Christmas Chaos LGW
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Scotland
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Christmas Chaos LGW
My thoughts are with those stranded at LGW in Christmas Eve. Not great. Hopefully the Dunkirk spirit will prevail and everyone will get to their destination safely. Force majeure is what the insurance companies will say, I suspect, but how can a modern terminal lose power and have no back up? One feels that the London Airport system is beginning to creak! Time for Boris Island anyone?
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Cloud 9
Posts: 2,948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
how can a modern terminal lose power and have no back up?
I live in a location of frequent power outages, I have a generator, but in my small establishment, what with electric hot showers, air conditioning units, fridges, freezers, kitchen equipments, ring mains, fans, electric lights and so on, to power some 80KW I would need something like a 100KVA generator, a 100KVA generator would be about the size of a truck!
Now you go around LGW and you count all the air cons, the light bulbs, the airfield lighting, everything that is plugged in to the ring mains etc. etc. etc. and you go and figure out how many KW's LGW would need to provide for during a power outage and I'd suggest the LGW would actually need it's own generating power station!
And as for it just being a London airport, you mean this wouldn't of happened had it been MAN, BHX, GLA etc?
And unless Boris Island is anticipated to have it's own generating power station the same would happen there also!
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Sussex UK
Posts: 369
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Fogg - a 100KVA DG would just about fit on the back of a pickup. Hardly a truck - unless you're using red-neck terminology. 
The total standby load of a place like LGW will not be as great as you might think. Many non-essential systems can be shutdown. BMS can automatically load shed. Yes you might still need a few MW but a 3MW diesel set will just about fit in a 40' container. Parallel up a few in an auto-start, auto-sync config and you'd be there.
My guess is that LGW does already have backup power systems but that they were also affected by what took out the mains - i.e. flooding of substations. Water & Electricity do not mix well. Ideally you'd keep main and stand-by in separate locations (not just to avoid flooding - bomb attacks are another possibility) but it's not always feasible to totally segregate the systems.
The total standby load of a place like LGW will not be as great as you might think. Many non-essential systems can be shutdown. BMS can automatically load shed. Yes you might still need a few MW but a 3MW diesel set will just about fit in a 40' container. Parallel up a few in an auto-start, auto-sync config and you'd be there.
My guess is that LGW does already have backup power systems but that they were also affected by what took out the mains - i.e. flooding of substations. Water & Electricity do not mix well. Ideally you'd keep main and stand-by in separate locations (not just to avoid flooding - bomb attacks are another possibility) but it's not always feasible to totally segregate the systems.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Scotland
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Christmas Chaos LGW
Contingency plan for such an event? The flood risk affecting Gatwick has long been recognised and was referred to in various aviation white papers- govt policy. Surely it is possible to provide some system redundancy so that if one part goes down another steps in. S terminal was not affected only N terminal. Why?
If you are building something new you can plan for such eventualities such as provide independent duplication of supply. It's not difficult and portable generators were used extensively during the Olympics for the same reason. I don't believe that this problem has occurred at BHX, GLA or MAN but if they don't have a back up plan it could.
If you are building something new you can plan for such eventualities such as provide independent duplication of supply. It's not difficult and portable generators were used extensively during the Olympics for the same reason. I don't believe that this problem has occurred at BHX, GLA or MAN but if they don't have a back up plan it could.
Last edited by Munnyspinner; 25th Dec 2013 at 17:50.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Cloud 9
Posts: 2,948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you are building something new you can plan
happens from time to time!
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cheshire, UK
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Munnyspinner,
Maybe you need to verify some of your facts before your random speculation on here.
South Terminal was not affected as it presumably runs off different power sources and generators, and maybe also consider the fact that it is a good half a mile away from the North Terminal??
Natural occurrences such as this, such as snow also, are actually quite rare, therefore do you really think after even the most simple cost analysis that any airport is going to significantly prevent against all sorts of weathers no matter the cost? Get real.
And whatever makes you think Boris island could or would cope any better is frankly laughable, the whole proposition for that airport would see it being built in the sea, in the water, in a flood plain.... Or am I wrong?
Maybe you need to verify some of your facts before your random speculation on here.
South Terminal was not affected as it presumably runs off different power sources and generators, and maybe also consider the fact that it is a good half a mile away from the North Terminal??
Natural occurrences such as this, such as snow also, are actually quite rare, therefore do you really think after even the most simple cost analysis that any airport is going to significantly prevent against all sorts of weathers no matter the cost? Get real.
And whatever makes you think Boris island could or would cope any better is frankly laughable, the whole proposition for that airport would see it being built in the sea, in the water, in a flood plain.... Or am I wrong?
Mr Fogg - a 100KVA DG would just about fit on the back of a pickup. Hardly a truck - unless you're using red-neck terminology.
The total standby load of a place like LGW will not be as great as you might think. Many non-essential systems can be shutdown. BMS can automatically load shed. Yes you might still need a few MW but a 3MW diesel set will just about fit in a 40' container. Parallel up a few in an auto-start, auto-sync config and you'd be there.
My guess is that LGW does already have backup power systems but that they were also affected by what took out the mains - i.e. flooding of substations. Water & Electricity do not mix well. Ideally you'd keep main and stand-by in separate locations (not just to avoid flooding - bomb attacks are another possibility) but it's not always feasible to totally segregate the systems.
The total standby load of a place like LGW will not be as great as you might think. Many non-essential systems can be shutdown. BMS can automatically load shed. Yes you might still need a few MW but a 3MW diesel set will just about fit in a 40' container. Parallel up a few in an auto-start, auto-sync config and you'd be there.
My guess is that LGW does already have backup power systems but that they were also affected by what took out the mains - i.e. flooding of substations. Water & Electricity do not mix well. Ideally you'd keep main and stand-by in separate locations (not just to avoid flooding - bomb attacks are another possibility) but it's not always feasible to totally segregate the systems.
I was Duty Manager at the rail station one afternoon some 20+ years ago when the mother and father of all electrical storms had lightning twice hitting and taking out the elektrickery sub station at Balcombe. The result was no elektrickery in a swathe from south of Croydon to Haywards Heath. The airport was closed down for over an hour as was the railway which had lost all traction power and signalling power. Some back-up generators were deployed in the airport but there were no take-offs. I believe that aircraft were still landing though.
Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult
Join Date: May 2007
Location: On the western edge of The Moor
Age: 67
Posts: 1,100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So MAN which is comparable in size to LGW (N) has an electrical demand in the region of 20 to 30 MVA.
The largest portable diesel that is fitted in a 40ft container is 1.6MVA and there are not that many sat in hire yards around the country available for immediate use, needs a separate external fuel tank and uses about 500gal of fuel per day, so do the sums. (A 100kVA unit with fuel for 18hrs weighs about 2.5T including a 2 axle trailer. A 200kVA unit is the largest with fuel as above that can be mounted on a 7.5T pick up, I know as we have some at work and the trouble that was taken to keep it within that limit)
But how often does a failure of this magnitude occur?, Is it financially viable to have back-up power to continue full operation? (look up the meaning of reasonably practicable)
OK in a hospital where there is risk to life (and even they do not have back-up generation to continue full operation and often for not more than a few hours owing to fuel storage issues) you need to have something robust in place. But the result at an airport is no where near that, as long as safety related equipment is kept operational, and sufficient lighting, what is the justification to maintain full operation - just so folk can go on holiday!
Put it this way, how many would have a 2nd car on standby to cover for the eventuality of the first one breaking down on the way to an airport (to go on holiday)?
But of course it could be done, at a large expense so increasing charges to the airlines, which of course they will recover from their passengers. Which means airfares will rise.
Sorry this is not a "no risk" world, things go wrong when we don't want them to, but they will despite the best endeavours of people
The largest portable diesel that is fitted in a 40ft container is 1.6MVA and there are not that many sat in hire yards around the country available for immediate use, needs a separate external fuel tank and uses about 500gal of fuel per day, so do the sums. (A 100kVA unit with fuel for 18hrs weighs about 2.5T including a 2 axle trailer. A 200kVA unit is the largest with fuel as above that can be mounted on a 7.5T pick up, I know as we have some at work and the trouble that was taken to keep it within that limit)
But how often does a failure of this magnitude occur?, Is it financially viable to have back-up power to continue full operation? (look up the meaning of reasonably practicable)
OK in a hospital where there is risk to life (and even they do not have back-up generation to continue full operation and often for not more than a few hours owing to fuel storage issues) you need to have something robust in place. But the result at an airport is no where near that, as long as safety related equipment is kept operational, and sufficient lighting, what is the justification to maintain full operation - just so folk can go on holiday!
Put it this way, how many would have a 2nd car on standby to cover for the eventuality of the first one breaking down on the way to an airport (to go on holiday)?
But of course it could be done, at a large expense so increasing charges to the airlines, which of course they will recover from their passengers. Which means airfares will rise.
Sorry this is not a "no risk" world, things go wrong when we don't want them to, but they will despite the best endeavours of people
Paxing All Over The World
In my 27 years in IT + Telecommunications, I had a lot of time with back-up power. I recall the 'Great Storm' of Oct 87 and the Millenium bug problem and organising stand by power for that. Lastly, I was at JFK in August 2003 when the whole of the City lost power, along with swathes of the north eastern seaboard.
The LGW generators would have powered the control tower, fire station, p/a systems and so on. They clearly worked.
Airports are often built where no one else wants to build - like in river valleys that are subject to fog and flooding. Humans value £££ above all else.
If the Island Asylum is ever built - they will cut financial corners on that all over the place too. Corners that will not show up until years later when there is an unexpectedly big storm. By that time, the men who made all the decisions and cut the corners will be retired and on the golf course and escape the blame. I know because I've had to clear up the $hit by the corner cutters before.
Next question please ...
The LGW generators would have powered the control tower, fire station, p/a systems and so on. They clearly worked.
Airports are often built where no one else wants to build - like in river valleys that are subject to fog and flooding. Humans value £££ above all else.
If the Island Asylum is ever built - they will cut financial corners on that all over the place too. Corners that will not show up until years later when there is an unexpectedly big storm. By that time, the men who made all the decisions and cut the corners will be retired and on the golf course and escape the blame. I know because I've had to clear up the $hit by the corner cutters before.
Next question please ...
Many non-essential systems can be shutdown
Have 10,000 people in a building running on temporary power isn't something I would imagine is even remotely safe. Most power backups are not there to replace the main system in normal operation but in effect, to allow a graceful and safe shutdown of the systems.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Scotland
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Christmas Chaos LGW
T250,
Not sure which facts you mean. Actually, most uk airports are indeed built on floodplain. Some like LHR have involved very extensive river diversion and wetland drainage. Throughout the world a number of airports are built on made made islands. If you consider the hydrology of such an arrangement you would understand why they are not prone to flooding, which is in effect overspill from a watercourse. Islands with sufficient freeboard are not prone to flooding unless the surrounding land is at a higher level. The point of flood plane is that large areas can accommodate large volumes of relatively shallow water. Therefore wide flat areas are preferable to valleys which, as you correctly aver, are also prone to pockets of mist and fog. An estuarine location would potentially also suffer from this issue but no more frequently than existing airports in the SE. One of the advantages of a new build purpose designed solution is that you can plan to accommodate many of the natural threats such as flooding and adverse weather while also mitigating the impacts on the surrounding areas Consider Chep Lap Kok vs Kai Tak.
Not sure which facts you mean. Actually, most uk airports are indeed built on floodplain. Some like LHR have involved very extensive river diversion and wetland drainage. Throughout the world a number of airports are built on made made islands. If you consider the hydrology of such an arrangement you would understand why they are not prone to flooding, which is in effect overspill from a watercourse. Islands with sufficient freeboard are not prone to flooding unless the surrounding land is at a higher level. The point of flood plane is that large areas can accommodate large volumes of relatively shallow water. Therefore wide flat areas are preferable to valleys which, as you correctly aver, are also prone to pockets of mist and fog. An estuarine location would potentially also suffer from this issue but no more frequently than existing airports in the SE. One of the advantages of a new build purpose designed solution is that you can plan to accommodate many of the natural threats such as flooding and adverse weather while also mitigating the impacts on the surrounding areas Consider Chep Lap Kok vs Kai Tak.
Last edited by Munnyspinner; 25th Dec 2013 at 18:29.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Scotland
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Christmas Chaos LGW
Pax boy, if you're so good a clearing up others messes why don't you apply your brilliance to avoiding them in the first place. In the medium/long term LHR will cost more to grow than building an island to the east. Infrastructure needs and environmental impact will have a much greater burden on the residents of W London - oh, and what do you do when it needs to keep expanding in 20-30 years time?
Go look at Istanbul or Dubai. - they have vision!
Having watched the Maplin sands debacle in the 70's, I don't expect that we will ever graduate from the make do an mend philosophy. Unfortunately, this makes London look like part of the third world to the rest of the international air travelling community.
Go look at Istanbul or Dubai. - they have vision!
Having watched the Maplin sands debacle in the 70's, I don't expect that we will ever graduate from the make do an mend philosophy. Unfortunately, this makes London look like part of the third world to the rest of the international air travelling community.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Midlands
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dont forget that airports often ended up on floodplain as the original developers (often the MoD) had to find flat land to easially build airfields on - where do you find large areas of open flat land with no existing developments? Floodplains....
And as has been said. At LGW the floodwater got into the substation making it dangerous and requiring shutdown. Firing up generators would supply power to the airport ring which would energise the airport side of the substation, which is flooded, and dangerous to be energised....
However, LGW had contingency plans for this which they used, they moved North Terminal Flights to South terminal where possible - it created delays, which are to be expected when yoh are operationing on contingency procedures rather than your primary procedures, but the flights still operated. Only BA did not temporarily move to South Terminal, instead staying in the North Terminal for whatever reason.
Certainly where I work our power loss contingencies (I.e. the generators) supply power to the essential systems (via a UPS) and a small amount to non essential systems (such as only 1/3 - 1/4 of terminal lighting, enough to get by but not the normal level, flight info screens shutdown, advertising displays turn off. Just enough systems to remain safe, not enough for the customer service desires.
And as has been said. At LGW the floodwater got into the substation making it dangerous and requiring shutdown. Firing up generators would supply power to the airport ring which would energise the airport side of the substation, which is flooded, and dangerous to be energised....
However, LGW had contingency plans for this which they used, they moved North Terminal Flights to South terminal where possible - it created delays, which are to be expected when yoh are operationing on contingency procedures rather than your primary procedures, but the flights still operated. Only BA did not temporarily move to South Terminal, instead staying in the North Terminal for whatever reason.
Certainly where I work our power loss contingencies (I.e. the generators) supply power to the essential systems (via a UPS) and a small amount to non essential systems (such as only 1/3 - 1/4 of terminal lighting, enough to get by but not the normal level, flight info screens shutdown, advertising displays turn off. Just enough systems to remain safe, not enough for the customer service desires.
Power is now back in the North Terminal at LGW according to their website...many people worked all day today to get it restored..so hopefully all will be fine tomorrow
Paxing All Over The World
Thread drift
Oh dear Munnyspinner ... Because working in the world requires you to know the doable and the possible. I agree that expanding LHR is not ideal and would compound the stupidity of govts across the last 30 years BUT starting a new airport where it is not viable ain't better.
Oh dear Munnyspinner ... Because working in the world requires you to know the doable and the possible. I agree that expanding LHR is not ideal and would compound the stupidity of govts across the last 30 years BUT starting a new airport where it is not viable ain't better.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Sussex UK
Posts: 369
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
west lakes thanks for your informative post. I currently have 10 x 3MVA 11kV DG sets on the high seas in open top containers - but without exhaust, cooling or daily service tanks fitted. Hence not 'portable' in your sense of the word and that's why I said 'just about fit...'. Agreed the logistics of bringing in that sort of power capability in an emergency are horrendous. And expensive. (Aggreko do very well out of the back-up business.)
My point was more that something of the order of 5MW of permanently installed stand-by diesels would probably have kept much of the N Term in some sort of functionality. (Shut down Maccy Ds and the Shops etc.....).
For all I know, LGW N. Term already has that level of backup power source -but it was also affected by whatever took out the mains power?
My point was more that something of the order of 5MW of permanently installed stand-by diesels would probably have kept much of the N Term in some sort of functionality. (Shut down Maccy Ds and the Shops etc.....).
For all I know, LGW N. Term already has that level of backup power source -but it was also affected by whatever took out the mains power?
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Sussex UK
Posts: 369
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Non-essentials
Have a go at listing them.
Just for the purposes of debate I'll try... these are front of house things. (There are probably more behind the scenes - but what do I know... ? That's why we have clever BMS systems - they can decide what is / is not really needed - dynamically.)
1.Probably 1/2 the general lighting load could go without greatly affecting most folks. 100% in un-used boarding lounges, corridors etc.
2.Heating / Cooling can be shut down for quite a time before anyone notices - as long as some ventilation/air movement is maintained. The terminal will have huge thermal inertia.
3. Retail outlets - I'd shut 'em permanently if I had my way.
4. Stop escalators and moving pavements - most folk can walk. Leave lifts for those who can't. Anyway if there are no flights who needs to get anywhere?
I grant you after 2/3 hours of waiting people are going to want some food & bev. But it needn't be cooked to order. Dish out water, cold drinks and snax.
2. above is probably the single biggest load but if it comes from a central plant elsewhere in the airport, which is unaffected by the power outage, it may even be possible to keep it on. The fan load is not too significant
Last edited by Dubaian; 26th Dec 2013 at 07:29.
And the govt recommend a second runway at LGW. Great! So when it's built twice the number of pax will be 'banging on the desks' when bad weather hits the south east. Building an extra runway will not help because the rest of the infrastructure cannot cope.
Wake up and expand regional airports where they can cope!
Wake up and expand regional airports where they can cope!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Scotland
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Christmas Chaos LGW
Actually, I think you will find that flood mitigation us a required pre requisite for R2 at Gatwick. This has been a live issue since the original plan for R2 were shelved under the planning agreement reached by BAA. The new owners have not yet addressed the specifics of R2.
If met stats suggest, we are all to expect more weather related events like this in the future.
I think the extreme weather events over the past few days do illustrate the need for all business to extend their contingency planning, which obviously didn't work that well at LGW, and to think about protecting key infrastructure from known risks. The river Mole had been there longer than North Terminal and the Lx supply network! As the Germans say, if it ain't broke, improve it!
If met stats suggest, we are all to expect more weather related events like this in the future.
I think the extreme weather events over the past few days do illustrate the need for all business to extend their contingency planning, which obviously didn't work that well at LGW, and to think about protecting key infrastructure from known risks. The river Mole had been there longer than North Terminal and the Lx supply network! As the Germans say, if it ain't broke, improve it!
If met stats suggest, we are all to expect more weather related events like this in the future. I think the extreme weather events over the past few days do illustrate the need for all business to extend their contingency planning,
If people are going to insist that prices are kept low instead of paying for contingency planning which goes unused apart from one week every five or so years, then it won't happen.
Sometimes you have to take it on the chin and live with it. Its why I never travel at peak holiday times which coincide with bad weather period - its just not worth it and personally I don't want to pay extra for my ticket at other times of the year.