Heathrow expansion.

[Peter Mugridge]

...wouldn't a sloping runway be less than ideal for landing so does these mean they will only use this runway for take off's?

It shouldn't make any difference as they would still have the other two runways as well.

You'd only be landing downhill on the ramp if you were landing west to east - if the wind was in the east then you simply use the 3rd runway for take off only and the other two are still available for landing.

If the wind is in the west you'd be landing east to west and all three would be available. In this direction, come to think of it, you could even use the ramp to help with deceleration after landing...


Update 27/10/16: It has been clarified that the gradient of the "ramp" will be 1%, therefore would not be an issue for landing and not even as steep as at least three existing runways in the UK including one at Ringway.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Permanently? Or will Heathrow simply fill up the 3rd runway until after a couple of years, the polluting stack is back, but this time with 50% more planes?

Well we will have to wait and see but I would have thought that it would be much longer than two years before if / when the stack returned.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

My view, as I've said on the aviation thread, is that Heathrow is the wrong choice for expansion and that the main justification for expansion doesn't make sense. South east expansion can be delivered at Stansted and Gatwick- if you're going to London it doesn't matter which airport you use, they're all 30-45 minutes from central London- and regional expansion can be delivered at Manchester and Edinburgh or Glasgow. Gatwick's second runway should have come way before Heathrow.

If you're flying into London for the day (as many of my European colleagues do) then that 35 minute let alone 55 minute journey time (plus tube) is too long. Not only that but the service out to Gatwick is absolutely dreadful, especially bearing in mind that Heathrow is linked to Cross Rail.

 

[Bald Rick]

Well we will have to wait and see but I would have thought that it would be much longer than two years before if / when the stack returned.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


If you're flying into London for the day (as many of my European colleagues do) then that 35 minute let alone 55 minute journey time (plus tube) is too long. Not only that but the service out to Gatwick is absolutely dreadful, especially bearing in mind that Heathrow is linked to Cross Rail.

Leaving aside current industrial relations strife - within 2 years Gatwick will have 8 trains an hour to London Bridge, City TL, Farringdon and St Pancras, plus another 10 to Victoria. Most of which will be sub 35 mins to Zone 1, and for half the Thameslink services, 40 minutes to The City. The latter is not much longer than Crossrail to Liverpool St, and the same frequency.

 

[heart-of-wessex]

I don't know much about the history as I was only a kid in the 80's, but what happened to the old third runway? Was there not a central one before, if they kept it and buikt around it would it have worked? Sorry I don't know what it used to look like to be honest.

Wouldn't it have been easier to have a second runway at Gatwick instead? There is already a second one in place, ok it's not used and is shorter, but extending it to the length of the parallel runway, job done?

 

[Bald Rick]

I don't know much about the history as I was only a kid in the 80's, but what happened to the old third runway? Was there not a central one before, if they kept it and buikt around it would it have worked? Sorry I don't know what it used to look like to be honest.

Wouldn't it have been easier to have a second runway at Gatwick instead? There is already a second one in place, ok it's not used and is shorter, but extending it to the length of the parallel runway, job done?

The 'third' runway at LHR was on a diagonal (045 / 225 IIRC) and actually crossed both of what are now the main runways. Not usable concurrently for obvious reasons.

At LGW, the 'second' runway is the main taxiway. It does not have the necessary separation from the main runway to be used concurrently. As has been proven on several occasions where pilots have mistaken it, or the adjacent parallel subsidiary taxiway, as the main runway and landed in it.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

The 'third' runway at LHR was on a diagonal (045 / 225 IIRC) and actually crossed both of what are now the main runways. Not usable concurrently for obvious reasons.

There used to be six runways at Heathrow - three further diagonals. That was in the days when it was more critical than it is now to take off and land exactly into the wind, so it was in fact three pairs of runways. The present two, albeit shorter in those days, the 04/22, another at the same angle at the west end of the airport and two further diagonals at almost right angles to those two and crossing them roughly in the middle.

 

[edwin_m]

There used to be six runways at Heathrow - three further diagonals. That was in the days when it was more critical than it is now to take off and land exactly into the wind, so it was in fact three pairs of runways. The present two, albeit shorter in those days, the 04/22, another at the same angle at the west end of the airport and two further diagonals at almost right angles to those two and crossing them roughly in the middle.

All the talk of airport X and Y having many more runways than Heathrow really needs to consider the number useable simultaneously rather than the total. For example Madrid has two pairs at roughly 45 degrees to each other as I presume the weather conditions there mean that crosswinds would be too great on a significant number of occasions if only one direction was available. So although it has 4 in total, presumably only 2 can be used at a time, making its runway capacity similar to that of Heathrow today.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

All the talk of airport X and Y having many more runways than Heathrow really needs to consider the number useable simultaneously rather than the total. For example Madrid has two pairs at roughly 45 degrees to each other as I presume the weather conditions there mean that crosswinds would be too great on a significant number of occasions if only one direction was available. So although it has 4 in total, presumably only 2 can be used at a time, making its runway capacity similar to that of Heathrow today.

Indeed, and modern aircraft can cope with a greater degree of crosswind than the smaller, lighter and slower aircraft that used to be the norm - so these days we only need a set of runways parallel to the prevailing winds. So the Heathrow R3 is a true expansion rather than just being an extra number on the runway figures.

 

[Tetchytyke]

If you're flying into London for the day (as many of my European colleagues do) then that 35 minute let alone 55 minute journey time (plus tube) is too long. Not only that but the service out to Gatwick is absolutely dreadful, especially bearing in mind that Heathrow is linked to Cross Rail.

Stansted is 40 minutes from Liverpool Street, which is in the heart of the City of London, and it's a similar time on Thameslink (or it will be) to City Thameslink. It's currently at least an hour from Heathrow to the City, although Crossrail will bring that down to about 40 minutes.

Heathrow was a PITA to get to when I lived in North London- even though I got the pleasure of the noise of planes in the stack- and I don't think much will change.

I still think Heathrow has many of the same challenges as Kai Tak in Hong Kong did, and I still think that the Hong Kong solution of building a new airport is the right one. In this case either build a new one or revamp Stansted and Gatwick.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I still think Heathrow has many of the same challenges as Kai Tak in Hong Kong did, and I still think that the Hong Kong solution of building a new airport is the right one. In this case either build a new one or revamp Stansted and Gatwick.

I'm inclined to agree.

I think there are really two issues here. Should we be building more capacity, and if so, where should it go?

On the first question, I think it's very relevant that flights are not required to pay for the vast environmental damage they cause. Road traffic at least pays fuel duty, which goes some way to compensate everyone else for the harm done by driving, but air duties are much lower and - as far as I'm aware - nowhere near sufficient to cover the damage. That amounts to a massive hidden subsidy received by airlines and their passengers which the Government is not taking account of. And that subsidy must be distorting the travel market. Basically no one who flies (at least outside business class) pays the actual, true cost of their flight. If those hidden subsidies were removed, would we still need extra capacity?

On the second question, I would have thought it was very obvious that on any quality-of-life measure, in a time when we are becoming increasingly aware of the harm caused by noise and toxic pollutants emitted from aircraft, the middle of an urban area (such as Heathrow) has to be one of the most stupid places to put (or expand) an airport. Expanding Gatwick or Stansted and starting to move flights to one of those, away from Heathrow, would have made a bit more sense.

This does appear to be a decision by a Government that thinks only of cost (and even then, only in very narrow, accounting terms), and not about value or quality of life.

 

[AlterEgo]

Three degrees is the standard glide path so hitting a runway that rises at three degrees would be difficult and possibly hazardous as a regular event. Exceptionally, very short runways allow steeper approaches for smaller aircraft such as at London City, but to land a long haul vehicle at that angle would be unsustainable, (Emirates has been trying to secure additional intrusions into the Heathrow night curfew by proposing it but the UK ATC has pointed out that the airplanes would need to level out as much as 6 miles before touchdown).

There is no need for the angle to be three degrees. If the whole runway was at that angle it would be very high above the M25; unnecesarily so!

(My GCSE maths fails me, perhaps someone could work out the elevation at the higher end of the runway assuming an 8000ft length and a 3 degree angle of elevation?)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

All the talk of airport X and Y having many more runways than Heathrow really needs to consider the number useable simultaneously rather than the total. For example Madrid has two pairs at roughly 45 degrees to each other as I presume the weather conditions there mean that crosswinds would be too great on a significant number of occasions if only one direction was available. So although it has 4 in total, presumably only 2 can be used at a time, making its runway capacity similar to that of Heathrow today.

All four could be used simultaneously if it were necessary. Two for landing, two for takeoff.

It wouldn't happen because MAD has loads of spare capacity.

 

[Wolfie]

I'm inclined to agree.

I think there are really two issues here. Should we be building more capacity, and if so, where should it go?

On the first question, I think it's very relevant that flights are not required to pay for the vast environmental damage they cause. Road traffic at least pays fuel duty, which goes some way to compensate everyone else for the harm done by driving, but air duties are much lower and - as far as I'm aware - nowhere near sufficient to cover the damage. That amounts to a massive hidden subsidy received by airlines and their passengers which the Government is not taking account of. And that subsidy must be distorting the travel market. Basically no one who flies (at least outside business class) pays the actual, true cost of their flight. If those hidden subsidies were removed, would we still need extra capacity?

On the second question, I would have thought it was very obvious that on any quality-of-life measure, in a time when we are becoming increasingly aware of the harm caused by noise and toxic pollutants emitted from aircraft, the middle of an urban area (such as Heathrow) has to be one of the most stupid places to put (or expand) an airport. Expanding Gatwick or Stansted and starting to move flights to one of those, away from Heathrow, would have made a bit more sense.

This does appear to be a decision by a Government that thinks only of cost (and even then, only in very narrow, accounting terms), and not about value or quality of life.

Spot on... your last para sums up why it will never happen - the Courts will have a field day with the so-called 'evidence' proving this practical...

 

[Peter Mugridge]

There is no need for the angle to be three degrees. If the whole runway was at that angle it would be very high above the M25; unnecesarily so!

It will be one degree.

 

[Barn]

Because they are getting booted out of their house to make the Spanish owners of Heathrow Airport and the Spanish owners of British Airways richer?

I don't think I'll ever understand quite how some Remainers think.

 

[Deerfold]

I don't think I'll ever understand quite how some Remainers think.

I don't think people's views on London airport expansion split along the same lines as their views on EU membership.

 

[Barn]

I don't think people's views on London airport expansion split along the same lines as their views on EU membership.

No, unless your issue with Heathrow is that it is owned by Spaniards...

 

[BananaRepublic]

There is no need for the angle to be three degrees. If the whole runway was at that angle it would be very high above the M25; unnecesarily so!

(My GCSE maths fails me, perhaps someone could work out the elevation at the higher end of the runway assuming an 8000ft length and a 3 degree angle of elevation?)

It will be one degree.

3 degrees over 8000ft would give a height of over 400ft. Plainly ridiculous.
1 degree over 8000ft would give a height of 140ft. Again plainly ridiculous.

The runway is actually planned to be 3500 metres long (11,483ft give or take).
There will be a lot of earthworks involved in preparing the site for the new runway. All that will need to be done, is to build up and grade the whole site to an appropriate height, on which to build the runway.
Any slope is likely to be in the region of about one third of one degree to about half a degree, depending on whether it is over the full length, or for only part of the runway length; or up to 1 degree, if the slope is over only a third of the total runway length.
I've no doubt that it will look pretty flat and level.




--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

.
Here is a similar arrangement to the proposed bridge over the M25, at Paris Charles de Gaulle, where the A1 motorway passes under the northern runways.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@49.0268994,2.5369514,3a,75y,199.01h,71.11t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sIdpKrSxQqzL_ihDVnNf6-w!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DIdpKrSxQqzL_ihDVnNf6-w%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D288.66315%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656



.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

The one degree was quoted by various media this morning sourced from the DfT; combined with the earlier use of the misleading word "ramp" I would imagine it will be one degree, but only over a short part of the runway - do we even know how far along the runway the motorway crossing would be anyway?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The one degree was quoted by various media this morning sourced from the DfT; combined with the earlier use of the misleading word "ramp" I would imagine it will be one degree, but only over a short part of the runway - do we even know how far along the runway the motorway crossing would be anyway?

After reading the bit I've bolded, I now have an image in my head of a runway with a hump-back bridge halfway along it. Wouldn't be surprised if I end up dreaming about it tonight too

On the plus side, perhaps a hump would help give aircraft a boost into the air as they take off

 

[BananaRepublic]

......do we even know how far along the runway the motorway crossing would be anyway?

Only going of the schematic diagrams and CGI, the M25 appears to cross under the runway about a quarter of its length from the western end.

That would be roughly 875 metres (2870 ft) from the western end and the same distance from the mid point of the runway.

To save anyone else doing the calculation, a 1 degree incline will provide a height increase of just over 20 inches for every 100 ft.



--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

After reading the bit I've bolded, I now have an image in my head of a runway with a hump-back bridge halfway along it. Wouldn't be surprised if I end up dreaming about it tonight too

On the plus side, perhaps a hump would help give aircraft a boost into the air as they take off

No, it will look flat as a pancake.

A bit like this (a similar runway crossing at Paris Charles de Gaulle)....

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@49.0268994,2.5369514,3a,75y,199.01h,71.11t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sIdpKrSxQqzL_ihDVnNf6-w!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DIdpKrSxQqzL_ihDVnNf6-w%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D288.66315%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

Here is a view of the M25 (northbound) approximately where the runway crossing is intended to be built.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4842308,-0.5003067,3a,75y,48.31h,73.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sRNk5ybbSFGzIw15HRT6IFw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

 

[RichmondCommu]

Stansted is 40 minutes from Liverpool Street, which is in the heart of the City of London, and it's a similar time on Thameslink (or it will be) to City Thameslink. It's currently at least an hour from Heathrow to the City, although Crossrail will bring that down to about 40 minutes.

Yes I know where Liverpool Street is and you can't travel from Stansted Aiport to Liverpool Street in 40 minutes. Having just checked the typical journey time is 50 to 55 minutes.

 

[Tetchytyke]

No, unless your issue with Heathrow is that it is owned by Spaniards...

No, my issue is that the only economic benefit of an expanded Heathrow goes to a Spanish company, and therefore we shouldn't be spending a single penny of taxpayer money on it, because the British economy will see no benefit. If they want the benefit, they can pay for it.

I'm not sure what membership of the EU has to do with anything?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

After reading the bit I've bolded, I now have an image in my head of a runway with a hump-back bridge halfway along it.

I still don't see the issue with the Gibraltar solution:

 

[Barn]

No, my issue is that the only economic benefit of an expanded Heathrow goes to a Spanish company, and therefore we shouldn't be spending a single penny of taxpayer money on it, because the British economy will see no benefit. If they want the benefit, they can pay for it.

I'm not sure what membership of the EU has to do with anything?

The issue as to whether it is correct to subsidise a private enterprise with public money arises whether or not that enterprise is Spanish. It's still private wealth being subsidised by public money, wherever it is located.

If you are the sort of person who wants controls on foreign ownership of enterprises (I'm not, generally), you certainly wouldn't find those controls available to you in the EU. Similarly if you wish to treat British-owned companies differently to those owned by other European nations.

Heathrow Airport Holdings Limited is domiciled in the UK and pays corporation tax (albeit not very much as it has lots of costs to set against profits). It is owned partially by a Spanish company, but also now by investors from Qatar, Canada, Singapore, the USA, China and Britain.

 

[Darandio]

The one degree was quoted by various media this morning sourced from the DfT; combined with the earlier use of the misleading word "ramp"

The only source I read was that from the BBC, which did mention a 'ramp' but their source was quoted as saying the gradient would not specifially be 1%, but less than 1%.

The gradient would be less than 1%, as required by the European Aviation Safety Agency. What impact would this have on a plane? "It doesn't affect the performance of an aircraft or provide any problems whatsoever,"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-37774857

 

[BananaRepublic]

....Any slope is likely to be in the region of about one third of one degree to about half a degree, depending on whether it is over the full length, or for only part of the runway length; or up to 1 degree, if the slope is over only a third of the total runway length.
I've no doubt that it will look pretty flat and level......

The only source I read was that from the BBC, which did mention a 'ramp' but their source was quoted as saying the gradient would not specifially be 1%, but less than 1%. ....

As I said early, it is likely to be between a third and half a degree and possibly up to 1 degree, which would be the more extreme end of the range.

That's an incline in the range of between 7 to 10in and possibly up to 20in, over every 100ft.


.

 

[Deerfold]

No, my issue is that the only economic benefit of an expanded Heathrow goes to a Spanish company, and therefore we shouldn't be spending a single penny of taxpayer money on it, because the British economy will see no benefit. If they want the benefit, they can pay for it.

I'm not sure what membership of the EU has to do with anything?

The government claims the taxpayer will not be subsidising Heathrow - this is just a decision on which airport(s) will be allowed to expand.

 

[Ianno87]

The government claims the taxpayer will not be subsidising Heathrow - this is just a decision on which airport(s) will be allowed to expand.

The government decision is simply to set the planning context and regulations into which airports may wish to apply for expansion within - a planning context that would by definition be geared towards favouring a third Heathrow runway.

 

[edwin_m]

The government claims the taxpayer will not be subsidising Heathrow - this is just a decision on which airport(s) will be allowed to expand.

Taxpayers will however be paying for infrastructure that will help Heathrow but also be of use to non-Heathrow travellers. This is to some degree subsidising Heathrow, as it wouldn't be able to expand without better surface access. However there are potential benefits such as tying parts of the SW network into HS2 at Old Oak by extending Crossrail (1) services over a southern rail link.

 

[heart-of-wessex]

I still don't see the issue with the Gibraltar solution:

Haha! Well yes I remember that crossing, though Gibraltar only has 4 flights a day, imagine the tailback at Heathrow !

 

[deltic]

Haha! Well yes I remember that crossing, though Gibraltar only has 4 flights a day, imagine the tailback at Heathrow !

It had 8 departures today and 11 this Sunday and presumably quite a few private flights as well