Just to add more weight to what I was mentioning in my post above regarding employment centres along the NWRL/ ECRL/ LNS lines, I just noticed some Government figures that show with the employment areas this line will directly service, in 2006 (before the large increase in employment in the Macquarie Park area this NWRL directly services) Sydney CBD employment was at 429,000 jobs while the inner North and North West regions combined was at 504,000. The projections for employment to 2036 in the CBD is expected to be 543,000 jobs, while jobs in the inner North and North West regions that this line covers combined are expected to be 711,000! These figures suggest that connections for employment centres in the North and North west have a lot of weight even when compared to the CBD. The NWRL will be the best placed line to take advantage of these jobs and you would expect that a lot of movement would be happening on city bound trains from their start point at Rouse Hill as people get off to access these Northern Sydney employment zones, seats are not the huge issue they may seem. Compare this to say, the west and south west and you will have the vast majority people getting on trains at their station and staying on for long periods of time to reach the CBD and the Northern Sydney employment centres. Seats matters a lot more in that scenario.

Get out of this thread. Your smug brand of "facts" and "research" and "analysis" have no place amongst the foamers. 

Anti-foamer sentiment aside, Rails's factual analysis along with that of grog has proven exceedingly helpful in understanding why the single-deck option is potentially less non-viable than initially believed.

i have done some drawing and seating designs and have come up with a desgn for a train that can work both metro and non metro. dimensions are waratah train dimemsions (length and width) with 25m long carriages. the train in a 3 door 6 car design.

my DD stock (6 car set)
seating: 798 (12 wheelchair spaces not included in figure)
standing: 1146
total: 1935

waratah (8 car set)
seating: 896 (including 16 wheelchair spaces) (from reliance rail waratah fact sheet)
standing: 1246
total: 2150

215 passengers less on my train but there are two advantages on my train. 

first
the 3 doors will significantly improve traffic flow and decreased dwelling times

second
this is not an advantage as such but how can 1246 people stand on a waratah. i believe this number is overestimated.

You're trying to do the exact same thing I did four months ago. I get 832 seats, across seven cars, still fitting into 160m. I win

he is welcome with his facts. we don't care about people wanting to bring facts. We take it in and then try to apply it to our statistics and foam.

Well, there's lies, damn lies and statistics.

Not sure if it fits in here, but since there was a discussion about Campbelltown express trains...

You're trying to do the exact same thing I did four months ago. I get 832 seats, across seven cars, still fitting into 160m. I win

first of all congrats watson374

secondly i have made 2 some changes to give more capacity than its main competitor the Waratah
1. reduced leg room by half giving an extra 288 seats bringing my count to 1086 (190 more than waratah)
2. changed standing to 5ppl per sq m giving an extra 286 standing capacity bringing my count to 1432 (186 more than waratah)

this makes a total of 2518 seats (368 more than waratah) meaqning the 6 car 3 door design (150m) is viable for cityrail as it carries more than a 163m waratah train and also has improved traffic flows.

please note: the reduced leg room is because all the cityrail trains ive been in have less legroom than what i originally proposed legroom. my observations show that 6 people cannot seat on two 3 person seats. only 3 will 2 on one side a 1 on the other. my observations also show that when there is no other seating space and the train is packed people will go for the other 3 seats.

Not sure if it fits in here, but since there was a discussion about Campbelltown express trains...

I want an electric intercity-style express service, with a Club Class car with these seats, a lounge/cafe car and then cars oodles of semidecent Economy seats. (jokes aside, it wouldn't be too bad for CountryLink...)

 You're trying to do the exact same thing I did four months ago. I get 832 seats, across seven cars, still fitting into 160m. I win

first of all congrats watson374

secondly i have made 2 some changes to give more capacity than its main competitor the Waratah
1. reduced leg room by half giving an extra 288 seats bringing my count to 1086 (190 more than waratah)
2. changed standing to 5ppl per sq m giving an extra 286 standing capacity bringing my count to 1432 (186 more than waratah)

this makes a total of 2518 seats (368 more than waratah) meaqning the 6 car 3 door design (150m) is viable for cityrail as it carries more than a 163m waratah train and also has improved traffic flows.

please note: the reduced leg room is because all the cityrail trains ive been in have less legroom than what i originally proposed legroom. my observations show that 6 people cannot seat on two 3 person seats. only 3 will 2 on one side a 1 on the other. my observations also show that when there is no other seating space and the train is packed people will go for the other 3 seats.

How long and how wide are your cars, anyway?

I think it's good they're using (or appear to be using, judging by the relative positions of the lines in the diagrams I've seen) the MetroPitt corridor, leaving the MetroWest corridor for CBD relief of the main suburban system.

How long and how wide are your cars, anyway?

I think it's good they're using (or appear to be using, judging by the relative positions of the lines in the diagrams I've seen) the MetroPitt corridor, leaving the MetroWest corridor for CBD relief of the main suburban system.

my cars are 3 m wide as based on a waratah and are 25m long.

How long and how wide are your cars, anyway?

I think it's good they're using (or appear to be using, judging by the relative positions of the lines in the diagrams I've seen) the MetroPitt corridor, leaving the MetroWest corridor for CBD relief of the main suburban system.

my cars are 3 m wide as based on a waratah and are 25m long.

You may be exceeding the loading gauge envelope. Mine was based more or less directly off a V set, being 9'7" wide and 78' long.

Hey all, new to this forum... im a bit of a train nerd so i thought id sign up, as ive found this site useful for awesome 'obscure' photos and the like in the past.. its nice knowing there are like-minded people here who pick up on the interiors of A sets being rough in some and smooth in others :ROR:

Now, obviously i dont know what is possible with the 'hunter railcar' trains, but if they could modify the design to work as an EMU, i think they'd be a great train for the 'metro'. Just make the seating 2 plus 2 for a wider walkway down the middle, and remove the toilets from the designs. They would look and feel almost exactly like an OSCar with only one floor; maybe throw in A set seats instead of the oscar higher backed seats (since the metro would be fast and run for shorter distances).

What does everyone think of that idea, and can anyone tell me if the design could be easily changed to an EMU design.
also apologies if someone else has thought of this before me.


peace,
kg

You may be exceeding the loading gauge envelope. Mine was based more or less directly off a V set, being 9'7" wide and 78' long.

isnt the tunnel 6.1m wide. my design gives 3.1m clearance space. also my design is only 1.03m longer than a V set and 0.07m wider than a V set. but as they say when your just a little over your ****ed (sorry)

aside from that i think my design will work very well
upsides
-its in the correct citryrail livery and design.
-the front end will look awesome. its a modified tangara look that will allow good views of side and front (yet to finalise drawings)
-its 3 doors at 2m wide each will reduce loading times allowing for 3-4 people to get off and on at the same time

downsides
-upper deck has only one set of stairs per deck (bad for emergancy situations)
-for some reason lower deck only has 2 (or 3) steps to acess it while upper deck has 4 (or 5) steps (depends how you count them)
-probably uncomfortable seats (cityrail seats suggest so and my designs arn't that good either)
-design not unique

my problem with the single deck rolling stock is nothing to do with it's capability of moving significant amounts of people. My problem stems from the fact that we haven't even got the waratahs up and running fully. A new batch of oscars has been ordered and now they are talking about single deck as well.

There is no reason to do it other then avoiding a conflict with the union brick wall inside railcorp or whatever it is called now.

I would prefer to see conflict and firing of the relevant people.

Hey all, new to this forum... im a bit of a train nerd so i thought id sign up, as ive found this site useful for awesome 'obscure' photos and the like in the past.. its nice knowing there are like-minded people here who pick up on the interiors of A sets being rough in some and smooth in others :ROR:

Now, obviously i dont know what is possible with the 'hunter railcar' trains, but if they could modify the design to work as an EMU, i think they'd be a great train for the 'metro'. Just make the seating 2 plus 2 for a wider walkway down the middle, and remove the toilets from the designs. They would look and feel almost exactly like an OSCar with only one floor; maybe throw in A set seats instead of the oscar higher backed seats (since the metro would be fast and run for shorter distances).

What does everyone think of that idea, and can anyone tell me if the design could be easily changed to an EMU design.
also apologies if someone else has thought of this before me.


peace,
kg

I suggest you apologise to me, since I came up with that idea (including inserting a third door) some time in 2007 or so.

Being our most modern single-deckers, it's an obvious place to start, yes; but remember that most of the 'stuff' you don't see will change a lot. Superficially, it's a good place to start, but that's where the design links will terminate.

 

isnt the tunnel 6.1m wide. my design gives 3.1m clearance space. also my design is only 1.03m longer than a V set and 0.07m wider than a V set. but as they say when your just a little over your ****ed (sorry)

Well, I should point out that height plays a role as well. My understanding is that they are digging circular tubes (think ECRL) that are 6.1m in diameter. This will be a good fit for SD stock, but is apparently too low for DD stock. Considering that there would be less than 2.0m of clearance both above and below, I can see DD stock and OHW being locked out.

aside from that i think my design will work very well

Everyone believes their design will work very well. I mean, I have great faith in mine.

Please note you're getting into a lot of details, such as the seats or the livery. Try to stick to the crucial bits first, like capacity and gauge envelope, and avoid getting bogged down in things like the front-end styling.

Just thinking about the extra 14 trains promised for the western line under this plan. My understanding is that is gained firstly from adding 6tph to the existing 14tph for the Western/ North Shore line to make the 20tph max for this line. Then they add another 8tph via the Western line to City Circle to run to Campbelltown via the Airport line (thus the extra 8tph for the South West). Talk has been that the Northern line trains will terminate at Central and that Richmond line trains will now run to the Cumberland line. However the graphic on the Transport NSW site shows the Richmond branch of the Western line trains running to Hornsby or the City Circle. Anyone want to take a punt as to how they fit all these services in with the inner west and southern lines plus the interurban trains?

Everyone believes their design will work very well. I mean, I have great faith in mine.

+1  then we import something to try on the rail system it fails or we have to make changes to the whole network for it to work for a few weeks then fix up the changes after the demo.  only to say no sale.

the cityrail sytem has limits in the old sections of the network and by puting in a new section of rail system that is smaller than the current system does not offer any solution to fixing the system or give options on buying off the shelf items.

 

Just thinking about the extra 14 trains promised for the western line under this plan. My understanding is that is gained firstly from adding 6tph to the existing 14tph for the Western/ North Shore line to make the 20tph max for this line. Then they add another 8tph via the Western line to City Circle to run to Campbelltown via the Airport line (thus the extra 8tph for the South West). Talk has been that the Northern line trains will terminate at Central and that Richmond line trains will now run to the Cumberland line. However the graphic on the Transport NSW site shows the Richmond branch of the Western line trains running to Hornsby or the City Circle. Anyone want to take a punt as to how they fit all these services in with the inner west and southern lines plus the interurban trains?

What time period and station are you using?  I get 15tph passing Town Hall from the Western Line 8am-8:59am
When I counted them before I got 13tph from Strathfield #7 to Circluar Quay in the AM.

So even bringing back Macdonaldtown conflicts only gets you to 8 more trains.  Sending the whole Northern Line to Sydney Terminal only ups this to 12.

But this plan will never actually be implemented.

Just thinking about the extra 14 trains promised for the western line under this plan. My understanding is that is gained firstly from adding 6tph to the existing 14tph for the Western/ North Shore line to make the 20tph max for this line.

Maximum before resignalling with ATO/ATP, I'd say.

Then they add another 8tph via the Western line to City Circle to run to Campbelltown via the Airport line (thus the extra 8tph for the South West).

Do you think this will be run on the locals or the suburbans?

Talk has been that the Northern line trains will terminate at Central and that Richmond line trains will now run to the Cumberland line.

I would hazard a guess that they'll reduce or eliminate the Campbelltown via Granville service, replacing it mainly with Richmond Cumberlands. This transfers CBD passengers to the express services, and frees up the slow tracks from Granville to the CBD, which I believe are very congested. By ramming the CBD passengers coming in from the Fairfield branch onto a very frequent Western Express, slots are freed up for local services along the Western line, which could be used for Rail's 8tph running into the City Circle and back out to Campbelltown via Airport.

Running the Northern's via Strathfield leg, be it to Epping or Hornsby, out of Sydney Terminal allows these services to use the less-saturated mains without crossing over to the suburbans at the Illawarra Junction - this has been identified as a major capacity restriction, and even has its own diagram on page 7 in the June 2012 print of Sydney's Rail Future, the current state document on this matter. (I obtained a copy from the NWRL centre in Castle Hill.)

The problem is that in the 'busiest hour', 7 trains (out of 15) cross from the mains to the suburbans. This is made worse because they are orientated up-down/up-down. The suburbans themselves bring in 12 trains, resulting in 19 trains in that hour going through Platform 16. This results in 27 trains coming in from two track pairs - not very impressive. Logically, by separating the two track pairs when running into Central, the conflicting movements are eliminated and the bottleneck eased. I would hazard a guess that both would be able to take around 18 trains each in that hour, and that's a decent increase in capacity, allowing more trains to run between Epping and Strathfield, a corridor that has been identified in Sydney's Rail Future as saturated (as in one where trains are so full passengers can no longer board) on page 8.

However the graphic on the Transport NSW site shows the Richmond branch of the Western line trains running to Hornsby or the City Circle. Anyone want to take a punt as to how they fit all these services in with the inner west and southern lines plus the interurban trains?

I think they've just forgotten to include the Cumberland side of that delta junction.

Campbelltown via Granville hasn't made sense for over two decades, so if this is removed it will be a good riddance, and not before time.

Campbelltown via Granville hasn't made sense for over two decades, so if this is removed it will be a good riddance, and not before time.

I believe passengers between Canley Vale and Merrylands would be much better served by a train to Harris Park/Parramatta, where they can connect to a fast train rocketing them into the City. The passengers between Cabramatta and Liverpool would require some replacement direct service, but due to the planned conversion, a via Regents Park service won't be a permanent solution, not least because it adds to the congestion of the locals until Lidcombe. Hopefully the Bankstown metro will be fast enough.

Maybe with this single deck business we just need to get used to the idea of single deck trains again. It was only just under twenty years ago that they were still in service.

Having said this, they obviously went DD to carry more passengers... as im sure most of you here know that melbourne tried to go DD with the '4D' a train with a very similar body and layout to the Tangara (obviously the parts you couldent see and also the gauge of the trains were altered to suit melbourne's needs. 

In sydney, we do not have such a vast TRAM network as melbourne does. the MLR is a model train in comparison to melbourne's  trams. They also have buses... maybe this is why they havent really bothered with the notion of a DD train since the epic fail that was the 4D, because they have so many modes of transport that they dont need two floors of seating on their trains. I have however always thought it was such a waste of their wide gauge trains to not have them as double deck.

IMO the airport line should branch off and go to maroubra junction, up to kensington/kingsford-unsw, coogee and then connect to bondi junction, and there should be a manly/waringah branch line from st leonards (there are two unused platforms). these areas, while served quite well by buses (unlike my area, hurstville) could do with heavy rail lines, 'metro' or DD. I have friends who live in coogee and it takes SO much longer than driving going hurstville to the eastern suburbs... a 30 min drive becomes a train to central, then usually a 20 min wait for the bus... then an overcrowded slow bus to coogee, OR a 20 min longer train ride to bondi junction and then a 20 min bus.

Not only would a branch off the airport line mean an easy change from wolli creek... it would provide the south and the south west much easier access to the eastern suburbs, and it would also make it easier for eastern suburbs residents to catch a train to the airport, cutting down a lot of time and reducing the need to lob suitcases on crowded buses.

Campbelltown via Granville hasn't made sense for over two decades, so if this is removed it will be a good riddance, and not before time.

I believe passengers between Canley Vale and Merrylands would be much better served by a train to Harris Park/Parramatta, where they can connect to a fast train rocketing them into the City. The passengers between Cabramatta and Liverpool would require some replacement direct service, but due to the planned conversion, a via Regents Park service won't be a permanent solution, not least because it adds to the congestion of the locals until Lidcombe. Hopefully the Bankstown metro will be fast enough.

What would serve Auburn?

I think going all the way to Parramatta would not be good for these people.  @Harris Park it may well be different, but Harris Park is problematic to serve.

Well, I should point out that height plays a role as well. My understanding is that they are digging circular tubes (think ECRL) that are 6.1m in diameter. This will be a good fit for SD stock, but is apparently too low for DD stock. Considering that there would be less than 2.0m of clearance both above and below, I can see DD stock and OHW being locked out.

Everyone believes their design will work very well. I mean, I have great faith in mine.

Please note you're getting into a lot of details, such as the seats or the livery. Try to stick to the crucial bits first, like capacity and gauge envelope, and avoid getting bogged down in things like the front-end styling.

found an extra 30 seating (applied my 50 by 40 cm seating space in the vertisuble) and 24 standing (recalculated space a bit but its still 5ppl / sq m)

and on your other note i will focus on the crucial bits first. will try a single deck train with benches and one with seats since the single deck option has become more appealing and tunnel size restricts DD operation due to height of OWH requriements.

on another note why would they make NWRL a different loading guage to rest of network, the bulk of metro will be on current cityrail lines with only the NWRL and second CDB / Harbour tunnel being new infrastructure. wouldn't this be costly to modify them to suit metro loading guage? wouldn't the cost savings not be justified? (unless this govt decides to not persue metro or labor gets voted and scraps it)

Campbelltown via Granville hasn't made sense for over two decades, so if this is removed it will be a good riddance, and not before time.

I believe passengers between Canley Vale and Merrylands would be much better served by a train to Harris Park/Parramatta, where they can connect to a fast train rocketing them into the City. The passengers between Cabramatta and Liverpool would require some replacement direct service, but due to the planned conversion, a via Regents Park service won't be a permanent solution, not least because it adds to the congestion of the locals until Lidcombe. Hopefully the Bankstown metro will be fast enough.

What would serve Auburn?

I think going all the way to Parramatta would not be good for these people.  @Harris Park it may well be different, but Harris Park is problematic to serve.

How the connection is implemented is the harder bit. As for Auburn and Clyde, I would have them on the slower trains that run into the City Circle that were proposed upthread.

That wouldn't make sense.  Forcing people to interchange at Harris Park or Parramatta onto Western Line trains but also acknowledging the need to increase Western Line capacity by having trains running between Parramatta 3 & 4 through Granville 3 &4 - why not just have the South Line passengers go direct.  There are enough of them to justify it.

Maximum before resignalling with ATO/ATP, I'd say.

I would hazard a guess that they'll reduce or eliminate the Campbelltown via Granville service, replacing it mainly with Richmond Cumberlands. This transfers CBD passengers to the express services, and frees up the slow tracks from Granville to the CBD, which I believe are very congested. By ramming the CBD passengers coming in from the Fairfield branch onto a very frequent Western Express, slots are freed up for local services along the Western line, which could be used for Rail's 8tph running into the City Circle and back out to Campbelltown via Airport.

Running the Northern's via Strathfield leg, be it to Epping or Hornsby, out of Sydney Terminal allows these services to use the less-saturated mains without crossing over to the suburbans at the Illawarra Junction - this has been identified as a major capacity restriction, and even has its own diagram on page 7 in the June 2012 print of Sydney's Rail Future, the current state document on this matter. (I obtained a copy from the NWRL centre in Castle Hill.)

The problem is that in the 'busiest hour', 7 trains (out of 15) cross from the mains to the suburbans. This is made worse because they are orientated up-down/up-down. The suburbans themselves bring in 12 trains, resulting in 19 trains in that hour going through Platform 16. This results in 27 trains coming in from two track pairs - not very impressive. Logically, by separating the two track pairs when running into Central, the conflicting movements are eliminated and the bottleneck eased. I would hazard a guess that both would be able to take around 18 trains each in that hour, and that's a decent increase in capacity, allowing more trains to run between Epping and Strathfield, a corridor that has been identified in Sydney's Rail Future as saturated (as in one where trains are so full passengers can no longer board) on page 8.

Interesting, thanks for the analysis. Well here is how I see it, thinking about it, I misread the Western line to City Circle bit. I think they actually want three separate lines on the Western corridor. All this is a big guess from me, I am sure someone will point out where I have got it very wrong...

Post 2013 time table:

The Main line has all the trains from the North Coast and the Northern line from Hornsby (via Epping) trains (inc extra trains to make up for the loss of the via shore services), plus the mountains trains, all running into Central along with the South Coast trains. I assume 16-18 tph.

The Suburban line has all the Western line (via Blacktown) trains running from Emu Plains/ St Marys into Central 16 and up the North Shore line to Hornsby/ Berowra via Gordon. So 20 tph. Richmond line trains run to Campbelltown via the Cumberland line and pax change at Seven Hills for the CBD.

The local line runs the inner west (via Ashfield) trains from the new Homebush turnback and the South line from Campbelltown via Granville. The local line feeds into the City Circle and the airport/ Campbelltown (Revesby quad and Campbelltown) and Bankstown lines (new Lidcombe and Liverpool turnbacks). Not sure on the tph.


Post NWRL and second harbour crossing:

Western to North Shore line via Gordon and Northern/ Interurban main line remain unchanged other then possible extra services via ATO improvements

Bankstown SD Metro line (10 tph) starts at Cabramatta and the Lidcombe turnback. South SD Metro line (10 tph) starts at Hurstville, join at Sydenham for their own Sector through Redfern and through Metro Pitt via the ECRL ending at Rouse Hill (20 tph).

South line via Granville trains start at the Liverpool turnback and join the inner west trains (starting at homebush) on the locals to the City Circle where they meet the Airport line to terminate at the Macarthur turnback and at Revesby. Maybe also at the end of the SWRL at Leppington. Line supports 20 tph. SWRL takes over the Cumberland line for a direct connection to Parramatta and then Richmond. SWRL pax change for the CBD at Glenfield, Casula pax have to use the Cumberland line and change for the CBD.

Just thinking about the extra 14 trains promised for the western line under this plan. My understanding is that is gained firstly from adding 6tph to the existing 14tph for the Western/ North Shore line to make the 20tph max for this line. Then they add another 8tph via the Western line to City Circle to run to Campbelltown via the Airport line (thus the extra 8tph for the South West). Talk has been that the Northern line trains will terminate at Central and that Richmond line trains will now run to the Cumberland line. However the graphic on the Transport NSW site shows the Richmond branch of the Western line trains running to Hornsby or the City Circle. Anyone want to take a punt as to how they fit all these services in with the inner west and southern lines plus the interurban trains?

I was wondering about this too, but the answer turns out to be much simpler, and also semi-confirms the Richmond/Schofields -> Campbelltown plan.

Excluding the Northern Line and Richmond line trains (but including Blacktown starters) there are 10 trains arriving in the CBD during the hour of 8am - 9am.

The plans also speak of the implementation of simple stopping patterns and ATP/ATO allowing running at 24tph. It therefore become a simple 24 - 10 = 14.

They wouldn't dare do anything more complicated like sending some trains to the City Circle - it goes against everything else they are planning.

It also shows the level of capacity increase that will happen on the main trunk of the Western Line by the simplification of the stopping pattern is staggering.

I think that another thing this shows is that they have been building the infrastructure to make these kind of changes for years now, and then just not using them for political reasons. Think about the two main projects that make this possible:

• Cumberland line grade separation


• Lidcombe turnback

The 1 project that is missing is one that will allow Blue Mountains trains to run through to Sydney Terminal without a conflicting movement - a flyover at Homebush. They may just run mountains trains through to Hornsby - I don't know what else they do to avoid a gap in frequency and a conflicting movement at Homebush.

The 1 project that is missing is one that will allow Blue Mountains trains to run through to Sydney Terminal without a conflicting movement - a flyover at Homebush. They may just run mountains trains through to Hornsby - I don't know what else they do to avoid a gap in frequency and a conflicting movement at Homebush.

It makes more sense now. What exactly is the conflicting movement at Homebush, by the way?