UK Airport and Runway Building
Discussion
Fusion777 said:
BBC pulled Rachel up on this too. They said Manchester's was finished in 2001. Apparently none have been built in the SE (full length) since the 1940s, haven't checked this out though.
Which also isn't correct as Gatwick's current main runway wasn't built until the late 50's when the airport was closed for 3 years to undergo its full major extension rebuild for commercial operations, which also included the rail station works, new terminal and realigning of the A23.
Posted this on the News thread, but this was interesting:
Someone who worked on T5 tells me that they created a lot of rail and service tunnels and a lot of underground infrastructure for R3 while building T5 while they had the tunnel boring machine ?
Can't believe that as it would have been sensible! Hope it was true.
Someone who worked on T5 tells me that they created a lot of rail and service tunnels and a lot of underground infrastructure for R3 while building T5 while they had the tunnel boring machine ?
Can't believe that as it would have been sensible! Hope it was true.
Scotty2 said:
Someone who worked on T5 tells me that they created a lot of rail and service tunnels and a lot of underground infrastructure for R3 while building T5 while they had the tunnel boring machine ?
Well, I spent 3 years working on the design of T5, and I'm not aware of anything ever being built for R3 during T5, and there's nothing shown on the current live asset map info for HAL, which includes all information for every HAL maintainable asset.
Scotty2 said:
I'll ask him to clarify tonight, and I have had a couple of posters agree with you so my man may be mistaken it would seem.
There was a lot of tunnelling for T5, the airside road tunnel, the Picc line tube tunnels, the HEX tunnels, the baggage tunnels to B & C, plus the TTS tunnels to B & C, and the stormwater tunnels....so its easy to think there was stuff being done that was more than was required for T5, depending on which bit of T5 you were working on.Byker28i said:
I was more interested in the claim that another runway at Heathrow would cut pollution because planes wouldn't be stacking so much...
Well that’s true in isolation. Holding at low levels burns tremendous amounts of fuel. It might ignore that the aim is to increase the number of movements thereby offsetting any gains and then some but it would reduce the amount of pollution per flight.Along the same lines it would also reduce the amount of fuel used during taxi as currently ground delays at Heathrow can get quite lengthy. If you can get them up and away at least the pollution is up somewhere it’ll blow away rather than filling the local area with exhaust fumes.
Time to just build the bloody thing. Give gatwick another one whilst we’re at it. Future proof the capacity of London airports.
DJC76 said:
Byker28i said:
I was more interested in the claim that another runway at Heathrow would cut pollution because planes wouldn't be stacking so much...
Well that’s true in isolation. Holding at low levels burns tremendous amounts of fuel. It might ignore that the aim is to increase the number of movements thereby offsetting any gains and then some but it would reduce the amount of pollution per flight.Along the same lines it would also reduce the amount of fuel used during taxi as currently ground delays at Heathrow can get quite lengthy. If you can get them up and away at least the pollution is up somewhere it’ll blow away rather than filling the local area with exhaust fumes.
Time to just build the bloody thing. Give gatwick another one whilst we’re at it. Future proof the capacity of London airports.
However, subsequent designs did.
Make of that what you will.....
DJC76 said:
Time to just build the bloody thing. Give gatwick another one whilst we’re at it. Future proof the capacity of London airports.
I think it will be one or the other, or neither, but not both.Gatwicks scheme for 2nd runway is by far the cheaper and quicker option, and while LGW Express is still quickest train route to LGW, its not that useful for public transport connection from other London airports, but with Liz Line there is now an easier connection between LHR & STN via Thameslink with change at Farringdon for Liz Line to Heathrow and to STN via Liz Line to Stratford etc, as well as Thameslink direct to LTN from LGW.
LGW though isn't the hub airport that LHR is, and wants to regain that No.1 spot.
Rachel from Accounts, thinks that first shovel in the ground for LHR R3 can be achieved within the term of current Govt, which is a very optimistic view, as that's just over 4 years away, max, and contracts to start detailed design of the first diversions, and site clearance, would need to be signed by this time next year for that to happen. Given there's still enough opposition to R3, there Govt are going to have to bring in some pretty robust unchallengable laws to steamroller R3 through in that space of time.
Still can't see R3 happening to be honest.
DJC76 said:
Byker28i said:
I was more interested in the claim that another runway at Heathrow would cut pollution because planes wouldn't be stacking so much...
Well that’s true in isolation. Holding at low levels burns tremendous amounts of fuel. It might ignore that the aim is to increase the number of movements thereby offsetting any gains and then some but it would reduce the amount of pollution per flight.Along the same lines it would also reduce the amount of fuel used during taxi as currently ground delays at Heathrow can get quite lengthy. If you can get them up and away at least the pollution is up somewhere it’ll blow away rather than filling the local area with exhaust fumes.
Time to just build the bloody thing. Give gatwick another one whilst we’re at it. Future proof the capacity of London airports.
Simple example - Flight A was delayed, its ETA is now the same as Flight B which is currently over the atlantic - contact flight B and tell them to slow down to move their ETA and resolve the conflict without flight B having to circle. This is much simplified, but you get the idea.
If another runway means more landing slots, it helps that process I would presume
Crafty_ said:
DJC76 said:
Byker28i said:
I was more interested in the claim that another runway at Heathrow would cut pollution because planes wouldn't be stacking so much...
Well that’s true in isolation. Holding at low levels burns tremendous amounts of fuel. It might ignore that the aim is to increase the number of movements thereby offsetting any gains and then some but it would reduce the amount of pollution per flight.Along the same lines it would also reduce the amount of fuel used during taxi as currently ground delays at Heathrow can get quite lengthy. If you can get them up and away at least the pollution is up somewhere it’ll blow away rather than filling the local area with exhaust fumes.
Time to just build the bloody thing. Give gatwick another one whilst we’re at it. Future proof the capacity of London airports.
Simple example - Flight A was delayed, its ETA is now the same as Flight B which is currently over the atlantic - contact flight B and tell them to slow down to move their ETA and resolve the conflict without flight B having to circle. This is much simplified, but you get the idea.
If another runway means more landing slots, it helps that process I would presume
LHRFlightman said:
I find it interesting that the first Airspace designs for R3 didn't include the existing holds.
However, subsequent designs did.
Make of that what you will.....
Well not having them would be extremely optimistic and let’s be honest a little silly. If a 3 runway LL lost one it would result in pretty significant delays which would require them.However, subsequent designs did.
Make of that what you will.....
Crafty_ said:
I know the CAA and their colleagues in Europe are looking at traffic management with a view to have no planes stacking.
Simple example - Flight A was delayed, its ETA is now the same as Flight B which is currently over the atlantic - contact flight B and tell them to slow down to move their ETA and resolve the conflict without flight B having to circle. This is much simplified, but you get the idea.
If another runway means more landing slots, it helps that process I would presume
I do, there’s already a very crude version of this in place called XMAN. It works to a small extent. The problem is that not all delay is predictable. In your example if Flight A then deviates around some weather delaying it further still and Flight B can’t reduce its speed any more they then arrive at the same time. It’s too dynamic an environment to eliminate holding entirely when runway capacity is so constrained. Even one or two go arounds at Heathrow can create delays. These projects all have merit don’t get me wrong but ultimately we need more tarmac.Simple example - Flight A was delayed, its ETA is now the same as Flight B which is currently over the atlantic - contact flight B and tell them to slow down to move their ETA and resolve the conflict without flight B having to circle. This is much simplified, but you get the idea.
If another runway means more landing slots, it helps that process I would presume
aeropilot said:
There was a lot of tunnelling for T5, the airside road tunnel, the Picc line tube tunnels, the HEX tunnels, the baggage tunnels to B & C, plus the TTS tunnels to B & C, and the stormwater tunnels....so its easy to think there was stuff being done that was more than was required for T5, depending on which bit of T5 you were working on.
I made the mistake of walking through the tunnel from C gates to Immigration once. What takes a minute or two in the train, takes ages on foot!As for the perceived growth to our UK economy, I personally think that’s always been a spurious argument for LHR expansion. Sure a 3rd runway will free up capacity for extra flights, but if LHR is just the hub for transatlantic flights, then the vast majority of those passengers will never set foot outside the airport, so contribute nothing to our economy apart from the coffers of the airport and their airline. I have flown long haul via Dubai a few times and never left the Dubai terminal buildings when connecting. It would be the same for LHR.
LotusOmega375D said:
Sure a 3rd runway will free up capacity for extra flights, but if LHR is just the hub for transatlantic flights, then the vast majority of those passengers will never set foot outside the airport, so contribute nothing to our economy apart from the coffers of the airport and their airline.
Yes, but that's still money being spent in UK in the duty free, lounges etc., which needs staff and all the other associated support functions inside and beyond the airport which means jobs etc., and all that brings.The big issue for LHR expansion, is staffing, as the surrounding area has got too expensive to live for many on lower paid jobs, and so they have to look way beyond the airport to live, and that then creates problems because to reduce emissions to get R3 etc., they are doing as much as possible to stop staff driving into the airport, but given most people work shifts, unless you live very local on one of the night bus routes, most staff have no option but to drive into LHR. Even back in 2019 when I was last working there, parking in some of the staff car parks was difficult, as more passes issued than spaces.
Many of us that worked on T5 20+ years ago thought that LHR missed a trick by not expanding the TTS westwards from T5, under the M25, so they could build a big multi-story staff car park west of the M25 with a direct shuttle train into T5 for staff.
They will have to do something for staff parking for T5 if R3 does happen, because all the current T5 staff parking will be cut off from T5 because of the taxi ways to R3, so it will have to be all moved to the west or south of T5, which will make it easier for access than current north peri road location.
Staff parking for most central area staff is still a PITA though, unless you are one of the lucky ones like my cousins son, who being ATC has a pass for the old T1 car park in central area. It would take me longer to do the couple of miles from the car park to my desk, than it took me to drive the 27 miles from my home to the car park...!!
DJC76 said:
Crafty_ said:
I know the CAA and their colleagues in Europe are looking at traffic management with a view to have no planes stacking.
Simple example - Flight A was delayed, its ETA is now the same as Flight B which is currently over the atlantic - contact flight B and tell them to slow down to move their ETA and resolve the conflict without flight B having to circle. This is much simplified, but you get the idea.
If another runway means more landing slots, it helps that process I would presume
I do, there’s already a very crude version of this in place called XMAN. It works to a small extent. The problem is that not all delay is predictable. In your example if Flight A then deviates around some weather delaying it further still and Flight B can’t reduce its speed any more they then arrive at the same time. It’s too dynamic an environment to eliminate holding entirely when runway capacity is so constrained. Even one or two go arounds at Heathrow can create delays. These projects all have merit don’t get me wrong but ultimately we need more tarmac.Simple example - Flight A was delayed, its ETA is now the same as Flight B which is currently over the atlantic - contact flight B and tell them to slow down to move their ETA and resolve the conflict without flight B having to circle. This is much simplified, but you get the idea.
If another runway means more landing slots, it helps that process I would presume
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff