"MrBitsy" wrote the following in:


Chris Jones wrote:
Incidentally all the high speed rail lines were built recently
and are all fenced off, even the bridges have fences to stop
people throwing things.

Oh really?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/3209672.stm

Oh really indeed - how did I manage to drive a Metropoliton line
train over a bicycle, between Finchly Road and Baker Street then?

Out of interest, what happened when you did?

--
message by Robin May, but you can call me Mr Smith.
Enjoy the Routemaster while you still can.

Robin May may be my name, but Robin is my first name.

MrBitsy wrote:


So, are you saying that if there is a chance of somebody not following set
procedures, no expansion should take place?

That just about every expansion plan, on all forms of transport, for ever
more then.

No, that's not what I'm claiming. I'm simply saying that removing a safe
'escape route' from a potentially dangerous situation has serious safety
implications, and that I consider it to be a real problem. Due various
people's ignorance of the Heathrow expansion plans retaining the
existing pattern of operation on the existing runways (resulting in
aircraft taking off on both sides, which is not the usual procedure for
large airports).

I did not claim it couldn't be overcome - I expect it could (although
all the extra backup systems needed would probably make an already
expensive project even costlier).


This was not the main reason why I oppose the new runway - I just
mentioned it because nobody else had! Other reasons why I oppose it
include:

* It would require the destruction of two villages
* It is not needed
* A dispersed solution (greater use of smaller airports) would bring
greater economic benefits
* Revenue from landing fees would be better spent on improving surface
access to the airport than on another runway
* A six terminal airport would be far more difficult to serve by rail

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 14:22:28 -0000, "MrBitsy"
wrote:

Chris Jones wrote:
Incidentally all the high speed rail lines were built recently and
are all fenced off, even the bridges have fences to stop people
throwing things.

Oh really?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/3209672.stm

Oh really indeed - how did I manage to drive a Metropoliton line train over
a bicycle, between Finchly Road and Baker Street then?

The concepts "Metropolitan line" and "high speed" are rarely seen in
the same room, let alone sentence!

Malc.

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 02:51:11 GMT, "Richard J."
wrote:

Malcolm Weir wrote:
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 02:13:27 +1030, (Aidan Stanger)
wrote:

[ Snip ]
I admit I don't know the figures, but when the standard missed
approach procedure is to go round on the side where aircraft aren't
taking off, do you really think that the number of potentially
dangerous movements for mixed approaches WOULDN'T increase by
several orders of magnitude if aircraft were taking off on both
sides?

First, on what insanity are you projecting on ATC? Why would
aircraft *be* taking off on both sides?

If alternation continues on the existing runways, with mixed-mode on the
new one, this scenario will happen 50% of the time.

If martians fly out of your bottom, the National History museum will
want a word.

To illustrate the foolishness of your fear tactics, let's call the
runways Left, Right, and New. All proposals thus far have New be
much shorter than Left or Right, and is located to the north. So if
you are using New for departures to the west, you'd *also* use Right
for departures, and Left for arrivals.

Why? And likewise, during easterly operations are you saying that 09L
would always be used for departures, a total reversal of the Cranford
Agreement?

Why not?

The point is simply that your scenario collapses, entirely, with a
trivial procedural change.

More realistically would be to simply sequence operations in such a
way that the runways are not being used simultaneously, but rather as
a means of reducing the in-trail separation of the traffic by
offsetting the traffic.

I would simply note that your scenario has little or nothing to do
with reality.

Yours too, I hope.

Sadly for your whining, my scenario matches what actually happens at
airports...

Malc.

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 08:05:03 +0000, Lansbury wrote:

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 07:17:50 +0000, Steve Peake
wrote:

I'll repeat myself, why would a 3rd runway be needed while there was a
flight cap in place?

and it what legally binding agreement is a flight cap imposed?

The T5 planning inquiry, the flight cap was a condition of building it,
that condition was accepted by the Transport Minister.

Steve

The concepts "Metropolitan line" and "high speed" are rarely seen in
the same room, let alone sentence!

Well, with the way the train shakes around, it feels bloody high speed
anyway!

Malcolm Weir wrote:
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 02:51:11 GMT, "Richard J."
wrote:

Malcolm Weir wrote:
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 02:13:27 +1030, (Aidan
Stanger) wrote:

[ Snip ]
I admit I don't know the figures, but when the standard missed
approach procedure is to go round on the side where aircraft aren't
taking off, do you really think that the number of potentially
dangerous movements for mixed approaches WOULDN'T increase by
several orders of magnitude if aircraft were taking off on both
sides?

First, on what insanity are you projecting on ATC? Why would
aircraft *be* taking off on both sides?

If alternation continues on the existing runways, with mixed-mode on
the new one, this scenario will happen 50% of the time.

If martians fly out of your bottom, the National History museum will
want a word.

Unintelligible comment 1.

To illustrate the foolishness of your fear tactics, let's call the
runways Left, Right, and New. All proposals thus far have New be
much shorter than Left or Right, and is located to the north. So if
you are using New for departures to the west, you'd *also* use Right
for departures, and Left for arrivals.

Why? And likewise, during easterly operations are you saying that
09L would always be used for departures, a total reversal of the
Cranford Agreement?

Why not?

The point is simply that your scenario collapses, entirely, with a
trivial procedural change.

If you regard runway alternation at Heathrow and the Cranford Agreement as
trivial, you have a lot to learn about the realities of operating Heathrow
airport.

More realistically would be to simply sequence operations in such a
way that the runways are not being used simultaneously, but rather as
a means of reducing the in-trail separation of the traffic by
offsetting the traffic.

Unintelligible comment 2.

I would simply note that your scenario has little or nothing to do
with reality.

Yours too, I hope.

Sadly for your whining, my scenario matches what actually happens at
airports...

I don't think you understand what actually happens at Heathrow.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

"Graeme Wall" wrote in message
...
In message
"Terry Harper" wrote:

We're not talking about a landing, but the need to "go round again" if
the
landing has to be aborted. This is unlikely to happen later than when
the
captain calls finals, when he will be a couple of miles away from the
threshold, at least.

Last time this happened to me (Dublin) we were over the threshold when the
pilot aborted. Apparently an Aeroflot plane had, quote: 'Got lost' and
hadn't cleared the runway when expected to. We went up in a straight line
and much steeper than a normal take-off. I've also seen go-rounds at
Heathrow happen much closer than two miles from threshold.

Strictly speaking, the decision to abort ought to be made before the pilot
goes to "full flaps", because that inhibits his ability to get away again
safely. When he does that, he's almost committed to landing. Trying to climb
away on full flap is not nice. You cannot safely raise them until you have
enough speed and altitude.
--
Terry Harper, Web Co-ordinator, The Omnibus Society
http://www.omnibussoc.org
E-mail:
URL: http://www.terry.harper.btinternet.co.uk/

In message
"MrBitsy" wrote:

Chris Jones wrote:
Incidentally all the high speed rail lines were built recently and
are all fenced off, even the bridges have fences to stop people
throwing things.

Oh really?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/3209672.stm

Oh really indeed - how did I manage to drive a Metropoliton line train over
a bicycle, between Finchly Road and Baker Street then?

Since when has the Metroplitan Line been a high speed line?

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

When did anyone see anything doing 183mph except on a race track?

I seem to remember 2mph is the average for Watford High Street - in good
weather with
a following wind and avoiding the speed cameras.

As for Eurostar - 183Mph is only possible once it's left the third world -
IE Britain. Our antiquated
track, staff and signalling equipment just isn't upto it.

Does anyone remember 120mph trains? 12mph trains are more realistic

"Graeme Wall" wrote in message
...
In message
"Chris Jones" wrote:

Eurostar to Lille, then TGV direct to Avignon, and Montpelier or
Marseilles. 183mph almost all the way.

How come when a train does 183 mph, everyone's all like "woohoo, this is
the best thing ever, trains rule"... but when a car does 183 mph,
everyone's all like "what an irresponsible, dangerous thing to do, why
won't you think of the children?!?!?!?"



Possibly because the train is not doing 183mph down Watford High Street...

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