Heathrow closure: 1/2 - it should not happen.

Is it not shocking that nobody tells us the real plans about what is going to happen to Heathrow airport in the next 50 years?

I have to admit that the plans are not clear. If you read institutional and non-institutional websites, transport blogs, transport forums etc. you still come to two conclusions.
One: nobody knows what they are doing but still go along with their plans come what may.
Two: there is a hidden plan to expand Heathrow come what may orchestrated by government (or big interested parties) so that the politically unspeakable becomes reality.

Short-termism is the rule of the day. When any sort of expansion of airport capacity in the South East of England is mentioned, be it Heathrow, Gatwick or an Estuary airport, or whatever, then the politicians get nervous. Why? Votes.

If runways/airports could be built in three- five years (a la China)  then the politicians would have what it takes to put the necessary infrastructure into place. As it is at present they do not have the guts - meaning both the government and the legislators (election cycles being up to 5 years means that no politician wants to put his job/constituency on the line). It is so wishy-washy of politicians (whatever their colour) to negate development when that means re-election. The word "NO" does not solve any problems but only puts them off to another occasion (obviously when it would not affect the individual concerned) - how cowardly.

Both the Conservatives and Labour have switched from supporting a third runway at Heathrow to being opposed to it. At least the Liberal Democrats (though not offering any practicable solutions) have been consistent in opposing a third runway. That was their price for forming a coalition with the Conservatives so as to be able to form a workable government

The party political conference season has just finished. Each and everyone was saying what the faithful wanted to hear and so imprisoned themselves into straightjackets with policies which have no future.

The governing coalition partners now have this to say in their transport policies.

"The Liberal Democrats believe that the aviation industry shouldn’t get special treatment and must cut emissions just like the rest of the country. Air pollution is already terrible around Heathrow airport and expansion will only make matters worse.
We will reverse Labour plans to expand Heathrow Airport and oppose Boris Johnson's proposals for a new airport in the Thames Estuary. Unlike the Conservatives we oppose all airport expansion serving London and the South East and so would block expansion at Stansted and Gatwick as well."

"The Conservative Party states as its policy.....

......The Conservatives opposed the building of a third runway at Heathrow. This commitment was met in the Coalition agreement. Our position on a third runway at Heathrow has not changed.

Planned actions

• We will pass the Civil Aviation Bill into law. This will deliver much-needed reforms to our aviation regulation system.

• We will press ahead with the consultation process on our draft aviation policy framework.

• The independent commission into aviation capacity will publish an interim report in 2013, and its final report in 2015 on options to maintain our hub status. Any decision will be taken after the next general election."

The Labour party actually says nothing on its website. The only two mentions are those stated below (and even so you have to look hard for them) of which only the first has anything to do with air transport (though nothing relevant to what this article is about).

http://www.campaignengineroom.org.uk/flyaway
http://www.campaignengineroom.org.uk/getagripboris

On 14th June 2012 the Labour Party published "a Policy Review document on Empowering Communities to Improve Transport." which is the only document of any weight to see the light of day this year. While it is long on generalities it has nothing of note about specifics.


It should be noted that with the Cabinet reshuffle in September 2012 the new Secretary of State for Transport, the Rt Hon Patrick McLoughlin MP, replaced the former occupant, the Rt Hon Justine Greening MP, who is an opponent of any airport expansion. As is stated in the Conservative policy, he has set up an independent commission ...."tasked with identifying and recommending to Government options for maintaining this country’s status as an international hub for aviation."  It will present an interim report before the end of 2013 while the final report must be presented by the summer of 2015. As has been pointed out on every political forum as well as the DfT itself, this date is conveniently after when the next General Election must take place. That way the coalition should hold together. However, when the content of the interim report is known it could break up the coalition prematurely. This could well mean the election is brought forward to late winter or early spring 2014. We shall have to wait and see but it does illustrate how politics is dominated by vote seeking and not necessarily the national good.

Meanwhile the rest get on with doing things and trying to find solutions to the problems.

Another document, which has just been published (October 2012), is a report by
the Laboratory for Aviation and the Environment at MIT in collaboration with the Energy Efficient Cities Initiative at Cambridge University   
called "Air quality impacts of UK airport capacity expansion".

The most important point to note in this 5 page summary is that the number of deaths attributed to airport workings (not just aircraft) UKwide are 110(at Heathrow 50) annually.  This number is expected to increase(for a variety of reasons but without airports expansion) in 2030 to 250 in the UK (of which 110 will be attributed to Heathrow). With a third runway at Heathrow this figure is expected to grow from 110 to 150 annually. However, if a new hub were built in the Thames Estuary (with Heathrow being closed) the early deaths attributable to the (new) hub airport would be 50 annually.

The report goes on to make statements about the effects of air pollution which we are unable to see from the information written in the summary. As the summary stands I would question some statements made. To do that in any fair way we would have to read the full report as published in the UK-based scientific journal Atmospheric Environment. Despite obviously not having read anything other than the summary, many commentators have seen the document as the definitive "nail-in-the-coffin" for any expansion at Heathrow. However, things are not so clear.

The Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, presented his Transport Strategy in June 2010. 
It states (point 5.22.5 page 242) in the section Reducing CO₂ emissions from aviation
"Government has a target to reduce aviation CO_{2  emissions to below 2005 levels by 2050."}

This is significant and explains why so many documents are being produced concerning pollution. It is the Mayor´s legal obligation to ensure the reduction of the pollution levels.

At the instigation of the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, the Institute of Occupational Medicine published a report in June 2010 called "Report on estimation of mortality impacts of particulate air pollution in London". Here it looked at all the issues of air pollution (not just aircraft) and estimated that 4267 premature deaths are caused by air pollution in Greater London annually(the figures therein mentioned refer to 2008).

This, however, is only one document in a series published by the Mayor´s office to protect human health. The EU has set ‘limit values’ for PM10 and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). PM10s are emitted mainly by cars, factories and domestic heating systems. In the Mayor´s Transport Strategy (previously cited) it mentions(page 104) that "since 1990 CO2 emissions from ground-based transport in London have remained largely constant" at about 22% of all air pollution. Of this fraction 14% is attributed to "ground-based aviation" (including landings and take-offs to 1000 meters) as seen in the graph on page 104. It should be pointed out that of that 22% fraction, 72% is attributed to road transport (cars, taxis, bus coaches, lorries and vans), and the other 14% to rail. The air pollution attributable to  ground-based aviation(up to 1000 meters) thus comes to 3.1% of the total.

The studies have not stopped and do not stop as these questions of air pollutants (particles and noise) are important and ways have to be found to remedy them. Such is the case that the London Assembly Health and Environment Committee is having hearings into "curbing airplane noise and emissions" (from 16th October 2012).

Not only government but also other institutions or agencies produce reports.
  
Stanford Engineering  "Do airplanes have to be so loud?"
Professor Lele says:  "They don´t. In fact, if you were to compare a jet engine today with one from 40 years ago, you´d find that it is about 100 times quieter for the same engine power." 

This is an interesting article which explains that not only engines but also airframes produce noise - something which is remediable.

Another source, The Register (quoting Science magazine) on 18th June 2009 published a report announcing the results of tests made by US engine manufacturer Pratt & Whitney. It claimed its new engine "the PW1000G offers a 15 per cent saving on fuel, correspondingly less CO₂, and a 50 per cent cut in NO_x emissions." These are significant figures. The first "planes will come into service from 2013."
  
Thus we arrive at the basic question to be asked.

Are we to be limited in development of active resources because of the problems of today without looking at the developments of tomorrow? 
  
The engine manufacturers and the airframe constructors are already planning the next generation of aircraft after A380, B747-8, B787 and A350. Airbus already has plans for aircraft with steeper descents to the runways and steeper climbs from takeoff. Engines are about consumption(for the layman: miles per gallon), efficiency of use(mpg and toxic fumes produced) and noise(efficiency of the engine). It cannot now be disputed that there have been substantial improvements in such areas since the introduction of the B707, the VC10, the B747(first generation) the Trident, the BAC111, the Caravelle, the DC8 etc. etc. The noise pollution over Richmond and Twickenham now has no comparison to the same when these aircraft were first introduced. 45 years ago the noise was even unbearable while now it is a mild irritant at most. Obviously the closer to the airport the greater the irritant - that has been, is and  will still be a point of discussion for all time wherever an airport is situated. If it is not the aircraft then it is the traffic going to/from the airport, or the airport itself, and if you are really at a loss for complaint then the passengers themselves. 

What has not been said so far is that not all airplanes should necessarily be jets. When they are propeller driven then they make far less noise and produce far fewer fumes than jets. Their noise/fume footprint outside the airport boundary is practically non-existant. If any third runway at Heathrow were built it would provide the necessary accessibility to destinations in the British Isles of which many would gain access by propeller driven aircraft.

Consider that the opponents of airport expansion today are basing their criticisms on the negative aspects of air travel. They conveniently forget the improvements in engine efficiency and reduction in noise since the initial explosion in jet air travel. Are there not going to be similar improvements in the next 50 years (as have been in the previous 50)? How can they  reject even aircraft which will not bother them? Are they not, therefore, being Luddites in rejecting any development? 

                                         ------------------------------------------------------------------

The next blog explains how Heathrow will not be closed.

Consider also the blog published 23rd February 2012 "Heathrow´s 3rd runway - how to focus"

Hasn´t Northolt shot its bolt?

Yet again we return to the question of more runway capacity at Heathrow. When the government coalition was formed a curt "no" was the only answer to the question of runway expansion at the London airports of Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted.

However, we are still waiting for the government policy paper on airport strategy which was originally due out in March 2012, but postponed to early summer and even now we do not have a publication date. This has led to all sorts of speculation, including a government U-turn on airport expansion. The Prime Minister, David Cameron, has insisted, though, that there will be no third runway (R3) at Heathrow. This in its turn has provoked all sorts of speculation and ideas have been floated (by whom??) about alternatives while keeping within the letter of the agreement keeping the lid on airport expansion. 

It appears that by using the assets already in place then a much needed  increase in runway capacity can be achieved. This is where Northolt comes into the equation. At present it is an RAF base in the northwest of London. Rumours have been spread that the RAF is going to close it so it will become available for other uses. Unfortunately, despite delving into all sorts of files, websites, news sources and even the Ministry of Defence itself, absolutely nothing has been found about any possible closure of Northolt as an RAF base.That in itself should be enough to quash any rumours. However, we know very well that governments can change political positions from one week to the next, and even occasionally make quick radical decisions. So let us work on the assumption that the closure of Northolt, as an RAF base, is possible.

Particular Data: At present this base is used mostly for Royal, governmental and other VIP and Defence personnel transport with various HS125s and BAe 146s among other aircraft. It also houses RAF training and Air Cadet units as well as some Army and Royal Navy units. Recently it had based there some Typhoon fast jets taking part in exercises to protect the Olympic Games. At first glance then it seems that this base at Ruislip near Central London has very real uses for the RAF which they would be reluctant to give up.

The two runways are aligned north west - south east (1.4 kms.long) and south west - north east (1.6 kms. long). This latter one cannot be extended to the SW as it runs into the A40 bordering the airfield, nor to the NE more than about 200 meters as it runs into housing and the National Rail and London Underground lines. This latter runway is 07/25. The other NW-SE runway is closed and not in use. It could, however, be reopened and extended to about 2.1 kms. across a green field. This is indicated in the photo of the map hereshown.                                                                             

                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

This is a satellite view of the RAF base at Northolt, indicating the two runways with the SE-NW one extended.

The distance between Heathrow and Northolt is 9.2kms. as the crow flies, so by road it is more but all depends on the route taken and to which terminal one is going.

As you can see there is a problem with runway alignment. This is not so great a problem when the only aircraft flying into/out of the base are small jets and propeller driven aircraft. However, It is certainly a problem for air traffic control with any aircraft of a larger size - these need larger turning circles as well as longer runways. That means a conflict arises which is potentially dangerous.

PublicTransport routes: There is just one bus route which passes the airfield (down West End Rd.) which is the E7 from Ruislip to Ealing Broadway. The next nearest, 114 Ruislip-Mill Hill Broadway, is on the other side of South Ruislip station (along Victoria Road).The nearest station is South Ruislip which is both LUL (Central line West Ruislip branch) and National Rail with Chiltern Railways (Marylebone - High Wycombe) services.None of these goes near Heathrow and so involve at least one change to get there.

Roads: Probably the simplest way to communicate to Heathrow would be to take the A40, which directly bypasses Northolt airfield, westwards to where the M40 begins and then turn south on to the M25 (slots permitting!!). T5 is easily accessible, T4 is relatively easily accessible from the M25, while the central area terminals 2 and 3 need a more roundabout route. 

To gain easy access to the central area from Northolt it would probably mean taking the A4180 then the A312 southwards to the M4 or later the A4 (Bath Road) turning westwards in either case to join the Tunnel Entrance Road to the Heathrow Central Area.

All these options of course mean extra traffic on already excessively crowded roads (hence the slots comment). It means cars, taxis and connecting buses all of which are noisy, polluting and congestion causing. Far from being an attractive option.

It has been suggested that a fast tube link be constructed between Northolt and Heathrow. If it were a tube then presumably it would go underground so as not to disturb the housing (and their residents) in the area. This a very expensive option just to connect a minor airport with small aircraft using it to the main hub airport. Would it be cost effective? On the other hand, if the connection were overground then you would have to choose a route and subsequently decide which housing and businesses would be affected. Also very costly but both economically and politically.

What has not been mentioned are the start and finishing points of such a connection, and even how many stops it should have. Would it start at Northolt terminal or further north - e.g. South Ruislip station to link with the LUL and Chiltern Lines - or even elsewhere? Where would the line end - via T5 and on to Staines, or via T4 and on to Feltham? In either case one terminal would lose out thus reducing the benefit of the connection.

Autonomy: Northolt cannot be looked at as anything other than another minor airport in London. Its operation would, by necessity, be independent from Heathrow. To provide all the auxiliary services that aircraft and passengers need you would have to duplicate them at Northolt - a ridiculous expense. Cleaning, minor maintenance, fueling, food and drink, trolley extras (duty free goods etc.), baggage handling and so on all mean added expense. If they were provided by Heathrow then how much would the roads get clogged up by the extra traffic? For aircraft to be maintained they would have to fly into Heathrow eating up precious slots. It is unimaginable how much the resulting chaos would be, especially in adverse weather conditions.

Who would fly there?: No airline would go to Northolt voluntarily. Even if the government decided to force airlines (and this means BA and Aer Lingus) that fly the British Isles routes then it would be most detrimental to those airlines. If other European airlines were involved then the government would have a diplomatic incident on its hands. Whether one or the other you cannot discriminate in such cases - the resulting case in the European Court brought against the government by the airlines  would be won easily by them and would need a total climbdown by the government, meaning the death knell of Northolt as an airport. This point in itself destroys the case for Northolt.

Runway Three: A third runway (R3) at Heathrow between the M4 and the A4(Bath Road), where originally proposed, would suffer none of the problems encountered by Northolt.
1-It would be built parallel to the present runways, and used in "mixed-mode" so would not cause problems to air traffic control.
2-It could be built as a full length runway to be available IN EMERGENCY/EXCEPTIONAL CASES ONLY while its normal use would be for small and medium jets together with propeller driven aircraft.
3-A new terminal 6 (T6) would be built to serve R3 but the operation would be so designed that airlines/aircraft would always (or at worst almost always) fly into/out of R3 and T6. That way there would be no need at all for planes to cross the other runways, except in exceptional circumstances. 
4-Some housing would have to be demolished but a lot of the housing, hotels, car parks and sundries could be maintained.
5-Taxiways(3 or at most 4) would need to be built to connect to the main airfield and the northern runway.
6-Road works would be needed for the A4 to pass under the taxiways and there might be some other minor works.

7-No tube or rail lines need be built as the existing Heathrow Express/Crossrail line already passes under or near where T6 will be constructed meaning only a new station would be necessary.
8-All auxiliary/maintenance services are on site or on hand.
9-The links to the other terminals would exist from T6 with the opening of the new HE/Crossrail station.
10-Therefore, the case for airlines to object for a transfer of some routes to T6 would not exist. 
11-No (or at worst very little) extra road traffic would be needed - quite the opposite of the case at Northolt where the increase would be substantial.
12-The progressive limitations on noise and engine pollution would be as stated on previous blogs and extended to other airports eventually. 

Northolt is not an option to serve Heathrow at all. R3 and T6 are the best options to relieve some of the congestion at Heathrow. The real solution is to use the assets this country has and let the other airports expand. You cannot deny necessary infrastructure today with arguments when you can insist on their solution for tomorrow.
A  2 or 3 hub solution certainly has merits. Does not the Greater New York area work with LaGuardia, Newark and JFK as major airports?
The mega hub airport idea is just a fad. So many passengers complain at the sizes of Paris CDG and Frankfurt. Let us not try to go down the same road. We have to build on our advantages  and not follow everybody else like sheep. We have five airports (and that is only serving the London area) and must capitalise on those assets. It is so easy to spend other people´s money on big white elephants - no thank you. 


This blogger has written about the subject of a new runway at Heathrow airport several times already. The last one was 23 February 2012 under the title...

"Heathrow´s 3rd runway - how to focus"

The Airtrack Lite fantastic, tripped up?

We tend to talk a lot about Heathrow airport. This comes as no great surprise since a question like the addition of a third runway(R3) provokes so many passions. However, Britain´s principal airport, with over 70 million passengers passing through it annually, has other projects going on at the moment and others are constantly being proposed or floated.

Airtack-Lite is one new(?) such project. Its newness is questioned because it is basically very similar to BAA´s previous Airtrack proposal. That this blog dealt with nearly two years ago, 30 June 2010  "Airtrack - is it worthwhile?"

The basic idea was to run trains from T5 at Heathrow over Staines Moor to Staines. From there trains would run at the rate of two per hour to Waterloo, Guildford and Reading, and also with some Heathrow Express(HE) trains from Paddington running through T5 to Staines. All this was to be financed, built and run by BAA. The project fell down on two main points (a) the lack of train paths to fit more trains on to the three aforementioned routes and (b) the plethora of level crossings along the routes which would have made the road network near and crossing the routes clogged because of extra closures.This proposal was officially withdrawn as unworkable and reported 11 April 2011 in Rail.Co."Heathrow: ‘No option but to withdraw proposed Airtrack link to Staines".


Then, of all groupings, Wandsworth Council came up with their version of the same called Airtrack-Lite.The article in Rail.Co, dated 28 October 2011, "Wandsworth Council proposes new ‘Airtrack-Lite’ plan to connect Heathrow"  only mentions stops at Clapham Junction and Putney. However, the map, as published by Wandsworth Council, illustrates all the stops along the line until Staines. So would it be a stopping service or an express service?

Just as a note for clarity (a) the line Waterloo-Richmond-Staines has 5 level-crossings as illustrated on this diagram, while (b) the line Waterloo-Hounslow-Staines has 4 level crossings (there is an additional one - unmarked on this diagram - between Chiswick and Kew Bridge stations)

As the diagram tries to explain the service proposed does not mean any increase in the number of services into Waterloo from Heathrow T5 and Staines High Street. However, the service frequency is increased from 2tph (in the original Airtrack proposal) to 4tph in this Airtrack-Lite proposal. This, without doubt, means a more attractive, and thus more viable, offer to the travelling and working public.  

But how is this to be obtained? Apparently, two Waterloo-Windsor services(per hour) would be be split at Staines with half the train continuing to Windsor while the other half would run into T5.This would entail a short stopover at Staines to connect or disconnect the two halves as is the case.The stopover would have to be longer than a normal train stop (which usually need be no more than 60-90 seconds). This would mean a danger of delays. This is certainly a risky maneuver on a busy commuter line especially in the rush hours. These two services would be those that run through Richmond (to connect to the LUL District Line and London Overground) and Twickenham (to connect to the Teddington(thus Shepperton) - Kingston line). The opportunity for travellers and workers south of the Thames to connect to Heathrow would, therefore, be greatly increased. The question that needs to be asked here is: Will the trains maintain their present stopping pattern or will fewer stops be permitted? In that case, which stops would be withdrawn?

The other 2tph would run through the Hounslow loop (apparently non-stop from Putney to T5). There is no mention of the origin of these train paths so they seem to be new ones. That might be possible during the main part of the day but during the morning and evening rush hours there is a notorious lack of train paths - the whole timetable being fine-tuned and liable to knock-on effects on all the services (on the Windsor, Reading and Teddington lines) for any minor delays. 

London Mayor, Boris Johnson, accepted the proposal  ("Mayor gives cautious backing to Waterloo - Heathrow rail link", "London SE1 Community website"1-12-11),together with the two other councils of Hounslow and Hammersmith and Fulham ("Waterloo-Heathrow rail link wins backing from two more boroughs", "London SE1 Community website" 15-05-12), while Rail.Co. (15-05-12) goes on to mention the additional stops at Queenstown Road and Wandsworth,which had not been mentioned before.

What has not been mentioned before are the services from the South Coast(Portsmouth)-Woking-Weybridge-Heathrow. This connection would offer a more direct route from Hampshire and the south to Heathrow though only at a frequency of 2tph. This is not really an attractive frequency to offer people so that they transfer from the car to the train to reach the airport - it has limited benefit.

It must be said that Wandsworth Council has tried to maintain the original Airtrack idea in a reduced form (there would be no through service from Heathrow to Reading), while, apparently, not aggravating the problems of train paths and level-crossing closures. This is a valient attempt but no more than that. Of course, to satisfy their own voters they introduce stops in the borough of Wandsworth but that is only a sop to them. 

The idea of a direct service from Waterloo to Heathrow is basically good but runs up against the problem of the level-crossings, be them in the Hounslow loop or in the Richmond branch. The construction of bridges or tunnels along the line at the level crossings is a problem which will have to be attacked at some time in the future. After all this is the main line route to Windsor and Reading with a lot of commuter traffic, and if the traffic is expected to rise up to 50% in the next twenty years this is a problem which cannot be brushed under the carpet.

However, those reasons are not enough to justify the scheme. This blogger sticks by the proposals made in two blogs written 23 February 2010("Fast Trax 2 - The case for a southern high speed alternative (SHSL)") and 15th May 2012 ("Who wants the Irish...?").These support the idea of a high speed line from Reading through Heathrow (T5 - T2/T3 - T4) to Gatwick and then Ashford. If this line were built then it opens the opportunity of running services from Waterloo-Feltham-T4-T3/T2-T5 and even on to Reading. The only part of the new SHSL that this Waterloo connection would use is that between Feltham and T5 (or even on to Reading) but the important advantage it has is that it would connect the four airport terminals - something which neither Airtrack nor Airtrack-Lite do.This encounters certain technical problems but they are solvable. The offer is much better than Airtrack or Airtrack-Lite but runs up against the problems of the level-crossings again. Maybe it would prove the catalyst to get the tunnels and/or bridges built on the lines through Richmond and Hounslow.