New runway for Heathrow planned
Guest
Posts: n/a
There would be no problem with Northolt on westerlies - we run parallel landings at Heathrow sometimes so there would be miles of room twixt us and Northolt. We also accommodate Northolt traffic when we're using 23. On easterlies it might get slightly more exciting!
Guest
Posts: n/a
In studying Lucifer's map it would seem that the additional runway is far too far away in the northwest, especially if it is used to by smaller "commuter" traffic, where ground taxiing is relatively greater.
Ironically, the obvious place to put a 6 or 7,000 foot strip would be where T5 is slated to be, ie. west from T3 almost to the M25. Also it would obviate the need for runway crossing a la T4 and be less obstrusive to air traffic and environmentally on the ground. But where would T5 go ? LOL
Ironically, the obvious place to put a 6 or 7,000 foot strip would be where T5 is slated to be, ie. west from T3 almost to the M25. Also it would obviate the need for runway crossing a la T4 and be less obstrusive to air traffic and environmentally on the ground. But where would T5 go ? LOL
Guest
Posts: n/a
Whipping boys ATCO "Now the suggestion of just using Northolt as the third runway is not too bizzare. It's 5500' long and easily handles 737/757 type aircraft although range/payload may be somewhat limited".
I too have contemplated this option in the past. Sort of LHR north. The need then is for a tube or light rapid transport link (tram, guided busway or whatever)so that it is a seamless part of LHR. Should provide an option for shorter range lower capacity domestic ops eg Teeside, LBA IOM and closer European destinations. Appreciate the point about conflict of traffic particularly on easterlies or 23 Ops. How far can this be alleviated using for example LCY type operations, how far is a curved approach feasible? Is there room within the perimeter of Northolt for an E/W runway that can operate in paralell with LHR?
Airbanda-Proud to be an Anorak
I too have contemplated this option in the past. Sort of LHR north. The need then is for a tube or light rapid transport link (tram, guided busway or whatever)so that it is a seamless part of LHR. Should provide an option for shorter range lower capacity domestic ops eg Teeside, LBA IOM and closer European destinations. Appreciate the point about conflict of traffic particularly on easterlies or 23 Ops. How far can this be alleviated using for example LCY type operations, how far is a curved approach feasible? Is there room within the perimeter of Northolt for an E/W runway that can operate in paralell with LHR?
Airbanda-Proud to be an Anorak
Guest
Posts: n/a
HRW Director is right with a number of points. Westerlies is no real problem, Easterlies would quite interesting. As it stands, approaches to RW07 at Northolt hav a 30 deg dog-leg at 4nm. At this point traffic is 3.1nm displaced from final approach on 09L at HRW. I'm sure that this problem could be adressed with systems such as MLS and appropriate 'parallel' runway type procedures.
Regarding access, the airfield is already adjacent to two seperate underground lines and the A40.
Jinking the runway onto 09/27 - not impossible but a lot of work and land purchase required.
[This message has been edited by Whipping Boy's SATCO (edited 26 June 2001).]
Regarding access, the airfield is already adjacent to two seperate underground lines and the A40.
Jinking the runway onto 09/27 - not impossible but a lot of work and land purchase required.
[This message has been edited by Whipping Boy's SATCO (edited 26 June 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
To build this new runway is an utterly absurd idea. Heathrow is already a dreadful place to travel from; hugely expensive parking miles from the inadequate terminals - some of which, like terminal 2, are already cramped and offer very poor facilities. T4 is miles from the rest of the airport, so will T5 be. The road infrastructure is groaning and the rail access is inadequate. The airlines claim that people want to travel from Heathrow; the reality is that Gatwick is too far our, Stansted is still developing. But if Stansted and Lootnairpawt can shake off their shell-suits and lager lout image and attract business travel and London City can expand, do we really need yet another runway at the god-awful place which is Heathrow? Particularly if it would mean destroying 100 people's homes....
No - develop the regionals as an urgent first option. Give Lulsgate a direct M5 access......but the big player for the future is a new purpose built airport somewhere else with a direct train system, good road access and ample car parking. Just because it might suit BA to expand Thiefrow, that doesn't mean it has to be good for the travelling public.
[This message has been edited by BEagle (edited 26 June 2001).]
No - develop the regionals as an urgent first option. Give Lulsgate a direct M5 access......but the big player for the future is a new purpose built airport somewhere else with a direct train system, good road access and ample car parking. Just because it might suit BA to expand Thiefrow, that doesn't mean it has to be good for the travelling public.
[This message has been edited by BEagle (edited 26 June 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
As someone who regularly has to travel from Gatwick to LHR to connect with flights (following BA's cancellation of the JER-LHR service), a longer taxi time is but a minor inconvenience. In any case, a 7,000' runway should be able to take anything up to 777 size - even a 747 in dry conditions.
As for developing regionals, this isn't going to solve the issue of access to LHR; it's what airlines want and it's also in the national interest, economically. Speaking again from a Jersey perspective, I can tell you that the replacement of the Heathrow route by warmed over 146s to Gatwick isn't even near as desirable - even if only travelling to London - as Heathrow.
As for developing regionals, this isn't going to solve the issue of access to LHR; it's what airlines want and it's also in the national interest, economically. Speaking again from a Jersey perspective, I can tell you that the replacement of the Heathrow route by warmed over 146s to Gatwick isn't even near as desirable - even if only travelling to London - as Heathrow.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Concur with B Eagles comments.
Also what use will a third runway be if aircraft have to cross another active runway (09L/27R)in order to use it? Look at the problems at Newark; holding 20+ minutes for a crossing clearance at peak times!
Development of other airports is the answer, there is ample space for a second runway at Stansted and the terminal is expanding. Also Manston is an option. Just a final thought....An ideal runway already exists, lots of land to build a terminal, close to the A1 and east coast mainline railway- ever heard of Alconbury??
Also what use will a third runway be if aircraft have to cross another active runway (09L/27R)in order to use it? Look at the problems at Newark; holding 20+ minutes for a crossing clearance at peak times!
Development of other airports is the answer, there is ample space for a second runway at Stansted and the terminal is expanding. Also Manston is an option. Just a final thought....An ideal runway already exists, lots of land to build a terminal, close to the A1 and east coast mainline railway- ever heard of Alconbury??
Guest
Posts: n/a
Although this may be a crap suggestion it may be better than a third runway at EGLL, which should be built.
If money was limitless a all new airport should be built somewhere out in the Thames estury on reclaimed land. You would need a very high speed rail link from London and from EGLL itself. If the new airport were to be built big enough eg at least 6 runways etc you could gradually close Heathrow down.
The problem with this is most Heathrow pax/workers etc come from that side of London. Well build a few big car parks on the space left by Heathrow and connect a High Speed Rail link. Could be at the new airport in 20 Minutes or so. As long as it takes to get off the M4 Spur somedays. Then solve part of the southeasts housing problem by covering the area with new homes, the London suburb of Heathrow. Put some woods there to appease the greenies. Bish Bosh Jobs a gooden.
So before you all cry out and say what crap I have just written I know it would never happen and is totally unrealistic. It is what would be possible to do with limitless funds and a Government that is prepared to stick its neck out.
If money was limitless a all new airport should be built somewhere out in the Thames estury on reclaimed land. You would need a very high speed rail link from London and from EGLL itself. If the new airport were to be built big enough eg at least 6 runways etc you could gradually close Heathrow down.
The problem with this is most Heathrow pax/workers etc come from that side of London. Well build a few big car parks on the space left by Heathrow and connect a High Speed Rail link. Could be at the new airport in 20 Minutes or so. As long as it takes to get off the M4 Spur somedays. Then solve part of the southeasts housing problem by covering the area with new homes, the London suburb of Heathrow. Put some woods there to appease the greenies. Bish Bosh Jobs a gooden.
So before you all cry out and say what crap I have just written I know it would never happen and is totally unrealistic. It is what would be possible to do with limitless funds and a Government that is prepared to stick its neck out.
Guest
Posts: n/a
basil,
re the taxi times etc you make very valid points, as does beagle re the obvious compulsory purchase of land and houses to make this project worthwhile, not to mention 'green' issues. This proposal was I believe rejected quite a while ago, as T5 would not get the go-ahead with such plans in the background. To make this idea viable you would really need a terminal facility of some sort closer to the runway than the current existing and proposed ones are, so T6 anyone? very very unlikely.
There has also been a recent thread on runways in the south east recently, Alconbury has already been rejected at the most basic planning level, even though as a site it has some potential.
re the taxi times etc you make very valid points, as does beagle re the obvious compulsory purchase of land and houses to make this project worthwhile, not to mention 'green' issues. This proposal was I believe rejected quite a while ago, as T5 would not get the go-ahead with such plans in the background. To make this idea viable you would really need a terminal facility of some sort closer to the runway than the current existing and proposed ones are, so T6 anyone? very very unlikely.
There has also been a recent thread on runways in the south east recently, Alconbury has already been rejected at the most basic planning level, even though as a site it has some potential.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Slightly off topic, but in response to nickhewett's post earlier:
Heathrow moved 1300+ a day for the first time in June 1998 (1321 movements), and we have regularly been moving over 1300 since then.
The latest record (Friday 8th June this year) was 1353 movements.
Hope this helps
AI
Heathrow moved 1300+ a day for the first time in June 1998 (1321 movements), and we have regularly been moving over 1300 since then.
The latest record (Friday 8th June this year) was 1353 movements.
Hope this helps
AI
Guest
Posts: n/a
With 1353 movements on that day, if split across the entire 24 hours, works out at around 56 movements an hour (almost one a minute)
How is this done, even with dual runway operations?
How many movements were managed in the busiest hour of that day?
I'd love to know how ATC managed to cram all that into one day
How is this done, even with dual runway operations?
How many movements were managed in the busiest hour of that day?
I'd love to know how ATC managed to cram all that into one day
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hello Professor,
The movements are roughly split 50/50 between fixed wing departures and arrivals with maybe one or two helicopter movements included.
The hours in which 99% of these movements occur are between 6am and 10pm (16 hours).
Divide the 1353 by that 16 hours and you get about 85 movements per hour. Divide that by two and get approx 42 departures and 42 arrivals in any particular hour.
The peak hours, however, are roughly between 7am to 11am and 5pm to 8pm, with relatively quiet hours in the middle of the day.
It is therefore easily possible to have a few hours of 90+ movements / hour. About one movement every 45 seconds.
But it all averages out to give about 85 movements / hour over the 16 busy hours of the day.
I will find the busiest hour on that day when I'm next at work (Saturday) and post soon after.
Hope this helps,
AI
[This message has been edited by Aluminium Importer (edited 27 June 2001).]
The movements are roughly split 50/50 between fixed wing departures and arrivals with maybe one or two helicopter movements included.
The hours in which 99% of these movements occur are between 6am and 10pm (16 hours).
Divide the 1353 by that 16 hours and you get about 85 movements per hour. Divide that by two and get approx 42 departures and 42 arrivals in any particular hour.
The peak hours, however, are roughly between 7am to 11am and 5pm to 8pm, with relatively quiet hours in the middle of the day.
It is therefore easily possible to have a few hours of 90+ movements / hour. About one movement every 45 seconds.
But it all averages out to give about 85 movements / hour over the 16 busy hours of the day.
I will find the busiest hour on that day when I'm next at work (Saturday) and post soon after.
Hope this helps,
AI
[This message has been edited by Aluminium Importer (edited 27 June 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Easy,
Heathrow is only operating at full capacity (due to noise restraints) from 6am till10pm that makes 16 hours. The average landing rate is about 42 per hour. The departure rate probably about 43. That gives 85x16 =1360 movements, not including those few that arrive before 0600. Hope this helps.
Heathrow is only operating at full capacity (due to noise restraints) from 6am till10pm that makes 16 hours. The average landing rate is about 42 per hour. The departure rate probably about 43. That gives 85x16 =1360 movements, not including those few that arrive before 0600. Hope this helps.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I'd thought of Northolt as a new EGLL runway too. However, my thoughts were to use it either for slow traffic only, or traffic below a certain vortex category. Just purely to make it easier to stream inbounds both to EGWU and EGLL.
But as everyone says you'd need a high speed rail link or similar to EGLL. The residents of Ruislip, Harrow, etc might have something to say about it too!
But as everyone says you'd need a high speed rail link or similar to EGLL. The residents of Ruislip, Harrow, etc might have something to say about it too!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Before they increase capacity, the powers that be would be better occupied improving the third world state of the terminals and the bloody dreadful public transport access.If I had never been to the UK before and my first impression of the country was Heathrow, I would be inclined to turn round and go home.
I agree with the postings that suggest a brand new South East mega airport with fast (and affordable to the masses not just corporate fatboys) transport links to London AND the rest of the UK.
I agree with the postings that suggest a brand new South East mega airport with fast (and affordable to the masses not just corporate fatboys) transport links to London AND the rest of the UK.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Ever noticed that there's a big grass field in the line of buildings along the A4 Bath Road. Would make a nice place for a taxiway from the current site up to where a new runway could go wouldn't it!
Alternatively, why don't we just bulldoze Hounslow instead?
UJ
Alternatively, why don't we just bulldoze Hounslow instead?
UJ
Guest
Posts: n/a
Okay, so 42 movements in means that there is one landing every 85 seconds or so.
I thought that minimum spacing between a/c was 2 mins (although I'm probably way off)?
How does the two r/w operation work than in order to get this many t/o and landings to work?
I thought that minimum spacing between a/c was 2 mins (although I'm probably way off)?
How does the two r/w operation work than in order to get this many t/o and landings to work?