Radio news this morning - Richmond to become 2nd Sydney Airport, Hercs to Nowra.
 

An old chestnut, I know, but it's been raised yet again, probably by someone in Canberra who's never taken a look on Google earth and noted two small impediments to progress to this proposal - the not small townships of Windsor and Richmond quite literally on each threshold of the existing R/W 10/28.

I haven't looked on Google earh myself for some time, but with all the development that's taken place out that way over the last few decades, is there space for a pair of north/south parallel runways of the required length, and won't any second airport at Richmond be dealing with noise abatement issues every bit as serious as KSA before it even gets started, to say nothing of the high ground not so far to the north that would possibly make northerly departures a problem?

Hercs to Nowra has been in the pipeline for a while. As for Richmond as Sydney second airport-bollocks. Like you said, civilization has crept far to close to allow it.

Why would the RAAF have to move? It could easily operate as a joint user airfield. Some curtailment of low-level drop training perhaps. Google maps view shows plenty of space for a north-south rwy without much property acquisition.

Yeah you could have a north /south runway about 3000ft long, to the north is a significant drop off and to the south is a main road and a railway and certainly not enough room for a parallel runway complex.

As Fubaar says no room to extend the existing runway and as Trojan1981 says "-bollocks."

Regards,
BH.

(Ex C130H and B707 driver, so I know the neighborhood.)

BH, it would have to be 3000m not feet, and extend over Richmond Rd all the way to Blacktown Rd.

'look outside the base' !

I know what it would have to be but like I said, 3000ft is about all you could fit with out digging up the road and the railway line and resuming a lot of the Ag College land, unlikely. I am very familiar with what is "outside the base", I drive between Richmond and Windsor at least once a week.

Regards,
BH.

Hey Bullethead.

How many days per year do you reckon Richmond is affected by FG, TS, and excessive XW?

I wonder how this compares with SYD.

I ask with some facts in mind. Sydney has runways running north/south AND east/west. Many thunderstorms in summer seem to originate around the Blue Mountains and them move towards the coast. Richmond gets much colder in the morning during winter compared to the coastal regions and there's lots of moisture available from the Hawkesbury River.

Thanks.

In my days there, Richmond was fog central, and I don't believe anything will have changed in the meantime.

(I think back in the 1920s, some very sharp real estate company sold off the most fog-prone strip of land near every major city to the Commonwealth on which to plonk the local RAAF base.)

On more than one occasion, in my experience, Richmond and the area immediately around it can be the only area affected by fog, with all the surrounding country clear as a bell, so I foresee some major problems with that.

To say nothing of Richmond township and Windsor, moving the railway (an absolute [and very expensive!] necessity if they put in a North/South runway [and hopefully runwayS]).

Then there's the ag. college. I imagine there's many a regional town in NSW that would love to have it, but I'd be guessing many of the students do some part of their coursework at other campuses in and around Sydney - and who'd pay for the move anyway?

If North/South runways do go in, it will involve huge expenditure in reclaiming land (if that's the right word), because if my memory serves me right, the terrain drops off quite a bit to the immediate north of the base (before getting quite high a couple of miles further north, which will make northerly departures interesting for a 747 or a 380 gassed up to the gunnels and bound for LAX).

So unless they're going to build a half-arsed second airport (which is quite on the cards), I'd expect they'd have to build up the land A LOT to get even a 3600m runway, let alone two widely spaced runways, which should be included in any such plan. (I'd expect most long haul operators would be wanting at least the departure runway to be 4000m.)

If the new runways are to be built, the whole existing base would have to go.

Then there's the elephant in the room that no one wants to acknowledge - aircraft noise. I'd be guessing the Richmond area nimby anti-aircraft noise / pro-curfew protestors are spraypainting their placards as we speak.

If Richmond had been declared the second airport forty years ago, it might have been do-able, but now, there are MacMansions houses damn near everywhere (and quite close) under where any flight paths will simply have to be.

Can of worms... and very foggy worms at that.

I don't have any statistics but my gut feeling, having operated out of both YSRI and YSSY for many years, is that Richmond has more foggy days per year.

In the eight years that I was based at YSRI I can't recall and out of limits crosswind and yes we do get some ripper thunderstorms out this way which tend to follow the river which sort of surrounds the base on the northern side.

As Wiley says it would be horrendously expensive to make a full sized airport here apart from objections from the anti-noise brigade which would more than likely stymy any such development.

Regards,
BH.

Interesting argument...

Leaving the fog and noise issues aside for one moment, there is space to put in a roughly north-south runway without unduly affecting existing infrastructure.

I've mocked up this very rough Google Earth image of where a single north-south runway could run, while the thinner red line would mark a probable airfield perimeter.

http://i346.photobucket.com/albums/p...mondmockup.jpg

To the north of and perpendicular to the current runway, there is approximately 1500 metres to the northern base perimeter and Dight St, and then a drop in elevation of about 40 feet down to the flood plain. There are no significant engineering issues in building up about 1000m x 500m of the flood plain by 30-40 feet. Further north, the highest ground within 10km in line with the new runway is less than 600 feet, and less than 300 feet within 8km.

Directly to the south are of course the Richmond-Windsor Rd, the single rail line, the western edges of the Clarendon racecourse, and the eastern paddocks of the ag college. If a north-south runway were to be run, say 2000 metres south of the current runway, the rail line and Richmond-Windsor Rd would either need to be re-aligned or put underground for several hundred metres, and the racecourse likely closed or at least the stables and other infrastructure relocated to the eastern or southern side of the racecourse. Again, no biggies!

In support of commercial ops, the rail line would require duplication as well as a new (likely underground) spur line to any terminal precinct; Blacktown Rd would require duplication down to the M7 and an access road/s into the terminal, freight, POL and other related infrastructure areas; and of course, space would need to be found for ramp parking, terminals, freight handling, Biz jet/GA and other facilities.

Perhaps a solution is to restrict the airport to regional, freight and charter flights at YSRI, thus freeing slots at YSSY for heavier a/c ops.

Or, they could just remove the ridiculous 80 movements per hour cap at YSSY! :ooh:

FA18 for town planner!!
 

Dude!! impressed with that proposal - you did spend a lot of time thinking about it - I vote for you as town planner of the year ! FOX 5! woodja:ok:

The infrastructure and geotechnical problems with Richmond's expansion are minor especially when compared to anything outside the Sydney basin. FA18's thoughts are pretty much aligned with mine although I'd say the rail line wouldn't "spur" to the terminals but run through them much like the airport rail link does for Sydney. Parallel runways only needed if the airport is a long-term replacement for Sydney.

Noise will be a concern anywhere. Newer technologies can assist in the political sell-job (winding RNP approach and departure paths over less populated land or opposition electorates).

Fog is a major problem. Richmond has something like 100 days per year fog affected. Sydney has less than 5. Richmond will need Category III C equipment to be viable.

Storms are also a major problem but comparable to Sydney and Brisbane.

CAT 3 will be Req? No airfield in Aus has made CAT 2 yet, i dont think youll see CAT 3 at YSRI! Nice thought though!

You can do whatever you want with Richmond if you've got enough money. Question is whether it would be a viable investment.

Ivasrus commented: So, are you just thinking a short-term replacement, a reliever, or what?

I would suggest any new airport in the Sydney basin will have to be considered a long-term replacement. You only get one shot and then the entire basin will be built out. Frankly, I believe the politicians have already squandered that opportunity, but never underestimate the determination of a parochial Sydney pollie and a swath of influential investors goaded by an expanding Brisbane airport just across the northern border and a bustling Melbourne to the south. What's the difference in gauge on the railway lines? 3ft 6 compared to 4ft 8 and 5ft 2? Sydney blew the last opportunity years ago at Badgerys Creek through politics and warring factions. Richmond will be no different.

And I like FoxtrotAlpha's comment:Take the prize for understatement of the year.

Remember the freak storm that did this...

http://i253.photobucket.com/albums/h..._2A97_209c.jpg

http://i253.photobucket.com/albums/h..._2A97_209d.jpg

YSRI as second airport
 

FA-18

Love the proposal and well ennunciated reasons. :ok:

It ticks most of the boxes interms of access - rail, tollways (Huntingwood industrial area) so as a freight facility would on paper be a good proposition. One further 'plus' - it would annoy the hell out of those pestilential inhabitants (and non-labor voters) of the "Hills" district on extended approaches from the east.

One critical flaw that I can see is the approach from the south. Tracking from that direction puts it directly over Penrith - heartland (now) Labor territory. Looking at say a Warragamba 'join' you have Glenmore Park right through to Cranebrook under the flightpath. If you join further 'east' then you start to rope in Mt Druitt - even Blacktown - real Labor territory. :=

Expect an even more vocal response that that created when Badgerys was proposed.

We have seen how 'soft' Albanese is when faced with balancing commercial benefit against local vested interest. :ugh:

PM

plainmaker, curved approaches (RNP, GLS, etc) can be used to lessen or avoid the "noise" problems created with a 10 NM straight-in ILS. Parallel runways will exponentially worsen the noise problems because they will be fixed straight-in approaches.

Aussie, not that it matters (thread drift)... but I believe MEL is getting CAT III and SYD is installing what looks highly suspiciously like CAT II lighting. All I was saying is that without CAT III (C-probably) then Richmond just isn't feasible.

Lodown, If it will be a second airport, then a 28/10+18/36(ish) arrangement would be enough, and allow capacity similar to MEL. If RIC will be a replacement airport for SYD then it will need two long wide-spaced parallels with all the high speeds you can fit and a centrally positioned terminal complex. As far as the money goes, in all cases Richmond will be an order of magnitude cheaper than anything outside the Sydney basin.

But all this aside, has Labor ruled out all sites within the Sydney basin or not?

Here's a thought -


The Richmond proposal is worked through to a point where tenders can be called for (accompanied by noise from the, er, anti-noise groups), then suddenly the proposal is switched to Nowra or Newcastle, for which an integrated proposal has been developed in parallel. Everybody rejoices (more than were complaining anyway) and away it goes.

There have been vigorous calls to improve infrastructure to both North and South coasts for many years, installing an airport would justify the infrastructure improvements having Fed input to what is currently the responsibility of a flat broke state.


Jeez we'll all be right when my plans for world domination come through - HAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!

Thanks guys

I just want to go on record as saying I neither favour nor dis-favour (?) the YSRI solution - I just started mucking around on Google Earth and next thing you know, I was playing town planner!

Obviously there would be noise issues in the Penrith/St Marys region, and engineering issues in building appropriate infrastructure PLUS the necessary easements for future infrastructure expansions!

Personally, I would advocate getting more...MUCH MORE out of YSSY first. Smarter scheduling, even smarter use of YSBK for regional turboprop ops, a relaxation of the 80 movements cap etc should all be explored first.

Lets keep it constructive and lateral! :ok:

Cheers

Expand YSSY ditch the curfew and tell the few whinning residents to stop ya whinging. :ugh:

Do they want to go back to the days od DC-9's B727 and 707's?:eek:

Would be cheaper to buy out the half dozen homes at Kurnell and move them elsewhere.

J