Brussels Airport (BRU) infrastructure: future

Join this forum to discuss the latest news that happened in the world of commercial aviation.

Moderator: Latest news team

Post Reply
User avatar
Atlantis
Posts: 4227
Joined: 12 Apr 2005, 00:00

Re: Brussels Airport (BRU) infrastructure: future

Post by Atlantis » 07 Sep 2019, 00:21

sn26567 wrote:
06 Sep 2019, 23:59
Atlantis wrote:
06 Sep 2019, 23:00
Front Park 2 will be demolished in the future. It will be replaced by new offices and Congress. There will be new remote car parks on the Southern zone which will be directly served with the airport shuttle.
It's a pity to see offices (which do absolutely not need to be close to the terminal) take the place of parking lots: car drivers need to be as close as possible to the terminal. This is also the case for the recently built office buildings which take valuable space that could better have been dedicated to passenger needs.
A few reasons for this. Deloitte, Microsoft, KPMG were first in the row to have their new offices at the airport. For their meetings with a lot of foreign guests they don't have to drive to the big city or to other cities. They can stay now on the airport and depart from there again to not loose any time.
Employees of Deloitte and KPMG have their own parking space under their buildings. The majority of the employees have their parking space at Brucargo. Shuttle service is arranged for them. So they don't take too much other parking space.
Of course for those companies and the future ones, it is also kind of a prestige.

Second issue. Brussels Airport wants to stimulate public transport. In a couple of years it has to grow to 50%. More people with train, bus, tram and bike to the airport. Less emissions also

Third reason is the congestion of the Brussels highway. That's why at Brucargo a huge car park will be build, this for people who are coming from the North and West side, E19
On the South side a few car parks will be build for people who are coming from the South, E40. This when they receive green light for this extra road from the E40
All are connected with a very fast airport shuttle. Check in of baggage and yourself will be also possible from those car parks

Change of mentality, but will be much better

TLspotting
Posts: 1279
Joined: 19 Mar 2017, 10:22
Location: Uccle/Ukkel,BE
Contact:

Re: Brussels Airport (BRU) infrastructure: future

Post by TLspotting » 09 Sep 2019, 19:56

Renovation of runway 25R/07L at Brussels Airport in July-August 2020

https://www.aviation24.be/airports/brus ... gust-2020/
I'm Thibault Lapers, spotter in Belgium for now 3 years, but not yet across the world and a huuuuuge aviation geek ! Join me on Facebook & Twitter @TLspotting

User avatar
Atlantis
Posts: 4227
Joined: 12 Apr 2005, 00:00

Re: Brussels Airport (BRU) infrastructure: future

Post by Atlantis » 09 Sep 2019, 21:19

All lounges at BRU will receive an upgrade. All lounges will be visited this week with the involved parties

User avatar
Conti764
Posts: 1580
Joined: 21 Sep 2007, 23:21

Re: Brussels Airport (BRU) infrastructure: future

Post by Conti764 » 13 Sep 2019, 17:50

Just an idea (coming from KLM replacing one daily flight with a train connection): why not use the Diabolo underneath A-pier West and have a second station built, exclusively for (high speed) train services from the neighbouring countries? Now they still have the room and the possibilities to do so...

User avatar
Atlantis
Posts: 4227
Joined: 12 Apr 2005, 00:00

Re: Brussels Airport (BRU) infrastructure: future

Post by Atlantis » 13 Sep 2019, 18:22

Conti764 wrote:
13 Sep 2019, 17:50
Just an idea (coming from KLM replacing one daily flight with a train connection): why not use the Diabolo underneath A-pier West and have a second station built, exclusively for (high speed) train services from the neighbouring countries? Now they still have the room and the possibilities to do so...
They will never do that. Two stations so close together. Infrabel and certainly NMBS doesn't have the funds for that.

Better is to make from Brussels Airport train station a serious train station. With the needed tracks and higher frequencies. Connected with important cities in Belgium and with our neighbour countries

People has to pay already this Diabolo tax, they will not pay an extra one bcs of a new station a few meters further

737MAX
Posts: 242
Joined: 29 Aug 2017, 08:46

Re: Brussels Airport (BRU) infrastructure: future

Post by 737MAX » 13 Sep 2019, 18:53

That train story is complete bull***** for me. Have done this a couple of times with Air France through CDG -> never again. There are sufficient options elsewhere to avoid a train to AMS or CDG to reach your destination...

jan_olieslagers
Posts: 2980
Joined: 24 Jun 2006, 08:34
Location: Vl.Brabant
Contact:

Re: Brussels Airport (BRU) infrastructure: future

Post by jan_olieslagers » 13 Sep 2019, 19:16

Atlantis wrote:
13 Sep 2019, 18:22
Infrabel and certainly NMBS doesn't have the funds for that.
Precisely.
Atlantis wrote:
13 Sep 2019, 18:22
Better is to make from Brussels Airport train station a serious train station. With the needed tracks and higher frequencies. Connected with important cities in Belgium and with our neighbour countries
The present utilisation is rather unfortunate: the IC trains from Dinant and Charleroi have the airport station for their terminus, which makes them stand there for quite a long while which is not a very efficient way to use this expensive infrastructure. There should be more trains like the Antwerpen-Airport-Hasselt IC, but I understand this cannot be done currently for lack of capacity in Mechelen station. The major works in Mechelen station will add two platforms to that station, and more capacity extensions; this should allow for more through trains in the airport.
Atlantis wrote:
13 Sep 2019, 18:22
People has to pay already this Diabolo tax, they will not pay an extra one bcs of a new station a few meters further.
Again, spot on. But it also explains that additional tracks/platforms at the airport station are not to be expected soon. Nor is there any urgent need.

User avatar
Conti764
Posts: 1580
Joined: 21 Sep 2007, 23:21

Re: Brussels Airport (BRU) infrastructure: future

Post by Conti764 » 13 Sep 2019, 19:21

Atlantis wrote:
13 Sep 2019, 18:22
Conti764 wrote:
13 Sep 2019, 17:50
Just an idea (coming from KLM replacing one daily flight with a train connection): why not use the Diabolo underneath A-pier West and have a second station built, exclusively for (high speed) train services from the neighbouring countries? Now they still have the room and the possibilities to do so...
They will never do that. Two stations so close together. Infrabel and certainly NMBS doesn't have the funds for that.

Better is to make from Brussels Airport train station a serious train station. With the needed tracks and higher frequencies. Connected with important cities in Belgium and with our neighbour countries

People has to pay already this Diabolo tax, they will not pay an extra one bcs of a new station a few meters further
Yes, you're right, and unfortunately legally BAC can't finance.

It would be just great to have direct access from the train platform towards the terminal that when finished will be the center of BRU's biggest operation (Star Alliance)...

User avatar
Conti764
Posts: 1580
Joined: 21 Sep 2007, 23:21

Re: Brussels Airport (BRU) infrastructure: future

Post by Conti764 » 13 Sep 2019, 19:27

jan_olieslagers wrote:
13 Sep 2019, 19:16
The present utilisation is rather unfortunate: the IC trains from Dinant and Charleroi have the airport station for their terminus, which makes them stand there for quite a long while which is not a very efficient way to use this expensive infrastructure. There should be more trains like the Antwerpen-Airport-Hasselt IC, but I understand this cannot be done currently for lack of capacity in Mechelen station. The major works in Mechelen station will add two platforms to that station, and more capacity extensions; this should allow for more through trains in the airport.
Than again, not every train through the airport should have to go to Antwerp. You could have trains coming in from east of Brussels, pass through BRU station and turn towards Brussels iso Antwerp at the E19.

I'd integrate BRU station into the larger Brussels rail network and have it act as a sort of Brussels East station...

jan_olieslagers
Posts: 2980
Joined: 24 Jun 2006, 08:34
Location: Vl.Brabant
Contact:

Re: Brussels Airport (BRU) infrastructure: future

Post by jan_olieslagers » 13 Sep 2019, 20:06

Turn towards Brussels would end up either in the North-South tunnel, which is totally saturated, or on line 26 (the one that bypasses Brussels centre on the east side) which is also nearing saturation with the recent additions for GEN/RER. You'd be surprised how full the railways around Brussels are. Consult hgbtf.net to learn more - that is where I got all this from :)

I agree, though, that not all trains need to continue to Antwerpen: Mechelen is incontournable, but from there they could continue also to Lier + Kempen area or, after reversing (not the best of ideas, it takes quite a bit of time), towards Sint Niklaas / Dendermonde / Gent.

And no, capacity at the airport station is limited enough, it should be reserved for its prime purpose: airport traffic. Either aircraft passengers or airport staff.

User avatar
lumumba
Posts: 1595
Joined: 04 Sep 2003, 00:00
Location: brussels Europe

Re: Brussels Airport (BRU) infrastructure: future

Post by lumumba » 13 Sep 2019, 20:11

Conti764 wrote:
13 Sep 2019, 19:27
jan_olieslagers wrote:
13 Sep 2019, 19:16
The present utilisation is rather unfortunate: the IC trains from Dinant and Charleroi have the airport station for their terminus, which makes them stand there for quite a long while which is not a very efficient way to use this expensive infrastructure. There should be more trains like the Antwerpen-Airport-Hasselt IC, but I understand this cannot be done currently for lack of capacity in Mechelen station. The major works in Mechelen station will add two platforms to that station, and more capacity extensions; this should allow for more through trains in the airport.
Than again, not every train through the airport should have to go to Antwerp. You could have trains coming in from east of Brussels, pass through BRU station and turn towards Brussels iso Antwerp at the E19.

I'd integrate BRU station into the larger Brussels rail network and have it act as a sort of Brussels East station...
Looks a good idea indeed!
Hasta la victoria siempre.

Ansett
Posts: 391
Joined: 13 Apr 2016, 19:12

Re: Brussels Airport (BRU) infrastructure: future

Post by Ansett » 13 Sep 2019, 23:00

737MAX wrote:
13 Sep 2019, 18:53
That train story is complete bull***** for me. Have done this a couple of times with Air France through CDG -> never again. There are sufficient options elsewhere to avoid a train to AMS or CDG to reach your destination...
The train as a feeder service to a nearby major airport does make sense, but has its bad sides, too. Outbound from Brussels, it is OK. AF will check in your luggage (if you have any to check in) at Brussels Midi-Zuid to its final destination and KL apparently intends to to the same. AF and KL will share the check in desks at Brussels Midi-Zuid.
It is clearly less comfortable when you land at CDG and have to wait for the train to Brussels in a busy railway station (although the last time I did it, AF took my luggage at CDG railway station and delivered it back at Brussels Midi-Zuid). Not too bad, if KL does the same. It is feasable.
And not really worse than the drop off zone or the arrivals area at BRU. Seldom things are perfect.

User avatar
Conti764
Posts: 1580
Joined: 21 Sep 2007, 23:21

Re: Brussels Airport (BRU) infrastructure: future

Post by Conti764 » 14 Sep 2019, 00:31

jan_olieslagers wrote:
13 Sep 2019, 20:06
Turn towards Brussels would end up either in the North-South tunnel, which is totally saturated, or on line 26 (the one that bypasses Brussels centre on the east side) which is also nearing saturation with the recent additions for GEN/RER. You'd be surprised how full the railways around Brussels are. Consult hgbtf.net to learn more - that is where I got all this from :)

I agree, though, that not all trains need to continue to Antwerpen: Mechelen is incontournable, but from there they could continue also to Lier + Kempen area or, after reversing (not the best of ideas, it takes quite a bit of time), towards Sint Niklaas / Dendermonde / Gent.

And no, capacity at the airport station is limited enough, it should be reserved for its prime purpose: airport traffic. Either aircraft passengers or airport staff.
That's why I'm with Atlantis that capacity should be increased at the station. I too follow hgbtf.net and I know that the North-South Junction is a mess and the root cause for most delays in this country's railway system. That's why BRU station should be integrated into the system, together with Brussels Weststation. I know it's far from aviation so forgive me going off topic, but the entire railway system should be redesigned with a difference between trains being allowed to go through the North-South junction, preferably double deck trains, international trains and RER-trains only. The rest should be connected with the Brussels railway system through Brussels Airport (Brussels East) and Brussels West with through trains connecting multiple station pairs, offering smooth connections to frequent RER-trains.

If you look at the Brussels Airport 2040 website, you also see that business activities will increase a lot in the coming years. Unless you want more and more commuters cars in the parkings, taking away valuable parking space for travelers you'll have to upgrade public transportation and the train is prime in that scheme.

In order to make their business-project work, BAC should go after companies currently active in Brussels. With all the limitations imposed on cars in the Brussels capital region and trainservice either being scarce or running with a sizeable delay, companies might be tempted to move their activity to an easy to reach multimodal site not far from Brussels city center. But for such ambition you need more capacity to the prefered means of travel. And given everything takes time in Belgium, you better start early.

ezis_bis
Posts: 205
Joined: 07 Aug 2014, 17:11
Location: Tallinn, EU

Re: Brussels Airport (BRU) infrastructure: future

Post by ezis_bis » 14 Sep 2019, 07:55

I strongly disagree with bringing more cars to BRU. Often I need to pick up and drop off people at BRU, several times a week. During rush hour it's truly horrible.
For myself I always go with bus 12, it's really convenient. Hell, even the train is. It really is.
Public transport in and around Brussels is really not bad, I don't get why Belgians so stubbornly stick with cars. In all the countries around us, cities are working towards better mobility, but in Belgium you don't seem to want. Locals prefer to spend €1 billion on roadworks so they can be stuck in their car, rather than €5 on literally anything else and actually move.
It baffles me.

Greetz from Tallinn (where Public Transport is free so people stop being stuck in cars)

User avatar
Airbus330lover
Posts: 752
Joined: 21 Jul 2005, 00:00
Location: Rixensart

Re: Brussels Airport (BRU) infrastructure: future

Post by Airbus330lover » 14 Sep 2019, 10:17

Try to go to Bru with heavy luggage from Ottignies (not a small station)
No direct link. same for other parts of Belgium.
Many points to review : lines, station, ....

User avatar
Atlantis
Posts: 4227
Joined: 12 Apr 2005, 00:00

Re: Brussels Airport (BRU) infrastructure: future

Post by Atlantis » 14 Sep 2019, 17:34

The aim is that more or less 50% of the travellers go by public transport to BRU. In December the first trambus will have its inauguration. But I'm curious if more lines will follow bcs only one is not enough. From Leuven and other parts close to Brussels Airport should have this trambus too.
A real tram line to Brussels is also foreseen in the near future.

But bringing more business to the Airport brings also more cars there which will disturb the real travellers. For them parkings outside the Airport area would been foreseen and should be. Bcs you cannot harm your core business which are pax.

I agree with member ezis_bis that bringing more cars to BRU is not a good idea. Priority are first PAX to give them all the accomodation which is needed.

Trains should be much more bcs they can bring huge volume. Sharp prices, comfortable trains, high frequency. This together with busses, trambus and tram.

Furthermore there should be a drastic change in mentality regarding using the car. But how? To make it extremely expensive to use it? Than the government Will be against themself bcs they earn a lot via the taxes on petrol. So than you have to make public transport very attractive

PttU
Posts: 304
Joined: 24 Nov 2015, 15:07

Re: Brussels Airport (BRU) infrastructure: future

Post by PttU » 15 Sep 2019, 22:33

Conti764 wrote:
13 Sep 2019, 17:50
Just an idea (coming from KLM replacing one daily flight with a train connection): why not use the Diabolo underneath A-pier West and have a second station built, exclusively for (high speed) train services from the neighbouring countries? Now they still have the room and the possibilities to do so...
Strange thing in this whole "BRU Station" discussion, is the discussion of the root cause. Why should there be trains to replace BRU-AMS or BRU-CDG flights? The only reason is that currently those flights are used because it's cheaper to fly BRU-AMS-Wherever than booking only AMS-Wherever, and providing your own transport to AMS, either by train, car, bus,... Don't try to fix the crazy situation of cheaper connecting flights by spending more money on the train stations.
There should hardly be any traffic on a trainroute between BRU, CDG and AMS (the airports) as there's nobody having those two as both their origin and destination. So in that way, a Thalys shouldn't stop at BRU, but other national trains should. Ideally also international trains, but as those routes are "thinner", international busses should be a better option. That, combined with a more "logical" pricing where it's cheaper to fly less.

Post Reply