NSW Future Rail Plan - NWRL/Metro/Harbour Crossing

 
  simonl Chief Commissioner

Location: Brisbane
Nice troll but again the west still has 10/14 tph, the North would be ALL trains into ST. Basically no lines enjoy the express services the west does so I really dont see your point.
"Rails"

Firstly, that is less than present to Town Hall.  I have little doubt that finding it fun to reduce the connection to Town Hall will add to dwell times and therefore reduce capacity for no particular reason other than ideology.
Secondly, re-reading your proposal I see that stations from Kingswood to Wentworthville, except Blacktown, are to have a severe reduction in service.  The existing demand would not be catered for.  I don't see why you'd increase the  Blue Mountains and reduce the Western Line to that degree, or at all.
Thirdly what do we have the quad track between Parramatta and St Marys for if we aren't going to provide express services for Doonside-Penrith?  That's just daft.
Fourthly quite a few other places on Cityrail have express services - Illawarra, Campbelltown-Revesby, even Bankstown has some.  The ECRL removed most of them from the North Shore though.

The NSW ALP certainly made mistakes particularly under Iemma & Rees but I think this government will be cursed for generations.  Time will tell, I guess.

I'm not inclined to debate you any more due to your extreme political bias, especially when you are accusing me of political bias.

Sponsored advertisement

  Rails Chief Commissioner



The NSW ALP certainly made mistakes particularly under Iemma & Rees but I think this government will be cursed for generations. Time will tell, I guess.

I'm not inclined to debate you any more due to your extreme political bias, especially when you are accusing me of political bias.
"simonl"



Political Bias, that is laughable. What I wrote is all fact, if you dont like it there is no need to sook, prove me wrong. Your constant rambling on with comments like "cursed for generations" is political bias. So to be honest I am not really concerned if you no longer wish to "debate" me  Rolling Eyes
  rrroLLa Chief Train Controller

I'm no expert but (I've heard) the fastest interval between stations on Richmond line was 20 minutes, crossing at Blacktown, Quakers, Riverstone, Mulgrave, Claredon and Richmond. That's still possible now, but do you really think (in a time where everything is being slowed) they will be able to cut 5 minutes from that? Besides people from past Schofields would rather an infrequent city service then a frequent Parramatta service.

The four Cumberland trains would do better starting at Schofields and the two city at Richmond (what they currently get).

Next I would like to point out to people that there is nothing wrong with branch lines for operational efficiency. The Paris RER A line (which people consider to be a sort of holy grail of double deck suburban transport) has 3 branches at one end and 2 at the other end.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE

The NSW ALP certainly made mistakes particularly under Iemma & Rees but I think this government will be cursed for generations. Time will tell, I guess.

I'm not inclined to debate you any more due to your extreme political bias, especially when you are accusing me of political bias.
"simonl"


I rather the govt build the less than perfect although still viable NWRL than procrastinate a further 4-12 years blowing more money on nothing but proposals. The former govts PT annoucements became a joke.

The Nth shore line issues as stated in that PR are really not such a huge issue.
- You don't need another platform at Hornsby, use Gordon/Lindfield to turn back the existing ECRL services. 20t/hr all stops to Lindfield, turn back 4-8t/hr and send rest to Hornsby which with two plats and turn backs beyond the station and services running through to Bewora could easiy handle the 12-16t/hr.

- CC trains, 2t/hr provided they run all to Lindfield can remain. They run behind a Lindfield terminator and then after Lindfield express to Hornsby or with enough stops to prevent them making up more than 5min on the one in front and then .

- Extending 4 tracks from Chatswood to St Leonards would help provide some releif by enabling NWRL users to get to more of Nth Shore business. This has been raised many times. Also spreads out change of station options and reduces potential for congestion at Chatswood platform. Perhaps if done smartly it could be made so both direction have a cross platform change using two stations, as is common overseas.

- 3rd track to Rhodes is a given and simple, now a 4th track would be moving forward.

- Western lines, two tier. All to Lidcombe, with extension of 6 tracks to Lidcombe and Limited express to Lidcombe, ie Redfern, Straithfield, Homebush and Lidcombe and all to end of line. Interurbans and some other express options, such as Blacktown, Paramatta, Granville, Lidcombe, Straithfield - Sydney Terminal can use the remaining two tracks. Not perfect and not a long term solution, but mid term enables higher frequency on both inner west and outer west.
  thefatcontroller Assistant Commissioner

Location: Sydney, Australia

The NSW ALP certainly made mistakes particularly under Iemma & Rees but I think this government will be cursed for generations. Time will tell, I guess.

I'm not inclined to debate you any more due to your extreme political bias, especially when you are accusing me of political bias.
"simonl"


I rather the govt build the less than perfect although still viable NWRL than procrastinate a further 4-12 years blowing more money on nothing but proposals. The former govts PT annoucements became a joke.

The Nth shore line issues as stated in that PR are really not such a huge issue.
- You don't need another platform at Hornsby, use Gordon/Lindfield to turn back the existing ECRL services. 20t/hr all stops to Lindfield, turn back 4-8t/hr and send rest to Hornsby which with two plats and turn backs beyond the station and services running through to Bewora could easiy handle the 12-16t/hr.

- CC trains, 2t/hr provided they run all to Lindfield can remain. They run behind a Lindfield terminator and then after Lindfield express to Hornsby or with enough stops to prevent them making up more than 5min on the one in front and then .

- Extending 4 tracks from Chatswood to St Leonards would help provide some releif by enabling NWRL users to get to more of Nth Shore business. This has been raised many times. Also spreads out change of station options and reduces potential for congestion at Chatswood platform. Perhaps if done smartly it could be made so both direction have a cross platform change using two stations, as is common overseas.

- 3rd track to Rhodes is a given and simple, now a 4th track would be moving forward.

- Western lines, two tier. All to Lidcombe, with extension of 6 tracks to Lidcombe and Limited express to Lidcombe, ie Redfern, Straithfield, Homebush and Lidcombe and all to end of line. Interurbans and some other express options, such as Blacktown, Paramatta, Granville, Lidcombe, Straithfield - Sydney Terminal can use the remaining two tracks. Not perfect and not a long term solution, but mid term enables higher frequency on both inner west and outer west.
"RTT_Rules"



But extending the 4 tracks to st leonards would just move the issue to st leonards? And how do u propose the quadruple the track past artarmon?
  Watson374 Chief Commissioner

Location: Fully reclined at the pointy end.

But extending the 4 tracks to st leonards would just move the issue to st leonards? And how do u propose the quadruple the track past artarmon?
"thefatcontroller"


Laugh at me if you must, but I'll suggest building a viaduct over the current alignment that will fly over Artarmon, or a tunnel equivalent.

- CC trains, 2t/hr provided they run all to Lindfield can remain. They run behind a Lindfield terminator and then after Lindfield express to Hornsby or with enough stops to prevent them making up more than 5min on the one in front
"RTT_Rules"


Alright, time to reveal my Staggered Shore Scheme. We will place the Coast via Shore service (henceforth 'the Coast') immediately behind a Hornsby via Macquarie Park service ('the ECRL'), which in turn has a Gordon via Lindfield service ('the Gordon') in front of it, preceded by the Hornsby via Gordon ('the Hornsby') and then Berowra via Gordon ('the Berowra') in first place.

Therefore, in order:

- the Berowra
- the Hornsby
- the Gordon
- the ECRL
- the Coast

Okay. The logic behind this is quite simple. Each train in front of the Coast will at some point terminate off the mainline, allowing the Coast to move forward one slot (three minutes). But, you cry out, what happens when you're right behind the train in front? Well, that's why I ordered it like that - that's when that trains pulls off to terminate.

Wait, what?

All trains run all stations to Chatswood. This keeps everything even. At Chatswood, the ECRL branches off on its own merry way. This frees one slot in front of the Coast, which is used to skip Roseville, Lindfield and Killara. After Killara, the Coast is right behind the Gordon. Upon arrival at Gordon, the Gordon pulls off into the centre road to terminate. Thus another slot is freed, allowing the Coast to stop at Gordon, Pymble, Turramurra and then skip Warrawee, Wahroonga, Waitara and then catch up with the Hornsby.

At Hornsby, the terminator will cross to Platform 1 to tip out and reverse to the City; hence, the Coast can move into Platform 2. Yet another slot is freed here, which allows the Coast train to skip Asquith, Mount Colah and Mount Kuring-gai. The Coast then catches up with the Berowra, which also pulls into the centre road to terminate. This allows the Coast to stop Berowra and then have a more-or-less free run to Woy Woy, Gosford and Wyong.

In conclusion, with some clever shuffling of services, it is perfectly possible to run 20tph to Chatswood and yet retain a Coast via Shore stopping all to Chatswood, Gordon, Pymble, Turramurra, Hornsby, Berowra, Woy Woy and Gosford.
  thefatcontroller Assistant Commissioner

Location: Sydney, Australia
But extending the 4 tracks to st leonards would just move the issue to st leonards? And how do u propose the quadruple the track past artarmon?
"thefatcontroller"


Laugh at me if you must, but I'll suggest building a viaduct over the current alignment that will fly over Artarmon, or a tunnel equivalent.


"Watson374"


I wasn't being rude... But if you quadruplicate the line to st leonards... Why not continue the quadruplication to North Sydney although I guess you then run into the trouble of the tunnels between St Leonards and North Sydney and also Waverton and Wollstonecraft stations  Shocked
  Watson374 Chief Commissioner

Location: Fully reclined at the pointy end.
But extending the 4 tracks to st leonards would just move the issue to st leonards? And how do u propose the quadruple the track past artarmon?
"thefatcontroller"


Laugh at me if you must, but I'll suggest building a viaduct over the current alignment that will fly over Artarmon, or a tunnel equivalent.
"Watson374"


I wasn't being rude... But if you quadruplicate the line to st leonards... Why not continue the quadruplication to North Sydney although I guess you then run into the trouble of the tunnels between St Leonards and North Sydney and also Waverton and Wollstonecraft stations Shocked
"thefatcontroller"


Didn't say nuffink about you being rude. It was a general invitation to giggle at one of my daft ideas concocted in the record time of thirty seconds of thought.

Now, the general idea for the last few years has been to dig new tubes between St Leonards and Nth Sydney via Victoria Cross...
  djf01 Chief Commissioner


The NSW ALP certainly made mistakes particularly under Iemma & Rees but I think this government will be cursed for generations. Time will tell, I guess.

I'm not inclined to debate you any more due to your extreme political bias, especially when you are accusing me of political bias.
"simonl"


I rather the govt build the less than perfect although still viable NWRL than procrastinate a further 4-12 years blowing more money on nothing but proposals. The former govts PT annoucements became a joke.
"RTT_Rules"


I'm still re-evaluating my position on this.  And I've been staying off this thread because I was becoming increasingly combative and decreasingly clear on what I was arguing for.

But as I see it, the NWRL and cross harbour tunnel as proposed (and it's not like there is a huge amount of detail yet) is going to damage the efficiency and productivity of the remaining rail network.  By how much it's hard to say just yet, but on the balance of probabilities I'd have to say the NWRL deficiencies are likely to resonate on Sydney's rail network bottom line for decades after it's finished (not unlike the airport line). 

*Somehow* the NWRL will need to be integrated into the network at some stage, and now matter how this is done it's likely to be hugely expensive one way or another, and needlessly in my view. 

Maybe Rail's is right and this system will transform Sydney around it in a way that clearly warrant the investment.  But I think it is a reasonable proposition (not saying it's true for sure) to say "the NWRL is now so flawed we are better off without it".



  Rails Chief Commissioner



I'm still re-evaluating my position on this. And I've been staying off this thread because I was becoming increasingly combative and decreasingly clear on what I was arguing for.

But as I see it, the NWRL and cross harbour tunnel as proposed (and it's not like there is a huge amount of detail yet) is going to damage the efficiency and productivity of the remaining rail network. By how much it's hard to say just yet, but on the balance of probabilities I'd have to say the NWRL deficiencies are likely to resonate on Sydney's rail network bottom line for decades after it's finished (not unlike the airport line).

*Somehow* the NWRL will need to be integrated into the network at some stage, and now matter how this is done it's likely to be hugely expensive one way or another, and needlessly in my view.

Maybe Rail's is right and this system will transform Sydney around it in a way that clearly warrant the investment. But I think it is a reasonable proposition (not saying it's true for sure) to say "the NWRL is now so flawed we are better off without it".


"djf01"


While I understand your thoughts, as you are aware I see things very differently but I cant predict the future either. Certainly not from the level of detail produced in these transport planning documents so far Laughing  In reality, the NWRL does not "need" to be integrated into the network. If either the current or future Government really wanted to, they could keep this NWRL/ SD system completely separate and leave Cityrail as is, that was what the previous Government looked at doing with their Metro concept and it was an option that they looked at in the current planning. The argument they put forward in the current plan is that they can benefit Cityrail using the integration method. Some on here dont see it that way but people have different views. Personally I dont have this obsession that things have to stay as they are, I think that is a bigger mistake, but who knows, a future Labor Government when presented with an existing NWRL and a cross harbour plan via Metro Pitt may well just revert to MREP using SD cars to Revesby via the airport. Or maybe a Metro through the inner west. Either option fully privatised.

Considering how long it takes to get these rail projects built, with the NWRL plan, what is the worst that can happen? The ECRL is lost to Cityrail and you return to the network before this link existed with 20/24 tph on the North Shore/ western/ northern line and more plans thrown on the scrap heap like the multitude of transport plans seen over the last 16 years. The big issue some of you have seem to revolve around the connection after this SD line gets through the CBD and in reality that is most likely well after the current Government are gone. If this plan doesnt come to fruition it wont be half a billlion dollars worth of lost planning I bet. Still I am again not sure how people can be so positive of this armageddon when we havent even seen all the details yet. A lot of assumptions going on. I can tell you that ignoring the city side of the plan, the best decision made is to send the NWRL via the ECRL/ North Shore (not via Rozelle Rolling Eyes ), it was the right path for this link. Whether you should still have trains also going via Strathfield short term is a different question but one now for the history books.

Have a look at the way Sydney transformed around the existing rail system, this is an evolution on that idea for what many Sydney siders want now. They want turn up and go service, they want connections to many different locations across Sydney (not just the CBD) and most using the system sit on their bums all day and the idea of standing isnt the end of the world to them, they are more interested in being first off the train to save a few mins. 15-20 min service just doesnt cut it for these folks. We are also not exactly breaking new ground with these kinds of plans, they exist all over the world.

As I have mentioned before the value of property around parts of the existing network such as the North Shore, Northern and Inner West lines and the hardcore NIMBYism of the property owners really causes issues for the transformation of our network like happened when the lines were originally established, I dont see that as an issue where these SD lines are going, there will be gentrification that just cant occur along these "established" parts of the existing network and they will provide the much needed in-fill housing and work place access. We need to fit another 2 billion people in Sydney, many from countries that are well used to rail lines that are nothing like Cityrail. I will predict that areas like that shown in the North Ryde station precinct plans and of course Chatswood will be very popular on the back of these SD lines. I have to be honest though, I think some people want these plans to fail for less than fair reasons.

  djf01 Chief Commissioner

In reality, the NWRL does not "need" to be integrated into the network.
"Rails"

By that I meant it needs to be integrated into our *transport* system somehow.   Building the second crossing would achieve this, at great cost of course.

Considering how long it takes to get these rail projects built, with the NWRL plan, what is the worst that can happen?


The worst that can happen is the we've (again) lowered the lowest common denominator.

The future network - whatever it looks like (as per tNSW's master plan or not) - will have to cater for the new limitations of the NWRL, as well as all the other ones in play today.


  Rails Chief Commissioner

I am just not seeing it as you do djf01, I just dont follow your thought process here. However as stated, time will tell.

With the SD NWRL I am most interested to see if we can get a real feeder bus to rail transfer system happening, its something I think Sydney does poorly and this will be the best chance to get it right and possibly be a template for some other parts of Sydney.

As far as the future network goes, just throwing this out there, one other interesting aspect that may have played a part will be the option of true line separation should they actually follow through with the under harbour second rail crossing using Metro Pitt. Hypothetically If they were to build the CBD relief line via Metro west as the next project plus compete some existing track duplication and the PERL, there are some interesting options in the future. All of the sectors can be completely separate:

Sector 1 - Cronulla and Waterfall to Bondi Junction/ Maroubra Junction + South Coast Interurbans - 20 tph DD
Sector 2 - Macarthur and Leppington to Campbelltown via the CC and inner west/ main south - 24 tph DD
Sector 3 - Emu Plains and Richmond to Wynyard + Mountains interurbans via CBD Relief line - 24 tph DD
Sector 4 - Hornsby to Berowra via the Northern and North Shore lines + Central Coast and Newcastle Interurbans - 18 tph DD
Sector 5 - Liverpool/Lidcombe and Hurstville to Rouse Hill and Parramatta via second harbour crossing/ECRL  - 30 tph SD
  djf01 Chief Commissioner


I am just not seeing it as you do djf01, I just don't follow your thought process here. However as stated, time will tell.
"Rails"

What happens if there is no second harbour crossing?

Or even if there is, what happens between the opening of the NWRL and the opening of the 2nd crossing (at the earliest) 10 years later?

I'd like to hear your thoughts on how that might be handled.  And I'd like you to give some thought as to what will need to be spent to achieve that, and at what levels of patronage on the NWRL will necessitate it.

I think the best case scenario is everything gets built as announced in the Master Plan *and* it result in a shift in the centre of population density south and east.  This would be completely against the (very) long term term trend of this shift being towards the west and north, but rail systems can have that impact on development. 

Or put another way, the best case is the policies bring forward the 2nd harbour crossing *and* it results in the major increase in the relevance of public transport in Sydney.



  Rails Chief Commissioner


Well my answer would be there has to be a second crossing! It should just be much cheaper than what is proposed and thus much more likely to be built…

However firstly I think this is a CBD and North Sydney issue. The other centres will do quite well out of this line and you will see an increase of NW residents working in these areas like Norwest, Macquarie Park, Chatswood etc based on the rail line, this happened in the upper Northern suburbs when the ECRL was built too. They will improve this for the NW if they do build the St Leonards quad which is needed either way. If you could get the line to North Sydney it would be much better again. However that would require a firm commitment to a second harbour crossing path.

As far as the CBD goes I think what they are doing looks like it will be ok for the first decade (far from ideal though!), after that what happens if we still have no second crossing or its delayed is most likely going to affect the lower North Shore residents more than anyone else. You will have much more crowded city bound services (and probably many delays), eventually some passenger displacement and a return to driving for some lower north shore folks, no worse than what predicted for the lower Northern line right now actually. The other alternative is that the lower North Shore is supplemented with more buses (you know, the ones that used to service the NW…). In the end you are better off squeezing LNS folks for a few stops onto trains and buses than outer folks who travel further. Especially when you have those outer suburban folks standing on a bus for 2 hours… Ironically the INSW idea of all SD trains for the North Shore probably helps a lot when you have no second crossing…  

If its mid to long term without the crossing we will see a swing away from the development that we are seeing now that is pushing towards the North/ West part of our city (Parramatta to Rouse Hill to Hornsby to Willoughby) and a large drop in value for these areas and a corresponding rise in value for the well serviced areas. Lack of transport infrastructure and more importantly the congestion and time wasting it creates, particularly in the next 30 years will have a huge effect on the development of our city. I believe that the second harbour crossing is not only needed for the NW region (our largest growth area) but also for general Northern suburbs growth and to support the large employment centres in this region that services all of Sydney. With not enough rail we will not see the residential towers on the lower North Shore that we should and the centres will not provide the CBD employment relief we need.

As mentioned the second crossing is needed along with the NWRL to clear Northern suburbs to the CBD bus congestion and to create room for extra Northern Beaches services because although a rail line works for this region, they are not getting one any time soon! If you can prove with the NWRL that bus to rail transfers can work, I would like to see this idea expanded for the Beaches and the LNS. Who knows, maybe we could see the SD second harbour rail crossing via the bridges eastern lanes and it being fed by a few large bus interchanges on the Northern side of the bridge for the Beaches, Lane Cove, Willoughby etc, wouldnt that be a cost effective solution! I will not agree that an area like the NW should remain with buses, it is the right fir for a rail line and the Norwest business park, Hills Centre and Castle Hill nodes plus access to the ECRL based employment centres and the LNS makes rail the right fit.

The thing is I think we need both growth in the NW sector and regeneration in the south (Hurstville) and the South West (Bankstown and the SW growth centres). We need a mix of houses further out e.g Leppington and new apartment towers further in e.g Punchbowl. Lets not forget the Lower North Shore can also have more apartment towers based on their extra rail access and a turn up and go line will help facilitate this. With the max seating SD line, people from Rouse Hill wont be  be standing but the folks from St Leonards will and that is appropriate.

I mean how long did it take for them to finally complete the City Circle? Should that project never have started because it wasnt completed straight up? No, and they made it work until the line was completed and we got the right result in the end. That should happen with the second harbour crossing too. Shortcuts just cost you in the end, I think they should have stuck to the complete Bradfield CBD plan but they didnt and so IMO the inner city network isnt as good as it could be.

 

  drwaddles In need of a breath mint

Location: Newcastle
how do u propose the quadruple the track past artarmon?
"thefatcontroller"


There's a large reservation on the eastern side of the two existing lines at Artarmon.
  unrailed Junior Train Controller


 
I mean how long did it take for them to finally complete the City Circle?

"Rails"


it's not finished like all the other rail projects. we have a mess of tunnels used for other tasks ie parking and water storage in the city. and any upgrade is looking at a shut down in the city network for a period of time.

with all the talk of the report almost all transport from the west to the sydney CBD will have some works that will impact travel and no options to aviod it.

  grog Train Controller

There is no doubt that a new harbor crossing needs to be constructed starting right after the NWRL, with all planning done and ready to go at that time.

There are currently 15tph in the peak hour from the north that are not ECRL services, including 3 from the Central Coast.

In the short term, the North Shore line could handle the load with some changes - I think this is what would need to be done to make it comfortable:


  • Upgrade signaling to 24 TPH - if we are running 12tph on the NWRL this allows consistent patterns to be observed at Chatswood

  • Extend quad to St Leonards to allow extension to NWRL services which will both reduce the number of people needing to change (those who work in St Leonards from the NW) as well as freeing up more space on shore service for those who do need to interchange (those who work in St Leonards from the North Shore)

  • Repeated 10 minute service pattern in this order:

    • 6TPH Berowra starters

    • 6TPH Gordon starters

    • 6TPH Hornsby starters

    • 6TPH Lindfield starters



  • NWRL service timed to arrive just after Hornsby and Berowra starters, before the shorter starting services to ensure less crowded services for interchange

  • Consider removing more seats from vestibules to improve circulation in door area, replacing with perch seats - leave 2 sets of 2 seats per vestibule for priority seats


There shouldn't be publicised timetable if possible, rather just service intervals. The above should work most of the time but if connections are missed things should recover quickly.

Central coast services would have to head via Northern Line, however in the short term if it was desirable and there was capacity some of the Berowra starters could be extended - these would need to be all stops from Berowra though if you wanted to keep a 10 minute service gap, or could maybe skip to Hornsby if you were happy with 20 minute service gap north of there. The all stops nature could reduce these service's popularity.
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

There is no doubt that a new harbor crossing needs to be constructed starting right after the NWRL, with all planning done and ready to go at that time.

There are currently 15tph in the peak hour from the north that are not ECRL services, including 3 from the Central Coast.

In the short term, the North Shore line could handle the load with some changes - I think this is what would need to be done to make it comfortable:


  • Upgrade signaling to 24 TPH - if we are running 12tph on the NWRL this allows consistent patterns to be observed at Chatswood

  • Extend quad to St Leonards to allow extension to NWRL services which will both reduce the number of people needing to change (those who work in St Leonards from the NW) as well as freeing up more space on shore service for those who do need to interchange (those who work in St Leonards from the North Shore)

  • Repeated 10 minute service pattern in this order:

    • 6TPH Berowra starters

    • 6TPH Gordon starters

    • 6TPH Hornsby starters

    • 6TPH Lindfield starters



  • NWRL service timed to arrive just after Hornsby and Berowra starters, before the shorter starting services to ensure less crowded services for interchange

  • Consider removing more seats from vestibules to improve circulation in door area, replacing with perch seats - leave 2 sets of 2 seats per vestibule for priority seats


There shouldn't be publicised timetable if possible, rather just service intervals. The above should work most of the time but if connections are missed things should recover quickly.

Central coast services would have to head via Northern Line, however in the short term if it was desirable and there was capacity some of the Berowra starters could be extended - these would need to be all stops from Berowra though if you wanted to keep a 10 minute service gap, or could maybe skip to Hornsby if you were happy with 20 minute service gap north of there. The all stops nature could reduce these service's popularity.
"grog"


An alternate approach is "demand management".  Charge an extra $2 per trip for NWRL PAX bound for the city who interchange at Chatswood rather than Epping.

Looking over http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8459/8069774920_0b4fefe14b_b.jpg

I've run a few numbers ...

Assuming the peak hour is half the total 3.5 hr AM peak loading (roughly right), here is an analysis of the bussiest line: Sector 3 East/North bound: platforms 16 at Central, 3 at Town Hall, 4 at Wynyard

Total transfers *to* Sector 3 in the AM peak are:

@Central:
From East Hills:  1500
From Bankstown: 1500  (though these could easily take place at TH)
From South: 3000
From Inner West: 3000
Interurbans: 1500 (Bound for the North Shore, others are assumed to use sector 2)
Total: ~10000 or 5000/hr in the peak hr.

@Town Hall:
From Illawarra: 3500
From Eastern Suburbs: 1500
Total: ~5000 or 2500/hr

Alightments in the CBD (assumed to be 25/37.5/37.5 split over Central, Town hall & Wynyard) from Sector 3:
Western: 20000
Northern: 13000
(Adjustment because some northern PAX travel via the Nth Shore and/or ECL) -3000
Richmond: 1500
Total: ~32000 or 16000 in the peak hour.   By the split assumptions, I get:

Boardings in the Peak hr:
Central 16: 4000
TH 3: 6000
Wyn  6000

So:
Central 16: 5000 on, 4000 off:  ~450 movements/train.
TH 3: 2500 On, 6000 Off: ~425 movement/train.
Wynyard: ~300/train.

So we're looking at ~400-500 movements per train, which is (on average) 25-35 movements per door, and these give rise to dwells of 50-60 seconds.  Obstructed channels have a bit to do with this, but the dwell is determined by the slowest door, and a fast dwell is really only achievable if all 16 doors are unobstructed.

What's going to happen at Chatswood post the NWRL?  At 8000 PAX/hr - the probable initial peak patronage - it seems withing the interchange capacity achieved at the other busy stations.  But ... this won't be spread over all DD trains through Chatswood, it's going to fall unevenly on half of them in the AM peak.

That means you're already looking at 650-700 boardings after each NWRL train arrives.  Perhaps, with near empty trains and thus unobstructed doors then this can be done in a 60 second window.   At 10 000 PAX/hr - probable NWRL patronage by 2022 - we're looking at >800 movements per train: double what takes 60 seconds to achieve in the city. 

If that is attempted with full or even partially loaded trains, dwell times are going to blow out into the 70-90 second range.  To achieve 24tph in that environment that means a 60 second signal headway.  That is not completely impossible (with a
What I really disagree with Grog on is the recovery.  I think a single delay of more than 90 seconds anywhere on the DD network will see the SD and DD interchanges run out of phase.  That just won't recover until the DD timetable is delayed by a quantum of 2 slots to restore the empty/full phasing of the trains to match the NWRL.  And even then, you'll end up trying to load 1600 PAX from 2 NWRL trains onto a single DD train (which would probably take >2min) throwing the systems out of phase again.  So I think this interchange would be completely intollerant of any delay.

In my view, the Chatswood interchange is going to set the capacity limit of the NSL, probably at about 10-15% below the line's capacity, and possibly even it's current capacity even with 24 trains an hour.

The Olympic Station achieved >20kpax/hr boarding rate, though it did this with completely empty trains and bifurcated platforms.

It should be noted that while interchanges are common on most networks around the world: more common than on CityRail, very very few dump an entire metro line onto an S-Bahn type service.  They are usually spread out over multiple stations or multiple lines.

There many and varied engineering solution to this problem.  A(nother) turnback at Chatswood to ensure completely empty trains meet the NWRL trains is one.  The second harbour crossing is another.   Quadding to St Leonards to try and spread the interchange load.  And extra up platform at Chatswood for the NWRL.  Run the NSL using faster boarding SD stock.

But the most blindly obvious solution to not require the interchange at all and to run the entire NSL using the same format as the NWRL, and I think it's all but inevitable this will end up happening.











  Watson374 Chief Commissioner

Location: Fully reclined at the pointy end.
A(nother) turnback at Chatswood to ensure completely empty trains meet the NWRL trains is one.
"djf01"


Is it not possible to run a physical Lindfield reverser that tips out but does not pick up at Lindfield or Roseville, thus "acting" as a Chatswood starter?
  Rails Chief Commissioner

Nice to see people read my posts Laughing

This was based on 20tph, not 24.





NW Metro/ ECRL

12 tph all stations from Rouse Hill via Macquarie Park to Chatswood


Suburban line to the North Shore

6 tph all stations from Penrith via Parramatta to the CBD and on to Lindfield via Chatswood
4 tph all stations from St Marys via Parramatta to the CBD and on to Gordon via Chatswood
6 tph all stations from Epping via Strathfield to the CBD and on to Hornsby via Gordon
4 tph all stations from Hornsby via Strathfield to the CBD and on to Berowra via Gordon

Main line to Sydney Terminal

8 tph express from Emu Plains/Penrith/ Blue Mountains, limited to Penrith, Blacktown, Westmead, Parramatta
2 tph express from Schofields, limited to Blacktown, Westmead, Parramatta
4 tph express from the Central Coast/ Newcastle via Strathfield

Cumberland line

2 tph (4 cars) all stations from Richmond to Campbelltown via Seven Hills




Why 6 tph to Lindfied? While Roseville and Lindfield have decent patronage compared to some of the other upper North Shore stops, the idea would be that these trains take a lot of the passengers transfering from the North West SD train terminating at Chatswood. If they got desperate for the space on the NWRL these could actually become Chatswood terminators, so from the CBD all out at Chatswood and they run express to turn at Lindfield and arrive back at Chatswood empty to seat waiting NW Passengers. It would be as close as you could get to real Chatswood terminators using existing infrastructure. At worst case you could quad to Lindfield now that the bridge has been replaced between Roseville and Chatswood but that would be worst case scenario.
"Rails"
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

Nice to see people read my posts Laughing
"Rails"


I read it, just didn't understand it Smile.



  Rails Chief Commissioner

HA! Fair enough.
  abesty1 Chief Commissioner

Location: The CityRail Network
Demolition for NWRL:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKYR_Hv0XIc&feature=youtu.be
  abesty1 Chief Commissioner
  simonl Chief Commissioner

Location: Brisbane
There is no doubt that a new harbor crossing needs to be constructed starting right after the NWRL, with all planning done and ready to go at that time.
"grog"

Show me the money for it.

Sponsored advertisement

Display from:   

Quick Reply

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