NSW Future Rail Plan - NWRL/Metro/Harbour Crossing

 
  Watson374 Chief Commissioner

Location: Fully reclined at the pointy end.

I don't think
"stupid_girl"


lol @ this

Okay, seriously.

I don't think any difference here.
"stupid_girl"


Then explain why nobody has ripped out seats from DD stock, even overseas, while ripping out seats from SD stock is pretty common.

I have already run the numbers.
12tph SD provides 82*8*12=7872 seats
"stupid_girl"


Where do the 82 seats per car come from? I got a version with only 64 seats per car, and that's a lot already. Remember that to provide sufficient circulation areas, SD stock will likely be 2+2 as indicated in the released animations.


Also, don't forget that your plan will remove thousands of seats from upper North Shore Line.
"stupid_girl"


Seats can be shuffled around. I'll concede I'm relying on ATP to give me another 4tph to play with, though.

Sponsored advertisement

  stupid_girl Assistant Commissioner

I don't think
"stupid_girl"


lol @ this

Okay, seriously.

I don't think any difference here.
"stupid_girl"


Then explain why nobody has ripped out seats from DD stock, even overseas, while ripping out seats from SD stock is pretty common.
"Watson374"

Seats are reduced when demand has increased so much that more standing capacity is needed.
It is totally irrelevant to SD or DD.

When the crowding is severe, seats will be reduced even when DD is used.

I have already run the numbers.
12tph SD provides 82*8*12=7872 seats
"stupid_girl"


Where do the 82 seats per car come from? I got a version with only 64 seats per car, and that's a lot already. Remember that to provide sufficient circulation areas, SD stock will likely be 2+2 as indicated in the released animations.
"Watson374"

The first version of Washington Metro trains have 82 seats per car.

They don't have as many seats now because crowding has led to reduction in seating capacity.
However, crowding is not going to the problem in the first batch of NWRL trains.
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

OK, some updated diagrams ....



... and ...



I think the wording of the published plan is hedging it's bets on 24tph across the bridge.  The fallback would be to run 4 tph from the west into ST, so half the northern line trains, or perhaps some western line trains.

I also think the plan really means 24 tph on the suburbans and 20 on the locals between Strathfield and Redfern, vs the 30 now,  That's how I reconcile the 14 extra trains, and the "up to".  It's dependant on ATC delivering the 24tph across the bridge in DD format.

I think they just they've just ignored how to deal with the inner west.  They've made it very clear they are going to run 20 tph along the airport line, and the airport line can't turn trains through the circle.  Perhaps that could be fixed, but I doubt it.  Once the Bankstown line is handed over to metro, than means 20tph along the inner west, and dealing with all those closely spaced little stations.  They could simply be rationalised (closing McTown, Stanmore, Lewisham and Croydon say, or perhaps more), and I can understand why that wouldn't be published in the plan, or they could just add another 12 min to the running time from Liverpool.  Or they could turn some trains at redfern (ie "up to" 14 extra trains). 

But that's what I think they mean.

I think it's up in the air as to whether or not they will run trains out the Richmond Branch off Sector 3.  It could be done as shuttles with all other western line trains running to Penrith.  Quite frankly I don't see much advantage in this, but there sure is extra cost (Richmond Line capacity is essentially duplicated, once on the branch and again on the main to Penrith with lightly loaded trains) for the benefit of stopping pattern "simplicity".

It should be noted that all previous proposals for a 3 tier system included the inner west as part of the inner tier.  That's been scrapped, and the mains have been preserved for "NSW Trains".  Prior to this, the apparent intention was to OSCARise the interurban operations and run them through the city, with sector 3 eventually being moved entirely to the mains. 

Perhaps somewhat ironically it will be the metro with the multiple stopping patterns by the time this plan is fully implemented.

Now, does anyone have any major objections to this interpretation of "the plan" ?



  Watson374 Chief Commissioner

Location: Fully reclined at the pointy end.
Seats are reduced when demand has increased so much that more standing capacity is needed.
It is totally irrelevant to SD or DD.

When the crowding is severe, seats will be reduced even when DD is used.
"stupid_girl"


Conclusion: DD's apparently don't get crowded enough.

The first version of Washington Metro trains have 82 seats per car.

They don't have as many seats now because crowding has led to reduction in seating capacity.
However, crowding is not going to the problem in the first batch of NWRL trains.
"stupid_girl"


You realise that a Washington Metro car is 75' long, right? Your eight-car train doesn't fit the current platforms on the ECRL. Oh, and their doors aren't nearly wide enough.

And before you tell me you'll extend the platforms, I'll have you know I can do exactly the same thing and add more cars to mine.

OK, some updated diagrams ....


"djf01"


Damn, it looks good. I see you've used 24tph over the bridge - ATP, innit?
  djf01 Chief Commissioner


They don't have as many seats now because crowding has led to reduction in seating capacity.
However, crowding is not going to the problem in the first batch of NWRL trains.
...
You realise that a Washington Metro car is 75' long, right? Your eight-car train doesn't fit the current platforms on the ECRL. Oh, and their doors aren't nearly wide enough.

And before you tell me you'll extend the platforms, I'll have you know I can do exactly the same thing and add more cars to mine.
"Watson374"


Cool it my dear Watson.  I haven't really gone in to all my issues with this plan yet, but I think the decision (if it comes as seems likely) to build the NWRL using twin 6m tunnel bores is going to see Stupid Girl (and Riccardo too) get their wish and see Sydney dominated by SD trains with prediminantly longitudinal seating, and on the routes to Richmond, Rouse Hill and Penrith too Sad.
  Watson374 Chief Commissioner

Location: Fully reclined at the pointy end.
Cool it my dear Watson.  I haven't really gone in to all my issues with this plan yet, but I think the decision (if it comes as seems likely) to build the NWRL using twin 6m tunnel bores is going to see Stupid Girl (and Riccardo too) get their wish and see Sydney dominated by SD trains with prediminantly longitudinal seating, and on the routes to Richmond, Rouse Hill and Penrith too Sad.
"djf01"


Depressing.

Oh well. I noticed you picked up on the Inner West issue. I could definitely see the value of rationalising a number of stops - places like Newtown are better served by STA, frankly.
  matthewg Train Controller


Oh well. I noticed you picked up on the Inner West issue. I could definitely see the value of rationalising a number of stops - places like Newtown are better served by STA, frankly.
"Watson374"


 I suspect residents of Newtown and other rail served inner west suburbs who work in the city might have something to say about that. The buses might be more frequent, but their transit time is SIGNIFICANTLY longer than that of the trains.

 I can walk down King Street to the Uni faster than the road traffic. The buses get to speed up a bit past the Uni, although the Uni bus stop gets pretty congested at times, with 3 buses at the stop and two or more on the other side of the intersection behind them. And that's before they join the conga line of buses down at Parramatta Road.

The ill fated Metro West did have some merits - it could take taken some of the 'local' rail traffic off the mainline, freeing up capacity for the longer runs.


  Murasaki Chief Train Controller

Location: Going sideways... in carriage DET-9216 (>ω<)

Main line to Sydney Terminal

8 tph express from Emu Plains/ Blue Mountains, limited to Penrith, Blacktown, Westmead, Parramatta , Strathfield? (Murasaki's suggestion) 
2 tph express from Schofields, limited to Blacktown, Westmead, Parramatta
"Rails"


Main line to Sydney Terminal

10 tph express from Emu Plains/ Blue Mountains, limited to Penrith, Blacktown, Seven Hills, Westmead, Parramatta, Strathfield? (Murasaki's suggestion)
"A few posts later, Rails"


I'd hope you consider throwing in Strathfield there, or people at, or West of, Parramatta will otherwise miss a useful interchange for the Central Coast and Newcastle and the CountryLink (NSW Trains) services.
  simonl Chief Commissioner

Location: Brisbane
Now, does anyone have any major objections to this interpretation of "the plan" ?
"djf01"

Only 16tph for the Western Line in 2026?  Perhaps not an objection to the interpretation, but an objection to the plan.  It's just not good enough!
  Watson374 Chief Commissioner

Location: Fully reclined at the pointy end.
The ill fated Metro West did have some merits - it could take taken some of the 'local' rail traffic off the mainline, freeing up capacity for the longer runs.
"matthewg"


That I wholeheartedly agree with - especially when it stopped along Parramatta Rd, with the potential to take bus traffic off the roads in those suburbs.
  stupid_girl Assistant Commissioner

Seats are reduced when demand has increased so much that more standing capacity is needed.
It is totally irrelevant to SD or DD.

When the crowding is severe, seats will be reduced even when DD is used.
"stupid_girl"


Conclusion: DD's apparently don't get crowded enough.
"Watson374"

And 12tph SD will not get crowded either.

The first version of Washington Metro trains have 82 seats per car.

They don't have as many seats now because crowding has led to reduction in seating capacity.
However, crowding is not going to the problem in the first batch of NWRL trains.
"stupid_girl"


You realise that a Washington Metro car is 75' long, right? Your eight-car train doesn't fit the current platforms on the ECRL. Oh, and their doors aren't nearly wide enough.

And before you tell me you'll extend the platforms, I'll have you know I can do exactly the same thing and add more cars to mine.
"Watson374"

Don't forget that being driverless means that the front and the end of the train can be slightly off the platform. That can save you a bit of space.

Even if we gets a bit conservative, 12tph SD can still provides more than 6000 seats, which is far more than sufficient.
As a comparison, Northern Line now has a peak patronage of 5365/hour while Inner West has a peak patronage of 4185/hour.
Both lines have a similar number of stations as NWRL.
It's crystal clear that everyone on NWRL is almost guaranteed a seat on the SD train.
  grog Train Controller

I think they just they've just ignored how to deal with the inner west.  They've made it very clear they are going to run 20 tph along the airport line, and the airport line can't turn trains through the circle.  Perhaps that could be fixed, but I doubt it.  Once the Bankstown line is handed over to metro, than means 20tph along the inner west, and dealing with all those closely spaced little stations.  They could simply be rationalised (closing McTown, Stanmore, Lewisham and Croydon say, or perhaps more), and I can understand why that wouldn't be published in the plan, or they could just add another 12 min to the running time from Liverpool.  Or they could turn some trains at redfern (ie "up to" 14 extra trains). 
"djf01"


Inner west trains currently only take 5 minutes longer than South Line trains, stopping at 5 extra stations.

I think that the only feasible station to close would be Macdonaldtown (it pains me to say that as a former regular user of that station).

Erskineville and Newtown are close by. Erskineville will have a frequent service as part of the Rapid Transit line, and Newtown could have an extra entrance opened at the North end of the platform.

All trains should probably stop at Newtown, slowing South line trains by 1 minute, but making Newtown into a major bus/train interchange. This means that the difference between South Line and inner west rains could get down to 3-2 minutes. That is 1 train every 15 minutes, which could be catered for with 4tph terminating from Redfern to Macdonaldtown stabling.
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

I think they just they've just ignored how to deal with the inner west.  They've made it very clear they are going to run 20 tph along the airport line, and the airport line can't turn trains through the circle.  Perhaps that could be fixed, but I doubt it.  Once the Bankstown line is handed over to metro, than means 20tph along the inner west, and dealing with all those closely spaced little stations.  They could simply be rationalised (closing McTown, Stanmore, Lewisham and Croydon say, or perhaps more), and I can understand why that wouldn't be published in the plan, or they could just add another 12 min to the running time from Liverpool.  Or they could turn some trains at redfern (ie "up to" 14 extra trains). 
"djf01"


Inner west trains currently only take 5 minutes longer than South Line trains, stopping at 5 extra stations.
"grog"

Fair point.  Bear in mind the run time on the Suburbans is 11 min IIRC, 15 on the locals.  The speed boards are slower in a couple of places, which accounts for 1 or 2 minutes of that.  The other 3-4 min is deliberate slowing of the main south trains to allow them to blend in with the stoppers on the same track pair.


I think that the only feasible station to close would be Macdonaldtown (it pains me to say that as a former regular user of that station).

Erskinville, St James, Newtown and MacTn are all within 1000m of each other.  Newtown is the obvious one to retain.  Lewisham/Petersham/Stanmore are also way to close for a modern heavy rail service too.

The irony is of course that of all the inner routes proposed to be metroed, the inner west is probably the most deserving.


  djf01 Chief Commissioner


Even if we gets a bit conservative, 12tph SD can still provides more than 6000 seats, which is far more than sufficient.
"stupid_girl"

And 12tph DD provides more than 10000 seats.  12tph SD can barely provide 10000 total capacity, until you go to longitudinal seating of course.

Face it Stupid_Girl, whatever their disadvantages, DDs carry more people and in greater comfort by virtue of them having more available cabin space.  More PAX in less vehicles and trains is a productivity improvement over SD (ie they're cheaper), and it's not an advantage which should be abandoned lightly IMHO.

Sydney bought itself 2 decades of extra capacity/deferred capex by going DD, and I think it's extraordinarily foolish to throw that away just because it's "not needed" in the next two decades.


It's crystal clear that everyone on NWRL is almost guaranteed a seat on the SD train.

Only as far as Chatswood Smile.
  stupid_girl Assistant Commissioner


Even if we gets a bit conservative, 12tph SD can still provides more than 6000 seats, which is far more than sufficient.
"stupid_girl"

And 12tph DD provides more than 10000 seats.  12tph SD can barely provide 10000 total capacity, until you go to longitudinal seating of course.

Face it Stupid_Girl, whatever their disadvantages, DDs carry more people and in greater comfort by virtue of them having more available cabin space.  More PAX in less vehicles and trains is a productivity improvement over SD (ie they're cheaper), and it's not an advantage which should be abandoned lightly IMHO.

Sydney bought itself 2 decades of extra capacity/deferred capex by going DD, and I think it's extraordinarily foolish to throw that away just because it's "not needed" in the next two decades.


It's crystal clear that everyone on NWRL is almost guaranteed a seat on the SD train.

Only as far as Chatswood Smile.
"djf01"

At the same cost as12tph DD, you can easily provide 24tph SD, which has much higher total capacity.

SD is a productivity improvement because the expensive drivers and guards are no longer required.
DD has much higher cost per passenger than SD!!!
  simonl Chief Commissioner

Location: Brisbane
If Liverpool-Bankstown-city is shorter than via Granville and has the same number of effective tracks, I think it is worth looking at why this option is currently so much slower.

Seems stopping all to Granville, Auburn, Lidcombe, Strathfield, Ashfield, Redfern, Central - 13 intermediate stations takes 56 minutes.
Stopping all to Campsie, Sydenham, Redfern, Central - 17 intermediate stations takes 61-2 minutes.

Should there be skip-stop between Campsie and Birrong?

Does the 4 additional stops explain all of the additional 5-6 minutes?  I think not, especially since it is a shorter path.  Perhaps there are even more severe speed restrictions on the Bankstown line than the western locals?
  moonetau Junior Train Controller

[quote="stupid_girl"][quote="djf01"][quote="stupid_girl"]


[quote]
[b]It's crystal clear that everyone on NWRL is almost guaranteed a seat on the SD train.[/b][/quote]
Only as far as Chatswood Smile.[/quote]
At the same cost as12tph DD, you can easily provide 24tph SD, which has much higher total capacity.

SD is a productivity improvement because [b]the expensive drivers and guards are no longer required[/b].
DD has much higher cost per passenger than SD!!![/quote]

Is there a reason why new DD stock could not be ATO?
  Airvan99 Junior Train Controller

There is no reason why new DD stock could not be ATO, but the reason for SD is dwell time. Systems that have 4 or even 6 double doors a side per car have much improved dwell times, compared to the horrendously poor times we currently suffer.
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

There is no reason why new DD stock could not be ATO, but the reason for SD is dwell time. Systems that have 4 or even 6 double doors a side per car have much improved dwell times, compared to the horrendously poor times we currently suffer.
"Airvan99"


SD trains have shorter dwell times partially because of more doors, but the main reason is they just don't board or disembark as many passengers.

There is nothing wrong with SD.  It's just there is less cabin space per m of train length, and because of that you need more train length to provide the same level of capacity at the same level of comfort.  With *really* high crush loads and longitudinal seating SD can provide higher line capacities than DD, but you're looking at uncomfortably heavy loadings of >= 4 PAX/m^2 (not achieved/accepted anywhere in Australia, or anywhere else outside Asia for that matter) before there is any capacity advantage associated with SD.

SD vs DD isn't really the issue in this case.  It's a question of what's going to happen if/when the study into the second harbour crossing options associated with this plan is shown to be unjustifiably expensive, *and* the need unload and reload passengers at Chatswood becomes the system's limiting bottleneck.
  Watson374 Chief Commissioner

Location: Fully reclined at the pointy end.

There is no reason why new DD stock could not be ATO, but the reason for SD is dwell time. Systems that have 4 or even 6 double doors a side per car have much improved dwell times, compared to the horrendously poor times we currently suffer.
"Airvan99"


SD trains have shorter dwell times partially because of more doors, but the main reason is they just don't board or disembark as many passengers.

There is nothing wrong with SD.  It's just there is less cabin space per m of train length, and because of that you need more train length to provide the same level of capacity at the same level of comfort.  With *really* high crush loads and longitudinal seating SD can provide higher line capacities than DD, but you're looking at uncomfortably heavy loadings of >= 4 PAX/m^2 (not achieved/accepted anywhere in Australia, or anywhere else outside Asia for that matter) before there is any capacity advantage associated with SD.

SD vs DD isn't really the issue in this case.  It's a question of what's going to happen if/when the study into the second harbour crossing options associated with this plan is shown to be unjustifiably expensive, *and* the need unload and reload passengers at Chatswood becomes the system's limiting bottleneck.
"djf01"


Basically, what djf01 said. If anything, I'd say this option makes the second harbour crossing problem worse, because it puts so much pressure on Chatswood.

Should there be skip-stop between Campsie and Birrong?
"simonl"


I've floated alternating skip-stop on the Bankstown line - basically, trains from Sydenham run all to Campsie and then run express to Bankstown, or run express to Campsie and then all to Bankstown. Do you think this is viable?
  Watson374 Chief Commissioner

Location: Fully reclined at the pointy end.
Might need to be even more extreme.  Increased frequency on the Bankstown line wouldn't allow the current degree of express to survive as is - Red/Syd/Campsie gains 12 minutes on an all stopper when 8tph would only allow 9 minutes.
"simonl"


Backup option: A/B skip-stop.
  stupid_girl Assistant Commissioner

There is no reason why new DD stock could not be ATO, but the reason for SD is dwell time. Systems that have 4 or even 6 double doors a side per car have much improved dwell times, compared to the horrendously poor times we currently suffer.
"Airvan99"

The union will prevent DD from becoming driverless.

However, they will have no say on how a separate privately operated SD railway system operate.
  stupid_girl Assistant Commissioner

There is no reason why new DD stock could not be ATO, but the reason for SD is dwell time. Systems that have 4 or even 6 double doors a side per car have much improved dwell times, compared to the horrendously poor times we currently suffer.
"Airvan99"


SD trains have shorter dwell times partially because of more doors, but the main reason is they just don't board or disembark as many passengers.

There is nothing wrong with SD.  It's just there is less cabin space per m of train length, and because of that you need more train length to provide the same level of capacity at the same level of comfort.  With *really* high crush loads and longitudinal seating SD can provide higher line capacities than DD, but you're looking at uncomfortably heavy loadings of >= 4 PAX/m^2 (not achieved/accepted anywhere in Australia, or anywhere else outside Asia for that matter) before there is any capacity advantage associated with SD.

SD vs DD isn't really the issue in this case.  It's a question of what's going to happen if/when the study into the second harbour crossing options associated with this plan is shown to be unjustifiably expensive, *and* the need unload and reload passengers at Chatswood becomes the system's limiting bottleneck.
"djf01"


Basically, what djf01 said. If anything, I'd say this option makes the second harbour crossing problem worse, because it puts so much pressure on Chatswood.
"Watson374"

This option has no effect to the pressure on second harbour crossing.

Using SD won't suddenly increase the overall demand across the harbour.
  Watson374 Chief Commissioner

Location: Fully reclined at the pointy end.
Using SD won't suddenly increase the overall demand across the harbour.
"stupid_girl"


O RLY?

So chucking everyone off at Chatswood doesn't increase the loads being carried over the Bridge on the trains? Seems legit.

The union will prevent DD from becoming driverless.


However, they will have no say on how a separate privately operated SD railway system operate.
"stupid_girl"


And you're back to the screwing-the-unions tack. Not dignifying that with any further response...
  stupid_girl Assistant Commissioner

Using SD won't suddenly increase the overall demand across the harbour.
"stupid_girl"


O RLY?

So chucking everyone off at Chatswood doesn't increase the loads being carried over the Bridge on the trains? Seems legit.
"Watson374"

Of course!

No matter you request them to change at Chatswood or carry them all the way into the city, it gives exactly the same amount of pressure to the system.

Sponsored advertisement

Display from:   

Quick Reply

We've disabled Quick Reply for this thread as it was last updated more than six months ago.