Bristol Airport - Filton

[rob D2]

53 minutes ago, Pacific231G said:

Sorry Rob

That doesn't make sense. Do you mean you couldn't turn onto final at less than 5 miles?,*

 

At 5 NM  on Heathrow's ILS approach you would definitely be on final as the standard join is at 2500ft (2423 QFE) 7.5nm out  and would be till the landing phase. What I hear whenever I'm in that part of Richmond (which is about 5NM out) and Heathrow is on 27L is very definitely not engines at idle but by then  .

 

I do wonder about GPS approaches particularly after the New Yorker article I read today.

 

"These days, pocket-sized G.P.S. jammers go for a few hundred dollars each on the Internet and offer an easy out for anyone worried about, say, a surveilling employer. A few years ago, so many truck drivers on the New Jersey Turnpike were using jammers to thwart their bosses’ tracking programs that spillover interference eventually disrupted the G.P.S.-based landing system at Newark Liberty International Airport"

The whole article is here

https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/how-vulnerable-is-gps?utm_source=pocket-newtab-global-en-GB

 

*(Obviously , I turn onto final at more like a mile or less but that's flying a visual circuit in a light aircraft to a small aerodrome. I aim to complete my turn onto final at about 500ft so if I'm about a mile out then my approach angle is about 6 degrees, even so I need some power on approach, a true glide approach is even steeper)

Yes, you have to be established  inbound before descent With the ILS.

 

interception of the LOC is wherever ATC needs you , I’ve had from 8-20 plus miles , with of course , a starting alt to match at LHR 

Edited August 19, 2020 by rob D2

[PMP]

8 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

Ummm. If the aircraft was at a fixed altitude (though one normally refers to height above the runway as in 'circuit height' )  it would never land. I'm sure you meant a fixed rate of descent. 

I know exactly what I meant and have no intention of changing it. At roughly 5 miles from touch down a commercial aircraft should be very close to 1,500ft and in the order of 150 knots. If at that fixed point there are significant variations, that indicates the potential for an unstable approach either in progress or developing. A CDA can ideally commence from Top of Descent, but most arrivals particularly at places as busy as Gatwick/Heathrow/Luton the aircraft will be joining the final approach at 3,000ft around 10 miles out or a similar factoring of distance/altitude. That allows both air traffic space to get departures out, with expected speeds and altitudes and arriving crew the best chance of a stable approach and safe landing. You will of course see and hear some variation in the power settings, but they are minimised to prevent an unstable approach. The aircraft also needs to be in a regime to allow engines to spool up quickly for a missed approach. Never professionally heard of altitude as 'circuit height'.

 

8 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

Once it joins the ILS glideslope (or even on a visual approach) an airliner will be descending at 3 degrees (at most airports) There will be increases in engine power as flaps and gear are extended to maintain the appropriate  approach speed. I'm pretty sure it's in the phase of approach before joining the glideslope that a CDA approach improves on noise levels over the former step down approach. That improves the situation for a far larger population than the glideslope and initital climbout but at a relatively low intensity,  its people living out to about 6-7miles who experience high levels of aircraft noise. 

The noise contours for Gatwich are interesting

https://www.gatwickairport.com/globalassets/publicationfiles/business_and_community/all_public_publications/aircraft_noise/lgw_2018_annual_contours_report_final.pdf

 

Westerly approaches and departures were naturally predominant but, though the contour was more concentrated on the western side, the area affected was somewhat greater on the eastern side. 

The noise contours for Gatwich are interesting

https://www.gatwickairport.com/globalassets/publicationfiles/business_and_community/all_public_publications/aircraft_noise/lgw_2018_annual_contours_report_final.pdf

Westerly approaches and departures were naturally predominant but, though the contour was more concentrated on the western side, the area affected was somewhat greater on the eastern side.

 

8 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

Ummm. If the aircraft was at a fixed altitude (though one normally refers to height above the runway as in 'circuit height' )  it would never land. I'm sure you meant a fixed rate of descent. 

 

 There's nothing unusual about those noise contours, they're entirely normal. You do need to pay attention to what the contours actually represent though. The final approach path is clearly defined, you'd expect that because aircraft are flying instrument approaches. There is more dispersion of the departure swathes because they are turning onto different routes. The noise contours are closer in at the departure end because the aircraft is climbing and spends less time within each noise contour. Departures are the biggest source of noise complaints, because they are the most noticeable and disruptive.

No surprise aircraft are overflying the same locations at similar heights. They're on precision approaches.

[PMP]

2 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

Sorry Rob

That doesn't make sense. Do you mean you couldn't turn onto final at less than 5 miles?,*

 

At 5 NM  on Heathrow's ILS approach you would definitely be on final as the standard join is at 2500ft (2423 QFE) 7.5nm out  and would be till the landing phase. What I hear whenever I'm in that part of Richmond (which is about 5NM out) and Heathrow is on 27L is very definitely not engines at idle but by then  .

 

 

It is very rare to turn a commercial aircraft onto final at less than around the five mile mark, even then that's co-ordinated between the aircrew and controllers. Most responsible airlines have a standard procedure that if the approach isn't stable by 1,000ft/ 4 miles its an automatic missed approach. Putting an aircraft onto that sort of final approach increases workload for the crew in particular and ATC in monitoring the approach. Even new RNAV approaches for commercial fields still aim for a Final Approach Point which is in the order of 4-5miles from touchdown, for the crew to make the decision regarding if the approach is stable or not.

[Melly]

2 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

Sorry Rob

That doesn't make sense. Do you mean you couldn't turn onto final at less than 5 miles?,*

 

At 5 NM  on Heathrow's ILS approach you would definitely be on final as the standard join is at 2500ft (2423 QFE) 7.5nm out  and would be till the landing phase. What I hear whenever I'm in that part of Richmond (which is about 5NM out) and Heathrow is on 27L is very definitely not engines at idle but by then  .

 

I do wonder about GPS approaches particularly after the New Yorker article I read today.

 

"These days, pocket-sized G.P.S. jammers go for a few hundred dollars each on the Internet and offer an easy out for anyone worried about, say, a surveilling employer. A few years ago, so many truck drivers on the New Jersey Turnpike were using jammers to thwart their bosses’ tracking programs that spillover interference eventually disrupted the G.P.S.-based landing system at Newark Liberty International Airport"

The whole article is here

https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/how-vulnerable-is-gps?utm_source=pocket-newtab-global-en-GB

 

*(Obviously , I turn onto final at more like a mile or less but that's flying a visual circuit in a light aircraft to a small aerodrome. I aim to complete my turn onto final at about 500ft so if I'm about a mile out then my approach angle is about 6 degrees, even so I need some power on approach, a true glide approach is even steeper)

 

David was going to say it sounds like you're confusing your General Aviation (GA) flying routines with those of Commercial IFR Operators.  A GA VFR / Visual approach is not  restricted in following the same rigid procedures as an Instrument arrival.  If you want to fly a 6 deg approach with all whites on the PAPIs and then round out that's you're call as a your the Pilot in Command. Whereas a commercial flight is operating to their Air Operators certificate and Ops manual; where they mostly state that instrument approaches are mandatory as they are the safer, preferred option.  

 

As RobD2 says, "stabalised approaches" are mandatory, if your not stabalised by 1000 or 500 ft you go around and do it again.  Within ATC we have specific instructions to adhere to when vectoring aircraft, instructions that are changing again as we (UK CAA) harmonises with ICAO.  Each approach has a platform level - 1800 ft for us.  Unless the aircraft is operating IAW a published CDA profile,  the aircraft must be vectored to establish on the final approach track 2 miles before the descent point (5 miles on a 3 deg glide path for us).  Accordingly, from 7 mile final for the runway the aircraft will be routinely overflying the same spot at the same levels.  Often the aircraft are clean until just before descent and the aircraft uses the drag of flaps and gear to decelerate.  

 

Modern Aircraft types as so much quieter and no where near the noise nuisance of 10 years ago let alone 20.  The Embraer 195 is the largest thing we operate from our 1500m Runway and from the Twr you can't hear it land.

 

Safe flying :-)

 

M

 

 

[Pacific231G]

1 hour ago, PMP said:

 

It is very rare to turn a commercial aircraft onto final at less than around the five mile mark, even then that's co-ordinated between the aircrew and controllers. Most responsible airlines have a standard procedure that if the approach isn't stable by 1,000ft/ 4 miles its an automatic missed approach. Putting an aircraft onto that sort of final approach increases workload for the crew in particular and ATC in monitoring the approach. Even new RNAV approaches for commercial fields still aim for a Final Approach Point which is in the order of 4-5miles from touchdown, for the crew to make the decision regarding if the approach is stable or not.

No, and  I wasn't suggesting it was common for airliners to use a shorter final approach . I'm well aware of the differences between the sort of flying I do and the far more procedural regime of commercial IFR operation (one of the ten members of my co-ownership group became  a 737 captain- he now flies our C150 for fun!) 

 

 I believe that 7.5nm and 2500ft QNH is the minimum for the Heathrow ILS approach, most arrivals will be on the approach well before that.   That's really the point I've been trying to make, that the necessarily fixed approach path subjects a large population in West London to  a fairly unrelenting level of aircraft noise at considerable distance from the airport. Alternating runways obviously helps but only up to a point. Departures are noisier but affect a smaller area and aircraft can turn onto different headings relatively soon after taking off. 

Where I live  is about the same distance from Heathrow as the area of Richmond I've been on about but north east of the 09 end. Easterly departures do  fly over my house quite often and they're really no nuisance at all. I'd say the same about aircraft on approach to 27 over Central London while still clean, you barely notice them. 

 

 

Edited August 19, 2020 by Pacific231G

[PMP]

55 minutes ago, Pacific231G said:

No, and  I wasn't suggesting it was common for airliners to use a shorter final approach . I'm well aware of the differences between the sort of flying I do and the far more procedural regime of commercial IFR operation (one of the ten members of my co-ownership group became  a 737 captain- he now flies our C150 for fun!) 

 

 I believe that 7.5nm and 2500ft QNH is the minimum for the Heathrow ILS approach, most arrivals will be on the approach well before that.   That's really the point I've been trying to make, that the necessarily fixed approach path subjects a large population in West London to  a fairly unrelenting level of aircraft noise at considerable distance from the airport. Alternating runways obviously helps but only up to a point. Departures are noisier but affect a smaller area and aircraft can turn onto different headings relatively soon after taking off. 

Where I live  is about the same distance from Heathrow as the area of Richmond I've been on about but north east of the 09 end. Easterly departures do  fly over my house quite often and they're really no nuisance at all. I'd say the same about aircraft on approach to 27 over Central London while still clean, you barely notice them. 

 

 

 

 

Just wasting our time here with editing out things to change context. What happened to Papa Westray then?

 

I'm more than aware of what commercial aircraft operations are and how they affect environmental/air traffic and airline issues.. I used to be on the UK's noise and track keeping working group, actually recording aircraft noise and flight paths and reporting on them to government, local communities and interest groups across the aviation sector.

[Pacific231G]

20 minutes ago, PMP said:

 

 

Just wasting our time here with editing out things to change context. What happened to Papa Westray then?

 

I'm more than aware of what commercial aircraft operations are and how they affect environmental/air traffic and airline issues.. I used to be on the UK's noise and track keeping working group, actually recording aircraft noise and flight paths and reporting on them to government, local communities and interest groups across the aviation sector.

On reading my post back  I decided that making the distinction between IFR airline operations and commercial aircraft, which aren't all jet airliners, was a bit unfair so I took that footnote out. I'm sorry if that offends you.

 

I don't know if you were involved in its preparation but I've just been reading the CAA's CAP 1554 'Review of Arrival Noise Controls'  from 2017.

It confirms that Continuous Descent Operation does reduce noise levels in the phase from about 18 to 10 NM out because, compared with a conventional step down approach capturing the ILS at 2 500 or 3000 ft, less  engine power is required and aircraft are higher for longer,

However, in the next phase,  a fair proportion of aircraft were were deploying their landing gear and flaps earlier than necessary for a stable approach and, between about 10 and 6 NM ,  the increase in noise levels on the ground (about 5dB)  was more than the reduction in noise of modern aircraft compared with the previous generation 

From then on in, landing gear and flaps do need to be deployed for a stable approach so noise levels won't be improved (that includes Richmond and Kew ) However landing with reduced flap was also looked at and that does reduce noise in the final 5 NM  though with an increase in runway occupation. It also looked at the potential for a slightly increased glide slope angle.

It made interesting reading but doesn't help the situation of those living under the last 6 miles of the approach.  It does seem  that as quieter engines etc. have reduced the impact from departures, the problem of arrival noise has come into greater prominence. Approach and landing are also though the most critical phases of flight  whatever is being flown.  

 

BTW For those who don't know, the daily flights between Westray and the adjoining Orkney island of Papa Westray are the shortest  scheduled flights in the world with 1.7miles between the two airports.  The actual flight is  longer than that as the aircraft does need to line up with the other runway before landing on it  but the passenger flight has been completed in 47 seconds (I asssume that's take off to landing not brakes to brakes)  Neither airport is even equipped with radio let alone ATC -and calls are made to Kirkwall Airport- so it's very much at the opposite end of the commercial aviation world from Heathrow.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Just been looking at Filton on old-maps. If it had been chosen to be Bristol's airport when it should have been (1960s), aircraft landing from the east would not have flown over many houses at all. And, of course, final approach would have been over the railway junctions where noise would not have been an issue anyway.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Going back to what may have been the OP's intention in posting, would this be a good layout subject?

 

Been doodling some plans this morning and I think it could make quite a nice layout for current day operations. Potentially quite a nice mix of passenger rolling stock in various liveries as well as freight traffic from Avonmouth.

[phil-b259]

On 18/08/2020 at 23:59, Pacific231G said:

 

Who was the genius who thought that building London's main airport on the western edge of the conurbation with a prevailing westerly wind was a great idea? 

 

 

 

 

At the time Heathrow was decided on as the future London Air terminal we were still in the midst of WW2 and two years away from the D-day landings (the ministerial decision was made in 1942 IIRC even though the airfield itself wasn't opened till 1944). At that time air travel was expected to be limited in quantity plus the preserve of the rich and famous for whom easy access from the Capital was important. At that stage international travel for the masses* was expected to remain ships / trains or cars. If you had told the men from the ministry that future jet aircraft would be departing from Heathrow every few minutes with hundreds of passengers they would have dismissed you as insane!

 

That said by the 1970s it was recognised that Heathrow was a mistake - limited room for expansion and a problematic approach over residential districts being key issues. So the men from the ministry did some studies and after having rejected the most logical site (Cubbington near Aylesbury) after vocal protests from well organised locals) tried to convince people to accept an offshore airport built at Maplin Sands. That fell apart mainly due to the environmental impact on estuary wildlife and the new transport infrastructure needed to serve it when the nations fiances were not in a good way.

 

Ever since its basically been the accepted wisdom that as flawed as it is location wise, Heathrow is staying put. Not much comfort to locals or those under the flightpath but not a lot you can do about it.

 

* which was envisaged to be fairly small anyway as UK people were expected to continue to spend their holidays in the UK - not flying to Florida, Greek Islands, The Canaries or the south of Spain

[Pacific231G]

4 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

Going back to what may have been the OP's intention in posting, would this be a good layout subject?

 

Been doodling some plans this morning and I think it could make quite a nice layout for current day operations. Potentially quite a nice mix of passenger rolling stock in various liveries as well as freight traffic from Avonmouth.

If we take the premise that Filton could have been a major regional airport, possibly even on a par with Birmingham or Manchester, and we further postulate that the local authorities made rail access a condition of sponsoring its development  so as not to create congestion on the local roads, then I think it would be an excellent subject for a layout. You could have deliveries to a fuel depot (possibly off-scene), local trains to Avonmouth, freight traffic from Avonmouth, terminal platforms for cross country trains terminating there and great scope for liveries  for the "Filton Express" (on similar lines to the Stanstead, Gatwick and Heathrow Express)  electrified?

Though you'd be looking at something much larger, I think Peter North's excellent  Southern Railway Aerodrome Park layout provides a lot of inspiration for suggesting an airport and its station without needing to actually model anything airside. 

 

 

It is of course beautifully Art Deco rather than Generic International Airport Bland

Of course if we imaginee that Fiton had been developed as Bristol  Metroplitan Airport between the wars then the combination of an aircraft factory and commercial airport with rail access (essentially the story of Southampton Airport though that's not a major regional airport) seems entirely feasible.

 

Edited August 21, 2020 by Pacific231G

[Joseph_Pestell]

13 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

without needing to actually model anything airside.

 

 

 

After sketching out a few plans, it occurred to me that the simplest option would be an N gauge "roundy-roundy" with the hidden sidings below the airport apron. I happen to have some of the recent fiNetrax kits for modern turnouts which would be great for the station throat pointwork.

 

So then I looked up 1/144 airliner kits on Google and found that there is an amazing selection, mostly at very reasonable prices. So it would be a shame not to model some of the airside activity.

[RJS1977]

4 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

After sketching out a few plans, it occurred to me that the simplest option would be an N gauge "roundy-roundy" with the hidden sidings below the airport apron. I happen to have some of the recent fiNetrax kits for modern turnouts which would be great for the station throat pointwork.

 

So then I looked up 1/144 airliner kits on Google and found that there is an amazing selection, mostly at very reasonable prices. So it would be a shame not to model some of the airside activity.

 

The trick is to model the terminal buildings/apron/hangars but not the runway (as that takes up a lot of space and you can't park planes on it).

[Joseph_Pestell]

8 minutes ago, RJS1977 said:

 

The trick is to model the terminal buildings/apron/hangars but not the runway (as that takes up a lot of space and you can't park planes on it).

 

Yes. I was thinking of modelling the terminal building in low-relief towards one end of the layout and then a plane parking area along the rest of the backscene.

[RJS1977]

18 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

If we take the premise that Filton could have been a major regional airport, possibly even on a par with Birmingham or Manchester, and we further postulate that the local authorities made rail access a condition of sponsoring its development  so as not to create congestion on the local roads, then I think it would be an excellent subject for a layout. You could have deliveries to a fuel depot (possibly off-scene), local trains to Avonmouth, freight traffic from Avonmouth, terminal platforms for cross country trains terminating there and great scope for liveries  for the "Filton Express" (on similar lines to the Stanstead, Gatwick and Heathrow Express)  electrified?

It is of course beautifully Art Deco rather than Generic International Airport Bland

Of course if we imaginee that Fiton had been developed as Bristol  Metroplitan Airport between the wars then the combination of an aircraft factory and commercial airport with rail access (essentially the story of Southampton Airport though that's not a major regional airport) seems entirely feasible.

 

 

I think if Filton was developed as an airport in either the inter-war period, or even into the 50s (i.e. before the development of the motorway network), the terminal buildings would be more likely to be at the east end of the airfield (roughly where Aerospace Bristol is now), close to the Gloucester Road and Patchway station (especially if Railway Air Services were involved in developing the airfield) - remember no Bristol Parkway station in those days either!

 

None of which is to say that a subsequent terminal might not have been built along the south side at a later date, either as further expansion or as a replacement for the original (which would have remained in use until the new terminal opened).

Edited August 22, 2020 by RJS1977

[Edwin_m]

5 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

After sketching out a few plans, it occurred to me that the simplest option would be an N gauge "roundy-roundy" with the hidden sidings below the airport apron. I happen to have some of the recent fiNetrax kits for modern turnouts which would be great for the station throat pointwork.

 

So then I looked up 1/144 airliner kits on Google and found that there is an amazing selection, mostly at very reasonable prices. So it would be a shame not to model some of the airside activity.

There is or was a layout on the exhibition circuit that moreorless does that.  

[Pacific231G]

15 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

After sketching out a few plans, it occurred to me that the simplest option would be an N gauge "roundy-roundy" with the hidden sidings below the airport apron. .

 

9 hours ago, Edwin_m said:

There is or was a layout on the exhibition circuit that moreorless does that.  

Hi Edwin

I'm wondering if it may be Aerodrome Park that you're thinking of as the line ostensibly passes under the terminal area and loops back (using set track curves) but to a kickback fiddle yard behind the low relief buildings

It's quite an ingenious arrangement though not a continuous run and the apron is implied so there  may well be another layout that includes both.

The other airport themed layout that I've seen  at exhibitions, though not for some time, is Andy Hopper's "Manston" but that is AFAIR laid out in a terminus to fiddle yard configuration. It's  14ft x 2ft. I may have some pictures of it somewhere but again it was 4mm scale and totally different from Joseph's idea.

 

Edited August 22, 2020 by Pacific231G

[Edwin_m]

11 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

 

Hi Edwin

I'm wondering if it may be Aerodrome Park that you're thinking of as the line ostensibly passes under the terminal area and loops back (using set track curves) but to a kickback fiddle yard behind the low relief buildings

It's quite an ingenious arrangement though not a continuous run and the apron is implied so there  may well be another layout that includes both.

The other airport themed layout that I've seen  at exhibitions, though not for some time, is Andy Hopper's "Manston" but that is AFAIR laid out in a terminus to fiddle yard configuration. It's  14ft x 2ft. I may have some pictures of it somewhere but again it was 4mm scale and totally different from Joseph's idea.

 

It wasn't either of those - it was fairly much contemporary and maybe even have been continental.  It was several years ago and either my memory's going or the exhibition was too busy for me to get a good look.  

[Coppercap]

On 21/08/2020 at 14:54, phil-b259 said:

At the time Heathrow was decided on as the future London Air terminal we were still in the midst of WW2 and two years away from the D-day landings (the ministerial decision was made in 1942 IIRC even though the airfield itself wasn't opened till 1944). 

 

Heathrow never actually opened as an RAF base.

It started when Fairey Aviation's Great West Aerodrome was requisitioned by the Government, while Sir Richard Fairey was in the USA (how convenient...) as Director General of the British Air Commission (i.e. on Government business), on the pretext of the urgent need for an RAF base there. There was no need - it was all part of a Government plan to get a new Airport built for London without objection. 

Work on further developing and expanding the nearby former private but now Air Ministry-owned Heston Airport had started before the war, with demolition of much of adjacent Cranford, but this was halted by the war. Transport aircraft had by then become larger, and it was realised that Heston would be too small without incurring further land purchases and much more demolition.

So, the Governments plan was to take over Fairey's aerodrome, which was surrounded mostly by agricultural land, build a large new air base with concrete runways for 'urgent' wartime needs (easily pushed through Parliament), and when the war ends, it can be made it into an urgently-needed commercial airport for London. In actual fact it wasn't needed that urgently - the Government just made it look that way.

After the war, when the airlines looked at the layout of the still-incomplete aerodrome, it was quite apparent it was unsuitable for commercial use, so had to be rebuilt - with longer runways and a different layout. The "tent village" and all the temporary arrangements were a ploy to make it look like the airport was needed urgently. 

After a long legal battle, Fairey Aviation wasn't compensated until 1964 (he'd died in 1956) - only £1.6m. Not a lot even then. The Government wanted to pay compensation rates for agricultural land, while Fairey argued it was industrial land. The final payment was insufficient to cover the company's losses. Also having to use White Waltham airfield, given over to Fairey's use during and after the war as a temporary compensation for the loss of it's own nearby aerodrome, was a logistical issue as White Waltham was many miles from the factory in Hayes. Fairey Aviation never really recovered from it's losses.

My dad worked for Fairey Aviation in Hayes from about 1941 until the mid-1950s, when he could see the writing was on the wall...         

[rob D2]

On the subject of airfield themed layouts I’ve had one in my head for ages ...

 

a different alignment for the ilfracombe line running down the river. And lasting into the 80s with holiday trains .

 

Through station  “RAF  chivenor”, with hangars one side and the estuary on the other .

 

I’ be got the 31s, corgi chivenor hawk ready to go , just lacking time money and space 

[Pacific231G]

On 23/08/2020 at 11:44, rob D2 said:

On the subject of airfield themed layouts I’ve had one in my head for ages ...

 

a different alignment for the ilfracombe line running down the river. And lasting into the 80s with holiday trains .

 

Through station  “RAF  chivenor”, with hangars one side and the estuary on the other .

 

I’ be got the 31s, corgi chivenor hawk ready to go , just lacking time money and space 

Presumably with scope for fuel deliveries to the airbase? The Ilfracombe line always did seem like one that should never have closed, a bit like Swanage. There's some interesting scope there. At one time RAF Brize Norton had a taxiway that crossed the Fairford Branch so why not Chivenor had it needed to expand that way during WW2. It would make a change from a conventional Level Crossing.

Edited August 26, 2020 by Pacific231G
clarity L.C. to Level Crossing

[The Johnster]

It's a longer distance, but the gradients are less severe; imagine that the Ilfracombe branch hugged the estuary and the coastline through Braunton and Woolacombe.  It would have been one of the most spectacularly scenic routes in the country, and served Chivenor!  Operating costs on gentler gradients might have enabled the branch survive into more railway-friendly times when it would have had a better chance.  Probably not, with the clear intention of the WR to shut any remnant of the LSW's 'withered arm', but it's a perfectly cromulent back story for a layout.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Going back to the discussion about Cardiff (Rhoose), Wizz Air announced earlier this week that they are opening a base there with flights to various European destinations (mostly holiday resort traffic).

 

I also happened to be doing a bit of research on the Faeroe Islands and they have their own national flag carrier. So not unreasonable that Wales should have its own.

[rob D2]

10 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

Going back to the discussion about Cardiff (Rhoose), Wizz Air announced earlier this week that they are opening a base there with flights to various European destinations (mostly holiday resort traffic).

 

I also happened to be doing a bit of research on the Faeroe Islands and they have their own national flag carrier. So not unreasonable that Wales should have its own.

I don’t think Wales will want wizzair as it’s flag carrier.

it’s been tried before - Air Wales ? And various others have tried to make a fist of it but certainly in S Wales , Bristol seems to dominate the catchment area, with strong showings from all the low costs there .

[MarkC]

On 18/08/2020 at 22:57, The Johnster said:

Exactly, Rhoose is a lame duck except as a local airport, but the M4 corridor does not make it easy for South Walians to access Lulsgate as you have to come off the M5 at Avonmouth and negotiate the Cumberland Basin County Fair Dodgems, then thread your way slowly along a one lane each way road through the southwestern 'burbs of Bristol until you get the the airport.  Alternative is to plug on down the M5 towards Exeter, risking the Avonmouth Bridge tailback, and come off at WSM, having been treated to a grandstand view of a/c taking off or landing only a mile off the M/way at the western end of Lulsgate runway, and then thread your way back through the country lanes, a taste of Zummerzet at it's most bucolic, which is pretty bucolic if you're late for your check in.

 

Birmingham or Heathrow are better choices than Lulsgate for South Walians. and Gatport Airwick or East Midlands about the same.  My advice to any South Walian trying to fly from Stanstead is, really, seriously dude, just don't!!!

Oh, how true. I've twice paid off a ship at Pembroke. Both times, having looked at timings to get to Lulsgate by taxi for a Sleazyjet flight to Newcastle, check in, fly, wait for bags, walk to car/taxi then drive home to Durham, I opted to drive. Collected by car hire firm & taken to their depot at Milford, then route Fishguard, Aberystwyth. Machynlleth, Corris, Bala. Corwen, Ruthin, Mold, a stop for food & coffee in the brief  time on the A55, Shotton, then M56, M6, M62, M60, M62, M1, A1(M) to home. Fabulous scenery as far as Shotton. and about the same actual travelling time. Car dropped off at the local depot the following morning. Job done.

 

Probably cheaper than taxi fares, flight costs etc too.

 

Mark

Edited December 5, 2020 by MarkC