HEATHROW
I can't see why though they can't just build two more runways to the north of the airport just south of the M4 motorway parallel to the existing runways.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: “I can't see why though they can't just build two more runways to the north of the airport just south of the M4 motorway parallel to the existing runways."
Quote: “Have you tried looking at a map ?"
It can be done, BUT the M25 has to be crossed and the A4 diverted for the 4th.
Quote: “Have you tried looking at a map ?"
It can be done, BUT the M25 has to be crossed and the A4 diverted for the 4th.
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 9th Jul 2013 at 17:42.
It can be done
Yes, of course you could pour two fresh strips of concrete between 09L/27R and the M4.
But would they be usable runways? No.
Think about it. Let's call the new runways 08L/26R and 08R/26L (using the next available number, as is the convention when you have 4 parallel runways), and assume that the two new runways and the existing 09L/27R are equally spaced (giving about 800 metres separation between each).
Explain how an operating mode would work that would allow the retention of runway alternation, provide for simultaneous independent parallel approaches to a pair of runways, and minimise the number of runways crossings to and from the terminals.
Then I'll believe you.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2 rwys north of the airport
OK, let’s have a go.
The existing rwys are about 2.5 mi. long and about 1.0 mi. apart. At present, Heathrow Airport Ltd. have 2 schemes for extra rwys.
South of the airport:
This rwy would take out Stanwell and Stanwellmoor and could be no further than 0.5 mi. south of 09R/27L because the King George and Staines reservoirs are in the way. It could also not cross the M25 because the Wraysbury reservoir is in the way. A rwy from Hithermoor Farm to the cargo area, for example, would be about 2 mi. long.
North of the airport:
This is the long-standing well-known “third rwy” scheme that would take out Sipson. This rwy would be about 1 mi. north of 09R/27L and would be about 1.4 mi. long.
Two rwys north of the airport:
There could be a 2.0 mi. rwy about 0.5 mi. north of 09R/27L, heading west on mostly open land from just south of Sipson to a point beyond the M25. This rwy would only take out relatively few houses (compared to south of the airport) and some other buildings around Hatch Lane, and possibly the relocation of Waterside. It would also require a diversion of the A4.
Let’s call it 10R/28L to be more accurate.
Another 0.5 mi. north of this of this could be the original “third rwy” scheme that takes out Sipson.
Let’s call it 10L/28R.
On westerly operations, this would allow landings on 27R and 28R and vice versa and take offs on 27L and 28L and vice versa.
On easterly operations, this would allow landings on 09L and 10L and vice versa and take offs on 09R and 28R and vice versa.
This could retain segregated mode and alternation.
It would allow two streams of aircraft either 1.0 mi. apart (this already happens in the 0430-0600 period on westerly operations when there are no takeoffs, and would happen all the time in the unlikely event of permanent mixed mode), or 1.5 mi. apart.
Why would this prevent simultaneous independent parallel approaches? Does this not happen at other airports?
As for aircraft taxiing accross rwys, this would be occur in both of Heathrow Airport Ltd.’s proposed rwy schemes. The extent would depend on whether new terminals and other infrastructure were built (likely), and their various locations.
With so much extra capacity provided by a 4-rwy airport, this should not be a problem.
The existing rwys are about 2.5 mi. long and about 1.0 mi. apart. At present, Heathrow Airport Ltd. have 2 schemes for extra rwys.
South of the airport:
This rwy would take out Stanwell and Stanwellmoor and could be no further than 0.5 mi. south of 09R/27L because the King George and Staines reservoirs are in the way. It could also not cross the M25 because the Wraysbury reservoir is in the way. A rwy from Hithermoor Farm to the cargo area, for example, would be about 2 mi. long.
North of the airport:
This is the long-standing well-known “third rwy” scheme that would take out Sipson. This rwy would be about 1 mi. north of 09R/27L and would be about 1.4 mi. long.
Two rwys north of the airport:
There could be a 2.0 mi. rwy about 0.5 mi. north of 09R/27L, heading west on mostly open land from just south of Sipson to a point beyond the M25. This rwy would only take out relatively few houses (compared to south of the airport) and some other buildings around Hatch Lane, and possibly the relocation of Waterside. It would also require a diversion of the A4.
Let’s call it 10R/28L to be more accurate.
Another 0.5 mi. north of this of this could be the original “third rwy” scheme that takes out Sipson.
Let’s call it 10L/28R.
On westerly operations, this would allow landings on 27R and 28R and vice versa and take offs on 27L and 28L and vice versa.
On easterly operations, this would allow landings on 09L and 10L and vice versa and take offs on 09R and 28R and vice versa.
This could retain segregated mode and alternation.
It would allow two streams of aircraft either 1.0 mi. apart (this already happens in the 0430-0600 period on westerly operations when there are no takeoffs, and would happen all the time in the unlikely event of permanent mixed mode), or 1.5 mi. apart.
Why would this prevent simultaneous independent parallel approaches? Does this not happen at other airports?
As for aircraft taxiing accross rwys, this would be occur in both of Heathrow Airport Ltd.’s proposed rwy schemes. The extent would depend on whether new terminals and other infrastructure were built (likely), and their various locations.
With so much extra capacity provided by a 4-rwy airport, this should not be a problem.
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 11th Jul 2013 at 22:14.
At present, Heathrow Airport Ltd. have 2 schemes for extra rwys.
The southern (Stanwell Moor) runway proposal, complete with its pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey map, comes to us courtesy of the Evening Standard, though it's true that the ES is generally regarded as an unofficial mouthpiece for Heathrow because of its editor's links with BAA's PR machine.
Anyway we will find out one way or another in a week's time when Heathrow make their submission to the Davies Commission
But back to the northern runway(s). Nobody, present company excepted, has ever proposed two northern runways.
There could be a 2.0 mi. rwy about 0.5 mi. north of 09R/27L, heading west on mostly open land from just south of Sipson to a point beyond the M25. This rwy would only take out relatively few houses (compared to south of the airport) and some other buildings around Hatch Lane, and possibly the relocation of Waterside. It would also require a diversion of the A4.
Let’s call it 10R/28L to be more accurate.
Another 0.5 mi. north of this of this could be the original “third rwy” scheme that takes out Sipson.
Let’s call it 10L/28R.
Let’s call it 10R/28L to be more accurate.
Another 0.5 mi. north of this of this could be the original “third rwy” scheme that takes out Sipson.
Let’s call it 10L/28R.
On westerly operations, this would allow landings on 27R and 28R and vice versa and take offs on 27L and 28L and vice versa.
On easterly operations, this would allow landings on 09L and 10L and vice versa and take offs on 09R and 28R and vice versa.
This could retain segregated mode and alternation.
On easterly operations, this would allow landings on 09L and 10L and vice versa and take offs on 09R and 28R and vice versa.
This could retain segregated mode and alternation.
As for aircraft taxiing across rwys, this would be occur in both of Heathrow Airport Ltd’s proposed rwy schemes.
Two northern runways would, presumably, also serve a proportion of T1/T2/T3/T5 traffic (otherwise why bother with two?) and would greatly increase the number of crossings of 09L/27R compared to the single-runway proposal.
Or are you now proposing T7 as well as T6? Where will that go?
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Live at LGW & Work in LHR .... Doh!
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heathrow reopens after Boeing Dreamliner 787 fire
All reopened now....... Update here....
Heathrow reopens after Boeing Dreamliner 787 fire: BBC News | The Airport Informer
Heathrow reopens after Boeing Dreamliner 787 fire: BBC News | The Airport Informer
Last edited by ArtfulDodger; 12th Jul 2013 at 17:07.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Live at LGW & Work in LHR .... Doh!
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boeing’s suffering already....
As investigators probe 787 fire at Heathrow, Boeing’s shares fell sharply on Friday after a 787 Dreamliner made by the US passenger jet manufacturer caught fire at London’s Heathrow airport.
Investigators probe 787 fire at Heathrow - FT.com
Investigators probe 787 fire at Heathrow - FT.com
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am guessing the fire damaged Ethiopian B787 is in the former BMI hangar under the care of BA now? It unusually closed on the hottest day of the year so far.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: “Look at any 4-parallel-runway airport. You will find that, for a number of good operational reasons, almost all use the two outers for landings and the inners for takeoffs, and the same arguments would apply at LHR, such as minimising the need for aircraft to cross the landing runway."
Looking at the largest and busiest airports, there aren’t that many with four parallel rwys: CDG, LAX come to mind and ATL (with 5 parallel rwys). Many others have pairs of intersecting parallel rwys which in some cases cannot be used simultaneously.
If one looks at LHR’s competitor airports, only one has four parallel rwys (CDG). The others, like LHR have been enlarged incrementally. AMS’s six rwys cannot all be used simultaneously, and of FRA’s four rwys, one is for takeoffs only and one is for landings only. Both airports’ configurations require aircraft to taxi accross “live” rwys and LHR is no different. Rwy crossing is a fact of life and LHR-4 would not have been built where it is if this was not the case.
Your ideal of the two outers for landings and the inners for takeoffs could be applied if starting from scratch with a blank sheet of paper as in the case of CDG (in 1974), and Fantasy Silver Island (never).
Quote: “That, of course, means no alternation.”
Even with 4 parallel rwys, no alternation is a non-starter at LHR!
Quote: “Two northern runways would, presumably, also serve a proportion of T1/T2/T3/T5 traffic (otherwise why bother with two?) and would greatly increase the number of crossings of 09L/27R compared to the single-runway proposal.”
Indeed that is the case, one has to work with what is available, and what is available is mostly open land north and north west of the airport, and that will mean rwy crossing and, in some cases, an element of long AMS-style taxiing between terminal and rwy.
A southern rwy at LHR would certainly minimise rwy crossing by taking LHR-4 and some LHR-5 movements, but the requirement to demolish Stanwellmoor and most of Stanwell north of the “Happy Landing” pub makes it untenable, and land north of the airport would still be required (to relocate the cargo area for example).
Quote: “Or are you now proposing T7 as well as T6? Where will that go?”
LHR-1 will be demolished soon and LHR-3 may also be demolished later on. Maybe one or both of those could end up north of the present airport, so that makes five terminals. Heathrow Airport Ltd. envisage a sixth terminal, so don’t where your “T7” comes from!
You appear to be suggesting that 2 parallel rwys north of the airport should not be built simply because taxiing aircraft would have to cross live rwys. Is this correct?
Looking at the largest and busiest airports, there aren’t that many with four parallel rwys: CDG, LAX come to mind and ATL (with 5 parallel rwys). Many others have pairs of intersecting parallel rwys which in some cases cannot be used simultaneously.
If one looks at LHR’s competitor airports, only one has four parallel rwys (CDG). The others, like LHR have been enlarged incrementally. AMS’s six rwys cannot all be used simultaneously, and of FRA’s four rwys, one is for takeoffs only and one is for landings only. Both airports’ configurations require aircraft to taxi accross “live” rwys and LHR is no different. Rwy crossing is a fact of life and LHR-4 would not have been built where it is if this was not the case.
Your ideal of the two outers for landings and the inners for takeoffs could be applied if starting from scratch with a blank sheet of paper as in the case of CDG (in 1974), and Fantasy Silver Island (never).
Quote: “That, of course, means no alternation.”
Even with 4 parallel rwys, no alternation is a non-starter at LHR!
Quote: “Two northern runways would, presumably, also serve a proportion of T1/T2/T3/T5 traffic (otherwise why bother with two?) and would greatly increase the number of crossings of 09L/27R compared to the single-runway proposal.”
Indeed that is the case, one has to work with what is available, and what is available is mostly open land north and north west of the airport, and that will mean rwy crossing and, in some cases, an element of long AMS-style taxiing between terminal and rwy.
A southern rwy at LHR would certainly minimise rwy crossing by taking LHR-4 and some LHR-5 movements, but the requirement to demolish Stanwellmoor and most of Stanwell north of the “Happy Landing” pub makes it untenable, and land north of the airport would still be required (to relocate the cargo area for example).
Quote: “Or are you now proposing T7 as well as T6? Where will that go?”
LHR-1 will be demolished soon and LHR-3 may also be demolished later on. Maybe one or both of those could end up north of the present airport, so that makes five terminals. Heathrow Airport Ltd. envisage a sixth terminal, so don’t where your “T7” comes from!
You appear to be suggesting that 2 parallel rwys north of the airport should not be built simply because taxiing aircraft would have to cross live rwys. Is this correct?
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 14th Jul 2013 at 23:17.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: west side
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Iberia to stop LHR-MAD flights?
Any truth in gossip that IAG may ask Iberia to stop LHR-MAD flights later this year?
Makes sense if over capacity and a bonus for BA if secures new slots for new longhaul routes.
Makes sense if over capacity and a bonus for BA if secures new slots for new longhaul routes.
In the meantime, still no indication of how the proposed runway is to be shoehorned in between the existing 09R/27L and the reservoirs.
Instead, we appear to have Heathrow's own version of Schiphol's Polderbaan, to be built over the filled-in northern half of the KG VI reservoir, J13 of the M25 and the Staines-Windsor railway line.
You appear to be suggesting that 2 parallel rwys north of the airport should not be built simply because taxiing aircraft would have to cross live rwys. Is this correct?
But it's all rather irrelevant now that we have seen Heathrow's proposals which, strangely, don't include your 2 northern runway option.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
south west rwy
Quote: "Instead, we appear to have Heathrow's own version of Schiphol's Polderbaan, to be built over the filled-in northern half of the KG VI reservoir, J13 of the M25 and the Staines-Windsor railway line."
My thoughts exactly having seen the graphic on the television.
Shades of Tim Leunig.....
Think this idea is fraught with difficulty, it makes little difference whether part or all of a reservoir is demolished. It adds time (that we don't have!) to the construction and who knows how much expenditure.
My thoughts exactly having seen the graphic on the television.
Shades of Tim Leunig.....
Think this idea is fraught with difficulty, it makes little difference whether part or all of a reservoir is demolished. It adds time (that we don't have!) to the construction and who knows how much expenditure.
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 17th Jul 2013 at 22:57.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: "No, I'm suggesting that the number of runway crossings resulting from two new runways north of the existing ones and which are also used by T1/T2/T3/T5 traffic would be significantly higher than at present. That's the issue."
Have never said it was ideal, but as mentioned previously, one has to work with what one has. Also, as mentioned previously, rwy crossings are also a feature of 2 of LHR's competitor airports.
Quote: "But it's all rather irrelevant now that we have seen Heathrow's proposals which, strangely, don't include your 2 northern runway option."
Nothing strange about it at all, Heathrow Airport Limited have made a case for a third rwy, not a case for a third and a fourth rwy.
A mistake in my opinion, they need to make the case now if they think a fourth rwy is needed in 2040. Get it built, be ahead of the game for once.
Interestingly, Heathrow Airport Limited's "north west option" is only a little further north than my suggested 10R/28L, and their "north option" is virtually the same as my suggested 10L/28R.
Now if Heathrow Airport Limited were making a case for both a third and a fourth rwy.......
Have never said it was ideal, but as mentioned previously, one has to work with what one has. Also, as mentioned previously, rwy crossings are also a feature of 2 of LHR's competitor airports.
Quote: "But it's all rather irrelevant now that we have seen Heathrow's proposals which, strangely, don't include your 2 northern runway option."
Nothing strange about it at all, Heathrow Airport Limited have made a case for a third rwy, not a case for a third and a fourth rwy.
A mistake in my opinion, they need to make the case now if they think a fourth rwy is needed in 2040. Get it built, be ahead of the game for once.
Interestingly, Heathrow Airport Limited's "north west option" is only a little further north than my suggested 10R/28L, and their "north option" is virtually the same as my suggested 10L/28R.
Now if Heathrow Airport Limited were making a case for both a third and a fourth rwy.......
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
will never happen
The legal process will take longer than the election/fiscal cycle and there are more votes in No LHR expansion than for it so it's a constant temptation to politicians to do a Boris -and we all know how politcians are proof against temptation........
I strongly suspect we will not build any new civil runways in this country and we will have to figure out how to make the best of what we have now
Bigger planes carrying more people is the obvious answer
The legal process will take longer than the election/fiscal cycle and there are more votes in No LHR expansion than for it so it's a constant temptation to politicians to do a Boris -and we all know how politcians are proof against temptation........
I strongly suspect we will not build any new civil runways in this country and we will have to figure out how to make the best of what we have now
Bigger planes carrying more people is the obvious answer
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: leeds
Age: 77
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jury is out for a while yet-- too long in my view. But it won't be just one thing in that scenario. Could be a combination of
bigger planes on the hub to hub routes
increased market share for point to point from LGW,MAN,BHX using 787s etc as market size expands. No-one goes through a hub just for fun, maybe traffic will spread out a bit naturally if there's more choice.
More hub competition-- maybe more DXBs are coming anyway.
get the break even point between air and high speed train out to 500 miles for business and S France, Barcelona etc for leisure
more capacity (if not more runways) around the fringe of London and SE to cater for point to point growth
Not saying that's a good solution but might be the sort of thing which happened if it's a pig in a poke.
Is there a good book on the New York airline/airport system? Strikes me we are in a not dissimilar position to New York. Great city, legacy airports, very difficult situation
bigger planes on the hub to hub routes
increased market share for point to point from LGW,MAN,BHX using 787s etc as market size expands. No-one goes through a hub just for fun, maybe traffic will spread out a bit naturally if there's more choice.
More hub competition-- maybe more DXBs are coming anyway.
get the break even point between air and high speed train out to 500 miles for business and S France, Barcelona etc for leisure
more capacity (if not more runways) around the fringe of London and SE to cater for point to point growth
Not saying that's a good solution but might be the sort of thing which happened if it's a pig in a poke.
Is there a good book on the New York airline/airport system? Strikes me we are in a not dissimilar position to New York. Great city, legacy airports, very difficult situation