Canberra Bids For Sydney's Second Airport

[coco50]

NYC Guy is quite correct with the assessment of the political scene and Sydney's second airport. I would add that those that lived at Glenorie protested fairly effectively in the 1960s when the airport site was there and similarly Badgery's Creek more recently (Howard's Battlers and Labor Heartland) It doesn't really matter why there are objections to any site for a second SYD - it will not happen in the next 50 years in the Sydney Basin. Why not develop NTL to be the second SYD airport and connect the rail line to NTL as well as upgrade the rail facilities there? The area there is:

• not densely settled
• there is already considerble noise from military aircraft
• favoured by reasonable weather with few foggy days

CBR has only the military advantage(disadvantage)

 

[markis10]

It is has happened to me a number of times in Spring Hull, Brisbane with freighters. Just as well there are only so many freighters operating at that time of the night....

Not always freighters at that time of night, its quite often QF running late such as 594 from Perth which I had the pleasure of arriving at 3AM recently.

You can always have a look after the fact at the culrpit:

WebTrak: Brisbane International Airport

As for trialling international flights ex Canberra, its been done and failed, for instance FJ were running services Nadi in 2004 for a while.

 

[medhead]

I live ~13kms from the city or 9 stops from Central as the train travels or ~23 minutes train time unless there is an express. I factored in time to connect from very fast train platform to suburban platforms and then possible wait time for suburban train, sometimes scheduled to run half hourly and then 10+ minute walk from station to home....

John, I understand your estimate. I agree its roughly correct . but you did also write:

Then another hour or so to get home from Central.

Which is what I was referring to with my comment. Now the 1 hour is down to 33 minutes.

So the travel time could be upto 3 hours or perhaps as little as 1 hour 45 mins, times which would probably apply to any other 2nd SYD. Which is what I mean by depending on a few factors, it might not be much worse. (YMMV).

This is all very interesting but to be clear, it'll never happen.

BTW: as a boy visiting my grandma at Hamiliton I used to love the planes going over. And in those days ever plane flew over Hamiliton

 

[anat0l]

I was talking to someone once about developing NTL into an international hub. Sounded like a good plan, except you would certainly need a better train to get to and from SYD - the existing infrastructure takes over 2 hours to travel from Central to Newcastle - unacceptable. Even if they could boil down the travel time to say a mere hour, that's still something travellers are going to factor into their calculations when considering where to travel (notwithstanding the cost of such high speed transportation of which I am sure each level of government would have no hesitation in charging an eye-ball gouging price for the fares.)

The other issue is that Williamtown Airport currently shares with the air force base, meaning the need to construct additional runways to cater for increased traffic. I'm not sure how Williamtown is positioned, although the person I was talking to implied that reclaiming more land for the airport was far from simple.

Then there are the other socio-political aspects - farcical or otherwise - including the possibility of NIMBY and thus a similar curfew condition except set by the NTL people, Macquarie not getting its cuts due to redirection of some aircraft to SYD.

Similar issues exist for setting up CBR to be SYD #2, except exacerbated due to the longer distance between SYD and CBR.

They could build another airport off shore or something a lot like Chek Lap Kok HKG or Osaka-Kansai KIX, but of course land reclamation is seriously environmentally damaging, notwithstanding no one could bear to see the harbours of SYD being reclaimed, or people relaxing on a beach only to be disturbed by the aircraft landing and taking off and the airport visible on an island not far off-shore.

 

[jamesatfish]

As for trialling international flights ex Canberra, its been done and failed, for instance FJ were running services Nadi in 2004 for a while.

And yet they still call it 'Canberra International Airport'...

The flights to Nadi were a failure more because of the destination then anything else. I'm sure if the international flights were to more 'popular' destinations (like a CBR-SIN that could connect through to LHR, or even CBR-LAX) then that trial would have been far more successful.

Of course that said, they pretty much set themselves up for failure - most of the QF flights I take out of CBR require me to walk across the tarmac to the aircraft, and there is nothing in the way of customs control, international lounges, duty free etc. How they expected to get international travellers without those facilities is a mystery.

As much as I hate to admit it, CBR will never become a decent air hub. Snow is more interested in using his commonwealth-controlled land to build retail and commercial buildings (bypassing the ACT planning laws), and there's a heap more profit in that then shuffling a population of 300,000 around the country.

Add to that the whinging from people who chose to live under the flight path about the currently small number of commercial movements each day and our local government's preference for arts spending over infrastructure (they announced the other day that half the planned road resurfacing activities for 2009 would be canned because the bitumen is too expensive) and there's no way CBR will ever be more than a place to fly out of.

I think the only sold-out international flights from CBR were when the Brumbies played a couple of Super 12 finals over in NZ and (then Chief Minister) Kate Carnell organised special international charter flights directly from Canberra for the team and supporters.

(And yes, for all my Canberra bashing, I have lived here for the last 26 years).

 

[possumoz]

What about something imaginatively useful like a maglev train like they have in China. At the speed they travel the Canberra - Sydney could be done in say 30 mins or under.

Oh sorry, I'm forgetting myself..I said imaginative...:shock:

 

[NM]

What about something imaginatively useful like a maglev train like they have in China. At the speed they travel the Canberra - Sydney could be done in say 30 mins or under.

Oh sorry, I'm forgetting myself..I said imaginative...:shock:

Maglev at PVG runs at a max of 430km/h during the daytime and covers the 30km from Longtang Rd to Pudong in just under 7.5 mins. Any practical route between CBR and SYD (either CBD or airport) is likely to exceed 300km. So I can't see it being done in under 30 mins. Even at the highest recorded speed for a Maglev train (in Japan in 2003), its still going to take longer than 30 mins.

And the amount of electricity required to power a Maglev at full speed for 300km is not going to be trivial! The PVG Maglv cost US$1.33B and took 2.5 years, even for a location with very low labour costs. So extrapolate that to Aussie costs and for 10 times the length of track and you have one very expensive project that would take a considerable time to build. The costs will need to be recovered, both capital and operational, making it a very expensive option for people to use for transport between those two locations. Its going to be cheaper to fly!

I just can't see a Maglev of the style used in China as being practical for SYD-CBR due to the distance involved. If they build another airport say 75km away, it may be practical to use a Maglev or other high-speed train option. The train from KUL to KL Sentral takes about 35 mins as an example (and its not a high-speed train by any measure).

 

[medhead]

Maglev at PVG runs at a max of 430km/h during the daytime and covers the 30km from Longtang Rd to Pudong in just under 7.5 mins. Any practical route between CBR and SYD (either CBD or airport) is likely to exceed 300km. So I can't see it being done in under 30 mins. Even at the highest recorded speed for a Maglev train (in Japan in 2003), its still going to take longer than 30 mins.

And the TGV for example has also exceeded 400 km/hr. So rail is just as capable. JohnK got the estimate right at about an 1 hour to 1.5 hours, IMO, from CBR to sydney. It'd have to be that fast to be worthwhile vs flying.

You might have picked up that I'm a bit of a fan of high speed rail, but even I can see that australia's population density means about the only really viable routes are Canberra-Sydney/greater sydney or maybe adelaide to Melbourne. A real trade off between time saved and cost. With cost being lower if there are more people wanting to travel the route. I could ramble on more, but won't.

 

[anat0l]

And the TGV for example has also exceeded 400 km/hr. So rail is just as capable. JohnK got the estimate right at about an 1 hour to 1.5 hours, IMO, from CBR to sydney. It'd have to be that fast to be worthwhile vs flying.

You might have picked up that I'm a bit of a fan of high speed rail, but even I can see that australia's population density means about the only really viable routes are Canberra-Sydney/greater sydney or maybe adelaide to Melbourne. A real trade off between time saved and cost. With cost being lower if there are more people wanting to travel the route. I could ramble on more, but won't.

That'll really kill the SYD/CBR flying routes if an effective train was put in place.

I'm guessing most of the market are the pollies but you know what I'm getting at. I'd miss the CBR QF-link crew - really, really nice people.

Back on topic, it would seem either provide more SYD/CBR connections or a high speed train. Oddly enough, the plane would appear to take only marginally less time than a so-called effective train, plus I'd assume the luggage restrictions (and other miscellaneous air travel restrictions) on board a train would be more relaxed...and possibly cheaper unless airlines start negotiating the bundling of SYD/CBR connections into marketed routings.

 

[NM]

That'll really kill the SYD/CBR flying routes if an effective train was put in place.

At least the really important passengers could continue to use their Blackberries during the trip. So those who feel they so important that they must be fully contactable at all times may find the train a good option.

 

[pblackm]

Let's get back to the infrastructure issue. CBR has one main runway and a short cross runway for small aircraft. The main runway was extended to accommodate Air Force One when Dubya visited. At one end of this runway there is the road to Queanbeyan and on the other side of that, the main tip which looks like the first ten metres of a great pyramid. At the other end of the runway is a road meandering off to the Federal Highway and some brand buildings including Brand Depot, etc.

The terminal side of the airport has the terminal, car parking, a soon to be completed overpass (sure) and Brindabella Business Park. On the opposite side to that is Fairbairn Air base (somewhat contracted) and a number of shiny new buildings housing Govt & Defence offices.

I started a project in Canberra last Feb which involved weekly flights. On my first day, US Defence Sec Gates was flying out on Air Force One. This involved the temporary closure of the Queanbeyan road, as the fully fueled 747 barely cleared the fence at the end of the runway. It was quite a site. Which brings me to the point - CBR is land-locked with lots of new buildings and roads surrounding one usable runway. Could this really be a viable second Sydney airport? I can not see how.

 

[pblackm]

BTW - the CBR terminal replacement is underway. The "new half" is being constructed contiguous to the existing terminal. All operations will move to the new half later, and then the existing terminal will be re-built to the standard of the new bit. Looks like a few years work there.

 

[medhead]

Let's get back to the infrastructure issue. CBR has one main runway and a short cross runway for small aircraft. The main runway was extended to accommodate Air Force One when Dubya visited. At one end of this runway there is the road to Queanbeyan and on the other side of that, the main tip which looks like the first ten metres of a great pyramid. At the other end of the runway is a road meandering off to the Federal Highway and some brand buildings including Brand Depot, etc.

The terminal side of the airport has the terminal, car parking, a soon to be completed overpass (sure) and Brindabella Business Park. On the opposite side to that is Fairbairn Air base (somewhat contracted) and a number of shiny new buildings housing Govt & Defence offices.

I started a project in Canberra last Feb which involved weekly flights. On my first day, US Defence Sec Gates was flying out on Air Force One. This involved the temporary closure of the Queanbeyan road, as the fully fueled 747 barely cleared the fence at the end of the runway. It was quite a site. Which brings me to the point - CBR is land-locked with lots of new buildings and roads surrounding one usable runway. Could this really be a viable second Sydney airport? I can not see how.

Pretty comprehensive analysis. But you missed one thing. There is nothing to the north except for a road and paddocks. I guess that'd be the obvious diferection for expansion and it is not going to take much to move the road. There is also a fair bit of open space to the South east.

BTW I thought it was only airforce one when the president is on the plane, otherwise it's just a 747. Either way it would have been a great sight.

 

[dot]

Pretty comprehensive analysis. But you missed one thing. There is nothing to the north except for a road and paddocks. I guess that'd be the obvious diferection for expansion and it is not going to take much to move the road. There is also a fair bit of open space to the South east.

BTW I thought it was only airforce one when the president is on the plane, otherwise it's just a 747. Either way it would have been a great sight.

Also - having a single runway is not the end of the earth - LGW has only one runway, and have a think about how much traffic it handles. Admittedly, It is the busiest single runway airport in the world, but still only one runway.

 

[pblackm]

Pretty comprehensive analysis. But you missed one thing. There is nothing to the north except for a road and paddocks. I guess that'd be the obvious diferection for expansion and it is not going to take much to move the road. There is also a fair bit of open space to the South east.

BTW I thought it was only airforce one when the president is on the plane, otherwise it's just a 747. Either way it would have been a great sight.

Good point about the road - have a look on google satellite. I have not driven down Majura road for a year and thought that it went much closer to the end of the runway, so yes, it could be moved.

Airforce One stuck out somewhat, being a Jumbo on the Fairbairn side where they usually park the PMs plane, and having a re-fueling snorkel on the roof about where the upstairs J would be on a normal plane. We drove up for a closer look and it clearly said Airforce One. We were surprised because we also thought that they only hang that shingle out wehn the Pres is using it.

 

[pblackm]

Also - having a single runway is not the end of the earth - LGW has only one runway, and have a think about how much traffic it handles. Admittedly, It is the busiest single runway airport in the world, but still only one runway.

Yes Dot - good point.

 

[medhead]

Good point about the road - have a look on google satellite. I have not driven down Majura road for a year and thought that it went much closer to the end of the runway, so yes, it could be moved.

Of course the farmer to the west of that road might not like his home paddock being cut in half.

 

[NM]

Airforce One stuck out somewhat, being a Jumbo on the Fairbairn side where they usually park the PMs plane, and having a re-fueling snorkel on the roof about where the upstairs J would be on a normal plane. We drove up for a closer look and it clearly said Airforce One. We were surprised because we also thought that they only hang that shingle out wehn the Pres is using it.

I think you may be mistaken . The two VC-25A (based on a 747-200B) that are often referred to as Airforce One, carry the words "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" along the side. The term "Airfroce One" is the ATC call sign used by any US Airforce aircraft that is carrying the President of the United States. And if he is travelling in a Marine Corp helicopter, the call sign is Marine One. If in a Navy aircraft, its call sign is Navy One. If a commercial aircraft then its Executive One.

The US Air Force has two VC-25A aircraft painted and fitted out for presidential use. They have tail numbers 28000 and 29000. When not carrying the President, they do not use the call sign Airforce One, but instead use the SAM designation (Special Air Mission).

Here is a photo of one of the two VC-25As.

 

[pblackm]

I think you may be mistaken . The two VC-25A (based on a 747-200B) that are often referred to as Airforce One, carry the words "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" along the side. The term "Airfroce One" is the ATC call sign used by any US Airforce aircraft that is carrying the President of the United States. And if he is travelling in a Marine Corp helicopter, the call sign is Marine One. If in a Navy aircraft, its call sign is Navy One. If a commercial aircraft then its Executive One.

The US Air Force has two VC-25A aircraft painted and fitted out for presidential use. They have tail numbers 28000 and 29000. When not carrying the President, they do not use the call sign Airforce One, but instead use the SAM designation (Special Air Mission).

Here is a photo of one of the two VC-25As.

I stand corrected. It was a year ago. The 747 had a bump on top which looked like a small jet engine intake. One of the Defence guys that I was with told me that was a re-fueling port.

 

[dot]

I stand corrected. It was a year ago. The 747 had a bump on top which looked like a small jet engine intake. One of the Defence guys that I was with told me that was a re-fueling port.

If you look at the photo NM posted, just forward of the coughpit on the nose, you will see a bit of a bump - that's the in flight refueling point for the probe refueling system that the USAF uses.

I think the USAF has some B747 based E-5 aircraft with a bump where you descibe it behind the coughpit, but I did not think they ever did VIP duties....