[MartynSinclair]

and in the interim……..?

[Bucksnet]

Interim? If my plan outlined in previous posts was followed, more than half of the new Heathrow could be built without disrupting existing operations. It could all be finished in a few years.

[MartynSinclair]

Sorry Bucksnet, I haven’t seen your plans. When I read that you intend flattening the existing site, I thought that could have caused a little disruption.

[pixelmeister]

The lack of capacity at London will not be best served by building a new airport in the Thames Estuary. Why ? Because it isn’t as simple as just throwing up a new airport, the whole transport infrastructure needs to be in place as well, just for starters. The Thames Estuary has terrible connections into London and the rest of the UK. The rail link in from Southend has been known as the Misery Line for decades. If you look south of the Thames, the situation is even worse. North or south of the river, all traffic would be funnelled down a corridor into the east end of London, around the M25 and thence out to the rest of the country. Next up. Where would you put the housing stock needed to provide the workforce needed to run an airport ? The skill set resides in the west of London, but your demand is now miles away. It’s all a bit flaky. What about the people who need to travel frequently and who have settled close to Heathrow ?

For better or worse, Heathrow is still a better bet. Leaping to build a third runway of itself is not the answer. Given the length of time the UK government takes to convert plan to reality, what is needed is a strategic look at the air transport needs for the capital and surrounding areas and how this can be met. The answer may be in significantly expanding LHR with not just one, but several additional runways. Something else which should be considered is mixed mode use – at present aircraft take off from one runway and land on the other one. Using the same runway for both takeoff and landings increases utilisation. It is common practice at a lot of airports around the world and poses no greater safety issues.

[Bucksnet]

Exactly, Heathrow needs to be expanded to the north into what is mainly farmland, with 4 parallel runways in 2 pairs and the terminal(s) in the middle.

[NTarrant]

Well said Pixelmeister

[ChrisBuda82]

Bucksnet please post your master plan:)

[Bucksnet]

Please read my previous posts.

[tolotaxi]

You could do what Frankfurt has done and put in another runway parallel to the M25, to the east of it, and west of the George VI reservoir.

[Bucksnet]

CP/DVD asset Justine Greening has today, once again, ruled out expansion of Heathrow.

[transtraxman]

Bucksnet – 04/03/2012 21:58 GMT

I must apologise for taking so long to answer your query. I have tried to glean the information from various sources about the reglamentation of separation between runways.

At last I have an answer from the CAA which forms part of an 557 page document(which I still have not assimilated completely). Obviously these things are not as clear as we simple souls would like them but at least they are the rules.

“Annex 14 – Aerodromes Volume 1
3.1.12 Recommendation: where parallel instrument runways are intended for simultaneous use subject to conditions specified in the PANS-ATM (Doc 4444) and the PANS-OPS (Doc 8168), Volume 1, the minimum distance between their centre lines should be
– 1035 meters for independent parallel approaches.
– 915 meters for dependent parallel approaches.
– 760 meters for independent parallel departures
– 760 meters for segregated parallel operations”

I should add that this is only an extract and has various caveats.
It appears, however, that I had read 1350 meters when the figure is 1035 meters.

The point remains that the distance from LHR ´s northern runway to the M4 is effectively 1.8kms max. while the distance to the SWML (rail) is 2.45kms. max from the southern runway.. That means you could put in at least two more runways but they would be utterly destructive to houses, businesses and the environment. The only reasonable alternative is the third runway between the M4 and the A4 (Bath Road).

After that the second hub (and why not?) would come into play, Gatwick or elsewhere!!

[Bucksnet]

I find it strange that the FAA allows simultaneous landings on SFO’s parallel runways, where the gap between them is only about double the width of a runway, but the CAA needs 1035 metres. However the rules are the rules.

The point I was trying to make is that the 2 current runways would not survive, so you would not need to build north and/or south of them. 2 new runways could be built just south of the M4, which while not able to accept simultaneous landings or take offs, could have one for landings and one for takeoffs.

After the bulk of the development is finished, 2 runways could be built in the south. There would be no need to expand the airfield south into Stanwell, and the 2 pairs of runways would be more than the required distance apart.

[LPPSKrisflyer]

Wouldn’t runways like this have all the attraction of the polderbaan?

[Bucksnet]

If you mean the runways would be a long way from the terminal then no. The plan is basically a new large terminal or multi terminal complex in the middle of an expanded airfield, with a pair of runways on either side.

[Author]

Posts