Discussion:
OT: Heathrow Closed
Add Reply
Bob
2025-03-21 07:36:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Looks like a fire at/by a substation has killed all power to LHR and
will keep it closed all day. Some here point out the perceived fragility
of OHLE electrified railways to infrastructure problems, and post every
outage they become aware of. I thought I'd offer this as an example of
the same kind of vulnerability of other modes.

Robin
Tweed
2025-03-21 07:54:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bob
Looks like a fire at/by a substation has killed all power to LHR and
will keep it closed all day. Some here point out the perceived fragility
of OHLE electrified railways to infrastructure problems, and post every
outage they become aware of. I thought I'd offer this as an example of
the same kind of vulnerability of other modes.
Robin
Be interesting to see the explanations as to why Heathrow isn’t being fed
by multiple redundant feeder circuits.
Graeme Wall
2025-03-21 08:29:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tweed
Post by Bob
Looks like a fire at/by a substation has killed all power to LHR and
will keep it closed all day. Some here point out the perceived fragility
of OHLE electrified railways to infrastructure problems, and post every
outage they become aware of. I thought I'd offer this as an example of
the same kind of vulnerability of other modes.
Robin
Be interesting to see the explanations as to why Heathrow isn’t being fed
by multiple redundant feeder circuits.
Their standby systems will be able to cope with aircraft movements but
they have no way of dealing with passengers once on the ground.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
Tweed
2025-03-21 08:53:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Tweed
Post by Bob
Looks like a fire at/by a substation has killed all power to LHR and
will keep it closed all day. Some here point out the perceived fragility
of OHLE electrified railways to infrastructure problems, and post every
outage they become aware of. I thought I'd offer this as an example of
the same kind of vulnerability of other modes.
Robin
Be interesting to see the explanations as to why Heathrow isn’t being fed
by multiple redundant feeder circuits.
Their standby systems will be able to cope with aircraft movements but
they have no way of dealing with passengers once on the ground.
I didn’t mean emergency power generation, but rather multiple diverse
connections to the grid. Perhaps it’s a case of manual switching. They seem
to have restored power to 60,000 local consumers.
M***@DastardlyHQ.org
2025-03-21 09:14:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 21 Mar 2025 08:53:16 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Bob
Looks like a fire at/by a substation has killed all power to LHR and
will keep it closed all day. Some here point out the perceived fragility
of OHLE electrified railways to infrastructure problems, and post every
outage they become aware of. I thought I'd offer this as an example of
the same kind of vulnerability of other modes.
Robin
Be interesting to see the explanations as to why Heathrow isn’t being fed
by multiple redundant feeder circuits.
Their standby systems will be able to cope with aircraft movements but
they have no way of dealing with passengers once on the ground.
I didn’t mean emergency power generation, but rather multiple diverse
connections to the grid. Perhaps it’s a case of manual switching. They seem
to have restored power to 60,000 local consumers.
You'd think somewhere like heathrow would have some emergency diesel
generators tucked away. Clearly that was beyond managements brain capacity.
Either that or like the water companies, money that should have gone into
investment went into shareholder pockets instead.
Tweed
2025-03-21 09:25:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
On Fri, 21 Mar 2025 08:53:16 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Tweed
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Tweed
Post by Bob
Looks like a fire at/by a substation has killed all power to LHR and
will keep it closed all day. Some here point out the perceived fragility
of OHLE electrified railways to infrastructure problems, and post every
outage they become aware of. I thought I'd offer this as an example of
the same kind of vulnerability of other modes.
Robin
Be interesting to see the explanations as to why Heathrow isn’t being fed
by multiple redundant feeder circuits.
Their standby systems will be able to cope with aircraft movements but
they have no way of dealing with passengers once on the ground.
I didn’t mean emergency power generation, but rather multiple diverse
connections to the grid. Perhaps it’s a case of manual switching. They seem
to have restored power to 60,000 local consumers.
You'd think somewhere like heathrow would have some emergency diesel
generators tucked away. Clearly that was beyond managements brain capacity.
Either that or like the water companies, money that should have gone into
investment went into shareholder pockets instead.
Having watched the recent fly on the wall programme about Thames Water, my
suspicions are that things have been stripped away to the bone in the name
of “efficiency”. There’s also the issue of “risk analysis”. This is where
planners attempt to calculate the odds of bad things happening. There’s two
problems with this approach: the events are so oddball that there’s not
enough data to calculate the odds, so some arbitrary number is applied.
Then the alleged calculation is looked at and folk decide it is so unlikely
that they stop thinking about it and get on with the rest of their work,
knowing they’d never get the costs past the accountants.
M***@DastardlyHQ.org
2025-03-21 09:49:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 21 Mar 2025 09:25:17 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Tweed
Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
You'd think somewhere like heathrow would have some emergency diesel
generators tucked away. Clearly that was beyond managements brain capacity.
Either that or like the water companies, money that should have gone into
investment went into shareholder pockets instead.
Having watched the recent fly on the wall programme about Thames Water, my
suspicions are that things have been stripped away to the bone in the name
of “efficiency”. There’s also the issue of “risk analysis”. This is
where
planners attempt to calculate the odds of bad things happening. There’s two
problems with this approach: the events are so oddball that there’s not
enough data to calculate the odds, so some arbitrary number is applied.
Then the alleged calculation is looked at and folk decide it is so unlikely
that they stop thinking about it and get on with the rest of their work,
knowing they’d never get the costs past the accountants.
Yes, thats probably part of it. However just heard on the radio that they
*do* have a diesel backup but it was right next to the substation and it got
burnt out in the fire too. You really have to wonder what brain donor thought
locating it there was a good idea instead of having it centrally located in
a basement.
Rupert Moss-Eccardt
2025-03-21 12:45:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
On Fri, 21 Mar 2025 09:25:17 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Tweed
Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
You'd think somewhere like heathrow would have some emergency diesel
generators tucked away. Clearly that was beyond managements brain capacity.
Either that or like the water companies, money that should have gone into
investment went into shareholder pockets instead.
Having watched the recent fly on the wall programme about Thames Water, my
suspicions are that things have been stripped away to the bone in the name
of “efficiency”. There’s also the issue of “risk analysis”.
This is
Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
Post by Tweed
where
planners attempt to calculate the odds of bad things happening. There’s two
problems with this approach: the events are so oddball that there’s not
enough data to calculate the odds, so some arbitrary number is
applied.
Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
Post by Tweed
Then the alleged calculation is looked at and folk decide it is so unlikely
that they stop thinking about it and get on with the rest of their work,
knowing they’d never get the costs past the accountants.
Yes, thats probably part of it. However just heard on the radio that they
*do* have a diesel backup but it was right next to the substation and it got
burnt out in the fire too. You really have to wonder what brain donor thought
locating it there was a good idea instead of having it centrally located in
a basement.
Don't be silly. Perhaps you haven't been to an airport before but it
covers a lot of ground. The best place for the changeover switches
etc, is nearest the confluence of the wiring. A "basement"? Wow!
M***@DastardlyHQ.org
2025-03-21 12:50:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 21 Mar 2025 12:45:20 +0000
Post by Tweed
Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
On Fri, 21 Mar 2025 09:25:17 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Tweed
Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
You'd think somewhere like heathrow would have some emergency diesel
generators tucked away. Clearly that was beyond managements brain capacity.
Either that or like the water companies, money that should have gone into
investment went into shareholder pockets instead.
Having watched the recent fly on the wall programme about Thames
Water, my
Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
Post by Tweed
suspicions are that things have been stripped away to the bone in the
name
Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
Post by Tweed
of “efficiency”. There’s also the issue of “risk analysis”.
This is
Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
Post by Tweed
where
planners attempt to calculate the odds of bad things happening.
There’s two
Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
Post by Tweed
problems with this approach: the events are so oddball that there’s
not
Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
Post by Tweed
enough data to calculate the odds, so some arbitrary number is
applied.
Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
Post by Tweed
Then the alleged calculation is looked at and folk decide it is so
unlikely
Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
Post by Tweed
that they stop thinking about it and get on with the rest of their
work,
Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
Post by Tweed
knowing they’d never get the costs past the accountants.
Yes, thats probably part of it. However just heard on the radio that they
*do* have a diesel backup but it was right next to the substation and it got
burnt out in the fire too. You really have to wonder what brain donor thought
locating it there was a good idea instead of having it centrally located in
a basement.
Don't be silly. Perhaps you haven't been to an airport before but it
covers a lot of ground. The best place for the changeover switches
etc, is nearest the confluence of the wiring. A "basement"? Wow!
Where do you think hospitals put them you pratt, down the end of the street?
Putting the generators in the basement in each terminal would be absolutely
the best place for them. Not a mile away.
Graeme Wall
2025-03-21 13:12:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
On Fri, 21 Mar 2025 12:45:20 +0000
Post by Tweed
Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
On Fri, 21 Mar 2025 09:25:17 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Tweed
Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
You'd think somewhere like heathrow would have some emergency diesel
generators tucked away. Clearly that was beyond managements brain capacity.
Either that or like the water companies, money that should have gone into
investment went into shareholder pockets instead.
Having watched the recent fly on the wall programme about Thames
Water, my
Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
Post by Tweed
suspicions are that things have been stripped away to the bone in the
name
Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
Post by Tweed
of “efficiency”. There’s also the issue of “risk analysis”.
This is
Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
Post by Tweed
where
planners attempt to calculate the odds of bad things happening.
There’s two
Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
Post by Tweed
problems with this approach: the events are so oddball that there’s
not
Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
Post by Tweed
enough data to calculate the odds, so some arbitrary number is
applied.
Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
Post by Tweed
Then the alleged calculation is looked at and folk decide it is so
unlikely
Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
Post by Tweed
that they stop thinking about it and get on with the rest of their
work,
Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
Post by Tweed
knowing they’d never get the costs past the accountants.
Yes, thats probably part of it. However just heard on the radio that they
*do* have a diesel backup but it was right next to the substation and it got
burnt out in the fire too. You really have to wonder what brain donor thought
locating it there was a good idea instead of having it centrally located in
a basement.
Don't be silly. Perhaps you haven't been to an airport before but it
covers a lot of ground. The best place for the changeover switches
etc, is nearest the confluence of the wiring. A "basement"? Wow!
Where do you think hospitals put them you pratt, down the end of the street?
Putting the generators in the basement in each terminal would be absolutely
the best place for them. Not a mile away.
My local hospital has them down one end of the building, next to the
operating theatres. Certainly not in any hypothetical basement.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
Graeme Wall
2025-03-21 13:35:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
On Fri, 21 Mar 2025 12:45:20 +0000
Post by Tweed
Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
On Fri, 21 Mar 2025 09:25:17 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Tweed
Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
You'd think somewhere like heathrow would have some emergency diesel
generators tucked away. Clearly that was beyond managements brain capacity.
Either that or like the water companies, money that should have gone into
investment went into shareholder pockets instead.
Having watched the recent fly on the wall programme about Thames
Water, my
Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
Post by Tweed
suspicions are that things have been stripped away to the bone in the
name
Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
Post by Tweed
of “efficiency”. There’s also the issue of “risk analysis”.
This is
Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
Post by Tweed
where
planners attempt to calculate the odds of bad things happening.
There’s two
Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
Post by Tweed
problems with this approach: the events are so oddball that there’s
not
Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
Post by Tweed
enough data to calculate the odds, so some arbitrary number is
applied.
Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
Post by Tweed
Then the alleged calculation is looked at and folk decide it is so
unlikely
Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
Post by Tweed
that they stop thinking about it and get on with the rest of their
work,
Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
Post by Tweed
knowing they’d never get the costs past the accountants.
Yes, thats probably part of it. However just heard on the radio that they
*do* have a diesel backup but it was right next to the substation and it got
burnt out in the fire too. You really have to wonder what brain donor thought
locating it there was a good idea instead of having it centrally located in
a basement.
Don't be silly. Perhaps you haven't been to an airport before but it
covers a lot of ground.  The best place for the changeover switches
etc, is nearest the confluence of the wiring.  A "basement"?  Wow!
Where do you think hospitals put them you pratt, down the end of the street?
Putting the generators in the basement in each terminal would be absolutely
the best place for them. Not a mile away.
My local hospital has them down one end of the building, next to the
operating theatres. Certainly not in any hypothetical basement.
Some figures: Heathrow uses about 422MWh of electricity per year out of
a total of 485 MWH from all sources. NB these are about 10 years old now.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
Nick Finnigan
2025-03-21 14:29:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Some figures: Heathrow uses about 422MWh of electricity per year out of a
total of 485 MWH from all sources. NB these are about 10 years old now.
48kW average ?
Sam Wilson
2025-03-21 15:20:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Nick Finnigan
Some figures: Heathrow uses about 422MWh of electricity per year out of a
total of 485 MWH from all sources. NB these are about 10 years old now.
48kW average ?
Seems a little on the low side. I’m not convinced the electricity demand
of Heathrow is the equivalent of 48 1-bar electric fires.

Sam
--
The entity formerly known as ***@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply
Sam Wilson
2025-03-21 13:37:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
On Fri, 21 Mar 2025 12:45:20 +0000
Post by Tweed
Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
On Fri, 21 Mar 2025 09:25:17 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Tweed
Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
You'd think somewhere like heathrow would have some emergency diesel
generators tucked away. Clearly that was beyond managements brain capacity.
Either that or like the water companies, money that should have gone into
investment went into shareholder pockets instead.
Having watched the recent fly on the wall programme about Thames
Water, my
Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
Post by Tweed
suspicions are that things have been stripped away to the bone in the
name
Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
Post by Tweed
of “efficiency”. There’s also the issue of “risk analysis”.
This is
Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
Post by Tweed
where
planners attempt to calculate the odds of bad things happening.
There’s two
Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
Post by Tweed
problems with this approach: the events are so oddball that there’s
not
Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
Post by Tweed
enough data to calculate the odds, so some arbitrary number is
applied.
Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
Post by Tweed
Then the alleged calculation is looked at and folk decide it is so
unlikely
Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
Post by Tweed
that they stop thinking about it and get on with the rest of their
work,
Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
Post by Tweed
knowing they’d never get the costs past the accountants.
Yes, thats probably part of it. However just heard on the radio that they
*do* have a diesel backup but it was right next to the substation and it got
burnt out in the fire too. You really have to wonder what brain donor thought
locating it there was a good idea instead of having it centrally located in
a basement.
Don't be silly. Perhaps you haven't been to an airport before but it
covers a lot of ground. The best place for the changeover switches
etc, is nearest the confluence of the wiring. A "basement"? Wow!
Where do you think hospitals put them you pratt, down the end of the street?
Putting the generators in the basement in each terminal would be absolutely
the best place for them. Not a mile away.
My local hospital has them down one end of the building, next to the
operating theatres. Certainly not in any hypothetical basement.
A large datacentre of my aquaintance has them containerised and sitting
outside. The local energy company also has dibs on them to cover local
peaks and outages. I don’t know how they handle priority.

Sam
--
The entity formerly known as ***@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply
M***@DastardlyHQ.org
2025-03-21 16:59:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 21 Mar 2025 13:12:18 +0000
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
Where do you think hospitals put them you pratt, down the end of the street?
Putting the generators in the basement in each terminal would be absolutely
the best place for them. Not a mile away.
My local hospital has them down one end of the building, next to the
operating theatres. Certainly not in any hypothetical basement.
I'm assuming its a campus hospital? Unlike for example UCLH in London where
the main building is constrained on all sides by roads. A basement level (it
has many, never been right to the bottom) is the only place the generator is
going.
Graeme Wall
2025-03-21 17:24:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
On Fri, 21 Mar 2025 13:12:18 +0000
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
Where do you think hospitals put them you pratt, down the end of the street?
Putting the generators in the basement in each terminal would be absolutely
the best place for them. Not a mile away.
My local hospital has them down one end of the building, next to the
operating theatres. Certainly not in any hypothetical basement.
I'm assuming its a campus hospital? Unlike for example UCLH in London where
the main building is constrained on all sides by roads. A basement level (it
has many, never been right to the bottom) is the only place the generator is
going.
The current hospital is on a campus site, which helps, but it's
predecessor was on the main road out of town to the west and that has
its gennies round the back, taking up space in the car park. (It's still
in use as a mental health facility.)

I've worked in quite a few London hospitals but not in UCLH so can't
comment on the basements.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
Sam Wilson
2025-03-21 13:35:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tweed
Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
On Fri, 21 Mar 2025 08:53:16 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Tweed
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Tweed
Post by Bob
Looks like a fire at/by a substation has killed all power to LHR and
will keep it closed all day. Some here point out the perceived fragility
of OHLE electrified railways to infrastructure problems, and post every
outage they become aware of. I thought I'd offer this as an example of
the same kind of vulnerability of other modes.
Robin
Be interesting to see the explanations as to why Heathrow isn’t being fed
by multiple redundant feeder circuits.
Their standby systems will be able to cope with aircraft movements but
they have no way of dealing with passengers once on the ground.
I didn’t mean emergency power generation, but rather multiple diverse
connections to the grid. Perhaps it’s a case of manual switching. They seem
to have restored power to 60,000 local consumers.
You'd think somewhere like heathrow would have some emergency diesel
generators tucked away. Clearly that was beyond managements brain capacity.
Either that or like the water companies, money that should have gone into
investment went into shareholder pockets instead.
Having watched the recent fly on the wall programme about Thames Water, my
suspicions are that things have been stripped away to the bone in the name
of “efficiency”. There’s also the issue of “risk analysis”. This is where
planners attempt to calculate the odds of bad things happening. There’s two
problems with this approach: the events are so oddball that there’s not
enough data to calculate the odds, so some arbitrary number is applied.
Then the alleged calculation is looked at and folk decide it is so unlikely
that they stop thinking about it and get on with the rest of their work,
knowing they’d never get the costs past the accountants.
I’ve been through this at least in thought experiment form. People (high
up) complain that things don’t work normally during an outage so you send
them the bill for duplicating everything. If (almost never) that work gets
done the people (high up) start to question why we have a complete set of
equipment sitting around doing nothing, and can’t we use it for something.
Next time there’s an equipment failure people (high up) complain that
things don’t work normally. Rinse and repeat.

Sam
--
The entity formerly known as ***@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply
Nick Finnigan
2025-03-21 09:48:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
On Fri, 21 Mar 2025 08:53:16 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Tweed
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Tweed
Post by Bob
Looks like a fire at/by a substation has killed all power to LHR and
will keep it closed all day. Some here point out the perceived fragility
of OHLE electrified railways to infrastructure problems, and post every
outage they become aware of. I thought I'd offer this as an example of
the same kind of vulnerability of other modes.
Robin
Be interesting to see the explanations as to why Heathrow isn’t being fed
by multiple redundant feeder circuits.
Their standby systems will be able to cope with aircraft movements but
they have no way of dealing with passengers once on the ground.
I didn’t mean emergency power generation, but rather multiple diverse
connections to the grid. Perhaps it’s a case of manual switching. They seem
to have restored power to 60,000 local consumers.
You'd think somewhere like heathrow would have some emergency diesel
generators tucked away. Clearly that was beyond managements brain capacity.
Either that or like the water companies, money that should have gone into
investment went into shareholder pockets instead.
They have a 9MW CHP, but that might be helping 6,000 local consumers.
Graeme Wall
2025-03-21 09:54:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
On Fri, 21 Mar 2025 08:53:16 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Tweed
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Tweed
Post by Bob
Looks like a fire at/by a substation has killed all power to LHR and
will keep it closed all day. Some here point out the perceived fragility
of OHLE electrified railways to infrastructure problems, and post every
outage they become aware of. I thought I'd offer this as an example of
the same kind of vulnerability of other modes.
Robin
Be interesting to see the explanations as to why Heathrow isn’t being fed
by multiple redundant feeder circuits.
Their standby systems will be able to cope with aircraft movements but
they have no way of dealing with passengers once on the ground.
I didn’t mean emergency power generation, but rather multiple diverse
connections to the grid. Perhaps it’s a case of manual switching. They seem
to have restored power to 60,000 local consumers.
You'd think somewhere like heathrow would have some emergency diesel
generators tucked away. Clearly that was beyond managements brain capacity.
Either that or like the water companies, money that should have gone into
investment went into shareholder pockets instead.
They do, but as I pointed out earlier, they will be confined to the
safety critical systems at the airport not the hotel functions for
dealing with passengers.

For pedantry's sake, I believe the standby gennies are not diesel but
gas turbine jobs.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
Theo
2025-03-21 10:17:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
They do, but as I pointed out earlier, they will be confined to the
safety critical systems at the airport not the hotel functions for
dealing with passengers.
Indeed. I think there's way too much at a major airport to be able to
operate it in a kind of degraded mode with reduced power consumption. So
many systems - lighting, HVAC, baggage handling, security scanners, IT, ...
- need to be functional. You can power enough to handle the planes safely,
but not deal with the passengers.
Post by Graeme Wall
For pedantry's sake, I believe the standby gennies are not diesel but
gas turbine jobs.
Good thing there's a handy source of fuel for turbines on site.

Theo
Clive Page
2025-03-21 10:56:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Theo
Post by Graeme Wall
They do, but as I pointed out earlier, they will be confined to the
safety critical systems at the airport not the hotel functions for
dealing with passengers.
Indeed. I think there's way too much at a major airport to be able to
operate it in a kind of degraded mode with reduced power consumption. So
many systems - lighting, HVAC, baggage handling, security scanners, IT, ...
- need to be functional. You can power enough to handle the planes safely,
but not deal with the passengers.
Post by Graeme Wall
For pedantry's sake, I believe the standby gennies are not diesel but
gas turbine jobs.
Good thing there's a handy source of fuel for turbines on site.
Theo
I am amazed that Heathrow doesn't have multiple connections to the grid
- it's standard for large sites like hospitals and university campuses
as far as I know.

And if the other connections wouldn't quite have enough capacity for the
entire airport, then surely one could simply switch off all the shops
and fast-food joints in the terminals and save (my guess) something like
three-quarters of the overall power consumption. It might mean a few
passengers forced to board planes while sober but that seems a small
price to pay.
--
Clive Page
Tweed
2025-03-21 11:16:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Clive Page
Post by Theo
Post by Graeme Wall
They do, but as I pointed out earlier, they will be confined to the
safety critical systems at the airport not the hotel functions for
dealing with passengers.
Indeed. I think there's way too much at a major airport to be able to
operate it in a kind of degraded mode with reduced power consumption. So
many systems - lighting, HVAC, baggage handling, security scanners, IT, ...
- need to be functional. You can power enough to handle the planes safely,
but not deal with the passengers.
Post by Graeme Wall
For pedantry's sake, I believe the standby gennies are not diesel but
gas turbine jobs.
Good thing there's a handy source of fuel for turbines on site.
Theo
I am amazed that Heathrow doesn't have multiple connections to the grid
- it's standard for large sites like hospitals and university campuses
as far as I know.
And if the other connections wouldn't quite have enough capacity for the
entire airport, then surely one could simply switch off all the shops
and fast-food joints in the terminals and save (my guess) something like
three-quarters of the overall power consumption. It might mean a few
passengers forced to board planes while sober but that seems a small
price to pay.
I doubt they have the institutional knowledge to be able to turn the shops
etc off, and certainly wouldn’t have the staff to do it, even if they
remembered where all the distribution panels are. This is the downside of
encouraging people to find new jobs every few years and putting everything
out to contractors.
Marland
2025-03-21 11:38:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tweed
Post by Clive Page
Post by Theo
Post by Graeme Wall
They do, but as I pointed out earlier, they will be confined to the
safety critical systems at the airport not the hotel functions for
dealing with passengers.
Indeed. I think there's way too much at a major airport to be able to
operate it in a kind of degraded mode with reduced power consumption. So
many systems - lighting, HVAC, baggage handling, security scanners, IT, ...
- need to be functional. You can power enough to handle the planes safely,
but not deal with the passengers.
Post by Graeme Wall
For pedantry's sake, I believe the standby gennies are not diesel but
gas turbine jobs.
Good thing there's a handy source of fuel for turbines on site.
Theo
I am amazed that Heathrow doesn't have multiple connections to the grid
- it's standard for large sites like hospitals and university campuses
as far as I know.
And if the other connections wouldn't quite have enough capacity for the
entire airport, then surely one could simply switch off all the shops
and fast-food joints in the terminals and save (my guess) something like
three-quarters of the overall power consumption. It might mean a few
passengers forced to board planes while sober but that seems a small
price to pay.
I doubt they have the institutional knowledge to be able to turn the shops
etc off, and certainly wouldn’t have the staff to do it, even if they
remembered where all the distribution panels are. This is the downside of
encouraging people to find new jobs every few years and putting everything
out to contractors.
And you cannot quickly whistle up extra contractors. It is quite a process
to get a pass to do work in the airport especially airside with security
checking. BTDTGTTS.

GH
Graeme Wall
2025-03-21 13:07:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Marland
Post by Tweed
Post by Clive Page
Post by Theo
Post by Graeme Wall
They do, but as I pointed out earlier, they will be confined to the
safety critical systems at the airport not the hotel functions for
dealing with passengers.
Indeed. I think there's way too much at a major airport to be able to
operate it in a kind of degraded mode with reduced power consumption. So
many systems - lighting, HVAC, baggage handling, security scanners, IT, ...
- need to be functional. You can power enough to handle the planes safely,
but not deal with the passengers.
Post by Graeme Wall
For pedantry's sake, I believe the standby gennies are not diesel but
gas turbine jobs.
Good thing there's a handy source of fuel for turbines on site.
Theo
I am amazed that Heathrow doesn't have multiple connections to the grid
- it's standard for large sites like hospitals and university campuses
as far as I know.
And if the other connections wouldn't quite have enough capacity for the
entire airport, then surely one could simply switch off all the shops
and fast-food joints in the terminals and save (my guess) something like
three-quarters of the overall power consumption. It might mean a few
passengers forced to board planes while sober but that seems a small
price to pay.
I doubt they have the institutional knowledge to be able to turn the shops
etc off, and certainly wouldn’t have the staff to do it, even if they
remembered where all the distribution panels are. This is the downside of
encouraging people to find new jobs every few years and putting everything
out to contractors.
And you cannot quickly whistle up extra contractors. It is quite a process
to get a pass to do work in the airport especially airside with security
checking. BTDTGTTS.
Me2
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
Marland
2025-03-21 11:33:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Clive Page
And if the other connections wouldn't quite have enough capacity for the
entire airport, then surely one could simply switch off all the shops
and fast-food joints in the terminals and save (my guess) something like
three-quarters of the overall power consumption. It might mean a few
passengers forced to board planes while sober but that seems a small
price to pay.
That’s just the sort of thing some passengers would kick off about, those
fly on the wall documentaries have shown just how unrealistic some peoples
expectations are when something like severe weather has disrupted
operations and expect customer facing staff to magically find a solution
just for them, and even if they cannot eat or drink several hundred people
will have a proportion who need toilets. If they cannot function or be kept
clean then you quickly have a health hazard.

GH
Theo
2025-03-21 12:11:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Clive Page
And if the other connections wouldn't quite have enough capacity for the
entire airport, then surely one could simply switch off all the shops
and fast-food joints in the terminals and save (my guess) something like
three-quarters of the overall power consumption. It might mean a few
passengers forced to board planes while sober but that seems a small
price to pay.
The terminal is likely planned so that it can hold X,000 people, some
proportion of which will be in the shops, eateries, etc. If you close the
shops then those people have to find somewhere to go - the terminal is not
replete with seating as it is. If you unlock the cafes so that people can
sit in them you still need to light and ventilate them, you need to evacuate
them in the case of a fire, etc.

I'd guess a big chunk of running an airport is going to be HVAC, which you
will incur irrespective of where the pax are. I don't think turning off a
few coffee machines or some microwaves is going to make a big difference.

Theo
Rupert Moss-Eccardt
2025-03-21 12:47:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Clive Page
Post by Theo
Post by Graeme Wall
They do, but as I pointed out earlier, they will be confined to the
safety critical systems at the airport not the hotel functions for
dealing with passengers.
Indeed. I think there's way too much at a major airport to be able to
operate it in a kind of degraded mode with reduced power consumption. So
many systems - lighting, HVAC, baggage handling, security scanners, IT, ...
- need to be functional. You can power enough to handle the planes safely,
but not deal with the passengers.
Post by Graeme Wall
For pedantry's sake, I believe the standby gennies are not diesel but
gas turbine jobs.
Good thing there's a handy source of fuel for turbines on site.
Theo
I am amazed that Heathrow doesn't have multiple connections to the grid
- it's standard for large sites like hospitals and university campuses
as far as I know.
I imagine no-one could justify shutting down the airport to put it in.
The problem with airports is that getting cables from one side to the
other is hard.
Graeme Wall
2025-03-21 13:10:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rupert Moss-Eccardt
Post by Clive Page
Post by Theo
Post by Graeme Wall
They do, but as I pointed out earlier, they will be confined to the
safety critical systems at the airport not the hotel functions for
dealing with passengers.
Indeed. I think there's way too much at a major airport to be able to
operate it in a kind of degraded mode with reduced power consumption. So
many systems - lighting, HVAC, baggage handling, security scanners, IT, ...
- need to be functional. You can power enough to handle the planes safely,
but not deal with the passengers.
Post by Graeme Wall
For pedantry's sake, I believe the standby gennies are not diesel but
gas turbine jobs.
Good thing there's a handy source of fuel for turbines on site.
Theo
I am amazed that Heathrow doesn't have multiple connections to the grid
- it's standard for large sites like hospitals and university campuses
as far as I know.
I imagine no-one could justify shutting down the airport to put it in.
The problem with airports is that getting cables from one side to the
other is hard.
With Heathrow, getting cables from north to south is relatively easy,
there are service tunnels available. East to west is another problem.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
Recliner
2025-03-21 15:29:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Rupert Moss-Eccardt
Post by Clive Page
Post by Theo
Post by Graeme Wall
They do, but as I pointed out earlier, they will be confined to the
safety critical systems at the airport not the hotel functions for
dealing with passengers.
Indeed. I think there's way too much at a major airport to be able to
operate it in a kind of degraded mode with reduced power consumption. So
many systems - lighting, HVAC, baggage handling, security scanners, IT, ...
- need to be functional. You can power enough to handle the planes safely,
but not deal with the passengers.
Post by Graeme Wall
For pedantry's sake, I believe the standby gennies are not diesel but
gas turbine jobs.
Good thing there's a handy source of fuel for turbines on site.
Theo
I am amazed that Heathrow doesn't have multiple connections to the grid
- it's standard for large sites like hospitals and university campuses
as far as I know.
I imagine no-one could justify shutting down the airport to put it in.
The problem with airports is that getting cables from one side to the
other is hard.
With Heathrow, getting cables from north to south is relatively easy,
there are service tunnels available. East to west is another problem.
The airport shuts for a few hours every night, so it shouldn't be hard. In any case, there are undoubtedly cable ducts
connecting all the buildings.
Graeme Wall
2025-03-21 17:15:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Rupert Moss-Eccardt
Post by Clive Page
Post by Theo
Post by Graeme Wall
They do, but as I pointed out earlier, they will be confined to the
safety critical systems at the airport not the hotel functions for
dealing with passengers.
Indeed. I think there's way too much at a major airport to be able to
operate it in a kind of degraded mode with reduced power consumption. So
many systems - lighting, HVAC, baggage handling, security scanners, IT, ...
- need to be functional. You can power enough to handle the planes safely,
but not deal with the passengers.
Post by Graeme Wall
For pedantry's sake, I believe the standby gennies are not diesel but
gas turbine jobs.
Good thing there's a handy source of fuel for turbines on site.
Theo
I am amazed that Heathrow doesn't have multiple connections to the grid
- it's standard for large sites like hospitals and university campuses
as far as I know.
I imagine no-one could justify shutting down the airport to put it in.
The problem with airports is that getting cables from one side to the
other is hard.
With Heathrow, getting cables from north to south is relatively easy,
there are service tunnels available. East to west is another problem.
The airport shuts for a few hours every night, so it shouldn't be hard. In any case, there are undoubtedly cable ducts
connecting all the buildings.
It's getting outside of the star of David that would be the problem.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
Recliner
2025-03-21 22:26:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Recliner
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Rupert Moss-Eccardt
Post by Clive Page
Post by Theo
Post by Graeme Wall
They do, but as I pointed out earlier, they will be confined to the
safety critical systems at the airport not the hotel functions for
dealing with passengers.
Indeed. I think there's way too much at a major airport to be able to
operate it in a kind of degraded mode with reduced power consumption. So
many systems - lighting, HVAC, baggage handling, security scanners, IT, ...
- need to be functional. You can power enough to handle the planes safely,
but not deal with the passengers.
Post by Graeme Wall
For pedantry's sake, I believe the standby gennies are not diesel but
gas turbine jobs.
Good thing there's a handy source of fuel for turbines on site.
Theo
I am amazed that Heathrow doesn't have multiple connections to the grid
- it's standard for large sites like hospitals and university campuses
as far as I know.
I imagine no-one could justify shutting down the airport to put it in.
The problem with airports is that getting cables from one side to the
other is hard.
With Heathrow, getting cables from north to south is relatively easy,
there are service tunnels available. East to west is another problem.
The airport shuts for a few hours every night, so it shouldn't be hard.
In any case, there are undoubtedly cable ducts
connecting all the buildings.
It's getting outside of the star of David that would be the problem.
Why?
Graeme Wall
2025-03-22 08:48:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Recliner
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Rupert Moss-Eccardt
Post by Clive Page
Post by Theo
Post by Graeme Wall
They do, but as I pointed out earlier, they will be confined to the
safety critical systems at the airport not the hotel functions for
dealing with passengers.
Indeed. I think there's way too much at a major airport to be able to
operate it in a kind of degraded mode with reduced power consumption. So
many systems - lighting, HVAC, baggage handling, security scanners, IT, ...
- need to be functional. You can power enough to handle the planes safely,
but not deal with the passengers.
Post by Graeme Wall
For pedantry's sake, I believe the standby gennies are not diesel but
gas turbine jobs.
Good thing there's a handy source of fuel for turbines on site.
Theo
I am amazed that Heathrow doesn't have multiple connections to the grid
- it's standard for large sites like hospitals and university campuses
as far as I know.
I imagine no-one could justify shutting down the airport to put it in.
The problem with airports is that getting cables from one side to the
other is hard.
With Heathrow, getting cables from north to south is relatively easy,
there are service tunnels available. East to west is another problem.
The airport shuts for a few hours every night, so it shouldn't be hard.
In any case, there are undoubtedly cable ducts
connecting all the buildings.
It's getting outside of the star of David that would be the problem.
Why?
Crossing runways, you can't just put up a few cones and a couple of sets
of traffic lights and wander away for a few weeks. All the main
buildings are inside the central area.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
Tweed
2025-03-22 08:58:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Recliner
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Rupert Moss-Eccardt
Post by Clive Page
Post by Theo
Post by Graeme Wall
They do, but as I pointed out earlier, they will be confined to the
safety critical systems at the airport not the hotel functions for
dealing with passengers.
Indeed. I think there's way too much at a major airport to be able to
operate it in a kind of degraded mode with reduced power consumption. So
many systems - lighting, HVAC, baggage handling, security scanners, IT, ...
- need to be functional. You can power enough to handle the planes safely,
but not deal with the passengers.
Post by Graeme Wall
For pedantry's sake, I believe the standby gennies are not diesel but
gas turbine jobs.
Good thing there's a handy source of fuel for turbines on site.
Theo
I am amazed that Heathrow doesn't have multiple connections to the grid
- it's standard for large sites like hospitals and university campuses
as far as I know.
I imagine no-one could justify shutting down the airport to put it in.
The problem with airports is that getting cables from one side to the
other is hard.
With Heathrow, getting cables from north to south is relatively easy,
there are service tunnels available. East to west is another problem.
The airport shuts for a few hours every night, so it shouldn't be hard.
In any case, there are undoubtedly cable ducts
connecting all the buildings.
It's getting outside of the star of David that would be the problem.
Why?
Crossing runways, you can't just put up a few cones and a couple of sets
of traffic lights and wander away for a few weeks. All the main
buildings are inside the central area.
There’s a number of tunnels, including a railway one. The Channel Tunnel
has recently had a major power interconnector strung in one of its bores.
Recliner
2025-03-22 11:10:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Recliner
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Rupert Moss-Eccardt
Post by Clive Page
Post by Theo
Post by Graeme Wall
They do, but as I pointed out earlier, they will be confined to the
safety critical systems at the airport not the hotel functions for
dealing with passengers.
Indeed. I think there's way too much at a major airport to be able to
operate it in a kind of degraded mode with reduced power consumption. So
many systems - lighting, HVAC, baggage handling, security scanners, IT, ...
- need to be functional. You can power enough to handle the planes safely,
but not deal with the passengers.
Post by Graeme Wall
For pedantry's sake, I believe the standby gennies are not diesel but
gas turbine jobs.
Good thing there's a handy source of fuel for turbines on site.
Theo
I am amazed that Heathrow doesn't have multiple connections to the grid
- it's standard for large sites like hospitals and university campuses
as far as I know.
I imagine no-one could justify shutting down the airport to put it in.
The problem with airports is that getting cables from one side to the
other is hard.
With Heathrow, getting cables from north to south is relatively easy,
there are service tunnels available. East to west is another problem.
The airport shuts for a few hours every night, so it shouldn't be hard.
In any case, there are undoubtedly cable ducts
connecting all the buildings.
It's getting outside of the star of David that would be the problem.
Why?
Crossing runways, you can't just put up a few cones and a couple of sets
of traffic lights and wander away for a few weeks. All the main
buildings are inside the central area.
T5, T4 and the cargo terminal are connected to the central area via
tunnels, and I think it’s highly likely that there are also underground
cable ducts between the central area and the BA maintenance area on the
eastern edge. The connections between the substation that failed and the
central area is almost certainly via underground cable ducts under the
northern runway.
JMB99
2025-03-22 13:05:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
Crossing runways, you can't just put up a few cones and a couple of sets
of traffic lights and wander away for a few weeks. All the main
buildings are inside the central area.
--
It is a regular procedure, I have been taken over a couple of live
runways. One had traffic lights but still permission was obtained from
the tower.

The other was closed because of the fog but the driver still got
permission from the tower.
Charles Ellson
2025-03-21 20:53:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 21 Mar 2025 12:47:39 +0000, Rupert Moss-Eccardt
Post by Rupert Moss-Eccardt
Post by Clive Page
Post by Theo
Post by Graeme Wall
They do, but as I pointed out earlier, they will be confined to the
safety critical systems at the airport not the hotel functions for
dealing with passengers.
Indeed. I think there's way too much at a major airport to be able to
operate it in a kind of degraded mode with reduced power consumption. So
many systems - lighting, HVAC, baggage handling, security scanners, IT, ...
- need to be functional. You can power enough to handle the planes safely,
but not deal with the passengers.
Post by Graeme Wall
For pedantry's sake, I believe the standby gennies are not diesel but
gas turbine jobs.
Good thing there's a handy source of fuel for turbines on site.
Theo
I am amazed that Heathrow doesn't have multiple connections to the grid
- it's standard for large sites like hospitals and university campuses
as far as I know.
I imagine no-one could justify shutting down the airport to put it in.
The problem with airports is that getting cables from one side to the
other is hard.
You go around which provides you with a ring which can be fed at
multiple points from different public supplies.
Graeme Wall
2025-03-21 13:06:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Clive Page
Post by Graeme Wall
They do, but as I pointed out earlier, they will be confined to the
safety critical systems at the airport not the hotel functions for
dealing with passengers.
Indeed.  I think there's way too much at a major airport to be able to
operate it in a kind of degraded mode with reduced power consumption.  So
many systems - lighting, HVAC, baggage handling, security scanners, IT, ...
- need to be functional.  You can power enough to handle the planes
safely,
but not deal with the passengers.
Post by Graeme Wall
For pedantry's sake, I believe the standby gennies are not diesel but
gas turbine jobs.
Good thing there's a handy source of fuel for turbines on site.
Theo
I am amazed that Heathrow doesn't have multiple connections to the grid
- it's standard for large sites like hospitals and university campuses
as far as I know.
And if the other connections wouldn't quite have enough capacity for the
entire airport, then surely one could simply switch off all the shops
and fast-food joints in the terminals and save (my guess) something like
three-quarters of the overall power consumption.   It might mean a few
passengers forced to board planes while sober but that seems a small
price to pay.
It's not the shops it is thelighting, escalators, travellators, lifts,
security systems, baggage handling, information systems, the T5 shuttle
trains and so on, that the airport can't handle passengers without.
Despite your prejudices the shops are a minor part of the electrical lad.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
JMB99
2025-03-21 15:29:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Theo
Good thing there's a handy source of fuel for turbines on site.
I thought that turbines were not very fussy?

A former ship's engineer told us some years ago that they used the
lowest grade of fuel availablein the turbines (i.e cheapest). It was
run through emulsifiers(?) to clean it on the input to the engines and
they only just cope when the turbines were running.
Recliner
2025-03-21 15:33:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JMB99
Post by Theo
Good thing there's a handy source of fuel for turbines on site.
I thought that turbines were not very fussy?
A former ship's engineer told us some years ago that they used the
lowest grade of fuel availablein the turbines (i.e cheapest). It was
run through emulsifiers(?) to clean it on the input to the engines and
they only just cope when the turbines were running.
Were those steam or gas turbines? I thought only naval ships used gas turbines.
ColinR
2025-03-21 18:15:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by JMB99
Post by Theo
Good thing there's a handy source of fuel for turbines on site.
I thought that turbines were not very fussy?
A former ship's engineer told us some years ago that they used the
lowest grade of fuel availablein the turbines (i.e cheapest). It was
run through emulsifiers(?) to clean it on the input to the engines and
they only just cope when the turbines were running.
Were those steam or gas turbines? I thought only naval ships used gas turbines.
No, a few commercial vessels have used gas turbines, but I believe these
were generally converted to diseasel engines when the fuel price escalated.

I recall one class of container ships that lost a fullbay of 40'
containers to accomodate the physically larger diesel engines.
--
Colin
Marland
2025-03-22 07:23:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ColinR
Post by Recliner
Post by JMB99
Post by Theo
Good thing there's a handy source of fuel for turbines on site.
I thought that turbines were not very fussy?
A former ship's engineer told us some years ago that they used the
lowest grade of fuel availablein the turbines (i.e cheapest). It was
run through emulsifiers(?) to clean it on the input to the engines and
they only just cope when the turbines were running.
Were those steam or gas turbines? I thought only naval ships used gas turbines.
No, a few commercial vessels have used gas turbines, but I believe these
were generally converted to diseasel engines when the fuel price escalated.
I recall one class of container ships that lost a fullbay of 40'
containers to accomodate the physically larger diesel engines.
The Queen Mary 2 has a couple of gas turbines ,they are installed around
the base of the funnel and
can generate 25MW each. They were brought online for high speed cruising
but in recent years her schedules have been relaxed so it is now 7 days
across the Atlantic rather than 5 so I don’t think they are used often. The
longer trip means more bar takings etc and less stress on the drive pods
which haven’t been entirely reliable.

Never heard them running on a crossing we did a couple of years ago and I
know what they should sound like as I was on board in the construction yard
as she was nearing completion.when they were being tested.

A friend did a crossing last week so I’ll ask him next time I see him in a
week or two.

GH
Charles Ellson
2025-03-21 21:00:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 21 Mar 2025 15:33:17 +0000, Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by JMB99
Post by Theo
Good thing there's a handy source of fuel for turbines on site.
I thought that turbines were not very fussy?
A former ship's engineer told us some years ago that they used the
lowest grade of fuel availablein the turbines (i.e cheapest). It was
run through emulsifiers(?) to clean it on the input to the engines and
they only just cope when the turbines were running.
Were those steam or gas turbines? I thought only naval ships used gas turbines.
They are used in e.g. part-time power stations which top up the system
during peak loads when there isn't time to wait for steam to be
generated never mind the room for the boilers -
http://www.energyforlondon.org/londons-power-stations/
Recliner
2025-03-21 22:26:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Charles Ellson
On Fri, 21 Mar 2025 15:33:17 +0000, Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by JMB99
Post by Theo
Good thing there's a handy source of fuel for turbines on site.
I thought that turbines were not very fussy?
A former ship's engineer told us some years ago that they used the
lowest grade of fuel availablein the turbines (i.e cheapest). It was
run through emulsifiers(?) to clean it on the input to the engines and
they only just cope when the turbines were running.
Were those steam or gas turbines? I thought only naval ships used gas turbines.
They are used in e.g. part-time power stations which top up the system
during peak loads when there isn't time to wait for steam to be
generated never mind the room for the boilers -
http://www.energyforlondon.org/londons-power-stations/
That’s a power station, not a ship.
Roger
2025-03-21 23:33:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by JMB99
A former ship's engineer told us some years ago that they used the
lowest grade of fuel availablein the turbines (i.e cheapest). It was
run through emulsifiers(?) to clean it on the input to the engines and
they only just cope when the turbines were running.
Were those steam or gas turbines? I thought only naval ships used gas turbines.
The Queen Mary 2 has gas turbines, for one.
JMB99
2025-03-22 07:43:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Were those steam or gas turbines? I thought only naval ships used gas turbines.
Gas turbines - I think he said they had three.

They had to stop for a few days somewhere off the Scillies after the
toxic contents in a container leaked.

Once the gas had dispersed, they were instructed to get to harbour as
quickly as possible so some of the crew could get medical attention so
the master ran the turbines at Warp Factor 5, it meant they had to be
serviced on arrival but it was easy to drop in replacements.

The master hated the RN so he left their RN escort well behind (he loved
doing that).
Ulf_Kutzner
2025-03-22 08:30:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by JMB99
Post by Theo
Good thing there's a handy source of fuel for turbines on site.
I thought that turbines were not very fussy?
A former ship's engineer told us some years ago that they used the
lowest grade of fuel availablein the turbines (i.e cheapest). It was
run through emulsifiers(?) to clean it on the input to the engines and
they only just cope when the turbines were running.
Were those steam or gas turbines? I thought only naval ships used gas turbines.
Hm.
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rame_%C3%A0_turbine_%C3%A0_gaz#Egyptian_National_Railway

Regards, ULF
JMB99
2025-03-22 08:39:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Just listening to a hack aggressively questioning someone from Heathrow.

Always annoys me when you hear these hacks, who have zero knowledge of
the subject questioning people like that.
Tweed
2025-03-21 15:36:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JMB99
Post by Theo
Good thing there's a handy source of fuel for turbines on site.
I thought that turbines were not very fussy?
A former ship's engineer told us some years ago that they used the
lowest grade of fuel availablein the turbines (i.e cheapest). It was
run through emulsifiers(?) to clean it on the input to the engines and
they only just cope when the turbines were running.
Not the ones that are basically a jet engine joined to a generator. Their
advantage is they are very quick to come online. When our local in town
thermal power station shut down they installed one of these as a peak
lopper.
Recliner
2025-03-21 15:57:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tweed
Post by JMB99
Post by Theo
Good thing there's a handy source of fuel for turbines on site.
I thought that turbines were not very fussy?
A former ship's engineer told us some years ago that they used the
lowest grade of fuel availablein the turbines (i.e cheapest). It was
run through emulsifiers(?) to clean it on the input to the engines and
they only just cope when the turbines were running.
Not the ones that are basically a jet engine joined to a generator. Their
advantage is they are very quick to come online. When our local in town
thermal power station shut down they installed one of these as a peak
lopper.
Yes, they're quick to come on-line, but expensive to run. So backup power stations might have both turbine and diesel
gennies.
Tweed
2025-03-21 16:08:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by Tweed
Post by JMB99
Post by Theo
Good thing there's a handy source of fuel for turbines on site.
I thought that turbines were not very fussy?
A former ship's engineer told us some years ago that they used the
lowest grade of fuel availablein the turbines (i.e cheapest). It was
run through emulsifiers(?) to clean it on the input to the engines and
they only just cope when the turbines were running.
Not the ones that are basically a jet engine joined to a generator. Their
advantage is they are very quick to come online. When our local in town
thermal power station shut down they installed one of these as a peak
lopper.
Yes, they're quick to come on-line, but expensive to run. So backup power
stations might have both turbine and diesel
gennies.
I doubt Heathrow would worry about the running cost though, during the
circumstances when they would be forced to use it. (And they have the fuel
piped to them directly from the refinery)
Charles Ellson
2025-03-21 21:18:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 21 Mar 2025 15:57:51 +0000, Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by Tweed
Post by JMB99
Post by Theo
Good thing there's a handy source of fuel for turbines on site.
I thought that turbines were not very fussy?
A former ship's engineer told us some years ago that they used the
lowest grade of fuel availablein the turbines (i.e cheapest). It was
run through emulsifiers(?) to clean it on the input to the engines and
they only just cope when the turbines were running.
Not the ones that are basically a jet engine joined to a generator. Their
advantage is they are very quick to come online. When our local in town
thermal power station shut down they installed one of these as a peak
lopper.
Yes, they're quick to come on-line, but expensive to run. So backup power stations might have both turbine and diesel
gennies.
The GT plants are quick but not instant. You need the diesel to
maintain the building supply and to start the GT equipment hence on
public supplies GTs are used more for local topping up than as a
standby. Supplies in e.g. hospitals and telephone exchanges usually
have one or more diesel engines with individual pieces of equipment
using internal/sectional batteries.
Theo
2025-03-21 15:59:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JMB99
Post by Theo
Good thing there's a handy source of fuel for turbines on site.
I thought that turbines were not very fussy?
A former ship's engineer told us some years ago that they used the
lowest grade of fuel availablein the turbines (i.e cheapest). It was
run through emulsifiers(?) to clean it on the input to the engines and
they only just cope when the turbines were running.
I don't know, but I'd imagine it's different powering them with natural gas
versus Jet-A1. Unlike most locations needing backup power they have rather
a lot of the latter on site.

Of course, on the apron are a large number of gas turbines designed to run
from Jet-A1. Perhaps they could daisy chain all the APUs together to make a
handy source of electricity?

Theo
M***@DastardlyHQ.org
2025-03-21 12:40:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 21 Mar 2025 09:54:37 +0000
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
On Fri, 21 Mar 2025 08:53:16 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Bob
Looks like a fire at/by a substation has killed all power to LHR and
will keep it closed all day. Some here point out the perceived fragility
of OHLE electrified railways to infrastructure problems, and post every
outage they become aware of. I thought I'd offer this as an example of
the same kind of vulnerability of other modes.
Robin
Be interesting to see the explanations as to why Heathrow isn’t being
fed
Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
Post by Graeme Wall
by multiple redundant feeder circuits.
Their standby systems will be able to cope with aircraft movements but
they have no way of dealing with passengers once on the ground.
I didn’t mean emergency power generation, but rather multiple diverse
connections to the grid. Perhaps it’s a case of manual switching. They
seem
Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
to have restored power to 60,000 local consumers.
You'd think somewhere like heathrow would have some emergency diesel
generators tucked away. Clearly that was beyond managements brain capacity.
Either that or like the water companies, money that should have gone into
investment went into shareholder pockets instead.
They do, but as I pointed out earlier, they will be confined to the
safety critical systems at the airport not the hotel functions for
dealing with passengers.
For pedantry's sake, I believe the standby gennies are not diesel but
gas turbine jobs.
A single 737 engine produces something like 20MW of power so if the backup
generator is anything like that size it would have more than enough power to
run the entire airport.
ColinR
2025-03-21 15:22:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
On Fri, 21 Mar 2025 08:53:16 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Tweed
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Tweed
Post by Bob
Looks like a fire at/by a substation has killed all power to LHR and
will keep it closed all day. Some here point out the perceived fragility
of OHLE electrified railways to infrastructure problems, and post every
outage they become aware of. I thought I'd offer this as an example of
the same kind of vulnerability of other modes.
Robin
Be interesting to see the explanations as to why Heathrow isn’t being fed
by multiple redundant feeder circuits.
Their standby systems will be able to cope with aircraft movements but
they have no way of dealing with passengers once on the ground.
I didn’t mean emergency power generation, but rather multiple diverse
connections to the grid. Perhaps it’s a case of manual switching. They seem
to have restored power to 60,000 local consumers.
You'd think somewhere like heathrow would have some emergency diesel
generators tucked away. Clearly that was beyond managements brain capacity.
Either that or like the water companies, money that should have gone into
investment went into shareholder pockets instead.
They do, but as I pointed out earlier, they will be confined to the
safety critical systems at the airport not the hotel functions for
dealing with passengers.
For pedantry's sake, I believe the standby gennies are not diesel but
gas turbine jobs.
With modern journalism I am uncertain of the accuracy, but the Beeb
website says:
QUOTE Heathrow Airport said its back-up diesel generators had "all
operated as expected... but they are not designed to allow us to run a
full operation".UNQUOTE

So maybe not GT gennies?
--
Colin
Tweed
2025-03-21 15:33:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ColinR
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
On Fri, 21 Mar 2025 08:53:16 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Tweed
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Tweed
Post by Bob
Looks like a fire at/by a substation has killed all power to LHR and
will keep it closed all day. Some here point out the perceived fragility
of OHLE electrified railways to infrastructure problems, and post every
outage they become aware of. I thought I'd offer this as an example of
the same kind of vulnerability of other modes.
Robin
Be interesting to see the explanations as to why Heathrow isn’t being fed
by multiple redundant feeder circuits.
Their standby systems will be able to cope with aircraft movements but
they have no way of dealing with passengers once on the ground.
I didn’t mean emergency power generation, but rather multiple diverse
connections to the grid. Perhaps it’s a case of manual switching. They seem
to have restored power to 60,000 local consumers.
You'd think somewhere like heathrow would have some emergency diesel
generators tucked away. Clearly that was beyond managements brain capacity.
Either that or like the water companies, money that should have gone into
investment went into shareholder pockets instead.
They do, but as I pointed out earlier, they will be confined to the
safety critical systems at the airport not the hotel functions for
dealing with passengers.
For pedantry's sake, I believe the standby gennies are not diesel but
gas turbine jobs.
With modern journalism I am uncertain of the accuracy, but the Beeb
QUOTE Heathrow Airport said its back-up diesel generators had "all
operated as expected... but they are not designed to allow us to run a
full operation".UNQUOTE
So maybe not GT gennies?
Friend of mine in the business says that jet engine powered generator sets
go up to about 60 MW electrical output power.
JMB99
2025-03-21 15:38:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tweed
Friend of mine in the business says that jet engine powered generator sets
go up to about 60 MW electrical output power.
https://www.aprenergy.com/mobile-technology/gas-turbines/



"TURBINE POWER PLANT

As the world’s leading provider of fast-track mobile turbine power, APR
Energy features the most advanced fleet of mobile turbines in the
industry. Our TM2500 units deliver 20-35MW of electricity each, and are
scalable to deliver the equivalent of a traditional power plant in just
days. Fuel-efficient, power dense and emissions-friendly, these flexible
turbines can switch between a wide range of fuels, and reach full power
in less than 10 minutes."


Shows them scalable to 500 MW+

Years ago our 30KVA diesel at work blew up so they sent us a 400 KVA one
because it was all they had in the yard.
Tweed
2025-03-21 15:48:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tweed
Post by ColinR
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
On Fri, 21 Mar 2025 08:53:16 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Tweed
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Tweed
Post by Bob
Looks like a fire at/by a substation has killed all power to LHR and
will keep it closed all day. Some here point out the perceived fragility
of OHLE electrified railways to infrastructure problems, and post every
outage they become aware of. I thought I'd offer this as an example of
the same kind of vulnerability of other modes.
Robin
Be interesting to see the explanations as to why Heathrow isn’t being fed
by multiple redundant feeder circuits.
Their standby systems will be able to cope with aircraft movements but
they have no way of dealing with passengers once on the ground.
I didn’t mean emergency power generation, but rather multiple diverse
connections to the grid. Perhaps it’s a case of manual switching. They seem
to have restored power to 60,000 local consumers.
You'd think somewhere like heathrow would have some emergency diesel
generators tucked away. Clearly that was beyond managements brain capacity.
Either that or like the water companies, money that should have gone into
investment went into shareholder pockets instead.
They do, but as I pointed out earlier, they will be confined to the
safety critical systems at the airport not the hotel functions for
dealing with passengers.
For pedantry's sake, I believe the standby gennies are not diesel but
gas turbine jobs.
With modern journalism I am uncertain of the accuracy, but the Beeb
QUOTE Heathrow Airport said its back-up diesel generators had "all
operated as expected... but they are not designed to allow us to run a
full operation".UNQUOTE
So maybe not GT gennies?
Friend of mine in the business says that jet engine powered generator sets
go up to about 60 MW electrical output power.
Base on figures on page 62 of

https://www.heathrow.com/content/dam/heathrow/web/common/documents/company/heathrow-2-0-sustainability/futher-reading/Heathrows_Sustainability_Report_2022.pdf

if I’ve interpreted the figures correctly and done my sums correctly,
Heathrow has an average electrical power consumption of 30 MW.
Nick Finnigan
2025-03-21 16:04:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tweed
Post by Tweed
Friend of mine in the business says that jet engine powered generator sets
go up to about 60 MW electrical output power.
Base on figures on page 62 of
https://www.heathrow.com/content/dam/heathrow/web/common/documents/company/heathrow-2-0-sustainability/futher-reading/Heathrows_Sustainability_Report_2022.pdf
if I’ve interpreted the figures correctly and done my sums correctly,
Heathrow has an average electrical power consumption of 30 MW.
Is there a figure there for just electrical, excluding heat, steam?

(The CHP is supposed to be 9MW thermal, 1.8MW electrical)
Tweed
2025-03-21 16:13:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Nick Finnigan
Post by Tweed
Post by Tweed
Friend of mine in the business says that jet engine powered generator sets
go up to about 60 MW electrical output power.
Base on figures on page 62 of
https://www.heathrow.com/content/dam/heathrow/web/common/documents/company/heathrow-2-0-sustainability/futher-reading/Heathrows_Sustainability_Report_2022.pdf
if I’ve interpreted the figures correctly and done my sums correctly,
Heathrow has an average electrical power consumption of 30 MW.
Is there a figure there for just electrical, excluding heat, steam?
(The CHP is supposed to be 9MW thermal, 1.8MW electrical)
I just took the total for externally supplied power with heat and steam. I
doubt they take much externally supplied heat and steam. It gives a ball
park figure which seems to match what a jet powered generator unit could
supply. I guess peak load is higher, so they might need a couple and
perhaps a spare for service downtime.
Tweed
2025-03-21 16:18:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tweed
Post by Nick Finnigan
Post by Tweed
Post by Tweed
Friend of mine in the business says that jet engine powered generator sets
go up to about 60 MW electrical output power.
Base on figures on page 62 of
https://www.heathrow.com/content/dam/heathrow/web/common/documents/company/heathrow-2-0-sustainability/futher-reading/Heathrows_Sustainability_Report_2022.pdf
if I’ve interpreted the figures correctly and done my sums correctly,
Heathrow has an average electrical power consumption of 30 MW.
Is there a figure there for just electrical, excluding heat, steam?
(The CHP is supposed to be 9MW thermal, 1.8MW electrical)
I just took the total for externally supplied power with heat and steam. I
doubt they take much externally supplied heat and steam. It gives a ball
park figure which seems to match what a jet powered generator unit could
supply. I guess peak load is higher, so they might need a couple and
perhaps a spare for service downtime.
Just to put things into context, a class 99 locomotive can consume 6 MW. So
30 to 60 MW isn’t that much.
Charles Ellson
2025-03-21 21:24:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 21 Mar 2025 16:13:54 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
Post by Tweed
Post by Nick Finnigan
Post by Tweed
Post by Tweed
Friend of mine in the business says that jet engine powered generator sets
go up to about 60 MW electrical output power.
Base on figures on page 62 of
https://www.heathrow.com/content/dam/heathrow/web/common/documents/company/heathrow-2-0-sustainability/futher-reading/Heathrows_Sustainability_Report_2022.pdf
if I’ve interpreted the figures correctly and done my sums correctly,
Heathrow has an average electrical power consumption of 30 MW.
Is there a figure there for just electrical, excluding heat, steam?
(The CHP is supposed to be 9MW thermal, 1.8MW electrical)
I just took the total for externally supplied power with heat and steam. I
doubt they take much externally supplied heat and steam. It gives a ball
park figure which seems to match what a jet powered generator unit could
supply. I guess peak load is higher, so they might need a couple and
perhaps a spare for service downtime.
If you want a rough guide, Taylors Lane power station in Willesden has
2 generating sets (4 GTs each) and a peak output of 132MW. The GT
engines are a variant of the RR Olympus and according to my niece (who
used to live nearby) just as noisy as a couple of Concordes.
Recliner
2025-03-21 22:26:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Charles Ellson
On Fri, 21 Mar 2025 16:13:54 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
Post by Tweed
Post by Nick Finnigan
Post by Tweed
Post by Tweed
Friend of mine in the business says that jet engine powered generator sets
go up to about 60 MW electrical output power.
Base on figures on page 62 of
https://www.heathrow.com/content/dam/heathrow/web/common/documents/company/heathrow-2-0-sustainability/futher-reading/Heathrows_Sustainability_Report_2022.pdf
if I’ve interpreted the figures correctly and done my sums correctly,
Heathrow has an average electrical power consumption of 30 MW.
Is there a figure there for just electrical, excluding heat, steam?
(The CHP is supposed to be 9MW thermal, 1.8MW electrical)
I just took the total for externally supplied power with heat and steam. I
doubt they take much externally supplied heat and steam. It gives a ball
park figure which seems to match what a jet powered generator unit could
supply. I guess peak load is higher, so they might need a couple and
perhaps a spare for service downtime.
If you want a rough guide, Taylors Lane power station in Willesden has
2 generating sets (4 GTs each) and a peak output of 132MW. The GT
engines are a variant of the RR Olympus and according to my niece (who
used to live nearby) just as noisy as a couple of Concordes.
These days, the turbines are typically helicopter turboshaft engines,
though the larger ones are from things like RR Trents.
Sam Wilson
2025-03-21 21:00:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tweed
if I’ve interpreted the figures correctly and done my sums correctly,
Heathrow has an average electrical power consumption of 30 MW.
That seems much more plausible than the 48 kW implied in a previous
posting.

Sam
--
The entity formerly known as ***@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply
Ulf_Kutzner
2025-03-22 08:56:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sam Wilson
Post by Tweed
if I’ve interpreted the figures correctly and done my sums correctly,
Heathrow has an average electrical power consumption of 30 MW.
That seems much more plausible than the 48 kW implied in a previous
posting.
And trying to run the airport during daytime
on a 24 hours or year average might fail.

Regards, ULF
Tweed
2025-03-22 09:10:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ulf_Kutzner
Post by Sam Wilson
Post by Tweed
if I’ve interpreted the figures correctly and done my sums correctly,
Heathrow has an average electrical power consumption of 30 MW.
That seems much more plausible than the 48 kW implied in a previous
posting.
And trying to run the airport during daytime
on a 24 hours or year average might fail.
Regards, ULF
I covered that in an earlier post. £8 million buys you one 30 MW jet engine
powered generator set. So for around £25 million you can have three, two in
service one for maintenance. Double that for adding all the necessary
distribution circuits etc. Simon Calder on the TV estimated lost airline
revenue to be at least £100 million, and that excludes the additional costs
of putting people up in hotels etc. So a back of an envelope calculation
shows that making Heathrow self sufficient in power, should it be
disconnected from the grid, isn’t beyond the bounds of economic reality.
Tweed
2025-03-22 09:34:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tweed
Post by Ulf_Kutzner
Post by Sam Wilson
Post by Tweed
if I’ve interpreted the figures correctly and done my sums correctly,
Heathrow has an average electrical power consumption of 30 MW.
That seems much more plausible than the 48 kW implied in a previous
posting.
And trying to run the airport during daytime
on a 24 hours or year average might fail.
Regards, ULF
I covered that in an earlier post. £8 million buys you one 30 MW jet engine
powered generator set. So for around £25 million you can have three, two in
service one for maintenance. Double that for adding all the necessary
distribution circuits etc. Simon Calder on the TV estimated lost airline
revenue to be at least £100 million, and that excludes the additional costs
of putting people up in hotels etc. So a back of an envelope calculation
shows that making Heathrow self sufficient in power, should it be
disconnected from the grid, isn’t beyond the bounds of economic reality.
To add further context, in 2023 Heathrow’s turnover was £3.6 billion, with
a pre tax profit of £700 million.
Nick Finnigan
2025-03-22 09:53:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tweed
Post by Ulf_Kutzner
Post by Sam Wilson
Post by Tweed
if I’ve interpreted the figures correctly and done my sums correctly,
Heathrow has an average electrical power consumption of 30 MW.
That seems much more plausible than the 48 kW implied in a previous
posting.
And trying to run the airport during daytime
on a 24 hours or year average might fail.
Regards, ULF
I covered that in an earlier post. £8 million buys you one 30 MW jet engine
powered generator set. So for around £25 million you can have three, two in
30MW thermal or electrical ?
Post by Tweed
service one for maintenance. Double that for adding all the necessary
distribution circuits etc. Simon Calder on the TV estimated lost airline
revenue to be at least £100 million, and that excludes the additional costs
of putting people up in hotels etc. So a back of an envelope calculation
shows that making Heathrow self sufficient in power, should it be
disconnected from the grid, isn’t beyond the bounds of economic reality.
Carrington and Keadby CCGT are about twice that cost per W.
Tweed
2025-03-22 10:29:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Nick Finnigan
Post by Tweed
Post by Ulf_Kutzner
Post by Sam Wilson
Post by Tweed
if I’ve interpreted the figures correctly and done my sums correctly,
Heathrow has an average electrical power consumption of 30 MW.
That seems much more plausible than the 48 kW implied in a previous
posting.
And trying to run the airport during daytime
on a 24 hours or year average might fail.
Regards, ULF
I covered that in an earlier post. £8 million buys you one 30 MW jet engine
powered generator set. So for around £25 million you can have three, two in
30MW thermal or electrical ?
Post by Tweed
service one for maintenance. Double that for adding all the necessary
distribution circuits etc. Simon Calder on the TV estimated lost airline
revenue to be at least £100 million, and that excludes the additional costs
of putting people up in hotels etc. So a back of an envelope calculation
shows that making Heathrow self sufficient in power, should it be
disconnected from the grid, isn’t beyond the bounds of economic reality.
Carrington and Keadby CCGT are about twice that cost per W.
30 MW electrical, according to my friend that works for a firm that makes
them. I guess they are relatively cheap per W because of their simplicity
(well not so complicated!). The trade off is the hideous running cost. But
that’s not really a consideration for emergency power, when the cost of not
running them is north of £100 million per day. (I make the cost of the
*unused* electricity at Heathrow yesterday to be around £140 per kWhr if
you accept the cost of the disruption to be £100 million)

He tells me you can get 60 MW electrical output sets as well.
Recliner
2025-03-21 15:34:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ColinR
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
On Fri, 21 Mar 2025 08:53:16 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Tweed
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Tweed
Post by Bob
Looks like a fire at/by a substation has killed all power to LHR and
will keep it closed all day. Some here point out the perceived fragility
of OHLE electrified railways to infrastructure problems, and post every
outage they become aware of. I thought I'd offer this as an example of
the same kind of vulnerability of other modes.
Robin
Be interesting to see the explanations as to why Heathrow isn’t being fed
by multiple redundant feeder circuits.
Their standby systems will be able to cope with aircraft movements but
they have no way of dealing with passengers once on the ground.
I didn’t mean emergency power generation, but rather multiple diverse
connections to the grid. Perhaps it’s a case of manual switching. They seem
to have restored power to 60,000 local consumers.
You'd think somewhere like heathrow would have some emergency diesel
generators tucked away. Clearly that was beyond managements brain capacity.
Either that or like the water companies, money that should have gone into
investment went into shareholder pockets instead.
They do, but as I pointed out earlier, they will be confined to the
safety critical systems at the airport not the hotel functions for
dealing with passengers.
For pedantry's sake, I believe the standby gennies are not diesel but
gas turbine jobs.
With modern journalism I am uncertain of the accuracy, but the Beeb
QUOTE Heathrow Airport said its back-up diesel generators had "all
operated as expected... but they are not designed to allow us to run a
full operation".UNQUOTE
So maybe not GT gennies?
Yes, it appears that there are battery UPS and diesel back-up gennies, but not gas turbines. Only safety critical stuff
seems to have backup supplies.
Rupert Moss-Eccardt
2025-03-21 12:43:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
On Fri, 21 Mar 2025 08:53:16 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Tweed
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Tweed
Post by Bob
Looks like a fire at/by a substation has killed all power to LHR and
will keep it closed all day. Some here point out the perceived fragility
of OHLE electrified railways to infrastructure problems, and post every
outage they become aware of. I thought I'd offer this as an example of
the same kind of vulnerability of other modes.
Robin
Be interesting to see the explanations as to why Heathrow isn’t being fed
by multiple redundant feeder circuits.
Their standby systems will be able to cope with aircraft movements but
they have no way of dealing with passengers once on the ground.
I didn’t mean emergency power generation, but rather multiple diverse
connections to the grid. Perhaps it’s a case of manual switching. They seem
to have restored power to 60,000 local consumers.
You'd think somewhere like heathrow would have some emergency diesel
generators tucked away. Clearly that was beyond managements brain capacity.
Either that or like the water companies, money that should have gone into
investment went into shareholder pockets instead.
There are plenty of generators for essential services - door control,
runway lights etc. Not enough, however, to run the terminals with
people in them.
Recliner
2025-03-21 13:04:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tweed
Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
On Fri, 21 Mar 2025 08:53:16 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Bob
Looks like a fire at/by a substation has killed all power to LHR and
will keep it closed all day. Some here point out the perceived fragility
of OHLE electrified railways to infrastructure problems, and post every
outage they become aware of. I thought I'd offer this as an example of
the same kind of vulnerability of other modes.
Robin
Be interesting to see the explanations as to why Heathrow isn’t being fed
by multiple redundant feeder circuits.
Their standby systems will be able to cope with aircraft movements but
they have no way of dealing with passengers once on the ground.
I didn’t mean emergency power generation, but rather multiple
diverse
Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
connections to the grid. Perhaps it’s a case of manual switching.
They seem
Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
to have restored power to 60,000 local consumers.
You'd think somewhere like heathrow would have some emergency diesel
generators tucked away. Clearly that was beyond managements brain capacity.
Either that or like the water companies, money that should have gone into
investment went into shareholder pockets instead.
There are plenty of generators for essential services - door control,
runway lights etc. Not enough, however, to run the terminals with
people in them.
Also, I don’t think it can keep operating on backup power alone. Its
purpose is to allow a safe, gradual shutdown of services, not to keep
running without any further backup.

What’s very odd here is the single Grid connection. With two connections,
plus on-site backups, the airport could keep operating if one connection
failed.
JNugent
2025-03-21 17:33:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
On Fri, 21 Mar 2025 08:53:16 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Tweed
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Tweed
Post by Bob
Looks like a fire at/by a substation has killed all power to LHR and
will keep it closed all day. Some here point out the perceived fragility
of OHLE electrified railways to infrastructure problems, and post every
outage they become aware of. I thought I'd offer this as an example of
the same kind of vulnerability of other modes.
Robin
Be interesting to see the explanations as to why Heathrow isn’t being fed
by multiple redundant feeder circuits.
Their standby systems will be able to cope with aircraft movements but
they have no way of dealing with passengers once on the ground.
I didn’t mean emergency power generation, but rather multiple diverse
connections to the grid. Perhaps it’s a case of manual switching. They seem
to have restored power to 60,000 local consumers.
You'd think somewhere like heathrow would have some emergency diesel
generators tucked away. Clearly that was beyond managements brain capacity.
Either that or like the water companies, money that should have gone into
investment went into shareholder pockets instead.
For five terminals, plus all the other services passengers need and
expect (some of which we hardly ever think of), the number of diesel
generators would be absolutely immense.
Clive Page
2025-03-21 17:38:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
On Fri, 21 Mar 2025 08:53:16 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Bob
Looks like a fire at/by a substation has killed all power to LHR and
will keep it closed all day. Some here point out the perceived fragility
of OHLE electrified railways to infrastructure problems, and post every
outage they become aware of. I thought I'd offer this as an example of
the same kind of vulnerability of other modes.
Robin
Be interesting to see the explanations as to why Heathrow isn’t
being fed
by multiple redundant feeder circuits.
Their standby systems will be able to cope with aircraft movements but
they have no way of dealing with passengers once on the ground.
I didn’t mean emergency power generation, but rather multiple diverse
connections to the grid. Perhaps it’s a case of manual switching.
They seem
to have restored power to 60,000 local consumers.
You'd think somewhere like heathrow would have some emergency diesel
generators tucked away. Clearly that was beyond managements brain capacity.
Either that or like the water companies, money that should have gone into
investment went into shareholder pockets instead.
For five terminals, plus all the other services passengers need and
expect (some of which we hardly ever think of), the number of diesel
generators would be absolutely immense.
An email just in from politico.co.uk says that the cause may have been a
"cock-up by an electrical engineer". It's true that a cock-up is often
more likely than a conspiracy.
--
Clive Page
Tweed
2025-03-21 17:45:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Clive Page
Post by JNugent
Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
On Fri, 21 Mar 2025 08:53:16 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Bob
Looks like a fire at/by a substation has killed all power to LHR and
will keep it closed all day. Some here point out the perceived fragility
of OHLE electrified railways to infrastructure problems, and post every
outage they become aware of. I thought I'd offer this as an example of
the same kind of vulnerability of other modes.
Robin
Be interesting to see the explanations as to why Heathrow isn’t
being fed
by multiple redundant feeder circuits.
Their standby systems will be able to cope with aircraft movements but
they have no way of dealing with passengers once on the ground.
I didn’t mean emergency power generation, but rather multiple diverse
connections to the grid. Perhaps it’s a case of manual switching.
They seem
to have restored power to 60,000 local consumers.
You'd think somewhere like heathrow would have some emergency diesel
generators tucked away. Clearly that was beyond managements brain capacity.
Either that or like the water companies, money that should have gone into
investment went into shareholder pockets instead.
For five terminals, plus all the other services passengers need and
expect (some of which we hardly ever think of), the number of diesel
generators would be absolutely immense.
An email just in from politico.co.uk says that the cause may have been a
"cock-up by an electrical engineer". It's true that a cock-up is often
more likely than a conspiracy.
It usually is. Look at the number of space missions that have been lost due
to human errors that should never really have happened.
Graeme Wall
2025-03-21 21:08:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tweed
Post by Clive Page
Post by JNugent
Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
On Fri, 21 Mar 2025 08:53:16 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Bob
Looks like a fire at/by a substation has killed all power to LHR and
will keep it closed all day. Some here point out the perceived fragility
of OHLE electrified railways to infrastructure problems, and post every
outage they become aware of. I thought I'd offer this as an example of
the same kind of vulnerability of other modes.
Robin
Be interesting to see the explanations as to why Heathrow isn’t
being fed
by multiple redundant feeder circuits.
Their standby systems will be able to cope with aircraft movements but
they have no way of dealing with passengers once on the ground.
I didn’t mean emergency power generation, but rather multiple diverse
connections to the grid. Perhaps it’s a case of manual switching.
They seem
to have restored power to 60,000 local consumers.
You'd think somewhere like heathrow would have some emergency diesel
generators tucked away. Clearly that was beyond managements brain capacity.
Either that or like the water companies, money that should have gone into
investment went into shareholder pockets instead.
For five terminals, plus all the other services passengers need and
expect (some of which we hardly ever think of), the number of diesel
generators would be absolutely immense.
An email just in from politico.co.uk says that the cause may have been a
"cock-up by an electrical engineer". It's true that a cock-up is often
more likely than a conspiracy.
It usually is. Look at the number of space missions that have been lost due
to human errors that should never really have happened.
3, possibly 4.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
Tweed
2025-03-21 17:42:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
On Fri, 21 Mar 2025 08:53:16 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Bob
Looks like a fire at/by a substation has killed all power to LHR and
will keep it closed all day. Some here point out the perceived fragility
of OHLE electrified railways to infrastructure problems, and post every
outage they become aware of. I thought I'd offer this as an example of
the same kind of vulnerability of other modes.
Robin
Be interesting to see the explanations as to why Heathrow isn’t being fed
by multiple redundant feeder circuits.
Their standby systems will be able to cope with aircraft movements but
they have no way of dealing with passengers once on the ground.
I didn’t mean emergency power generation, but rather multiple diverse
connections to the grid. Perhaps it’s a case of manual switching. They seem
to have restored power to 60,000 local consumers.
You'd think somewhere like heathrow would have some emergency diesel
generators tucked away. Clearly that was beyond managements brain capacity.
Either that or like the water companies, money that should have gone into
investment went into shareholder pockets instead.
For five terminals, plus all the other services passengers need and
expect (some of which we hardly ever think of), the number of diesel
generators would be absolutely immense.
Not really. A pair of jet engine powered generator sets should be enough.
30 MW each.
Recliner
2025-03-21 18:12:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
On Fri, 21 Mar 2025 08:53:16 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Bob
Looks like a fire at/by a substation has killed all power to LHR and
will keep it closed all day. Some here point out the perceived fragility
of OHLE electrified railways to infrastructure problems, and post every
outage they become aware of. I thought I'd offer this as an example of
the same kind of vulnerability of other modes.
Robin
Be interesting to see the explanations as to why Heathrow isn’t being fed
by multiple redundant feeder circuits.
Their standby systems will be able to cope with aircraft movements but
they have no way of dealing with passengers once on the ground.
I didn’t mean emergency power generation, but rather multiple diverse
connections to the grid. Perhaps it’s a case of manual switching. They seem
to have restored power to 60,000 local consumers.
You'd think somewhere like heathrow would have some emergency diesel
generators tucked away. Clearly that was beyond managements brain capacity.
Either that or like the water companies, money that should have gone into
investment went into shareholder pockets instead.
For five terminals, plus all the other services passengers need and
expect (some of which we hardly ever think of), the number of diesel
generators would be absolutely immense.
Heathrow only has four terminals, one of which seems to be back in service now.
Tweed
2025-03-21 18:15:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by JNugent
Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
On Fri, 21 Mar 2025 08:53:16 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Bob
Looks like a fire at/by a substation has killed all power to LHR and
will keep it closed all day. Some here point out the perceived fragility
of OHLE electrified railways to infrastructure problems, and post every
outage they become aware of. I thought I'd offer this as an example of
the same kind of vulnerability of other modes.
Robin
Be interesting to see the explanations as to why Heathrow isn’t being fed
by multiple redundant feeder circuits.
Their standby systems will be able to cope with aircraft movements but
they have no way of dealing with passengers once on the ground.
I didn’t mean emergency power generation, but rather multiple diverse
connections to the grid. Perhaps it’s a case of manual switching. They seem
to have restored power to 60,000 local consumers.
You'd think somewhere like heathrow would have some emergency diesel
generators tucked away. Clearly that was beyond managements brain capacity.
Either that or like the water companies, money that should have gone into
investment went into shareholder pockets instead.
For five terminals, plus all the other services passengers need and
expect (some of which we hardly ever think of), the number of diesel
generators would be absolutely immense.
Heathrow only has four terminals, one of which seems to be back in service now.
My friend in the business says budget about £8 million for a 30 MW jet
powered generator set. Buttons in the context of Heathrow.
Recliner
2025-03-21 18:21:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tweed
Post by Recliner
Post by JNugent
Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
On Fri, 21 Mar 2025 08:53:16 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Bob
Looks like a fire at/by a substation has killed all power to LHR and
will keep it closed all day. Some here point out the perceived fragility
of OHLE electrified railways to infrastructure problems, and post every
outage they become aware of. I thought I'd offer this as an example of
the same kind of vulnerability of other modes.
Robin
Be interesting to see the explanations as to why Heathrow isn’t being fed
by multiple redundant feeder circuits.
Their standby systems will be able to cope with aircraft movements but
they have no way of dealing with passengers once on the ground.
I didn’t mean emergency power generation, but rather multiple diverse
connections to the grid. Perhaps it’s a case of manual switching. They seem
to have restored power to 60,000 local consumers.
You'd think somewhere like heathrow would have some emergency diesel
generators tucked away. Clearly that was beyond managements brain capacity.
Either that or like the water companies, money that should have gone into
investment went into shareholder pockets instead.
For five terminals, plus all the other services passengers need and
expect (some of which we hardly ever think of), the number of diesel
generators would be absolutely immense.
Heathrow only has four terminals, one of which seems to be back in service now.
My friend in the business says budget about £8 million for a 30 MW jet
powered generator set. Buttons in the context of Heathrow.
Yes, and it's probably compact enough to fit a couple into a power station in some corner of the Heathrow site.
Tweed
2025-03-21 18:27:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by Tweed
Post by Recliner
Post by JNugent
Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
On Fri, 21 Mar 2025 08:53:16 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Bob
Looks like a fire at/by a substation has killed all power to LHR and
will keep it closed all day. Some here point out the perceived fragility
of OHLE electrified railways to infrastructure problems, and post every
outage they become aware of. I thought I'd offer this as an example of
the same kind of vulnerability of other modes.
Robin
Be interesting to see the explanations as to why Heathrow isn’t being fed
by multiple redundant feeder circuits.
Their standby systems will be able to cope with aircraft movements but
they have no way of dealing with passengers once on the ground.
I didn’t mean emergency power generation, but rather multiple diverse
connections to the grid. Perhaps it’s a case of manual switching. They seem
to have restored power to 60,000 local consumers.
You'd think somewhere like heathrow would have some emergency diesel
generators tucked away. Clearly that was beyond managements brain capacity.
Either that or like the water companies, money that should have gone into
investment went into shareholder pockets instead.
For five terminals, plus all the other services passengers need and
expect (some of which we hardly ever think of), the number of diesel
generators would be absolutely immense.
Heathrow only has four terminals, one of which seems to be back in service now.
My friend in the business says budget about £8 million for a 30 MW jet
powered generator set. Buttons in the context of Heathrow.
Yes, and it's probably compact enough to fit a couple into a power
station in some corner of the Heathrow site.
And you can probably make a bit of money using it as peaker plant to supply
the locality.
Recliner
2025-03-21 18:26:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tweed
Post by Recliner
Post by JNugent
Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
On Fri, 21 Mar 2025 08:53:16 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Bob
Looks like a fire at/by a substation has killed all power to LHR and
will keep it closed all day. Some here point out the perceived fragility
of OHLE electrified railways to infrastructure problems, and post every
outage they become aware of. I thought I'd offer this as an example of
the same kind of vulnerability of other modes.
Robin
Be interesting to see the explanations as to why Heathrow isn’t being fed
by multiple redundant feeder circuits.
Their standby systems will be able to cope with aircraft movements but
they have no way of dealing with passengers once on the ground.
I didn’t mean emergency power generation, but rather multiple diverse
connections to the grid. Perhaps it’s a case of manual switching. They seem
to have restored power to 60,000 local consumers.
You'd think somewhere like heathrow would have some emergency diesel
generators tucked away. Clearly that was beyond managements brain capacity.
Either that or like the water companies, money that should have gone into
investment went into shareholder pockets instead.
For five terminals, plus all the other services passengers need and
expect (some of which we hardly ever think of), the number of diesel
generators would be absolutely immense.
Heathrow only has four terminals, one of which seems to be back in service now.
My friend in the business says budget about £8 million for a 30 MW jet
powered generator set. Buttons in the context of Heathrow.
BBC:

A Heathrow source said its back up diesel generators and uninterruptable power supplies in place all operated as
expected.

The problem lay with the National Grid, the source said, pointing out thousands of homes had been left without power,
not just the airport.

There are two National Grid substations close to Heathrow: one at North Hyde, north of the airport, and one at Laleham,
south of the airport, according to energy analysis firm Montel Group.

It appears that only the North Hyde substation is connected to Heathrow through the local distribution network, said
Phil Hewitt, director at the firm.

"This potential lack of resilience at a critical national and international infrastructure site is worrying," he said.
"An airport as large and as important as Heathrow should not be vulnerable to a single point of failure."

However, Robin Potter, a research fellow at Chatham House, said Heathrow was one of only two UK airports – Gatwick is
the other – that has any level of regulation around its resilience standards.

"These are actually the better airports in the UK for how their resilience is assessed and regulated," he said.

In 2023, the National Infrastructure Commission recommended to the government that it should set standards for some key
sectors of infrastructure such as telecoms, water, transport and energy by 2025.

It followed up with a further report at the end of last year detailing how the government could do that for those
sectors.

"Those have effectively been on the government's desk since October 2023," he added.

A Heathrow source said questions over why its back-up system failed would be investigated.
Graeme Wall
2025-03-21 21:07:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
On Fri, 21 Mar 2025 08:53:16 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Bob
Looks like a fire at/by a substation has killed all power to LHR and
will keep it closed all day. Some here point out the perceived fragility
of OHLE electrified railways to infrastructure problems, and post every
outage they become aware of. I thought I'd offer this as an example of
the same kind of vulnerability of other modes.
Robin
Be interesting to see the explanations as to why Heathrow isn’t
being fed
by multiple redundant feeder circuits.
Their standby systems will be able to cope with aircraft movements but
they have no way of dealing with passengers once on the ground.
I didn’t mean emergency power generation, but rather multiple diverse
connections to the grid. Perhaps it’s a case of manual switching.
They seem
to have restored power to 60,000 local consumers.
You'd think somewhere like heathrow would have some emergency diesel
generators tucked away. Clearly that was beyond managements brain capacity.
Either that or like the water companies, money that should have gone into
investment went into shareholder pockets instead.
For five terminals, plus all the other services passengers need and
expect (some of which we hardly ever think of), the number of diesel
generators would be absolutely immense.
Some other figures I came across, apparently 50% of the electricity load
is for third party use, not basic airport services. That includes Mr
Page's despised retail outlets but also includes rather more non-obvious
uses such as aircraft ground power supplies, power to drive the pumps to
deliver the fuel from the tank farm to the stands, climate controlled
warehouses, (there's an awful lot of fresh food and vegetation that
comes through the cargo terminals) and inumerable other items.

Not sure whether HMRC and the Border Agency count as third party users
but they would be significant users of electricity.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
Ulf_Kutzner
2025-03-22 08:40:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
On Fri, 21 Mar 2025 08:53:16 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Bob
Looks like a fire at/by a substation has killed all power to LHR and
will keep it closed all day. Some here point out the perceived fragility
of OHLE electrified railways to infrastructure problems, and post every
outage they become aware of. I thought I'd offer this as an example of
the same kind of vulnerability of other modes.
Robin
Be interesting to see the explanations as to why Heathrow isn’t being
fed
by multiple redundant feeder circuits.
Their standby systems will be able to cope with aircraft movements but
they have no way of dealing with passengers once on the ground.
I didn’t mean emergency power generation, but rather multiple diverse
connections to the grid. Perhaps it’s a case of manual switching. They
seem
to have restored power to 60,000 local consumers.
You'd think somewhere like heathrow would have some emergency diesel
generators tucked away. Clearly that was beyond managements brain capacity.
Either that or like the water companies, money that should have gone into
investment went into shareholder pockets instead.
For five terminals, plus all the other services passengers need and
expect (some of which we hardly ever think of), the number of diesel
generators would be absolutely immense.
See for installed power:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphony_of_the_Seas#Construction_and_career
Ulf_Kutzner
2025-03-22 08:42:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
You'd think somewhere like heathrow would have some emergency diesel
generators tucked away. Clearly that was beyond managements brain capacity.
Either that or like the water companies, money that should have gone into
investment went into shareholder pockets instead.
For five terminals, plus all the other services passengers need and
expect (some of which we hardly ever think of), the number of diesel
generators would be absolutely immense.
See for installed power:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphony_of_the_Seas#Construction_and_career
Recliner
2025-03-22 11:12:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ulf_Kutzner
Post by JNugent
Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
You'd think somewhere like heathrow would have some emergency diesel
generators tucked away. Clearly that was beyond managements brain capacity.
Either that or like the water companies, money that should have gone into
investment went into shareholder pockets instead.
For five terminals, plus all the other services passengers need and
expect (some of which we hardly ever think of), the number of diesel
generators would be absolutely immense.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphony_of_the_Seas#Construction_and_career
Yes, it runs on diesel engines, like most ships. Small steam turbines are
used to recover some of the heat from the diesel engine exhaust. Why is
that relevant to this discussion?
ColinR
2025-03-22 13:19:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by Ulf_Kutzner
Post by JNugent
Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
You'd think somewhere like heathrow would have some emergency diesel
generators tucked away. Clearly that was beyond managements brain capacity.
Either that or like the water companies, money that should have gone into
investment went into shareholder pockets instead.
For five terminals, plus all the other services passengers need and
expect (some of which we hardly ever think of), the number of diesel
generators would be absolutely immense.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphony_of_the_Seas#Construction_and_career
Yes, it runs on diesel engines, like most ships. Small steam turbines are
used to recover some of the heat from the diesel engine exhaust. Why is
that relevant to this discussion?
An "Ulf post" and "relevance" are strangers to each other. Have you not
noticed before??
--
Colin
Trolleybus
2025-03-22 11:30:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
On Fri, 21 Mar 2025 08:53:16 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Tweed
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Tweed
Post by Bob
Looks like a fire at/by a substation has killed all power to LHR and
will keep it closed all day. Some here point out the perceived fragility
of OHLE electrified railways to infrastructure problems, and post every
outage they become aware of. I thought I'd offer this as an example of
the same kind of vulnerability of other modes.
Robin
Be interesting to see the explanations as to why Heathrow isn’t being fed
by multiple redundant feeder circuits.
Their standby systems will be able to cope with aircraft movements but
they have no way of dealing with passengers once on the ground.
I didn’t mean emergency power generation, but rather multiple diverse
connections to the grid. Perhaps it’s a case of manual switching. They seem
to have restored power to 60,000 local consumers.
You'd think somewhere like heathrow would have some emergency diesel
generators tucked away. Clearly that was beyond managements brain capacity.
Either that or like the water companies, money that should have gone into
investment went into shareholder pockets instead.
A 55MW generator is normally described as a power station.
Tweed
2025-03-22 11:47:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Trolleybus
Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
On Fri, 21 Mar 2025 08:53:16 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Bob
Looks like a fire at/by a substation has killed all power to LHR and
will keep it closed all day. Some here point out the perceived fragility
of OHLE electrified railways to infrastructure problems, and post every
outage they become aware of. I thought I'd offer this as an example of
the same kind of vulnerability of other modes.
Robin
Be interesting to see the explanations as to why Heathrow isn’t being fed
by multiple redundant feeder circuits.
Their standby systems will be able to cope with aircraft movements but
they have no way of dealing with passengers once on the ground.
I didn’t mean emergency power generation, but rather multiple diverse
connections to the grid. Perhaps it’s a case of manual switching. They seem
to have restored power to 60,000 local consumers.
You'd think somewhere like heathrow would have some emergency diesel
generators tucked away. Clearly that was beyond managements brain capacity.
Either that or like the water companies, money that should have gone into
investment went into shareholder pockets instead.
A 55MW generator is normally described as a power station.
Which isn’t unreasonable for an airport that keeps claiming it draws the
same power as a small city.
Recliner
2025-03-22 11:47:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Trolleybus
Post by M***@DastardlyHQ.org
On Fri, 21 Mar 2025 08:53:16 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Bob
Looks like a fire at/by a substation has killed all power to LHR and
will keep it closed all day. Some here point out the perceived fragility
of OHLE electrified railways to infrastructure problems, and post every
outage they become aware of. I thought I'd offer this as an example of
the same kind of vulnerability of other modes.
Robin
Be interesting to see the explanations as to why Heathrow isn’t being fed
by multiple redundant feeder circuits.
Their standby systems will be able to cope with aircraft movements but
they have no way of dealing with passengers once on the ground.
I didn’t mean emergency power generation, but rather multiple diverse
connections to the grid. Perhaps it’s a case of manual switching. They seem
to have restored power to 60,000 local consumers.
You'd think somewhere like heathrow would have some emergency diesel
generators tucked away. Clearly that was beyond managements brain capacity.
Either that or like the water companies, money that should have gone into
investment went into shareholder pockets instead.
A 55MW generator is normally described as a power station.
What’s really strange is that though Heathrow is connected to three
external substations, any two of which can power the whole airport, it
wasn’t set up for them to automatically back each other up. Instead, the
reconnections have had to be done manually, which, I think, meant that even
the working power sources had to be temporarily disconnected, thus forcing
the whole airport to shut. Diesel backups and UPSs were provided for
safety-critical systems, and those worked as intended.

So no planes were endangered, but all the terminals had to shut. They came
back online at different times, so some flights resumed yesterday evening.

It also occurs to me that Heathrow didn’t have enough of the right staff on
call overnight. The failure happened at 2320 on Thursday night, probably
after Heathrow’s last flights of the day. There were about six hours before
the early morning influx of long haul flights. Why couldn’t staff have
done the necessary rejigging of the connections in those 5-6 hours?
Perhaps the airport could have had a late start, requiring some flights to
be diverted, but it should have been at least partly open again by, say,
8am.
Roger
2025-03-21 23:23:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tweed
Post by Bob
Looks like a fire at/by a substation has killed all power to LHR and
will keep it closed all day. Some here point out the perceived fragility
of OHLE electrified railways to infrastructure problems, and post every
outage they become aware of. I thought I'd offer this as an example of
the same kind of vulnerability of other modes.
Be interesting to see the explanations as to why Heathrow isn’t being fed
by multiple redundant feeder circuits.
I expect that each terminal (or group of terminals in the case of 2 and 3)
is fed with separate redundant feeders coming from different substations.
However the fault took out all three transformers at a 275 kV supergrid
substation that covers a large area and obviously feeds all the substations
around Heathrow. The system is designed to cope with at least one
transformer failing, not all three.

From Streetview it can be seen that there is a deluge system installed
around the transformers, which should have extinguished the fire, but for
reasons as yet undetermined was unable to do so.

Generally (and not just in this country) electricity system design does not
consider a substation to be a single point of failure for redundancy
purposes, only individual pieces of equipment within it. Likewise, twin
circuit pole or tower routes (with a set of 3 wires down each side) usually
count as independent redundant circuits, usually connected to different
transformers at each end. A general change to this policy would require a
significant increase to the standing charge on everyone's electricity bills.
Recliner
2025-03-22 00:53:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roger
Post by Tweed
Post by Bob
Looks like a fire at/by a substation has killed all power to LHR and
will keep it closed all day. Some here point out the perceived fragility
of OHLE electrified railways to infrastructure problems, and post every
outage they become aware of. I thought I'd offer this as an example of
the same kind of vulnerability of other modes.
Be interesting to see the explanations as to why Heathrow isn’t being fed
by multiple redundant feeder circuits.
I expect that each terminal (or group of terminals in the case of 2 and 3)
is fed with separate redundant feeders coming from different substations.
However the fault took out all three transformers at a 275 kV supergrid
substation that covers a large area and obviously feeds all the substations
around Heathrow. The system is designed to cope with at least one
transformer failing, not all three.
It appears that Heathrow is fed from three substations around the airport,
but they don’t provide automatic redundant backups to each other. They each
separately supply different parts of the airport. The connections need to
be manually changed if one goes down, to re-connect the affected parts.
That’s what was happening during most of Friday, with the whole airport
back by the evening. But only a few flights were able to use it.

I’m due to fly out from Heathrow on Sunday, and was able to check-in online
today. But time will tell…
ColinR
2025-03-22 10:50:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roger
Post by Tweed
Post by Bob
Looks like a fire at/by a substation has killed all power to LHR and
will keep it closed all day. Some here point out the perceived fragility
of OHLE electrified railways to infrastructure problems, and post every
outage they become aware of. I thought I'd offer this as an example of
the same kind of vulnerability of other modes.
Be interesting to see the explanations as to why Heathrow isn’t being fed
by multiple redundant feeder circuits.
I expect that each terminal (or group of terminals in the case of 2 and 3)
is fed with separate redundant feeders coming from different substations.
However the fault took out all three transformers at a 275 kV supergrid
substation that covers a large area and obviously feeds all the substations
around Heathrow. The system is designed to cope with at least one
transformer failing, not all three.
I understand that, whilst the substation on fire had three transformers,
only one actually failed / burnt. The other two were taken out of use to
allow fire fighting to take place.
--
Colin
Tweed
2025-03-22 11:06:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ColinR
Post by Roger
Post by Tweed
Post by Bob
Looks like a fire at/by a substation has killed all power to LHR and
will keep it closed all day. Some here point out the perceived fragility
of OHLE electrified railways to infrastructure problems, and post every
outage they become aware of. I thought I'd offer this as an example of
the same kind of vulnerability of other modes.
Be interesting to see the explanations as to why Heathrow isn’t being fed
by multiple redundant feeder circuits.
I expect that each terminal (or group of terminals in the case of 2 and 3)
is fed with separate redundant feeders coming from different substations.
However the fault took out all three transformers at a 275 kV supergrid
substation that covers a large area and obviously feeds all the substations
around Heathrow. The system is designed to cope with at least one
transformer failing, not all three.
I understand that, whilst the substation on fire had three transformers,
only one actually failed / burnt. The other two were taken out of use to
allow fire fighting to take place.
And there lies the problem. It’s the equivalent of running your redundant
optical fibre circuits in the same duct that gets hit by a digger.

Reading elsewhere, large transformer fires aren’t that rare, and certainly
not unprecedented as is being claimed. My money is on poor maintenance
(“efficiency savings”) and the transformer being run beyond its rating far
too often. I doubt we will ever see a transparent RAIB style report ever
published though.
Recliner
2025-03-22 11:19:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tweed
Post by ColinR
Post by Roger
Post by Tweed
Post by Bob
Looks like a fire at/by a substation has killed all power to LHR and
will keep it closed all day. Some here point out the perceived fragility
of OHLE electrified railways to infrastructure problems, and post every
outage they become aware of. I thought I'd offer this as an example of
the same kind of vulnerability of other modes.
Be interesting to see the explanations as to why Heathrow isn’t being fed
by multiple redundant feeder circuits.
I expect that each terminal (or group of terminals in the case of 2 and 3)
is fed with separate redundant feeders coming from different substations.
However the fault took out all three transformers at a 275 kV supergrid
substation that covers a large area and obviously feeds all the substations
around Heathrow. The system is designed to cope with at least one
transformer failing, not all three.
I understand that, whilst the substation on fire had three transformers,
only one actually failed / burnt. The other two were taken out of use to
allow fire fighting to take place.
And there lies the problem. It’s the equivalent of running your redundant
optical fibre circuits in the same duct that gets hit by a digger.
Reading elsewhere, large transformer fires aren’t that rare, and certainly
not unprecedented as is being claimed. My money is on poor maintenance
(“efficiency savings”) and the transformer being run beyond its rating far
too often. I doubt we will ever see a transparent RAIB style report ever
published though.
Yes, one of reports said that the substation was routinely run above its
rating, taking advantage of the normal safety margin. There had been
discussions about increasing the capacity, but nothing had been done.

I also read that there are a number of data centres in the affected area
that kept running normally, so they presumably did have robust backup
plans.
Tweed
2025-03-22 11:41:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by Tweed
Post by ColinR
Post by Roger
Post by Tweed
Post by Bob
Looks like a fire at/by a substation has killed all power to LHR and
will keep it closed all day. Some here point out the perceived fragility
of OHLE electrified railways to infrastructure problems, and post every
outage they become aware of. I thought I'd offer this as an example of
the same kind of vulnerability of other modes.
Be interesting to see the explanations as to why Heathrow isn’t being fed
by multiple redundant feeder circuits.
I expect that each terminal (or group of terminals in the case of 2 and 3)
is fed with separate redundant feeders coming from different substations.
However the fault took out all three transformers at a 275 kV supergrid
substation that covers a large area and obviously feeds all the substations
around Heathrow. The system is designed to cope with at least one
transformer failing, not all three.
I understand that, whilst the substation on fire had three transformers,
only one actually failed / burnt. The other two were taken out of use to
allow fire fighting to take place.
And there lies the problem. It’s the equivalent of running your redundant
optical fibre circuits in the same duct that gets hit by a digger.
Reading elsewhere, large transformer fires aren’t that rare, and certainly
not unprecedented as is being claimed. My money is on poor maintenance
(“efficiency savings”) and the transformer being run beyond its rating far
too often. I doubt we will ever see a transparent RAIB style report ever
published though.
Yes, one of reports said that the substation was routinely run above its
rating, taking advantage of the normal safety margin. There had been
discussions about increasing the capacity, but nothing had been done.
I also read that there are a number of data centres in the affected area
that kept running normally, so they presumably did have robust backup
plans.
Heathrow’s excuses look a bit threadbare. Yes, we did have backup power,
but not enough to run the whole airport. Why not? There’s multiple
foreseeable scenarios whereby the airport can lose grid power. The data
centres clearly knew this.

The Heathrow CEO claiming he was proud of the way they handled this is also
a bit rich. They just said sorry we are shut, go away. It’s the airlines
and other airports that did all the hard work. To have lost grid power and
remained open would have been something to be proud of.
Recliner
2025-03-22 11:58:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tweed
Post by Recliner
Post by Tweed
Post by ColinR
Post by Roger
Post by Tweed
Post by Bob
Looks like a fire at/by a substation has killed all power to LHR and
will keep it closed all day. Some here point out the perceived fragility
of OHLE electrified railways to infrastructure problems, and post every
outage they become aware of. I thought I'd offer this as an example of
the same kind of vulnerability of other modes.
Be interesting to see the explanations as to why Heathrow isn’t being fed
by multiple redundant feeder circuits.
I expect that each terminal (or group of terminals in the case of 2 and 3)
is fed with separate redundant feeders coming from different substations.
However the fault took out all three transformers at a 275 kV supergrid
substation that covers a large area and obviously feeds all the substations
around Heathrow. The system is designed to cope with at least one
transformer failing, not all three.
I understand that, whilst the substation on fire had three transformers,
only one actually failed / burnt. The other two were taken out of use to
allow fire fighting to take place.
And there lies the problem. It’s the equivalent of running your redundant
optical fibre circuits in the same duct that gets hit by a digger.
Reading elsewhere, large transformer fires aren’t that rare, and certainly
not unprecedented as is being claimed. My money is on poor maintenance
(“efficiency savings”) and the transformer being run beyond its rating far
too often. I doubt we will ever see a transparent RAIB style report ever
published though.
Yes, one of reports said that the substation was routinely run above its
rating, taking advantage of the normal safety margin. There had been
discussions about increasing the capacity, but nothing had been done.
I also read that there are a number of data centres in the affected area
that kept running normally, so they presumably did have robust backup
plans.
Heathrow’s excuses look a bit threadbare. Yes, we did have backup power,
but not enough to run the whole airport. Why not? There’s multiple
foreseeable scenarios whereby the airport can lose grid power. The data
centres clearly knew this.
The Heathrow CEO claiming he was proud of the way they handled this is also
a bit rich. They just said sorry we are shut, go away. It’s the airlines
and other airports that did all the hard work. To have lost grid power and
remained open would have been something to be proud of.
Heathrow was fortunate that the failure occurred just after the last
scheduled flights of the day. It had almost six hours before flights were
due to resume again. That should have been more than long enough to connect
the buildings normally supplied by the North Hyde substation to one of the
other two substations that supply the airport.

That was eventually done, but took most of the day. So Heathrow didn’t even
need its own full backup power station. It just needed either automatic or
rapid manual cutover to the other two substations. And perhaps extra staff
capable of rapidly bringing the buildings back online after a sudden,
unplanned shutdown.

So my guess is that the problem comes down to Heathrow’s failure to employ
enough skilled staff, and failure to invest in rapid power switching gear.
Yes, I’m sure the staff worked hard and did a good job getting the airport
working by the evening, but that just isn’t nearly good enough.

So, will the airlines calmly swallow the £100m+ bill? Or will they demand
compensation, whether from the electricity supplier or HAL?
Tweed
2025-03-22 12:14:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by Tweed
Post by Recliner
Post by Tweed
Post by ColinR
Post by Roger
Post by Tweed
Post by Bob
Looks like a fire at/by a substation has killed all power to LHR and
will keep it closed all day. Some here point out the perceived fragility
of OHLE electrified railways to infrastructure problems, and post every
outage they become aware of. I thought I'd offer this as an example of
the same kind of vulnerability of other modes.
Be interesting to see the explanations as to why Heathrow isn’t being fed
by multiple redundant feeder circuits.
I expect that each terminal (or group of terminals in the case of 2 and 3)
is fed with separate redundant feeders coming from different substations.
However the fault took out all three transformers at a 275 kV supergrid
substation that covers a large area and obviously feeds all the substations
around Heathrow. The system is designed to cope with at least one
transformer failing, not all three.
I understand that, whilst the substation on fire had three transformers,
only one actually failed / burnt. The other two were taken out of use to
allow fire fighting to take place.
And there lies the problem. It’s the equivalent of running your redundant
optical fibre circuits in the same duct that gets hit by a digger.
Reading elsewhere, large transformer fires aren’t that rare, and certainly
not unprecedented as is being claimed. My money is on poor maintenance
(“efficiency savings”) and the transformer being run beyond its rating far
too often. I doubt we will ever see a transparent RAIB style report ever
published though.
Yes, one of reports said that the substation was routinely run above its
rating, taking advantage of the normal safety margin. There had been
discussions about increasing the capacity, but nothing had been done.
I also read that there are a number of data centres in the affected area
that kept running normally, so they presumably did have robust backup
plans.
Heathrow’s excuses look a bit threadbare. Yes, we did have backup power,
but not enough to run the whole airport. Why not? There’s multiple
foreseeable scenarios whereby the airport can lose grid power. The data
centres clearly knew this.
The Heathrow CEO claiming he was proud of the way they handled this is also
a bit rich. They just said sorry we are shut, go away. It’s the airlines
and other airports that did all the hard work. To have lost grid power and
remained open would have been something to be proud of.
Heathrow was fortunate that the failure occurred just after the last
scheduled flights of the day. It had almost six hours before flights were
due to resume again. That should have been more than long enough to connect
the buildings normally supplied by the North Hyde substation to one of the
other two substations that supply the airport.
That was eventually done, but took most of the day. So Heathrow didn’t even
need its own full backup power station. It just needed either automatic or
rapid manual cutover to the other two substations. And perhaps extra staff
capable of rapidly bringing the buildings back online after a sudden,
unplanned shutdown.
So my guess is that the problem comes down to Heathrow’s failure to employ
enough skilled staff, and failure to invest in rapid power switching gear.
Yes, I’m sure the staff worked hard and did a good job getting the airport
working by the evening, but that just isn’t nearly good enough.
So, will the airlines calmly swallow the £100m+ bill? Or will they demand
compensation, whether from the electricity supplier or HAL?
It’s probably the high reliability of the UK grid supply that has led to
complacency. In other parts of the world this sort of thing is a more
regular occurrence and thus backup supplies are provided. Hopefully this
event will lead to many organisations having a rethink, and will provide
the engineers with an argument to counter the bean counters. With climate
change, storms and flooding, it’s only going to get worse.

As to compensating the airlines, I doubt it. Heathrow being a monopoly
supplier probably has the contracts all stitched up in its favour. It’s not
as though the airlines can easily go elsewhere if they don’t like the Ts
and Cs. Likewise, I suspect the electricity supplier has carefully limited
its liabilities for exactly the same reasons.
Recliner
2025-03-22 11:10:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ColinR
Post by Roger
Post by Tweed
Post by Bob
Looks like a fire at/by a substation has killed all power to LHR and
will keep it closed all day. Some here point out the perceived fragility
of OHLE electrified railways to infrastructure problems, and post every
outage they become aware of. I thought I'd offer this as an example of
the same kind of vulnerability of other modes.
Be interesting to see the explanations as to why Heathrow isn’t being fed
by multiple redundant feeder circuits.
I expect that each terminal (or group of terminals in the case of 2 and 3)
is fed with separate redundant feeders coming from different substations.
However the fault took out all three transformers at a 275 kV supergrid
substation that covers a large area and obviously feeds all the substations
around Heathrow. The system is designed to cope with at least one
transformer failing, not all three.
I understand that, whilst the substation on fire had three transformers,
only one actually failed / burnt. The other two were taken out of use to
allow fire fighting to take place.
I think a second one was damaged in the explosion and subsequent fire.
Roland Perry
2025-03-21 14:39:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bob
Looks like a fire at/by a substation has killed all power to LHR and
will keep it closed all day. Some here point out the perceived
fragility of OHLE electrified railways to infrastructure problems, and
post every outage they become aware of.
I don't think anyone here has the time to post every OLHE outage they
are aware of, just some of the more egregious ones.
Post by Bob
I thought I'd offer this as an example of the same kind of
vulnerability of other modes.
OHLE outages mentioned here are almost entirely due to wires falling
down (or being pulled down), not the substation(s) failing.
--
Roland Perry
Recliner
2025-03-21 23:46:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
From the Telegraph:

The North Hyde substation in Hayes is one of several so-called “grid supply
points” serving Heathrow and its immediate surroundings.

It takes electricity from the National Grid at 275,000 volts and transforms
it to a lower voltage of 110kV for distribution around the local area.

North Hyde feeds the north-eastern quadrant of Heathrow airport, The
Telegraph understands.

The fire destroyed a vital transformer at the substation and also a backup
transformer, rendering the substation inoperable.

The airport is also served by two other substations. However, in order for
Heathrow’s other two substations to run the airport, the power supply to
all the terminals needs to be re-engineered.

While this is happening, Heathrow relies on its backup supply, which is not
sufficient to run the entire airport.

Speaking to reporters on Friday night, Thomas Woldbye, Heathrow’s chief
executive explained: “We have three of these substations, each of them has
a backup transformer.

“The backup transformer in this case also went and then we had to
restructure the supply. So we’re not out of power but we have to
restructure our power supply.

“To do that we have to close down systems – that is safety procedure, we
will not go around that.”

He added: “Two substations can run the airport but we need to re-engineer
the structure of the power supply for all the terminals and that’s what we
were doing during the day, and then we have to restart all the systems and
that’s what we’ve done, and we now see operation coming back.”

He described the decision to close the airport as a “very difficult one”
that they took “quite early” when it became clear Heathrow could not be
safely operated.

National Grid did not respond to a request for comment about the
substation.

What is Heathrow’s back-up supply?

Heathrow said in a statement the airport’s back-up energy systems worked
“as expected” when the substation fire started.

This supply consists of diesel generators, which provide emergency power to
areas such as the air traffic control tower to ensure any planes coming
into land at the moment of a power outage can do so safely, and a biomass
generator. However, this only provides light and heating to the terminals
and cannot operate without an external source of power.

Heathrow said: “We have multiple sources of energy into Heathrow. But when
a source is interrupted, we have backup diesel generators and
uninterruptible power supplies in place, and they all operated as expected.

“Our backup systems are safety systems which allow us to land aircraft and
evacuate passengers safely, but they are not designed to allow us to run a
full operation.”

When asked on Friday afternoon if there was a weak point in Heathrow’s
power system, Mr Woldbye said: “You can say that but of course
contingencies of certain sizes we cannot guard ourselves against 100 per
cent and this is one of them.

“This has been a major incident. I mean, short of anybody getting hurt,
this is as big as it gets for our airport and we are actually coming back
quite fast I would say, when you consider the amount of systems that we
have to shut down, then bring back up and make sure that they’re safe.”

A 2023 US government report which called for “electrical resilience” to be
stepped up at major American hubs following a series of power outages,
lists some of the systems “critically affected” by power loss.

A survey found computers and networks controlling baggage handling,
boarding gates, check-in systems, ticket scanners, departure and arrival
screens, escalators, lifts and parking machines and their entrance and exit
barriers had all been shut down by power cuts.

And, once the power is restored, tests to make sure those systems – many of
which are interconnected – are working properly can prove time-consuming.

Warnings were raised in 2022 about demand outstripping supply at the
electrical substations supplying Heathrow.

A London Assembly briefing paper, prepared by SSE Networks (SSEN) and seen
by The Telegraph, detailed how heavily the North Hyde substation was being
used.

Although the substation’s rated power delivery capacity was 76 MVA
(megavolt-amperes, a measure of power capacity), a figure that included a
safety buffer, SSEN said that the maximum recorded usage at the time of
writing was 80.7 MVA.

An upgrade project was planned to add another 22 MVA of capacity to the
substation although no date was given.

What may have caused the fire?

The arrival of counter-terrorism police at the scene increased speculation
that malign forces could have been responsible. Some pondered whether
Russia may have wanted to send a message to the UK after the Government
held meetings with European military leaders over a peacekeeping force in
Ukraine on Thursday.

By lunchtime, the Met had confirmed those officers were leading the
investigation.

However, energy experts believed the real threat may have been far simpler.
Professor Manu Haddad, director at the Advanced High Voltage Engineering
Research Centre at Cardiff University, said: “From the videos I saw, it may
be a fire at the transformer.”

He added: “Transformers are devices that handle the power coming in and
going out of the substation. Usually, the supply power arrives at very high
voltage and is reduced to lower voltages for distribution to customers.”

Dr Robin Preece, reader in future power systems at the University of
Manchester, said: “This is done using transformers which are filled with
oil. The oil is a very good electrical insulator and is needed to stop the
electricity sparking to places it’s not meant to go inside the transformer.

“If there is a catastrophic failure of a component, this can cause a big
electrical spark or flashover which is extremely hot and which can cause
nearby things to catch fire. Unfortunately for a transformer, this can lead
to the oil catching fire – which is why the fire can be so large and
difficult to control.”

Another theory police will be trying to rule out the possibility that scrap
metal thieves could have triggered the fire. Theft of copper cabling and
other metals from the energy networks, including substations, has resulted
in numerous deaths and power cuts.

In July 2011, a 16-year-old boy was killed and three other youths arrested
after they had tried to steal copper from an electrical substation in
Leeds. There were no casualties at the Hayes fire, according to the London
Fire Brigade. However, such thefts have culminated in fires and entire
regions being without power.

Commander Simon Messinger, who has led the Met Police response to the
incident, later said: “After initial assessment, we are not treating this
incident as suspicious, although inquiries do remain ongoing.”

Why are substations so vulnerable to fire?

High voltage electrical transformers such as the ones at North Hyde
substation take electricity from the National Grid and reduce its voltage
to levels that are safe enough for onward transmission around local areas.

All such transformers generate a large amount of heat, requiring a
dedicated cooling system. Thus North Hyde’s transformers were fitted with
systems carrying 25,000 litres of cooling oil. This ignited when the fire
started late on Thursday night.

At a press conference near the scene, Jonathan Smith, London Fire Brigade’s
deputy commissioner, illustrated the size of that very flammable problem.

“The fire involved a transformer comprising 25,000 litres of cooling oil
fully alight,” he said. “This created a major hazard due to the still live
high-voltage equipment and the nature of the oil-fuelled fire.”

Because North Hyde was fully outdoors, fitting fire suppression systems was
likely to be difficult, sources familiar with high-voltage electrical
systems said.

Thanks to the very high voltages in grid transformer stations, they are
typically unmanned – meaning there is no human presence on site unless
maintenance is required. However, there are remote monitoring systems
capable of detecting faults and fires, The Telegraph understands.

Are there security protections?

Exact details of security systems protecting grid substations, which are
classified as critical national infrastructure, are closely guarded.

However, the National Grid’s control centre near Warwick is almost
instantly able to detect faults such as loss of power to a particular
sub-station or row of pylons – known as a transmission circuit – caused by
incidents such as a fire or a cable break.

It is understood that both overt and covert CCTV cameras are installed at
key locations to ensure constant security coverage.
Loading...