SkyBus can co-exist with Melbourne Airport Rail

 
Topic moved from News by bevans on 17 Oct 2016 17:21
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
The BAe 146s are I believe one of the few jets not subject to curfew, and are used by QF freight in those hours.  Ill see if airliners can shed some light.

I think all the airports you mention above are about moving away from the centre of population.  BC is roughly equidistant from the centre of Sydney's population, and that centre will probably move relatively closer to BC over time.  Two airports in Syd i think will work.
james.au
Agreed, the "whisper jet" is an exception, but also out of production now for 15 years and only half are still operating and the bulk of the Australian models are based in WA, well out of fuel range of Sydney.

The question will be what happens to BC if the big boys ever achieve the noise levels of the '146?

EDIT: http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC%2036-3H%20Base.pdf

Open, page 17,
It would appear we are there?

Sponsored advertisement

  james.au Minister for Railways

Location: Sydney, NSW
If jets that reach the noise levels of the 146, then the question will apply to a lot of airports.
  kitchgp Chief Commissioner

The discussion about restrictions on operations at Badgerys Creek is just that; a discussion. The current Environment Impact Statement (EIS) and Airport Plan are a "proof of concept", ie glossy brochures. All tip and no iceberg as Paul Keating would say. According to the timelines given, it'll be 5 years before detailed noise restrictions and the design of the airport are finalised. The EIS uses glib phrasing  such as:
- international best-practice
- a focus on minimising flights over residential areas (in bold).
- the use of head-to-head operations to and from the south-west, when it is safe to do so, is an     important preferred option for managing aircraft noise at night.
- thoroughly evaluated.
The statement "indications are that head-to-head operations could be available greater than 80% of the time" seems to have come from the Ministers office. Could being the operative word.

Head-to-head operation is a major restriction in itself. Whilst head-to-head is not particularly dangerous, implementing it safely causes problems. Without detailed information on aircraft types, required noise-avoidance flight paths and airport layout, it is difficult to model its application, however it would significantly reduce capacity. In a simple scenario, for an aircraft to depart between 2 arriving aircraft would require a gap of at least 10 mins between the arriving aircraft, as opposed to a gap of 2 - 3 mins between arriving aircraft when all aircraft are using the same direction. This also means aircraft have to depart 10 mins apart to accommodate an arriving aircraft. Unless the wind is calm or blowing across the runway at 90 degrees, either the arriving or the departing aircraft has to operate with a tailwind component. Anything over 5 knots becomes problematic for an aircraft (in some cases, any tailwind component is not acceptable).

The EIS is sufficiently vague to be meaningless. If you are considering buying a house north-east of the airport, are happy to put up with the daytime noise but would like a good night's sleep there is no guarantee of such. You could get conditions lasting 3 or 4 nights in a row where the wind is a strong northerly and the tailwind component for departures to the south-west is 15 knots, meaning aircraft need to depart to the north-east. Conversely, if you are an air operator (stakeholder) and need to start planning now for a move to Badgerys Creek, there is nothing to say that the final restrictions won't impinge on your business. It's a battle to be fought between the local community and the stakeholders in the "fullness of time".

Like the rest of you, I find it amazing that any form of restriction on operations should be contemplated for a new airport, but that's how it is these days. One thing is certain, whatever the outcome, the term curfew won't be used. Anyway, at least from my point of view, this is drifting away from the topic of this forum, so over and out.
  mrmoopt Chief Commissioner

Location: _
The BAe 146s are I believe one of the few jets not subject to curfew, and are used by QF freight in those hours.  Ill see if airliners can shed some light.

I think all the airports you mention above are about moving away from the centre of population.  BC is roughly equidistant from the centre of Sydney's population, and that centre will probably move relatively closer to BC over time.  Two airports in Syd i think will work.
james.au

And it does in Tokyo or Osaka- the one closest to the city centre becomes primarily domestic- and the further one away becomes the new international airport.

Both cities above have limited international flights- with most going to Gimpo in Seoul. A similar analogy can probably be used here for BC and Mascot- only domestic and trans Tasman flights remain.
  mrmoopt Chief Commissioner

Location: _
The discussion about restrictions on operations at Badgerys Creek is just that; a discussion. The current Environment Impact Statement (EIS) and Airport Plan are a "proof of concept", ie glossy brochures. All tip and no iceberg as Paul Keating would say. According to the timelines given, it'll be 5 years before detailed noise restrictions and the design of the airport are finalised. The EIS uses glib phrasing  such as:
- international best-practice
- a focus on minimising flights over residential areas (in bold).
- the use of head-to-head operations to and from the south-west, when it is safe to do so, is an     important preferred option for managing aircraft noise at night.
- thoroughly evaluated.
The statement "indications are that head-to-head operations could be available greater than 80% of the time" seems to have come from the Ministers office. Could being the operative word.

Head-to-head operation is a major restriction in itself. Whilst head-to-head is not particularly dangerous, implementing it safely causes problems. Without detailed information on aircraft types, required noise-avoidance flight paths and airport layout, it is difficult to model its application, however it would significantly reduce capacity. In a simple scenario, for an aircraft to depart between 2 arriving aircraft would require a gap of at least 10 mins between the arriving aircraft, as opposed to a gap of 2 - 3 mins between arriving aircraft when all aircraft are using the same direction. This also means aircraft have to depart 10 mins apart to accommodate an arriving aircraft. Unless the wind is calm or blowing across the runway at 90 degrees, either the arriving or the departing aircraft has to operate with a tailwind component. Anything over 5 knots becomes problematic for an aircraft (in some cases, any tailwind component is not acceptable).

The EIS is sufficiently vague to be meaningless. If you are considering buying a house north-east of the airport, are happy to put up with the daytime noise but would like a good night's sleep there is no guarantee of such. You could get conditions lasting 3 or 4 nights in a row where the wind is a strong northerly and the tailwind component for departures to the south-west is 15 knots, meaning aircraft need to depart to the north-east. Conversely, if you are an air operator (stakeholder) and need to start planning now for a move to Badgerys Creek, there is nothing to say that the final restrictions won't impinge on your business. It's a battle to be fought between the local community and the stakeholders in the "fullness of time".

Like the rest of you, I find it amazing that any form of restriction on operations should be contemplated for a new airport, but that's how it is these days. One thing is certain, whatever the outcome, the term curfew won't be used. Anyway, at least from my point of view, this is drifting away from the topic of this forum, so over and out.
kitchgp

The source is here:

http://minister.infrastructure.gov.au/pf/releases/2016/September/pf068_2016.aspx
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

All I know is that when I do catch the bus between mascot and the airport. I am not the only person doing so. Normally 10-20 people are joining me in doing this.
Agreed, probably not, I'm sure this option is not so uncomfortable that a few able bodied people who are interested do it. Time wise by the time you get to Mascot station, others are in the city on the train. And luggage wise if you are not overly burdened its doable.

14min trip on bus according to timetable with a 20min frequency during day vs rail on 6-9min. So 10-20 people/bus is a drop in the ocean compared to the users on the train.

The question is what is their price, how low before that get on the train?
RTT_Rules
From domestic it is only 6 minutes. No doubt the train is the better service but 19% is an extremely low percentage for what it should be achieving. Considering how easy it is to get to a train station in the Sydney CBD and that all of them except one has a direct train to the airport. This number should really be much much higher. Without the access fee it would be significantly higher.

Aside from the 400 there are no other bus services and the 400 doesn't service the Sydney CBD. Hotels in the CBD might have a complimentary service but it is just a van and not a bus and most hotels just point people to the train station. The only other bus is the blu emu car park shuttle bus. Taxi's and Uber make up the most traffic to the airport in Sydney.

I like some of the ideas of converting more of Victoria's lines to SG and improving freight links in conjuntion with passenger services via the airport. This makes sense and would make the line much more viable.

Sponsored advertisement

Subscribers: bevans, james.au, mrmoopt, RTT_Rules, x31

Display from:   

Quick Reply

We've disabled Quick Reply for this thread as it was last updated more than six months ago.