Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Dublin Airport New Runway/Infrastructure.

Options
1…175176178180181…289

Comments

  • Options
    #5312
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    This chart helps to illustrate some of the issues with lengthening the existing Runway 28L/10R. The vertical axis is exaggerated with respect to the horizontal one. There are protected surfaces (Obstacle Limitation Surface etc) that must not be penetrated by fixed (temporary or permanent) or mobile objects.

    http://iaip.iaa.ie/iaip/Published%20Files/AIP%20Files/AD/Chart%20Files/EIDW/EI_AD_2_EIDW_24-3_en.pdf

    The downslope on 10R is why some aircraft ask to that runway, even when the runway-in-use is 28R, if they are heavy.


  • Options
    #5313
    Irish Steve
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 6,521 Mod ✭✭✭✭Irish Steve


    HTCOne wrote: »
    Instrumentation would indeed need to be moved, but that first bit of tarmac you see crossing the centerline at the 10R end is within the airport perimeter, its a road for aiport ops vehicles. If you compare the distance of the 10L threshold to a public road vs the distance of 10R (public road illustrated in yellow on that image), you could easily add a couple of hundred M to the runway without needing to alter the public road in any way.

    Not that there’ll be much demand for it with the new runway available. Unlikely DUB will be seeing anything larger than the A350 or 77W for the foreseeable. The A359 can actually get off 10R/28L as is at MTOW, even when wet, something the A330s can’t even do I believe.

    Based on what they did at Bristol a few years ago, the road at the St Margarets end would have to be moved, when they upgraded the approach to Cat III, which it desperately needed, the road was diverted round the end of the lights, and as pointed out in a later post, there are very specific clearance issues for runway design, more critical now with the increased use of large twin engine aircraft, while they still have to be able to get airborne on one engine, they don't have the same surplus of power that the older 3 and 4 engine aircraft had, so the climb rate at the critical moments of take off can be "interesting", so having moving obstacles on the centre line is frowned on when upgrading.

    Shore, if it was easy, everybody would be doin it.😁



  • Options
    #5314
    EchoIndia
    Registered Users Posts: 2,819 ✭✭✭EchoIndia


    HTCOne wrote: »
    Plenty if room to lengthen 28L/10R there, shame the DAA will be too broke to do it for the foreseeable! What could have been if it hadn't been shortened at planning stage due the lobbying in the South West of the country!

    The rationale for lengthening the existing runway will be all the less as the new one will be able to accommodate those operations that require the additional length.


  • Options
    #5315
    HTCOne
    Registered Users Posts: 869 ✭✭✭HTCOne


    EchoIndia wrote: »
    The rationale for lengthening the existing runway will be all the less as the new one will be able to accommodate those operations that require the additional length.

    No disagreements here, I was just rambling and remarking on what could have been mainly!


  • Options
    #5316
    Irish Steve
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 6,521 Mod ✭✭✭✭Irish Steve


    EchoIndia wrote: »
    The rationale for lengthening the existing runway will be all the less as the new one will be able to accommodate those operations that require the additional length.

    While 747's have pretty much been withdrawn from passenger service, I suspect they will be around for quite some time to come in freight configuration, as will things like the MD11, and the derivatives, the freight operators tend to convert older airframes as they have much lower acquisition costs.

    I suspect that there will be a lot of 777's converted for freight before too long, as well as 330's, which don't have the same take off performance that the newer aircraft can utilise. A lot will depend on the mix of the freight, if a lot of it is Amazon style boxes, then weight won't be an issue, but if there's significant heavy cargo, that's a different story.

    A fully loaded 747-4 freighter with long haul fuel can't get out of 28L at present, it was one of the reasons for the loss of the Singapore service a few years back, they couldn't lift a full load on the return journey, so had to tech stop in Manchester for a fuel uplift. That's expensive in terms of possibly needing extra crewing and there's also additional handling costs, as well as maintenance issues due to increased cycles.

    Shore, if it was easy, everybody would be doin it.😁



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5317
    HTCOne
    Registered Users Posts: 869 ✭✭✭HTCOne


    The displaced threshold on 28R in particular seems short sighted.


  • Options
    #5318
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    HTCOne wrote: »
    The displaced threshold on 28R in particular seems short sighted.

    Why ?


  • Options
    #5319
    HTCOne
    Registered Users Posts: 869 ✭✭✭HTCOne


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Why ?

    Well the A330s and 777s departing heavy won't be able to return if they lose a donk on departure, they'll have to divert to Shannon as EI-LAX had to do a couple of years ago because the runways at DUB weren't long enough for it. But more importantly, anything bar the A350-900 won't be able to serve any desired routes to the far east, and as mentioned on the previous page, the larger freighters won't be able to stretch their legs from Dublin either. I haven't seen the 777X runway performance, it is a larger aircraft than the 77W with lower thrust, but a much bigger wing and more modern aero so I'd be interested to know its projected abilities.

    Given the arrival of Cathays, Haitian and planned arrival of the other crowd whose name escapes me who were supposed to be launching Shanghai, I would have hoped the DAA were chasing KAL, JAL, ANA and SIA for routes at least.

    Edit: does anyone definitively know why the threshold has been displaced? Noise abatement? Wind shear from Hangars? Obstacle clearance?


  • Options
    #5320
    NH2013
    Registered Users Posts: 401 ✭✭NH2013


    I believe it was due to interference with LOC/GP signals due to the proximity of roads at either end.

    The displaced thresholds shouldn’t effect takeoff performance as you can still used the displaced portion to takeoff from, it will however effect the ability of large jets just as the B777, A330 and B747 to return immediately after takeoff at weights significantly above their maximum landing weight.


  • Options
    #5321
    Captain_Crash
    Registered Users Posts: 2,653 ✭✭✭Captain_Crash


    Nice face lift for T1


    https://twitter.com/DublinAirport/status/1324311468326719489


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5322
    zega
    Registered Users Posts: 207 ✭✭zega


    Captain_Crash wrote: »
    Nice face lift for T1


    https://twitter.com/DublinAirport/status/1324311468326719489

    Absolute shower,they should concentrate on getting their staff off social welfare support instead of vanity projects for overpayed managers


  • Options
    #5323
    donvito99
    Registered Users Posts: 5,818 ✭✭✭donvito99


    zega wrote: »
    Absolute shower,they should concentrate on getting their staff off social welfare support instead of vanity projects for overpayed managers

    Replacing structures critical to the facade of a building that need to be replaced and reducing heat loss = a vanity project... :D


  • Options
    #5324
    Idbatterim
    Registered Users Posts: 17,843 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    zega wrote: »
    Absolute shower,they should concentrate on getting their staff off social welfare support instead of vanity projects for overpayed managers

    Their business collapsed, they should pay them to do nothing? Wish my employer adopted that attitude.


  • Options
    #5325
    Tenzor07
    Registered Users Posts: 8,579 ✭✭✭Tenzor07


    zega wrote: »
    Absolute shower,they should concentrate on getting their staff off social welfare support instead of vanity projects for overpayed managers

    Dublin Airport could be the only one we have left after the Government have finished breaking down the country, so don't you think our only airport should look modern?


  • Options
    #5326
    Lockheed
    Registered Users Posts: 668 ✭✭✭Lockheed


    Why not just plaster the 1940s terminal with glass panes while they're at it? Things that are worth preserving should be preserved


  • Options
    #5327
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,850 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    zega wrote: »
    Absolute shower,they should concentrate on getting their staff off social welfare support instead of vanity projects for overpayed managers

    Applying for planning gives them five years to do it; there is no intention to do it if passenger figures stay down.


  • Options
    #5328
    VG31
    Registered Users Posts: 3,407 ✭✭✭VG31


    Lockheed wrote: »
    Why not just plaster the 1940s terminal with glass panes while they're at it? Things that are worth preserving should be preserved

    T1 is ugly and not worth preserving, just like other brutalist architecture like Phibsboro Shopping Centre and the Central Bank.


  • Options
    #5329
    Tenzor07
    Registered Users Posts: 8,579 ✭✭✭Tenzor07


    A look back at when Terminal 1 was built:


    https://www.rte.ie/archives/2017/0426/870470-dublin-airport-new-terminal/


  • Options
    #5330
    Shedite27
    Registered Users Posts: 9,368 ✭✭✭Shedite27


    Left of photos, the round thing that looks like a car park ramp. Is that still in use? Are there still cars parked up there?


  • Options
    #5331
    cameramonkey
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,220 ✭✭✭cameramonkey


    Shedite27 wrote: »
    Left of photos, the round thing that looks like a car park ramp. Is that still in use? Are there still cars parked up there?


    think a bomb in the 1970s meant that public car parking was not allowed. maybe staff used it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5332
    Brendan Bendar
    Registered Users Posts: 19,113 ✭✭✭✭Brendan Bendar


    cameramonkey wrote: »
    think a bomb in the 1970s meant that public car parking was not allowed. maybe staff used it.

    Staff used it for a while, I believe, but not used now.

    Security was the reason. ... some offices up there now I am told.


  • Options
    #5333
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,081 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    zega wrote: »
    Absolute shower,they should concentrate on getting their staff off social welfare support instead of vanity projects for overpayed managers

    You realise how long the planning process takes, with frivolous appeals etc.?

    This work will create jobs.

    DAA is self-funding so if they don't have the money it won't proceed, but with the planning in their back pocket they can start it as soon as circumstances permit.

    Ridiculous thing to get annoyed about tbh.

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Options
    #5334
    Def_IRL
    Registered Users Posts: 63 ✭✭Def_IRL


    Brendan Bendar wrote: »
    Staff used it for a while, I believe, but not used now.

    Security was the reason. ... some offices up there now I am told.

    Still used for deliveries and about 40 staff cars, rest of it is all offices nowadays.
    That spiral ramps will have to be knocked at some stage in the next few years, as I'd say there is some serious corrosion within the old steel mesh concrete, it constantly sheds small llumps of concrete onto the ramp, and you can see bits of rusty exposed rebar underneath.


  • Options
    #5335
    Brendan Bendar
    Registered Users Posts: 19,113 ✭✭✭✭Brendan Bendar


    Def_IRL wrote: »
    Still used for deliveries and about 40 staff cars, rest of it is all offices nowadays.
    That spiral ramps will have to be knocked at some stage in the next few years, as I'd say there is some serious corrosion within the old steel mesh concrete, it constantly sheds small llumps of concrete onto the ramp, and you can see bits of rusty exposed rebar underneath.

    Thanks... ok .

    I would say the refurb of the Term would eliminate the need for any car parking, so the ramps would probably be taken out.

    Was a good design but the security climate at the time made it inoperable.


  • Options
    #5336
    BeardySi
    Registered Users Posts: 1,705 ✭✭✭BeardySi


    Anybody got any photos of the parking on the upper floors (historical or current) - was always curious about it....


  • Options
    #5337
    Stealthirl
    Registered Users Posts: 1,589 ✭✭✭Stealthirl


    BeardySi wrote: »
    Anybody got any photos of the parking on the upper floors (historical or current) - was always curious about it....

    Last time i remember being up there was the mid-late 90's but never thought about taking a picture. In the days of film camera's you had to pick what you were going to take pictures of :D


  • Options
    #5338
    Lockheed
    Registered Users Posts: 668 ✭✭✭Lockheed


    VG31 wrote: »
    T1 is ugly and not worth preserving, just like other brutalist architecture like Phibsboro Shopping Centre and the Central Bank.

    Well, you're just not a fan of brutalism. I don't particularly like the current trend of every single building looking the exact same, sheets of glass with no character or identity. I find the proposed design much uglier then the current design, reminds me of the awful plans for a hotel or office block at the end of T2


  • Options
    #5339
    IngazZagni
    Registered Users Posts: 1,586 ✭✭✭IngazZagni


    Just to remind folks.

    Corballis Rd S
    https://maps.app.goo.gl/xBmZSrMkuYdehEEe9

    This is what you are defending. It is literally a multi storey car park design you want to preserve. I would put it in the same grouping as Hawkins house (which demolition is beginning) as amongst Irelands ugliest buildings.

    It's much more than aesthetics though. The facade is coming to the end of its life cycle and will be in need of costly repairs over the coming years. The building currently has an energy rating of F. The face-lift will bring it up to a B3 rating reducing energy costs in the long run.

    This building is nothing like the original terminal which is rightly preserved.


  • Options
    #5340
    Irish Steve
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 6,521 Mod ✭✭✭✭Irish Steve


    I just hope that they don't just tinker with the facade. For all sorts of reasons, the insane concept of a pedestrian crossing in the middle of the set down road has to be changed, to completely segregate passengers on foot coming from the car park and bus area from the traffic on the set down road. It should have been done a long time ago, but DAA are not known for their intelligence where these sorts of issues are concerned, there have been so many monumental blunders over the years, I'm not going to hold my breath in anticipation of their people seeing the light.

    Shore, if it was easy, everybody would be doin it.😁



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5341
    Brendan Bendar
    Registered Users Posts: 19,113 ✭✭✭✭Brendan Bendar


    Irish Steve wrote: »
    I just hope that they don't just tinker with the facade. For all sorts of reasons, the insane concept of a pedestrian crossing in the middle of the set down road has to be changed, to completely segregate passengers on foot coming from the car park and bus area from the traffic on the set down road. It should have been done a long time ago, but DAA are not known for their intelligence where these sorts of issues are concerned, there have been so many monumental blunders over the years, I'm not going to hold my breath in anticipation of their people seeing the light.

    Steve.... the grey dullness and old ‘Soviet Style’ facade has to be improved.

    What that building was, was a square steel frame, like a fohherking warehouse, with low ceilings ,poor natural lighting , claustrophobic cramped conditions, dressed up with equally grey dull concrete units hung on the outside.

    Nothing about it needs to be ‘preserved’ in this day and age.

    Think the old Lansdowne Road vs the Aviva Stadium.


Advertisement