|
London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
Lord Foster, chairman and founder of Foster + Partners, has launched
the proposals for the Thames Hub – an integrated vision for the UK. http://preview.tinyurl.com/5r475vg or: http://www.halcrow.com/News/latest-n...es-Hub-vision/ Halcrow and world-leading architect Foster + Partners have been collaborating on a self-funded study to produce a detailed vision for the Thames Hub, comprising a new river barrier and crossing, and an international airport, shipping and rail complex. The proposals represent a holistic vision for infrastructure development in Britain. The plans also include a ‘spine’ which combines energy, communications and data running the length of the UK, fed by the Thames Hub. Lord Foster, founder and chairman of Foster + Partners, said: “We need to recapture the foresight and political courage of our 19th century forebears if we are to establish a modern transport and energy infrastructure in Britain for this century and beyond. If we don’t then we are denying future generations to come. We are rolling over and saying we are no longer competitive – and this is a competitive world. So I do not believe we have a choice.” Halcrow group board director, David Kerr, said: “As infrastructure specialists, our role is to support society by taking on the big issues that affect us all – water, transportation, energy, and creating places to live and work. Great challenges require bold solutions, which is why I believe our Thames Hub vision is critical to society and to the country’s economic prosperity. If we don’t sustain and invest in infrastructure, then it’s at our peril. “If the UK is to remain globally competitive, these proposals need to be seriously considered.” The main components of the Thames Hub a a new barrier crossing that extends flood protection to London and the Thames Gateway into next century. The barrier harnesses tidal power to generate carbon-free energy a four-track, high-speed passenger and freight orbital rail route around London, which links the capital’s radial lines, a future high-speed rail line to the Midlands and the North, the Thames Estuary ports, High Speed 1 (Channel Tunnel to London), and European networks an estuary airport, capable of handling 150 million passengers per annum, thus enabling the UK to retain its global aviation hub status. The airport is integrated within a logistics matrix that connects by rail the Thames Estuary Ports and the ports of Liverpool, Southampton and Felixstowe. Associated with the hub is a major renewable energy source in the estuary a new utilities and data spine in the Thames Barrier, orbital rail line and high-speed networks, with applicability across the UK a comprehensive environmental management strategy that minimises the impact of development and provides opportunities to create significant new wildlife habitats to more than offset losses elsewhere. The project can also serve as the catalyst to reduce pressure on foreshore habitats from rising sea levels and storm activity The Halcrow and Foster+Partners Thames Hub vision is supported by renowned economist Bridget Rosewell, chairman of Volterra Consulting and founder member of The Thames Estuary Research and Development Company (TESTRAD). END QUOTE Exciting stuff! |
London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
On Wed, 02 Nov 2011 16:26:59 +0000
Bruce wrote: Lord Foster, founder and chairman of Foster + Partners, said: "Time are tough and our company needs as much exposure as it can get so to that effect we've knocked up some cheap graphics and waffle about a vague hand waving idea our intern came up with that will never see the light of day because it would cost a fortune, but we don't care because we might get some real contracts off the back of it". Exciting stuff! We obviously have differing definitions of the word "exciting". B2003 |
London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
On Nov 2, 4:38*pm, wrote:
On Wed, 02 Nov 2011 16:26:59 +0000 Bruce wrote: Lord Foster, founder and chairman of Foster + Partners, said: "Time are tough and our company needs as much exposure as it can get so to that effect we've knocked up some cheap graphics and waffle about a vague hand waving idea our intern came up with that will never see the light of day because it would cost a fortune, but we don't care because we might get some real contracts off the back of it". Exciting stuff! We obviously have differing definitions of the word "exciting". But there's something for everyone here! Apart from the airport, there is a lot of new high speed railway including connections to HS1, the proposed HS2 and the Great Western Main Line (and more). There is a tidal stream power station. There is a new Thames Barrier, located in a far better position than the existing one. There is the opportunity to regenerate the depressed Medway Towns. Proper consideration has been given to protecting existing habitats. What's not to like? :-) There is a much more comprehensive explanation of the proposals in the following .pdf document: http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/J..._team_copy.pdf |
London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
On Nov 3, 12:26*am, Bruce wrote:
On Nov 2, 4:38*pm, wrote: On Wed, 02 Nov 2011 16:26:59 +0000 Bruce wrote: Lord Foster, founder and chairman of Foster + Partners, said: "Time are tough and our company needs as much exposure as it can get so to that effect we've knocked up some cheap graphics and waffle about a vague hand waving idea our intern came up with that will never see the light of day because it would cost a fortune, but we don't care because we might get some real contracts off the back of it". Exciting stuff! We obviously have differing definitions of the word "exciting". But there's something for everyone here! *Apart from the airport, there is a lot of new high speed railway including connections to HS1, the proposed HS2 and the Great Western Main Line (and more). *There is a tidal stream power station. *There is a new Thames Barrier, located in a far better position than the existing one. *There is the opportunity to regenerate the depressed Medway Towns. *Proper consideration has been given to protecting existing habitats. What's not to like? *:-) The airport. |
London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
On 03/11/2011 08:05, Jon Porter wrote:
On Nov 3, 12:26 am, wrote: On Nov 2, 4:38 pm, wrote: On Wed, 02 Nov 2011 16:26:59 +0000 wrote: Lord Foster, founder and chairman of Foster + Partners, said: "Time are tough and our company needs as much exposure as it can get so to that effect we've knocked up some cheap graphics and waffle about a vague hand waving idea our intern came up with that will never see the light of day because it would cost a fortune, but we don't care because we might get some real contracts off the back of it". Exciting stuff! We obviously have differing definitions of the word "exciting". But there's something for everyone here! Apart from the airport, there is a lot of new high speed railway including connections to HS1, the proposed HS2 and the Great Western Main Line (and more). There is a tidal stream power station. There is a new Thames Barrier, located in a far better position than the existing one. There is the opportunity to regenerate the depressed Medway Towns. Proper consideration has been given to protecting existing habitats. What's not to like? :-) The airport. I read through the glossy brochure, which admittedly doesn't give a lot of detail, and as far as I can make out the airport is going to be practically on top of the SS Richard Montgomery! Also there is no mention of the bird problem in the Thames Estuary. Hong Kong's airport is not right in the middle of a major wildfowl migration route. Also I can't see how you are going to get two pairs of runways to operate the way they are depicted. There doesn't seem to be adequate clearance between the individual runways in each pair for safe simultaneous operation. -- Graeme Wall This account not read, substitute trains for rail. Railway Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail |
London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
|
London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 08:14:38 +0000
Graeme Wall wrote: I read through the glossy brochure, which admittedly doesn't give a lot of detail, and as far as I can make out the airport is going to be practically on top of the SS Richard Montgomery! Also there is no mention of the bird problem in the Thames Estuary. Hong Kong's airport And not forgetting europes largest natural gas storage depot which is on Grain. is not right in the middle of a major wildfowl migration route. Also I can't see how you are going to get two pairs of runways to operate the way they are depicted. There doesn't seem to be adequate clearance between the individual runways in each pair for safe simultaneous operation. Its a pie in the sky idea and will never happen. But if a new airport is really needed - and I'm not convinced - then surely Manston or southend would be the logical solution? B2003 |
London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
On Wed, 2 Nov 2011 17:26:38 -0700 (PDT)
Bruce wrote: opportunity to regenerate the depressed Medway Towns. Proper consideration has been given to protecting existing habitats. That'll be a bit tricky given that they'll be dumping a couple of million tons of concrete on top of them and they'll have to get rid of all the birds unless they want a load of airliners coming down in the estuary due to bird strikes. What's not to like? :-) Everything. B2003 |
London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
On Nov 3, 9:05*am, Jon Porter wrote:
The airport. I think closing LHR and LGW (both overcrowded rat-holes) and replacing them with a "super-Schiphol" would be a wonderful idea, personally. The value of the land under LHR would pay for a good chunk of it, as well. Neil |
London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
On Thu, 3 Nov 2011 03:40:51 -0700 (PDT)
Neil Williams wrote: On Nov 3, 9:05=A0am, Jon Porter wrote: The airport. I think closing LHR and LGW (both overcrowded rat-holes) and replacing them with a "super-Schiphol" would be a wonderful idea, personally. The value of the land under LHR would pay for a good chunk of it, as well. Currently if heathrow or gatwick is fogbound or has some other problem then aircraft can land at the other. A single airport is a single point of failure. B2003 |
London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
On Nov 3, 12:00*pm, wrote:
Currently if heathrow or gatwick is fogbound or has some other problem then aircraft can land at the other. A single airport is a single point of failure. You'll note I don't propose closing LTN or STN. Those are alternative airports that are not congested. Neil |
London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
On Thu, 3 Nov 2011 04:01:55 -0700 (PDT)
Neil Williams wrote: On Nov 3, 12:00=A0pm, wrote: Currently if heathrow or gatwick is fogbound or has some other problem th= en aircraft can land at the other. A single airport is a single point of failure. You'll note I don't propose closing LTN or STN. Those are alternative airports that are not congested. If heathrow or gatwick closed today there is no way luton and stansted could handle all the extra flights. If an airport with more flights than heathrow or gatwick combined closed it would be chaos. B2003 |
London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
Mike Bristow wrote:
In article , Bruce wrote: What's not to like? :-) The fact that it's east of London. Given that the prevailing winds are east/west, it seems silly to put an airport to the east (or west) of London, rather than North or South - it means that the noise will impact more people. The noise would impact only a tiny fraction of the number of people whose quality of life is significantly degraded by the noise from Heathrow Airport. But this isn't just an airport. It's a carefully worked out proposal for a genuine high speed rail network going far beyond HS1 and HS2, fast rail freight links to a major container port and radial routes out of London, an orbital railway paralleling the M25, a new Thames Flood Barrier, a new Thames crossing to relieve Dartford-Thurrock, a tidal stream power station and regeneration of the Medway Towns. It is a visionary proposal that shows outstanding strategic thinking. As I said, what's not to like? |
London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 12:33:44 +0000
Bruce wrote: As I said, what's not to like? Apparently you haven't read anything anyone has written. B2003 |
London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
|
London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
On Nov 2, 4:26*pm, Bruce wrote:
Lord Foster, chairman and founder of Foster + Partners, has launched the proposals for the Thames Hub – an integrated vision for the UK. An interesting read. Though I'm not sure about the "high speed" aspect of the orbital. At the M25 the radial main lines aren't very far apart, so unless you have rail gun acceleration you'll not get anywhere near to line speed before having to slow for the next station. I've proposed a similar route in the past, but using conventional rail standard lines. All still very interesting though. I'm also an advocate of a Thames airport, so it's good to see this concept explored further. |
London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
On Nov 3, 3:22*pm, Jamie Thompson wrote:
An interesting read. Though I'm not sure about the "high speed" aspect of the orbital. At the M25 the radial main lines aren't very far apart, so unless you have rail gun acceleration you'll not get anywhere near to line speed before having to slow for the next station. I've proposed a similar route in the past, but using conventional rail standard lines. All still very interesting though. Also, I'm not sure how much of a market there is for high speed trains that by-pass London or at best stop at some peripheral London location. Ring roads may be fine for motorway networks but railways don't work like that. we already have cross country trains to interconnect different parts of the country without going through London. Although there is room for improvement in how things are set up, I doubt re-routing such trains over a London orbital line would be the solution. If you're going to be spending billions on interconnecting main line railways in London it might be better spent on tunnels between the existing terminii, a bit like the Germans have done in Berlin. (admitedly Berlin does have an orbital railway, but it is used for the S-Bahn and only individual sections of it for long distance trains). |
London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
On 2011\11\03 16:18, amogles wrote:
If you're going to be spending billions on interconnecting main line railways in London it might be better spent on tunnels between the existing terminii, a bit like the Germans have done in Berlin. (admitedly Berlin does have an orbital railway, but it is used for the S-Bahn and only individual sections of it for long distance trains). Well, I can't see how a long distance train could use all of it! |
London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
On 2011\11\03 08:14, Graeme Wall wrote:
I read through the glossy brochure, which admittedly doesn't give a lot of detail, and as far as I can make out the airport is going to be practically on top of the SS Richard Montgomery! Also there is no mention of the bird problem in the Thames Estuary. The SS Richard Montgomery will get rid of the bird problem... |
London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 16:44:03 +0000, Basil Jet wrote:
On 2011\11\03 16:18, amogles wrote: If you're going to be spending billions on interconnecting main line railways in London it might be better spent on tunnels between the existing terminii, a bit like the Germans have done in Berlin. (admitedly Berlin does have an orbital railway, but it is used for the S-Bahn and only individual sections of it for long distance trains). Well, I can't see how a long distance train could use all of it! That's just because you're not off your box^W^W^W thinking outside the box. In this group we've been provided - at excruciating length - with proposals in which long-distance trains would go around and around a ring- shaped route, though I have no doubt that their originator would be mortified at the idea of his plans being applied to the Hated South. And no, this is ¦not¦ an endorsement of the ringpiec^W ringby proposal -- Speaking only for myself |
London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 16:47:12 +0000, Basil Jet wrote:
On 2011\11\03 08:14, Graeme Wall wrote: I read through the glossy brochure, which admittedly doesn't give a lot of detail, and as far as I can make out the airport is going to be practically on top of the SS Richard Montgomery! Also there is no mention of the bird problem in the Thames Estuary. The SS Richard Montgomery will get rid of the bird problem... And reduce carbon emissions from the airport at the same time. Job's a good 'un. -- Speaking only for myself |
London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
|
London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
On 03/11/2011 09:46, Mike Bristow wrote:
In , wrote: What's not to like? :-) The fact that it's east of London. Given that the prevailing winds are east/west, it seems silly to put an airport to the east (or west) of London, rather than North or South - it means that the noise will impact more people. Prevailing winds are actually westerly hence the claim that the airport can operate 24/7 because the approach will be mainly over the North Sea. What they've omitted to mention is that departures will be straight over London. -- Graeme Wall This account not read, substitute trains for rail. Railway Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail |
London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
On 03/11/2011 16:47, Basil Jet wrote:
On 2011\11\03 08:14, Graeme Wall wrote: I read through the glossy brochure, which admittedly doesn't give a lot of detail, and as far as I can make out the airport is going to be practically on top of the SS Richard Montgomery! Also there is no mention of the bird problem in the Thames Estuary. The SS Richard Montgomery will get rid of the bird problem... And possibly Norman Foster as well if he's not careful. -- Graeme Wall This account not read, substitute trains for rail. Railway Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail |
London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
"Graeme Wall" wrote in message
On 03/11/2011 09:46, Mike Bristow wrote: In , wrote: What's not to like? :-) The fact that it's east of London. Given that the prevailing winds are east/west, it seems silly to put an airport to the east (or west) of London, rather than North or South - it means that the noise will impact more people. Prevailing winds are actually westerly hence the claim that the airport can operate 24/7 because the approach will be mainly over the North Sea. What they've omitted to mention is that departures will be straight over London. Not a problem -- planes can turn sharply within a couple of miles of take-off. They hardly ever stay straight all the way up to altitude. So none need fly over central London. |
London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
On 03/11/2011 21:08, Recliner wrote:
"Graeme wrote in message On 03/11/2011 09:46, Mike Bristow wrote: In , wrote: What's not to like? :-) The fact that it's east of London. Given that the prevailing winds are east/west, it seems silly to put an airport to the east (or west) of London, rather than North or South - it means that the noise will impact more people. Prevailing winds are actually westerly hence the claim that the airport can operate 24/7 because the approach will be mainly over the North Sea. What they've omitted to mention is that departures will be straight over London. Not a problem -- planes can turn sharply within a couple of miles of take-off. They hardly ever stay straight all the way up to altitude. So none need fly over central London. They've still got to feed in to the different airways. some of which will still take them over London. -- Graeme Wall This account not read, substitute trains for rail. Railway Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail |
London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
"Andy Breen" wrote in message
On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 21:50:23 +0000, Graeme Wall wrote: On 03/11/2011 21:08, Recliner wrote: "Graeme wrote in message On 03/11/2011 09:46, Mike Bristow wrote: In article4c96e498-1358-4e79-a673- , wrote: What's not to like? :-) The fact that it's east of London. Given that the prevailing winds are east/west, it seems silly to put an airport to the east (or west) of London, rather than North or South - it means that the noise will impact more people. Prevailing winds are actually westerly hence the claim that the airport can operate 24/7 because the approach will be mainly over the North Sea. What they've omitted to mention is that departures will be straight over London. Not a problem -- planes can turn sharply within a couple of miles of take-off. They hardly ever stay straight all the way up to altitude. So none need fly over central London. They've still got to feed in to the different airways. some of which will still take them over London. And the more wiggling about they do, the more fuel they will have to burn - particularly if they have to do it just after take-off, when they're heavy with fuel. That's got immediate environmental costs, will add to operating costs and could make the airport unattractive for airlines operating the very long-haul routes (Japan, Australia..). You also really don't want to be manoevering at maximum weight and have an engine ingest a goose. That could lead to substantial stress in the cockpit. Regardless of what's on the ground, they routinely start to turn very soon after take-off, so as to head in the direction they need to fly (ie, to join the airway). It's not normally straight ahead. Also, planes take off much more steeply than the landing glide slope, so they quickly reach an altitude high enough that noise isn't a problem. Heavy four-engined planes do take off at a shallower angle than twins, but it's still much steeper than the 3 degree glide slope. I'm off to Shanghai tomorrow, and I very much doubt that we'll fly over central London, even if the take-off is from 09R (they don't normally use 09L for take-offs, as that would route flights at low altitude over populated areas). |
London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
On 03/11/2011 22:59, Recliner wrote:
"Andy wrote in message On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 21:50:23 +0000, Graeme Wall wrote: On 03/11/2011 21:08, Recliner wrote: "Graeme wrote in message On 03/11/2011 09:46, Mike Bristow wrote: In article4c96e498-1358-4e79-a673- , wrote: What's not to like? :-) The fact that it's east of London. Given that the prevailing winds are east/west, it seems silly to put an airport to the east (or west) of London, rather than North or South - it means that the noise will impact more people. Prevailing winds are actually westerly hence the claim that the airport can operate 24/7 because the approach will be mainly over the North Sea. What they've omitted to mention is that departures will be straight over London. Not a problem -- planes can turn sharply within a couple of miles of take-off. They hardly ever stay straight all the way up to altitude. So none need fly over central London. They've still got to feed in to the different airways. some of which will still take them over London. And the more wiggling about they do, the more fuel they will have to burn - particularly if they have to do it just after take-off, when they're heavy with fuel. That's got immediate environmental costs, will add to operating costs and could make the airport unattractive for airlines operating the very long-haul routes (Japan, Australia..). You also really don't want to be manoevering at maximum weight and have an engine ingest a goose. That could lead to substantial stress in the cockpit. Regardless of what's on the ground, they routinely start to turn very soon after take-off, so as to head in the direction they need to fly (ie, to join the airway). It's not normally straight ahead. I used to live in Reading which is almost exactly due west of Heathrow. Tell me again about the planes having turned off before then. -- Graeme Wall This account not read, substitute trains for rail. Railway Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail |
London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
In message , at 08:05:18 on Fri, 4
Nov 2011, Graeme Wall remarked: Regardless of what's on the ground, they routinely start to turn very soon after take-off, so as to head in the direction they need to fly (ie, to join the airway). It's not normally straight ahead. I used to live in Reading which is almost exactly due west of Heathrow. Tell me again about the planes having turned off before then. A few head west over Reading, but others turn over Windsor. It depends where they are going. But there's no need to argue about this, actual data he http://www.flightradar24.com/ I've just watched a Heathrow-Edinburgh flight take off west and turn right over Cookham heading for High Wycombe then Bedford; and a Barcelona flight skirting the east edge of Windsor Great Park on the way to Guildford. -- Roland Perry |
London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
On Nov 4, 9:23*am, Roland Perry wrote:
A few head west over Reading, but others turn over Windsor. It depends where they are going. I've always wondeed why Windsor castle was built in the flight path of Heathrow. |
London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 20:47:57 +0000
Graeme Wall wrote: Southend would have much the same problem as it's only a couple of miles north of Borisport Mk2. IIRC Manston has a ruddy great hill in the middle of the runway. Have fly tippers been busy or something? What do you mean a hill? B2003 |
London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
On 04/11/2011 08:23, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 08:05:18 on Fri, 4 Nov 2011, Graeme Wall remarked: Regardless of what's on the ground, they routinely start to turn very soon after take-off, so as to head in the direction they need to fly (ie, to join the airway). It's not normally straight ahead. I used to live in Reading which is almost exactly due west of Heathrow. Tell me again about the planes having turned off before then. A few head west over Reading, but others turn over Windsor. It depends where they are going. So some do go straight ahead, contrary to what you said before. In addition some of those that do turn will be turning north-west across London, it's a big place. But there's no need to argue about this, actual data he http://www.flightradar24.com/ I've just watched a Heathrow-Edinburgh flight take off west and turn right over Cookham heading for High Wycombe then Bedford; Extrapolate that to a take off east of London and what route will it take? and a Barcelona flight skirting the east edge of Windsor Great Park on the way to Guildford. A fun site that. There's a Virgin flight to Barbados passing over me at the moment. -- Graeme Wall This account not read, substitute trains for rail. Railway Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail |
London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
On 04/11/2011 08:55, amogles wrote:
On Nov 4, 9:23 am, Roland wrote: A few head west over Reading, but others turn over Windsor. It depends where they are going. I've always wondeed why Windsor castle was built in the flight path of Heathrow. William the Conqueror found it convenient for the airport. -- Graeme Wall This account not read, substitute trains for rail. Railway Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail |
London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
|
London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
In message , at 10:52:15 on Fri, 4
Nov 2011, Graeme Wall remarked: Regardless of what's on the ground, they routinely start to turn very soon after take-off, so as to head in the direction they need to fly (ie, to join the airway). It's not normally straight ahead. I used to live in Reading which is almost exactly due west of Heathrow. Tell me again about the planes having turned off before then. A few head west over Reading, but others turn over Windsor. It depends where they are going. So some do go straight ahead, contrary to what you said before. That was my first posting to the thread, so no I didn't say anything before. In addition some of those that do turn will be turning north-west across London, it's a big place. What's important here is how far west of Heathrow they get, so we can compare how far west of the estuary airport the planes might turn. There's a flight to Los Angeles coming over Notts soon, and that stayed within 5Km of the end of the runway (measuring east-west; it flew just east of High Wycombe). But there's no need to argue about this, actual data he http://www.flightradar24.com/ I've just watched a Heathrow-Edinburgh flight take off west and turn right over Cookham heading for High Wycombe then Bedford; Extrapolate that to a take off east of London and what route will it take? No further west than the M25. There's an air lane over Maidstone, Harlow, Corby, Nottingham with loads of transatlantic flights from continental Europe currently. -- Roland Perry |
London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
In article
, amogles wrote: On Nov 4, 9:23*am, Roland Perry wrote: A few head west over Reading, but others turn over Windsor. It depends where they are going. I've always wondeed why Windsor castle was built in the flight path of Heathrow. It's so that you get that great view of it when you walk through the gates of Legoland. Sam |
London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
On Thu, 3 Nov 2011 21:54:07 +0000 (UTC), Andy Breen
wrote: And the more wiggling about they do, the more fuel they will have to burn particularly if they have to do it just after take-off, when they're heavy with fuel. What utter ********. The quicker they can get to altitude the better from a fuel usage point of view, but they are usually climbing most of the time during a departure, that they have to fairly rapidly change their heading two or three times in a pre determined sequence is irrelevant to overall fuel burn. That's got immediate environmental costs, will add to operating costs and could make the airport unattractive for airlines operating the very long-haul routes (Japan, Australia..). It's no different to departures at many airports worldwide, you don't just take off and carry on in the same direction to your destination. You also really don't want to be manoevering at maximum weight and have an engine ingest a goose. That could lead to substantial stress in the cockpit. Better drain those reservoirs near Heathrow then. -- |
London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
On Fri, 4 Nov 2011 08:23:46 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote: In message , at 08:05:18 on Fri, 4 Nov 2011, Graeme Wall remarked: Regardless of what's on the ground, they routinely start to turn very soon after take-off, so as to head in the direction they need to fly (ie, to join the airway). It's not normally straight ahead. I used to live in Reading which is almost exactly due west of Heathrow. Tell me again about the planes having turned off before then. A few head west over Reading, but others turn over Windsor. It depends where they are going. But there's no need to argue about this, actual data he http://www.flightradar24.com/ I've just watched a Heathrow-Edinburgh flight take off west and turn right over Cookham heading for High Wycombe then Bedford; and a Barcelona flight skirting the east edge of Windsor Great Park on the way to Guildford. These are a bit out of date but show the standard instrument departures from Heathrow. (seven pdf's in zip) http://www.nobleair.com/hubs/lhr/scenery/Lhrsids.zip -- |
London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
In message , at 11:08:57 on Fri, 4 Nov
2011, Roland Perry remarked: There's an air lane over Maidstone, Harlow, Corby, Nottingham with loads of transatlantic flights from continental Europe currently. A United flight from Paris to Chicago has just flown over my house, and I mean *right* over - on the mapping site it was within one house width. -- Roland Perry |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 04:40 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk