I have managed to establish that Taxiways Lima and Mike at EDI have the same PCN as runway 12/30 i.e. they are 31F/C/X/T. This means that the PCNs of the SE Apron (72/R/C/W/T) and the South Cargo Apron (79/R/D/W/T) are currently pretty academic because they can only be reached via pavements that have a PCN of 31F/C/X/T. Any operations from these two aprons or from Block 33 (the turning area at the SE end of runway 12 which is often used as an overflow parking area) by aircraft that exceed an ACN of 31 on a low strength subgrade on a flexible surface therefore require an exception to be granted under CAP168. (NB. The source of this data is the NATS website and it was confirmed to be correct by BAA ops at EDI.)
For detailed information about EDI such as detailed specifications and layout charts, see
the NATS web site.
This means that the only passenger apron at EDI which currently has stands large enough to accommodate any aircraft larger than a B767 without winglets (i.e. the SE Apron) can’t be used for regular long-haul operations because it can only be reached via links that are rated as 31F/C/X/T.
AFAIK, there are currently only two international stands at EDI on the main apron (stands 2 and 4) that can accept a B752W or a B763 without winglets and these are already heavily utilised so accommodation for long-haul aircraft at EDI is currently extremely limited. These are currently the largest international stands on the main apron at EDI.
Now that the Competition Commission are forcing BAA to sell EDI, the new owners will need to decide whether to strengthen the PCNs and increase the number of long-haul stands or not.
The cost to provide higher PCNs leading to the SE Apron should not be too high as it just involves the strengthening of a few hundred metres of taxiways. It’s somewhat strange that BAA did not strengthen these taxiways when they created the SE apron.
The costs of additional long-haul stands I imagine will just be a supply and demand issue for the new owners; if the demand is there they will be built and if it’s not they won’t.
The cost to upgrade part of 12/30 to allow aircraft with a higher ACN to reach the South Cargo Apron would be more substantial. Approximately another 600 metres or thereabouts of runway would need to be strengthened. Strengthening this part of 12/30 would also allow aircraft with higher ACNs to use Taxiway Hotel to/from the SE end of the SE Apron so it wouldn’t just benefit the South Cargo Apron.
The simplest way to strengthen these would presumably be to add an additional layer(s?) of asphalt to the top of the existing surface. Given the existence of alternative taxiing routes, I imagine that these works could be carried out without causing too much disruption to airfield operations.
I would therefore be surprised if the new owners do not, as a minimum, upgrade the PCNs linking the SE Apron to Taxiway Alpha and thus enable the three large wide-bodied sized stands on the SE apron to be used for aircraft (e.g. A332, A333, B752W, B763W, B764, B787 and B744) at the sort of ACN levels that would permit regular use for long-range operations. I'm somewhat surprised that BAA has left this weakness to persist for so long, especially given the number of press releases they have made in recent years saying how they are trying to attract additional long haul flights from Asia, the Middle East and North America.
Hypothetically, if the new owners make a decision at some stage in the future to strengthen the main runway (06/24), the main taxiways and the main aprons to bring them up to the strength necessary to enable operations of B773ER and B777F aircraft without weight restrictions how, in practical terms, would that work be accomplished when the runway is so heavily utilised and when the secondary runway 12/30 has so many shortcomings? (it has no ILS/NDB/LOC/DME, weak PCNs, poor alignment to prevailing winds, a shorter length than 06/24, no parallel taxiways for most of its length and noise issues for the local communities to name a few).
In an earlier post, OverRun said;
Cost to upgrade Edinburgh
The EDI pavement PCN rating has been done on a technical basis (the "T" in the rating), so I'm guessing the EDI probably have a reasonable idea of what is needed and the cost. I can give a ballpark estimate, but it is very much subject to adjustment based on the actual pavement. To move the runway rating for the 777-300ER from 274.4 tonnes to 352.2 tonnes, simplistically needs another 200mm of asphalt. The runway, parallel taxiway, stub taxiways and some of the apron all need to be overlaid. The cost will be loaded for (a) night work, constructing in limited hours to MOWP, temporary ramps and grooving, etc; (b) many runway lighting changes and re-cabling, matching in the geometric levels at all shoulders and all intersections, new markings; and (c) compliance with noise, environmental, and all manner of constraints.
I'm guessing that the whole project might run to GBP150 per tonne of laid asphalt. That would put the project at about GBP 15 million. However these projects can take on a life of their own (especially some of the UK ones I've seen), so figures going skywards up to GBP 50 million could be thrown around.
In practical terms, would it be possible to add another 200mm of asphalt to runway 06/24 by means of night time closures of say 6 or 8 hours? Wouldn't this extra 200mm create a "step" in the runway surface which, even if smoothed, would constitute too much of a grade change for an aircraft travelling at high ground speed? Or are there well proven methods to carry out such strengthening works using overnight runway closures?