HEATHROW
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK (reluctantly)
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Telegraph reports
Must be nice to get other people to pay for what one should.
"Some of the work would be necessary even without the third runway, TfL admitted, while stressing that the development would accelerate the need for the upgrades.
"It is entirely in the realms of possibility that some of the schemes would be deemed necessary at some unspecified time in the future," said a spokesman for TfL."
"It is entirely in the realms of possibility that some of the schemes would be deemed necessary at some unspecified time in the future," said a spokesman for TfL."
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An oped in todays Times Business section reckons that TfL may be stretching things a bit at £18.4 Bn but reckons LHR is even worse - upgrading the rail links will only cost £ 800,000 - really?? They ask the question
"is it really conceivable that we can move another 70 million people around W London for £ 2.2 Bn? That looks as fanciful as Boris's fanatsy island.""
"is it really conceivable that we can move another 70 million people around W London for £ 2.2 Bn? That looks as fanciful as Boris's fanatsy island.""
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK (reluctantly)
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not sure I trust any figures quoted by the media. They depend on the base assumptions used and the media never provide that context preferring to go to 'sensational' headlines.
Such variance in figures (£2.2bn to £18.4bn with the independent view of £5.7bn) makes me question what growth assumptions they each use. A Times article suggested 20% growth used by TfL was an "optimism" bias. So what would the figure be for a "pessimism" bias or even the "base" case?
Such variance in figures (£2.2bn to £18.4bn with the independent view of £5.7bn) makes me question what growth assumptions they each use. A Times article suggested 20% growth used by TfL was an "optimism" bias. So what would the figure be for a "pessimism" bias or even the "base" case?
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm seeing a "softening-up" for an LGW decision.
The fact is that Heathrow and Gatwick are both in desperate need of a new runway as they are both running at capacity (Heathrow more so they Gatwick), Heathrow is packed and Gatwick is like a cattle market especially in the school holidays. But no one else is to blame apart from the Government who should have planned ahead, Heathrow has been running at capacity for years now and it's getting ridiculous. It's all down to politics. Every other country with a major airport in Europe seem to get it right but the UK. It's an embarrassment and a disgrace. Even Manchester received a second runway well before any London airport. If Heathrow gets a new runway, there are 30 airlines waiting to operate out of Heathrow and any existing airline would like to increase frequency and introduce new services, and it will be too late. It will be running near capacity again very soon after the completion of the expansion.
in fact LHR used to have 4 -6 runways until they closed the cross runways to expand the Terminals........................
These days capacity is very much an issue and crosswind movements are not, hence the need for more parallel rwys.
To HH
"In fact LHR used to have 4 -6 runways until they closed the cross runways to expand the Terminals........................"
With modern computing technology was this in part a mistake ? - Not all Six runways; but perhaps keeping two.
CAT III with 20/20 hindsight.
"In fact LHR used to have 4 -6 runways until they closed the cross runways to expand the Terminals........................"
With modern computing technology was this in part a mistake ? - Not all Six runways; but perhaps keeping two.
CAT III with 20/20 hindsight.
The cross runways are as has been pointed out irrelevant because they are now under terminals and even before that intersected with each other making use of more than any two at a time difficult to say the elast although I am sure it has been done on occasion it would have probably only lead tyoa tiny increase in movements.
However the land north of LHR has never really been developed and there are surprising ly large areas of open ground between the A4 and the M4. development along the A4 is much the same as 50 years ago aside froma few hotels and isa sort of ribbon development parrlaleling the road. Problem is that there are three villages, Harlington, Harmondsworth and Sipson which are agin essentially ribbon developments and old lanes that cross the area north to south to north from what was the old Bath road and at least one, Sipson, would pretty much have to go to build a third runway but that is the History of Heathrow. named for the village sacrificed to the airport along with Hatton , parts of Stanwell and Stanwell Moor , Yeovany and Poyle . Sadly in a crowded country somethings have to go to make way for progress and my personal view ios that the victims are more afraid of being screwed over by biased compulsory purchase prices than the actual loss of habitat, although there are a few nice old buildings these places are not that desirable being in the middle of a flat desolate plain with poor public transport links and lots of the disadvantages of being very close to a huge airport.
But in Uk we just do not have the stomach to do anything at all like this, if the amount of Government and Civil service effort that was put into covering up the Hillsborough tragedy was directed at Heathrow expansion the runway would be ten years old by now.
The other ridiculous element in this is the idea that it could be Gatwick or Heathrow and of course it cannot. Airports are like railway junctions , lots of people need to interchange so building a second runway at Gatwick cannot effectively remove the case for expanding Heathrow, it will just see more and more and more people using AMS CDG and FRA instead.
But perhaps thats the Boris master pan, leave the EU to cut short haul travel and make it difficult for anyone to get to Britain at all to deal with immigration
However the land north of LHR has never really been developed and there are surprising ly large areas of open ground between the A4 and the M4. development along the A4 is much the same as 50 years ago aside froma few hotels and isa sort of ribbon development parrlaleling the road. Problem is that there are three villages, Harlington, Harmondsworth and Sipson which are agin essentially ribbon developments and old lanes that cross the area north to south to north from what was the old Bath road and at least one, Sipson, would pretty much have to go to build a third runway but that is the History of Heathrow. named for the village sacrificed to the airport along with Hatton , parts of Stanwell and Stanwell Moor , Yeovany and Poyle . Sadly in a crowded country somethings have to go to make way for progress and my personal view ios that the victims are more afraid of being screwed over by biased compulsory purchase prices than the actual loss of habitat, although there are a few nice old buildings these places are not that desirable being in the middle of a flat desolate plain with poor public transport links and lots of the disadvantages of being very close to a huge airport.
But in Uk we just do not have the stomach to do anything at all like this, if the amount of Government and Civil service effort that was put into covering up the Hillsborough tragedy was directed at Heathrow expansion the runway would be ten years old by now.
The other ridiculous element in this is the idea that it could be Gatwick or Heathrow and of course it cannot. Airports are like railway junctions , lots of people need to interchange so building a second runway at Gatwick cannot effectively remove the case for expanding Heathrow, it will just see more and more and more people using AMS CDG and FRA instead.
But perhaps thats the Boris master pan, leave the EU to cut short haul travel and make it difficult for anyone to get to Britain at all to deal with immigration
I don't know if it's an urban myth, but the story goes that those areas have been safeguarded for possible link taxiways ever since the original 9-runway proposal (3 of them north of the A4) back in the late 1940s.
As I understand it those fields belong to a farmer who has refused to sell to anyone.
BA tried to acquire them once when considering the replacement for Tristar House but it was a no go.
BA tried to acquire them once when considering the replacement for Tristar House but it was a no go.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The cross runways are as has been pointed out irrelevant because they are now under terminals and even before that intersected with each other making use of more than any two at a time difficult to say the elast although I am sure it has been done on occasion it would have probably only lead tyoa tiny increase in movements.
However the land north of LHR has never really been developed and there are surprising ly large areas of open ground between the A4 and the M4. development along the A4 is much the same as 50 years ago aside froma few hotels and isa sort of ribbon development parrlaleling the road. Problem is that there are three villages, Harlington, Harmondsworth and Sipson which are agin essentially ribbon developments and old lanes that cross the area north to south to north from what was the old Bath road and at least one, Sipson, would pretty much have to go to build a third runway but that is the History of Heathrow. named for the village sacrificed to the airport along with Hatton , parts of Stanwell and Stanwell Moor , Yeovany and Poyle . Sadly in a crowded country somethings have to go to make way for progress and my personal view ios that the victims are more afraid of being screwed over by biased compulsory purchase prices than the actual loss of habitat, although there are a few nice old buildings these places are not that desirable being in the middle of a flat desolate plain with poor public transport links and lots of the disadvantages of being very close to a huge airport.
But in Uk we just do not have the stomach to do anything at all like this, if the amount of Government and Civil service effort that was put into covering up the Hillsborough tragedy was directed at Heathrow expansion the runway would be ten years old by now.
However the land north of LHR has never really been developed and there are surprising ly large areas of open ground between the A4 and the M4. development along the A4 is much the same as 50 years ago aside froma few hotels and isa sort of ribbon development parrlaleling the road. Problem is that there are three villages, Harlington, Harmondsworth and Sipson which are agin essentially ribbon developments and old lanes that cross the area north to south to north from what was the old Bath road and at least one, Sipson, would pretty much have to go to build a third runway but that is the History of Heathrow. named for the village sacrificed to the airport along with Hatton , parts of Stanwell and Stanwell Moor , Yeovany and Poyle . Sadly in a crowded country somethings have to go to make way for progress and my personal view ios that the victims are more afraid of being screwed over by biased compulsory purchase prices than the actual loss of habitat, although there are a few nice old buildings these places are not that desirable being in the middle of a flat desolate plain with poor public transport links and lots of the disadvantages of being very close to a huge airport.
But in Uk we just do not have the stomach to do anything at all like this, if the amount of Government and Civil service effort that was put into covering up the Hillsborough tragedy was directed at Heathrow expansion the runway would be ten years old by now.
A second rwy at LGW without a third at LHR will resolve nothing.
But perhaps thats the Boris master pan, leave the EU to cut short haul travel and make it difficult for anyone to get to Britain at all to deal with immigration
Interestingly, if you look at the A4 to the north of the airport you will see two open areas that have never been built on, either side of the Heathrow Hotel.
I don't know if it's an urban myth, but the story goes that those areas have been safeguarded for possible link taxiways ever since the original 9-runway proposal (3 of them north of the A4) back in the late 1940s.
I don't know if it's an urban myth, but the story goes that those areas have been safeguarded for possible link taxiways ever since the original 9-runway proposal (3 of them north of the A4) back in the late 1940s.
As I understand it those fields belong to a farmer who has refused to sell to anyone.
BA tried to acquire them once when considering the replacement for Tristar House but it was a no go.
BA tried to acquire them once when considering the replacement for Tristar House but it was a no go.
Yes, this is correct, but not the entire 2mi. length needed. Heathrow Ltd. has been buying up much of this land over the last 50 years or so.
Just curious.
I had never heard the farmer story but it always struck me as odd that so much land close to LHR remained as open farmland for decades and I always assumed that it was somehow safeguarded perhaps by that rarest creature the far seeing bureaucrat.
The area south of the airport is pretty much a no no with a huge fuel farm lots more hosues and a hulking great reservoir to be disposed of before you even get to the listed status of Stanwell church , 1120 or similar so its north of LHR or nothing
The area south of the airport is pretty much a no no with a huge fuel farm lots more hosues and a hulking great reservoir to be disposed of before you even get to the listed status of Stanwell church , 1120 or similar so its north of LHR or nothing
When the previous third rwy plan was mooted under the Labour government dithering, indecision and procrastination, as opposed to that of the coalition or Conservative governments (yawn!)
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm confused. Are you saying that the reason those areas haven't been built on is that they are being safeguarded, or confirming that the owner simply wasn't prepared to sell ?
Just curious.
Just curious.
I had never heard the farmer story but it always struck me as odd that so much land close to LHR remained as open farmland for decades and I always assumed that it was somehow safeguarded perhaps by that rarest creature the far seeing bureaucrat.
The area south of the airport is pretty much a no no with a huge fuel farm lots more hosues and a hulking great reservoir to be disposed of before you even get to the listed status of Stanwell church , 1120 or similar so its north of LHR or nothing
The area south of the airport is pretty much a no no with a huge fuel farm lots more hosues and a hulking great reservoir to be disposed of before you even get to the listed status of Stanwell church , 1120 or similar so its north of LHR or nothing
Speaking of which, surely it must almost be time for another Government inquiry ? We haven't had one for almost nine months already
Use of Runway 23 reduced overall movement rates.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: England
Posts: 762
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah - Runway 23 memories. Strong SSW wind. Most arrivals accepting 23 but the occasional requesting 27L. I seem to remember this scenario caused occasional problems for ATC having to quickly deal with potential loss of separation due different headwind components on the different runways.
I guess you've never been to the USA, where many major airports have intersecting runways and use them to INCREASE capacity. Most notable was Chicago O'Hare before the recent additional runway building, 6 runways in a star shape, 3 equilateral pairs, not unlike the original Heathrow arrangement, they used to use ALL SIX at once (co-ordinated, of course) in a spectacular bit of capacity management, and also to give some noise alleviation to the adjacent communities.
I guess you've never been to the USA, where many major airports have intersecting runways and use them to INCREASE capacity. Most notable was Chicago O'Hare before the recent additional runway building, 6 runways in a star shape, 3 equilateral pairs, not unlike the original Heathrow arrangement, they used to use ALL SIX at once (co-ordinated, of course) in a spectacular bit of capacity management, and also to give some noise alleviation to the adjacent communities.
Heathrow was never designed with a view to simultaneous operations from intersecting runways. The star layout was intended to allow operation from any pair of parallel cross runways when the wind did not permit safe operation from the east-west runways (bearing in mind that aircraft crosswind limits were much lower in those days).
It's true, of course, that before 23 closed it was used from time to time for landings at the same time as takeoffs from the main runway(s) but, as Gonzo points out, no amount of "spectacular capacity management" could achieve the movement rate obtainable from the two main runways.
Chicago, on the other hand, with its (now) 9 runways spread over an area more than double the size of Heathrow has evolved its runway layout over years on the assumption that intersecting runway operations will be the norm.
Heathrow, incidentally, achieves almost two-and-a-half times as many movements per year per runway as O'Hare does ...