23/05 eventually went the same way as all the other subsidiary runways, the Airport Operator wanting the concrete for reasons other than landing and take-off. Modern aircraft are (most of the time...) more able to cope with crosswinds than the previous generations especially old four-podders (although some side-stickers could provide some entertainment). If the landing aircraft on 23/05 were any more than 2nm apart the air holding delays became huge but for as standard separation had to be distance and not time despite ridiculously low groundspeeds 2.5 nm or more had to be used. Mandatory Wake Vortex separation 'blew away' any chance of tightening up spacing even though the preceding vortex rapidly dissipated by the time the following aircraft came in a position to encounter it. Turbulence was probably more of an issue. It was an awesome sight to see five heavies lined up on 23 and the tower controller crossing tugs on the dual taxiways. Ground movements became more of a problem when the inner taxiway outside the Deltas and Echos was developed for parking and there would be a queue of aircraft leading up to 27R with a 23 vacater trying to squeeze through to the Echos and Foxtrots. I often wondered if it would have been easier if aircraft had turn indicators so that the taxying aircraft could give way to the lander. As HD says the 27L versus the 23 was a real black art but very rewarding when it worked. Had to resort to unofficial 23 LAHSOs on a few occasions. It was also great fun on 05 providing 'back-to-back' SRAs espectially when it was a stiff CAVOK north-easterly. Towards the end of the life of 23 it was not unusual to find oneself supervising a tower-full of controllers who had never seen it in use and the experience died away before the runway was withdrawn to be just the 'outer taxiway'.