StTim wrote:

finnishway wrote:

I thought 3rd runway was approved about a year ago already.

Yes - but the design isn't finalised.

No - the third runway is not approved - this keeps getting stated as such on this forum but the 3rd runway has not had formal planning approval yet.

What did happen in October 2016 was that the Government announced it would support plans for the 3rd runway. Without Government support, it could never happen. But there are still significant hurdles it needs to clear before any construction can start: it has to pass a vote in parliament then get planning consent. Neither are guaranteed, even with Government support.

Believe me, we are long, long way from Heathrow's 3rd runway being a certainty.

So when the runway was approved in 2006 and public consultations were held in 2007 and the Gordon Brown Government gave the go ahead in 2009 and it was cancelled in 2010, the same issues cropped up. The only difference now being, that the passenger numbers are higher than 2006.

Are we talking about something cheaper than the new NW runway that would require an M-25 tunnel?

winterlight wrote:

Trying to save his hotels from being demolished?

Maybe he owns the Holiday Inn and Sofitel across from Terminal 5. If he can stop the demolition, then more power to him.

vhtje wrote:

Believe me, we are long, long way from Heathrow's 3rd runway being a certainty.

I do believe you,the BBC new piece quoted by topic author itself says so at the end.

Construction will not begin for at least three years, and it could be delayed by legal challenges over the runway's environmental impact.

So this is just the latest episode in a 15 year old saga.

probably be flying in VTOL aircraft before it gets completed, so a waste of money.

It seems apocalypse will dawn before two things happen in aviation
1. LHR gets its third runway
2. BER opens for business

Balaguru wrote:

So when the runway was approved in 2006 and public consultations were held in 2007 and the Gordon Brown Government gave the go ahead in 2009 and it was cancelled in 2010, the same issues cropped up. The only difference now being, that the passenger numbers are higher than 2006.

Are we talking about something cheaper than the new NW runway that would require an M-25 tunnel?

winterlight wrote:

Trying to save his hotels from being demolished?

Maybe he owns the Holiday Inn and Sofitel across from Terminal 5. If he can stop the demolition, then more power to him.

vhtje wrote:

Believe me, we are long, long way from Heathrow's 3rd runway being a certainty.

I do believe you,the BBC new piece quoted by topic author itself says so at the end.

Construction will not begin for at least three years, and it could be delayed by legal challenges over the runway's environmental impact.

So this is just the latest episode in a 15 year old saga.

Airports should be beyond the control of local governments. As long as the planned improvements take place on airport property, locals should be excluded from interfering with airport operations. It took 20 years for Boston's Logan airport to add a 5000 foot runway on its property due to locals objecting. Airports have always been a lightning rod for some locals who oppose any airport project. At HVN, locals opposed an on site fire station and an ILS installation. Airports are too important and serve too many travelers to have a handful of complainers stymie improvements.

Hate to sound pessimistic but it will most likely never happen. Neither in this form nor any other form.

cheapgreek wrote:

Airports should be beyond the control of local governments. As long as the planned improvements take place on airport property, locals should be excluded from interfering with airport operations. It took 20 years for Boston's Logan airport to add a 5000 foot runway on its property due to locals objecting. Airports have always been a lightning rod for some locals who oppose any airport project. At HVN, locals opposed an on site fire station and an ILS installation. Airports are too important and serve too many travelers to have a handful of complainers stymie improvements.

As long as fight paths pass above houses for take off and landing, locals will always have a say. Maybe we can use choppers only...

Clickable link to original message, and link to Arora's plan:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40546225
http://heathrow.thearoragroup.com/proposal/

Basically his plan is for a runway slightly shorter then the existing runways. It would run paralel, but ofset to the west from the current runways. It would start just to the west of BA Waterside, and end just short, but to the south, of Sipson.

They say they have the backing of BA, but BA will have to find a new HQ if this plan goes through. Not surprisingly, Arora's hotel will be saved by his plan. (Holiday Inn, Sofitel, Renaissance)

petertenthije wrote:

Clickable link to original message, and link to Arora's plan:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40546225
http://heathrow.thearoragroup.com/proposal/

Basically his plan is for a runway slightly shorter then the existing runways. It would run paralel, but ofset to the west from the current runways. It would start just to the west of BA Waterside, and end just short, but to the south, of Sipson.

They say they have the backing of BA, but BA will have to find a new HQ if this plan goes through. Not surprisingly, Arora's hotel will be saved by his plan. (Holiday Inn, Sofitel, Renaissance)

I think BA's HQ are the least of its concerns when it's going to have to deal with easyjet at LHR.

The third runways now just as close as happening before cam shelved it in 2010.

There will never, ever be a third runway at LHR! Opposition politically, environmentally and the way air travel will change in the future will see to that.

Balaguru wrote:

So when the runway was approved in 2006 and public consultations were held in 2007 and the Gordon Brown Government gave the go ahead in 2009 and it was cancelled in 2010, the same issues cropped up. The only difference now being, that the passenger numbers are higher than 2006.

Are we talking about something cheaper than the new NW runway that would require an M-25 tunnel?

winterlight wrote:

Trying to save his hotels from being demolished?

Maybe he owns the Holiday Inn and Sofitel across from Terminal 5. If he can stop the demolition, then more power to him.

vhtje wrote:

Believe me, we are long, long way from Heathrow's 3rd runway being a certainty.

I do believe you,the BBC new piece quoted by topic author itself says so at the end.

Construction will not begin for at least three years, and it could be delayed by legal challenges over the runway's environmental impact.

So this is just the latest episode in a 15 year old saga.

15 years?!? Sorry,but efforts to add a runway has a multi-party history. Over double your number, probably triple.

Eh... The US hubs thank the LHR, AMS, and FRA nimbies for the jobs. As do the ME3+TK. Growth happens.

Lightsaber

lightsaber wrote:

Balaguru wrote:

So when the runway was approved in 2006 and public consultations were held in 2007 and the Gordon Brown Government gave the go ahead in 2009 and it was cancelled in 2010, the same issues cropped up. The only difference now being, that the passenger numbers are higher than 2006.

Are we talking about something cheaper than the new NW runway that would require an M-25 tunnel?

winterlight wrote:

Trying to save his hotels from being demolished?

Maybe he owns the Holiday Inn and Sofitel across from Terminal 5. If he can stop the demolition, then more power to him.

vhtje wrote:

Believe me, we are long, long way from Heathrow's 3rd runway being a certainty.

I do believe you,the BBC new piece quoted by topic author itself says so at the end.

Construction will not begin for at least three years, and it could be delayed by legal challenges over the runway's environmental impact.

So this is just the latest episode in a 15 year old saga.

15 years?!? Sorry,but efforts to add a runway has a multi-party history. Over double your number, probably triple.

Eh... The US hubs thank the LHR, AMS, and FRA nimbies for the jobs. As do the ME3+TK. Growth happens.

Lightsaber

I am more than willing to stand corrected about the 15 years, and I will gladly accept it's 30 to 45 years, but that just makes the situation that much more sadder. The longer it takes, the harder it becomes to grow profitably ; isn't LHR already operating above 99% capacity? Such a shame yet so much potential.

With the environmentalists throwing a fit over anything LGW/LHR related, did they ever entertain the option of bulldozing both London Gatwick and London Heathrow and just building one larger airport somewhere? Or is there no land available where this could happen?

Super80Fan wrote:

With the environmentalists throwing a fit over anything LGW/LHR related, did they ever entertain the option of bulldozing both London Gatwick and London Heathrow and just building one larger airport somewhere? Or is there no land available where this could happen?

You're not familiar with the so-called "Boris Island" airport concept? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thames_Estuary_Airport

You beat me to it planecookies

Super80Fan

I think their ideas are limited to stage 1 of your suggestion.

PlaneCookies wrote:

Super80Fan wrote:

With the environmentalists throwing a fit over anything LGW/LHR related, did they ever entertain the option of bulldozing both London Gatwick and London Heathrow and just building one larger airport somewhere? Or is there no land available where this could happen?

You're not familiar with the so-called "Boris Island" airport concept? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thames_Estuary_Airport

That will never EVER happen.

Since this is about LHR, I have a question about terminal two concourse B, you can get to B via an underground tunnel or an above ground walkway, my question is is the above ground walkway a temporary structure, it appears to be in a location where another two aircraft stands could be located, it takes up what I would consider valuable apron space.

lightsaber wrote:

Balaguru wrote:

So when the runway was approved in 2006 and public consultations were held in 2007 and the Gordon Brown Government gave the go ahead in 2009 and it was cancelled in 2010, the same issues cropped up. The only difference now being, that the passenger numbers are higher than 2006.

Are we talking about something cheaper than the new NW runway that would require an M-25 tunnel?

winterlight wrote:

Trying to save his hotels from being demolished?

Maybe he owns the Holiday Inn and Sofitel across from Terminal 5. If he can stop the demolition, then more power to him.

vhtje wrote:

Believe me, we are long, long way from Heathrow's 3rd runway being a certainty.

I do believe you,the BBC new piece quoted by topic author itself says so at the end.

Construction will not begin for at least three years, and it could be delayed by legal challenges over the runway's environmental impact.

So this is just the latest episode in a 15 year old saga.

15 years?!? Sorry,but efforts to add a runway has a multi-party history. Over double your number, probably triple.

Eh... The US hubs thank the LHR, AMS, and FRA nimbies for the jobs. As do the ME3+TK. Growth happens.

Lightsaber

Spot on! Growth happens, but Europe has been hesitant to be a part of it to the thrill of especially ME3+TK. It is also less environmentally friendly that you have to fly via a mega hub in ME than fly direct.

Kiwirob wrote:

Since this is about LHR, I have a question about terminal two concourse B, you can get to B via an underground tunnel or an above ground walkway, my question is is the above ground walkway a temporary structure, it appears to be in a location where another two aircraft stands could be located, it takes up what I would consider valuable apron space.

This is temporary and will be removed, when the delayed T2 extension over the old T1 is built by 2019.

It only took 9 years (1997-2006) in Madrid to have a 2 terminals and 2 runaways expansion operational....

https://en.wikiarquitectura.com/building/barajas-t4/

uta999 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Since this is about LHR, I have a question about terminal two concourse B, you can get to B via an underground tunnel or an above ground walkway, my question is is the above ground walkway a temporary structure, it appears to be in a location where another two aircraft stands could be located, it takes up what I would consider valuable apron space.

This is temporary and will be removed, when the delayed T2 extension over the old T1 is built by 2019.

Thanks.

Oykie wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

Balaguru wrote:

So when the runway was approved in 2006 and public consultations were held in 2007 and the Gordon Brown Government gave the go ahead in 2009 and it was cancelled in 2010, the same issues cropped up. The only difference now being, that the passenger numbers are higher than 2006.

Are we talking about something cheaper than the new NW runway that would require an M-25 tunnel? Maybe he owns the Holiday Inn and Sofitel across from Terminal 5. If he can stop the demolition, then more power to him.



I do believe you,the BBC new piece quoted by topic author itself says so at the end.

So this is just the latest episode in a 15 year old saga.

15 years?!? Sorry,but efforts to add a runway has a multi-party history. Over double your number, probably triple.

Eh... The US hubs thank the LHR, AMS, and FRA nimbies for the jobs. As do the ME3+TK. Growth happens.

Lightsaber

Spot on! Growth happens, but Europe has been hesitant to be a part of it to the thrill of especially ME3+TK. It is also less environmentally friendly that you have to fly via a mega hub in ME than fly direct.

Is this just a problem in Europe? Why is the build up area around SEA not just flattened to make space? Every democratic country has to follow the wishes of their constituency. For big greenfield new airport projects or expansions, you need the empty space or a dictatorship.

Why does a runway expansion need a vote in parliament?

Just asking because that sounds ridiculous.

In the US, Congress cant get anything done. I couldnt imagine Congress having to approve of specific infastructure projects!

jfklganyc wrote:

Why does a runway expansion need a vote in parliament?

Just asking because that sounds ridiculous.

In the US, Congress cant get anything done. I couldnt imagine Congress having to approve of specific infastructure projects!

Who has the authority to take land from private people, flatten homes or business, put more pressure on the environment in regards to noise and pollution, but parliament voted in to make decisions.

The walkway demolition is not dependant on the T2 extension being built. This link suggests that the T2 extension will not be started until 2019, T1 hasn't even been demolished yet.

http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2013/02/ ... ay-tories/

uta999 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Since this is about LHR, I have a question about terminal two concourse B, you can get to B via an underground tunnel or an above ground walkway, my question is is the above ground walkway a temporary structure, it appears to be in a location where another two aircraft stands could be located, it takes up what I would consider valuable apron space.

This is temporary and will be removed, when the delayed T2 extension over the old T1 is built by 2019.

Will the idea of changing the terminals up with a fancy welcome area or a park or whatever to the east go ahead or not?

mjoelnir wrote:

Oykie wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

15 years?!? Sorry,but efforts to add a runway has a multi-party history. Over double your number, probably triple.

Eh... The US hubs thank the LHR, AMS, and FRA nimbies for the jobs. As do the ME3+TK. Growth happens.

Lightsaber

Spot on! Growth happens, but Europe has been hesitant to be a part of it to the thrill of especially ME3+TK. It is also less environmentally friendly that you have to fly via a mega hub in ME than fly direct.

Is this just a problem in Europe? Why is the build up area around SEA not just flattened to make space? Every democratic country has to follow the wishes of their constituency. For big greenfield new airport projects or expansions, you need the empty space or a dictatorship.

To keep the topic relatively on topic, I would have welcomed a completely new airport nearby London with six runways, and 21st century infrastructure. But no one dares to, even just approve it. London and the whole U.K. economy benefits so much on having LHR relatively close to the city. They need 4 runways, and a new one is just a bare minimum of what is needed. We need governments that dares to approve good infrastructure projects. In Norway, there is opposition of building a third runway @OSL, because they fear it will impact the environment.

jfklganyc wrote:

Why does a runway expansion need a vote in parliament?

Just asking because that sounds ridiculous.

In the US, Congress cant get anything done. I couldnt imagine Congress having to approve of specific infastructure projects!

Because - and despite what the airport operator would have you believe - the project will require significant amounts of public spending, with suggestions of up to £10 billion being required.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... payer-cost

Also, in the UK, airports are regulated by the Civil Aviation Authority. That means airports cannot be built or expanded without Government approval, and the project overseen by the CAA.

fcogafa wrote:

The walkway demolition is not dependant on the T2 extension being built. This link suggests that the T2 extension will not be started until 2019, T1 hasn't even been demolished yet.

http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2013/02/ ... ay-tories/

uta999 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Since this is about LHR, I have a question about terminal two concourse B, you can get to B via an underground tunnel or an above ground walkway, my question is is the above ground walkway a temporary structure, it appears to be in a location where another two aircraft stands could be located, it takes up what I would consider valuable apron space.

This is temporary and will be removed, when the delayed T2 extension over the old T1 is built by 2019.

where in the link does it mention the walkway?

Oykie wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

Oykie wrote:

Spot on! Growth happens, but Europe has been hesitant to be a part of it to the thrill of especially ME3+TK. It is also less environmentally friendly that you have to fly via a mega hub in ME than fly direct.

Is this just a problem in Europe? Why is the build up area around SEA not just flattened to make space? Every democratic country has to follow the wishes of their constituency. For big greenfield new airport projects or expansions, you need the empty space or a dictatorship.

To keep the topic relatively on topic, I would have welcomed a completely new airport nearby London with six runways, and 21st century infrastructure. But no one dares to, even just approve it. London and the whole U.K. economy benefits so much on having LHR relatively close to the city. They need 4 runways, and a new one is just a bare minimum of what is needed. We need governments that dares to approve good infrastructure projects. In Norway, there is opposition of building a third runway @OSL, because they fear it will impact the environment.

I struggle to see why OSL needs a third runway, I'm in and out of OSL a lot I've never encountered any delays due to runway capacity.

parapente wrote:

Yup saw that (as a Londoner) would love to see the revised approach.
Personally I always thought the very first idea (short runway north) was the best plan - but what do I know!

I have an even better set of proposals to release capacity @ LHR for intercontinental expansion, that doesn't require a single bean of public capital spending........

1. Tomorrow morning UK Transport Minister Chris Grayling proposes a new regulation @ LHR that all passenger flights within a 165 mile radius of LHR be banned from a date tbc in 2019; (officially excluding all MAN flights). Passengers will travel from LHR (1 stop @ MK) to MAN by train on a new hourly/ (2-hourly round-the-clock) 24-hour service. [A fleet of practically new 275-seat Class 707 trains will become available in 2019 as First-MTR's fleet of new trains arrive.] This move saves BA around 10 (?) LHR-MAN slots per day/ 70 fpw; at pretty much zero cost. I'd even offer IAG a 'free' shareholding in the rail franchise; (London Midland); as compensation. With 20 trains per day, this service would offer nearly 4 million LHR-MAN seats per year; plenty for all airlines @ LHR, at pretty much zero net capex..

2. To facilitate the above, you would need to electrify the short section of track between Acton and Willesden in west London; (1.5 miles); at a cost outlay of about £10M, which I would negotiate into future franchise considerations; (the new LM franchise operator is due to be announced later this year).

3. On the 'opposite' hourly rail slot to the MAN service, I would launch a similar rail service from LHR to MK-Coventry-BHX-Birmingham-Dudley-Wolverhampton-LPL-Liverpool, offering 4 million new seats a year to BHX, the West Midlands conurbation and Liverpool; and easing horrible congestion on the M40/M25 motorways.

4. Effective 2020; (or as soon as the new rail station @ LBA is built); that 165 mile radius would be extended to 175 miles, converting LHR-LBA services to rail and freeing up another 20 (?) slots p/week.

5. Mr.Grayling talks to his colleagues in Brussels and Paris to look to enhance HS1/HS2 plans to serve the LHR-BRU and LHR-CDG markets by rail by 2025, potentially saving maybe 25 daily BA/AF/SN departure slots/ 175 ish fpw @ LHR. Major cost here would be a new HS1&2 rail station and connecting spur @ £3bn ish under T3/5.

6. Mr.Grayling immediately amends HS2 plans, to include direct non-stop rail services from LHR to NCL/EDI and GLA saving dozens more LHR slots from 2033 ish, as he slowly extends the radius of the LHR flight ban to cover EDI/GLA/CDG/BRU.


There; just saved the UK tax payers £16+ billion, and released 70-80 daily flight departure slots for re-deployment, by using redundant trains that will have no use by 2019

When you could look at using existing rail plans to release capacities @ LHR; someone please remind me why a 3rd runway was necessary in the first place ?

Wouldn't it be easier to just bite the bullet and buy a huge area of land somewhere north of London around the M25/M1/A1; pay everyone to move out (150pc land value) and then build an 8 runway airport to replace LHR, LTN, and STN? You'll end up with a much better solution for the long term.

Kiwirob wrote:

Oykie wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

Is this just a problem in Europe? Why is the build up area around SEA not just flattened to make space? Every democratic country has to follow the wishes of their constituency. For big greenfield new airport projects or expansions, you need the empty space or a dictatorship.

To keep the topic relatively on topic, I would have welcomed a completely new airport nearby London with six runways, and 21st century infrastructure. But no one dares to, even just approve it. London and the whole U.K. economy benefits so much on having LHR relatively close to the city. They need 4 runways, and a new one is just a bare minimum of what is needed. We need governments that dares to approve good infrastructure projects. In Norway, there is opposition of building a third runway @OSL, because they fear it will impact the environment.

I struggle to see why OSL needs a third runway, I'm in and out of OSL a lot I've never encountered any delays due to runway capacity.

Not currently, but they would like to have all permits already, so that they don't need to wait for all the paperwork and politics go through in a distant future.

Extending the Northern runway seems to becoming more attractive all the time.. dividing it into two runways
initially I thought it was impossible, however a lot of experts are backing it. http://www.heathrowhub.com/

I think the current plans for a new northern runway will get bogged down in problems, including knocking down BA's and Willie Walsh's office.. plus diverting the M25.. has got to be 15 to 20 years before it opens ;(

Why is dedicated freighter traffic permitted at Heathrow? Could moving all of that traffic to LGW, etc. alleviate some congestion in the short term?

KICT wrote:

Why is dedicated freighter traffic permitted at Heathrow? Could moving all of that traffic to LGW, etc. alleviate some congestion in the short term?

Because Cargo business, esp. with the big carriers like BA, is done with both dedicated freighters and as belly freight in pax aircraft. It is next to impossible to get logistics done when the dedicated freighters are moved to LGW but the belly freight is loaded in LHR and LGW.

redroo wrote:

Why not bite the bullet now, buy up all the necessary land and build a new full length runway to the north and a new full length runway to the south? Expensive, but you know its eventually going to happen

There just isn't any need to build a 3rd runway at LHR at all in my view, there are plenty of other things the UK government can better spend £20+BN on.

What they should be considering is applying a 'exclusion zone' of flying within 250 miles of LHR, and converting short haul services to MAN/ LBA/ CDG/ BRU/ AMS to rail services.

This could be done quite quickly and cheaply; (by the end of 2019).

1. Electrify the short section of track between Acton and Willesden (West London Jnc) ,in west London; (cost=approx. £10M); and instead of scrapping the early 'Eurostar' Class 373 train sets; use shortened 373's on frequent high-speed direct LHR-CDG/ BRU/ AMS train services. These 400-500 seat train services would replace BA/ AF/ SN/ KL short haul flights; and I would offer those companies a share-holding in the rail company and dedicated seat allocations on each train. These services could also call at Stratford International in east London to allow train staff time to do any on-board checks. (Stratford International station must be the only International station in the world without any international services !!!!) Replacing short-haul flying to AMS/BRU/CDG from LHR with rail would release about 40-50-daily slots @ LHR to allow expanded intercontinental flying.

2. Electrify another short section of rail in west London between Acton and Willesden (Canal Wharf Junction) connecting the GW main line to the West Coast main line. This allows direct rail service from LHR to Birmingham and Manchester. The new South West Trains franchise has just commenced, which will make the practically new Class 707 train fleet redundant. Use these (cascaded) trains on an new hourly LHR-MAN service freeing up another 12 or so slots @ LHR.

This readily demonstrates that by using EXISTING RAIL RESOURCES and £20million; (yes, £20 million) in small electrification schemes, you could release around 50-60 daily LHR slots, and thereby avoid having to spend £20BN; (yes £20 Billion) on any third runway @ LHR.

flyPIT wrote:

mcoatc wrote:

. And for that matter, if LAX were built today, don't think for a second those runways would be anywhere near that close.

Tell that to ORD, which just completed a close dependent parallel runway with one more in the works. Or CLT, which is about to get started on another. ICN, PVG, the future Beijing airport... plenty of modern examples of dependent parallel runway design which provide much increased capacity.

Not quite sure about ICN as it's been a while since I went there (and the fact that they do have a taxiway between the runways which inevitably increased separation), but from my observations, PVG's runway pairs (ie. 17LR and 16LR pairs) aren't independently operated - take-offs have to wait for landings to touch down first. Same goes for SHA.

Michael

eamondzhang wrote:

flyPIT wrote:

mcoatc wrote:

. And for that matter, if LAX were built today, don't think for a second those runways would be anywhere near that close.

Tell that to ORD, which just completed a close dependent parallel runway with one more in the works. Or CLT, which is about to get started on another. ICN, PVG, the future Beijing airport... plenty of modern examples of dependent parallel runway design which provide much increased capacity.

Not quite sure about ICN as it's been a while since I went there (and the fact that they do have a taxiway between the runways which inevitably increased separation), but from my observations, PVG's runway pairs (ie. 17LR and 16LR pairs) aren't independently operated - take-offs have to wait for landings to touch down first. Same goes for SHA.

Michael

Yes, that's why I said dependent parallel runway. But they still offer much increased capacity over a single runway.

flyPIT wrote:

eamondzhang wrote:

flyPIT wrote:

Tell that to ORD, which just completed a close dependent parallel runway with one more in the works. Or CLT, which is about to get started on another. ICN, PVG, the future Beijing airport... plenty of modern examples of dependent parallel runway design which provide much increased capacity.

Not quite sure about ICN as it's been a while since I went there (and the fact that they do have a taxiway between the runways which inevitably increased separation), but from my observations, PVG's runway pairs (ie. 17LR and 16LR pairs) aren't independently operated - take-offs have to wait for landings to touch down first. Same goes for SHA.

Michael

Yes, that's why I said dependent parallel runway. But they still offer much increased capacity over a single runway.

Oh just missed that word, my apologies. Guess that's what would happen when one stays late at night!

Michael

SelseyBill wrote:

redroo wrote:

Why not bite the bullet now, buy up all the necessary land and build a new full length runway to the north and a new full length runway to the south? Expensive, but you know its eventually going to happen

There just isn't any need to build a 3rd runway at LHR at all in my view, there are plenty of other things the UK government can better spend £20+BN on.

What they should be considering is applying a 'exclusion zone' of flying within 250 miles of LHR, and converting short haul services to MAN/ LBA/ CDG/ BRU/ AMS to rail services.

This could be done quite quickly and cheaply; (by the end of 2019).

1. Electrify the short section of track between Acton and Willesden (West London Jnc) ,in west London; (cost=approx. £10M); and instead of scrapping the early 'Eurostar' Class 373 train sets; use shortened 373's on frequent high-speed direct LHR-CDG/ BRU/ AMS train services. These 400-500 seat train services would replace BA/ AF/ SN/ KL short haul flights; and I would offer those companies a share-holding in the rail company and dedicated seat allocations on each train. These services could also call at Stratford International in east London to allow train staff time to do any on-board checks. (Stratford International station must be the only International station in the world without any international services !!!!) Replacing short-haul flying to AMS/BRU/CDG from LHR with rail would release about 40-50-daily slots @ LHR to allow expanded intercontinental flying.

2. Electrify another short section of rail in west London between Acton and Willesden (Canal Wharf Junction) connecting the GW main line to the West Coast main line. This allows direct rail service from LHR to Birmingham and Manchester. The new South West Trains franchise has just commenced, which will make the practically new Class 707 train fleet redundant. Use these (cascaded) trains on an new hourly LHR-MAN service freeing up another 12 or so slots @ LHR.

This readily demonstrates that by using EXISTING RAIL RESOURCES and £20million; (yes, £20 million) in small electrification schemes, you could release around 50-60 daily LHR slots, and thereby avoid having to spend £20BN; (yes £20 Billion) on any third runway @ LHR.

I agree the UK should make better use of rail but the UK is not so good at large infrastructure projects, look at Heathrow R3 and also the High Speed 2 line which is in early stages and may never be built. On the above:

1. Is there enough capacity in the Channel Tunnel for all these extra trains?
2. The West Coast Mainline is already at capacity, hence why High Speed 2 is needed. There would be no capacity for an hourly service to/from Heathrow. This will have to be built before you start to add trains from Heathrow to Manchester and further North. Also a quick look at Wikipedia shows those 707 trains can only do 100mph, so not fast enough for high speed up North.

mcoatc wrote:

LHR needs 3 widely-spaced parallels, allowing simultaneous arrivals to the outboard runways that do not conflict with the center runway's departures in all weather conditions.

LHR needed 3 runways 30 or 40 years ago. It needs a minimum of 4 runways now not in 2030 or 2040.

There is nothing wrong with a dependent parallel runway operation!!!! It will add capacity. Not as much as fully separated parallel runways, but it will come at a much lower cost.

kaitak744 wrote:

There is nothing wrong with a dependent parallel runway operation!!!! It will add capacity. Not as much as fully separated parallel runways, but it will come at a much lower cost.

And you also generates more jobs, as you will need to start building the 4th one as soon as you finish building the 3rd one, due to the tiny capacity you added!!

Jayafe wrote:

kaitak744 wrote:

There is nothing wrong with a dependent parallel runway operation!!!! It will add capacity. Not as much as fully separated parallel runways, but it will come at a much lower cost.

And you also generates more jobs, as you will need to start building the 4th one as soon as you finish building the 3rd one, due to the tiny capacity you added!!

Do you have any facts on how much capacity a closely spaced parallel runway system can handle vs. 2 parallel runways far apart? The difference is not that drastic.

My suggestion would be to build the third runway over the top of the M25 - no new land needed then!

Build. A. New. Airport. Already.