Heathrow's in the wrong place:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article2925884.ece

Any thoughts?

"Alex"  wrote in message 
news:e889bea8-5177-40f6-9023-6645d37211c5@w40g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> Heathrow's in the wrong place:
>
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article2925884.ece
>
> Any thoughts?

I agree (with the assessment of the problem), not sure what the solution is 
though.

tim

In message 
          "tim \(not at home\)"  wrote:

> 
> "Alex"  wrote in message 
> news:e889bea8-5177-40f6-9023-6645d37211c5@w40g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> > Heathrow's in the wrong place:
> > 
> > http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article2925884.ece
> > 
> > Any thoughts?
> 
> I agree (with the assessment of the problem), not sure what the solution is
> though.
> 

It's an interesting idea, though not original[1].  Be interesting to see some
proper costings.  One problem he's forgotten is that although moving the
airport east of London will reduce the number of landings over the City,
though not as many as he seems to think, there will still be the equivalent
number of take offs which are rather noisier.

[1] It's a variation of th Maplin Sands project.

-- 
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html>

On 23 Nov, 20:38, Graeme Wall  wrote:
> In message 
>           "tim \(not at home\)"  wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Alex"  wrote in message
> >news:e889bea8-5177-40f6-9023-6645d37211c5@w40g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> > > Heathrow's in the wrong place:
>
> > >http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributor...
>
> > > Any thoughts?
>
> > I agree (with the assessment of the problem), not sure what the solution is
> > though.
>
> It's an interesting idea, though not original[1].  Be interesting to see some
> proper costings.  One problem he's forgotten is that although moving the
> airport east of London will reduce the number of landings over the City,
> though not as many as he seems to think, there will still be the equivalent
> number of take offs which are rather noisier.
>
Though such a proposed airport would be at Cliffe, or further out in
the estuary. Looking at the DfTs 57dB contour, at Heathrow this
extends 9 miles West to cover Windsor. A similar western extension
from Cliffe would cover West Thurrock and Grays. By the time planes
get as far as London, they would be barely audible, and should also
have headed away. (With todays terrorist threat
levels, flying planes over London is not a good idea).

> [1] It's a variation of th Maplin Sands project.
>
Maplin is even further out. I don't understand why at the time they
didn't consider Cliffe. Now, with High Speed 1, its an even more
attractive location as it would be about 20-25 minutes from St Pancras.

In message 
          Alex  wrote:

> On 23 Nov, 20:38, Graeme Wall  wrote:
> > In message 
> >           "tim \(not at home\)"  wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > "Alex"  wrote in message
> > > news:e889bea8-5177-40f6-9023-6645d37211c5@w40g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> > > > Heathrow's in the wrong place:
> > 
> > > > http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributor...
> > 
> > > > Any thoughts?
> > 
> > > I agree (with the assessment of the problem), not sure what the
> > > solution is though.
> > 
> > It's an interesting idea, though not original[1].  Be interesting to see
> > some proper costings.  One problem he's forgotten is that although moving
> > the airport east of London will reduce the number of landings over the
> > City, though not as many as he seems to think, there will still be the
> > equivalent number of take offs which are rather noisier.
> > 
> Though such a proposed airport would be at Cliffe, or further out in the
> estuary. Looking at the DfTs 57dB contour, at Heathrow this extends 9 miles
> West to cover Windsor. A similar western extension from Cliffe would cover
> West Thurrock and Grays. By the time planes get as far as London, they
> would be barely audible, and should also have headed away. (With todays
> terrorist threat levels, flying planes over London is not a good idea).
> 
> > [1] It's a variation of th Maplin Sands project.
> > 
> Maplin is even further out. I don't understand why at the time they didn't
> consider Cliffe. Now, with High Speed 1, its an even more attractive
> location as it would be about 20-25 minutes from St Pancras.

As my contact at ATC has pointed out, what it doesn't do is provide more
airspace, the London TMA is more or less at its limits now.

-- 
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html>

In message <f1eb464f%Rail@greywall.demon.co.uk>, Graeme Wall 
 writes

>As my contact at ATC has pointed out, what it doesn't do is provide more
>airspace, the London TMA is more or less at its limits now.

So who / what imposes this limit ?


Cheers, J/.
-- 
John Beardmore

In message 
          John Beardmore  wrote:

> In message <f1eb464f%Rail@greywall.demon.co.uk>, Graeme Wall 
>  writes
> 
> >As my contact at ATC has pointed out, what it doesn't do is provide more
> >airspace, the London TMA is more or less at its limits now.
> 
> So who / what imposes this limit ?
> 

The physical space taken up by aircraft.  Each aircraft occupies a box 1000
ft high and five or seven miles long.

A further problem with an airport in the Thames is that the approach paths
will conflict with those of LCY.

-- 
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html>

On 25 Nov, 15:23, Graeme Wall  wrote:
> In message 
>           John Beardmore  wrote:
>
> > In message <f1eb464f%R...@greywall.demon.co.uk>, Graeme Wall
> >  writes
>
> > >As my contact at ATC has pointed out, what it doesn't do is provide more
> > >airspace, the London TMA is more or less at its limits now.
>
> > So who / what imposes this limit ?
>
> The physical space taken up by aircraft.  Each aircraft occupies a box 1000
> ft high and five or seven miles long.
>
Though with additional runways, stacking should be much less of an
issue. An airport to replace Heathrow would have 4 runways and 24 hour
operation, so planes should be able to come straight in.

> A further problem with an airport in the Thames is that the approach paths
> will conflict with those of LCY.
>
That could be a problem. Planes from Thames Airport would take off
towards the East, and probably veer over the M25 left (to head to
Europe and Asia) and right (to head to America and Northern Europe).

Given the importance of a Thames Airport, LCY would just have to
adjust. Probably the planes would come in below the Thames path,

"Alex"  wrote in message 
news:1c201215-ba5b-4a5f-8cd8-143b76226098@w28g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On 25 Nov, 15:23, Graeme Wall  wrote:
>> In message 
>>           John Beardmore  wrote:
>>
>> > In message <f1eb464f%R...@greywall.demon.co.uk>, Graeme Wall
>> >  writes
>>
>> > >As my contact at ATC has pointed out, what it doesn't do is provide 
>> > >more
>> > >airspace, the London TMA is more or less at its limits now.
>>
>> > So who / what imposes this limit ?
>>
>> The physical space taken up by aircraft.  Each aircraft occupies a box 
>> 1000
>> ft high and five or seven miles long.
>>
> Though with additional runways, stacking should be much less of an
> issue. An airport to replace Heathrow would have 4 runways and 24 hour
> operation, so planes should be able to come straight in.
>
>> A further problem with an airport in the Thames is that the approach 
>> paths
>> will conflict with those of LCY.
>>
> That could be a problem. Planes from Thames Airport would take off
> towards the East, and probably veer over the M25 left (to head to
> Europe and Asia) and right (to head to America and Northern Europe).
>
> Given the importance of a Thames Airport, LCY would just have to
> adjust. Probably the planes would come in below the Thames path,

ISTM that the adjustment would be into something that wasn't an airport

tim

In message

          Alex  wrote:

> On 25 Nov, 15:23, Graeme Wall  wrote:
> > In message 
> >           John Beardmore  wrote:
> > 
> > > In message <f1eb464f%R...@greywall.demon.co.uk>, Graeme Wall
> > >  writes
> > 
> > > > As my contact at ATC has pointed out, what it doesn't do is provide
> > > > more airspace, the London TMA is more or less at its limits now.
> > 
> > > So who / what imposes this limit ?
> > 
> > The physical space taken up by aircraft.  Each aircraft occupies a box
> > 1000 ft high and five or seven miles long.
> > 
> Though with additional runways, stacking should be much less of an issue.
> An airport to replace Heathrow would have 4 runways and 24 hour operation,
> so planes should be able to come straight in.

There is still a linit to the number of aircraft that you can get into the
London TMA at any one time.  Especially as it has an effect on several other
airports around the periphery of London.  There's also the problem of
interaction with continental airspace.

> 
> > A further problem with an airport in the Thames is that the approach
> > paths will conflict with those of LCY.
> >
> That could be a problem. Planes from Thames Airport would take off
> towards the East, and probably veer over the M25 left (to head to
> Europe and Asia) and right (to head to America and Northern Europe).
> 
> Given the importance of a Thames Airport, LCY would just have to
> adjust. Probably the planes would come in below the Thames path,

But if planes are taking off from the east, they are landing from the west
which means take-offs from LCY are coming up through the landing stream which
could be a couple of miles across.


-- 
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html>

On 25 Nov, 21:25, Graeme Wall  wrote:
> In message
> 
>           Alex  wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 25 Nov, 15:23, Graeme Wall  wrote:
> > > In message 
> > >           John Beardmore  wrote:
>
> > > > In message <f1eb464f%R...@greywall.demon.co.uk>, Graeme Wall
> > > >  writes
>
> > > > > As my contact at ATC has pointed out, what it doesn't do is provide
> > > > > more airspace, the London TMA is more or less at its limits now.
>
> > > > So who / what imposes this limit ?
>
> > > The physical space taken up by aircraft.  Each aircraft occupies a box
> > > 1000 ft high and five or seven miles long.
>
> > Though with additional runways, stacking should be much less of an issue.
> > An airport to replace Heathrow would have 4 runways and 24 hour operation,
> > so planes should be able to come straight in.
>
> There is still a linit to the number of aircraft that you can get into the
> London TMA at any one time.  Especially as it has an effect on several other
> airports around the periphery of London.  There's also the problem of
> interaction with continental airspace.
>
>
>
> > > A further problem with an airport in the Thames is that the approach
> > > paths will conflict with those of LCY.
>
> > That could be a problem. Planes from Thames Airport would take off
> > towards the East, and probably veer over the M25 left (to head to
> > Europe and Asia) and right (to head to America and Northern Europe).
>
> > Given the importance of a Thames Airport, LCY would just have to
> > adjust. Probably the planes would come in below the Thames path,
>
> But if planes are taking off from the east, they are landing from the west
> which means take-offs from LCY are coming up through the landing stream which
> could be a couple of miles across.
>
I just did a measurement, as the crow (or the plane) flys,
Heathrow to City: 21.6 miles
Cliffe to City: 19.6 miles

Other proposals like Thames Island Airport are even further out. So I
can't see the problem being more difficult than it is at the moment.

Stacking, if needed, would take place over the North Sea.