Dublin Airport New Runway/Infrastructure.

Razor44

The existing 10/28 will be extended at both end of the runway to bring it up to around 3000ft I think. 16/34 was to go but I "think" it being retained now.

Chris_5339762

16/34 is still up in the air (ha), but the most recent plans that I've seen anyway retain it.

Common sense says retain, even if it means a lower capacity on very windy days. Keep some capacity, I say.

Jamie2k9

16/34 will be kept, no questions any attempt to get rid will see major fallout

KoolKid

If 10/28 is to be extended can we expect nice lower approaches at one end?

KoolKid

KoolKid wrote: »

If 10/28 is to be extended can we expect nice lower approaches at one end?

No same touchdown zones the extra length would be used for departures

KoolKid

Ill keep planning for Saint Maartens so.

Carawaystick

KoolKid wrote: »

If 10/28 is to be extended can we expect nice lower approaches at one end?

Is that the displaced threshold thing with -> -> -> -> markings for takeoff?

Ren2k7

I posted this over on SSC but it's worth putting up here as well.



This is from a Dublin airport capital investment plan proposed by the DAA last year. It's interesting the proposals for new piers to replace some of the older ones at T1.

http://www.aviationreg.ie/_fileupload/2014-05-29%20DAA%20Capital%20Investment%20Proposals.pdf

Growler!!!

Interesting. It doesn't look like Rwy 10L will be used for take offs or landings, there are no touch down markers for it. However it may just be the drawing.

Jamie2k9

Growler!!! wrote: »

Interesting. It doesn't look like Rwy 10L will be used for take offs or landings, there are no touch down markers for it. However it may just be the drawing.

The drawing is still out of date....

Irish Steve

That looks very complex in some areas, and the first issue I can see with it is the absence of 16/34, which will be a major issue, especially for the smaller aircraft if the winds are not suitable for operations on the 2 main runways.

I also am forced to wonder how cargo is going to be managed, as we appear to have lost all the cargo stands close to the existing handling facilities. Dragging cargo pallets across to remote stands is never a good idea, even more so if they are not accessible without crossing active taxiways, which appears to be the plan as outlined above.

The most important factor for me is that it has to be being planned ahead of the trigger point, otherwise the end result will be log jam, and lost opportunities, and given the likely changes with IAG looking at Dublin as their "Heathrow terminal 6", there is a clear indication that there will not be any decrease in the usage of Dublin, most likely a significant increase will follow on this change.

The track record on implementing significant infrastructure in Ireland is not good, I just hope that all concerned from both the DAA and the external bodies that are involved are up to the task, and ready to seriously engage with a critical process.

aliveandkicking

Shamrock231 wrote: »

The image Shamrock231 posted early in a previous thread (quoted above) is a different plan than Ren2k7 posted today. Do we know which one is correct?

LXFlyer

The only difference really is what they decide to do with piers 2 and 3. The development of the former in the design in post #909 would affect 16/34 rendering it unusable, but perhaps an alternative design for the pier can be used.

Jamie2k9

lxflyer wrote: »

The only difference really is what they decide to do with piers 2 and 3. The development of the former in the design in post #909 would affect 16/34 rendering it unusable, but perhaps an alternative design for the pier can be used.

Indeed but that's the second design they have carried for 2/3.

LXFlyer

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

Indeed but that's the second design they have carried for 2/3.

I'm sure they can re-examine it - we haven't got to definitive proposals yet.

Jamie2k9

lxflyer wrote: »

I'm sure they can re-examine it - we haven't got to definitive proposals yet.

They can but not a lot of options, if they want to keep 16/34 they will have to largely add minimal capacity to 2/3 piers, can't exactly move 16/34.

It will really be a case of scarp crosswind or require T3 sooner and I expect 16/34 to stay!

LXFlyer

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

They can but not a lot of options, if they want to keep 16/34 they will have to largely add minimal capacity to 2/3 piers, can't exactly move 16/34.

It will really be a case of scarp crosswind or require T3 sooner and I expect 16/34 to stay!

Well I would expect it to stay too.

There's not that much extra capacity being added to pier 3 in that drawing - if anything it looks like it's losing a stand! But the plan for pier 2 will have to be cut back

The only real room for expansion is in T2 with the extra pier.

Avada

lxflyer wrote: »

Well I would expect it to stay too.

There's not that much extra capacity being added to pier 3 in that drawing - if anything it looks like it's losing a stand! But the plan for pier 2 will have to be cut back

The only real room for expansion is in T2 with the extra pier.

Theres another plan somewhere to expand pier b further. That image only shows the b1 expansion. With what I can best describe as a dogleg expansion for b2 adding further gates. I'll go digging for the image in a few minutes.

Jamie2k9

Avada wrote: »

Theres another plan somewhere to expand pier b further. That image only shows the b1 expansion. With what I can best describe as a dogleg expansion for b2 adding further gates. I'll go digging for the image in a few minutes.

I know the image but not going to happen with 16/34.

Avada

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

I know the image but not going to happen with 16/34.

Unless I'm going mad, the above image doesn't have 16/34 either

Jamie2k9

Avada wrote: »

Unless I'm going mad, the above image doesn't have 16/34 either

Your correct, the other photo has B going out and it looked like a bent L and a slightly smaller A pier.

The main difference in the two photo's is the taxiways off new runway and a much shorter B and slightly bigger A

LXFlyer

If 16/34 is being retained - there is very little scope to do anything with piers A and B (2 and 3) in terms of expanding the number of stands available.

Avada

Here is the image I was talking about. It's from the Dublin Airport Capital Expenditure Plan 2010 - 2014. I'll attach it as it may be a little big.

Avada

lxflyer wrote: »

If 16/34 is being retained - there is very little scope to do anything with piers A and B (2 and 3) in terms of expanding the number of stands available.

Is there a massive benefit to retaining 16/34? Genuine question because I haven't a clue.

LXFlyer

Avada wrote: »

Is there a massive benefit to retaining 16/34? Genuine question because I haven't a clue.

When a strong wind is blowing from the southeast or northwest it can render 10/28 inoperative due to the crosswinds being outside acceptable safety margins.

Therefore I would imagine that it would be worth keeping it as a fall back option.

Otherwise there will be a lot of diversions in those circumstances (far more than currently).

Stealthirl

What are the chances that the option of moveing 16/34 West would happen givein its condition ?

2014 DAA Capital Investment Proposals wrote:

Runway 16-34 at Dublin Airport is the cross-wind runway for the airport. The runway acts as the
operational runway during significant cross-wind conditions and as the alternative runway when
the main runway (10-28) is taken out of service for maintenance. As such Runway 16-34 is a
critical piece of airport infrastructure, which is essential to accommodate limited aircraft
movements during cross wind conditions, routine maintenance work and the planned overlay of
Runway 10-28 in 2016/2017.
Runway 16-34 was originally constructed in the 1940s and has been extended and upgraded a
number of times between 1949 and 1999. The latest significant upgrade of this runway in 1999
extended the life of the runway by a theoretical design life of 15 years. This upgrade is now life
expired. Since 1999, ad-hoc maintenance works have been carried out to retain the runway in
service until the overall upgrade of the runway could take place.
A Pavement Condition survey of Runway 16-34 in 2013 has determined that the condition of the
pavement has now reached the point where a significant improvement programme will be
required in order to keep the runway in service. These works include extensive rehabilitation of
large portions of the runway surface and the repair of elements of runway drainage systems
which have failed.

Preset No.3

45 minute wait for the 122 as the only taxiway to the gate is still closed due to night works. Great planning there!

N64

I was actually recently on a flight with SAS and the captain had a bit of a rant over the PA regarding the whole layout of the airport stating that it was "one of the most confusing in Europe" and we'd be delayed due to there being only one runway. He even played the "this is how things are done in Ireland" card

I don't like the look of a extended walkway over to pier F in T2 in the plan pictured above. It looks like it would just be as long of a walk as it is to the LCC pier in T1.

jamo2oo9

It's shorter than Pier D or A really in terms of walking...

MoeJay

Preset No.3 wrote: »

45 minute wait for the 122 as the only taxiway to the gate is still closed due to night works. Great planning there!

Having suffered this myself I'm no great fan but the works are scheduled to end prior to the scheduled arrival time of the eastbound flights...they can't organise it to take consideration of winds aloft each night!

What is worse is the 45 min delays that can occur due to the bottleneck of the queue for departure on 28 in the early mornings and the flights trying to get into T2...

In relation to the case for retaining 16/34, in the event of winds that render 28 not an option, the only other southerly runways (of similar length) on the island are 17 in Cork and 17 in Aldergrove. Cork is limited to the number of aircraft it could handle in the event of multiple diversions, Belfast less so, but if 16 in Dublin wasn't an option suddenly capacity is an issue. Then we have the inevitable length of time to recover the operation. Then we'd have the thread about why we didn't keep 16 open when we had the chance!