User avatar
Ncfc99
Posts: 779
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 2:42 am

LHR Proposed Capacity Solution

Sun Oct 07, 2012 11:45 am

I saw this link in another thread, and thought it was a intresting solution to the LHR runway capacity issue. It suggest the best solution is two pairs of parallell runways to the west of the existing runways with all currant terminals except T4 to be used. There would also be a west terminal built similar to the east terminal toast rack type layout under construction now. The 4 runways and new terminals would increase capacity significantly.

I would like to see what everyone thinks of the ideas put forward in the link

http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/ima...cations/bigger%20and%20quieter.pdf
 
User avatar
FlyCaledonian
Posts: 1731
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2003 6:18 am

RE: LHR Proposed Capacity Solution

Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:10 pm

Okay, I don't have time to read the link policy study report now, but does it address: -

* the lost reservoir capacity
* the problems of building on top of such a large stretch of the M25
* who pays for all this
Let's Go British Caledonian!
 
vv701
Posts: 5773
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 10:54 am

RE: LHR Proposed Capacity Solution

Sun Oct 07, 2012 1:06 pm

Quoting FlyCaledonian (Reply 1):
* who pays for all this

This is an interesting question in terms of all suggested solutiuons.

It seems reasonably clear that if a third LHR runway and T6 were built , Heathrow Airport Ltd, owned by BAA who are in turn owned by FGP TopCo Limited in which the majority shareholder is the Spanish construction company, the Ferrovial Group, would pay.

But whether they would pay for the westward extension of LHR and the replacement of the lost resevoir capacity is another matter. However it would seem appropriate that Heathrow Airport Ltd would make a minority contribution (determined by the medium term financial advantage that the expansion would bring to the company).

The majority of the cost, like all of the cost of building a replacement airport in the Thames Estuary, would have to be carried, at least initially, by the British taxpayer. Any new airport could, of course, be privatised. But the income the tax payer would receive on privatisation would only be that that represented the operational value of the airport. The cost of the land recovery and of all the supporting infrastructure from roads and railways to schools and hospitals would almost certainly need to be permanently carried by the tax payer.
 
User avatar
Ncfc99
Posts: 779
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 2:42 am

RE: LHR Proposed Capacity Solution

Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:05 pm

Quoting FlyCaledonian (Reply 1):
* the lost reservoir capacity

* the problems of building on top of such a large stretch of the M25

* who pays for all this


It suggest Abingdon, Thames water has previously applied for a reservoir there.

It dosen't address the building on top of the M25, but it includes it as one of the challenges the project would need to overcome. It also staes that it isn't a case of having to 'invent' the engineering as its already been done at ATL & CDG etc.

It suggests travellers pay for it, there could be up to twice as many pax at LHR to pick up the bill.

[Edited 2012-10-07 11:52:00]
 
Glom
Posts: 2051
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 2:38 am

RE: LHR Proposed Capacity Solution

Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:23 pm

The paper is noteworthy for showing a map with runways 2/3 of the existing ones.

Also, Poyle and Colnbrook might have a thing or two to say about it.
 
bthebest
Posts: 434
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 4:35 pm

RE: LHR Proposed Capacity Solution

Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:28 pm

Quoting FlyCaledonian (Reply 1):
* who pays for all this

I think this isn't the top issue as any expansion/new airport will need to be funded. Environmental/public opposition/EU regs are the bigger issues.
 
User avatar
Ncfc99
Posts: 779
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 2:42 am

RE: LHR Proposed Capacity Solution

Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:55 pm

Quoting Glom (Reply 4):
The paper is noteworthy for showing a map with runways 2/3 of the existing ones

The new runways are 3km. From the western end of the preasent runway to the wetern end of the new runway(as on the map) is 3km and the new runway would therefore start on the western shore of the reservoir and end at the western end of the preasent runway. The map looks accurate to me, or am I missing something.

Quoting Glom (Reply 4):
Also, Poyle and Colnbrook might have a thing or two to say about it.

Everywhere has someone who will say a thing or two about it. How many people will it affect against other proposals?
 
AA94
Posts: 648
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2011 1:37 am

RE: LHR Proposed Capacity Solution

Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:00 pm

Quoting Bthebest (Reply 5):
I think this isn't the top issue as any expansion/new airport will need to be funded. Environmental/public opposition/EU regs are the bigger issues.

I don't think that the question of "Is there money available" is what's being asked, but rather "Where does this money come from?"

Obviously a solution will be funded by someone, but by who is the question.
If you can't take the heat, you best get out of the kitchen
 
PlymSpotter
Posts: 9986
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 7:32 am

RE: LHR Proposed Capacity Solution

Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:05 pm

This paper does make some valid points and is generally quite well composed. Their suggestion to solve LHR's capacity issues isn't even too wide of the mark, but it's execution and the physical design is not, in my view, a viable option.


Dan  
...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
 
User avatar
CARST
Posts: 864
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 11:00 pm

RE: LHR Proposed Capacity Solution

Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:13 pm

They could build two new runways in a MAD -Layout without tearing down any buildings and with only minimal land-claiming from the reservoirs.


Have a look at the following map (copyright by Google Maps):

2 new runways, MAD-Style

Link: Google Maps, London Heathrow
 
vv701
Posts: 5773
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 10:54 am

RE: LHR Proposed Capacity Solution

Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:37 pm

Quoting ncfc99 (Reply 3):
It suggests travellers pay for it, there could be up to twice as many pax at LHR to pick up the bill.

The perception that if you double the size of LHR you (immediately?) get twice as many passengers who can then pay for the new airport that they are using to be constructed seems to me to be a little optimistic. Any guesses if this proposal were to go ahead how quickly (or slowly) that LHR passengers would grow from 2011's 69 million to 138 million?

By the way in 2011 the six airports calling themselves "London Airport", namely LCY LGW, LHR, LTN, SEN and STN handled 134 million passengers.

Having said this, one of the biggest advantages of the proposal is, apart from relocating the reservoirs and relatively small adjustments to road and rail services, the only investments in infrastructure that would be required could b e made (and paid for) as the number of passengers grew from today's 69 million.
 
rtfm
Posts: 421
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 5:35 pm

RE: LHR Proposed Capacity Solution

Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:39 pm

Quoting CARST (Reply 9):
They could build two new runways in a MAD -Layout without tearing down any buildings and with only minimal land-claiming from the reservoirs.

Prevailing winds at LHR are generally from the W or SW..... these are orientated in completely the wrong direction....
 
sweair
Posts: 1816
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 9:59 am

RE: LHR Proposed Capacity Solution

Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:51 pm

Maybe its best to do nothing and let the problem sort itself out? The market will solve it in the end, don´t you think?

All want more capacity, no one wants more noise and pollution..
 
User avatar
CARST
Posts: 864
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 11:00 pm

RE: LHR Proposed Capacity Solution

Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:53 pm

Quoting RTFM (Reply 11):

Prevailing winds at LHR are generally from the W or SW..... these are orientated in completely the wrong direction....

Didn't know that, but there is enough room for two runways facing SW-NE, too, without tearing down homes and taking up to much reservoir space.


Map with 2 runways facing SW/NE: http://www.airliners.net/ufview.file?id=40106&filename=phpJKaz6D.jpeg
 
TheReckoner
Posts: 24
Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 9:32 am

RE: LHR Proposed Capacity Solution

Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:58 pm

What about this? Minimises the amount of buildings that need to be demolished.

 
User avatar
CARST
Posts: 864
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 11:00 pm

RE: LHR Proposed Capacity Solution

Sun Oct 07, 2012 8:03 pm

Quoting thereckoner (Reply 14):

1) Not enough spacing between the runways, no parallel takeoffs and landings.

2) Too much of the reservoirs taken up.
 
rtfm
Posts: 421
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 5:35 pm

RE: LHR Proposed Capacity Solution

Sun Oct 07, 2012 9:39 pm

Quoting thereckoner (Reply 14):
What about this? Minimises the amount of buildings that need to be demolished.

But, as already pointed out, it maximises the number of resevoirs that need to be demolished. These resevoirs supply a considerable amount of water for London. Also, they are not flat - they are built up... Look on streetview...

Also, Wraysbury is surrounded by water (and has often been flooded as a result). All that area is essentially a flood plain of the River Thames. Of course that can be overcome, but all that water then has to go somewhere else... not an insignificant engineering challenge (as anyone who lives there and has experienced flooding will tell you).
 
Viscount724
Posts: 18846
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: LHR Proposed Capacity Solution

Sun Oct 07, 2012 9:54 pm

Quoting VV701 (Reply 10):
By the way in 2011 the six airports calling themselves "London Airport", namely LCY LGW, LHR, LTN, SEN and STN handled 134 million passengers.

Actually seven. You overlooked London Oxford (OXF). Expect their few scheduled services won't affect the total much.
http://www.oxfordairport.co.uk/
 
vv701
Posts: 5773
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 10:54 am

RE: LHR Proposed Capacity Solution

Mon Oct 08, 2012 1:51 am

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 17):
Actually seven. You overlooked London Oxford (OXF). Expect their few scheduled services won't affect the total much.

There were no scheduled flights out of OXF in 2011. So it actually did not affect the total of 133 million passengers at all.

On 1 March 2010 start-up airline Varsity Express did begin to operate scheduled flights with a BAe Jetstream 31 between OXF and EDI. But it went out of business less than two weeks later on 12 March. On that date Links Air, the owners of the aircraft, repossesed it for non-payment of wet lease fees.

There were then no scheduled flights to or from OXF until May this year. Then Manx2 began operations to IOM and JER again with a 19 seat BAe Jetstream 31. So the only passengers using OXF in 2011, the period I presented data for, were biz jet passengers. The CAA reports a total of 1,678 such air traffic movements carrying 1,491 passengers. Note that the number of flights exceeds the number of passengers because of positioning flights carrying zero passengers.

According to the CAA here:

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/80/airport...Provisional_Airport_Statistics.pdf

the number of flights still exceeded the number of passengers for the 12 month period ending 31 August last.

The CAA are reporting that the 2,714 air transport movements in this period was greater than the 2,491 passengers. Of these passengers they report that only 331 flew between OXF and JER and only 366 between OXF and IOM. Both routes averaged between 100 and 110 passengers per month for June, July and August with the maximum being 113 passengers flying on the JER route in July and the minimum 94 on the same route in June.

The OXF web site says that both these flights operate daily. If this is correct - and I am not sure it is as I thought both flights were operated six days a week - the average number of passengers per flight is less than two. So the load factor is below 10 per cent. So even if these services survive, which must be in some doubt, I do not think that OXF is about to have any impact at all on the monthly average of over 10 million passengers handled at the six airports I identified.

So yes, OXF styles itself London Oxford Airport. But . . .
 
vv701
Posts: 5773
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 10:54 am

RE: LHR Proposed Capacity Solution

Mon Oct 08, 2012 3:17 am

Quoting VV701 (Reply 18):
On 1 March 2010 start-up airline Varsity Express did begin to operate scheduled flights with a BAe Jetstream 31 between OXF and EDI. But it went out of business less than two weeks later on 12 March.

Forgot to mention that, according to the CAA, in 12 days of operation Varsity Express carried 33 passengers. on 24 flights between OXF and EDI.
 
bthebest
Posts: 434
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 4:35 pm

RE: LHR Proposed Capacity Solution

Mon Oct 08, 2012 8:23 am

I've had a read of the airport plan and it is quite comprehensive. It address lots of issues and also backs up all of its statements, as well as 'evaluating' the other proposals. What I especially like is that it plans for the future using ideas that could be seen a prefectly feasible now, not "but by 2030 the technology will be available".
 
bluesky73
Posts: 499
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 11:36 pm

RE: LHR Proposed Capacity Solution

Mon Oct 08, 2012 8:49 am

The estuary idea is great but unrealistic when you have so much infrastructure already at Heathrow especially in this current financial climate.

I can't see m25 being moved, having a crash in motorway causes enough commuter problems let alone moving it. They would have to build most of the diverted motorway first before linking up.

From an air traffic POV would it be better to have 4 parallel runways, add one south and north of existing airport (controversial) or are the options above over the reservoir with different approaches just as good?

Hope they make decision soon.
 
woodentom
Posts: 70
Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2005 3:56 pm

RE: LHR Proposed Capacity Solution

Mon Oct 08, 2012 11:08 am

out of interest how close can parallel runways be to each other?

after looking at a satellite view i was wondering would it be possible as a last resort to put 2 runways where the southern one is now. taxi ways would need to be used but it is the only option i could think of when keeping the same footprint.

i assume the proximity of them would defeat the object of being able to use 3 runways simultaneously but I am no expert.
 
bthebest
Posts: 434
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 4:35 pm

RE: LHR Proposed Capacity Solution

Mon Oct 08, 2012 11:28 am

Quoting woodentom (Reply 22):
i was wondering would it be possible as a last resort to put 2 runways where the southern one is now.

The problem here is where does all the capacity go whilst you're building these new runways?

Ideally you would shut LHR for 3 years or whatever and just put 4 new runways in, but thats just not possible
 
migair54
Posts: 2101
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2007 4:24 am

RE: LHR Proposed Capacity Solution

Mon Oct 08, 2012 11:38 am

Quoting woodentom (Reply 22):

If i´m not mistaken the minimum distance between runways to be operated simultaneously is 730m but if the threshold are displaced that distance can be reduce up to around 500m i think... i don´t remember completly.... I think this can be check in the Doc 8.1.6.8 of ICAO or the DOC 4.4.4.

I don´t really see any solution to the problem of Heathrow, maybe this one propose in the document is the best one but I think it´s so expesive to develop that it will never be true, now LHR is private airport and to raise the funds for such a large project it will awesome task.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 13757
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: LHR Proposed Capacity Solution

Mon Oct 08, 2012 11:57 am

Quoting Glom (Reply 4):
Also, Poyle and Colnbrook might have a thing or two to say about it.

Not to mention all the owners of the commercial structures to the west of the airport.

The map in the presentation somewhat disingenuously does not present these structures as obstructions.

The map makes it look like the only obstructions to the west are the highway and the reservoir, which are serious enough, but add to that these commercial structures and their owners, and you have a plan that's a non-starter, IMHO.
Inspiration, move me brightly!
 
User avatar
Ncfc99
Posts: 779
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 2:42 am

RE: LHR Proposed Capacity Solution

Mon Oct 08, 2012 12:03 pm

Quoting Bthebest (Reply 23):
The problem here is where does all the capacity go whilst you're building these new runways?

Use the preasent northern runway for arrivals whilst building the new southern pair, then use the new southern pair for arrivals whilst using the preasent northern runway for departures. Shuldn't cause to many problems that can't be managed.
 
QANTASvJet
Posts: 81
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2012 11:25 pm

RE: LHR Proposed Capacity Solution

Mon Oct 08, 2012 12:42 pm

I have often looked at the map and wondered why nobody was suggesting building more runways and terminals at Heathrow, to the west. Clearly the reservoirs and motorway are problems, but dealing with them can hardly be greater than the challenge of building in the Thames estuary, plus all the new railways and motorways that would require. Also, some variations of this could be implemented incrementally, one or two runways/terminals at a time, which could potentially greatly improve the economics.

And the publication is nicely timed to mess-up Boris's appearance at the Tory conference. Sweet.
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 3679
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

RE: LHR Proposed Capacity Solution

Mon Oct 08, 2012 1:10 pm

This is the first time I have seen this proposal for LHR. I think this is an excellent idea!

I like it because:
1) uses a lot of existing airport infrastructure to keep costs down
2) uses a lot of existing transport infrastructure (including being close to crossrail) (also keeping costs down), and this infrastructure is quicker to London than from other airports and cheaper (not to mention adding National Rail services for the first time). Also the Piccadilly line is due to be upgraded in the next decade which will increase capacity and speed.
3) finally gives LHR more than 2 runways. 4 runways is ideal in modern airports
4) is quite a clever and efficient design which will be loved by passengers.
5) remains accessible for a large portion of the population
6) the estuary has issues with fog and wildlife not to mention cost and accessibility problems so this proposal is good
7) it frees up capacity at LGW for LCC and P2P flights (BA and VS would almost certainly move all of their operations to LHR).
8) vastly quietens aircraft noise under the flight paths and reduces/eliminates need for night flights
9) LHR itself would become much more efficient (no need for transfer buses etc, no more T4, easy connections, less congestion, less pollution).
10) £10b all up vs £20b+ for estuary airport.
56 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
 
User avatar
Ncfc99
Posts: 779
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 2:42 am

RE: LHR Proposed Capacity Solution

Mon Oct 08, 2012 2:50 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 25):
Not to mention all the owners of the commercial structures to the west of the airport.

The map in the presentation somewhat disingenuously does not present these structures as obstructions.

The map makes it look like the only obstructions to the west are the highway and the reservoir, which are serious enough, but add to that these commercial structures and their owners, and you have a plan that's a non-starter, IMHO

Offer the owners enough cash and they will sell, or build them new commercial structures not too far away. I would think there will be alot less opposition over a few commercial units than there is over peoples homes.

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 28):
This is the first time I have seen this proposal for LHR. I think this is an excellent idea!

I like it because:
1) uses a lot of existing airport infrastructure to keep costs down
2) uses a lot of existing transport infrastructure (including being close to crossrail) (also keeping costs down), and this infrastructure is quicker to London than from other airports and cheaper (not to mention adding National Rail services for the first time). Also the Piccadilly line is due to be upgraded in the next decade which will increase capacity and speed.
3) finally gives LHR more than 2 runways. 4 runways is ideal in modern airports
4) is quite a clever and efficient design which will be loved by passengers.
5) remains accessible for a large portion of the population
6) the estuary has issues with fog and wildlife not to mention cost and accessibility problems so this proposal is good
7) it frees up capacity at LGW for LCC and P2P flights (BA and VS would almost certainly move all of their operations to LHR).
8) vastly quietens aircraft noise under the flight paths and reduces/eliminates need for night flights
9) LHR itself would become much more efficient (no need for transfer buses etc, no more T4, easy connections, less congestion, less pollution).
10) £10b all up vs £20b+ for estuary airport

I agree with the above, from the solutions so far this appears to be the best i've seen. But I'm by no means an expert on the subject, just an intrested observer. There will be opposition, obsticles and engineering challenges for any development.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 13757
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: LHR Proposed Capacity Solution

Mon Oct 08, 2012 2:58 pm

Quoting ncfc99 (Reply 29):

Offer the owners enough cash and they will sell, or build them new commercial structures not too far away. I would think there will be alot less opposition over a few commercial units than there is over peoples homes.

Certainly less opposition yet far from none, and quite costly to placate.
Inspiration, move me brightly!
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 11744
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: LHR Proposed Capacity Solution

Mon Oct 08, 2012 3:00 pm

This proposal won't happen as it makes economic sense.  

The article also notes the possible of hub bypass without intending to. If MAX-HKG is really at 372 pax/day (pg. 21 of OP link), CX should be able to add a non-stop as soon as they receive new small aircraft. If LHR isn't expanded, customers will instead be served by new service.

I also agree that LHR is 'punching below its weight.' LHR should have a few dozen more longhaul destinations driven by connections. There is also a need for more frequency to remain competitive. For Example Toronto to Dubai was listed as a top connection at LHR. I speculate that is only due to the EK connecting banks that could be bypassed by a better LHR network. Note: This is based on speculation that passengers fly Toronto-London-Dubai-XXX. I've noted before that the mid-east hub carriers have thrived partially due to the under-expansion of the European hubs.

Quoting thereckoner (Reply 14):
What about this?

Take your Southern most runway and move it a bit further south and it works as a 3 runway LHR. Even one more runway at LHR would be a boon.

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 28):
4 runways is ideal in modern airports

London could grow with more... but I know of no rational proposal to do that.

Lightsaber
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
bthebest
Posts: 434
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 4:35 pm

RE: LHR Proposed Capacity Solution

Mon Oct 08, 2012 3:45 pm

Quoting ncfc99 (Reply 26):
Use the preasent northern runway for arrivals whilst building the new southern pair, then use the new southern pair for arrivals whilst using the preasent northern runway for departures. Shuldn't cause to many problems that can't be managed.

Are you allowed to have such extensive construction works so close to an active runway? Would be a nightmare for operations with taxiways.
 
User avatar
Ncfc99
Posts: 779
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 2:42 am

RE: LHR Proposed Capacity Solution

Mon Oct 08, 2012 5:10 pm

Quoting Bthebest (Reply 32):
Quoting ncfc99 (Reply 26):
Use the preasent northern runway for arrivals whilst building the new southern pair, then use the new southern pair for arrivals whilst using the preasent northern runway for departures. Shuldn't cause to many problems that can't be managed.

Are you allowed to have such extensive construction works so close to an active runway? Would be a nightmare for operations with taxiways.

Maybe they will have to manage it by having heavies land and depart on the runway that is in full use, whilst reducing the usable length of the runway with construction at the end of it for planes that don't need the length. Either way, once the first pair is built, it shouldn't be much of an issue. I'm assuming taxiways will be almost unaffected as the preasent ones can be used whilst new ones are built.
 
a320211
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2008 12:50 pm

RE: LHR Proposed Capacity Solution

Mon Oct 08, 2012 5:14 pm

It seems like I've been following this saga forever, yet I don't remember ever seeing this proposal before.

Whilst nothing is ever cost-free this does seem to have a lot going for it. I don't know how feasible the steep approach would be for all narrowbodies by 2030 but it would certainly tick a lot of boxes in terms of noise reduction.
 
PlymSpotter
Posts: 9986
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 7:32 am

RE: LHR Proposed Capacity Solution

Mon Oct 08, 2012 5:31 pm

Quoting VV701 (Reply 19):
Forgot to mention that, according to the CAA, in 12 days of operation Varsity Express carried 33 passengers. on 24 flights between OXF and EDI.

The information they have is completely wrong. They lasted 8 days and flew 11 flights, the aircraft was withdrawn by LinksAir after the morning flight to Edinburgh on day 8, but no flights were made over the weekend. Passenger numbers were in excess of 33 though, ironically the loads weren't bad.

Quoting bluesky73 (Reply 21):
I can't see m25 being moved, having a crash in motorway causes enough commuter problems let alone moving it. They would have to build most of the diverted motorway first before linking up.

You don't need to move the M25, you just go over it. This is a significant cost, but not as much as re-routing a 10 or more lane motorway and building the runway.


Dan  
...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 19624
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: LHR Proposed Capacity Solution

Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:37 pm

If I'm not mistaken, placing the runways there will mean that the existing runways will not be usable because they will be directly in-line with the new runways. So essentially, this "extension" would move most of the airport west, no?

Would it not make more sense to just replace LHR altogether?
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
PlymSpotter
Posts: 9986
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 7:32 am

RE: LHR Proposed Capacity Solution

Mon Oct 08, 2012 9:14 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 36):

If I'm not mistaken, placing the runways there will mean that the existing runways will not be usable because they will be directly in-line with the new runways. So essentially, this "extension" would move most of the airport west, no?

Would it not make more sense to just replace LHR altogether?

It would extend the airport West, presumably creating two near 7,000m runways. I think the report is excellent, but I think their design conclusion is far from ideal.

Thinking about their ideas, I would suggest staggering the set up. Leave the existing runways as they are and offset the two new outer ones, much like Manchester only mirrored with four runways. Use the East set for arrivals on 27s, West set for departures on 27, and visa versa. This way the majority of departures/arrivals would not have to cross an active runway, as the overlap of declared runway would be only around 500m. The spacing could also be taken right down to (IIRC) 390m this way.

All runways could be operated with arrivals/departures in only one direction, meaning buildings like the World Cargo Centre and various hotels are not an issue to airspace surfaces. This would also free up a much wider strip of land West of T5, which could be used to place two additional terminals, one adjacent to each new runway with a central 'hub' containing ground infrastructure extended from T5 and/or linking with the M25. I'm pretty sure that only one reservoir (Wraysbury) would have to be relocated in this orientation; the approach and departure surfaces for the new North runway I have suggested pass 28m above unaltered ground level, which should comfortably clear the Queen Mother reservoir. The study's plans would not however.



Grey = 3,000m x 60m new runway
Brown = 3,600m x 300m runway strip and RESAs

This approach would create slightly narrower noise contours compared to the study's design, and significantly narrower than BAA's proposal for a third runway to the North of Heathrow.


Dan  
...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
 
User avatar
AirlineCritic
Posts: 981
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 1:07 pm

RE: LHR Proposed Capacity Solution

Tue Oct 09, 2012 1:04 am

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 37):
I would suggest staggering the set up

That's a great design, PlymSpotter. Very compact, would appear to have minimal noise impacts, and would also minimize taxi times.
 
StarAC17
Posts: 3400
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 11:54 am

RE: LHR Proposed Capacity Solution

Tue Oct 09, 2012 3:52 am

Quoting migair54 (Reply 24):
If i´m not mistaken the minimum distance between runways to be operated simultaneously is 730m but if the threshold are displaced that distance can be reduce up to around 500m i think... i don´t remember completly.... I think this can be check in the Doc 8.1.6.8 of ICAO or the DOC 4.4.4.

I think you mean feet and not meters.

SFO's runways are 750ft apart and you can do simultaneous landings there if it's clear.

How close to runways have to be for one to handle a takeoff and the other to handle a landing, such as done at LAX, CDG, ATL etc.
Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
 
MAN2SIN2BKK
Posts: 104
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 9:53 am

RE: LHR Proposed Capacity Solution

Tue Oct 09, 2012 4:56 am

Quoting AirlineCritic (Reply 38):
Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 37): I would suggest staggering the set upThat's a great design, PlymSpotter. Very compact, would appear to have minimal noise impacts, and would also minimize taxi times.

I agree, this looks a great solution
 
ImperialAero
Posts: 75
Joined: Thu May 05, 2005 10:57 pm

RE: LHR Proposed Capacity Solution

Tue Oct 09, 2012 4:07 pm

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 39):
How close to runways have to be for one to handle a takeoff and the other to handle a landing, such as done at LAX, CDG, ATL etc.

1035m for independent parallel approaches,
915m for dependent parallel approaches,
760m for indepenent parallel departures,
760m for segregated parallel operations

except that;
for segregated parallel operations the specified distances can be;
- decreased by 30 for every 150m that the arrival runway is staggered away from the arriving aircraft, to a minimum of 300m

from ICAO Annex 14, Doc 4444 and Doc 8168 Vol 1.
ICURFC - Who Is Sylvia?
 
PlymSpotter
Posts: 9986
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 7:32 am

RE: LHR Proposed Capacity Solution

Tue Oct 09, 2012 4:51 pm

Quoting AirlineCritic (Reply 38):
That's a great design, PlymSpotter. Very compact, would appear to have minimal noise impacts, and would also minimize taxi times.
Quoting MAN2SIN2BKK (Reply 40):
I agree, this looks a great solution

Thank you.  
Quoting ImperialAero (Reply 41):
1035m for independent parallel approaches,
915m for dependent parallel approaches,
760m for indepenent parallel departures,
760m for segregated parallel operations

except that;
for segregated parallel operations the specified distances can be;
- decreased by 30 for every 150m that the arrival runway is staggered away from the arriving aircraft, to a minimum of 300m

from ICAO Annex 14, Doc 4444 and Doc 8168 Vol 1.

  

Although a central taxiway would be essential. Minimum runway centerline to taxiway centerline separation is 190m for code 4F, so practically the minimum runway separation is 380m, not 390m as I earlier stated.


Dan  
...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
 
nzstevenc
Posts: 74
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 5:47 am

RE: LHR Proposed Capacity Solution

Wed Oct 10, 2012 10:12 am

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 37):
Thinking about their ideas, I would suggest staggering the set up. Leave the existing runways as they are and offset the two new outer ones, much like Manchester only mirrored with four runways. Use the East set for arrivals on 27s, West set for departures on 27, and visa versa. This way the majority of departures/arrivals would not have to cross an active runway, as the overlap of declared runway would be only around 500m. The spacing could also be taken right down to (IIRC) 390m this way.

This makes a lot more sense purely from an expansion point of view. However Tim Leunig's proposal would limit the demolition largely to the reservoirs, Poyle industrial area and part of Stanwell Moor. PlymSpotter's proposal looks to me to entirely remove Stanwell, Stanwell Moor and Poyle Village from the map.
 
PlymSpotter
Posts: 9986
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 7:32 am

RE: LHR Proposed Capacity Solution

Wed Oct 10, 2012 12:59 pm

Quoting NZStevenC (Reply 43):
However Tim Leunig's proposal would limit the demolition largely to the reservoirs, Poyle industrial area and part of Stanwell Moor. PlymSpotter's proposal looks to me to entirely remove Stanwell, Stanwell Moor and Poyle Village from the map.

As they are described and presented, Tim's plans are completely non-viable on every level. It's probably easier if I explain with another quick diagram, this is the result of adding four runways as he suggests:

The two
pairs of close spaced runways would be around 380m apart, while the distance
between the sets of runways would be 1,035m.132 The most northerly runway
would be level with the current northern runway, with the most southerly
approximately 300m south of the current southern runway




Grey = 3,000m x 60m new runway
Brown = 3,600m x 300m runway strip and RESAs
Green = 3,000m x 80m central taxiway strip
Blue = 3,000m x 190m double taxiway strip

Most notable is that you would have to completely demolish Terminal 5A and around half of the satellites. With approaches and departures in both directions you would also have to take out the control tower, much of the World Cargo Center, two major reservoirs, and probably large chunks of Terminal 3 where it penetrates the take off/approach surfaces. In between you would be left with a strip of land just 100-200m wide to build aircraft stands and terminals on. Perhaps worse still the spacing is not sufficient for full segregated operations on each set of parallel runways, as they are not offset, whilst the inner spacing is nearer 900m not 1,035m which will also cause issues. Basically it's a very poor design which obviously hasn't been thought out or, in my opinion, even overlayed on a decent map.

Having said that, four runways could be added at that end of Heathrow as suggested, but it would only be practical to do so if the inner pair maintained the spacing of the current runways, with the outer pair spaced a further 760m out:



By the time you add in taxiway infrastructure between each set of runways you would be looking at a huge footprint. On top of that creating the Public Safety Zones would require even more houses to be demolished at the new runway ends, plus four reservoirs. My plan would still mean a significant amount of housing needs to be removed, but it doesn't look to be more than BAA's proposed third runway would necessitate and is significantly less than a practical arrangement of Tim's design would require the demolition of.

I'm intrigued at how a report which is for the most part articulate and reasonably accurate (of what I read) can ultimately come up with such a frankly mad proposal. It's almost like it was prepared with the oversight of an aviation expert/consult, who happened to be on holiday when they produced the plan.


Dan  
...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
 
mandala499
Posts: 6458
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

RE: LHR Proposed Capacity Solution

Wed Oct 10, 2012 1:36 pm

Quoting ncfc99 (Thread starter):
The 4 runways and new terminals would increase capacity significantly.

Oooh, very close to Windsor Castle... No no!   

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 37):


Even worse...

But anyways... these parallel runway options are an obsession in my opinion. It would be much cheaper to just move LHR to the west, between M25, M4, Windsor, and mow down Old Windsor... make a megaplex with whatever you want there, on an alignment of 04/22. Langney and Egham will be affected, but "that's about it"...   

Or, just make a single 4000m runway of 02/20, next to the M25, starting from the 09L/27R extended centerline to the southwest... as a capacity reliever. In peak times, plough everything coming in on 27L, some on 27R, with departures on 27R and 20. When heavies go 20, you can actually depart traffic on 27s... (people of Staines will hate me for this).
For 09 ops, if the wind isn't too great, you can still use 20 departures.

And let the mowing down of LHR central and turn it into T5 extensions continue!   

Mandala499
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
nzstevenc
Posts: 74
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 5:47 am

RE: LHR Proposed Capacity Solution

Wed Oct 10, 2012 1:41 pm

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 44):
Most notable is that you would have to completely demolish Terminal 5A and around half of the satellites.

Clearly, Tim's report makes no such suggestion and it's quite obvious that there's going to be little appetite to demolish any part of T5.

However, we're right to wonder where taxiways are going to go with a limited amount of space between the toaster-rack piers and the runways. He does go into a wee bit of detail around taxiways on Page 25:

Quote:
In order to further facilitate efficient movement of planes around the airport, it is useful to have a parallel taxi way between each of the pairs of close spaced runways. This allows a plane to land on the outer runway, and immediately pull off the landing runway onto the taxi way, via a rapid exit taxiway.86 This frees up the landing runway for the next plane. The previous plane waits on the taxi way until it is given permission to cross the inner (take-off) runway and proceed directly to the terminal or pier.

There's similar detail on page 38 too. But nothing specific to provide a taxiway layout. So the question in my mind is, has he grossly underestimated the space required between terminals, taxiways and runways? Surely in preparing a report of this level of detail, he would have been aware of ICAO minimums?

PlymSpotter, would it be possible to redraw the first plan in Post 44, showing the runways and taxiways while preserving the T5 buildings and Tim's longitudes?
 
nzstevenc
Posts: 74
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 5:47 am

RE: LHR Proposed Capacity Solution

Wed Oct 10, 2012 2:42 pm

I had a crack at the southern runways and taxiways, loosely to scale in Visio. Blue lines are taxiway centre lines, yellow re runway centre lines. But the clincher is the northern configuration I think... so that'll be next  

I'm no expert on airfield measurements though, just trying to take into the rules described above.



[Edited 2012-10-10 07:44:04]
 
nzstevenc
Posts: 74
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 5:47 am

RE: LHR Proposed Capacity Solution

Wed Oct 10, 2012 2:54 pm

Here's the northern runway version. This shows the top edge of the northernmost runway touching the A4 Bath Road, while preserving the existing T5 buildings.

Have I missed something here or does one of us have our scales not quite right, PlymSpotter?

 
PlymSpotter
Posts: 9986
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 7:32 am

RE: LHR Proposed Capacity Solution

Wed Oct 10, 2012 3:23 pm

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 45):
Even worse...

How would this create a worse situation when the threshold is further from Windsor than the think tank's proposal, along what would have to be a more offset runway?

Quoting NZStevenC (Reply 46):
Clearly, Tim's report makes no such suggestion and it's quite obvious that there's going to be little appetite to demolish any part of T5.

But that is exactly what the design requires according to the given parameters, therefore meaning it's what he/the think tank has suggested - whether this has actually been realised or not is another thing. The report states:

"The most northerly runway would be level with the current northern runway"

and that

"The two pairs of close spaced runways would be around 380m apart, while the distance between the sets of runways would be 1,035m"

What this states that the most Northern runway of the four he proposes would be sited along the projected centerline of 09L/27R, meaning the centerline of the other Northern runway would be 380m further South. The plan graphic backs this up. In this scenario the extended centerline of the extra North runway runs through the middle of the stands serving the North side of T5A. Then you have to consider at least one, preferably two parallel taxiways. The required minimum separation between runway centerline and taxiway centerline is 190m, with a 55m taxiway strip to the nearest obstacle, meaning no building could be sited (to the South) within 625m of the current centerline of 09L/27R. Even with just one taxiway, that's almost half of T5A's main building which would need to be removed to make the plan work according to the given specifications.

I understand that the new runways are envisaged to start a little West of the current 09 thresholds, but that doesn't mitigate the issue I mention above, because the transitional, take off and landing surfaces are all fouled by T5A. T5B and C would have to be removed in order to route the taxiway outside of the safety areas and again not to breach any of the airspace surfaces for the East end of the new North runways. For these surfaces to clear the roof of T5A (40m), the runway strips would have to be offset a further 2,000m West of where it is suggested they might start. That is neither feasible nor what the plans show, therefore the suggested design implies that Terminal 5 would need such significant remodeling that it would require demolition.

Quoting NZStevenC (Reply 46):
There's similar detail on page 38 too. But nothing specific to provide a taxiway layout. So the question in my mind is, has he grossly underestimated the space required between terminals, taxiways and runways? Surely in preparing a report of this level of detail, he would have been aware of ICAO minimums?

A combination. I think whoever produced this plan has massively underestimated the space available and has very little knowledge about airport design, meaning the proposal is fatally flawed in several respects. The latter reason strikes me as odd for two reasons; firstly ICAO design manuals and CAP 168, the CAA's version, are freely available to download and not that difficult to get your head around and, secondly; if you are a think tank preparing guidance you hope will influence government policy, then you seek expert advice and get your facts and design right.

Quoting NZStevenC (Reply 46):
PlymSpotter, would it be possible to redraw the first plan in Post 44, showing the runways and taxiways while preserving the T5 buildings and Tim's longitudes?

How do you mean - preserving the 380m spacing between runway pairs, or with the runways offset far enough West to clear the height of T5? To be honest, neither are possible.

Quoting NZStevenC (Reply 48):
Have I missed something here or does one of us have our scales not quite right, PlymSpotter?

Yes, your drawing for the North side does not take into account that the most Northerly runway will, according to the text and plan, be sited along the extended centerline of the current 09L/27R. Redraw your overlay accordingly, with the second Northerly runway inside the current one, and you will see where the bulk of the problem lies.

Also consider that the taxiway strip for Code F is 55m not 47.5m and that in reality the runway spacing should be 760m not 380m to achieve a real benefit from having four parallel runways and segregated operations on each pair. Practical operation with a separation of 380m can only be achieved if one runway's threshold was staggered by around 2,000m, such as the design Manchester used.


Dan  

[Edited 2012-10-10 08:32:37]
...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...