Tunnelling starts on North-West Rail Link

 
Topic moved from News by dthead on 16 Mar 2015 22:01
  arctic Deputy Commissioner

Location: Zurich
Re diving before St Leonards. This site http://sydneymetro.info/st-leonards-or-crows-nest says "Metro services at St Leonards would be delivered at the existing railway station". So a dive after St Leonard's not before?
Cheers

Sponsored advertisement

  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE
Re diving before St Leonards. This site http://sydneymetro.info/st-leonards-or-crows-nest says "Metro services at St Leonards would be delivered at the existing railway station". So a dive after St Leonard's not before?
Cheers
arctic
Good pick-up
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

Wasn't really referring to the SSFL and agree its not the issue on Liverpool branch, not sure on Lidcombe side?

Hurtsville was cut as you say, but they need to quad to Sutherland and then maybe they could get away with Metro to Hurtsville.

No chance in hell you will get more than 24 trains per hour, this is pure fantasy using the current rolling stock peak through the city tunnels and remember the frequency starts at Chatswood and ends at Straithfield.

The extra 8 slots is for the western route to Straithfield for use by what ever train you decide + East Hills and Airport. So its actually quite significant especially considering there is limited capacity to get more trains to the tunnels in the first place. And it does give more than 8 as Bankstown which is currently listed at 150% of capacity in the 1hr AM peak to 8:30 will increase so your calculation is incorrect.

For starters, it's the main reason we'll need the second crossing.  Patronage demand on the corridor doesn't require 2 track pairs, they are needed because there are two formats.

You have got to be kidding. You build the NWRL, loose 35% by Chatswood some more by Nth sydney and remainder will enter the city. Your comment completely undermines the argument by many that when the NWRL was first announced that dumping the masses at Chatswood on an already congested NSL will cause chaos. Assume there is 25,000 an hour now across the bridge at 2-3% annualised growth, in 10 years when the 2nd harbour crossing is complete, that's well into the mid 30,000's and above the most optimistic potential of the current route upgraded to 24 trains per hour + the new traffic from the NWRL.

Also note currently the trains from the CC via the NSL must crawl nearly all stops south of Chatswood because of the congestion and the Metro may remove some capacity to enable more express running.  It may mitigate the need for the Gordon/Lindfield starters, maybe.

The issue with the inner west and to Lidcombe and Granville (my correction over Gladsville), is the inner west effectively chokes the services from Liverpool to 8t/hr. Remove the all stoppers and the capacity of this line increases by double, so you need a 4th pair of tracks regardless and they can never be built on the surface. So back to building a tunnel and hence using the latest off the shelf technology and save a few bucks in the process. You need a 3rd pair of tracks west of Homebush to Lidcombe, from there the current two pairs of tracks can do the rest more efficiently than they do now. Trains from south west run via Reagents Park with what ever is required via Gladsville and rest of track capacity of available for western trains, which is more than now.

Yes the Metro's solve the transport problem and start to remove bottle necks in the current network and enable it to carry more trains per hour from further out than currently happens.

Ever wondered why NTh Sydney might get such low patronage by rail compared to the number of people who work there? Your proposal just completely missed the point.

EDIT: You also need to do or redo your research on Nth Sydney Station, over 17,900 EXITS (2012 numbers) in AM peak, only behind the big three in the city, Central, TH and Wynyard. And YOUR plan wants to by-pass the location where people want to travel too!!!!
RTT_Rules

You'll have to excuse me in that I'm just not interested enough to (re-) do the detailed research needed to fully debunk a lot of this.  Last time I went through all of this was 2 or 3 years ago, and then based largely on 2010 data - the most detailed I had at the time.  To be honest, I'm just not that interested given what can reasonably be done going forward.  But never the less, here goes ....

AFAIK, western and norther freight enters Chullora vai Flemington, so I don't think there are any freight issues extending Metro beyond Bankstown.

The Bankstown Line has among the lowest and slowest growing patronage in the Sydney network.  It's only been peaking at ~5000 PAX/hr for the peak AM hour for the last 20 (or perhaps even 30) years.  For a long time the line had 6tph peak (2 ex Liverpool) using 3 half stopping patterns, and with the recent major timetable re-write where the line went to 8tph with 2 stopping patterns.  In the year before the new timetable there was a sudden and spurious spike in patronage on the Bankstown line.  

I remember @bambul asked me about so I dug a little deeper and found the statistics were compiled from estimates conducted on platform at various points on the line.  In the one year I found reporting of both Erskinville and Redfern observations there was a substantial discrepancy between the two (~20% IIRC), presumably because of observations at different points along the train and unequal train loading.  Two years before the new timetable they published the lower patronage figure.  One year before they only published the higher figure Smile.  I meant to get around to writing that up here at RP but never got around to it.

Anyway, all I'm saying is be very careful about published patronage data for the Bankstown line.  It needs to be cross checked with entry/exit data.  It's been a while since I've done this, so this information may be stale, but AFAIK total AM peak hr journeys generated by this catchment is still ~5000.  The only trains that run full on the line are ex-liverpool, and that accounts for approx 2-4k PAX during the peak hr.  Shifting some of the ex-Liverpool load to the under utilised Bankstown line was always an intended part of the Christie Clearways concept.  The NWRL metro shifts this back to via Strathfield.

Not that I'm trying to make this point specifically, but this is yet another problem with the Sydney's Rail Future "plan": even though it looks like it's freeing up 8 train slots, if you do the numbers in terms of passengers it's really only about 4.

Patronage demand on the corridor doesn't require 2 track pairs, they are needed because there are two formats.
You have got to be kidding.

No, absolutely serious.  Growth in Patronage of Sydney Trains has been stubbornly at 1%pa for the past 30 years.  I think that could be
improved - if someone actually tries - but to date it hasn't happened.  AIUI, the number of peak hr AM collections on the Nth Shore are roughly: Hornsby-Chatswood: 10k, Hornsby-Epping-ECL: ~3k, Central Coast ~3k.  The balance are net boardings between Chatswood and Milsons Point, and this rarely exceeds 20k.  A quick look at the current numbers show it's 18-19k.  

The introduction of the NWRL will add ~5k initially, but shift 2-3k of this load to the western half of sector 3 (the most heavily loaded).  Also, a chunk (no data on how much, but I understand there is some estimate for this) of the current NS patronage are ex-Hills PAX who've reached the NS line by other modes.  So initially the load at Chatswood will be ~20k, but growing to ~25k as a the NWRL matures over a decade or so.  The peak AM load across the bridge will probably be ~22k initially, growing to ~27k by 2030.

These number are just beyond the capability of the existing system (and indeed the new proposed line as well), but they are well within the capabilities of pair of rail tracks.  TfNSW are banking of RailCorp running 24tph to cope until they build the second crossing.  It is undoubtedly a problem, but it's not a problem of a scale that required a new railway (IMHO).

You also need to do or redo your research on Nth Sydney Station, over 17,900 EXITS (2012 numbers) in AM peak
That sounds about right.  But ... most exits are from PAX travelling in the contraflow direction, and most of these have changed from sectors 1 or 2 to get there.  These numbers are for the full AM peak (so about half for the peak hr => ~9000), and it's for both directions.  This is well within the capability of a single track pair.  Most of the inbound AM pax travel through Nth Sydney and on to the city.

My point is only one of the two proposed routes needs to stop at Nth Sydney, and for the bulk of PAX who don't need to go there it would better if their route didn't.

No chance in hell you will get more than 24 trains per hour, this is pure fantasy using the current rolling stock peak through the city tunnels and remember the frequency starts at Chatswood and ends at Straithfield.
I don't agree with this at all, and I'll make this the subject of a future post (Paris RER line A with a near identical format achieves 30tph with a manual fixed block signalling system).  But even if you accept this as true, this isn't what I meant about a new rail tunnel delivering 30 slots if it were built properly.   In my view, a new HR second crossing would incorporate fewer but better stations: more entry and exit points for better better passenger distribution, but also support longer trains.  It would also incorporate in-cab moving block signalling too.  

Ever wondered why NTh Sydney might get such low patronage by rail compared to the number of people who work there? Your proposal just completely missed the point. Not really.  Parking is cheaper in Nth Sydney Smile.
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE

You'll have to excuse me in that I'm just not interested enough to (re-) do the detailed research needed to fully debunk a lot of this.  Last time I went through all of this was 2 or 3 years ago, and then based largely on 2010 data - the most detailed I had at the time.  To be honest, I'm just not that interested given what can reasonably be done going forward.  But never the less, here goes ....

AFAIK, western and norther freight enters Chullora vai Flemington, so I don't think there are any freight issues extending Metro beyond Bankstown.

The Bankstown Line has among the lowest and slowest growing patronage in the Sydney network.  It's only been peaking at ~5000 PAX/hr for the peak AM hour for the last 20 (or perhaps even 30) years.  For a long time the line had 6tph peak (2 ex Liverpool) using 3 half stopping patterns, and with the recent major timetable re-write where the line went to 8tph with 2 stopping patterns.  In the year before the new timetable there was a sudden and spurious spike in patronage on the Bankstown line.  

I remember @bambul asked me about so I dug a little deeper and found the statistics were compiled from estimates conducted on platform at various points on the line.  In the one year I found reporting of both Erskinville and Redfern observations there was a substantial discrepancy between the two (~20% IIRC), presumably because of observations at different points along the train and unequal train loading.  Two years before the new timetable they published the lower patronage figure.  One year before they only published the higher figure Smile.  I meant to get around to writing that up here at RP but never got around to it.

Anyway, all I'm saying is be very careful about published patronage data for the Bankstown line.  It needs to be cross checked with entry/exit data.  It's been a while since I've done this, so this information may be stale, but AFAIK total AM peak hr journeys generated by this catchment is still ~5000.  The only trains that run full on the line are ex-liverpool, and that accounts for approx 2-4k PAX during the peak hr.  Shifting some of the ex-Liverpool load to the under utilised Bankstown line was always an intended part of the Christie Clearways concept.  The NWRL metro shifts this back to via Strathfield.

Not that I'm trying to make this point specifically, but this is yet another problem with the Sydney's Rail Future "plan": even though it looks like it's freeing up 8 train slots, if you do the numbers in terms of passengers it's really only about 4.

Patronage demand on the corridor doesn't require 2 track pairs, they are needed because there are two formats.
You have got to be kidding.

No, absolutely serious.  Growth in Patronage of Sydney Trains has been stubbornly at 1%pa for the past 30 years.  I think that could be
improved - if someone actually tries - but to date it hasn't happened.  AIUI, the number of peak hr AM collections on the Nth Shore are roughly: Hornsby-Chatswood: 10k, Hornsby-Epping-ECL: ~3k, Central Coast ~3k.  The balance are net boardings between Chatswood and Milsons Point, and this rarely exceeds 20k.  A quick look at the current numbers show it's 18-19k.  

The introduction of the NWRL will add ~5k initially, but shift 2-3k of this load to the western half of sector 3 (the most heavily loaded).  Also, a chunk (no data on how much, but I understand there is some estimate for this) of the current NS patronage are ex-Hills PAX who've reached the NS line by other modes.  So initially the load at Chatswood will be ~20k, but growing to ~25k as a the NWRL matures over a decade or so.  The peak AM load across the bridge will probably be ~22k initially, growing to ~27k by 2030.

These number are just beyond the capability of the existing system (and indeed the new proposed line as well), but they are well within the capabilities of pair of rail tracks.  TfNSW are banking of RailCorp running 24tph to cope until they build the second crossing.  It is undoubtedly a problem, but it's not a problem of a scale that required a new railway (IMHO).

You also need to do or redo your research on Nth Sydney Station, over 17,900 EXITS (2012 numbers) in AM peak
That sounds about right.  But ... most exits are from PAX travelling in the contraflow direction, and most of these have changed from sectors 1 or 2 to get there.  These numbers are for the full AM peak (so about half for the peak hr => ~9000), and it's for both directions.  This is well within the capability of a single track pair.  Most of the inbound AM pax travel through Nth Sydney and on to the city.

My point is only one of the two proposed routes needs to stop at Nth Sydney, and for the bulk of PAX who don't need to go there it would better if their route didn't.

No chance in hell you will get more than 24 trains per hour, this is pure fantasy using the current rolling stock peak through the city tunnels and remember the frequency starts at Chatswood and ends at Straithfield.I don't agree with this at all, and I'll make this the subject of a future post (Paris RER line A with a near identical format achieves 30tph with a manual fixed block signalling system).  But even if you accept this as true, this isn't what I meant about a new rail tunnel delivering 30 slots if it were built properly.   In my view, a new HR second crossing would incorporate fewer but better stations: more entry and exit points for better better passenger distribution, but also support longer trains.  It would also incorporate in-cab moving block signalling too.  

Ever wondered why NTh Sydney might get such low patronage by rail compared to the number of people who work there? Your proposal just completely missed the point. Not really.  Parking is cheaper in Nth Sydney Smile.
djf01
I was using the 2012 "Compendium of Sydney Rail Travel Statistics". average over last 5 years is 2.4%. NSL just under 2% all the inner and wester and SW lines are also 2-2.5%.

Bankstown's annual growth is 2.8% YoY for last 5 years to 2012 with a loading factor of 150% in AM peak, 100% in PM peak. Moving over 8000 per hour.
(Data is based on old network arrangement before the turn back at Lidcombe and had through trains from Liverpool to Lidcombe and city)

What you are saying by by-passing Nth Sydney forcing even more people to change. Nth Sydney is a one of the target areas for the NW commuters. Additionally when the Nth Beaches line is eventually built, more likely in Metro format than it ever have been in DD format as its mostly UG, how could this line by-pass Nth Sydney, a target point for many a commuter. Part of the reason so many park at Nth Sydney is that there is no railway from Nth Beaches and there is limited direct railway from the NW, although the data shows some are moving to Epping then training.

By-passing Nth sydney (the 4th highest passenger destination) is madness, especially at the NSL trains are already running +130% in the lower part of the shore. At Chatswood or St Leonards you would create an unnecessary transfer of bodies. Those going to Nth Sydney going to the Metro/whatever and those getting off to make room. Same would happen in the city at Central, yet the station you propose is distant from the main flow of suburban trains.

RER, 30t/hr yes but its different. Have you even been on it? I have! 3 doors per train, roughly the same number of seats per car as Sydney and their cars are longer! The platforms are generally wider and easier to get out than Town Hall at midnight!


In my view, a new HR second crossing would incorporate fewer but better stations: more entry and exit points for better better passenger distribution, but also support longer trains.  It would also incorporate in-cab moving block signalling too.

So now you are promoting a non-standard format railway for the 2nd harbor crossing?

The Automated train systems run on what ever is required to get down to 90sec, much easier because it eliminates the main variable, the human.

The reason they had to move bodies off the main west and inner west is because to service both SW express services and inner all stoppers the track capacity is chewed up. Currently its 12t/hr. The only way to add more is to add stops for the express.

I suspect the ex Liverpool may run to Bankstown. Personally I'd run the Metro to Reagents Park and sort out the inner west congestion issue,
OR
Yes plan B and maybe cheaper to run the Metro to Liverpool and Lidcombe via Bankstown and solve the issue properly. This would defer any requirements on the Inner West for many years.

I agree that much can be squeezed out of the existing network, but the issue is that all too frequently you have a pair of tracks that have to do two tasks. Carry shorter range all stoppers and longer range pax that deserve some sort express operation if the terminus to city number of stops is approaching 20 stops.
  Transtopic Assistant Commissioner

Re diving before St Leonards. This site http://sydneymetro.info/st-leonards-or-crows-nest says "Metro services at St Leonards would be delivered at the existing railway station". So a dive after St Leonard's not before?
Cheers
arctic
It's an interesting new slant.  It doesn't actually confirm whether the new metro platforms will be above or below ground "at the existing railway station".  The statement is also somewhat ambiguous when it notes that a new Crows Nest Station will be located on the western fringe to service the St Leonards business precinct.  What does that mean?  I would have thought that a potential Crows Nest Station would best be located at the Pacific Hwy/Willoughby Rd/ Falcon St/Shirley Rd intersection, with multiple access points to the station from each street.  It seems to me that this statement is in response to feedback from the current submissions on the proposed metro extension.

I also noted the comments with regard to a potential station between Chatswood and St Leonards in the Artarmon Industrial Area, which would obviously have to part of an underground link, presumably including new underground platforms at St Leonards. I can see no other reason to include this option other than a desire to bolster the metro's viability by re-zoning vast tracts of light industrial area for high density mixed use development.  It's not necessary.  The Artarmon Industrial Area as it stands serves a useful purpose for the inner city region and there is no need to change that use.  There has to be a balance in land use zoning to service the region.
  Transtopic Assistant Commissioner


I agree that much can be squeezed out of the existing network, but the issue is that all too frequently you have a pair of tracks that have to do two tasks. Carry shorter range all stoppers and longer range pax that deserve some sort express operation if the terminus to city number of stops is approaching 20 stops.
RTT_Rules
All the more reason why the Bankstown Line conversion to metro is inappropriate.  It is currently performing both tasks with ample spare capacity.  Once converted to metro, it can only perform the one task, ie all-stoppers and the longer range incompatible services have to be diverted elsewhere on the existing network which has limited additional capacity.

Connecting to and converting the Airport Line to metro operation as far as Revesby (or even Glenfield with further quadruplication of the East Hills Line) would be preferable to converting the Bankstown Line.  It would maintain separation of all stoppers and express outer suburban services (via Sydenham) and allow the East Hills Line to fully utilise its potential capacity without the hindrance of mixed services running on the one track pair.  As I mentioned in my earlier post, it also frees up more train paths on the City Circle (12 v 8).
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE
All the more reason why the Bankstown Line conversion to metro is inappropriate.  It is currently performing both tasks with ample spare capacity.  Once converted to metro, it can only perform the one task, ie all-stoppers and the longer range incompatible services have to be diverted elsewhere on the existing network which has limited additional capacity.

Connecting to and converting the Airport Line to metro operation as far as Revesby (or even Glenfield with further quadruplication of the East Hills Line) would be preferable to converting the Bankstown Line.  It would maintain separation of all stoppers and express outer suburban services (via Sydenham) and allow the East Hills Line to fully utilise its potential capacity without the hindrance of mixed services running on the one track pair.  As I mentioned in my earlier post, it also frees up more train paths on the City Circle (12 v 8).
Transtopic
And hence the problem with Sydney trains, too many lines doing too many different stopping patterns eating into track capacity.

East Hills lines has a quad for local and express, so I suppose you could do that there but if you did it has to be to East Hills or near the end. Maybe this is an option?

However I propose to also fix the problems with Sydney trains of removing multiple tasks for each line where practical permanently by progressively rolling out additional track-age and if Metro is a better technology (which for all stoppers and especially UG route it will be), then so be it.

I'm also becoming less of a fan of taking a Quad line and converting 2 tracks to Metro in places like East Hills and Southern Line.

Hence
- Inner west needs an additional 2 tracks for the inner west Metro to Straithfield and close the surface stations between Redfern and Straithfield, but not including them and excluding Burwood and Ashfield
- Bankstown Metro to extend to Liverpool and Lidcombe.
- Run SW Liverpool services from Glenfield to city via Granville.
- Remove Clyde station and convert the Carlingford line to Metro connecting Epping and Paramatta and to Greystains.
- Metro connecting Ashfield to Epping
- Western Express to Paramatta would be part of a great circle line connecting the two airports using East Hills and Western Main running limited express on both.
- Extend the Quad on East Hils to Glenfield.
- Extend the south Quad to Sutherland.
- Metro to Nth beaches, junction station would be either Nth Sydney/Victoria Cross or Crows Nest.
- Extend the NWRL Metro to Marsden Industrial Park.
- Extend ESR in Y format.
- Quad Straithfield to Hornsby.
- Sextup west of Homebush to Paramatta.
- Quad or triple track to Penrith to Emu Plains
  eddyb Chief Train Controller

Regarding them ordering 4 new TBM according to this http://www.tunneltalk.com/Australia-17Sep2013-NFM-Technologies-secure-all-TBMs-for-North-West-Rail-Link.php it must take a full year from the order to launch so unless they use the old ones somewhere it looks like there will be plenty of time to set up a launch site somewhere.
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE
Regarding them ordering 4 new TBM according to this http://www.tunneltalk.com/Australia-17Sep2013-NFM-Technologies-secure-all-TBMs-for-North-West-Rail-Link.php it must take a full year from the order to launch so unless they use the old ones somewhere it looks like there will be plenty of time to set up a launch site somewhere.
eddyb
From placing PO (Purchase Order) to delivery would probably be closer to 2 years, depending on market and if there are others used out there ready to go. We buy equipment here like Gantry cranes and they take 12-18mths. For a aluminium pot line gantry crane you are looking at 2 years, depending on market for first one.
  arctic Deputy Commissioner

Location: Zurich
Re diving before St Leonards. This site http://sydneymetro.info/st-leonards-or-crows-nest says "Metro services at St Leonards would be delivered at the existing railway station". So a dive after St Leonard's not before?
Cheers
It's an interesting new slant.  It doesn't actually confirm whether the new metro platforms will be above or below ground "at the existing railway station".  The statement is also somewhat ambiguous when it notes that a new Crows Nest Station will be located on the western fringe to service the St Leonards business precinct.  What does that mean?  I would have thought that a potential Crows Nest Station would best be located at the Pacific Hwy/Willoughby Rd/ Falcon St/Shirley Rd intersection, with multiple access points to the station from each street.  It seems to me that this statement is in response to feedback from the current submissions on the proposed metro extension.

I also noted the comments with regard to a potential station between Chatswood and St Leonards in the Artarmon Industrial Area, which would obviously have to part of an underground link, presumably including new underground platforms at St Leonards. I can see no other reason to include this option other than a desire to bolster the metro's viability by re-zoning vast tracts of light industrial area for high density mixed use development.  It's not necessary.  The Artarmon Industrial Area as it stands serves a useful purpose for the inner city region and there is no need to change that use.  There has to be a balance in land use zoning to service the region.
According to http://sydneymetro.info/project-overview1 "A St Leonards station would use two existing platforms". The alternative Crows Nest station "would be underground"
  eddyb Chief Train Controller

Regarding them ordering 4 new TBM according to this http://www.tunneltalk.com/Australia-17Sep2013-NFM-Technologies-secure-all-TBMs-for-North-West-Rail-Link.php it must take a full year from the order to launch so unless they use the old ones somewhere it looks like there will be plenty of time to set up a launch site somewhere.
From placing PO (Purchase Order) to delivery would probably be closer to 2 years, depending on market and if there are others used out there ready to go. We buy equipment here like Gantry cranes and they take 12-18mths. For a aluminium pot line gantry crane you are looking at 2 years, depending on market for first one.
RTT_Rules
It sure would be hard for a following government or individual if someone ordered and left with the next ones having the wrong piece of equipment.
  djf01 Chief Commissioner


I was using the 2012 "Compendium of Sydney Rail Travel Statistics". average over last 5 years is 2.4%. NSL just under 2% all the inner and wester and SW lines are also 2-2.5%.
RTT_Rules

The last time I really studied all this data in detail was based on the 2010 Compendium, hence my qualification.  I've really only skimmed through the 2012 version a few times.

I still think you need to be very careful with conclusions you are drawing from this data, in part because of the reasons outlined re the Bankstown line observations.  I think they cherry picked the data a bit to justify the timetable re-write, at that's what appears in the 2012 compendium.  Don't get me wrong, I think they did a really good job with the 2013 (?) timetable re-write, and I expect this will translate into genuine long term patronage increases.  But I just don't believe long term 2% or more growth is sustainable or even believable.


Bankstown's annual growth is 2.8% YoY for last 5 years to 2012 with a loading factor of 150% in AM peak, 100% in PM peak. Moving over 8000 per hour.
(Data is based on old network arrangement before the turn back at Lidcombe and had through trains from Liverpool to Lidcombe and city)
RTT_Rules

Sounds about right (above qualifications not withstanding).  But ... 3000 of these (+/- 1000) are overflow from Liverpool.  The Bankstown Metro catchment is only about 5000 Pax/hr peak.


RER, 30t/hr yes but its different. Have you even been on it? I have! 3 doors per train, roughly the same number of seats per car as Sydney and their cars are longer! The platforms are generally wider and easier to get out than Town Hall at midnight!
RTT_Rules

Been on RER?   Yes.  2 stops on line A IIRC Smile.  Other times on line B - reminiscent of 1970s Sydney Smile.


... it eliminates the main variable, the human.
RTT_Rules

This is starting to sound a bit Yes Minsiter ish.  It's very hard to remove the human element from a passenger transport system Smile.


The reason they had to move bodies off the main west and inner west is because to service both SW express services and inner all stoppers the track capacity is chewed up. Currently its 12t/hr. The only way to add more is to add stops for the express.
RTT_Rules

It's not the only way, but it is one of the better ways.  

I've given this particular problem quite a bit of thought over the years, and I think there are multiple ways of addressing the issue.  There are a lot of options I'd advocate before a new metro.  It should be pointed out that in terms of trains - and indeed passengers - the 6 track corridor hauls about 2 track pairs worth of PAX.

But the other thing worth noting is there are a lot of lightly used stations very tightly packed on the inner west line.  The bulk of the traffic comes from Ashfield, Newtown & Burwood.  For example, rather than adding a 4th railway, one solution is to construct an adjacent BRT system to service the minor stations and pare back the number of stops on sector 2 to just those majors, allowing all trains to have the same stopping pattern.


I agree that much can be squeezed out of the existing network, but the issue is that all too frequently you have a pair of tracks that have to do two tasks. Carry shorter range all stoppers and longer range pax that deserve some sort express operation if the terminus to city number of stops is approaching 20 stops.
RTT_Rules


The main operational issue - and I'm reluctant to call it a problem - is the ratio of collection stations to city train paths.  

Have another look at this diagram from Bradfield's 1919 plan:



The most notable thing for me is how little of the new lines were built.  What exists today largely existed before 1919, indeed before 1890.  

However, the thing I really want to point out are the ratios:
Bradfield envisaged ~200 suburban collection stations (about what we have now, just in different places).  But by the 1925 plan these were to be serviced by 5 sectors with 10 train paths:






However Sydney today has ~200 collection stations, but 3 sectors an 5 train paths (ESR with 3 stations doesn't really count).  

This ratio is the main reason much of Sydney's rail service is both slow and infrequent.  There are 40 collection stations for each available path.  The only way to service all these stations is with multiple infrequent stopping patterns, or frequent services with multiple stops.  The result is inevitably a slow service, one way or another.

By the 50s and 60s, the city had expanded well beyond what Bradfield had planned for.  There were still no new railways withing the city, but there were certainly new collection stations on what were previously rural heavy rail lines.  Sydney dealt with this by using higher capacity trains, initially longer, then half DD & eventually full DD.  This allowed patronage to increase without expanding the city distribution network, at the expense of service quality.

In terms of reducing/deferring infrastructure capex, this strategy was hugely successful.  But it's a large part of why Opex is now higher than comparable systems.
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

I'm also becoming less of a fan of taking a Quad line and converting 2 tracks to Metro in places like East Hills and Southern Line.
RTT_Rules

There is a mathematical reason why this "3-tier" concept doesn't work as well as one might think.  It's a variant of the 4 colour theorem.  

If you have parallel incompatible short/long haul systems on the same route, you *have* to have flyovers at the junctions.
  Myrtone Chief Commissioner

Location: North Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria
And hence the problem with Sydney trains, too many lines doing too many different stopping patterns eating into track capacity.
RTT_Rules

It's probably less of a problem there than here in Melbourne. For example, the section of line from Jolimont to Clifton Hill is shared by the Epping and Hurstbridge lines (the latter including serices to Macleod and Eltham as well as Hurstbridge) but there are only two tracks here, an also one level crossing, further limiting the train frequency on this section.

East Hills lines has a quad for local and express, so I suppose you could do that there but if you did it has to be to East Hills or near the end. Maybe this is an option?
RTT_Rules

Compare with Sydney, based on my experience there and photos and footage I've seen, all lines in their inner city expect the North Shore line have at least two tracks per direction, there are no level crossings on these lines either, all of their level crossings are in the outer suburbs.

However I propose to also fix the problems with Sydney trains of removing multiple tasks for each line where practical permanently by progressively rolling out additional track-age and if Metro is a better technology (which for all stoppers and especially UG route it will be), then so be it.

I'm also becoming less of a fan of taking a Quad line and converting 2 tracks to Metro in places like East Hills and Southern Line.
RTT_Rules

Stretching the metro fantasy again, and promoting the break-up of the Sydney suburban, and thus reversing the trend around the world.

Metro-style rail (with rolling stock that is smaller and lighter than mainline style rail equipment) came about and is still most common in cities that never had surface options anywhere near town centres, they were heavily developed when the railways came and mainline trains could only serve the edge of town.
Cities where some conventional rail lines are uninteoperable with others either have that for historic reasons (such as a metro that predates electrification of manlines serving them) or are undergoing a transition, similar to Melbourne with our conversion of cable tramways to electric tramways, but involving off-street rail.

As for metro being especially better for underground, remember this post, although you don't find large scale underground railways with loading gauges typical of mainline railways, these do differ from mainline style rail in other ways, for example the use of third rail electrification, and are also physically or at least operationally separate from mainline railways serving the same cities. Most large scale underground networks are also very old, predating electrifciation of mainline railways, and built at a time when even mainline railway carriages were smaller, and in cities which never had surface rail in the areas served by metro style rail, these being developed before the railways came.
  eddyb Chief Train Controller

Myrtone
We all know you love DD but if you have a sufficient number of driver less metro with a sufficient number of seats on a sufficient number of tracks so all stops have a separate track from express trains then anybody can go anywhere quickly and in comfort.

Regarding the tunnel diameter do not forget the tunnel lining where the NWRL uses 6 segments of 3 tonne each and you would not go that much bigger to need 7 and segmental lining doubles the cost of a tunnel and in fact we probably do not even need it in Sydney except we are going near a fault under the harbour and they want it guaranteed to last 100 years.
  Myrtone Chief Commissioner

Location: North Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria
Not really, double decker trains do carry more people than single deckers of the same length whenever all else is equal, this is not a debatable point. Others (who do live in Sydney) have also objected to reducing the loading gauge.
  Transtopic Assistant Commissioner

According to http://sydneymetro.info/project-overview1 "A St Leonards station would use two existing platforms". The alternative Crows Nest station "would be underground"
arctic
Thanks arctic, that's the first time I've seen any reference to using the existing platforms for a station at St Leonards.  It appears that they're considering a station at St Leonards OR Crows Nest, but not both, which I would have thought should be essential.  Building a single station between the two business centres, such as a suggested Crows Nest station on its western fringe, isn't going to fully satisfy the needs of either centre's catchment area.  I know it reduces costs, but what about customer service?

Presumably, if they decide to build the Crows Nest station, bypassing St Leonards, then the dive would be before it (from Chatswood).
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE
Not really, double decker trains do carry more people than single deckers of the same length whenever all else is equal, this is not a debatable point. Others (who do live in Sydney) have also objected to reducing the loading gauge.
Myrtone


You keep going back to the past looking at irrlevent factors and ignoring what is happening today. Yes tunnels built in the early days were often small, now they tend to be a common size or similar. often refered to as a STANDARD. But the larger the radii, the more the cost. Eddy says the Metro is just short using 7 pieces of lining, I've previously told you that an extra 0.5m diameter adds 19% more material to a 5.5m bore tunnel. Considering these projects are calculated in billions, 19% more dirt and an extra lining piece must be considerable.

- Trains 2+2 or 2+3 across are standard. Trains that are 2 + 3 / 2 + 3 / (dd) are not. RER, Sydney and even German are built specifically for them and them only and are not compatible with each other for numerous reasons. Sydney has a long history of rolling stock project problems indicating some of the issues in buying Non-standard stock. Meanwhile without leaving Australia we have trains operating in multiple cities from the same production lines with minor differences and some even operate OS with mostly cosmetic changes. Some ex Australian SD rolling stock has gone OS for a 2nd life, no DD has.

- Trains that are built to a more common platform are generally alot cheaper per pax carried,  However if you are not building long tunnels, going 2 + 3 / 2 + 3 makes sense when you are getting constrained on frequency.

- Going U/G Costs, money, lots of money, hence it gets down to cost. No one else is building large scale network tunnels in DD format for a reason. The RER example you refer to are simply joining the dots on a large congested surface network and not a deliberate effort to start a new trend.

- The seating arrangement used on the Sydney Metro stock maybe less than the DD stock, but its not SMALL, its more standard actually its probably above standard. Overall the line has same total pax capacity per hour, so nothing has been lost apart from the higher operating cost.

- In-operable formats (ie line dedicated stock) in one busy network are well proven to have minimal impact operationally and happening more rather than less.

- Sydney's rail network operating subsidy is considered high by international bench mark's and so is its capital construction costs for going UG, for it to expand into greenfield (read UG) territory, both costs needs to be reduced. The govt is doing this, the impact on the users is positive, so there is no issue to user ability and less dependence on the taxpayer. Assuming the Bankstown line is done well however that maybe. The job is done and done well! No point guessing what will happen down there just yet as we don't even know the station arrangements for Nth side yet.

EDITED to fix spelling and some gramma
  Myrtone Chief Commissioner

Location: North Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria
You keep going back to the past looking at irrlevent factors and ignoring what is happening today. Yes tunnels built in the early days were often small, now they tend to be a common size or similar. often refered to as a STANDARD. But the larger the radii, the more the cost. Eddy says the Metro is just off using 7 pieces of lining, I've told you previously 0.5m adds 19% more material to a 5.5m borr tunnel. Considering these projects are calculated in billions, 19% more dirt and an extra lining piece must be considerable.
"RTT_Rules"


No, I'm looking at what has long remained unchanged. And I'm referring to tunnels built as late as the early 20th century, that what you call a standard size. And loading gauge on those metros is an example of something that has remained unchanged.
And if new tunnels aren't needed that frequently, then moving more dirt and adding extra lining might not be considerable in the long term.

- Trains 2+2 or 2+3 across are standard. Trains that are 2 + 3 / 2 + 3 / (dd) are not. RER, Sydney and even German are built specifically for them and them only and are not compaitable with each other for numrous reasons. Sydney has a long history of rolling stock projects problems indicating some of the issues in buying Non-standard stock. Meanwhile without leaving Australia we have trains operating in multlple cities from the same production line with minor differences and some even operate OS with mostly cosmetic changes. Some ex Australian SD rolling stock has gone OS for a 2nd life, no DD has.

- Trains that are built to a more common platform are generally alot cheaper per pax carried,  However if you are not building long tunnels, going 2 + 3 / 2 + 3 makes sense when you are getting contrained on frequency.

- Going U/G Costs, money, lots of money, hence it gets down to cost. No one else is building large scale network tunnels in DD format for a reason. The RER example you refer to are simply joining the dots on a large congested surface network and not a deliberate effort to start a new trend.

- The seating arrangement used on the Sydney Metro stock maybe less than the DD stock, but its not SMALL, its more standard actually its probably above standard. Overall the line has same total pax capacity per hour, so nothing has been lost apart from the higher operating cost.

- In-operable formats (ie line dedicated stock) in one busy network are well proven to have minimal impact operationally and happening more rather than less.
"RTT_Rules"


- I'm familiar with both 2+2 and 2+3 seating, but 2+3 / 2+3 with a slash? I know of no example of Australian heavy rail rolling stock going overseas, apart of some Perth DMUs going to Auckland, both are narrow track gauge, not sure about loading gauge. There are no double decker trains in New Zealand, I'm not sure their railways are that busy. It could just be that nowhere the the world that buys trains from us has double decker trains. And in NSW they are in the market for off-the-shlef double decker trains for intercity services.

- Going underground might cost more in the short term, but what about in the long term (not counting new extensions)? And most large scale underground networks are also electrified with third rail rather than overhead wires.

-No the seating arrangement is less than the existing Sydney rolling stock, and as long as that's no less than international standards, that's what matters locally.

- Not really, because they still connect their lines together and transfer rolling stock between them occasionally. As far as I know, this is also a metro style thing, it is not typical of mainline style rail or light rail.

EDIT: As that other post has been fixed.
  Transtopic Assistant Commissioner

And hence the problem with Sydney trains, too many lines doing too many different stopping patterns eating into track capacity.

East Hills lines has a quad for local and express, so I suppose you could do that there but if you did it has to be to East Hills or near the end. Maybe this is an option?

However I propose to also fix the problems with Sydney trains of removing multiple tasks for each line where practical permanently by progressively rolling out additional track-age and if Metro is a better technology (which for all stoppers and especially UG route it will be), then so be it.

I'm also becoming less of a fan of taking a Quad line and converting 2 tracks to Metro in places like East Hills and Southern Line.

Hence
- Inner west needs an additional 2 tracks for the inner west Metro to Straithfield and close the surface stations between Redfern and Straithfield, but not including them and excluding Burwood and Ashfield
- Bankstown Metro to extend to Liverpool and Lidcombe.
- Run SW Liverpool services from Glenfield to city via Granville.
- Remove Clyde station and convert the Carlingford line to Metro connecting Epping and Paramatta and to Greystains.
- Metro connecting Ashfield to Epping
- Western Express to Paramatta would be part of a great circle line connecting the two airports using East Hills and Western Main running limited express on both.
- Extend the Quad on East Hils to Glenfield.
- Extend the south Quad to Sutherland.
- Metro to Nth beaches, junction station would be either Nth Sydney/Victoria Cross or Crows Nest.
- Extend the NWRL Metro to Marsden Industrial Park.
- Extend ESR in Y format.
- Quad Straithfield to Hornsby.
- Sextup west of Homebush to Paramatta.
- Quad or triple track to Penrith to Emu Plains
RTT_Rules
It doesn’t necessarily mean that all inner city lines need to be converted to or supplemented by new metro lines.  It’s horses for courses.

The Illawarra Line is a case in point.  With the existing quad to Hurstville, it can adequately provide all stations, Cronulla/Waterfall and South Coast Intercity express services for the foreseeable future.  A separate UG metro line to Hurstville  may be warranted in the longer term.

Conversely, the Inner West Local route would benefit from a new UG metro link by allowing the existing surface tracks to be exclusively utilised for express running increasing the capacity for outer suburban services between Strathfield and Redfern.  These tracks would allow for express services from the South Line via Granville as well as the reintroduction of the Liverpool via Regents Park service diverted from the Bankstown Line, without the limitation in frequency imposed by mixed running.

I’m not quite sure what you mean by closing the surface stations between Redfern and Strathfield, “but not including them and excluding Burwood and Ashfield”.  Do you mean permanently closing all stations on the current Inner West Local and not replacing them on the new metro line, except Burwood and Ashfield?  You could argue that it would be cheaper to construct a new tunnel for existing express Sydney Trains services without intermediate stations and convert the surface line to metro, which it would, but because of the potential difficulty of connecting such a tunnel with the existing network at either end, I think on balance, a more expensive UG metro link would be a better option.



In response to your suggested future network options, I comment as follows:-

Bankstown Metro to extend to Liverpool and Lidcombe.

I can’t see the need to convert the Bankstown Line to Metro, particularly as it is going to compromise through running of Liverpool and Lidcombe services without additional capacity being provided on the congested Strathfield to Redfern corridor.  A better option is to connect to and convert the Airport Line to metro and in the longer term construct a new UG metro link along the Inner West corridor.  

Run SW Liverpool services from Glenfield to city via Granville.

Again, there is limited additional capacity along the Inner West corridor.

Remove Clyde Station and convert the Carlingford Line to metro.

I agree that Clyde Station could be closed, particularly as it is so close to Granville and with the possibility of the Carlingford Line being closed between Clyde and Camellia.  The Carlingford Line is more likely to be converted to light rail rather than metro with a proposed link from Parramatta to Macquarie Park as one option.  Whether this route is via Carlingford and Epping or Parramatta City Council’s  feasibility study preferred more direct route via Eastwood remains to be seen.  The option of a metro connection has now been effectively cut off since the previously proposed stub tunnels to connect with the NWRL at Epping have been eliminated.

Metro connecting Ashfield to Epping.

I don’t see a need for this link as it would only be duplicating the existing Northern Line north of Strathfield to Epping.

Western Express to Parramatta forming part of a great circle line connecting airports.

As its name implies, the Western Express would be more useful servicing the outer Western and Richmond Lines.

Extend the Quad on East Hills to Glenfield.

Agree, with an Airport Line conversion to metro also being extended from Revesby on the centre track pair.

Extend the south (Illawarra) quad to Sutherland.

Agree



Metro to Nth Beaches.

Agree, but junction station would be better at Victoria Cross, particularly as there may not even be a Crows Nest Station.

Extend the NWRL Metro to Marsden Industrial Park.

Agree, but it should also be extended further to the Western Line at St Marys interchanging with the proposed extension of the SWRL via Badgerys Creek Airport.

Extend ESR in Y format.

Agree.  There should be 2 branches from Bondi Junction to North Bondi via Bondi Rd and Bondi Beach and to Maroubra Junction via Randwick, interchanging with the light rail line.

Quad Strathfield to Hornsby.

Agree.  The most immediate action should be to complete the relatively short section of missing quad between Rhodes and West Ryde across the Parramatta River (bridgeworks are mostly completed except for installation of spans between piers for the extra track pair).  Quadruplication of the line between Epping and Hornsby is a longer term project.  Being part of the Northern Sydney Freight Corridor program, it could attract Federal funding.
Sextup west of Homebush to Parramatta.

While this is a worthy goal, I don’t think it needs to go as far as Parramatta.  Extension to Granville Junction connecting to the South Line may suffice.  In the medium term, extension to Lidcombe connecting to the Regents Park line may be all that is necessary.  It would most likely have to be in tunnel.

Quad or triple track to Penrith/Emu Plains.

I can see the value in extending the quad from St Marys to Penrith, as the widened track corridor is already in place.  However, extending it further to Emu Plains is problematic, as a new bridge would be required across the Nepean River and I can’t see that it would be warranted.
  Myrtone Chief Commissioner

Location: North Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria
It doesn’t necessarily mean that all inner city lines need to be converted to or supplemented by new metro lines.  It’s horses for courses.
"Transtopic"


And it would be completely unnecessary to convert any of them if the Government had stuck to the original plans to construct the North West Rail link as part of the existing network.
  thadocta Chief Commissioner

Location: Katoomba

Myrtone's mindless, incorrect (repeatedly proven to be incorrect) reply snipped.
Myrtone

Oops, nothing left.


Dave
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE
It doesn’t necessarily mean that all inner city lines need to be converted to or supplemented by new metro lines.  It’s horses for courses.


And it would be completely unnecessary to convert any of them if the Government had stuck to the original plans to construct the North West Rail link as part of the existing network.
Myrtone
Again you are completely ignoring the extra burden on the taxpayer to stick with this plan and hence the slower of prolonged rollout of any expansion. Ever wonder why Bradfields plan has never been followed since the early part of century?
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE

No, I'm looking at what has long remained unchanged. And I'm referring to tunnels built as late as the early 20th century, that what you call a standard size. And loading gauge on those metros is an example of something that has remained unchanged.
And if new tunnels aren't needed that frequently, then moving more dirt and adding extra lining might not be considerable in the long term.



- I'm familiar with both 2+2 and 2+3 seating, but 2+3 / 2+3 with a slash? Please check you spelling and fix any typos in your post. I know of no example of Australian heavy rail rolling stock going overseas, apart of some Perth DMUs going to Auckland, both are narrow track gauge, not sure about loading gauge. There are no double decker trains in New Zealand, I'm not sure their railways are that busy. It could just be that nowhere the the world that buys trains from us has double decker trains. And in NSW they are in the market for off-the-shlef double decker trains for intercity services.

- Going underground might cost more in the short term, but what about in the long term (not counting new extensions)? And most large scale underground networks are also electrified with third rail rather than overhead wires.

-No the seating arrangement is less than the existing Sydney rolling stock, and as long as that's no less than international standards, that's what matters locally.

- Not really, because they still connect their lines together and transfer rolling stock between them occasionally. As far as I know, this is also a metro style thing, it is not typical of mainline style rail or light rail.
Myrtone
The bulk of the expansion of the Sydney network in the city, inner and medium suburbs outside existing corridors and in many cases even following existing corridor's including the Main Western Corridor for the often touted Western Express will be in tunnels. Its more than likely that by 2050, there could be over 100km of railway tunnels added to the network.

Former Brisbane and Perth suburban Rolling stock went to Auckland suburban network. As you would know, Perth and Brisbane suburban stock while a tad narrow is still more standard format than Sydney DD.

I did say no DD stock has or will ever leave the country because its zero compatibility.

Sydney will not be in the market for off-the shelf DD stock because it doesn't exist. Sydney is shorter than RER and only 2 door and I think there are also issues with German. Sydney will be in the market for DD stock custom designed for Sydney using as much as possible common components in traction and other systems. Pretty much the same for last 40 years.

Going UG will also cost more per km than the surface expect were realestate prices make surface prohibitive. The Longterm implications will not change and I would not expect a platform change in tunneling technology costs for the next 50 years. Yes it may get cheaper per km as with most things, but it won't be life changing.

The Sydney Metro seating arrangement following typical international standards. However placement of seats within a car are purely up to the operator, like planes. Its the platform the seats are bolted to that costs the money. If anything its likely the seating density will be higher if they don't use longitudinal seating, so according to use the Metro is ok. Not Qld uses longitudal seating in the centre of every 3rd car on newer sets for DDA compliance.  

Some networks are still connected for transfer requirements, some are not. Even the Sydney Metro could have its trains in theory loaded onto the Network at Everleigh and transferred to the NWRL either under hook and pull or manually after hours due to commonality in gauge and power supply. I'm going to take a guess that there will be a rail connection between the two for potential access by the rail grinder and other such as supply of new rails etc.


regards
Shane
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE
It doesn’t necessarily mean that all inner city lines need to be converted to or supplemented by new metro lines. It’s horses for courses.
The Docta

Agree, not all. Mostly tunnels

Sponsored advertisement

Display from:   

Quick Reply

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