Heathrow expansion and the land adjacent to King George VI reservoir
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Where its at
Age: 40
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 
). 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). 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 (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
).
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.
). 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). 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 (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
).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.
Last edited by Anansis; 7th Jun 2012 at 21:12. Reason: typo
Heathrow has an additional advantage over FRA - it's parallel runways are so far apart that it is theoretically possible to operate them independently
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Where its at
Age: 40
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, they aren't and it isn't. That's one of the reasons capacity is constrained.
Paxing All Over The World
Anansis
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
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.
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 ).
).
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
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by DaveReidUK; 8th Jun 2012 at 07:13.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Beyond the Blue Horizon
Age: 63
Posts: 1,257
Received 168 Likes
on
103 Posts
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. 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) . 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.
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. 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) . 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.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 24th Jun 2012 at 01:05.
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
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
Paxing All Over The World
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.
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.
