012, 23:37
No, they aren't and it isn't. That's one of the reasons capacity is constrained.

I stand to be corrected but I believe the capacity restrictions are due to noise abatement regulations dating back to the 1950's, not the physical proximity of the two runways.

PAXboy
8th Jun 2012, 00:12
Anansis In any case, if runway capacity is increased it should do away with the need to stack aircraft over London (an environmental argument that is sadly never made when discussing runway expansion :ugh:).True and a point I have often made. BUT, I have immediately followed it up with this:

The reason that the holding and delays are so bad is that BAAplc have been allowed to over book the runways. YES, they operate at a very high throughput but there is no spare capacity and the results are stacking and - when it gots wrong - numerous diverts.

IF a third was built and BAA compelled to restrict stacking and leave slack in the system - I suggest that the overall throughput would not go up that much!

What would happen is that, as soon as the construction was well under way and an opening date set - BAA would start selling the capacity to the same degree as now. We would get the third AND still have all the stacking and delays. That really is a :ugh:

But, the total lack of planning by UK govts and the belief that 'the market' will do the right thing, will ensure that we never do get the right thing.

I sit to be contradictated.

DaveReidUK
8th Jun 2012, 07:11
I stand to be corrected but I believe the capacity restrictions are due to noise abatement regulations dating back to the 1950's, not the physical proximity of the two runways.

We may be talking about two different things here.

Heathrow has an ATM limit (480,000 per year), set by the Government, which is indeed for environmental (noise & emissions) reasons.

The physical capacity of the runways, on the other hand, is limited by the spacing between them (just over 1400m), which will not permit simultaneous independent IFR approaches, for example.

Mr Mac
8th Jun 2012, 17:18
Pax Boy
Oh you cynic. BAA selling ALL that extra capacity that a 3rd runway would generate, how could you think such a thing !!. Just think of all those punters who just love going around, and around, viewing the home counties while Cpt Nigel says we awaiting revised slot or some such, it just would not be LHR with out that.;) As for Heathrow version of Polderdam, perhaps we could have a runway over the top of the res, not beyond my industries capabilaties, however who pays and as we have said before how long the Public Enquirey:rolleyes:. The res could not be closed without alternatives given water resource issue in the SE, and the glaring lack of infrastructure development in that privatised industrie would lead me to think that no new res would be built quickly. Perhaps flood another Welsh / Pennine valley and pump water to SE at suitable mark up (speaking as a Yorkshireman) :ok:. Incidently lots of construction capacity now Olympic Circus tent completed, but no company with any money apart from Banks, who,s view of aviation or construction industrie, in the West anyway is tepid to say the least.:ugh:

Fairdealfrank
24th Jun 2012, 01:02
Quote: "It was a 6-pointed star arrangement and visible in these various places:"

This was the arrangement for the old RAF Heathrow because, AFAIK, at that time taking off and landing in crosswinds was more of an issue than today. Indeed most older multi-runway airports are similar.

Today, with greater traffic volumes, parallel rwys are needed, so that all can be used simultaneously, and newer airports are designed this way. Taking off and landing in crosswinds is no longer so problematic.

Four of the original 6 LHR rwys were progressively closed and built over as increasing volumes of traffic ensured that only two could be in use at any one time and more terminal space was required. Naturally it was 10L/28R and 10R/28L (now 09L/27R and 09R/27L) that were retained.

As for Staines Moor, the land between the M25 motorway and King George VI resevoir mentioned above, it is a site of special scientific interest (SSSI), just like Silver Island. Two more parallel rwys north of the A4 trunk road really is the only viable option.

The latest wheeze for avoiding a third rwy is permanent mixed mode, which, apparently, can squeeze in another 120,000 movements, or 25% extra, (as reported on Radio Jackie news the other day). Residents under the flightpath will lose their daily half-day of quiet, but are being softened up for it by the ongoing "trials". Ironically, more rwys really is in their (our) interests!

Had thought that only another 10% could be extracted from mixed mode, so it came as quite a shock. Of course it will do nothing to combat the congestion and delays, and if there's bad weather or an "incident", the backlog created will take even longer to shift.

Would this make LHR the first airport to be operating at 125% capacity?

pax britanica
24th Jun 2012, 10:28
I have made this point before but the only way of cutting through the political log jam is to announce the closure of LHR and its long term future as giant Tesco depot with 8000 artic lorries per day plus a new prison and sewage works for west London. Also relocating to the remote ends of the Thames estuary will mean that the influential but thoughtless people who live in Richmond Twickenham and Kew will no longer be anywhere near an airport so they cannot make day return business trips to the continent and have an 80 mile journey to the nearest airport.

So unemployment around LHR itself and collapse in property prices for miles around means people will be begging for another runway where Sipson now is and the folks there will move if they are given fair compensation. (unlikely i admit with government involvement)

Make it clear to people that while having a giant airport nearby hs its drawbacks it also has a huge amount of plus points
PB

PAXboy
24th Jun 2012, 15:41
pax b. THAT is exactly what needs to be said! Some years ago I attended a public hearing in a town near me, about expansion of LTN. I lived under one of the flight paths for 14 years - at about 10 miles distance.

I spoke with as much passion as I could about the benefits of living so close (inc day biz trips) and holidays and how it gave unemployment to help replace a few of the jobs lost as the Vauxhall factory was being closed down etc. Most of the tweedy set stared at me like I was a class enemy - because I had been living in one of the poshest villages in the area!

At another meeting (couple of years earlier) in the local village hall when the new flight paths were being explained, a woman asked why the a/c took off towards our village. The chap from LTN explained about the prevailing wind direction in the UK. She asked, "Well, why can't you make them take off in the other direction?" Thus ignoring physics and trying to place the noise on to another village. :D