Roland Perry wrote on 08 October 2011 17:20:16 ...
In message
, at
08:55:32 on Sat, 8 Oct 2011,
remarked:
the Tories (sorry coalition's) secret agenda is to turn Birmingham
Airport into another London Airport, using HS2 as the mechanism,

Why a secret, it's a pretty obvious way to increase (air) capacity at
much lower low cost/impact than a third runway at Heathrow.

How exactly does a rail link between LHR and LGW increase *air*
capacity? The problem at Heathrow is said to be that the runways are
98% fully used. Gatwick is already the world's busiest single-runway
airport. So how is this capacity increase achieved?
--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

In message , at 00:18:09 on Sun, 9 Oct
2011, Richard J. remarked:
How exactly does a rail link between LHR and LGW increase *air*
capacity? The problem at Heathrow is said to be that the runways are
98% fully used. Gatwick is already the world's busiest single-runway
airport. So how is this capacity increase achieved?

Bigger planes at Gatwick (they see this as a way to increase from
roughly 32m to 40m pax a year). And their "single runway agreement"
expires in 2019.
--
Roland Perry

"Richard J." wrote in message

Roland Perry wrote on 08 October 2011 17:20:16
...
In message
,
at 08:55:32 on Sat, 8 Oct 2011,
remarked:
the Tories (sorry coalition's) secret agenda is to turn Birmingham
Airport into another London Airport, using HS2 as the mechanism,

Why a secret, it's a pretty obvious way to increase (air) capacity at
much lower low cost/impact than a third runway at Heathrow.

How exactly does a rail link between LHR and LGW increase *air*
capacity? The problem at Heathrow is said to be that the runways are
98% fully used. Gatwick is already the world's busiest single-runway
airport. So how is this capacity increase achieved?

Indeed, this link only makes sense if Gatwick gets its second runway.
Equally, it would greatly strengthen the business case for that second
runway. It's not allowed until after 2019, but of course, even if they
started planning for it today, it wouldn't open this side of 2020.

In message , at 11:23:29 on
Sun, 9 Oct 2011, Recliner remarked:
How exactly does a rail link between LHR and LGW increase *air*
capacity? The problem at Heathrow is said to be that the runways are
98% fully used. Gatwick is already the world's busiest single-runway
airport. So how is this capacity increase achieved?

Indeed, this link only makes sense if Gatwick gets its second runway.
Equally, it would greatly strengthen the business case for that second
runway. It's not allowed until after 2019, but of course, even if they
started planning for it today, it wouldn't open this side of 2020.

As far as I can see, 2019 is the earliest they can start building.
Otherwise the point holds, and they'd need to rely on bigger planes to
increase the passenger throughput - which Gatwick is already expecting.

Of course, they aren't exactly breaking ground on this airport link in
the foreseeable future, and it would probably take 8-10 years to
complete.
--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" wrote in message

In message , at 11:23:29 on
Sun, 9 Oct 2011, Recliner remarked:
How exactly does a rail link between LHR and LGW increase *air*
capacity? The problem at Heathrow is said to be that the runways
are 98% fully used. Gatwick is already the world's busiest
single-runway airport. So how is this capacity increase achieved?

Indeed, this link only makes sense if Gatwick gets its second runway.
Equally, it would greatly strengthen the business case for that
second runway. It's not allowed until after 2019, but of course,
even if they started planning for it today, it wouldn't open this
side of 2020.

As far as I can see, 2019 is the earliest they can start building.
Otherwise the point holds, and they'd need to rely on bigger planes to
increase the passenger throughput - which Gatwick is already
expecting.
Of course, they aren't exactly breaking ground on this airport link in
the foreseeable future, and it would probably take 8-10 years to
complete.

Yes, both the link and the airport expansion would have to be planned
together.

For example, would the new LGW runway be to the south or north of the
existing runway? Would a new terminal be needed (I assume so)? Would
the link carry both land-side and in-transit pax (in separate, secure
compartments)? If the latter, its stations would have to be closely
integrated into the terminals, with separate, segregated areas for both
types of pax. I wouldn't expect it to open until well after 2020, even
if the plans were well advanced already.

In message , at 12:25:46 on
Sun, 9 Oct 2011, Recliner remarked:
As far as I can see, 2019 is the earliest they can start building.
Otherwise the point holds, and they'd need to rely on bigger planes to
increase the passenger throughput - which Gatwick is already
expecting.
Of course, they aren't exactly breaking ground on this airport link in
the foreseeable future, and it would probably take 8-10 years to
complete.

Yes, both the link and the airport expansion would have to be planned
together.

For example, would the new LGW runway be to the south or north of the
existing runway?

Just over 1km to the South. Opening maybe 10yrs after getting PP.

Would a new terminal be needed (I assume so)?

Yes, in between the runways. But overall it doubles the area of the
airport, including some facilities east of the railway.

Would the link carry both land-side and in-transit pax (in separate,
secure compartments)?

Land-side, like Heathrow, is by far the most likely.

If the latter, its stations would have to be closely
integrated into the terminals, with separate, segregated areas for both
types of pax. I wouldn't expect it to open until well after 2020, even
if the plans were well advanced already.

--
Roland Perry

In message , Recliner
wrote:
Indeed, this link only makes sense if Gatwick gets its second runway.
Equally, it would greatly strengthen the business case for that second
runway. It's not allowed until after 2019,

Nitpick: Gatwick has got two runways already. The agreement is to only
use one at a time.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Mobile: +44 7973 377646 | Web: http://www.davros.org
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

Clive D. W. Feather wrote on 10 October 2011 22:20:43 ...
In , Recliner
wrote:
Indeed, this link only makes sense if Gatwick gets its second runway.
Equally, it would greatly strengthen the business case for that second
runway. It's not allowed until after 2019,

Nitpick: Gatwick has got two runways already. The agreement is to only
use one at a time.

Agreement or no agreement, the two runways are too close together (about
200 metres) to allow safe operation of both of them as runways at the
same time.
--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

"Richard J." wrote:

Clive D. W. Feather wrote on 10 October 2011 22:20:43 ...
In , Recliner
wrote:
Indeed, this link only makes sense if Gatwick gets its second runway.
Equally, it would greatly strengthen the business case for that second
runway. It's not allowed until after 2019,

Nitpick: Gatwick has got two runways already. The agreement is to only
use one at a time.

Agreement or no agreement, the two runways are too close together (about
200 metres) to allow safe operation of both of them as runways at the
same time.


Gatwick does not have two runways. It has one runway and a parallel
taxiway that can be used as a runway only in an emergency.

The taxiway does not meet ICAO standards for a runway and lacks even a
basic ILS (instrument landing system). When it is in emergency use as
a runway there are no proper taxiways. So, contrary to what
Wonkypedia says, the taxiway is NOT a runway.

Bruce wrote on 11 October 2011 00:10:45 ...
"Richard wrote:

Clive D. W. wrote on 10 October 2011 22:20:43 ...
In , Recliner
wrote:
Indeed, this link only makes sense if Gatwick gets its second runway.
Equally, it would greatly strengthen the business case for that second
runway. It's not allowed until after 2019,

Nitpick: Gatwick has got two runways already. The agreement is to only
use one at a time.

Agreement or no agreement, the two runways are too close together (about
200 metres) to allow safe operation of both of them as runways at the
same time.


Gatwick does not have two runways. It has one runway and a parallel
taxiway that can be used as a runway only in an emergency.

The taxiway does not meet ICAO standards for a runway and lacks even a
basic ILS (instrument landing system). When it is in emergency use as
a runway there are no proper taxiways. So, contrary to what
Wonkypedia says, the taxiway is NOT a runway.

So why does it have "08L" at the west end and "26R" at the east end? It
may not be a very good runway, but it IS a runway, and is shown as such
on pilots' charts.
--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)