Heathrow Expansion

[figworthy]

One could probably build a runway over a reservoir easily enough.

 

The problem is that the tops of some of those reservoirs are ~70-80ft above ground level (they are a big earth/concrete ring), so the ground works required to build over the top would be horrendous.

 

Adrian

[rodent279]

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 .

Surely the answer is obvious?

 

Build LHR's 3rd runway in a tunnel?.

... :-)

[adb968008]

Surely the answer is obvious?

Build LHR's 3rd runway in a tunnel?.

... :-)

Or a circular runway, as a giant vortex sucking them in :-)

[BMacdermott]

Or a circular runway, as a giant vortex sucking them in :-)

 

Hello adb

 

Google 'circular runway'! Don't fancy it myself!

 

Brian (straight and very long runway fan)

[rob D2]

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...........

 

I think they tried that sort of thing with manston, but people just won’t travel far outside the metropolis .

[Mike Storey]

I think they tried that sort of thing with manston, but people just won’t travel far outside the metropolis .

 

Well yes, but there was rather less to that than met the eye! Manston was primarily retained as the only (?) instrument landing equipped runway in the UK at the time, capable of taking commercial airliners up to Jumbos, and where most of the flights were commercial pilots training or updating their "tickets". The RAF had lost interest years ago. The few commercial flights, other than cargo which was quite busy for a while, were just for charters I believe. Then Ann Gloag of StageCoach bought the whole site (for £1) and flogged it for millions to an (allegedly dodgy) developer who professed some desire to see the heritage retained whilst filling it with houses and offices etc. That was the CC's desire, but the locals wanted the airport to stay and UKIP won the Thanet Council elections mainly on a promise of keeping it open, only for their leader to discover they had neither the power nor the money to do anything like that, so UKIP fell out with each other, with defections and so on, and the electorate booted them out next time around. From observations on recent visits, after so many years, nothing much has happened. The new rail station (Ramsgate Parkway), being built mainly in anticipation of the development, looks likely to be open long before anyone lives or works there. The local golf course will have never had such good public transport before.....

 

That reminded me of the old Silver Arrow service from London by rail to Gatwick, then to Le Touquet by air, and then by a very swish, dedicated autorail (the X2700), which ceased operation when the Channel Tunnel opened. Anyone else remember that? Wasn't that expensive either. I used to have to give information about it (I may even have sold a few tickets) when I worked at Cannon Street and then Charing Cross travel centres (and we had loads of enquiries about it when I was at Sealink, but were told to refer them to the normal BR enquiry number. Seemed odd, but orders were orders.).

 

Incidentally, the air part was operated by BUA (British United Airways, MD in the 60's one Freddie Laker) and the service had started as coach/air/coach in the 50's, run by a firm called Silver City Airways, but that used Lydd airport as its UK side. Lydd, in the late 50's, was the busiest airport in the UK (by aircraft movements). SCA were going bust because of other problems and BUA took them over and switched to rail and Gatwick, due to Freddie's good BR contacts. Southend was also another airport which used a rail/air/rail scheduled link, also via Le Touquet, but using BAF, which also carried cars. No-one ever asked me about that. Not sure how long that one lasted. Times have certainly changed, but there is nothing new in remote "London" airports, nor in using rail links as part of the journey.

Edited June 10, 2018 by Mike Storey

[Oakydoke]

That reminded me of the old Silver Arrow service from London by rail to Gatwick, then to Le Touquet by air, and then by a very swish, dedicated autorail (the X2700), which ceased operation when the Channel Tunnel opened.

 

Incidentally, the air part was operated by BUA (British United Airways, MD in the 60's one Freddie Laker) and the service had started as coach/air/coach in the 50's, run by a firm called Silver City Airways, but that used Lydd airport as its UK side.

.

The Silver Arrow rail-air-Rail service from London to Paris was BUA's way of circumventing the tight regulatory restrictions on scheduled flights that protected state owned BEA and Air France, in the 1960's.

BUA had already established an airline terminal at Victoria station to link central London to the newly developed Gatwick airport and Freddie Laker convinced the French authorities and SNCF to build a short branch from the local line into Le Touquet airport, to allow a direct rail service from there to Gare du Nord.

 

When BUA was merged into British Caledonian Airways in 1970, they continued to run the service for just a few years, before subcontracting it out to British Island Airways (BIA), itself a former subsidiary of BUA, prior to being separated into an independent entity when BUA became part of BCAL.

 

BIA ran the rail-air-rail link until it merged with other airlines to form Air UK in 1980.

Air UK dropped the route in the early 1980's a decade or more before the Channel Tunnel was opened.

Wider and quicker air competition, including regular flights from Gatwick to Paris and much cheaper air fares killed off the service. Not the opening of the channel tunnel.

 

The coach-air service from London, original via Lympe (Ashford, Kent) and later via Lydd to Paris didn't stop with opening of the Gatwick rail-air service.

It continued to be operated by Skways, who ran it through to the early 1970's, when they were taken over by Dan-Air.

The flights ran between Lydd and Beauvais airport, halfway between Paris and the channel coast.

Despite a much reduced service, Dan-Air ran the coach-air link until the mid/late 1980's.

The coach-air link also succumbed to the increased availability of quicker and cheaper flights between the main London and Paris airports. Dan-Air themselves flew between Gatwick and Paris CDG.

 

Several small companies have run, or attempted to run the Lydd-Beauvais route over the years since, but primarily as a link to serve south and east Kent, rather than London.

Edited June 11, 2018 by Oakydoke

[Oakydoke]

Manston was primarily retained as the only (?) instrument landing equipped runway in the UK at the time, capable of taking commercial airliners up to Jumbos, and where most of the flights were commercial pilots training or updating their "tickets". The RAF had lost interest years ago. The few commercial flights, other than cargo which was quite busy for a while, were just for charters I believe.

.

Manston was retained by the RAF as an emergency diversion airfield, long after they had any operational use for it, until they finally withdrew from there in the late 1990's.

Charter flights have operated from there from the 1960's.

Some airlines have intermittently used Manston for training flights at various times over the years, but this was less common over time as the emphasis on training moved over to the use of more a more sophisticated simulators.

 

The main commercial use of Manston was for air cargo and some charter flights.

Air cargo operations became quite busy in the late 1990's through to the late 2000's.

 

For a short time in the 2000's, scheduled operator EUjet flew a small network of flights from Manston airport before going bust.

Later on Flybe operated some domestic links from the airfield, but gave up on them after a couple of years.

The last operator bizarrely was KLM, who ran a twice daily link to Amsterdam shortly before Manston closed down.

[2mmMark]

The problem is that the tops of some of those reservoirs are ~70-80ft above ground level (they are a big earth/concrete ring), so the ground works required to build over the top would be horrendous.

 

Adrian

 

Large bodies of water tend to attract birds. The lake around BA's HQ is home to quite a few birds, some of a size that could do serious damage to an aircraft.

[BMacdermott]

Hello everyone

 

Heathrow has at least one resident Kestrel - it can often be seen hovering over the grass to the north of the north runway (27R/09L). It was causing a few problems for aircraft last time I was there and had to be scared off.

 

I have seen Kites (the bird type) encroaching from time to time.

 

Still...better that than drones which get reported regularly now!

 

Brian

[Ron Ron Ron]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44609898

 

https://news.sky.com/story/heathrow-airport-third-runway-backed-by-mps-in-commons-vote-11416986

 

 

.

[Tim Chambers]

Manston was retained by the RAF as an emergency diversion airfield, long after they had any operational use for it, until they finally withdrew from there in the late 1990's.

Charter flights have operated from there from the 1960's.

Some airlines have intermittently used Manston for training flights at various times over the years, but this was less common over time as the emphasis on training moved over to the use of more a more sophisticated simulators.

 

The main commercial use of Manston was for air cargo and some charter flights.

Air cargo operations became quite busy in the late 1990's through to the late 2000's.

 

For a short time in the 2000's, scheduled operator EUjet flew a small network of flights from Manston airport before going bust.

Later on Flybe operated some domestic links from the airfield, but gave up on them after a couple of years.

The last operator bizarrely was KLM, who ran a twice daily link to Amsterdam shortly before Manston closed down.

Happy memories of flying Chipmunks from Manston on Air Cadet "Air experience flying" in the early 60s!i

[Horsetan]

Surely the answer is obvious?

 

Build LHR's 3rd runway in a tunnel?.

... :-)

 

Presumably the third runway will eventually reach capacity, and then there'll be calls for a fourth runway, along with Terminals 6 and 7....

 

Demolition of much of outer West London, anyone?

[Joseph_Pestell]

Presumably the third runway will eventually reach capacity, and then there'll be calls for a fourth runway, along with Terminals 6 and 7....

 

Demolition of much of outer West London, anyone?

 

Yes. And since R4 really does look impossible at Heathrow,, much better to opt for a completely new airport elsewhere.

[PMP]

Presumably the third runway will eventually reach capacity, and then there'll be calls for a fourth runway, along with Terminals 6 and 7....

 

Demolition of much of outer West London, anyone?

 

Its a very real possibility, but likely to be a good long while away. The technological improvements to come with airspace management, and navigation will assist in the future with the operational aspects of the airport. Theres a chance by the time its maxed out flying will be expensive again due to increasing costs of fossil fuel to make the planes go!

[PMP]

Yes. And since R4 really does look impossible at Heathrow,, much better to opt for a completely new airport elsewhere.

It's not, it'd be parallel to the new runway R3 and to the north. That's when stationmasters comment earlier re the M4 being in a tunnel come into play. With that east/west swathe that's available to put R3 into, no airport owner/operator/planner would miss out on the potential for further expansion into that gap, even if it means a less than optimal operating environment.

[The Stationmaster]

Interesting to see a CGI video presentation (presumably from Heathrow's owners) on the net earlier today showing a new terminal building adjacent to T5.  This struck me as a slightly daft idea from an aircraft movements angle because placing a terminal there doesn't avoid the need for taxiways across the west end of 09L to access the new runway.  Bearing in mind potential future growth surely it would be far more sensible to site any new terminal building where it has immediate access to runway 3 or possibly even to the north of that runway in readiness for runway 4 (assuming there is sufficient spavce to the north of runway 3).

 

Obviouss this might not necessarily sit easily with passenger access to the terminal but that must surely be no more than another area where adding the third runway requires peripheral investment as well as the runway itself,  Are things in danger of going off half-cock bceause of a failure to plan for the future? Surely nonsenses like this would be avoided in a 4 runway airport planned from scratch?

[Ron Ron Ron]

Interesting to see a CGI video presentation (presumably from Heathrow's owners) on the net earlier today showing a new terminal building adjacent to T5.  This struck me as a slightly daft idea from an aircraft movements angle because placing a terminal there doesn't avoid the need for taxiways across the west end of 09L to access the new runway.  

 

....Bearing in mind potential future growth surely it would be far more sensible to site any new terminal building where it has immediate access to runway 3 or possibly even to the north of that runway in readiness for runway 4 (assuming there is sufficient spavce to the north of runway 3).

 

 

It's quite the opposite Mike.

Placing the new terminal building back-to-back with T5, creates a centralised hub that enables easier passenger interchange between the terminals and allows them to share the railway station below stairs.

As proposed by HAL, most of the new aircraft parking stands associated with the new terminal will not be located alongside the new terminal building, but will be located around a satellite complex to be built between 09L/27R and the new runway; connected to the terminal by a passenger transit system.

 

Most of the aircraft using the new satellite complex will have ready access to 2 runways, the present 09L/27R and the new runway.

 

Any aircraft that need to cross to/from this New part of the airport, will be able to use the new taxiways that will be located beyond the western end of the 09L threshold.

These taxiways will be positioned sufficiently far away that aircraft using them will be separated from and not interfere with movements on 09L/27R.

 

 

The development plan also involves continued redevelopment of the current "Central Area", which will see the new T2 being doubled in size and T3 being demolished.

This will create another large hub to match the one being created at the western end (T5 + the new terminal).

This arrangement will be a significant improvement over the former position of having several independent terminals scattered in three areas of the airport.

Discounting T4, located on the south side of the airport, passenger traffic will be concentrated in two large terminal complexes, each with road and expanded rail access.

I believe the intention is to have a transit link between the "West" and "East" terminal areas.

 

As a hub airport, this is much better for connecting passengers and in theory should make Heathrow a better, or more competitive proposition when choosing connecting flights.

 

With this large increase in terminal capacity, it's uncertain what the future of T4 will be. HAL have not been clear on this, but it's likely T4 will be closed and removed in due course.

Building the new terminal to the north of the new runway would be a poor idea and its isolation would mirror that of T4 at present.

 

 

Ron

 

.

Edited June 26, 2018 by Ron Ron Ron

[Horsetan]

[APOLLO]

I avoid Heathrow like the plague, over complex and very stressful place, especially when changing planes / terminals with tight connections. I can only see it being worse with a third runway,

 

Off to Bangkok next week - Emirates A380 Manchester to Dubai, easy 2 hour change in a very nice airport to the onward connecting flight. I won't be buying any gold there (!!) but the chocolate camels they sell are a hit with the in laws kids over in Thailand !!!!

 

Brit15

[caradoc]

I don't fly very often, but last year I changed at Heathrow en route from Glasgow to New York and vice versa. The bus transfer between Terminals 5 and 3 was a bit of a drag but it did at least show just how big and complex the airport is, and I found Terminal 3 perfectly OK for the wait for the next flight; Terminal 5 not quite as much. Didn't see any chocolate camels at either however ! Concentrating traffic on two large hubs should provide better connections and improved facilities, at the expense maybe of taking longer to get to and from the aircraft.

[Ron Ron Ron]

.......Incidentally, the final stage of public consultation on the Western Rail link, is due to end in two weeks, this Friday (22nd June).

 

The SoS is supposed to be reviewing the plan following this and if given the go ahead...........the formal planning application is currently scheduled to be submitted towards the end of this year.

 

Construction of this rail link could commence sometime next year, or early 2020.

 

 

An update on progress with the Western Rail Link to Heathrow.

 

The final round of public consultation has been completed and the next significant stage will be the submission of a Development Consent Order application.

However, the timescales have been extended and the project is again being pushed back.

 

Bear in mind that originally, preliminary construction of the rail link should have started last year and work should have been in full swing by this year (2018).

Some will remember that the project was pushed back by 2 years and then subsequently another 6 months plus, while further rounds of local authority and public consultation were carried out.

 

All of that has now been completed and subject to the SoS giving the go ahead and a DCO being approved, construction work was due to to start next spring.

The latest information suggests that there is further delay in the process and the DCO application will now be submitted sometime in 2019.

If planning consent is given and the SoS presses the green button, construction work may not start before 2020.

3 years late.

 

 

 

From 11 May - 22 June 2018 we undertook a final round of statutory public consultation, including 18 community events in and around the local area to enable local people to find out more about our detailed proposals, ask questions and express their views.

We are grateful to everyone that took the time to take part in this consultation.

 

All responses are now being analysed and we will publish finalised plans and hold public information events in early 2019.

A Development Consent Order application will subsequently be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate in 2019.

This will seek the required consent to build the new railway in line with the plans that have been developed, with a final decision by the Secretary of State for Transport.

 

 

..

Edited July 3, 2018 by Ron Ron Ron

[Legend]

I avoid Heathrow like the plague, over complex and very stressful place, especially when changing planes / terminals with tight connections. I can only see it being worse with a third runway,

 

Off to Bangkok next week - Emirates A380 Manchester to Dubai, easy 2 hour change in a very nice airport to the onward connecting flight. I won't be buying any gold there (!!) but the chocolate camels they sell are a hit with the in laws kids over in Thailand !!!!

 

Brit15

Actually as far as airports go I quite like Heathrow. It has improved dramatically since they opened Terminal 5. Even if you have to change terminals (I had to go Terminal 5 to 3 for a BA Miami flight)it is still pretty good compared to Frankfurt and Amsterdam Schipol. In Amsterdam you can end up walking miles! I'm firmly behind Heathrow expansion. we are never going to get direct routes in Glasgow , so the next best thing is to make it seemless through Heathrow. Yes great if we could build a brand new airport , but its always going to be in someones backyard. and before anyone says its alright for you, I lived in Glasgow airports backyard for 19 years in the days of Comets and Tridents . Plane noise, believe me it was a lot worse in the past!

[Mark Saunders]

Actually as far as airports go I quite like Heathrow. It has improved dramatically since they opened Terminal 5. Even if you have to change terminals (I had to go Terminal 5 to 3 for a BA Miami flight)it is still pretty good compared to Frankfurt and Amsterdam Schipol. In Amsterdam you can end up walking miles! I'm firmly behind Heathrow expansion. we are never going to get direct routes in Glasgow , so the next best thing is to make it seemless through Heathrow. Yes great if we could build a brand new airport , but its always going to be in someones backyard. and before anyone says its alright for you, I lived in Glasgow airports backyard for 19 years in the days of Comets and Tridents . Plane noise, believe me it was a lot worse in the past!

 

I can't get my head around the British public, how they can manage to negotiate the Airport but can't change trains and the thought for some who can't get between Kings Cross and St Pancras without becoming catatonic (what happens from Kings Cross to Kings Cross Thameslink is unthinkable).

[The Stationmaster]

I can't get my head around the British public, how they can manage to negotiate the Airport but can't change trains and the thought for some who can't get between Kings Cross and St Pancras without becoming catatonic (what happens from Kings Cross to Kings Cross Thameslink is unthinkable).

 

According to a former contemporary of mine who at one time worked at LHR, in charge of the BR staff there, the average member of the British public not only couldn't manage to negotiate the airport but was totally incapable of reading the abundant signage.