Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
LGW -why Not A Tunnel To Pier 2, North Terminal  
User currently offlineTimRees From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2001, 355 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 2 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 4299 times:

I was wondering why the planners decided to link the North Terminal at LGW to the new pier 6 by bridge rather than a tunnel. The bridge is beautiful and gives great views of the apron (pity you have to be flying to get to see that view!) but it isn't tall enough to let an A380 pass beneath (not that anyone is likely to be flying them from LGW, or anywhere, in the near future). It struck me that if a 'pier 7' is built to the south of the new pier a further bridge or tunnel will be needed. Is it really cheaper to build a bridge that construct a relatively small tunnel to connect the two? Any thoughts?

15 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineTimRees From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2001, 355 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (8 years 2 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 4301 times:

Sorry, header should of course read Pier 6!

User currently offlineCloudyapple From Hong Kong, joined Jul 2005, 2454 posts, RR: 10
Reply 2, posted (8 years 2 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 4280 times:

To do with ops - digging a tunnel would have closed the taxiway for months, whereas the bridge only took 10 days to lodge into place.

http://www.arup.com/europe/gallery.cfm?pageid=3206

The downside is that the bridge is obstructing views from the tower.



A310/A319/20/21/A332/3/A343/6/A388/B732/5/7/8/B742/S/4/B752/B763/B772/3/W/E145/J41/MD11/83/90
User currently offlineDAL767400ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (8 years 2 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 4247 times:

Because the planners at LGW are spotter-friendly Big grin .

Okay, not really, but an open bridge certainly can be considered more appealing to pax than a tunnel.


User currently offlineCloudyapple From Hong Kong, joined Jul 2005, 2454 posts, RR: 10
Reply 4, posted (8 years 2 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 4237 times:

Quoting DAL767400ER (Reply 3):
more appealing

That is also true. BAA is very against connecting tunnels with no views. Cost is also a factor.



A310/A319/20/21/A332/3/A343/6/A388/B732/5/7/8/B742/S/4/B752/B763/B772/3/W/E145/J41/MD11/83/90
User currently offlineBHXDTW From Eritrea, joined Feb 2005, 1092 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (8 years 2 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 4193 times:

Quoting Cloudyapple (Reply 4):
That is also true. BAA is very against connecting tunnels with no views.

seriously ?? why ??....

Quoting TimRees (Thread starter):
but it isn't tall enough to let an A380 pass beneath (not that anyone is likely to be flying them from LGW, or anywhere, in the near future).

Who knows ?? after airlines start receiving the A380 in the year 2075 we may see some airlines operate them on high density routes to places like Orlando or such like...  Wink

Joe


User currently offlineMyt332 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 9113 posts, RR: 70
Reply 6, posted (8 years 2 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 4166 times:

Quoting Cloudyapple (Reply 4):
BAA is very against connecting tunnels with no views

Is that a joke?



One Life, Live it.
User currently offlineTimRees From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2001, 355 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (8 years 2 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 4094 times:

Quoting Cloudyapple (Reply 4):
BAA is very against connecting tunnels with no views



Quoting Myt332 (Reply 6):
Is that a joke?

Thinking about the extremely long walks to get to the gates at LHR and LGW usually with very little to see due to the departure lounges etc blocking the views to the outside, I can't see that the short distance for this tunnel would be a major factor with some attractive lighting and art work to distract the passenger. Even a people mover of sorts perhaps for the distance would save the walking. Also would you have to close the taxiway to build a tunnel? Could you not work entirely beneath the surface or is that just too difficult. Did they shut 27R/09L at LHR when they built the tunnel to the central area as that would be at a similar depth I suspect.
I presume there is a plan to add a pier 7 to the south of pier 6. How will you get to it? Via another bridge?


User currently offlineCloudyapple From Hong Kong, joined Jul 2005, 2454 posts, RR: 10
Reply 8, posted (8 years 2 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 3924 times:

Quoting TimRees (Thread starter):
it isn't tall enough to let an A380 pass beneath

 checkmark  Clearance is 20m. A388 tail is 24m. It is not expected Gatwick will receive a lot of A388s. The bulk of these will go to Heathrow.

Quoting TimRees (Reply 7):
Thinking about the extremely long walks to get to the gates at LHR and LGW usually with very little to see due to the departure lounges etc blocking the views to the outside

These have been in place for years. We are talking about new build structures. They are determined to improve rather that retaining the status quo.

Quoting TimRees (Reply 7):
Even a people mover of sorts perhaps for the distance would save the walking.

The problem is the cost of building/operating/maintaining a people mover system. There is also an industry standard as for the maximum acceptable walking distance to the gates for passengers. Only if the distance is above that will one consider installing escalators/people movers. BAA is now a private company and is very cost concious.

Also the cost of building a tunnel is minimum 10x cost for a bridge. Plus cost of disruptions to ops for months.

Quoting TimRees (Reply 7):
Also would you have to close the taxiway to build a tunnel? Could you not work entirely beneath the surface or is that just too difficult. Did they shut 27R/09L at LHR when they built the tunnel to the central area as that would be at a similar depth I suspect.

The strength of the foundation for a taxiway is very different from that of a runway. And so is the strength of the concrete on top. Here you are talking about a void immediately below the taxiway concrete. It is not possible to cut a tunnel while providing temporary support to the taxiway above to keep it open. That will be suicidal. You will need to perform a cut and cover type tunnel, building a strengthened foundation for a taxiway bridge to cover the void. At Heathrow it was further below the runway surface. There was sufficient space to provide temporary support for the runway surface.



A310/A319/20/21/A332/3/A343/6/A388/B732/5/7/8/B742/S/4/B752/B763/B772/3/W/E145/J41/MD11/83/90
User currently offlineMyt332 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 9113 posts, RR: 70
Reply 9, posted (8 years 2 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 3917 times:

Quoting Cloudyapple (Reply 8):

These have been in place for years. We are talking about new build structures. They are determined to improve rather that retaining the status quo.

Doesn't T5 at LHR have remote piers connected via tunnels? Or, it will have?



One Life, Live it.
User currently offlineCloudyapple From Hong Kong, joined Jul 2005, 2454 posts, RR: 10
Reply 10, posted (8 years 2 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 3876 times:

Quoting Myt332 (Reply 9):
Doesn't T5 at LHR have remote piers connected via tunnels? Or, it will have?

Correct - but they do not have any alternatives there - to cross a span 600m wide (2 stands + twy A/B + grassy area) to Satellite B and, another 350m to Satellite C, the only way is by a people mover.

Whereas through better thought out design Gatwick and Stansted G2 could do away with such. You will see when the rendered designs are released.



A310/A319/20/21/A332/3/A343/6/A388/B732/5/7/8/B742/S/4/B752/B763/B772/3/W/E145/J41/MD11/83/90
User currently offlineMyt332 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 9113 posts, RR: 70
Reply 11, posted (8 years 2 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 3872 times:

Quoting Cloudyapple (Reply 10):
but they do not have any alternatives there

Well we could have had two very big and very impressive bridges! Then again, no, you're right.

Quoting Cloudyapple (Reply 10):
You will see when the rendered designs are released.

I look forward to it. BAA have had some horrendous looking designs before.  yuck 



One Life, Live it.
User currently offlineBigOrange From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2384 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (8 years 2 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 3862 times:

Quoting TimRees (Thread starter):
it isn't tall enough to let an A380 pass beneath

You have to view this from the eyes of the architect who designed this bridge! When the A380's start operating into LGW, they are going to need to rebuild the bridge, which means that the architect will be needed again to design the new bridge. It's called job security.


User currently onlineVV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7742 posts, RR: 17
Reply 13, posted (8 years 2 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 3755 times:

Quoting TimRees (Thread starter):
I was wondering why the planners decided to link the North Terminal at LGW to the new pier 6 by bridge rather than a tunnel.

Because you cannot get shots like this from a tunnel?

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Sam Vasu



Quoting BigOrange (Reply 12):
When the A380's start operating into LGW, they are going to need to rebuild the bridge, which means that the architect will be needed again to design the new bridge. It's called job security.

Alternatively they could route the 380 along the taxiway in the top right of the above photo. Then a right turn and it can taxi south of the bridge and no problems.


User currently offlineVasu From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 3985 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (8 years 2 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 3726 times:

Are there any airlines planning to operate the A380 into Gatwick at the moment?

User currently offlineA340600 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2003, 4106 posts, RR: 51
Reply 15, posted (8 years 2 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3682 times:

Quoting DAL767400ER (Reply 3):
Because the planners at LGW are spotter-friendly

 rotfl 

Quoting BHXDTW (Reply 5):
Who knows ?? after airlines start receiving the A380 in the year 2075 we may see some airlines operate them on high density routes to places like Orlando or such like...

 rotfl Indeed, by the time it actually comes out 787's will be vintage aircraft

Quoting Cloudyapple (Reply 10):
Whereas through better thought out design Gatwick and Stansted G2 could do away with such. You will see when the rendered designs are released.

Gatwick did away with its Pier 3 (Satelitte) transit system, totally pointless. I walked over to their recently and its a shorter walk than some Pier 2 gates! The satelitte refurbishment is really nice too!

Quoting BigOrange (Reply 12):
You have to view this from the eyes of the architect who designed this bridge! When the A380's start operating into LGW, they are going to need to rebuild the bridge, which means that the architect will be needed again to design the new bridge. It's called job security.

I don't think so, it is quite simple to get around it, and the gates around it don't even fit the A380.

I love the Pier 6 bridge and the actual pier itself, all very nice with excellent views out across aprons and runways,

Sam Smile



Despite the name I am a Boeing man through and through!
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Why NOT -- AA To GEO And PMB? posted Sat Oct 28 2006 01:34:08 by AJMIA
Why BA Flights To Miami From Terminal 3? posted Tue Mar 28 2006 17:28:44 by VirginA346
Gate Occupied Why Not Switched To Alternate Gate posted Mon Jul 18 2005 15:50:07 by Ultrapig
Jet2 - Why Not Operating To Brussels? posted Fri May 13 2005 12:33:47 by Sabena 690
DTW To Open North Terminal In 2008 posted Wed Sep 8 2004 15:27:03 by Dtwclipper
Why Not Frontier To CLT? posted Thu Jan 9 2003 14:20:57 by B764
FAA: BUR Does Not Need To Build New Terminal posted Fri Dec 20 2002 18:12:52 by FATFlyer
AA Move To LGW North Terminal... posted Wed Mar 31 2004 10:22:43 by Richardw
AA Moving To North Terminal At LGW? posted Mon Mar 8 2004 00:03:15 by Ssides
Virgin Sun Move To North Terminal @ LGW posted Thu Apr 19 2001 11:50:51 by LGW