Not really, the project scope is to run SD automatic trains in those tunnels with up to a 90sec frequency.  Hence no DD could use the tunnels for next 40 years. At 90 sec capacity will be equal or greater than DD so no issue.

Not really, the project scope is to run SD automatic trains in those tunnels with up to a 90sec frequency.  Hence no DD could use the tunnels for next 40 years. At 90 sec capacity will be equal or greater than DD so no issue.

Hmmm... probably true that SD 90sec headway capacity can exceed DD 3" headways, just shame gumment expects the passengers to stand while doing so. No technical reason DD can't run on 90sec headways.

Hmmm... probably true that SD 90sec headway capacity can exceed DD 3" headways, just shame gumment expects the passengers to stand while doing so. No technical reason DD can't run on 90sec headways.

The only reason preventing 90 sec headway is the boarding times (probably (by my rough estimates)). The sheep herding at Townhall will need to be at every station for that to happen and I doubt the govt will want to pay them all.

Hmmm... probably true that SD 90sec headway capacity can exceed DD 3" headways, just shame gumment expects the passengers to stand while doing so. No technical reason DD can't run on 90sec headways.

If you built extra platforms at Town Hall and probably Wynyard and a few others you might get 2min.

DD has 2 doors and higher capacity
SD will have 3 doors and lower capacity per car

In theory you will then always discharge the cattle faster on a SD.

If you built extra platforms at Town Hall and probably Wynyard and a few others you might get 2min.

DD has 2 doors and higher capacity
SD will have 3 doors and lower capacity per car

In theory you will then always discharge the cattle faster on a SD.

If you want to discharge cattle faster, start less cows.

There was a paper leaked on this topic a few years ago now (sorry, I've posted the link here before but I can't find it ATM) that did a detailed study of line capacity using various mathematical models used elsewhere in the world.  It found the obvious: there is no benefit in SD over DD trains, and quite a few disadvantages even when viewed through the narrow prism of capacity.

You are trading off boarding rate vs train capacity in this comparison.  High capacity trains produce better line capacity even with a lower boarding rate.  Their dwells are longer mostly because they have to board more PAX per train.  But on the plus side there are fewer trains, and thus fewer headway gaps.  In Sydney headway is a bigger issue than dwell time (simplistically as dwell is 60 seconds, operating headway is 120).  All of the alleged advantages of SD in Sydney is down to tighter operating headways, and that is down to signalling.  With the NWRL they are relying on tighter headways to make up for the capacity they lose in both trains, and additional operating headways required.  Cutting the operating headway for the existing DD design to the same amount would produce higher line capacity.

The Sydney DD design was optomised to solve a very specific problem: inadequate platform length at the city stations.

@RTT_Rules
in theory yes

@djf01
as i probably said before DD > SD in every possible way for Sydney. Paris RER A is a great example of DD Stock running at high frequency. We can probably achieve this with a form of ATP digital signalling to get 2 min headways even with 1 min boarding times

@RTT_Rules
in theory yes

@djf01
as i probably said before DD > SD in every possible way for Sydney. Paris RER A is a great example of DD Stock running at high frequency. We can probably achieve this with a form of ATP digital signalling to get 2 min headways even with 1 min boarding times

On Greenfield automated lines designed to a suitable standard from the start. 90sec is doable with a 3 door car about 20m long. You cannot do this with Sydney DD stock. Paris RER DD is 3 doors per car and the seated capacity is similar to Sydney as they make the car longer so their seated density is lower than Sydney.

So in short, a 160m long train in SD with 3 door cars can do 30 trains per hour, Sydney DD stock would struggle below 2.5min and no chance in hell of doing this at Town Hall, so 24t/hr. So as long as the SD stock doesn't drop below 80% capacity of the DD you are probably good to go. If you cannot get 2.5min head ways for DD, then the SD loading capacity can be lower, but it will still be overall faster trip times due to lower passenger to door ratio. I heard 3min saved on NWRL to city.

Regards
Shane

On Greenfield automated lines designed to a suitable standard from the start. 90sec is doable with a 3 door car about 20m long. You cannot do this with Sydney DD stock. Paris RER DD is 3 doors per car and the seated capacity is similar to Sydney as they make the car longer so their seated density is lower than Sydney.

The boarding rate of a 3 door SD car is almost identical to a Sydney DD.  The DD doors have 3 channels: vestibule, Up & down.  The SD's have two: left & right.  The S sets and even T sets only have doors wide enough for 2 channels, but the newer sets have wider doors and largely address this issue.

For the same signalling headway and same boarding rate, line capacity is actually lower with SDs.

In the case of Paris,the boarding rate is faster: more doors and more channels, but at the expense of train capacity.  Line capacity is still higher than Sydney, but no by much (~5% after equalling out platform length).

The big advantage of a "new" system is the new signalling, not the "new" train shape.

The one format that does offer greater line capacity is a 4 door metro: where the boarding rate is much higher, and high enough to compensate for lower train capacity.

But in the end it all boils down to what you are trying to optimise for.  If it's minimal unionised staff, the automated metro is the way to go.

The boarding rate of a 3 door SD car is almost identical to a Sydney DD.  The DD doors have 3 channels: vestibule, Up & down.  The SD's have two: left & right.  The S sets and even T sets only have doors wide enough for 2 channels, but the newer sets have wider doors and largely address this issue.

For the same signalling headway and same boarding rate, line capacity is actually lower with SDs.

In the case of Paris,the boarding rate is faster: more doors and more channels, but at the expense of train capacity.  Line capacity is still higher than Sydney, but no by much (~5% after equalling out platform length).

The big advantage of a "new" system is the new signalling, not the "new" train shape.

The one format that does offer greater line capacity is a 4 door metro: where the boarding rate is much higher, and high enough to compensate for lower train capacity.

But in the end it all boils down to what you are trying to optimise for.  If it's minimal unionised staff, the automated metro is the way to go.

Exactly, For the same signalling headway and same boarding rate.

But we are not talking about same headway, You won't get 90 sec out of a Sydney DD stock which is the alt proposed to NWRL auto trains. As I said, you'd be lucky to get 2.5min.

Not one technology supplier is offering automated technology with DD stock and if you are limited to 20m, then third door option like RER is not a practical option.

4 door on 20m car length leaves little room for seating, hence why I think they went for 3 door. Its a part compromise.

What are they trying to optmise for is obvious
- De-unionise work force, although less of a driver than in past. But its the 21st century, build a line greenfield and you don't need to justify having an automated train. You need to justify why not having one is a good idea.
- Lower construction costs
- Lower operating costs.
- Better customer service with lower waiting and transit times.

regards
Shane

I heard 3min saved on NWRL to city

Gee, that much! No seat is a high price to pay for that 3"

Gee, that much! No seat is a high price to pay for that 3"

Do the sums, adds up to alot of time per annum. My hourly rate its over $1000.

No one has cared about the remaining 35% or so of cityrail travellers who stand on way to work, many longer than max time length of this line.

No one has cared about the remaining 35% or so of cityrail travellers who stand on way to work

Yes, that's right, no one has cared.

When the people of North Western Sydney eventually realise they have been sold a pup, the present administration will have ridden off into the sunset, out of accountability, on their parliamentary pensions

From the video fly troughs and documentation I have worked out the following as far as planned configuration of the trains:

End car:

3 x longitudinal seats - door - 5 x 2 seat rows - door - 9 x longitudinal seat - door - 7 x longitudinal seats

                                 *** Aisle ***

3 x longitudinal seats - door - 9 x longitudinal seat - door - 5 x 2 seat rows - door - 7 x longitudinal seats

Total seats: 58

Middle cars:

7 x longitudinal seats - door - 5 x 2 seat rows - door - 9 x longitudinal seat - door - 7 x longitudinal seats

                                 *** Aisle ***

7 x longitudinal seats - door - 9 x longitudinal seat - door - 5 x 2 seat rows - door - 7 x longitudinal seats


Total seats: 66


Initial train configuration: 6 car trains (2 x end, 4 x middle)
Total initial seats per 6 car train = 380

Initial frequency = 15tph
Initial seated capacity = 5700/hour (equivalent to 6.3 tph DD stock @ 900 seats per train)

This fits within the documentation published which stated that the initial service would be 5500 - 6000 seats per hour with 6 car trains.

Eventual train configuration: 8 car trains (2 x end, 6 x middle)
Total eventual seats per 8 car train = 512

Eventual NWRL frequency = 18tph (designed to support up to 20tph on the NWRL and 30tph in the core section)
Eventual seated capacity = 9216/hour (equivalent to 10.24 tph DD stock @ 900 seats per trains)

That seated capacity for the NWRL is greater than the current seated capacity provided to 8tph DD Macarthur to CBD via East Hills services, and still allows another 12tph to run on a branch to Neutral Bay/Spit Junction to allow a bus interchange to be built to remove Northern Beaches buses from the CBD.

This is all seated capacity for the NWRL, lets consider the maximum capacity. 30tph @ 512 seats = 15360 seats/hour, which is 85% of the current maximum seated capacity on an existing 20tph DD line in Sydney.

Then you get the standing capacity on top of that (40% seated, 60% standing, 1300 per train total) for a total line capacity of 39000/hour vs 24000/hour currently. This standing capacity can be used to support intensive apartment and job development around stations within 20 minutes travel time of the CBD.

You can see they have made the right call on the new line, maintaining most of the seating capacity of DD by buying cheaper, simpler off the shelf technology, rather than wasting time and money trying to squeeze DD higher by moving to 24tph. Even 24tph @ 1200 people current train capacity (900 seated, 300 standing) is only an incremental increase to 28800/hour - still well below the total SD capacity.

Well they seem to have done a great job until now and as this is will provide extra capacity overall I believe there will be no problem except that of having to change trains to catch the DD express to Parramatta.

Maybe they will convert a heavy rail line or perhaps make a subway branch to Parramatta from Central.

Maybe they will convert a heavy rail line or perhaps make a subway branch to Parramatta from Central.

Parramatta will not connect to the NWRL. we are still waiting on a decision for the tram - which path ( not route ) is going to be built.

Well they seem to have done a great job until now and as this is will provide extra capacity overall I believe there will be no problem except that of having to change trains to catch the DD express to Parramatta.

Maybe they will convert a heavy rail line or perhaps make a subway branch to Parramatta from Central.

For the Express links to Parramatta and to resolve other issues long term there is a bit to do (read cost) on the Western main.

For my thinking (post City Metro and Bankstwon line conversion).
- Inner West southern pair of tracks are used inefficiently with 12t/hr due to mixing all stoppers and semi express from the SW.
- There is a bottle neck between HomeBush and Lidcombe
- The solution on how the outer two branches of the Bankstown line will operate I haven't seen.
- Growth in the outer west beyond Paramatta and Richmond lines will be limited due to inner city bottle neck capacity

Solution (Potential)
- Inner West Metro, underground to Straithfield. Could be done in two phases, 1st to Ashfield
- Remove the inner west stations apart from Ashfield and Burwood to straighten the lines and help get faster trains.
- Build addition pair of tracks to Lidcombe, from Homebush may need to be a tunnel for 1-2km. New tracks will be for western express and interurban, no need for Platform at Flemington.

Now
- Inner west from Liverpool can run 50% (4-6t/hr) of train via Reagents Park and other via Granville merging at Lidcombe all to Burwood and Ashfield.
- Additional track capacity on southern pair of tracks to run same stopping pattern to Blacktown (4-6t/hr)

- Middle Tracks can run Outer Western Main Expresses, Straithfield, Lidcombe, Granville, Paramatta, Westmead, Blacktown and all to Penrith/Richmond. Beyond Lidcombe, some trains move to the southern pair of tracks.

- Nth pair of tracks Interurban and regional trains and some suburban expresses, perhaps a Pure Paramatta to Central Express.

- Carlingford line I would close and extend Metro from Epping to Paramatta via Carlingford line.
- I'd also consider closing Clyde station
- Perhaps in future extend the Metro from Straithfield to Olypmic Park and Lidcombe.

My thoughts

Regards
Shane

Shane


They do say here it is not needed http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-01/high-speed-rail-not-necessary-for-second-sydney-airport/6438998 but I do believe a non stop metro would be the shot because.

· People do not want to change from the Metro to a fast rail.

· A fast train fare would be twice that of a non stop metro because the tunnel would cost $4b due to cutting three times the material.

· A non stop metro would cost under $2b and be half an hour compared to one with four intermediate stops that would cost $4b and take half an hour longer.

· It could use the same metro rolling stock branching off at Central or Sydenham.

· I suggest buying 4 TBM (50m each) now, exactly the same as we have, and put one pair west and the other east from a launch site at the Olympic park brickpit so the tunnel to Parramatta is finished at the same time as the CBD metro.

Shane


They do say here it is not needed http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-01/high-speed-rail-not-necessary-for-second-sydney-airport/6438998 but I do believe a non stop metro would be the shot because.

· People do not want to change from the Metro to a fast rail.

· A fast train fare would be twice that of a non stop metro because the tunnel would cost $4b due to cutting three times the material.

· A non stop metro would cost under $2b and be half an hour compared to one with four intermediate stops that would cost $4b and take half an hour longer.

· It could use the same metro rolling stock branching off at Central or Sydenham.

· I suggest buying 4 TBM (50m each) now, exactly the same as we have, and put one pair west and the other east from a launch site at the Olympic park brickpit so the tunnel to Parramatta is finished at the same time as the CBD metro.

Hi,
I proposed Metro tunnel to Straithfield to reduce the cost of tunneling and I think the inner suburbs are better served by "turn up and go" rail technology than what we have now. Also this branch would help counter balance the higher loadings from the north side as I doubt Bankstown could justify the lot. The Metro would connect to Bankstown somewhere between Sydenham and Central depending on alignements etc.

Yes rebuilding the stations underground comes at a significant cost as they already exist, but in longterm its a better solution and enables other issues to be addressed as I previously mentioned.

Express Metro in tunnel to Paramatta
- If you do the non stop Metro extension only the uterlisation of the tunnel is too low to justify the tunnel being built. You also still have the southern pair of tracks at 12t/hr.

- I also very much doubt you will get Metro to Paramatta non stop for a low $2B, at least double that

Inner West Metro in tunnel
- By Putting the inner west service in the tunnel, the ridership in the tunnel will be higher and enable the four southern tracks on the surface to be pushed to 20 trains per hour each.

- The Metro in the tunnel would be blended with Bankstown and I assume Hurtsville to achieve a capacity of 30t/hr in the city. This option reduces the tunnel length by nearly half.

- Outer Suburban DD stock with luggage racks fitted is also better suited to run to the Airport than a Metro train.

- No need to buy TBM's, this project isn't viable until the city Metro connection is complete and from a govt cash flow point of view probably not affordable until the Chatswood to Bankstown connection is complete. The TBM's could be parked in stub tunnels ready to go near Sydneham.

- You also don't need to come from west at same time, start from city end and build in a number of phases to enable a phased in approach and govt cash flow if needed. At end of each phase should the govt decide not to immediately continue, the TBM's could be parked at end of stub tunnel ready for re-start, although I'd prefer less interruption as I think its cheaper.
- Junction to Newtown
- Newtown to Ashfield
- Ashfield to Straithfield
- Straithfield to Lidcombe by Olpympic Park (Longerterm option)

- This would enable a fast western express, Note still standard DD stock with top speed of 130km/hr on existing tracks improved to try and lift speeds over current which is also why I suggested removing the now metro inner west stations to slew the tracks straight where possible or required. An average speed of 80km/hr is around 15min CBD to Paramatta is ok.

RTT-Rules

RTT-Rules

Mate it may be that I am too old to wait to see greater Sydney become well connected or just that I think we have a lot of catching up but.

In my opinion it is preferable for express trains to have their own line so it would be possible to have two parallel metro tunnels with one an all stops and the other non stop particularly as tunnels are getting relatively cheaper as time goes by for example 15km NWRL for $1.1b so if CBD/Parramatta is only 22km I cannot see how it would cost more than $2b for a non stop and same again plus $500m for every station on the all stops.

I know you are concerned about cost but here http://www.smh.com.au/business/aviation/second-sydney-airport-at-badgerys-creek-could-require-1b-in-subsidies-deutsche-20150708-gi7d7g.html it says it would need to be connected to Sydney to work and needs an extra $1b.

I believe just like the Manly ferries people would be prepared to pay a lot more to use a 15 minute CBD/Parramatta express and as it would not have intermediate stations it would definitely be an economic success.

It would only take 6 months to build another 4 TBM exactly the same as what we now have and they could even be used driving the CBD metro while our existing ones are getting a coat of white paint and some new cutting discs for the Parramatta express line.

Th NWRL project is closer to $6B, includes a hand full of stations, trains and modifying the ECRL, so you won't get two tunnels to Parammatta for $2B. You might bore the holes but thats it. Also the DD technology is better suited and can run express on the surface on dedicated tracks after some modifications as I have indicated.

My Proposal connects the new airport to Paramatta and express services to city including 1 to 2 stops which are needed, Straithfield is required.

Boring tunnels in Sydney is quite fast, you don't need more TBM's to meet in the middle nor is it a politcal thing like the Chunnel where 50% of the work must come from each country. In 6mths you could probably bore half the distance, the time consuming part is fit out. They now own 2 x TBM's just keep them permanently occupied for 10 years or more.Its also not about boring time, its cash flow. This has to be paid for out of NSW treasury.

Totally agree on the seperate lines for expresses on all routes, the days of one line running mixed services in the inner half of Sydney are dying fast. Hence I said build a Metro line to Straithfield and remove the old surface stations so the existing Main west railway (all 6 tracks from Redfern to Straithfield run express using trains more suited to running to outer west, SW and NW. NWRL is a orbital railway with a much higher ratio of on/off.

RTT_Rules

Do not forget that the NWRL has 8 stations and that is 6 more than I suggest on a non stop CBD/Parramatta metro subway so yes it could be an economically viable thing with the low cost and premium fares.

Anyway NSW is in catch up mood and has plenty of money http://tunneltalk.com/Australia-08July2015-Sydney-moves-to-NorthConnex-construction.php

RTT_Rules

Do not forget that the NWRL has 8 stations and that is 6 more than I suggest on a non stop CBD/Parramatta metro subway so yes it could be an economically viable thing with the low cost and premium fares.

Anyway NSW is in catch up mood and has plenty of money http://tunneltalk.com/Australia-08July2015-Sydney-moves-to-NorthConnex-construction.php

Hi,
Yes I didn't forget about that, any western express won't be just one station, there will be one at Strauthfield as a minimum. Additionally one needs to be budgeted for at Central or significant works to access the surface platforms at Central station but to be of any value the western express should also enter the city more.

Underground stations are typically a few hundred million a piece tops. So I still do not believe that you could build the Western Express 100% U/G in DD or Metro format for a few billion.

For the Express links to Parramatta and to resolve other issues long term there is a bit to do (read cost) on the Western main.

For my thinking (post City Metro and Bankstwon line conversion).
- Inner West southern pair of tracks are used inefficiently with 12t/hr due to mixing all stoppers and semi express from the SW.
- There is a bottle neck between HomeBush and Lidcombe
- The solution on how the outer two branches of the Bankstown line will operate I haven't seen.
- Growth in the outer west beyond Paramatta and Richmond lines will be limited due to inner city bottle neck capacity

Solution (Potential)
- Inner West Metro, underground to Straithfield. Could be done in two phases, 1st to Ashfield
- Remove the inner west stations apart from Ashfield and Burwood to straighten the lines and help get faster trains.
- Build addition pair of tracks to Lidcombe, from Homebush may need to be a tunnel for 1-2km. New tracks will be for western express and interurban, no need for Platform at Flemington.

To me, this just highlights what a big white elephant the NWRL & 2nd crossing are.  All of this work is essentially to solve the problems created by the incompatible format.

My alternate solution:
- Upgrade Sector 3 to support 24tph (and ultimately 10car 200m trains) with improvements to Town Hall & Wynyard Stations (ie more platform egress points) ... ie 30kPAX per hour to start with, increasing to 36kPax/hr.  (NB this is sort of planned anyway, to cope with the NWRL metro prior to the second crossing), with express operation Central to Parramatta (hopefully down to 15min, though this would require some track upgrades & removal of)
- Re-align the tracks west of Redfern so Sector 3 takes the Mains, Sector 2 the suburbans & locals, but the locals feeding the east side of the circle rather than the west.
- Bring Gosford - Springfield into the SydneyTrains Zone, and operate them exclusively through Sector 3 across the SHB.  (With peak services starting at Lawson & Wyong, the latter to keep Shane happy ).
- Shift Epping-Strathfield to Sector 2.  Hornsby - Epping runs as a 4 car shuttle.

To create the 4th sector:
Stage 1: quad Central to St James by extending the Eddie ave viaduct to Wentworth Ave then under Oxford St connecting with Bradfield's existing tunnels into the original platforms 2&3 at St James.  This takes Inner West & Bankstown trains - could be operated as a Metro - or existing format prior to the second crossing.
Stage 2: extend the tunnels beneath Macquarie to a new station beneath Bridge Street
Stage 3: extend to Barangaroo
Stage 4: extend beneath the harbour to Chatswood to connect to the NWRL - but only *after* Nth Sydney - Hornsby is quaded.

In the interim, have the NWRL/CityRail interchange at Epping (with a peak capacity of 12tph on CityRail being fed by a similar metro service from the NWRL).

I believe all passenger rail in Sydney in the distant future will be single deck metro due to the value of surface land, NIMBYS, automated tunnelling and the extra cost of making and using a DD tunnel.

People would not bother getting off a metro to get on any high speed train to Parramatta to save 10 minutes but would rather stay on a non stop metro.

It has been agreed on here that express trains should not share lines with turn up and go all stoppers.

Most people believe an underground station would cost about $500m

The NWRL only cost $1.15b for 15km of tunnels http://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/media-releases/tunnelling-contract-north-west-rail-link so I cannot see how Parramatta to Central would cost more than $2b particularly as it could just branch off the metro line at Central so only needing one station at Parramatta.

I did some googling on compartive costs around the world and while station costs are rarely individualized, stations are typically listed around $150 to $450m and construction costs are $300 to 400m per km including stations. The Melbourne Metro project lists all the stations at $1B.

What does the $1.2B get you in the tunnel, just a hole, lined, full infrastructure? Where is the rest being spent? Compared to other tunnel based rail projects, ie Brisbane CRR, Melbourne Metro and Sydney City Metro its no where near enough. Additionally the stations also provide something that would need to be built anyway, emergency exits, ventilation etc.

Gothard Base Tunnel is $10B (2010) for 57km and not built in the middle of a city. Just halving for distance and allowing for inflation, that's $6B.

The official estimate of the cost to build the Melbourne Metro rail tunnel is $9 billion but some advocates claim it’s only $3 billion. What explains the huge difference in these two claims?
[color=#669900][img]http://blogs.crikey.com.au/theurbanist/files/2013/10/BZE-cost-table-2.jpg[/img][/color]