Heathrow Expansion

[Purley Oaks]

Unfortunately not Ivan, due to the concentration of population within the southeast, hence the emphasis on the London region. The ideal would have been the Cublington proposal, (in effect Milton Keynes), with subsequent infrastructure development to allow rapid transit from the London area, as well as other regions.

And this is the London problem; its success means more people living and working there demanding ever more services, whilst the rest of the UK receives much less attention from the government than it should. So more businesses decide to move to London; a self-perpetuating problem.

 

Course I have no idea what to do about Heathrow; when I travel to London by air it's almost always to Gatwick which used to provide speedy onward transit by rail to East Croydon and Victoria. Haven't been there since the current GTR/Thameslink idea of a service.

 

Mal

[SHMD]

Those are pretty compelling figures you have there Ron^3.

Mostly locals (nearest airport to them) except for the transfers (lots of destinations with little need to wait).

 

 

Three weeks ago I just happened to be in the area (MAN-CDG A320) and took these...

 

LHR

 

..and the same shot but zoomed in.

Not much room for development - unless there is too much water in the South East! (More hose pipe bans anyone?)

 

3 minutes later (according to the picture properties anyway) I went over (ok adjacent to) Gatwick.

 

..again the same shot but zoomed in.

Now there's a big runway sized undeveloped chunk of land right next to the existing runway!

 

On the return leg I overflew London City.

Not much room for a second runway there - unless the develop double-decker runways!

 

 

Kev.

(I'll keep an eye out for Luton and Stansted!)

((Yes I know about google maps but this is so much more fun!))

 

[Joseph_Pestell]

Now there's an idea. Use flying boats for some of the routes.

 

One could probably build a runway over a reservoir easily enough. But any runway further south would mean more planes overflying HMQs favourite home in Windsor. Can't see the Prime Minister backing that.

[PMP]

. But any runway further south would mean more planes overflying HMQs favourite home in Windsor. Can't see the Prime Minister backing that.

Try taking a look at a map.

 

The current north runway is directly in line with Windsor roughly 3.5 nautical miles from the end of the runway. Please explain why a runway further south means more aircraft overflying Windsor castle?

[adb968008]

Eventually LHR's third runway may not be enough, and we might see much of the surrounding area absorbed by an ever-expanding LHR.

I think there was a mention a while back in this thread of the wisdom of having a more centrally located airport for all of Britain. Wouldn't Birmingham International fit the bill perfectly, with room to expand for more "world cl-ars*" flights from overseas?

Another one that will never work.

Some mad professor argued an airport in the centre of the country is a hub for everyone, and would be the most efficient in the country.

 

That academic lessons already been learned the 1.1bn Euro hard way...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ciudad_Real_Central_Airport

 

The airport for all Spain, designed to connections across the country, opened in 2009, closed in 2012, 300mn Euro in the red. It’s for sale if you want it, complete with some of the longest and widest runways in Europe, A380 ready, 10mn passenger capacity, private jet and helipad terminals, the Chinese offered 10k euros for it and it’s still didn’t sell.

 

An airport in the middle of nowhere is exactly that...build it and they won’t come.

Edited June 7, 2018 by adb968008

[adb968008]

Now there's an idea. Use flying boats for some of the routes.

 

One could probably build a runway over a reservoir easily enough. But any runway further south would mean more planes overflying HMQs favourite home in Windsor. Can't see the Prime Minister backing that.

Already done.. indeed on the model of an airport which is the best solution in my opinion.

 

An island in the Thames estuary (screw the birds no one cares about anyway) is the most efficient solution for people. However no politician in this country would ever make such a bold move.

 

 

Hong Kong Airport is however an artificial island, and a big one, out of the way of people and hills.

 

It also has an ocean terminal.

 

I arrived at HKG airport, after checking in my luggage and getting my boarding pass at the Macau hydrofoil terminal in Macau and taking the boat to HKG. Once at the airport you leave the boat, by pass immigration and collect your airport taxes (in cash as a refund) before going to your gate. The refund is because you do passport, immigration and baggage scanning in Macau first before getting on the boat... oh and because your pre-scanned you skip the airport security lines too !!

There’s ferries to other various parts of China to from HKG.

Edited June 7, 2018 by adb968008

[The Stationmaster]

Those are pretty compelling figures you have there Ron^3.

Mostly locals (nearest airport to them) except for the transfers (lots of destinations with little need to wait).

 

 

Three weeks ago I just happened to be in the area (MAN-CDG A320) and took these...

 

LHR

LHRa.png

 

..and the same shot but zoomed in.

LHRb.png

Not much room for development - unless there is too much water in the South East! (More hose pipe bans anyone?)

 

3 minutes later (according to the picture properties anyway) I went over (ok adjacent to) Gatwick.

Gatwick1.png

 

..again the same shot but zoomed in.

Gatwick2.png

Now there's a big runway sized undeveloped chunk of land right next to the existing runway!

 

On the return leg I overflew London City.

LondonCity.png

Not much room for a second runway there - unless the develop double-decker runways!

 

 

Kev.

(I'll keep an eye out for Luton and Stansted!)

((Yes I know about google maps but this is so much more fun!))

 

The more I look at those pictures and Google Maps satellite views the more I wonder about the siting of the third runaway and why it isn't being put in the most obvious place - immediately north of the existing 09L/27R and far closer in than going slapbang through the middle of Sipson and Harmondsworth.  Logically with an intermediate taxiway between R3 and 09L the new R3 would appear to lie roughly along a line a bit north of the Bath Road instead of going much further away.  A new terminal could easily be built immediately to the north of the new runway and east of the current spur road from the M4.

 

This would involve considerable demolitions but part of the area is only car parks and roads plus a few hotels although there would equally be demolition of a number of domestic properties.  What it would also do is leave space for a fourth runway between it and the M$ at a later date instead of requiring one to be built in the future between the currently talked about site and 09L.  it seems daft to me to build an airport expansion - if there inescapably has to be one - which isn't contiguous with the current airport and its taxiways.  In reliability and resilience terms it would also be better as it would allow easy diversion from 09L to the new runway and vice versa thus greatly simplifying things if any one of the three runways has to be closed for any reason (e.g. resurfacing work) as thenew runway would be accessible from the existing terminals (albeit perhaps if 09L is not being used).

[The Stationmaster]

Now there's an idea. Use flying boats for some of the routes.

 

One could probably build a runway over a reservoir easily enough. But any runway further south would mean more planes overflying HMQs favourite home in Windsor. Can't see the Prime Minister backing that.

09L/27R is directly in line with Windsor Castle - daft place to put a castle wasn't it.

[adb968008]

One thing no ones mentioned, is the solution of high speed rail by other countries...

 

Paris.. TGV connections

Frankfurt ICE connections

Amsterdam Thalys, ICE and now Eurostar

Newark.. NJT to NYC, PA, Jersey

Zurich.. seamless connections.. I can even have my luggage delivered to my local Swiss station

 

 

One solution to cut traffic at LHR is remove need for so many short haul flights... if HS2 had gone via LHR, all those BA flights to Manchester,Glasgow, Leeds and Edinburgh could be cut... that’s 30+ take off and landings daily right there,

 

However in doing so would mean passengers would have a more competitive choice for air connections via Amsterdam, Paris etc, and as passengers have less fear over connecting flights, than a change of mode from Train to Plane, it’s not a competitive edge they wont relinquish without a fight.

It works in the above countries because their is less overall flight volumes and connections that LHR offers... passengers don’t have the choice.

 

High Speed rail does work It does work,one of the major contributors to BMIs demise was HS1, depriving them of very lucrative business to Brussels and Paris. Indeed if Eurostar et al get their acts together they could do considerable damage to Amsterdam flights, which is the city that’s gaining a massive amount of Brexit benefits and expansions right now... if they upped it to 6 a day and made it able to do immigration on the move.. at 3h40 that compares well to the 75minute + 1hr before, +1hour after messing about associated with flying.

Edited June 7, 2018 by adb968008

[Horsetan]

....An airport in the middle of nowhere is exactly that...build it and they won’t come.

Hmmm, not quite true for KL International, which was built from scratch in the middle of nowhere. Everyone uses it now.

[adb968008]

Hmmm, not quite true for KL International, which was built from scratch in the middle of nowhere. Everyone uses it now.

KL ? if you mean Kuala Lumpur, it’s quite definitely in KL, but like most major airports it’s on the edge of the city. What it isn’t is half way between KL and Singapore, which academically would be efficient for both, but useless for everyone in reality.

Shanghai is also a long way out side town, but it has maglev. But again Pudong is for Shanghai it’s not trying to cover Shanghai and Beijing.

 

There are a few places one airport can serve multiple major cities though, Baltimore Washington Airport manages to cover both, I think it’s about an hour to D.C.

It is also possible to link two airports in the same city by air.. I’ve flown on an A320 from São Paulo Intl to São Paulo Congonhas once.. but if you see the size of the city you can understand why such a flight exists. Congonhas has certainly counts as one of the more challenging airports to fly thru.. it’s a shoebox surrounded by high rises...

Edited June 7, 2018 by adb968008

[PMP]

The more I look at those pictures and Google Maps satellite views the more I wonder about the siting of the third runaway and why it isn't being put in the most obvious place - immediately north of the existing 09L/27R and far closer in .

For parallel runways you need a minimum lateral separation of the runways, and then lateral clearance for taxiway to runway too. I can’t recall numbers off top of my head but they’ll vary depending which criteria are being used for the airfield design. I suspect the alignment of the A4 and M4 may restrict the optimum spacing from Heathrow. It’ll be easier to knock houses down than do realignment of either or both roads with the consequent disruption (and higher costs) that would cause. Edited June 7, 2018 by PMP

[Ron Ron Ron]

3 minutes later (according to the picture properties anyway) I went over (ok adjacent to) Gatwick.

Gatwick1.png

 

..again the same shot but zoomed in.

Gatwick2.png

 

Now there's a big runway sized undeveloped chunk of land right next to the existing runway!

 That open area to the south (right in your photo) of the runway is exactly where Gatwick's proposed new runway would be built.

 

 

 

On the return leg I overflew London City.

LondonCity.png

 

Not much room for a second runway there - unless the develop double-decker runways!

 

London City airport is about to see construction work start on a major expansion.

No extra runways, but the terminal will double in size and the parking apron will be extended over most of the King George V Dock (left of the runway in your photo).

 

 

.

[Ron Ron Ron]

09L/27R is directly in line with Windsor Castle - daft place to put a castle wasn't it.

 

You may laugh Mike, but many moons ago I used to live in the centre of Windsor and when out shopping one sunny spring day, when Heathrow was landing on Easterlies (where almost every arrival passes right over the town centre and castle), I actually heard an American lady ask her husband....

 

"Why did they build the castle so close to the airport ?"

 

I kid you not.

 

 

 

.

[SHMD]

 That open area to the south (right in your photo) of the runway is exactly where Gatwick's proposed new runway would be built.

 

 

 

 

 

That's exactly why I took that photo three weeks ago.

Incidentally, the view from the A320 was much greener but the phone/camera has made everything blue.

 

 

Kev.

[tractionman]

Fair question.

 

Clearly we need to be outside the M25 to find the space and we want good connectivity on the ground, both rail and road.

 

It's obvious where it should be.

Birmingham!

 

It's nodal, soonish to be linked to London by HS2, and besides, by 2100 most of central London will be underwater so relocate the capital to the Mercian heartland!

 

Cheers,

 

Keith

[Ron Ron Ron]

.....Indeed if Eurostar et al get their acts together they could do considerable damage to Amsterdam flights, ....

....if they upped it to 6 a day and made it able to do immigration on the move.. at 3h40 that compares well to the 75minute + 1hr before, +1hour after messing about associated with flying.

 

Firstly I doubt that immigration checks on the move will be contemplated for the foreseeable future and the requirement for security checks isn't going away either.

 

Secondly your timing comparisons are not consistent.

Nobody starts and ends their journey at the railway stations at either end, so you need to add on the pre and post rail journey times to the actual rail journey itself.

 

For LON - AMS, Eurostar has a recommended check-in and security check time of something like 40 mins prior to departure at SPI.

Travelling from the point of departure to the station would be a the very least 10 to 20 minutes, if leaving a hotel or office etc, nearby. More likely 30 minutes to a hour or more from points of departure across Greater London.

So that adds something between one to almost 2 hours before the train departure time.

On arrival at AMS Centraal it's going to anything from 10 minutes to half an hour or more to get to your destination, unless that final destination is some way further out.

You'd be very lucky to achieve a journey time of under 5 hours.

It's more likely to be between 5 and 6 hours.

From outside of London it could be much quicker to get to the airport than fight your way to SPI.

 

The return Eurostar from AMS to LON takes between 4:40 and over 5 hours, before adding on the extra time at either end.

 

 

.

[The Stationmaster]

For parallel runways you need a minimum lateral separation of the runways, and then lateral clearance for taxiway to runway too. I can’t recall numbers off top of my head but they’ll vary depending which criteria are being used for the airfield design. I suspect the alignment of the A4 and M4 may restrict the optimum spacing from Heathrow. It’ll be easier to knock houses down than do realignment of either or both roads with the consequent disruption (and higher costs) that would cause.

 

But as at least one plan places R3 much nearer to the M4 than I'm suggesting it would seem not  to present any sort of problem in that respect unless the 4th runway breaks the bank so to speak.  Obviously there will be minimum spacings but why not use them instead of building the runway elsewhere - surely an integrated site with parallel runways and linking taxiways is going to be easier to manage than one with its third runway dumped elsewhere.

 

As far as the A4 and building demolitions are concerned that is exactly what expanding LHR means - something will have to be demolished and roads might well have to be diverted or put in tunnel as part of the cost of expanding an airport sited in what is now a developed area of housing etc.  If somebody is going to spend billions building R3 it must make sense to do a job integrated into the existing airport rather than any other way even if it costs more - otherwise we're jusrt. recreating teh same old kalf-hearted approach of saving up problems for the next lot of expansion.

[The Stationmaster]

Firstly I doubt that immigration checks on the move will be contemplated for the foreseeable future and the requirement for security checks isn't going away either.

 

Secondly your timing comparisons are not consistent.

Nobody starts and ends their journey at the railway stations at either end, so you need to add on the pre and post rail journey times to the actual rail journey itself.

 

For LON - AMS, Eurostar has a recommended check-in and security check time of something like 40 mins prior to departure at SPI.

Travelling from the point of departure to the station would be a the very least 10 to 20 minutes, if leaving a hotel or office etc, nearby. More likely 30 minutes to a hour or more from points of departure across Greater London.

So that adds something between one to almost 2 hours before the train departure time.

On arrival at AMS Centraal it's going to anything from 10 minutes to half an hour or more to get to your destination, unless that final destination is some way further out.

You'd be very lucky to achieve a journey time of under 5 hours.

It's more likely to be between 5 and 6 hours.

From outside of London it could be much quicker to get to the airport than fight your way to SPI.

 

The return Eurostar from AMS to LON takes between 4:40 and over 5 hours, before adding on the extra time at either end.

 

 

.

But the return journey could potentially be shortened when the check in and security arrangements at Amsterdam Central are commissioned.  however I'm not really sure if rail would be competitive to Amsterdam in any event but it is definitely competitive on time to Köln and various German towns and cities with reasonably good connections from there.

[adb968008]

Firstly I doubt that immigration checks on the move will be contemplated for the foreseeable future and the requirement for security checks isn't going away either.

 

Secondly your timing comparisons are not consistent.

Nobody starts and ends their journey at the railway stations at either end, so you need to add on the pre and post rail journey times to the actual rail journey itself.

 

For LON - AMS, Eurostar has a recommended check-in and security check time of something like 40 mins prior to departure at SPI.

Travelling from the point of departure to the station would be a the very least 10 to 20 minutes, if leaving a hotel or office etc, nearby. More likely 30 minutes to a hour or more from points of departure across Greater London.

So that adds something between one to almost 2 hours before the train departure time.

On arrival at AMS Centraal it's going to anything from 10 minutes to half an hour or more to get to your destination, unless that final destination is some way further out.

You'd be very lucky to achieve a journey time of under 5 hours.

It's more likely to be between 5 and 6 hours.

From outside of London it could be much quicker to get to the airport than fight your way to SPI.

 

The return Eurostar from AMS to LON takes between 4:40 and over 5 hours, before adding on the extra time at either end.

 

 

.

I wasn’t but as you mention it...

 

From leafy Surrey to Amsterdam (my personal timings)..

Home to Heathrow T5 Business Parking 1 hour (personal best 45 mins, rush hour 90 mins)

Pod Parking to Fast track immigration and Airside 20 minutes

Shortest wait for group 1 boarding 60 minutes (I’ve done it in 15)

Lhr - Ams flt, typically 1h10, depends on runway at LHR and if landing on Polderbaan at Ams which is 3 miles from the terminal, it can be 90 minutes, the best is usually 2050 KLM from T4 which has no LHR queue and lands on the local runway at AMS but still needs bus to Terminal.

AMS gate to exit thru immigration, typically 20 minutes

AMS airport to Hotel.. that’s easy I usually stay at the Sheraton, but occasionally the IC next to Amsterdam Central.

 

So.. we have a 3hr 50 minute flight + local transport in Amsterdam.

 

 

Now Leafy Surrey to Amsterdam by Eurostar, 1730 train

 

Walk to station 10 minutes,

Thameslink to StP 40 minutes

Business line at Eurostar 10 minutes

Extra boarding time margin 10 minutes

3hr 40 minutes in Amsterdam

 

So.. we have 4hr 50 minutes

 

For a business traveller though, what swings it, is ease of use..

by plane involves :

car, pod, queue security, queue boarding, plane, restrained seating, bus, walk, queue (passport), queue (luggage) queue(for cab), taxi

 

By train involves:

Walk, train, walk, queue security, 3hrs of WiFi, table seating, mobility, food, phone usage, walk.

 

Which has least stress and more productive... that’s why Brussels and Paris are dead air routes.

 

Don’t get me wrong I love to fly, with over 2mn miles under my belt with the various airlines of the world, but personal comfort, productivity is important. I am fortunate to always book my own travel so I am able to select schedules and routes that work for me.

 

As I said originally, Eurostar needs to get its act together, they could shave a lot more time off the schedule yet, then it will be a threat to air. But the threat is there.., 1 hour is here not there for a budget traveller or a family on vacation.. they’ll chose what’s easiest and cheapest rather than fastest or most frequent.

 

Indeed after last weeks fiascos (I had a 6 hour delay in Frankfurt, 2 hour delay in Krakow, and a 2 hour delay in both directions to/from Amsterdam, out KL, back BA, I was seriously thinking I should drive to Europe on sub 400 mile journeys).

Edited June 7, 2018 by adb968008

[Ron Ron Ron]

The more I look at those pictures and Google Maps satellite views the more I wonder about the siting of the third runaway and why it isn't being put in the most obvious place - immediately north of the existing 09L/27R and far closer in than going slapbang through the middle of Sipson and Harmondsworth.....

 

 

For parallel runways you need a minimum lateral separation of the runways, and then lateral clearance for taxiway to runway too.

I can’t recall numbers off top of my head but they’ll vary depending which criteria are being used for the airfield design......

 

(I don't think I need to tell you PMP   )

 

The minimum separation applied between the location of parallel runways depends on the safe operation of aircraft from adjacent runways and on what mode of operation is required.

There are absolute safe minimums, but these increase for different requirements and weather conditions.

 

For operation solely under visual flight rules, they can be closer together, but the operation of the two runways needs to be interlinked.

What is sometimes called close coupled, where movements of aircraft are , for want of a better phrase, interwoven and dependant on each other in order to provide the appropriate mandatory minimum separation between aircraft operating on each runway (both landing and taking off).

The interdependence of aircraft movements will limit the amount the number of possible movements.

 

We also get pretty cr@ppy weather a lot of the time so there is a need to keep the large number of aircraft movements going as much as possible.

 

The minimum required distance between the runways increases as you move towards operation under instrument flight conditions and/or gradually reduce the level of interdependence between the allowed movement on each runway to maximise the possible capacity.

 

To get the full benefit of building this very expensive runway, Heathrow need to maximise the number of aircraft movements that would be safely possible.

That's the whole point of building it after all.

 

There will be a need for parallel approaches under instrument flight rules (IFR) - often using the two outer runways of the 3 - and the ability to depart aircraft from 2 runways without conflicting with each other once in the air.

 

Add to that, the use of runway alternation to provide some respite during the day, for people living under the approach and departure paths.

This aspect might be a condition of the detailed planning approval.

 

All this adds up to having the runways spaced apart as far is practically possible, given the space available.

There is a decent distance between the two existing runways, but not enough for fully autonomous operations.

The new runway is planned to be as far away as possible to allow the maximum movement rate that can be achieved under instrument conditions.

 

 

If there had been plenty of space available on the south side of Heathrow, they could have built 2 new runways instead, making 4 in total.

One built north of the northern runway and one south of the southern runway, but with much closer spacing to the respective adjacent runways and staggered.

The operation would have been close coupled, but in pairs.

Each pair would have consisted of one landing and one departure runway; much like those at somewhere like Atlanta Hartsfield (the busiest commercial airport in the world).

Sadly, that isn't possible at Heathrow given the physical constraints of the site and the possibly worst political ramifications.

 

 

.

[Fenman]

... My point is that the fall was smaller at Heathrow- in a shrinking market, it managed to grow market share at the expense of its cheaper rivals. ...

 

Coming back to this a bit late - are you sure? I thought LHR's landing charges were lower than LGW or STN, largely because the regulator forced them to reduce charges to achieve efficiency gains? Which is why they're so obsessed with making money from retail and car parking.

 

If my memory is right, that means airlines are financially incentivised to use packed LHR over LGW. Happy to be corrected.

 

Paul

[rob D2]

Ironically , looking at the plans to put the M25 in a tunnel, it’ll make my drive to Gatwick a massive pain in the arse for years.

 

I’d give it to Gatwick , and build it straight through Crawley .

[Clearwater]

Coming back to this a bit late - are you sure? I thought LHR's landing charges were lower than LGW or STN, largely because the regulator forced them to reduce charges to achieve efficiency gains? Which is why they're so obsessed with making money from retail and car parking.

 

If my memory is right, that means airlines are financially incentivised to use packed LHR over LGW. Happy to be corrected.

 

Paul

I’m fairly sure back in 2008/09 that Stansted and Gatwick were cheaper than Heathrow (from analysis I did at the time) though happy to be corrected. This from 2012 (table on p12) shows aero revenue per pax. This may be simplistic and actual charging structures may be more complex.

 

https://www.caa.co.uk/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=4294972552

 

However the analysis becomes more complex!

 

Today it may have reversed (I’m not sure). However an impact of single till regulation, still in place at Heathrow but not at Stansted, I think Gatwick is now ‘lighter touch’ may cause Heathrow’s charges to reduce to less than what the market would bear. Hence perhaps in part why landing slots trade at a premium as passenger fares are not regulated. Arguably single till regulation passes profits at congested airports to operators. As an aside, Stansted struggled to charge to its caps prior to dedesignation.

[geoffers]

There is a nice long runway at RAF Mildenhall should the Americans decide to vacate it. Confliction problems with RAF Lakenheath perhaps?  Run for cover geoffers...........