HEATHROW
It looks to me like that proposal to the SW would need a runway with a WNW/ESE alignment to fit it in (avoiding the cargo area), which would mean the westerly departure track would go straight across those for 27L and R.
This would not take out the cargo areas and LHR-4
Even if a runway was pushed as far south as possible, i.e. right up to the northern edge of the reservoirs, it would still point directly at T4 assuming it was oriented 09/27, as it would need to be.
This is a ludicrous plan, as will become apparent if and when we finally see a version that actually shows the runway itself, rather than the Evening Standard's "close-your-eyes-and-stick-a-pin-in-the-map" graphic.
See also today's Independent:
"Much of the land needed for the runway is occupied by airport-related buildings, including a cargo village and car parks"
Heathrow?s latest plan for third runway would be ?plane crazy? for one village - Home News - UK - The Independent
On the other hand, Simon Calder also tells us
"In addition, the eastern end would be located about a mile further from London than the existing two runways. Arriving and departing aircraft would therefore be significantly higher when flying over the capital."
so it's quite possible that all of the above is b*ll*cks
"Much of the land needed for the runway is occupied by airport-related buildings, including a cargo village and car parks"
Heathrow?s latest plan for third runway would be ?plane crazy? for one village - Home News - UK - The Independent
On the other hand, Simon Calder also tells us
"In addition, the eastern end would be located about a mile further from London than the existing two runways. Arriving and departing aircraft would therefore be significantly higher when flying over the capital."
so it's quite possible that all of the above is b*ll*cks
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely there must come a point where it is economically viable for Heathrow to offer to purchase all the houses in the surrounding area (at 20% premium on the market rate, say) meaning that there will be no further objections from residents, because all the ones who don't like it will have sold up, and those who have chosen to stay obviously aren't bothered enough by the increase in noise another couple of runways would bring?!
The other issue is noise, and I suggest people fall roughly into 3 camps - people who work at or are heavy users of the airport, who accept the noise, people who are seriously bothered by it, and then a middle group, who aren't that fussed.
So the only you might be able to buy out some of the latter 2 groups, but to what end? You'd be left with a patchwork of houses with no real continuity. So all you could do is insulate them heavily and sell them on, but it is much cheaper just to offer an insulation grant scheme, which I'm sure will come with a third runway as one of the many planning conditions.
As for Surrey, it is quite common for major schemes to cross two admin boundaries, and not unheard of for them to take very different views (we had this at CVT for a 2m pax pa terminal!), but either way, this would have to be determined by an even longer public inquiry than the one that approved T5, unless it was done by hybrid bill / Act of Parliament - not sure about the technicalities of that, it has historically been used more for railways.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LHR is still on easterly operations! Appears to have been so for most of the year.
Quote: "Surely there would be issues with planning as Stanwell is in Surrey, not Hillingdon like the rest of the airport."
Doesn't this get treated as "infrastructure of national significance" and get fast-tracked planning? If not we've got another 50 years of enquiries and litigation.
Quote: "It looks to me like that proposal to the SW would need a runway with a WNW/ESE alignment to fit it in (avoiding the cargo area), which would mean the westerly departure track would go straight across those for 27L and R."
If it isn't parallel, there's no point!
Quote: "You must be looking at a different map from mine.
Even if a runway was pushed as far south as possible, i.e. right up to the northern edge of the reservoirs, it would still point directly at T4 assuming it was oriented 09/27, as it would need to be."
OK, concede that Southampton Road and parts of Shoreham Road would have to go, but not LHR-4. It is to the east of this proposed rwy. Final approaches for it on westerly operations would be over what is now the oil terminal, and south of LHR-4.
If the rwy went through LHR-4, it would not be far enough away from 09R/27L for simultaneous operations, and would therefore be about as much use as an ashtray on a motorcycle.
If it did not take out Stanwell, but just Stanwellmoor and went right up to the M25, it would be a very short rwy, just about 1 mi.
Either way going south of LHR is not particularly practical. As mentioned in post #2,610, using land north and northwest of LHR would result in less house demolition and provide land for 2 more rwys, taxiways, additional airport infrastructure and another fire station.
Quote: "This is a ludicrous plan, as will become apparent if and when we finally see a version that actually shows the runway itself, rather than the Evening Standard's "close-your-eyes-and-stick-a-pin-in-the-map" graphic."
Agreed, it is ludicrous, and where does the 4th rwy go with expansion to the south?
Quote: "Surely there would be issues with planning as Stanwell is in Surrey, not Hillingdon like the rest of the airport."
Doesn't this get treated as "infrastructure of national significance" and get fast-tracked planning? If not we've got another 50 years of enquiries and litigation.
Quote: "It looks to me like that proposal to the SW would need a runway with a WNW/ESE alignment to fit it in (avoiding the cargo area), which would mean the westerly departure track would go straight across those for 27L and R."
If it isn't parallel, there's no point!
Quote: "You must be looking at a different map from mine.
Even if a runway was pushed as far south as possible, i.e. right up to the northern edge of the reservoirs, it would still point directly at T4 assuming it was oriented 09/27, as it would need to be."
OK, concede that Southampton Road and parts of Shoreham Road would have to go, but not LHR-4. It is to the east of this proposed rwy. Final approaches for it on westerly operations would be over what is now the oil terminal, and south of LHR-4.
If the rwy went through LHR-4, it would not be far enough away from 09R/27L for simultaneous operations, and would therefore be about as much use as an ashtray on a motorcycle.
If it did not take out Stanwell, but just Stanwellmoor and went right up to the M25, it would be a very short rwy, just about 1 mi.
Either way going south of LHR is not particularly practical. As mentioned in post #2,610, using land north and northwest of LHR would result in less house demolition and provide land for 2 more rwys, taxiways, additional airport infrastructure and another fire station.
Quote: "This is a ludicrous plan, as will become apparent if and when we finally see a version that actually shows the runway itself, rather than the Evening Standard's "close-your-eyes-and-stick-a-pin-in-the-map" graphic."
Agreed, it is ludicrous, and where does the 4th rwy go with expansion to the south?
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 9th Jun 2013 at 00:07.
OK, concede that Southampton Road and parts of Shoreham Road would have to go, but not LHR-4. It is to the east of this proposed rwy. Final approaches for it on westerly operations would be over what is now the oil terminal, and south of LHR-4.
"The Standard has been told the favoured new option is to build on land stretching from the existing airport towards Stanwell Moor village and north of local reservoirs"
But a runway that started west of the Bedfont oil terminal would point directly at the Staines Reservoir, and could only be about 1200m long, which is clearly ridiculous.
If the rwy went through LHR-4, it would not be far enough away from 09R/27L for simultaneous operations, and would therefore be about as much use as an ashtray on a motorcycle.
If it did not take out Stanwell, but just Stanwellmoor and went right up to the M25, it would be a very short rwy, just about 1 mi.
Either way going south of LHR is not particularly practical.
I think the fact that, unlike all the previous proposals, we haven't seen a published plan that actually shows the runway position/alignment tells us all we need to know about how well it has been thought through.
One might even conclude that the whole scheme is a red herring, not intended to be taken seriously, the object being simply to mobilise the maximum opposition to it and thereby "prove" that the northern option wasn't so bad after all.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Quote: "No. Read the ES article again.
"The Standard has been told the favoured new option is to build on land stretching from the existing airport towards Stanwell Moor village and north of local reservoirs"
But a runway that started west of the Bedfont oil terminal would point directly at the Staines Reservoir, and could only be about 1200m long, which is clearly ridiculous."
No, it's just north of the Staines Reservoir, that's why Hithermoor Farm was suggested as the western end. It also allows some room between the rwy end and the M25 and the bank of Wraysbury reservoir. A length of 1 mi. east takes it past Stanwellmoor village and as far as Stanwell village. Another mile east takes it to the Longford river (would need diverting) and the southern end of the cargo area. So it's longer than your suggested 1,200m./0.75 mi.. If being seriously considered, the rwy would probably have to be shorter than the 2 mi. originally mentioned, so let's split the difference at 1.50-1.75 mi.!
However it's not practical and is not going to happen: Stanwell will not be demolished. Was listing this particular third rwy as a hypotheitical example of how it could be crammed in after studying a proper map. The ES map is particularly useless for this purpose.
Quote: "I think the fact that, unlike all the previous proposals, we haven't seen a published plan that actually shows the runway position/alignment tells us all we need to know about how well it has been thought through.
One might even conclude that the whole scheme is a red herring, not intended to be taken seriously, the object being simply to mobilise the maximum opposition to it and thereby "prove" that the northern option wasn't so bad after all."
Think that you are spot on with this analysis!
"The Standard has been told the favoured new option is to build on land stretching from the existing airport towards Stanwell Moor village and north of local reservoirs"
But a runway that started west of the Bedfont oil terminal would point directly at the Staines Reservoir, and could only be about 1200m long, which is clearly ridiculous."
No, it's just north of the Staines Reservoir, that's why Hithermoor Farm was suggested as the western end. It also allows some room between the rwy end and the M25 and the bank of Wraysbury reservoir. A length of 1 mi. east takes it past Stanwellmoor village and as far as Stanwell village. Another mile east takes it to the Longford river (would need diverting) and the southern end of the cargo area. So it's longer than your suggested 1,200m./0.75 mi.. If being seriously considered, the rwy would probably have to be shorter than the 2 mi. originally mentioned, so let's split the difference at 1.50-1.75 mi.!
However it's not practical and is not going to happen: Stanwell will not be demolished. Was listing this particular third rwy as a hypotheitical example of how it could be crammed in after studying a proper map. The ES map is particularly useless for this purpose.
Quote: "I think the fact that, unlike all the previous proposals, we haven't seen a published plan that actually shows the runway position/alignment tells us all we need to know about how well it has been thought through.
One might even conclude that the whole scheme is a red herring, not intended to be taken seriously, the object being simply to mobilise the maximum opposition to it and thereby "prove" that the northern option wasn't so bad after all."
Think that you are spot on with this analysis!
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 10th Jun 2013 at 16:59.
From Travel Mole:
Heathrow launches fight-back campaign after poll shows local support for expansion
BAA (sorry, Heathrow Airport Ltd) will want to make much of this, but opposition to expansion will come from further afield, where livelihoods are less likely to be dependent on the airport.
Still, it's a nice bit of spin for them to play with.
Heathrow launches fight-back campaign after poll shows local support for expansion
BAA (sorry, Heathrow Airport Ltd) will want to make much of this, but opposition to expansion will come from further afield, where livelihoods are less likely to be dependent on the airport.
Still, it's a nice bit of spin for them to play with.
Two-minute feature on the 6pm BBC News this evening (may or may not be repeated at 10pm) on the current LHR runway resurfacing programme. Also viewable on the BBC website: BBC News - Heathrow runway gets £20m makeover
Slightly misleading comment implying that the first LHR landings of the day are at 6am, whereas they actually start at 0430 on the other runway, but interesting nevertheless.
Slightly misleading comment implying that the first LHR landings of the day are at 6am, whereas they actually start at 0430 on the other runway, but interesting nevertheless.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 531
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slightly misleading comment implying that the first LHR landings of the day are at 6am, whereas they actually start at 0430 on the other runway, but interesting nevertheless.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Live at LGW & Work in LHR .... Doh!
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A Royal Name For The New Heathrow Terminal 2: Airport Informer
Heathrow Airport's CEO Colin Matthew announces new royal name for Terminal two.....
Full story here..... A Royal Name For The New Heathrow Terminal 2: Airport Informer | The Airport Informer
Full story here..... A Royal Name For The New Heathrow Terminal 2: Airport Informer | The Airport Informer
Stop Press: Missing apostrophe finally turns up at Heathrow !
Today, on the day before the Queen celebrates her official birthday, we are announcing that our new Terminal 2 will be known as 'Terminal 2: The Queen's Terminal', in honour of Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II.
Paxing All Over The World
Another bunch of PR people justifying their existance. Wasting money on signage and a name that will not be used in everyday visits by PAX. 
Actually, it might make things worse if pax think there is a terminal called The Queen's Terminal and a T2. They may be looking for a building very few know as the QT.
Actually, it might make things worse if pax think there is a terminal called The Queen's Terminal and a T2. They may be looking for a building very few know as the QT.
If you think that's bad, wait till it dawns on some bright overpaid spark that you can't have the other Terminals numbered non-consecutively.
So, T3 will now become T2, T4 will become T3 and T5 will become T4.
This will have the added advantage that no promises will have been broken when the new T5 is built.
So, T3 will now become T2, T4 will become T3 and T5 will become T4.
This will have the added advantage that no promises will have been broken when the new T5 is built.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you think that's bad, wait till it dawns on some bright overpaid spark that you can't have the other Terminals numbered non-consecutively.
Now without consulting the wiki referee, I guess there are:
* Various M2's or local equivalents without an M1. There is also no M7.
* Several cities with subway lines 2,3 and so-on but no 1.
And so on. Now if anyone wants to start naming them we could keep the thread busy for a day or two, or we could get back to the key issues.
If the latter, I think the new survey won't be taken that seriously because it was commissioned by the airport. The first rule of PR club is surely - do not conduct your own surveys, as they will always get you the answer you want, but nobody else will take them seriously.
Which is a shame, because, as with any development proposal, we rarely hear from the side of those who live near the airport, and do want it to survive and thrive.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: "Another bunch of PR people justifying their existance. Wasting money on signage and a name that will not be used in everyday visits by PAX. 
Indeed, just like the morons who renamed Staines to "Staines-upon-Thames", apparently because it sounds "posher". Waste of time and money really, the name will just be shortened as is the case with Richmond, Kingston, Sunbury, Henley, etc.
Quote: "If you think that's bad, wait till it dawns on some bright overpaid spark that you can't have the other Terminals numbered non-consecutively.
So, T3 will now become T2, T4 will become T3 and T5 will become T4.
This will have the added advantage that no promises will have been broken when the new T5 is built."
Yes, it will be the new LHR-1, as it would have been anyway, or arguably the new LHR-1/2. (since "2" becomes "Queens").
Indeed, just like the morons who renamed Staines to "Staines-upon-Thames", apparently because it sounds "posher". Waste of time and money really, the name will just be shortened as is the case with Richmond, Kingston, Sunbury, Henley, etc.
Quote: "If you think that's bad, wait till it dawns on some bright overpaid spark that you can't have the other Terminals numbered non-consecutively.
So, T3 will now become T2, T4 will become T3 and T5 will become T4.
This will have the added advantage that no promises will have been broken when the new T5 is built."
Yes, it will be the new LHR-1, as it would have been anyway, or arguably the new LHR-1/2. (since "2" becomes "Queens").
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 14th Jun 2013 at 19:27.
Now without consulting the wiki referee, I guess there are:
* Various M2's or local equivalents without an M1. There is also no M7.
* Several cities with subway lines 2,3 and so-on but no 1.
* Various M2's or local equivalents without an M1. There is also no M7.
* Several cities with subway lines 2,3 and so-on but no 1.
I wasn't being serious, of course, but we shouldn't underestimate the ability of the PR industry to come up with ludicrous ideas.
I think the new survey won't be taken that seriously because it was commissioned by the airport.
Taxiway works to facilitate easterly alternation
Heathrow has now submitted its planning application for the second phase of taxiway changes to allow full, post-Cranford, alternation on easterlies.
Last year's application covered the RETs on 09R, which are currently being built in conjunction with the 09R/27L runway resurfacing programme.
The latest application is to facilitate sustained departures on 09L, with an additional access taxiway (A13E) to be built between A12 and A13, plus a new link between Alpha and Bravo taxiways immediately to the south of the new RAT. Minor additions will also be made to the fillets on A12 and A13 "to enable A380 aircraft to access and exit the runway to meet the safety requirements of the CAA" (how do they manage at present?).
The plan also includes a 5 meter high Longford noise barrier along the line of the Duke of Northumberland River.
http://planning.hillingdon.gov.uk/Oc...+Site+Plan.pdf
Last year's application covered the RETs on 09R, which are currently being built in conjunction with the 09R/27L runway resurfacing programme.
The latest application is to facilitate sustained departures on 09L, with an additional access taxiway (A13E) to be built between A12 and A13, plus a new link between Alpha and Bravo taxiways immediately to the south of the new RAT. Minor additions will also be made to the fillets on A12 and A13 "to enable A380 aircraft to access and exit the runway to meet the safety requirements of the CAA" (how do they manage at present?).
The plan also includes a 5 meter high Longford noise barrier along the line of the Duke of Northumberland River.
http://planning.hillingdon.gov.uk/Oc...+Site+Plan.pdf
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Staines to "Staines-upon-Thames"
Rebrands are pointless if they are only adding in something to the name. If they wanted to rename the place entirely, then fine.
Back to LHR and the "Queen(')s" terminal - it raises the question again about the naming of the whole airport. Now the Queen's Terminal in Diana (no, not Dana) International would have the tabloids in a spin for decades!
