|
Crossrail access to Heathrow still not settled
On 23/05/2017 09:51, d wrote:
On Mon, 22 May 2017 21:14:01 +0100 Graeme Wall wrote: On 22/05/2017 16:51, d wrote: of the many heathrow flight paths and there's enough air traffic already. God knows what it'll be like with even more. Assuming NATs can handle it which isn't a given as it seems from 2019 they'll be doing London Citys remote control tower - no one at home, just video feeds down a presumably "secure" link. What could possibly go wrong? Actually three separate secure links. And how do you know the current one in use hasn't been compromised and is feeding duff data or video? Or failing that a contractor cuts through the cables by mistake. If the cable has been cut through then you won't get any picture. I suspect even someone from the CAA might notice that. Hence the triple redundancy so you can switch to one of the back-up circuits, which is probably done automatically. I utterly fail to see the logic behind this. It must be costing a fortune to do and for what? They won't be saving on salaries since they'll still need new people at NATs so what is the reason? Heating bill of the control tower? Given the risks its an absurd decision. What risks? Its a triple redundancy system as used by aircraft. Whether the controllers re staring out of the windows or at screens makes no odds. In fact the latter can be better as night vision cameras can give you a better visual image after dark. You also have the possibility of overlaying relevant information on the screens such as tagging the image of each aircraft with its flight details. -- Graeme Wall This account not read. |
Crossrail access to Heathrow still not settled
"Lots of people fly into Heathrow wanting to visit ExCel? Really??"
During major exhibitions - yes - absolutely. For example, World Travel Mart (held at Excel) is a "must attend" event in the travel business - there are loads of people who fly in specifically to attend it. City airport is much handier for Excel, but there are loads of places (especially long haul) which don't have flights into City. |
Crossrail access to Heathrow still not settled
In message , at 10:24:11 on Tue, 23 May
2017, Graeme Wall remarked: If the airport wasn't there, the traffic congestion and pollution would be much worse. How do you work that out? cough wouldn't be so bad. -- Roland Perry |
Crossrail access to Heathrow still not settled
On 23/05/2017 10:59, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:24:11 on Tue, 23 May 2017, Graeme Wall remarked: If the airport wasn't there, the traffic congestion and pollution would be much worse. How do you work that out? cough wouldn't be so bad. Ah! :-) -- Graeme Wall This account not read. |
Crossrail access to Heathrow still not settled
|
Crossrail access to Heathrow still not settled
On Tue, 23 May 2017 11:27:47 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote: In message , at 02:46:34 on Tue, 23 May 2017, remarked: "Lots of people fly into Heathrow wanting to visit ExCel? Really??" During major exhibitions - yes - absolutely. For example, World Travel Mart (held at Excel) is a "must attend" event in the travel business - there are loads of people who fly in specifically to attend it. City airport is much handier for Excel, but there are loads of places (especially long haul) which don't have flights into City. I'm aware of that show, and even have friends in that business (from overseas) who exhibit. They fly in and out of Luton, incidentally. It is, however, a tiny number of people compared to the million a day who are predicted to use Crossrail, or the 80,000 a day who use Heathrow. Like other shows at Excel, it attracts about 15-20,000 a day, of whom 3,000 a day are actual travel buyers. Out of that lot if more than 1,000 each of the three days have flown in through Heathrow, rather than being based in the UK or using other airports, E* etc to arrive from abroad, I'll eat my hat. Of course, 1,000 top quality buyers is plenty if you have a selling booth at WTM, but it's not a number to build a railway timetable around. No, but we were discussing the attractions of Crossrail vs HEx. Any of those visitors who currently use Heathrow and HEx will certainly switch to Crossrail. And some who previously flew to Luton may switch to LHR and Crossrail, too. Or they can change at Farringdon to Crossrail. It's just one example of the many flows that will use Crossrail rather than HEx. |
Crossrail access to Heathrow still not settled
On 23/05/2017 09:51, d wrote:
On Mon, 22 May 2017 21:14:01 +0100 Graeme Wall wrote: On 22/05/2017 16:51, d wrote: of the many heathrow flight paths and there's enough air traffic already. God knows what it'll be like with even more. Assuming NATs can handle it which isn't a given as it seems from 2019 they'll be doing London Citys remote control tower - no one at home, just video feeds down a presumably "secure" link. What could possibly go wrong? Actually three separate secure links. And how do you know the current one in use hasn't been compromised and is feeding duff data or video? Or failing that a contractor cuts through the cables by mistake. I utterly fail to see the logic behind this. It must be costing a fortune to do and for what? They won't be saving on salaries since they'll still need new people at NATs so what is the reason? Heating bill of the control tower? Given the risks its an absurd decision. Savings will be made when one set of controllers look after multiple airports, London City is likely the first of many - see http://www.shetlandtimes.co.uk/2017/...d-surveillance -- Colin |
Crossrail access to Heathrow still not settled
|
Crossrail access to Heathrow still not settled
On Tue, 23 May 2017 10:30:27 +0100
Graeme Wall wrote: On 23/05/2017 09:51, d wrote: On Mon, 22 May 2017 21:14:01 +0100 Graeme Wall wrote: On 22/05/2017 16:51, d wrote: of the many heathrow flight paths and there's enough air traffic already. God knows what it'll be like with even more. Assuming NATs can handle it which isn't a given as it seems from 2019 they'll be doing London Citys remote control tower - no one at home, just video feeds down a presumably "secure" link. What could possibly go wrong? Actually three separate secure links. And how do you know the current one in use hasn't been compromised and is feeding duff data or video? Or failing that a contractor cuts through the cables by mistake. If the cable has been cut through then you won't get any picture. I suspect even someone from the CAA might notice that. I suspect hackers would be somewhat subtler than just blanking the picture. What risks? Its a triple redundancy system as used by aircraft. Whether the controllers re staring out of the windows or at screens makes no odds. In fact the latter can be better as night vision cameras can give you a better visual image after dark. Right, because you couldn't possibly do any of that in the control tower. And since when did security cameras have the same viewing field as the human eye thats carried around in a skull and can look in any direction almost instantly including vertically down? You also have the possibility of overlaying relevant information on the screens such as tagging the image of each aircraft with its flight details. See above. -- Spud |
Crossrail access to Heathrow still not settled
On Tue, 23 May 2017 11:40:33 +0100
ColinR wrote: On 23/05/2017 09:51, d wrote: On Mon, 22 May 2017 21:14:01 +0100 Graeme Wall wrote: On 22/05/2017 16:51, d wrote: of the many heathrow flight paths and there's enough air traffic already. God knows what it'll be like with even more. Assuming NATs can handle it which isn't a given as it seems from 2019 they'll be doing London Citys remote control tower - no one at home, just video feeds down a presumably "secure" link. What could possibly go wrong? Actually three separate secure links. And how do you know the current one in use hasn't been compromised and is feeding duff data or video? Or failing that a contractor cuts through the cables by mistake. I utterly fail to see the logic behind this. It must be costing a fortune to do and for what? They won't be saving on salaries since they'll still need new people at NATs so what is the reason? Heating bill of the control tower? Given the risks its an absurd decision. Savings will be made when one set of controllers look after multiple airports, London City is likely the first of many - see http://www.shetlandtimes.co.uk/2017/...ntrol-replaced centralised-surveillance Ah, so its like the situation that led to this accident over switzerland in 2002: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%9C...-air_collision Fantastic. -- Spud |
Crossrail access to Heathrow still not settled
On Tue, 23 May 2017 12:36:28 +0100
Basil Jet wrote: On 2017\05\23 09:44, d wrote: Sure, I'm not saying the road traffic won't be worse. But tbh one traffic jam is very much like another. When I worked down there it was pretty much gridlock already in the rush hour. However that only affects a relatively small area. The extra flights will affect all of london and a significant portion of Berkshire. All so Heathrow Plc can increase its share price. Heathrow can not spirit more money out of people's pockets unless it is providing the entire population with more of what they want. Or charging the airlines more in access charges for a supposed improved service. Besides, as Heathrow likes to keep reminding us , its a hub, which means its generally not the population of the UK that gets the benefits. Still, whats some extra noise, gas and particulate pollution affecting millions of people when share prices are at risk. Priorities, right? -- Spud |
Crossrail access to Heathrow still not settled
On 23/05/2017 14:14, d wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2017 11:40:33 +0100 ColinR wrote: On 23/05/2017 09:51, d wrote: On Mon, 22 May 2017 21:14:01 +0100 Graeme Wall wrote: On 22/05/2017 16:51, d wrote: of the many heathrow flight paths and there's enough air traffic already. God knows what it'll be like with even more. Assuming NATs can handle it which isn't a given as it seems from 2019 they'll be doing London Citys remote control tower - no one at home, just video feeds down a presumably "secure" link. What could possibly go wrong? Actually three separate secure links. And how do you know the current one in use hasn't been compromised and is feeding duff data or video? Or failing that a contractor cuts through the cables by mistake. I utterly fail to see the logic behind this. It must be costing a fortune to do and for what? They won't be saving on salaries since they'll still need new people at NATs so what is the reason? Heating bill of the control tower? Given the risks its an absurd decision. Savings will be made when one set of controllers look after multiple airports, London City is likely the first of many - see http://www.shetlandtimes.co.uk/2017/...ntrol-replaced centralised-surveillance Ah, so its like the situation that led to this accident over switzerland in 2002: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%9C...-air_collision Fantastic. True, but that accident was caused by the country air traffic control, not an airport approach control. Like for like comparison would be with Swanwick which covers the UK country air space. However, I tend to agree with your discomfort, looks like a money saving idea rather than a safety inspired idea, the point I was making. -- Colin |
Crossrail access to Heathrow still not settled
|
Crossrail access to Heathrow still not settled
On 23/05/2017 14:13, d wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2017 10:30:27 +0100 Graeme Wall wrote: On 23/05/2017 09:51, d wrote: On Mon, 22 May 2017 21:14:01 +0100 Graeme Wall wrote: On 22/05/2017 16:51, d wrote: of the many heathrow flight paths and there's enough air traffic already. God knows what it'll be like with even more. Assuming NATs can handle it which isn't a given as it seems from 2019 they'll be doing London Citys remote control tower - no one at home, just video feeds down a presumably "secure" link. What could possibly go wrong? Actually three separate secure links. And how do you know the current one in use hasn't been compromised and is feeding duff data or video? Or failing that a contractor cuts through the cables by mistake. If the cable has been cut through then you won't get any picture. I suspect even someone from the CAA might notice that. I suspect hackers would be somewhat subtler than just blanking the picture. I was answering your point about the cable being cut. What risks? Its a triple redundancy system as used by aircraft. Whether the controllers re staring out of the windows or at screens makes no odds. In fact the latter can be better as night vision cameras can give you a better visual image after dark. Right, because you couldn't possibly do any of that in the control tower. Once you are using screens they can be located anywhere, don't have to be actually at the airport. And since when did security cameras have the same viewing field as the human eye thats carried around in a skull and can look in any direction almost instantly including vertically down? And the advantage of being able to look at the foot of the tower would be? You also have the possibility of overlaying relevant information on the screens such as tagging the image of each aircraft with its flight details. See above. See what above? You haven't addressed the point at all. -- Graeme Wall This account not read. |
Crossrail access to Heathrow still not settled
On 23/05/2017 14:14, d wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2017 11:40:33 +0100 ColinR wrote: On 23/05/2017 09:51, d wrote: On Mon, 22 May 2017 21:14:01 +0100 Graeme Wall wrote: On 22/05/2017 16:51, d wrote: of the many heathrow flight paths and there's enough air traffic already. God knows what it'll be like with even more. Assuming NATs can handle it which isn't a given as it seems from 2019 they'll be doing London Citys remote control tower - no one at home, just video feeds down a presumably "secure" link. What could possibly go wrong? Actually three separate secure links. And how do you know the current one in use hasn't been compromised and is feeding duff data or video? Or failing that a contractor cuts through the cables by mistake. I utterly fail to see the logic behind this. It must be costing a fortune to do and for what? They won't be saving on salaries since they'll still need new people at NATs so what is the reason? Heating bill of the control tower? Given the risks its an absurd decision. Savings will be made when one set of controllers look after multiple airports, London City is likely the first of many - see http://www.shetlandtimes.co.uk/2017/...ntrol-replaced centralised-surveillance Ah, so its like the situation that led to this accident over switzerland in 2002: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%9C...-air_collision Fantastic. All British airspace is controlled for either Swanwick or Prestwick, your point is? -- Graeme Wall This account not read. |
Crossrail access to Heathrow still not settled
wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2017 10:30:27 +0100 Graeme Wall wrote: On 23/05/2017 09:51, d wrote: On Mon, 22 May 2017 21:14:01 +0100 Graeme Wall wrote: On 22/05/2017 16:51, d wrote: of the many heathrow flight paths and there's enough air traffic already. God knows what it'll be like with even more. Assuming NATs can handle it which isn't a given as it seems from 2019 they'll be doing London Citys remote control tower - no one at home, just video feeds down a presumably "secure" link. What could possibly go wrong? Actually three separate secure links. And how do you know the current one in use hasn't been compromised and is feeding duff data or video? Or failing that a contractor cuts through the cables by mistake. If the cable has been cut through then you won't get any picture. I suspect even someone from the CAA might notice that. I suspect hackers would be somewhat subtler than just blanking the picture. What risks? Its a triple redundancy system as used by aircraft. Whether the controllers re staring out of the windows or at screens makes no odds. In fact the latter can be better as night vision cameras can give you a better visual image after dark. Right, because you couldn't possibly do any of that in the control tower. And since when did security cameras have the same viewing field as the human eye thats carried around in a skull and can look in any direction almost instantly including vertically down? You're assuming the tower has a glass floor? https://i.ytimg.com/vi/pqIGEo88RXA/maxresdefault.jpg |
Crossrail access to Heathrow still not settled
On Tue, 23 May 2017 14:35:02 +0100
Roland Perry wrote: But passengers in transit through the hub still require airlines to prepare, clean, fuel and crew aircraft, transfer baggage, and make and deliver on-board meals. Transit passengers are therefore making much the same demands (and providing much the same revenue) for the local economy as non-transit passengers. Given that the staff can come from anywhere I doubt the "local" economy sees many benefits at all. OTOH The extra traffic might reduce it quite significantly if people stop bothering visiting the shops or companies. in the first place. Without the transit passengers the airlines might decide not to run them (or as many) at all. One could only hope. -- Spud |
Crossrail access to Heathrow still not settled
On Tue, 23 May 2017 15:26:35 +0100
Graeme Wall wrote: On 23/05/2017 14:13, d wrote: And since when did security cameras have the same viewing field as the human eye thats carried around in a skull and can look in any direction almost instantly including vertically down? And the advantage of being able to look at the foot of the tower would be? I don't know, something happening nearby that may be of concern. Use your imagination. The human eye is quite good at catching motion on the peripheral, perhaps a vehicle or person where they shouldn't be etc. Something you won't necessarily spot with screens showing narrow angle camera views. You also have the possibility of overlaying relevant information on the screens such as tagging the image of each aircraft with its flight details. See above. See what above? You haven't addressed the point at all. The point being you could do all of that in the control tower. FFS, you can get all that on flightradar24! -- Spud |
Crossrail access to Heathrow still not settled
On Tue, 23 May 2017 14:59:39 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote: wrote: Right, because you couldn't possibly do any of that in the control tower. And since when did security cameras have the same viewing field as the human eye thats carried around in a skull and can look in any direction almost instantly including vertically down? You're assuming the tower has a glass floor? https://i.ytimg.com/vi/pqIGEo88RXA/maxresdefault.jpg I guess ir never occured to you to wonder why the windows are angled outwards instead of being vertical. -- Spud |
Crossrail access to Heathrow still not settled
wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2017 14:59:39 -0000 (UTC) Recliner wrote: wrote: Right, because you couldn't possibly do any of that in the control tower. And since when did security cameras have the same viewing field as the human eye thats carried around in a skull and can look in any direction almost instantly including vertically down? You're assuming the tower has a glass floor? https://i.ytimg.com/vi/pqIGEo88RXA/maxresdefault.jpg I guess ir never occured to you to wonder why the windows are angled outwards instead of being vertical. Oh dear! I realise I should know better, but you keep amazing me with your ignorance. Think again. [Hint: they don't sit with their faces pressed against the windows.] https://c1.staticflickr.com/8/7139/7...8d4de58c_b.jpg |
Crossrail access to Heathrow still not settled
On Tue, 23 May 2017 15:48:12 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote: wrote: On Tue, 23 May 2017 14:59:39 -0000 (UTC) Recliner wrote: wrote: Right, because you couldn't possibly do any of that in the control tower. And since when did security cameras have the same viewing field as the human eye thats carried around in a skull and can look in any direction almost instantly including vertically down? You're assuming the tower has a glass floor? https://i.ytimg.com/vi/pqIGEo88RXA/maxresdefault.jpg I guess ir never occured to you to wonder why the windows are angled outwards instead of being vertical. Oh dear! I realise I should know better, but you keep amazing me with your ignorance. Think again. [Hint: they don't sit with their faces pressed against the windows.] https://c1.staticflickr.com/8/7139/7...8d4de58c_b.jpg You really are such a bell-end sometimes in your desperate quest to disagree with everything I say. They don't sit with their faces pressed to the windows? No ****! But the angled windows give them potentially a greater field of view if they need to check out stuff down below. Or did you think it was an architectural flourish? Aww, bless. -- Spud |
Crossrail access to Heathrow still not settled
|
Crossrail access to Heathrow still not settled
On 2017\05\23 16:57, d wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2017 15:48:12 -0000 (UTC) Recliner wrote: wrote: On Tue, 23 May 2017 14:59:39 -0000 (UTC) Recliner wrote: wrote: Right, because you couldn't possibly do any of that in the control tower. And since when did security cameras have the same viewing field as the human eye thats carried around in a skull and can look in any direction almost instantly including vertically down? You're assuming the tower has a glass floor? https://i.ytimg.com/vi/pqIGEo88RXA/maxresdefault.jpg I guess ir never occured to you to wonder why the windows are angled outwards instead of being vertical. Oh dear! I realise I should know better, but you keep amazing me with your ignorance. Think again. [Hint: they don't sit with their faces pressed against the windows.] https://c1.staticflickr.com/8/7139/7...8d4de58c_b.jpg You really are such a bell-end sometimes in your desperate quest to disagree with everything I say. They don't sit with their faces pressed to the windows? No ****! But the angled windows give them potentially a greater field of view if they need to check out stuff down below. Or did you think it was an architectural flourish? Aww, bless. This is the best spud-ism ever! Shall we tell him? |
Crossrail access to Heathrow still not settled
On 23/05/2017 16:40, d wrote:
I guess ir never occured to you to wonder why the windows are angled outwards instead of being vertical. Well I was told by people who spent their lives in aviation it's so air traffic controllers don't see distracting reflections in the windows - e.g. of other controllers or VDUs or doors opening or whatever. They are tilted so the internal reflections are of the ceiling which don't have lights. And guess what? Lots of sites have the same explanation. Eg http://www.airport-world.com/item/44-tall-story -- Robin reply-to address is (intended to be) valid |
Crossrail access to Heathrow still not settled
On 23/05/2017 16:39, d wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2017 15:26:35 +0100 Graeme Wall wrote: On 23/05/2017 14:13, d wrote: And since when did security cameras have the same viewing field as the human eye thats carried around in a skull and can look in any direction almost instantly including vertically down? And the advantage of being able to look at the foot of the tower would be? I don't know, something happening nearby that may be of concern. Use your imagination. The human eye is quite good at catching motion on the peripheral, perhaps a vehicle or person where they shouldn't be etc. Something you won't necessarily spot with screens showing narrow angle camera views. If you looked at the reports you'd see they aren't narrow angle views. You also have the possibility of overlaying relevant information on the screens such as tagging the image of each aircraft with its flight details. See above. See what above? You haven't addressed the point at all. The point being you could do all of that in the control tower. FFS, you can get all that on flightradar24! You still need a screen to to display it, once you accept that then we are back to the point where it doesn't matter where the screen is physically located. -- Graeme Wall This account not read. |
Crossrail access to Heathrow still not settled
On 23/05/2017 16:40, d wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2017 14:59:39 -0000 (UTC) Recliner wrote: wrote: Right, because you couldn't possibly do any of that in the control tower. And since when did security cameras have the same viewing field as the human eye thats carried around in a skull and can look in any direction almost instantly including vertically down? You're assuming the tower has a glass floor? https://i.ytimg.com/vi/pqIGEo88RXA/maxresdefault.jpg I guess ir never occured to you to wonder why the windows are angled outwards instead of being vertical. Strangely that is not to enable you to look vertically down. -- Graeme Wall This account not read. |
Crossrail access to Heathrow still not settled
On 23/05/2017 17:01, Basil Jet wrote:
On 2017\05\23 16:57, d wrote: On Tue, 23 May 2017 15:48:12 -0000 (UTC) Recliner wrote: wrote: On Tue, 23 May 2017 14:59:39 -0000 (UTC) Recliner wrote: wrote: Right, because you couldn't possibly do any of that in the control tower. And since when did security cameras have the same viewing field as the human eye thats carried around in a skull and can look in any direction almost instantly including vertically down? You're assuming the tower has a glass floor? https://i.ytimg.com/vi/pqIGEo88RXA/maxresdefault.jpg I guess ir never occured to you to wonder why the windows are angled outwards instead of being vertical. Oh dear! I realise I should know better, but you keep amazing me with your ignorance. Think again. [Hint: they don't sit with their faces pressed against the windows.] https://c1.staticflickr.com/8/7139/7...8d4de58c_b.jpg You really are such a bell-end sometimes in your desperate quest to disagree with everything I say. They don't sit with their faces pressed to the windows? No ****! But the angled windows give them potentially a greater field of view if they need to check out stuff down below. Or did you think it was an architectural flourish? Aww, bless. This is the best spud-ism ever! Shall we tell him? No, watching him get more and more annoyed while he displays his ignorance is such fun. I predict a stream of bad language any time now. -- Graeme Wall This account not read. |
Crossrail access to Heathrow still not settled
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 23/05/2017 16:36, d wrote: On Tue, 23 May 2017 14:35:02 +0100 Roland Perry wrote: But passengers in transit through the hub still require airlines to prepare, clean, fuel and crew aircraft, transfer baggage, and make and deliver on-board meals. Transit passengers are therefore making much the same demands (and providing much the same revenue) for the local economy as non-transit passengers. Given that the staff can come from anywhere I doubt the "local" economy sees many benefits at all. Most of the routine service and clerical staff do tend to come from the immediate surrounding area. OTOH The extra traffic might reduce it quite significantly if people stop bothering visiting the shops or companies. Do many people travel to Heathrow just to visit the shops? in the first place. Without the transit passengers the airlines might decide not to run them (or as many) at all. One could only hope. Ah, yes. You don't believe in travel do you? I guess people who afraid of flying begrudge others' right to travel. |
Crossrail access to Heathrow still not settled
|
Crossrail access to Heathrow still not settled
On 23/05/2017 23:31, wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2017 15:57:57 +0000 (UTC), d wrote: I guess ir never occured to you to wonder why the windows are angled outwards instead of being vertical. They don't sit with their faces pressed to the windows? No ****! But the angled windows give them potentially a greater field of view if they need to check out stuff down below. Or did you think it was an architectural flourish? Aww, bless. The architects design them that way not because they feel that the operators want to see if Spiderman is climbing up the tower but for more practical reasons. The outward angle reduces reflections from instrumentation from equipment inside the tower at night and also in the day you dont get refections of what is visible from an all around set of windows refecting back and forth like a hall of mirrors effect, an added bonus is that rain will sometimes drip off quicker than it would on a vertical window, many ships bridges have windows that slant out at the top for the same reasons. http://www.ship-technology.com/proje...dventure7.html And back on land many an observation post like this former coastguard one also has them. https://calshot.files.wordpress.com/...nner.jpg?w=640 Or for Southampton Water: https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2604/4046088858_a5b89a31f7_b.jpg -- Graeme Wall This account not read. |
Crossrail access to Heathrow still not settled
On Tue, 23 May 2017 17:10:46 +0100
Graeme Wall wrote: On 23/05/2017 17:01, Basil Jet wrote: On 2017\05\23 16:57, d wrote: On Tue, 23 May 2017 15:48:12 -0000 (UTC) Recliner wrote: wrote: On Tue, 23 May 2017 14:59:39 -0000 (UTC) Recliner wrote: wrote: Right, because you couldn't possibly do any of that in the control tower. And since when did security cameras have the same viewing field as the human eye thats carried around in a skull and can look in any direction almost instantly including vertically down? You're assuming the tower has a glass floor? https://i.ytimg.com/vi/pqIGEo88RXA/maxresdefault.jpg I guess ir never occured to you to wonder why the windows are angled outwards instead of being vertical. Oh dear! I realise I should know better, but you keep amazing me with your ignorance. Think again. [Hint: they don't sit with their faces pressed against the windows.] https://c1.staticflickr.com/8/7139/7...8d4de58c_b.jpg You really are such a bell-end sometimes in your desperate quest to disagree with everything I say. They don't sit with their faces pressed to the windows? No ****! But the angled windows give them potentially a greater field of view if they need to check out stuff down below. Or did you think it was an architectural flourish? Aww, bless. This is the best spud-ism ever! Shall we tell him? No, watching him get more and more annoyed while he displays his ignorance is such fun. I predict a stream of bad language any time now. Why? You see a friends brother happens to be an ATC at city airport which is why I already knew about that plan to lay them off, sorry , "transfer". And guess what? They use the angled windows to look out and keeps tabs on what is going on right beneath them when appropriate. So all you so called aviation experts can shoev your google answers where the angled windows don't reach. :) -- Spud -- Graeme Wall This account not read. |
Crossrail access to Heathrow still not settled
On Tue, 23 May 2017 19:16:24 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote: Graeme Wall wrote: Ah, yes. You don't believe in travel do you? I guess people who afraid of flying begrudge others' right to travel. Says Mr Fly across the world to watch choo-choos. Good to see you give a **** about your carbon footprint but as I've said before, most of you lot are in gods waiting room so it really doesn't matter to any of you. By the time it bites you'll all be compost. -- Spud |
Crossrail access to Heathrow still not settled
In message
-septe mber.org, at 21:24:47 on Mon, 22 May 2017, Recliner remarked: Roland Perry wrote: In message 8737bxrr3j.fsf@einstein, at 13:52:32 on Mon, 22 May 2017, Graham Murray remarked: The interesting sociological experiment will be whether HAL treat the Elizabeth Line like the tube, or like HC. In what sense does it treat the Tube and HC differently now? Oyster (at least PAYG) is not available on HC to the airport, only to Hayes & Harlington. That's a TfL decision, not the airport's. With the fees for using the link being fixed (see my reply to Recliner) it seems disingenuous for TfL ....when they take over the service... to price gouge travellers between H&H and LHR "because they can" when the costs to TfL are the same whether or not the trains are full or empty. Is it a TfL or GWR/DfT decision? I don't think TfL controls HC and its Heathrow stations. But it will operate Crossrail, hence the dispute. This document is worth a read: http://www.orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/...harging-framew ork-for-the-heathrow-spur-decision-may-2016.pdf The dispute seems to revolve on whether HAL has, or could, recover the construction costs from airline charges, as the cost of building it is included in the RAB (regulated asset base). HAL is entitled to charge for rail access if it can show that it wouldn't havd built the spur without the prospect of such chatges. So moving the goalposts. Also, there's a dispute over whether the original basis for the rail access charges applies to a service beyond Padd, such as Crossrail, as it's a new service that wasn't part of the original business plan. It seems likely to me that the charges would apply to "all trains", especially as there have been various expansion plans very seriously suggested to be just-around-the-corner the whole time, such as this diagram in the airport's 97/98 annual report: https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0...76637_19064136 35_n.jpg?oh=a44c4c5c976219a024306583d402eb3f&oe=59 ABD513 Para 78 also suggests that HAL has already fully recovered the spurs original construction costs: "In our proposed decision we also discussed that Schedule 11 of the Joint Operating Agreement contained a financial model demonstrating how the HEX service would provide a return on HAL’s investment in the Heathrow Spur. This model showed that the fare revenue to be received between 1993 and 2016 was forecast to be sufficient to cover all BAA’s initial investment in building the Heathrow Spur as well as covering operating costs for those years." The accountants can argue about that. -- Roland Perry |
Crossrail access to Heathrow still not settled
On Tuesday, May 23, 2017 at 1:35:58 PM UTC+5:30, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 17:16:43 on Mon, 22 May 2017, Ding Bat remarked: On Monday, May 22, 2017 at 3:03:07 PM UTC+5:30, Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 11:37:52 on Sun, 21 May 2017, Ding Bat remarked: On Sunday, May 21, 2017 at 11:07:19 PM UTC+5:30, Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 09:22:54 on Sun, 21 May 2017, Ding Bat remarked: If, hypothetically, the judge finds that Heathrow has the right to levy this charge, it would be possible to charge less per train by running more trains by adding more destinations. Heathrow Connect to Paddington is slated to be phased out in favor of Crossrail to Paddington. Heathrow Connect could be continued as a service to Stratford rather than Paddington; it would become the easiest way to get from Heathrow to a number of northern suburbs by mass transit. In addition, trains could be run from Heathrow to busy junctions - Reading If construction is allowed in this pipe-dream, then the plan is to extend the line through Terminal 5 towards Slough. Ah, so there's such a thing already in the works! Thanks for the information. The underground portion of that line will be from T5 to Langley, according to this: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-berkshire-35803950 |
Crossrail access to Heathrow still not settled
In message , at
05:59:21 on Wed, 24 May 2017, Ding Bat remarked: If construction is allowed in this pipe-dream, then the plan is to extend the line through Terminal 5 towards Slough. Ah, so there's such a thing already in the works! Thanks for the information. The underground portion of that line will be from T5 to Langley, according to this: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-berkshire-35803950 Projects like that are a minimum of five years late, so if it was suggested they might start tunnelling soon, don't hold your breath until 2016 + 5 years work + 5 years standard delay for an actual service. Has it even been approved yet (genuine question). -- Roland Perry |
Crossrail access to Heathrow still not settled
In message , at 11:37:18 on
Tue, 23 May 2017, Recliner remarked: "Lots of people fly into Heathrow wanting to visit ExCel? Really??" During major exhibitions - yes - absolutely. For example, World Travel Mart (held at Excel) is a "must attend" event in the travel business - there are loads of people who fly in specifically to attend it. City airport is much handier for Excel, but there are loads of places (especially long haul) which don't have flights into City. I'm aware of that show, and even have friends in that business (from overseas) who exhibit. They fly in and out of Luton, incidentally. It is, however, a tiny number of people compared to the million a day who are predicted to use Crossrail, or the 80,000 a day who use Heathrow. Like other shows at Excel, it attracts about 15-20,000 a day, of whom 3,000 a day are actual travel buyers. Out of that lot if more than 1,000 each of the three days have flown in through Heathrow, rather than being based in the UK or using other airports, E* etc to arrive from abroad, I'll eat my hat. Of course, 1,000 top quality buyers is plenty if you have a selling booth at WTM, but it's not a number to build a railway timetable around. No, but we were discussing the attractions of Crossrail vs HEx. Any of those visitors who currently use Heathrow and HEx will certainly switch to Crossrail. And some who previously flew to Luton may switch to LHR and Crossrail, too. Or they can change at Farringdon to Crossrail. It's just one example of the many flows that will use Crossrail rather than HEx. Yes, lots of "only quite a few" passengers. -- Roland Perry |
Crossrail access to Heathrow still not settled
wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2017 17:10:46 +0100 Graeme Wall wrote: On 23/05/2017 17:01, Basil Jet wrote: On 2017\05\23 16:57, d wrote: On Tue, 23 May 2017 15:48:12 -0000 (UTC) Recliner wrote: wrote: On Tue, 23 May 2017 14:59:39 -0000 (UTC) Recliner wrote: wrote: Right, because you couldn't possibly do any of that in the control tower. And since when did security cameras have the same viewing field as the human eye thats carried around in a skull and can look in any direction almost instantly including vertically down? You're assuming the tower has a glass floor? https://i.ytimg.com/vi/pqIGEo88RXA/maxresdefault.jpg I guess ir never occured to you to wonder why the windows are angled outwards instead of being vertical. Oh dear! I realise I should know better, but you keep amazing me with your ignorance. Think again. [Hint: they don't sit with their faces pressed against the windows.] https://c1.staticflickr.com/8/7139/7...8d4de58c_b.jpg You really are such a bell-end sometimes in your desperate quest to disagree with everything I say. They don't sit with their faces pressed to the windows? No ****! But the angled windows give them potentially a greater field of view if they need to check out stuff down below. Or did you think it was an architectural flourish? Aww, bless. This is the best spud-ism ever! Shall we tell him? No, watching him get more and more annoyed while he displays his ignorance is such fun. I predict a stream of bad language any time now. Why? You see a friends brother happens to be an ATC at city airport which is why I already knew about that plan to lay them off, sorry , "transfer". And guess what? They use the angled windows to look out and keeps tabs on what is going on right beneath them when appropriate. So all you so called aviation experts can shoev your google answers where the angled windows don't reach. :) I visited a friend who works in Stansted Tower. Their desks are several metres from the windows - there are steps down from the control floor to a walkway next to the windows, which also allows maintenance access to the back of the desk equipment cabinets. To look downward out of the windows the controllers would have to 'unplug' and walk from their desk several metres to get to the window. It wasn't mentioned as something they ever did, though I didn't specifically ask. Anna Noyd-Dryver |
Crossrail access to Heathrow still not settled
On Wed, 24 May 2017 13:54:06 -0000 (UTC)
Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote: wrote: Why? You see a friends brother happens to be an ATC at city airport which is why I already knew about that plan to lay them off, sorry , "transfer". And guess what? They use the angled windows to look out and keeps tabs on what is going on right beneath them when appropriate. So all you so called aviation experts can shoev your google answers where the angled windows don't reach. :) I visited a friend who works in Stansted Tower. Their desks are several metres from the windows - there are steps down from the control floor to a walkway next to the windows, which also allows maintenance access to the back of the desk equipment cabinets. To look downward out of the windows the controllers would have to 'unplug' and walk from their desk several metres to get to the window. It wasn't mentioned as something they ever did, though I didn't specifically ask. Its an as and when apparently, presumably when they're worried about ground vehicle movements conflicting with planes or something like that. -- Spud |
Crossrail access to Heathrow still not settled
On 24/05/2017 09:29, d wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2017 17:10:46 +0100 Graeme Wall wrote: On 23/05/2017 17:01, Basil Jet wrote: On 2017\05\23 16:57, d wrote: On Tue, 23 May 2017 15:48:12 -0000 (UTC) Recliner wrote: wrote: On Tue, 23 May 2017 14:59:39 -0000 (UTC) Recliner wrote: wrote: Right, because you couldn't possibly do any of that in the control tower. And since when did security cameras have the same viewing field as the human eye thats carried around in a skull and can look in any direction almost instantly including vertically down? You're assuming the tower has a glass floor? https://i.ytimg.com/vi/pqIGEo88RXA/maxresdefault.jpg I guess ir never occured to you to wonder why the windows are angled outwards instead of being vertical. Oh dear! I realise I should know better, but you keep amazing me with your ignorance. Think again. [Hint: they don't sit with their faces pressed against the windows.] https://c1.staticflickr.com/8/7139/7...8d4de58c_b.jpg You really are such a bell-end sometimes in your desperate quest to disagree with everything I say. They don't sit with their faces pressed to the windows? No ****! But the angled windows give them potentially a greater field of view if they need to check out stuff down below. Or did you think it was an architectural flourish? Aww, bless. This is the best spud-ism ever! Shall we tell him? No, watching him get more and more annoyed while he displays his ignorance is such fun. I predict a stream of bad language any time now. Why? You see a friends brother happens to be an ATC at city airport which is why I already knew about that plan to lay them off, sorry , "transfer". And guess what? They use the angled windows to look out and keeps tabs on what is going on right beneath them when appropriate. So all you so called aviation experts can shoev your google answers where the angled windows don't reach. :) Another of your famous "friends"? My sister is an ATC and she reckons the windows are angled to stop reflections. -- Graeme Wall This account not read. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 07:44 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk