TimRees From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2001, 344 posts, RR: 0 Posted (6 years 7 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2687 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?
BHXDTW From Eritrea, joined Feb 2005, 1086 posts, RR: 6 Reply 5, posted (6 years 7 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2581 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...
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?
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.
Myt332 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 9112 posts, RR: 74 Reply 9, posted (6 years 7 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2305 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?
Cloudyapple From Hong Kong, joined Jul 2005, 2425 posts, RR: 9 Reply 10, posted (6 years 7 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2264 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.
BigOrange From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2358 posts, RR: 3 Reply 12, posted (6 years 7 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2250 times:
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.
VV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 6628 posts, RR: 17 Reply 13, posted (6 years 7 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2143 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?
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.
A340600 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2003, 4103 posts, RR: 53 Reply 15, posted (6 years 7 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2070 times:
Quoting DAL767400ER (Reply 3): Because the planners at LGW are spotter-friendly
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...
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
Despite the name I am a Boeing man through and through!
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2001, 344 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Jul 2005, 2425 posts, 
From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 5721 posts, 
. 
From Eritrea, joined Feb 2005, 1086 posts, 
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.
From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2358 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
