Dublin Airport New Runway/Infrastructure.

LXFlyer

LXFlyer wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

The DAA have drawn a line in the sand for the closure of 16/34 and it’s only 6-7 years away.

Where has this been publicly stated?

Not every piece of information posted on boards has been publicly stated

Captain_Crash

Mebuntu wrote: »

I don't quite get the logic behind that.

AFAIK, using 16 slows down the whole operation at DUB so why would they change to 16 if 28/10 is actually usable?

I often see 16 being used when the winds are from the south but nowhere near crosswind limits for most aircraft. So the argument that DUB cant survive without 16/34 isn't really true to me. Maybe someone has access to wind data to reflect or dispute this??


Yes it might mean a short term closure once or twice a year during a windstorm (although I landed on 28 during the previous two windstorms we experienced, so even then 16/34 isn't always preferable) but personally, I think most would accept a more efficient terminal and taxiway layout if it meant some challenges during our winter storms.

JCX BXC

Captain_Crash wrote: »

I often see 16 being used when the winds are from the south but nowhere near crosswind limits for most aircraft. So the argument that DUB cant survive without 16/34 isn't really true to me. Maybe someone has access to wind data to reflect or dispute this??

Generally I only see them switching when there's been a few go-arounds. They're always quick to switch back too if the wind changes.

Yes it might mean a short term closure once or twice a year during a windstorm (although I landed on 28 during the previous two windstorms we experienced, so even then 16/34 isn't always preferable) but personally, I think most would accept a more efficient terminal and taxiway layout if it meant some challenges during our winter storms.

The main problem with 16/34 is the lack of fast exit taxiways. It's use is slow and inefficient. With the movements growing fast at Dublin and will grow even faster when the second runway opens, the use of 16/34 will cause diversions anyway! But, another consideration is if the runway is closed altogether, would other airports be able to handle the amount of traffic Dublin will handle in the event that it closes, for whatever reason eg wind. If not, would flights then have to be cancelled in anticipation of bad weather?

LXFlyer

Deleted User wrote: »

Not every piece of information posted on boards has been publicly stated

I know that and we all appreciate insider insights, but I just wanted some clarity. Effectively what you’re saying is that is the current thinking. Like any plans that could change once it goes out for stakeholder discussions.

I understand the thinking behind it, but I think it’s still handy to maximise your options by retaining the crosswind option.

It’s a bit like Irish Rail removing crossing loops on single lines - they may not get used that much but when something goes wrong your operational flexibility goes out the window if the option isn’t there.

roadmaster

Tenger wrote: »

‘Proposed’ and actually happening can vary a lot in timeframe. It has already been suggested for Heathrow, which is a grand jest.
T2 was built in 2009/10 with CBP integral to the design. Currently there are no designs in place for similar terminal in Europe.

Its a bit like the corporate tax argument is it going to last. The main thing is we have it so we sure as hell should take advantage of it

ozzy jr

Will the new runway be long enough to take the MTOW of all aircraft currently in operation?

HTCOne

ozzy jr wrote: »

Will the new runway be long enough to take the MTOW of all aircraft currently in operation?

Not AN225, which requires 3,600m IIRC, hence why it can’t always stop in Shannon. Not sure what A388 TORA MTOW requirements are, but I doubt we’ll ever see them flying 16 hour flights from DUB. I suppose it would be widebody freighters and 778/9 that would most likely be pinched. A359 can get out of current 10/28 at MTOW, even when wet. That’s another issue, when 10/28 is wet and winds are unfavorable, I believe the EK B77W has to offload 10-20 tonnes of cargo.

MJohnston

Some political guff, but:

https://twitter.com/TJ_Politics/status/1011596585250312193
https://twitter.com/TJ_Politics/status/1011596772819468291
https://twitter.com/TJ_Politics/status/1011597955307065344

jamo2oo9

ozzy jr wrote: »

Will the new runway be long enough to take the MTOW of all aircraft currently in operation?

A380 requires a maximum of 3500m (new runway will be 3660m) so plenty of room for the A380. Just needs a capable stand with jetways and services. Not sure how it will manage with the taxiways. It may require some relocation of the signs around the airport.

Jamie2k9

jamo2oo9 wrote: »

A380 requires a maximum of 3500m (new runway will be 3660m) so plenty of room for the A380. Just needs a capable stand with jetways and services. Not sure how it will manage with the taxiways. It may require some relocation of the signs around the airport.

3,110 but it will cater for what DUB will ever achieve.

jamo2oo9

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

3,100 but it will cater for what DUB will ever achieve.

Which? The runway length or the take-off length?

Jamie2k9

jamo2oo9 wrote: »

Which? The runway length or the take-off length?

Runway length (3,110m), the 3,660m was a later proposal (2009 ish) by daa but would have required planning and to be honest I wouldn't go back to get new planning.

MJohnston

Just a curiosity, as we're currently seeing lots of reports of roads melting - are runways built with asphalt that has higher temperature tolerances than plain old roads?

billie1b

jamo2oo9 wrote: »

A380 requires a maximum of 3500m (new runway will be 3660m) so plenty of room for the A380. Just needs a capable stand with jetways and services. Not sure how it will manage with the taxiways. It may require some relocation of the signs around the airport.

2900mts for an A380 at MTOW, 100 mts less than the AN225

CoisFharraige

MJohnston wrote: »

Just a curiosity, as we're currently seeing lots of reports of roads melting - are runways built with asphalt that has higher temperature tolerances than plain old roads?

https://grist.org/climate-change/photos-of-train-tracks-and-airplane-runways-melting-in-the-heat/

I'm sure they have something but it's an interesting question. Those pictures are from 2012 in the US, so I don't know if they actually do have any special materials or higher tolerances.

jamesjustjames

Apologies if this is a bit off-topic.

Was the NW/ SE runway used much more frequently in the past?

I ask because, over 40 years ago, I sat beside a plane-spotter in school who briefly gave me an interest in plane watching. We lived almost under the flightpath for the above runway. My memory is that planes used that route most days- I remember getting used to seeing particular planes at predictable times- fewer planes but an almost infinitely bigger range of them.

Is my memory playing tricks with me?

L1011

The current main runway is only about 30 years old, previously there was a X formation although the other arm of the X (which is no longer a runway) was generally more commonly used due to wind. So there would have been times that it was used more heavily.

Stealthirl

Open to correction but this is how the old airport looked i think.
Yellow is the original layout from the 30s
Then came the pink and finally blue

LXFlyer

L1011 wrote: »

The current main runway is only about 30 years old, previously there was a X formation although the other arm of the X (which is no longer a runway) was generally more commonly used due to wind. So there would have been times that it was used more heavily.

I think you're being a tad understated there.

Runway 23 (NE-SW) was the main runway in Dublin and used the vast majority of the time.

Any of us here old enough would have spent many happy hours opposite the threshold of 23 watching the comings and goings!

EchoIndia

LXFlyer wrote: »

I think you're being a tad understated there.

Runway 23 (NE-SW) was the main runway in Dublin and used the vast majority of the time.

Any of us here old enough would have spent many happy hours opposite the threshold of 23 watching the comings and goings!

While that's correct, I would say that with the lower traffic levels of those days, the fact that the two main runways were not that dissimilar in length and that the SNN stopover meant that there were no real long-distance services, runway 34 (previously 35) was used a good deal more than it is now.

OD-AHE Boeing 707-323C by Irish251, on Flickr

EI-ASI Boeing 747-148 by Irish251, on Flickr

MJohnston

When did the spiral car park that's attached to Terminal 1 close? Such a rare design in Ireland! I know the spirals are still there now, but I presume the car park they were to access to long gone.

EchoIndia

MJohnston wrote: »

When did the spiral car park that's attached to Terminal 1 close? Such a rare design in Ireland! I know the spirals are still there now, but I presume the car park they were to access to long gone.

Quite early in its life - when the 1970s terrorist threats became real, I think. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Dublin_Airport_bombing

andy_g

MJohnston wrote: »

When did the spiral car park that's attached to Terminal 1 close? Such a rare design in Ireland! I know the spirals are still there now, but I presume the car park they were to access to long gone.

No longer used for the public but still used in a staff capacity

Pat Dunne

andy_g wrote: »

No longer used for the public but still used in a staff capacity

It been no longer used by the public since the early 1970's!

NH2013

So, I was thinking earlier about possible long term solutions to the congestion around the set up of the taxiways and terminals around runway 28 and was considering the possibility of moving R28 south of its current location, and using the current runway 28 as a taxiway for access to it, it would allow for dual taxiway access when R10 is in use, and allow for proper rapid exit taxiways, not the current set up of having to reduce to taxi speed prior to vacating. It could also reduce a lot of the congestion around the south side of pier 4, by moving the traffic queuing for takeoff away from that taxiway.



It's really only a road that would have to be moved and the long term carparks that could be relocated, not an immediate plan but perhaps one for 10-15 years down to the road.

Irish Steve

There would have to be a lot more than just the road and the car park moved, the warehouses and the Dublin bus depot that are south of the suggested new line would be too close to the runway for the safeway clearances, so they'd all also have to be moved elsewhere.

This suggestions still doesn't solve the problem of the restricted access to the south side of the T2 pier, which is responsible for a lot of the problems of access to that area, and it would require a lot of civil works to change land levels and move things like the waste water discharge station to a new location, among other things. It would also need a move of some of the stands close to the cargo sheds to facilitate alternate routes in and out of the south side of T2. There is a huge area leading to the threshold of 28 that has to remain sterile for technical and safety reasons, so there's no easy way to relocate the runway end, unless the old N1 is put into a tunnel so that the threshold can be moved further east, but even then, that doesn't solve the problem of getting round the end of the T2 pier, which is a fundamental issue for the smooth operation of the terminal. Another issue is the problem of a flight that is loaded and ready to depart, but does not have a slot allocated, the gate is needed for an inbound, so the departing aircraft has to move, the complication being that there is nowhere close to T2 to put the aircraft while waiting for the relevant slot clearance.

Might be of interest for a few people. CAR website(can’t link to it on phone) has new documents showing a list of proposed projects for Dublin and current timelines associated with them.

Including

1) extra line up points 10
2) continuation of double foxes down to Alpha
3) new alpha
4) new wider bravo 1 and Zulu
5) new taxiways link Link 6 and Link 3 to 16/34
6) new stands west apron and hangar 1+2
7) apron 5H
8) new stands south apron

Might answer a few questions

andy_g

Pat Dunne wrote: »

It been no longer used by the public since the early 1970's!

Thats what i mean by no longer in use.

J6P

Looks like the DAA are heading for a run in with residents tomorrow..

https://www.independent.ie/business/farming/rural-life/residents-to-protest-against-new-320m-runway-at-dublin-airport-37104152.html

“We have lost our right to appeal our case to the Supreme Court. We now are left with no other option but to protest outside an information meeting the daa are holding at St Margaret’s GAA club between 3pm and 7pm tomorrow.

“The real crux of the matter is that the daa refuse to even discuss what it (runway plans) is doing to the families living along this lane, along with their businesses being destroyed.

“First the daa offered 20 per cent above the market value of our house and all the properties along this lane and now that’s gone to 30 per cent but nothing for our lands and livelihoods.


And on a related note..

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/councillors-vote-in-favour-of-controversial-halting-site-to-facilitate-new-runway-at-dublin-airport-37099555.html

An extended traveller family will be rehomed in a rural village in north Dublin to facilitate a new runway at Dublin Airport, despite hundreds of concerns from local residents about flooding in the region.

A total of 646 “observations” were submitted during the process from local residents, as well as residents living across north Dublin and Meath.

Concerns on these submissions were centred around flooding in the region if the land was used to house the traveller families.

Many households in Coolquay submitted multiple observations during the process.

Mebuntu

The July issue of the Irish Air Letter magazine has a great article on the congestion at Dublin Airport at morning peak time. Taking just one date in June as an example it outlines in terrific detail the problems affecting both arrivals and departures. An utter shambles.

It is patently obvious that the decision to build T2 where it is is the main problem.