Darlo Uncovered

lo36789 wrote:

Henley wrote:Can you walk along Grange Road all the way to the ground, i.e. is there a path that goes all the way?

Yes on the ground side of Grange Road.

Thanks.

It's about a 15-20 minute walk from the town centre.

Darlo_Pete wrote:It's about a 15-20 minute walk from the town centre.

I'll be staying at Bannatyne's so perfect.

lo36789 wrote:I did it on the PDF, the official blue print and a stand the same size as the one on the blue print doesn't fit behind the goal up to the pipe. There is room for one 75% of the length to fit.

Segregation isn't going to be the norm for a while. Once additional entrances are built (as per plans) there will be more flexibility with where and what gets segregated. If it really came to it you could theoretically segregate for away fans the whole clubhouse side.

The current seats are in prefabricated structural sections, which are joined together, so there is flexibility in stand lengths for ease of positioning, BUT first (as advised at BM Forum by RC) priority will be to add more in a second set of sections on the East side.

If the club only adds such seats at only 5 high, then there may be a struggle to increase the capacities for FL requirements. This is because adding this low level seating will only add little capacity in that particular building area.

A second tin shed was mentioned (by RC) at the BM Forum to be located at the South end, so this could be in two parts (or bridged over the water pipe) where home and away fans can easily be segregated. Such terraces / stands could be designed with more than 8 steps.

Building "high" is more expensive, so maybe there will be some simple terracing added for improving capacity & viewing in standing areas.

Club house and water pipe do restrict a "normal" 4 sided development, but we will end up with a distinctive designed layout, rather than a bland standard mini-stadium.

There is a concentration of structural and civil engineers in the NE, who should be able to design future structures / terraces that dont impose significant loadings on the water pipe (typically by bridging the 13m zones).

I suppose the club has already had engineers that have evaluated Phase 2 and has decided how to meet the immediate and future long term needs.

Neil Johnson wrote:

lo36789 wrote:I did it on the PDF, the official blue print and a stand the same size as the one on the blue print doesn't fit behind the goal up to the pipe. There is room for one 75% of the length to fit.

Segregation isn't going to be the norm for a while. Once additional entrances are built (as per plans) there will be more flexibility with where and what gets segregated. If it really came to it you could theoretically segregate for away fans the whole clubhouse side.

The current seats are in prefabricated structural sections, which are joined together, so there is flexibility in stand lengths for ease of positioning, BUT first (as advised at BM Forum by RC) priority will be to add more in a second set of sections on the East side.

If the club only adds such seats at only 5 high, then there may be a struggle to increase the capacities for FL requirements. This is because adding this low level seating will only add little capacity in that particular building area.

A second tin shed was mentioned (by RC) at the BM Forum to be located at the South end, so this could be in two parts (or bridged over the water pipe) where home and away fans can easily be segregated. Such terraces / stands could be designed with more than 8 steps.

Building "high" is more expensive, so maybe there will be some simple terracing added for improving capacity & viewing in standing areas.

Club house and water pipe do restrict a "normal" 4 sided development, but we will end up with a distinctive designed layout, rather than a bland standard mini-stadium.

There is a concentration of structural and civil engineers in the NE, who should be able to design future structures / terraces that dont impose significant loadings on the water pipe (typically by bridging the 13m zones).

I suppose the club has already had engineers that have evaluated Phase 2 and has decided how to meet the immediate and future long term needs.

Yeah I never thought of that... Bridging a stand over the pipe I assume that's easily done. That could even be done along the east side as well... I'm sure it's easily done... Isnt it done at many grounds to allow ambulances access to the pitch?

I walked around to the opposite side yesterday for the first time and there seems to be a lot of space to build a terrace behind the other goal, possibly twice as deep as the tin shed.

SwansQuaker83 wrote:

Neil Johnson wrote:

lo36789 wrote:I did it on the PDF, the official blue print and a stand the same size as the one on the blue print doesn't fit behind the goal up to the pipe. There is room for one 75% of the length to fit.

Segregation isn't going to be the norm for a while. Once additional entrances are built (as per plans) there will be more flexibility with where and what gets segregated. If it really came to it you could theoretically segregate for away fans the whole clubhouse side.

The current seats are in prefabricated structural sections, which are joined together, so there is flexibility in stand lengths for ease of positioning, BUT first (as advised at BM Forum by RC) priority will be to add more in a second set of sections on the East side.

If the club only adds such seats at only 5 high, then there may be a struggle to increase the capacities for FL requirements. This is because adding this low level seating will only add little capacity in that particular building area.

A second tin shed was mentioned (by RC) at the BM Forum to be located at the South end, so this could be in two parts (or bridged over the water pipe) where home and away fans can easily be segregated. Such terraces / stands could be designed with more than 8 steps.

Building "high" is more expensive, so maybe there will be some simple terracing added for improving capacity & viewing in standing areas.

Club house and water pipe do restrict a "normal" 4 sided development, but we will end up with a distinctive designed layout, rather than a bland standard mini-stadium.

There is a concentration of structural and civil engineers in the NE, who should be able to design future structures / terraces that dont impose significant loadings on the water pipe (typically by bridging the 13m zones).

I suppose the club has already had engineers that have evaluated Phase 2 and has decided how to meet the immediate and future long term needs.

Yeah I never thought of that... Bridging a stand over the pipe I assume that's easily done. That could even be done along the east side as well... I'm sure it's easily done... Isnt it done at many grounds to allow ambulances access to the pitch?

I walked around to the opposite side yesterday for the first time and there seems to be a lot of space to build a terrace behind the other goal, possibly twice as deep as the tin shed.

According to Scott who has a lott of knowledge about the subject, the water company will not allow any construction above the pipe and I would presume that means bridging a stand over it. I'm sure Scott will confirm that this is the case.

Correct, no structure can be built over the pipe or in the exclusion zone. There is no compromise I'm afraid.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

uncovered wrote:Correct, no structure can be built over the pipe or in the exclusion zone. There is no compromise I'm afraid.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think temporary structures that can be moved can be built over the pipe. Is this the case?

Can someone tell me what happens when these pipes come to a railway line, which they must do at some point as they are most definitely permanent structures. Presumably they go underneath, in which case there must be ways to deal with problems (or does Northumbrian Water just demolish the railway to fix it ) which could be applied to other structures such as a stand or terrace

You can see how the pipe is managed when it crosses the railway further down the A66 bypass. You will see that there is a 'pipe bridge' where it rises up out of the ground and over the railway line and then back underground.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yarblockos wrote:

uncovered wrote:Correct, no structure can be built over the pipe or in the exclusion zone. There is no compromise I'm afraid.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think temporary structures that can be moved can be built over the pipe. Is this the case?

unfortunately not for a pipe of this type.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

uncovered wrote:

Yarblockos wrote:

uncovered wrote:Correct, no structure can be built over the pipe or in the exclusion zone. There is no compromise I'm afraid.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think temporary structures that can be moved can be built over the pipe. Is this the case?

unfortunately not for a pipe of this type.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But havent we built railings and a concrete pathway over it? Surely something that doesn't require any foundations would be ok? Like the stand at Bishop?

SwansQuaker83 wrote:

uncovered wrote:

Yarblockos wrote:

uncovered wrote:Correct, no structure can be built over the pipe or in the exclusion zone. There is no compromise I'm afraid.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think temporary structures that can be moved can be built over the pipe. Is this the case?

unfortunately not for a pipe of this type.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But havent we built railings and a concrete pathway over it? Surely something that doesn't require any foundations would be ok? Like the stand at Bishop?

Yes, my thoughts too, it goes under railings, a concrete path, a wooden fence etc. I'm not aware of where the pipe originates and terminates, but surely it also has to go under Grange Road at some point.

Just reading a document from Bournemouth council as well as some other articles online... Seems that the most likely solution would be to move the pipe... It would cost a bit which may explain why for now we have only looked to build around it... Shifting it a few metres would allow us to use most of the width of the pitch behind the other goal and utilise a bit more space along the east side...

SwansQuaker83 wrote:Just reading a document from Bournemouth council as well as some other articles online... Seems that the most likely solution would be to move the pipe... It would cost a bit which may explain why for now we have only looked to build around it... Shifting it a few metres would allow us to use most of the width of the pitch behind the other goal and utilise a bit more space along the east side...

Hundreds of thousands of pounds. Not going to happen.

Robbie Painter wrote:

SwansQuaker83 wrote:Just reading a document from Bournemouth council as well as some other articles online... Seems that the most likely solution would be to move the pipe... It would cost a bit which may explain why for now we have only looked to build around it... Shifting it a few metres would allow us to use most of the width of the pitch behind the other goal and utilise a bit more space along the east side...

Hundreds of thousands of pounds. Not going to happen.

From what I've read only tens of thousands. I've read 7.5k, 10k... Never anything near hundreds of thousands... Im sure the club would have been quoted this at the start?

If that`s the case fetch it up at next AGM I`m sure we could raise that amount in no time

SwansQuaker83 wrote:

Robbie Painter wrote:

SwansQuaker83 wrote:Just reading a document from Bournemouth council as well as some other articles online... Seems that the most likely solution would be to move the pipe... It would cost a bit which may explain why for now we have only looked to build around it... Shifting it a few metres would allow us to use most of the width of the pitch behind the other goal and utilise a bit more space along the east side...

Hundreds of thousands of pounds. Not going to happen.

From what I've read only tens of thousands. I've read 7.5k, 10k... Never anything near hundreds of thousands... Im sure the club would have been quoted this at the start?

Think nearer a million was quoted as it is the major pipe serving Teesside and is the same pipe that GR paid to have moved to

Maurice_Peddelty wrote:

SwansQuaker83 wrote:

Robbie Painter wrote:

SwansQuaker83 wrote:Just reading a document from Bournemouth council as well as some other articles online... Seems that the most likely solution would be to move the pipe... It would cost a bit which may explain why for now we have only looked to build around it... Shifting it a few metres would allow us to use most of the width of the pitch behind the other goal and utilise a bit more space along the east side...

Hundreds of thousands of pounds. Not going to happen.

From what I've read only tens of thousands. I've read 7.5k, 10k... Never anything near hundreds of thousands... Im sure the club would have been quoted this at the start?

Think nearer a million was quoted as it is the major pipe serving Teesside and is the same pipe that GR paid to have moved to

There was a major water pipe moved a little distance after a landslip between High Coniscliffe and Piercebridge and that cost well over a million to move.

Just a question if we do go up and we however get the cash to upgrade when Would we want to start building. Would be better before the season starts i presume.

The best time of course would be as soon as the season finishes, but unfortunately the rugby club will probably not be so keen, as they hold events like, an It's a knock out competition and junior rugby tournaments, which they will probably feel will have to come first!!

Darlo_Pete wrote:

Maurice_Peddelty wrote:

SwansQuaker83 wrote:

Robbie Painter wrote:

SwansQuaker83 wrote:Just reading a document from Bournemouth council as well as some other articles online... Seems that the most likely solution would be to move the pipe... It would cost a bit which may explain why for now we have only looked to build around it... Shifting it a few metres would allow us to use most of the width of the pitch behind the other goal and utilise a bit more space along the east side...

Hundreds of thousands of pounds. Not going to happen.

From what I've read only tens of thousands. I've read 7.5k, 10k... Never anything near hundreds of thousands... Im sure the club would have been quoted this at the start?

Think nearer a million was quoted as it is the major pipe serving Teesside and is the same pipe that GR paid to have moved to

There was a major water pipe moved a little distance after a landslip between High Coniscliffe and Piercebridge and that cost well over a million to move.

This is the very same raw water main that passes through Blackwell Meadows. My understanding was that the large sum was spent at High Coniscliffe to partially reconstruct the road and stabilise the river embankment to prevent the pipe from moving, not to divert it.

Darlo_Pete wrote:The best time of course would be as soon as the season finishes, but unfortunately the rugby club will probably not be so keen, as they hold events like, an It's a knock out competition and junior rugby tournaments, which they will probably feel will have to come first!!

There's plenty of room for them to do all that on the other pitches...

SwansQuaker83 wrote:

Darlo_Pete wrote:The best time of course would be as soon as the season finishes, but unfortunately the rugby club will probably not be so keen, as they hold events like, an It's a knock out competition and junior rugby tournaments, which they will probably feel will have to come first!!

There's plenty of room for them to do all that on the other pitches...

Was gonna say I doubt the first team pitch is allocated for that anymore!