"Heathrow and Gatwick airports: Ministers mull rail link" (twixt the two)
 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-15227879

Extract...

---quote---
New ways of connecting airports, such as a high-speed rail link
between Heathrow and Gatwick, are to be considered in the coming
months as the government reviews its aviation policy.

A 180mph (288km/h) train service between the two locations has been
proposed, The Times reported.

And the multibillion-pound idea is to be studied by ministers, the
Department for Transport (DfT) has confirmed.

But Heathrow's operator, BAA, said it "provided no extra runway
capacity".

The idea also faced "seemingly insurmountable technical, operational,
political financial challenges, and would take many years to deliver",
the company added.

The scheme, which would create a so-called "virtual hub" running from
west London to West Sussex, was welcomed by Gatwick Airport, however.

Anything which provided "short to medium-term alleviation of capacity
issues in the South East" should be considered, although the funding
and route would need careful consideration, a spokesman said.
[...continues...]
---/quote---


The government will also be reviewing air traffic control rules for
porcine aviation.

"Heathrow and Gatwick airports: Ministers mull rail link" (twixtthe two)
 

New ways of connecting airports, such as a high-speed rail link
between Heathrow and Gatwick, are to be considered in the coming
months as the government reviews its aviation policy.

A 180mph (288km/h) train service between the two locations has been
proposed, The Times reported.


Makes sense, the Tories (sorry coalition's) secret agenda is to turn
Birmingham Airport into another London Airport, using HS2 as the
mechanism, presumably the new link would plug into HS2.

The runway extension at Birmingham to accommodate the largest jets
(fully laden) has already begun.

"Heathrow and Gatwick airports: Ministers mull rail link" (twixt the two)
 

In message
, at
08:55:32 on Sat, 8 Oct 2011, allantracy
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. And
Birmingham Airport's much easier to get to. People also forget that even
today's WCML does Birningham Airport-Euston in 74mins, compared to 1hr
by tube from Heathrow.

presumably the new link would plug into HS2.

Not if HS2 fails to have a station at Heathrow.

The runway extension at Birmingham to accommodate the largest jets
(fully laden) has already begun.

A plan hatched under NuLab.
--
Roland Perry

"Heathrow and Gatwick airports: Ministers mull rail link"(twixt the two)
 

On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 08:20:45 -0700, Mizter T wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-15227879
snip

Off-topic, but I've noticed recently that this use of "mull", which has
always struck me as distinctively American headlinese, has turned up more
and more in UK publications this year. I wonder why now, rather than at
any time during the last decade or so?

--
Bewdley, Worcs. ~90m asl.

"Heathrow and Gatwick airports: Ministers mull rail link" (twixtthe two)
 

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.

It's the increased airline capacity bit they're trying their hardest
to be dishonest about.

Scrapping a third Heathrow runway and building HS2 instead was
supposed to be a way of reducing internal flights.

In fact, HS2 will actually allow for the additional airline capacity
the third Heathrow runway would have provided, it's just that the
third runway will now be in Birmingham.

"Heathrow and Gatwick airports: Ministers mull rail link" (twixtthe two)
 

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)

"Heathrow and Gatwick airports: Ministers mull rail link" (twixt the two)
 

On Sat, 8 Oct 2011 16:25:25 +0000 (UTC), David Buttery
wrote:

On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 08:20:45 -0700, Mizter T wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-15227879
snip

Off-topic, but I've noticed recently that this use of "mull", which has
always struck me as distinctively American headlinese, has turned up more
and more in UK publications this year. I wonder why now, rather than at
any time during the last decade or so?

It has been around for longer than the last decade, usually in the
form "mulled over". According to the SED you can blame the 'Merks -
"colloq. US 1879", maybe derived from the action of reducing something
to small pieces etc. [for the purpose of examination] ("mull" being
not 'Merkan but ultimately Teutonic via Old and Middle English).

"Heathrow and Gatwick airports: Ministers mull rail link" (twixt the two)
 

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message
, at
08:55:32 on Sat, 8 Oct 2011, allantracy
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.

But it only works if turn up and go fares are available at rock bottom
prices, which is almost certainly unlikely to happen
..
No-one (outside the natural catchment area) is going to chose to fly from
Birmingham (as an alternative to London) if it costs 200 pounds return to
get there

Tim

"Heathrow and Gatwick airports: Ministers mull rail link" (twixtthe two)
 

On Oct 8, 5:20*pm, Roland Perry wrote:

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. And
Birmingham Airport's much easier to get to. People also forget that even
today's WCML does Birningham Airport-Euston in 74mins, compared to 1hr
by tube from Heathrow.

Or 15 mins by Heathrow Express from Paddington?

"Heathrow and Gatwick airports: Ministers mull rail link" (twixt the two)
 

"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.

"Heathrow and Gatwick airports: Ministers mull rail link" (twixt the two)
 

In message
, at
12:13:04 on Sat, 8 Oct 2011, allantracy
remarked:
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.

It's the increased airline capacity bit they're trying their hardest
to be dishonest about.

Scrapping a third Heathrow runway and building HS2 instead was
supposed to be a way of reducing internal flights.

I don't recall the objectives being black and white like that. It'll
obviously be a bit of both

In fact, HS2 will actually allow for the additional airline capacity
the third Heathrow runway would have provided, it's just that the
third runway will now be in Birmingham.

It won't allow all the capacity of a third Heathrow runway, because
Birmingham already has quite a few flights. Ditto if they displace some
Heathrow traffic back to Gatwick (from where it's been fleeing to
Heathrow years).
--
Roland Perry

"Heathrow and Gatwick airports: Ministers mull rail link" (twixt the two)
 

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

"Heathrow and Gatwick airports: Ministers mull rail link" (twixt the two)
 

In message
, at
02:07:31 on Sun, 9 Oct 2011, Dr. Sunil
remarked:
People also forget that even today's WCML does Birningham
Airport-Euston in 74mins, compared to 1hr by tube from Heathrow.

Or 15 mins by Heathrow Express from Paddington?

People have a choice, and lots still use the tube.
--
Roland Perry

"Heathrow and Gatwick airports: Ministers mull rail link" (twixt the two)
 

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

"Heathrow and Gatwick airports: Ministers mull rail link" (twixt the two)
 

"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.

"Heathrow and Gatwick airports: Ministers mull rail link" (twixt the two)
 

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

"Heathrow and Gatwick airports: Ministers mull rail link" (twixtthe two)
 

On 09/10/2011 01:09, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Sat, 8 Oct 2011 16:25:25 +0000 (UTC), David Buttery
wrote:

On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 08:20:45 -0700, Mizter T wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-15227879
snip

Off-topic, but I've noticed recently that this use of "mull", which has
always struck me as distinctively American headlinese, has turned up more
and more in UK publications this year. I wonder why now, rather than at
any time during the last decade or so?

It has been around for longer than the last decade, usually in the
form "mulled over". According to the SED you can blame the 'Merks -
"colloq. US 1879", maybe derived from the action of reducing something
to small pieces etc. [for the purpose of examination] ("mull" being
not 'Merkan but ultimately Teutonic via Old and Middle English).


The complete (online) OED has "mull" (to consider, ponder upon) as
American but "to mull over" is not shown as American though most of the
examples quoted are American with the earliest 1874.

An older American meaning of the verb "mull" could perhaps be very
suitable for politicians, planners etc

"To allow a problem to be resolved by inaction, to let something 'stew'
Obs". Only quoted from 1857 so perhaps the original meaning.

"Heathrow and Gatwick airports: Ministers mull rail link" (twixtthe two)
 

I had a good laugh when i first heard this suggested, but perhaps
there's another way to look at it....

The BML needs relieving with a lengthy tunnel being suggested,
dedicated services to both Heathrow and Gatwick are under threat of
being at least partially absorbed into Crossrail/Southern services,
and the cancellation of Airtrack continues to leave Heathrow without
rail access from the South.

Throwing caution to the wind, might a high capacity 'Thameslink2/
Airport Express' from Brighton/Gatwick to Stansted (or elsewhere north
of London) via a SWML interchange (Surbiton?), Heathrow and Central
London be a [slightly] more practical idea?

Chris

"Heathrow and Gatwick airports: Ministers mull rail link" (twixtthe two)
 

Or 15 mins by Heathrow Express from Paddington?

People have a choice, and lots still use the tube.


When I use Heathrow getting to the airport depends on whether I arrive
at Euston, Marylebone or Paddington.

If I use Euston then I tend to just use the Piccadilly line (Tube) all
the way whereas the other two are obviously handy for Heathrow
Express.

Of course, Crossrail should change all that.

"Heathrow and Gatwick airports: Ministers mull rail link" (twixtthe two)
 

allantracy wrote on 09 October 2011 17:36:08 ...

Or 15 mins by Heathrow Express from Paddington?

People have a choice, and lots still use the tube.


When I use Heathrow getting to the airport depends on whether I arrive
at Euston, Marylebone or Paddington.

If I use Euston then I tend to just use the Piccadilly line (Tube) all
the way whereas the other two are obviously handy for Heathrow
Express.

From Marylebone, you might gain as little as 8 minutes by using HEx
instead of Bakerloo-Piccadilly. It might be "obviously handy" for HEx,
but it's not obviously value for money.
--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

"Heathrow and Gatwick airports: Ministers mull rail link" (twixt the two)
 

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:

"Heathrow and Gatwick airports: Ministers mull rail link" (twixtthe two)
 

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)

"Heathrow and Gatwick airports: Ministers mull rail link" (twixt the two)
 

"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.

"Heathrow and Gatwick airports: Ministers mull rail link" (twixt the two)
 

In message , at 23:41:07 on Mon, 10 Oct
2011, Richard J. remarked:
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.

The proposal for a second runway is a little over 1km to the south of
the existing one, with the new (third) terminal between the runways.
--
Roland Perry

"Heathrow and Gatwick airports: Ministers mull rail link" (twixtthe two)
 

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)

"Heathrow and Gatwick airports: Ministers mull rail link" (twixtthe two)
 

On Oct 9, 1:18*am, "Richard J." wrote:

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.

I guess it would allow some of the duplication of flights between the
two airports to be reduced.

"Heathrow and Gatwick airports: Ministers mull rail link" (twixt
 

On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 01:30:10 -0700 (PDT)
amogles wrote:
On Oct 9, 1:18=A0am, "Richard J." wrote:

How exactly does a rail link between LHR and LGW increase *air*
capacity? =A0The problem at Heathrow is said to be that the runways are
98% fully used. =A0Gatwick is already the world's busiest single-runway
airport. =A0So how is this capacity increase achieved?
--
Richard J.

I guess it would allow some of the duplication of flights between the
two airports to be reduced.

You have to wonder just how many more flights will satisfy the aircraft
lobby. The sky is already a contrail polluted mess on most days and thats
not even from the aircraft landing at london airports. Perhaps they won't
be happy until the sky looks like the M25 with wings?

B2003

"Heathrow and Gatwick airports: Ministers mull rail link" (twixt
 

On Oct 11, 9:53*am, wrote:

You have to wonder just how many more flights will satisfy the aircraft
lobby. The sky is already a contrail polluted mess on most days

You do know what contrails are, right? They aren't pollution. Though
the aircraft will emit that as well.

Neil

"Heathrow and Gatwick airports: Ministers mull rail link" (twixt the two)
 

In message
, at
01:30:10 on Tue, 11 Oct 2011, amogles 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?

I guess it would allow some of the duplication of flights between the
two airports to be reduced.

Only for transit passengers (which are few at Gatwick).
--
Roland Perry

"Heathrow and Gatwick airports: Ministers mull rail link" (twixt the two)
 

In message , at 09:13:16 on Tue, 11
Oct 2011, Richard J. remarked:
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.

It's best to describe it as an alternate runway, not a second runway.
--
Roland Perry

"Heathrow and Gatwick airports: Ministers mull rail link" (twixt
 

"Heathrow and Gatwick airports: Ministers mull rail link" (twixt the two)
 

"Richard J." wrote:

So why does it have "08L" at the west end and "26R" at the east end?


So pilots don't land on the proper runway when it is closed, and
collide with maintenance equipment or other aircraft?


It may not be a very good runway, but it IS a runway, and is shown as such
on pilots' charts.


Of course it is shown on charts, so it can be used in an emergency.

But it remains a taxiway that can be used as a runway *only in
emergencies*. The absence of any form of ILS and the absence of
proper taxiways when the emergency "runway" is in use tell the story.

"Heathrow and Gatwick airports: Ministers mull rail link" (twixt the two)
 

Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 23:41:07 on Mon, 10 Oct
2011, Richard J. remarked:
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.

The proposal for a second runway is a little over 1km to the south of
the existing one, with the new (third) terminal between the runways.


There is no proposal for a second runway. Legally, there can be no
such proposal until 2019.

"Heathrow and Gatwick airports: Ministers mull rail link" (twixt the two)
 

amogles wrote:

On Oct 9, 1:18*am, "Richard J." wrote:

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.

I guess it would allow some of the duplication of flights between the
two airports to be reduced.


Do you really think that there are a lot of half-empty planes arriving
and departing at Heathrow and Gatwick because they are two separate
airports? If so, you must have a very strange view of how commercial
airlines operate.

"Heathrow and Gatwick airports: Ministers mull rail link" (twixtthe two)
 

On Oct 9, 9:06*am, "tim...." wrote:

But it only works if turn up and go fares are available at rock bottom
prices, which is almost certainly unlikely to happen

If it's holidaymakers you're looking at, these normally book their
flight well in advance to secure a good price. Seeinmg they know
they're flying, they can book the train well in advance as well.

When it comes to buiness flyers, the price premium is more acceptable
seeing the flight will also be more expensive.

Maybe travel agents or airlines can even offer train tickets in a
package deal. This already happens in Germany for example.


.
No-one (outside the natural catchment area) is going to chose to fly from
Birmingham (as an alternative to London) if it costs 200 pounds return to
get there

Unless maybe airport fees and other charges reduce that prife
differential to some extent

"Heathrow and Gatwick airports: Ministers mull rail link" (twixt
 

In message
, at
02:00:25 on Tue, 11 Oct 2011, Neil Williams
remarked:
You have to wonder just how many more flights will satisfy the aircraft
lobby. The sky is already a contrail polluted mess on most days

You do know what contrails are, right? They aren't pollution.

They are visual pollution, but a negative greenhouse factor

Though the aircraft will emit that as well.

Aircraft emissions are overall slightly greenhouse negative (which seems
to be the trendy "pollution" to worry about) but there's also a separate
poisonous effect, which because of the jetstreams lands mainly in south
Asia.
--
Roland Perry

"Heathrow and Gatwick airports: Ministers mull rail link" (twixt the two)
 

In message , at 10:41:35 on
Tue, 11 Oct 2011, Bruce remarked:
The proposal for a second runway is a little over 1km to the south of
the existing one, with the new (third) terminal between the runways.

There is no proposal for a second runway. Legally, there can be no
such proposal until 2019.

There has been a proposal since at least 2005 (I've been quoting from
the BAA documents). No doubt the new owners considered such proposals
before buying - it would be an insane leap in the dark not to.

What they can't do is *start building* until 2019. I originally thought
they couldn't apply for planning permission until 2019, but it's not
even that.
--
Roland Perry

"Heathrow and Gatwick airports: Ministers mull rail link" (twixt
 

On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 02:00:25 -0700 (PDT)
Neil Williams wrote:
On Oct 11, 9:53=A0am, wrote:

You have to wonder just how many more flights will satisfy the aircraft
lobby. The sky is already a contrail polluted mess on most days

You do know what contrails are, right? They aren't pollution. Though
the aircraft will emit that as well.

Yes thanks, I'm fully well aware of what they're composed off. But do you
think all the CO2 and nitrous oxides run away and hide? They follow the
exact same path as the ice crystals and in fact the ice itself will be
slightly acidic due to dissolved N02. Besides which contrails on their own
affect climate as was demonstrated after 9/11 when all flights in the US
were grounded and the average temperature went up a degree or so.

B2003

"Heathrow and Gatwick airports: Ministers mull rail link" (twixt
 

On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 10:34:04 +0100
Bruce wrote:
wrote:

You have to wonder just how many more flights will satisfy the aircraft
lobby.


You have to wonder just how many more flights will be needed to
satisfy the future demand for air travel.

Who knows, thought its not written in stone that supply always has to
fulfil demand. Sometimes someone has to step in and say enough is enough
no matter what vested interests it ****es off.

B2003

"Heathrow and Gatwick airports: Ministers mull rail link" (twixtthe two)
 

On 11/10/2011 09:13, Richard J. wrote:
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.

Because it is usable if the primary runway is out of commission for any
reason.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail