Greetings Sir George. You've stimulated me to fire up Google Earth and take a look at this runway. I haven't checked the obstacles as you have, but I noticed something else.
I surmise that the full length of WAW runway 11/29 was used in the old days; and I measured this as 2800m (which is a nice round credible number). I also observe the concrete pavement slabs over 200m at each end of the full runway, and this is the normal position that an airport engineer would place them covering the start of the takeoff roll (since concrete is better than asphalt in supporting slow moving or stopped aircraft. It costs more than asphalt, so after 200m, the concrete is replaced by asphalt. That's why so many aprons are concrete while their runways are asphalt). I also observe the taxiway layout is such that there is a taxiway at each end of the full runway length. Could this be a cavalier [sic] military design without regard to civilian niceties?
So why did they shorten it now, and publish the odd ASDA and TORA/TODA figures?
Looking at the 'stopway' at the 29 end of 11/29, and then using the magic of Google Earth to tilt the picture [shift-down arrow keystroke] until it is almost flat, the very undulating nature of the terrain becomes clear. And the original designers have clearly done nothing by way of earthworks to provide a level runway. They simply laid it on the ground and it goes up and down as the ground goes up and down. Just east of the main (new/proper) runway end line and the big piano keys, the runway dips sharply. This dip is just beyond the declared TORA/TODA, and I am sure this bit of runway doesn’t meet ICAO requirements for runway or strip gradients (especially runway end gradients). Someone has picked the problem up on audit, and made the airport adjust their declared distances.
My guess is that the runway AND strip have then been arbitrarily terminated at the new runway end at 2300m (because of the gradient issues beyond that). There is still plenty of good runway and plenty of clear runway strip to the east BUT it doesn’t meet the ICAO rules except if used as a stopway. Thus the TORA = TODA = 2300m. And ASDA = 2597m.
The 2597m ASDA stops when the runway changes to concrete. It complies with ICAO because there is good runway and cleared strip out to that distance (just a bit steep gradient wise). I suspect that beyond it, the concrete is in really poor condition and not suitable for aircraft. I see a couple of concrete slabs have been replaced at WAW, and I have experience elsewhere of old Soviet military airfields and their teeth-rattling concrete slabs. . . .
My guess is that these odd declared distances are a clever bit of juggling by an astute engineer to squeeze the most out of a difficult situation.
Cheers,
Overrun