NSW Future Rail Plan - NWRL/Metro/Harbour Crossing

 
  viaprojects Train Controller

I'm not talking about the sort of monorail that Sydney used to have. That would indeed be folly. I'm talking about the sort of monorail they use in China and Japan for mass transport where there isn't any space on the ground for anything else. I'm thinking Bombardier Innovia 300, since that has the smallest turning radius. They're spec'd at 80km/h top speed and a capacity of about 90 passengers per car at 4 pax/m^2, with a maximum of 8 cars per train. But let's consider half that passenger capacity.
darkmage35
we have that option on the ground they are called busses. the only problem is theres no main bus station in the city to fix the long line of busses in the city. the new light rail may fix some problems but it's going to take less time than a monorail system.

Sponsored advertisement

  darkmage35 Station Master

Location: Canberra
we have that option on the ground they are called busses. the only problem is theres no main bus station in the city to fix the long line of busses in the city. the new light rail may fix some problems but it's going to take less time than a monorail system.
viaprojects
Good luck getting the same extra capacity, speed and reliability out of buses when there's only a max of 58 people per bus and you have traffic, road speed limits, etc to contend with.

Monorails and light rail also have similar construction times. It's the heavy rail and freeway options that tend to take forever.
  simonl Chief Commissioner

Location: Brisbane
Good luck getting the same extra capacity, speed and reliability out of buses when there's only a max of 58 people per bus and you have traffic, road speed limits, etc to contend with.
darkmage35
The Bustech CDi double decker has 96 seats and about another 20 standees IIRC.
  simonl Chief Commissioner

Location: Brisbane
the new light rail may fix some problems but it's going to take less time than a monorail system.
viaprojects
I don't expect that.  It will make the situation worse.
  darkmage35 Station Master

Location: Canberra
The Bustech CDi double decker has 96 seats and about another 20 standees IIRC.
simonl
Handy to know. I'm just going from what Sydney Buses lists for chartering purposes.
  darcyj Chief Train Controller

we have that option on the ground they are called busses. the only problem is theres no main bus station in the city.
viaprojects
That could be fixed by making Castlereagh Street a bus-only road.  Hay Street the feeder at the southern end, and a bus-only eastbound lane on Liverpool Street between Castlereagh and Elizabeth for eastern suburbs buses to exit.  Bligh Street, Young Street and Loftus Street also reserved for buses only.
  Alfred3333 Locomotive Fireman

Sydney's Rail System focuses too much on the Sydney CBD. I would prefer a north - south metro line connecting Miranda to Castle Hill via major centres of Hurstville, Campsie, Strathfield, Olympic Park, Parramatta and Baulkham Hills. It will a provide a direct link from a growing population of the south to major retail and commercial centres, Parramatta and the North West Growth Area. There will be many other benefits and a metro style operation would be fit for purpose as it connects many major centres. Suburbs currently without any rail connection would be able to board this line to where they want to go. There will be many opportunities for urban renewal along this corridor and would become a vital public transportation project for NSW and Australia. Although building a mostly underground line will result into high costs but it actually benefits people living and working over a vast area of Sydney. Envronemental issues may affect the plan but overall I think this would be one successful project for public transport in Sydney. Construction costs would be staggering and I think this is worth it as Sydney's current rail system provides limited North - South connections.
  fixitguy Chief Train Controller

Location: In Carriage 4 on a Tangara
Sydney's Rail System focuses too much on the Sydney CBD. I would prefer a north - south metro line connecting Miranda to Castle Hill via major centres of Hurstville, Campsie, Strathfield, Olympic Park, Parramatta and Baulkham Hills. It will a provide a direct link from a growing population of the south to major retail and commercial centres, Parramatta and the North West Growth Area. There will be many other benefits and a metro style operation would be fit for purpose as it connects many major centres. Suburbs currently without any rail connection would be able to board this line to where they want to go. There will be many opportunities for urban renewal along this corridor and would become a vital public transportation project for NSW and Australia. Although building a mostly underground line will result into high costs but it actually benefits people living and working over a vast area of Sydney. Envronemental issues may affect the plan but overall I think this would be one successful project for public transport in Sydney. Construction costs would be staggering and I think this is worth it as Sydney's current rail system provides limited North - South connections.
Alfred3333
this plan was proposed before in sorts. mainly the Hurstville to Stratfield Line and the old NW Metro. Part of the problem with it was
1 cost,
2 they wern't thought out properly,
3 Action for Transport 2010 was way too ambitious (but i still wonder why most if not all the roads got built and little of the rail lines got build except IIRC airport line and little projects like y links and stuff)
4. The metro idea was not viable and last but not least
5. Nathen Rees getting the pink slip

But i do agree if build it would benefit many people if built correctly which means abandoning stupid cityrail features (i'm not bothered to list them) but also retaining its good features like DD trains, lots of seats, etc
  Alfred3333 Locomotive Fireman

After major projects like the South West and North West Rail Link, inner west and south-east/CBD light rail, I would like to see the government commitment and provision for a North - South rail link. Half of My Miranda - Castle Hill thought would be connected by the future Parramatta Light Rail (Castle Hill - Parramatta & Olympic Park - Parramatta). My deferred thought would be a Miranda - Castle Hill but instead of travelling through to Parramatta it would go via Carlingford as the Olympic - Castle Hill via Parramatta will be delivered through light rail services. Maybe to lower costs, it could convert the Strathfield - Hornsby via Epping stretch to metro to link to Miranda but many commuters will lose direct city bound services and will need at least one interchange. In the positive way, it could clear up some space and Western Line commuters may end up with improved frequency (that's only if the Lidcombe - Granville corridor capacity constraint is solved). I just hope the government and Sydney Trains realises new jobs in Sydney in the future will be created beyond the CBD and the next transport project will be based on linking these major centres.
  darkmage35 Station Master

Location: Canberra
Half of My Miranda - Castle Hill thought would be connected by the future Parramatta Light Rail (Castle Hill - Parramatta & Olympic Park - Parramatta).
Alfred3333
God, I hope not. Light rail has its place, but Parramatta is not it. If you were to use monorail around there instead, you'd get similar connectivity, higher capacity, higher speed, less impact on existing roads and it would go some ways towards relieving the Homebush-Granville corridor. Light rail should stay in places like Anzac parade where there are massive median strips to place it, or massive public transport hubs like the CBD where cars are less important anyway.

I expect a more likely outcome for a north-south link would be for the start to be Hurstville and the end to be Macquarie Park. The only major question then becomes whether to route it via Bankstown/Olympic Park or Campsie/Strathfield.
  simonl Chief Commissioner

Location: Brisbane
That could be fixed by making Castlereagh Street a bus-only road.  Hay Street the feeder at the southern end, and a bus-only eastbound lane on Liverpool Street between Castlereagh and Elizabeth for eastern suburbs buses to exit.  Bligh Street, Young Street and Loftus Street also reserved for buses only.
darcyj
Interesting idea.  Not sure that it's necessary to close the road entirely to cars though, just give over one lane to a reverse direction bus lane.  Doing so would still cost a bunch of parking, but not as much as the bus only road idea.
  darcyj Chief Train Controller

Interesting idea.  Not sure that it's necessary to close the road entirely to cars though, just give over one lane to a reverse direction bus lane.  Doing so would still cost a bunch of parking, but not as much as the bus only road idea.
simonl
Parking in the city is a lottery for the clinically insane anyway.  Removing cars from the streets nominated would remove a small percentage of parking.  The issue could be overcome, however, by providing replacement parking.  Underneath Pitt Street, the entire length, with access ramps every block.  This also replaces parking on George Street which is going to be lost to the light rail.
  fixitguy Chief Train Controller

Location: In Carriage 4 on a Tangara
God, I hope not. Light rail has its place, but Parramatta is not it. If you were to use monorail around there instead, you'd get similar connectivity, higher capacity, higher speed, less impact on existing roads and it would go some ways towards relieving the Homebush-Granville corridor. Light rail should stay in places like Anzac parade where there are massive median strips to place it, or massive public transport hubs like the CBD where cars are less important anyway.

I expect a more likely outcome for a north-south link would be for the start to be Hurstville and the end to be Macquarie Park. The only major question then becomes whether to route it via Bankstown/Olympic Park or Campsie/Strathfield.
darkmage35
Monorail. Didn't we alerady destroy one because it looked ulgy. lets just stick to non elevated stuff. and as for your route selection we could have both. by following the proposed Hurstville - Stratfield line (Kingsgrove, Campsie) to Stratfield and then extending it to Oly Park (new track over western line before joining onto the balloon loop).
Then we have two choices
1. going west towards Clyde on new tracks then heading on the Carlingford line before tunneling it into Mac Park via PERL route (new track and stations due to existing track being converted to SD)
2. going north (tunnel) towards Rhodes before joining onto the Northern Line (existing track) to Epping and finally Mac Uni and Mac Park (new track for the same reasons as before)
  darkmage35 Station Master

Location: Canberra
Monorail. Didn't we alerady destroy one because it looked ulgy.
fixitguy
No, we destroyed it because it was useless. That particular monorail model was slow, had low passenger capacity, and it was operating on only one track that didn't go anywhere. Not to mention it wasn't integrated well with the rest of the transport network.

My suggestion has none of those flaws, so you can't really compare it.
  fixitguy Chief Train Controller

Location: In Carriage 4 on a Tangara
No, we destroyed it because it was useless. That particular monorail model was slow, had low passenger capacity, and it was operating on only one track that didn't go anywhere. Not to mention it wasn't integrated well with the rest of the transport network.

My suggestion has none of those flaws, so you can't really compare it.
darkmage35
yes i can. its elevated so you can see it from miles away and NIMBY means its never going to get built. Monorails have their place in the transport network and thats not in the suburbs where houses are only 2 stories high. it works in places like China and Japan because they have really tall buildings and wide roads covering up the system or in tourist places like Disney. and what about the corridor. if you only use main roads you would be adding to the journey time and also adding to the cost. if you are planning to build a tunnel than why not build a heavy rail system as there would be enough patronage for one along that corridor.
  donttellmywife Chief Commissioner

Location: Antofagasta
...I'm thinking Bombardier Innovia 300, since that has the smallest turning radius. They're spec'd at 80km/h top speed and a capacity of about 90 passengers per car at 4 pax/m^2, with a maximum of 8 cars per train. But let's consider half that passenger capacity.

At 45 passengers per car, 8 cars, 12 tph, we get 4320 pphpd, or the equivalent of 4.8 heavy rail trains at 100% capacity.

But these monorails are also claimed at a maximum of 48 tph, so if that were managed at the same capacity, we get 17280 pphpd, or the equivalent of 19.2 heavy rail trains at 100% capacity.

I've done the physics calculations for the acceleration, deceleration and projected speed, too. There are very few sharp turns that aren't right next to a probable station location in the route, so for most of the time the thing could travel at near max service speed. It would likely be competitive in travel time with express trains between Parramatta and Central, even though it would always operate all stops...
darkmage35
According to the Bombardier website, they are building a brand new Bombardier system in São Paolo.  it is expected to cover approximately 24 kilometres, stopping at 15 intermediate stations, in approximately 50 minutes.  Oh dear.

From Parramatta to Sydney central by road or rail is approximately 24 kilometres.  It is unlikely that a monorail system would be able to take a much more direct route than either of these two modes, unless you were either willing to buy an awful lot of real estate, or dig a tunnel.

A limited stops train, over an alignment constructed back when Adam and Eve both had student concession rail passes, takes 25 minutes with one intermediate stop.  This is half of 50 minutes.  A train stopping at all eight intermediate stations takes 32 minutes.  This is still less than 50 minutes.  There's about a minute extra in the timetable per stop, so extrapolating to the São Paulo number of stops case, we might expect 40 minutes or so.  This is still less than 50 minutes.

There are undoubtedly specific issues associated with the São Paolo project that result in a longer travel time than you might expect, but still, it isn't looking promising.

An in-tunnel distance between Parramatta and Central might be about 22 kilometres (I didn't actually measure it, but anyway... that number is convenient for other reasons).  Within the former Cityrail service region, the sprightliest regular heavy rail service that I am aware of (there are probably better ones) covers 11 kilometres of track distance, stop to stop, in seven minutes (points for guessing which station pair I'm referring to...).  Allowing a minute for the stop, and then another 11 kilometre stop to stop time, that means that a dedicated, mostly direct in tunnel route, running say Central - Strathfield - Parramatta, could do the trip in about fifteen minutes.  And once it gets to Central or Parramatta, the train is then free to roam at will on the remainder of the extensive heavy rail network.

Show your calculations if you've got something better than that for your monorail.
  viaprojects Train Controller

you can run alot of train's between Central and Parramatta ( and to St Mary's ) if you can turn the trains around  or find a place to park them same goes with the busses.

need to fix the cbd problems to fix the system.
  allambee Chief Train Controller

There are some good purpose designed monorail systems in use around the world.
The San Paulo monorail is larger in capacity to the Von Roll "amusement park" monorail system which Sydney got lumped with.
Railway Technology - San Paulo Monorail
In Japan monorails get used as "feeder" lines to the main rail network. Cars are similar in capacity to single deck metro rail carriages.
And there is the Hitachi Daegu System being constructed in Korea - 24km and 30 stations.
Hitachi Daegu System

Why did Sydney get a amusement park system with little room for expansion? - it was a cheap off the shelf system purchased by a private operator (TNT).  If left to the NSW Government, tourists would be walking to Darling Harbour in 1988.  Ironically toruists are walking now.

Why did the NSW Government purchase the monorail and then pull it down? It wasn't an act of "public generosity" as they like to portray in the media. It was because the monorail line interfered with the Lend Lease redevelopment of Darling Harbour. - Both the Entertainment Centre next to Market City and the Exhibition Halls are about the be demolished for redevelopment. The monorail was in the way and costing the redevelopment $$$ in lost land space. So the monorail had to go at the bequest of the developer.
  simonl Chief Commissioner

Location: Brisbane
Parking in the city is a lottery for the clinically insane anyway.  Removing cars from the streets nominated would remove a small percentage of parking.  The issue could be overcome, however, by providing replacement parking.  Underneath Pitt Street, the entire length, with access ramps every block.  This also replaces parking on George Street which is going to be lost to the light rail.
darcyj
The problem with that is that you are assuming that common sense would apply to parking policy.
  darkmage35 Station Master

Location: Canberra
According to the Bombardier website, they are building a brand new Bombardier system in São Paolo.  it is expected to cover approximately 24 kilometres, stopping at 15 intermediate stations, in approximately 50 minutes.  Oh dear.

...

Show your calculations if you've got something better than that for your monorail.
donttellmywife
Yeah, sure. That 50 minute time is pretty ridiculous, but I think I know why it's like that. There are about 3 possibilities: they're not running the system at full speed, the line has a lot of sharp corners, or they're using high dwell times for some reason. I think it's the last one, but I'll get to that in a second.

First of all, the alignment I've been looking at is https://mapsengine.google.com/map/edit?mid=zq16q5bIvtbA.kQFufhPzU0-g. It requires knocking down a mere 3-5 houses or so. On a few occasions it would go over the top of some existing commercial development. Along most of it between Parramatta and Central, the only casualties will be parking spaces. Note that the only sharp corners that aren't near stations in that section are one just on the Newington side of Rosehill and two near North Strathfield. The stations are also fairly evenly spaced. This allows us to use the following rough calculations.

Approx length = 24km = 24000m
Stations between Parramatta and Central inclusive = 12
Average distance between stations = 24000 / 11 = 2181.8m

Accel/decel rate = 1m/s^2
Top speed = 80km/h = 22.2222...m/s

Time to reach top speed/stop from top speed = 22.2222...s

Displacement while accelerating/decelerating
= r_0 + (v + v_0)/2 * t
= 0 + 22.2222 / 2 * 22.2222
= 20000/81
= 246.91m

Total distance spent accelerating/decelerating between stations
= 246.91 * 2 = 493.83m

Distance at top speed between stations = 2181.8 - 493.83 = 1687.97m
Time to cover top speed distance = 1687.97 / 22.2222 = 75.96s
Total time between stations = 75.96 + (22.2222 * 2) = 120.4s
Total time excluding dwell = 120.4 * 11 = 1324.45s
Add 30s dwell time for each station = 1324.45 + 330 = 1654.45s = Approx 27 and a half minutes overall total.

Now this method tends to underestimate the total time by 1-2 minutes, so take that into account. Also, the distance by heavy rail between Parramatta and Central is actually only a touch over 23km, not 24km as used here. By the timetable current all stops services take 33 minutes, and express services take 26 minutes, so it should certainly work. It won't compete with a theoretical high speed express, but that would require tunnelling and would be much more expensive.

I've done these same calculations for a few existing metro/monorail systems as well, just to check that it was reasonably accurate. It comes out consistently 1-2 minutes under the correct total time for Copenhagen metro and Tokyo monorail (30s dwell time each), Osaka monorail (60s dwell time) and the Sao Paulo monorail (with a 90s dwell time). Admittedly this is assuming minimal sharp corners for all those systems, and the only one I can verify for that is Copenhagen, but I think that's a fairly safe assumption.

So going by all this, I expect that the monorail in Sao Paulo has a 90 second dwell time for some reason. I have no idea why, but there you go. That sort of time is also pretty consistent with several of the other metro lines they have there, so it's plausible.

points for guessing which station pair I'm referring to...
donttellmywife
No idea. I can find a number of station pairs that take 7 minutes to traverse, but the longest of those seem to be 9-10km apart (eg Moss Vale and Bowral). But this is going by the current timetable, and you may not be.

Edit: Link fixed. I swear, BBCode is broken here.
  Alfred3333 Locomotive Fireman

As mentioned before, elevated long - distance rail projects(especially monorail) are unlikely to come. Look at Sydney, it's nothing compared to Japan or China in terms of infrastructure of skyscrapers and towering residential buildings. You got to build things that's suitable to its environment, and light rail is the way to do. It's relatively cheap (there's no need to build pillars where it would be necessary for your monorail plan, which would be costly), easily accessible, higher in capacity and it's twin track. Monorail, as the name suggests is a single track rail and your plan to connect Collaroy to Parramatta and around to Collaroy is a 50+ km monorail track. There would be passengers wanting to take a faster route but your monorail plan doesn't support bi- directional routes. The monorail plan is not only unfit for its surroundings but it is also unfit for its purpose.

I would prefer a light rail from Dee Why to Chatswood and somehow recover the PERL (maybe included in the Miranda Link I planned before). But as many people are suggesting your monorail plan is unworkable.
  darkmage35 Station Master

Location: Canberra
As mentioned before, elevated long - distance rail projects(especially monorail) are unlikely to come. Look at Sydney, it's nothing compared to Japan or China in terms of infrastructure of skyscrapers and towering residential buildings. You got to build things that's suitable to its environment, and light rail is the way to do. It's relatively cheap (there's no need to build pillars where it would be necessary for your monorail plan, which would be costly), easily accessible, higher in capacity and it's twin track. Monorail, as the name suggests is a single track rail and your plan to connect Collaroy to Parramatta and around to Collaroy is a 50+ km monorail track. There would be passengers wanting to take a faster route but your monorail plan doesn't support bi- directional routes. The monorail plan is not only unfit for its surroundings but it is also unfit for its purpose.

I would prefer a light rail from Dee Why to Chatswood and somehow recover the PERL (maybe included in the Miranda Link I planned before). But as many people are suggesting your monorail plan is unworkable.
Alfred3333
You are wrong on almost all counts.

Judging by both here and in other countries, monorail and light rail have similar construction costs. Monorail actually has higher capacity (typical light rail is about 9000pphpd, monorail is 17000+pphpd). Monorail, like any other rail system, is as many tracks as you like. The name refers to the single rail that each vehicle travels on. Bi-directional routes are easily done, and are in fact what I've been talking about. The route I am proposing is really 3 separate routes that just happen to connect to each other, much in the same way that the western and north shore lines are more like 2 separate lines that just happen to connect to each other. The only thing you're right about is accessibility, since most of a monorail track is elevated whereas light rail isn't.

The old theme park style monorail that Sydney used to have has done us a great disservice, because it has spread all these misconceptions around. If it makes you feel any better, when I say "monorail" just substitute in "elevated metro", because aside from the considerably more narrow and less intrusive track that's pretty much what it is.
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

So going by all this, I expect that the monorail in Sao Paulo has a 90 second dwell time for some reason. I have no idea why, but there you go. That sort of time is also pretty consistent with several of the other metro lines they have there, so it's plausible.
darkmage35

Probably because acceleration isn't uniformly 1.0m/s^2.  Also the fact (AFAIK) it's supposed to be a fully automated system.

Sao Paulo also doesn't have to comply with modern first world evacuation standards, which is probably one of the biggest disadvantages of monorails, after their visual impact.
  darkmage35 Station Master

Location: Canberra
Also the fact (AFAIK) it's supposed to be a fully automated system.
djf01
Copenhagen metro is also fully automated and yet has 30 second dwell times.
  donttellmywife Chief Commissioner

Location: Antofagasta
Probably because acceleration isn't uniformly 1.0m/s^2.  
djf01
I strongly suspect it is this too.  I don't see why automation would make a difference though.

Another aspect is that when a manufacturer says "up 80 km/h", they might be getting a little hypothetical at the upper end of that range.  

The São Paulo route doesn't look particularly windy in a lateral sense, perhaps less so than darkmage's proposed route (the eastern end of the São Paulo route can be seen under construction in Google maps - it is running down the middle of a major arterial road).  Plan view doesn't tell you anything about vertical profile though.

Warabrook to Beresfield on the limited stops pattern is the quickest pair I am aware of.  11.1 track kilometres in seven minutes, covered by a dinky little DMU and despite the handicap of a 100 km/h speed limit or so until the Sandgate flyover has been cleared.  No way the equivalent can be done legally in a car.  A good illustration of one of the strengths of heavy rail, where conditions (good alignment) and style of operation (widely spaced stops) permit.  Interested if anyone knows of another regularly travelled pair with a better average speed.

Sponsored advertisement

Display from:   

Quick Reply

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