On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 13:42:21 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:



"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 15:32:33 on Mon, 23 Sep
2019, remarked:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 14:07:52 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:15:51 on Mon, 23 Sep
2019, remarked:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 10:37:29 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/h...harge-is-expec
ted-to-r
aise-1-2bn-a-year-wv9qn2c36?shareToken=2e1812617e77460e9d40ce4f851b4 ca3

Ah, greenwash at its finest. I'm sure reducing the number of vehicles
going
to and from the airport will really make up for the extra emissions from
the
aircraft using the new runway such as the A380 which burns half a ton of
fuel
just to get from the gate to take off position.

If 300 of the passengers arrived by car, the extra congestion, let alone
emissions, would be noticeable.

I used to work near heathrow and the number of people travelling there by
private car was a small percentage of the total.

Total public transport (by passengers) has crept up to 40% over the last
decade (from 35%). Then there's the staff.

I suspect that a far larger percentage of staff travel by PT, as being
dropped off by a relative every day isn't exactly practical, and paying 20
quid a day to park is going to take a big chunk out of someone's NMW salary
(obviously not so for flight crew)


I assumed that many staff get free parking in the large staff car
parks.

In message , at 13:42:21 on Wed, 25 Sep
2019, tim... remarked:
I used to work near heathrow and the number of people travelling there by
private car was a small percentage of the total.

Total public transport (by passengers) has crept up to 40% over the
last decade (from 35%). Then there's the staff.

I suspect that a far larger percentage of staff travel by PT, as being
dropped off by a relative every day isn't exactly practical, and paying
20 quid a day to park is going to take a big chunk out of someone's NMW
salary (obviously not so for flight crew)

You know that's what the staff car park costs?

Also the antisocial hours involved for many don't chime well with PT
schedules.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 13:51:18 on Wed, 25 Sep
2019, tim... remarked:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/h...-charge-is-exp
ected-to-r
aise-1-2bn-a-year-wv9qn2c36?shareToken=2e1812617e77460e9d40ce4f851b4 ca3


Ah, greenwash at its finest. I'm sure reducing the number of
vehicles going to and from the airport will really make up for the
extra emissions from the aircraft using the new runway such as the
A380 which burns half a ton of fuel just to get from the gate to
take off position.

What we really need here is fuel per passenger.

I believe the fuel costs about £1 per passenger.

from the airline mag [1] I was reading yesterday, it apparently costs
150,000 to fly a 767 round trip Europe-USA (didn't specify East or West
Coast)

No mention was made about how that cost was apportioned between
operation costs and capital costs.

A typical fare for a flight like that is going to be £400 each way. If
they spend £1 of that taxiing to the end of the runway, we really do
need to find something more useful to discuss than spending 90p on an
electric tug instead.
--
Roland Perry

On 25/09/2019 15:18, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 13:51:18 on Wed, 25 Sep
2019, tim... remarked:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/h...-charge-is-exp

ected-to-r
aise-1-2bn-a-year-wv9qn2c36?shareToken=2e1812617e77460e9d40ce4f851b4 ca3



Ah, greenwash at its finest. I'm sure reducing the number of
vehiclesÂ* goingÂ* to and from the airport will really make up for the
extra emissionsÂ* from theÂ* aircraft using the new runway such as the
A380 which burns half a tonÂ* of fuelÂ* just to get from the gate to
take off position.

What we really need here is fuel per passenger.

I believe the fuel costs about £1 per passenger.

from the airline mag [1] I was reading yesterday, it apparently costs
150,000 to fly a 767 round trip Europe-USA (didn't specify East or
West Coast)

No mention was made about how that cost was apportioned between
operation costs and capital costs.

A typical fare for a flight like that is going to be £400 each way. If
they spend £1 of that taxiing to the end of the runway, we really do
need to find something more useful to discuss than spending 90p on an
electric tug instead.

Wasn't the argument less about the money, and more about the fact they
were introducing a congestion charge at LHR due to the locally high
pollution levels and one of the points was less aircraft running their
engines for less time equates to potentially a better local pollution
reduction strategy than a reasonable reduction in cars in the area could
achieve?

Quick back of an envelope calculation: If your car does 40MPG, then
that's about 10km per pound at 130p per litre, which is basically one
return car trip into the Heathrow environs per passenger. Once you take
into account that aviation fuel is tax free, then a better comparison is
oil price - £50/150 litres, or 33p/litre, so even taking into account
refining cost etc that's probably twice that distance

Given that not every passenger arrives individually in a taxi (the worse
possible scenario in terms of car miles per passenger in the area) then
removing that £1/pax in fuel saves burning more hydrocarbons locally
than would ever be feasible by removing all cars from the LHR area.

Of course, cars don't start their journeys on the perimeter (however
that is defined to be) but that's where the congestion charge is to be
enacted to reduce pollution...

Someone Somewhere wrote:
On 25/09/2019 15:18, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 13:51:18 on Wed, 25 Sep
2019, tim... remarked:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/h...-charge-is-exp

ected-to-r
aise-1-2bn-a-year-wv9qn2c36?shareToken=2e1812617e77460e9d40ce4f851b4 ca3



Ah, greenwash at its finest. I'm sure reducing the number of
vehiclesÂ* goingÂ* to and from the airport will really make up for the
extra emissionsÂ* from theÂ* aircraft using the new runway such as the
A380 which burns half a tonÂ* of fuelÂ* just to get from the gate to
take off position.

What we really need here is fuel per passenger.

I believe the fuel costs about £1 per passenger.

from the airline mag [1] I was reading yesterday, it apparently costs
150,000 to fly a 767 round trip Europe-USA (didn't specify East or
West Coast)

No mention was made about how that cost was apportioned between
operation costs and capital costs.

A typical fare for a flight like that is going to be £400 each way. If
they spend £1 of that taxiing to the end of the runway, we really do
need to find something more useful to discuss than spending 90p on an
electric tug instead.

Wasn't the argument less about the money, and more about the fact they
were introducing a congestion charge at LHR due to the locally high
pollution levels and one of the points was less aircraft running their
engines for less time equates to potentially a better local pollution
reduction strategy than a reasonable reduction in cars in the area could
achieve?

Quick back of an envelope calculation: If your car does 40MPG, then
that's about 10km per pound at 130p per litre, which is basically one
return car trip into the Heathrow environs per passenger. Once you take
into account that aviation fuel is tax free, then a better comparison is
oil price - £50/150 litres, or 33p/litre, so even taking into account
refining cost etc that's probably twice that distance

Given that not every passenger arrives individually in a taxi (the worse
possible scenario in terms of car miles per passenger in the area) then
removing that £1/pax in fuel saves burning more hydrocarbons locally
than would ever be feasible by removing all cars from the LHR area.

Of course, cars don't start their journeys on the perimeter (however
that is defined to be) but that's where the congestion charge is to be
enacted to reduce pollution...


The aircraft engines will still need to be started and warjed up some
minutes before take-off, so they'll still burn much of that fuel. The
powerful tugs needed to haul the aircraft will also consume fuel on their
journeys in both directions. I don't think there are any electric options
yet for that sort of powerful tug, so that means diesel. They will also
need drivers, and dedicated routes around the airport that don't get in the
way of planes. So it's not a clean option, and would almost certainly cost
more than the current system — which is why no airport does it.

On 25/09/2019 16:03, Recliner wrote:
Someone Somewhere wrote:
On 25/09/2019 15:18, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 13:51:18 on Wed, 25 Sep
2019, tim... remarked:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/h...-charge-is-exp

ected-to-r
aise-1-2bn-a-year-wv9qn2c36?shareToken=2e1812617e77460e9d40ce4f851b4 ca3



Ah, greenwash at its finest. I'm sure reducing the number of
vehiclesÂ* goingÂ* to and from the airport will really make up for the
extra emissionsÂ* from theÂ* aircraft using the new runway such as the
A380 which burns half a tonÂ* of fuelÂ* just to get from the gate to
take off position.

What we really need here is fuel per passenger.

I believe the fuel costs about £1 per passenger.

from the airline mag [1] I was reading yesterday, it apparently costs
150,000 to fly a 767 round trip Europe-USA (didn't specify East or
West Coast)

No mention was made about how that cost was apportioned between
operation costs and capital costs.

A typical fare for a flight like that is going to be £400 each way. If
they spend £1 of that taxiing to the end of the runway, we really do
need to find something more useful to discuss than spending 90p on an
electric tug instead.

Wasn't the argument less about the money, and more about the fact they
were introducing a congestion charge at LHR due to the locally high
pollution levels and one of the points was less aircraft running their
engines for less time equates to potentially a better local pollution
reduction strategy than a reasonable reduction in cars in the area could
achieve?

Quick back of an envelope calculation: If your car does 40MPG, then
that's about 10km per pound at 130p per litre, which is basically one
return car trip into the Heathrow environs per passenger. Once you take
into account that aviation fuel is tax free, then a better comparison is
oil price - £50/150 litres, or 33p/litre, so even taking into account
refining cost etc that's probably twice that distance

Given that not every passenger arrives individually in a taxi (the worse
possible scenario in terms of car miles per passenger in the area) then
removing that £1/pax in fuel saves burning more hydrocarbons locally
than would ever be feasible by removing all cars from the LHR area.

Of course, cars don't start their journeys on the perimeter (however
that is defined to be) but that's where the congestion charge is to be
enacted to reduce pollution...


The aircraft engines will still need to be started and warjed up some
minutes before take-off, so they'll still burn much of that fuel. The
powerful tugs needed to haul the aircraft will also consume fuel on their
journeys in both directions. I don't think there are any electric options
yet for that sort of powerful tug, so that means diesel. They will also
need drivers, and dedicated routes around the airport that don't get in the
way of planes. So it's not a clean option, and would almost certainly cost
more than the current system — which is why no airport does it.

And the discussion started as there aer electric tugs for shorthaul and
there may be larger ones for bigger jets.

The other discussion was about an autonomous (or partly autonomous)
system. Being facetious I could point out there are the pods at
Heathrow already, so similar technology with a much beefier vehicle
could be plausible.

I accept it might need technologies and systems that don't exist, and a
network of routes for them to get around, but if you're engaged in
spending £15BN on a new runway and to get it accepted you need to reduce
pollution then that kind of thing can be a driver to actually consider
these sort of things rather than take the easy route (which strangely
actually raises revenue) of charging cars for access when you operate an
airport that passengers regularly arrive and depart from outside of
normal public transport hours.

So I accept it costs money, but it could be a clean option.

What I'm not sure I accept is the length of time that aircraft engines
need to be running before takeoff - I imagine those things get pretty
hot pretty quickly. What may be an issue is where running the engines
sit in the pre-flight checklists but an electric tug with a big enough
battery could power some of the aircraft systems whilst it is being
towed (there are certainly ground based APUs for those aircraft without
one). Ok - I accept that charging such things may be a problem.

Someone Somewhere wrote:
On 25/09/2019 16:03, Recliner wrote:
Someone Somewhere wrote:
On 25/09/2019 15:18, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 13:51:18 on Wed, 25 Sep
2019, tim... remarked:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/h...-charge-is-exp

ected-to-r
aise-1-2bn-a-year-wv9qn2c36?shareToken=2e1812617e77460e9d40ce4f851b4 ca3



Ah, greenwash at its finest. I'm sure reducing the number of
vehiclesÂ* goingÂ* to and from the airport will really make up for the
extra emissionsÂ* from theÂ* aircraft using the new runway such as the
A380 which burns half a tonÂ* of fuelÂ* just to get from the gate to
take off position.

What we really need here is fuel per passenger.

I believe the fuel costs about £1 per passenger.

from the airline mag [1] I was reading yesterday, it apparently costs
150,000 to fly a 767 round trip Europe-USA (didn't specify East or
West Coast)

No mention was made about how that cost was apportioned between
operation costs and capital costs.

A typical fare for a flight like that is going to be £400 each way. If
they spend £1 of that taxiing to the end of the runway, we really do
need to find something more useful to discuss than spending 90p on an
electric tug instead.

Wasn't the argument less about the money, and more about the fact they
were introducing a congestion charge at LHR due to the locally high
pollution levels and one of the points was less aircraft running their
engines for less time equates to potentially a better local pollution
reduction strategy than a reasonable reduction in cars in the area could
achieve?

Quick back of an envelope calculation: If your car does 40MPG, then
that's about 10km per pound at 130p per litre, which is basically one
return car trip into the Heathrow environs per passenger. Once you take
into account that aviation fuel is tax free, then a better comparison is
oil price - £50/150 litres, or 33p/litre, so even taking into account
refining cost etc that's probably twice that distance

Given that not every passenger arrives individually in a taxi (the worse
possible scenario in terms of car miles per passenger in the area) then
removing that £1/pax in fuel saves burning more hydrocarbons locally
than would ever be feasible by removing all cars from the LHR area.

Of course, cars don't start their journeys on the perimeter (however
that is defined to be) but that's where the congestion charge is to be
enacted to reduce pollution...


The aircraft engines will still need to be started and warjed up some
minutes before take-off, so they'll still burn much of that fuel. The
powerful tugs needed to haul the aircraft will also consume fuel on their
journeys in both directions. I don't think there are any electric options
yet for that sort of powerful tug, so that means diesel. They will also
need drivers, and dedicated routes around the airport that don't get in the
way of planes. So it's not a clean option, and would almost certainly cost
more than the current system — which is why no airport does it.

And the discussion started as there aer electric tugs for shorthaul and
there may be larger ones for bigger jets.

Yes, possibly, but those pushback tugs are much less powerful, and need far
less battery capacity than the far heftier tugs that could tow aircraft at
normal taxi speeds (30-45 km/h) on non-level taxiways for distances of
several miles. I'm not even sure that such high towing speeds are allowed,
because of the stress on the nose landing gear.

The electric pushback tugs only move the aircraft very slowly for distances
of 100m or so, and then have a recharge, which is a vastly smaller task.


The other discussion was about an autonomous (or partly autonomous)
system. Being facetious I could point out there are the pods at
Heathrow already, so similar technology with a much beefier vehicle
could be plausible.

The pods run only on a guideway, with no conflicting traffic.


I accept it might need technologies and systems that don't exist, and a
network of routes for them to get around, but if you're engaged in
spending £15BN on a new runway and to get it accepted you need to reduce
pollution then that kind of thing can be a driver to actually consider
these sort of things rather than take the easy route (which strangely
actually raises revenue) of charging cars for access when you operate an
airport that passengers regularly arrive and depart from outside of
normal public transport hours.

So I accept it costs money, but it could be a clean option.

A lot more money, and only slightly cleaner.


What I'm not sure I accept is the length of time that aircraft engines
need to be running before takeoff - I imagine those things get pretty
hot pretty quickly.

Apparently it's 2-5 minutes, and then there are the checks on pressures,
etc. So it's perhaps 25-50% of the taxi time.

What may be an issue is where running the engines
sit in the pre-flight checklists but an electric tug with a big enough
battery could power some of the aircraft systems whilst it is being
towed (there are certainly ground based APUs for those aircraft without
one). Ok - I accept that charging such things may be a problem.


The tugs would need the power of a railway locomotive. Remind me, how many
battery powered locos are in service?

Recliner wrote:


What may be an issue is where running the engines
sit in the pre-flight checklists but an electric tug with a big enough
battery could power some of the aircraft systems whilst it is being
towed (there are certainly ground based APUs for those aircraft without
one). Ok - I accept that charging such things may be a problem.


The tugs would need the power of a railway locomotive. Remind me, how many
battery powered locos are in service?





Well you haven’t specified a size so we could start with the ones
traditionally used for engineering on the London Underground , don’t know
the exact number but it used to be around 29.

Something that size will be impractical for the task mentioned but smaller
examples tend to be used out of sight in numerous mines though as the UK
has relatively few such operations left most are used abroad such as those
exported by the Clayton Equipment company who have also converted diesel
locos to battery
for the Underground , they don’t horrendously large

http://www.tribe-engineering.co.uk/p...40-locomotive/


Newcastle Metro also operate a couple of battery locos which like the
London ones they can run off the normal power supply if it is available.

Glasgow subway operate a couple of battery locos for engineering work as
well.

GH

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 13:42:21 on Wed, 25 Sep 2019,
tim... remarked:
I used to work near heathrow and the number of people travelling there
by
private car was a small percentage of the total.

Total public transport (by passengers) has crept up to 40% over the last
decade (from 35%). Then there's the staff.

I suspect that a far larger percentage of staff travel by PT, as being
dropped off by a relative every day isn't exactly practical, and paying 20
quid a day to park is going to take a big chunk out of someone's NMW
salary (obviously not so for flight crew)

You know that's what the staff car park costs?

no

I just assumed that it wasn't going to be free, like it isn't at most
hospitals


Also the antisocial hours involved for many don't chime well with PT

there's' 24 hour PT available to LHR

In message , at 17:44:02 on Wed, 25 Sep
2019, tim... remarked:

I used to work near heathrow and the number of people travelling
there by private car was a small percentage of the total.

Total public transport (by passengers) has crept up to 40% over the
last decade (from 35%). Then there's the staff.

I suspect that a far larger percentage of staff travel by PT, as
being dropped off by a relative every day isn't exactly practical,
and paying 20 quid a day to park is going to take a big chunk out of
someone's NMW salary (obviously not so for flight crew)

You know that's what the staff car park costs?

no

I just assumed that it wasn't going to be free, like it isn't at most
hospitals

Don't assume.

Also the antisocial hours involved for many don't chime well with PT

there's' 24 hour PT available to LHR

Very patchy. Someone I know had to get the first bus of the day to check
in from a perimeter hotel to the central terminals. How would the check
in staff get there.
--
Roland Perry