Wolli Creek 'deficiency'

 
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Just adding on to the conversation and posing a question - if a new island platform is built, what will the platform numbers be? If they are 5 and 6, then the platforms will be numbered (west to east) 5, 6, 3, 4, 1, 2, which is crazy.

I know that they don't change platform numbers when new platforms in odd places are built (e.g. Lidcombe has platforms 0 - 5 rather than 1 - 6, and Homebush has platforms 2 - 7 instead of platforms 1 - 6), so they usually go backwards.

But here what will they do? There is no choice but to renumber everything (unless they're fine with 5, 6, 3, 4, 1, 2). This wouldn't have been so weird if the T4 platforms were platforms 1 and 2, in which case (though, this is still really weird anyway, but at least organised) the platforms would be arranged (again, from west to east) as -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4.

This part is a joke, but what if they numbered the new platforms 2.33 and 2.67 as they were between platforms 2 and 3. Or how about just rage-quitting and switching to platforms A, B, C, D, E, and F (obviously, no).

But seriously, I think the station would be renumbered, with the new T2 East Hills Line platforms and the T2 Airport Line platforms switching numbers (1 and 2  5 and 6)

And yes, I definitely think Tempe station is completely unnecessary. If it is "too expensive" (haha sure...) to demolish the station, then those platforms could be numbered 7, 8, 9 and 10 instead of 1, 2, 3 and 4. [Or, maybe this: -2, -3, -4, -5]
Ashjayeen13
I believe station platform numbers have changed in the past, where I cannot remember right now, but maybe someone else will know?

Sponsored advertisement

  TomBTR Chief Train Controller

Location: near Sydney
I believe station platform numbers have changed in the past, where I cannot remember right now, but maybe someone else will know?
RTT_Rules
How about Milsons Point -weren't platforms 1 and 2 once platforms 3 and 4?

During the rebuild platforms 1 and 2 at Chatswood became platforms 3 and 4.
  Piston Train Controller

Historically platforms have been numbered from number 1 facing Sydney i.e. the up track across to however many platforms.

For Lidcombe it was easier to number the new Olympic Platform '0' as it didn't require any change to the existing platform numbers.

While from the outside it would seem too easy to just re-number the platforms there are many documents that also would require modifying to accomodate a change. From wiring diagrams, drivers diagrams and all the other behind the scenes items such as platform indicators etc would require a change.

St. Leonards two existing platforms are numbered 2 and 3. Platforms 1 and 4 will probably be never utilised now that the North West rail link will probably be underground by then.
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

Talk about bring a thread back to life. This was dead in 2008.
  tazzer96 Deputy Commissioner

The lack of the 2 extra platforms doesn't really matter.  The only trains that use those tracks are freights, long distance (XPTs, Xplorers and Endeavours), and the peak hour east hills expresses.  
You can't make any illawarra or south coast trains use them in peak because of how the hurstville locals work further south.

Its not like there are a lack of trains going through wolli creek on the airport section or illawarra line, so transferring isn't a big deal.  
The only train that would benefit from it in any way is the southern highlands peak expresses.   Just make the east hills peak expresses stop a tempe.
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

You mean Campbelltown expresses and they don't need to stop at Wolli Creek because there are limited stops services from Campbelltown that go via the airport and stop at WC. Mind you that this new part of the conversation is being talked about well after the thread died in 2008. Things have changed with the quad to revesby now in place.
  Watson374 Chief Commissioner

Location: Fully reclined at the pointy end.
Why are we still running East Hills Line expresses via Sydenham?

Look at the timetable: by running express from Revesby to Sydenham, Sydenham to Redfern and then stopping all stations to Circular Quay, the AM peak express up trains save twelve minutes over the trains stopping all stations via the Airport; however, of those twelve minutes saved, eight of them come from running express from Revesby to Wolli Creek; that is, running via Sydenham actually only saves four minutes.

I'm therefore of the view that all East Hills Line expresses should operate via the Airport, because:
  1. It improves frequency on the Airport Line. Running an extra four trains an hour via the Airport will provide 50% more standing room to cram short-haul passengers into, easing the inner-suburbs commuter crush to Green Square and Mascot, as well as providing more capacity to and from the Airport, which is especially important in the AM peak with the huge wave of international arrivals. This should also reduce the crowding faced by passengers along the East Hills Line between Revesby and Turella.
  2. It's much better use of the Revesby quadruplication. Previously, it wasn't possible for an express to overtake a local between Turella and Kingsgrove, because it was just too short a section; viewed in this context, it makes sense that the expresses were routed via Sydenham so that they could overtake. Given that running express from Revesby to Wolli Creek saves eight minutes, this is fast enough to overtake the all-stations service by Turella, immediately after which the express can merge back in front of the all-stations train and dive into Wolli Creek and then run into the City via the Airport (using crossovers that are already in place).
  3. It simplifies the network. If it's an East Hills Line train, it will leave from Platform 23 at Central and run via the Airport, express or all-stations — end of story. Minimising the variation means we have a simpler, easier network to use. This enhanced legibility makes it easier for commuters as well as tourists.  
  4. Its impact past Revesby is marginal. Four minutes is nothing when your commute is that long; better frequencies can easily make up for the marginal increase in travel time.
  5. Sydenham and Redfern don't need one-seat rides. Passengers can change at Wolli Creek to Eastern Suburbs & Illawarra Line services; again, better frequencies can easily make up for the marginal increase in travel time.

While the route can and should be kept alive for regional trains and emergencies, running this handful of metropolitan trains via Sydenham and East Hills is something we should leave in the past, because all the East Hills Line expresses via Sydenham do is waste valuable capacity for very little gain.

QED.
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

Why are we still running East Hills Line expresses via Sydenham?

Look at the timetable: by running express from Revesby to Sydenham, Sydenham to Redfern and then stopping all stations to Circular Quay, the AM peak express up trains save twelve minutes over the trains stopping all stations via the Airport; however, of those twelve minutes saved, eight of them come from running express from Revesby to Wolli Creek; that is, running via Sydenham actually only saves four minutes.

I'm therefore of the view that all East Hills Line expresses should operate via the Airport, because:
  1. It improves frequency on the Airport Line. Running an extra four trains an hour via the Airport will provide 50% more standing room to cram short-haul passengers into, easing the inner-suburbs commuter crush to Green Square and Mascot, as well as providing more capacity to and from the Airport, which is especially important in the AM peak with the huge wave of international arrivals. This should also reduce the crowding faced by passengers along the East Hills Line between Revesby and Turella.
  2. It's much better use of the Revesby quadruplication. Previously, it wasn't possible for an express to overtake a local between Turella and Kingsgrove, because it was just too short a section; viewed in this context, it makes sense that the expresses were routed via Sydenham so that they could overtake. Given that running express from Revesby to Wolli Creek saves eight minutes, this is fast enough to overtake the all-stations service by Turella, immediately after which the express can merge back in front of the all-stations train and dive into Wolli Creek and then run into the City via the Airport (using crossovers that are already in place).
  3. It simplifies the network. If it's an East Hills Line train, it will leave from Platform 23 at Central and run via the Airport, express or all-stations — end of story. Minimising the variation means we have a simpler, easier network to use. This enhanced legibility makes it easier for commuters as well as tourists.  
  4. Its impact past Revesby is marginal. Four minutes is nothing when your commute is that long; better frequencies can easily make up for the marginal increase in travel time.
  5. Sydenham and Redfern don't need one-seat rides. Passengers can change at Wolli Creek to Eastern Suburbs & Illawarra Line services; again, better frequencies can easily make up for the marginal increase in travel time.

While the route can and should be kept alive for regional trains and emergencies, running this handful of metropolitan trains via Sydenham and East Hills is something we should leave in the past, because all the East Hills Line expresses via Sydenham do is waste valuable capacity for very little gain.

QED.
Watson374

Just a couple of issues.

1. Those Campbelltown expresses tend to be full by Holsworthy and so how will that increase capacity on the airport line by 50% if there is no room for anybody to get on and off the train.
2. What will happen to Erskineville and St Peters after the Bankstown line conversion to metro?
3. After metro conversion there should be an additional 8 trains an hour to provide the extra capacity needed negating your idea.
  Watson374 Chief Commissioner

Location: Fully reclined at the pointy end.
Why are we still running East Hills Line expresses via Sydenham?

Look at the timetable: by running express from Revesby to Sydenham, Sydenham to Redfern and then stopping all stations to Circular Quay, the AM peak express up trains save twelve minutes over the trains stopping all stations via the Airport; however, of those twelve minutes saved, eight of them come from running express from Revesby to Wolli Creek; that is, running via Sydenham actually only saves four minutes.

I'm therefore of the view that all East Hills Line expresses should operate via the Airport, because:
  1. It improves frequency on the Airport Line. Running an extra four trains an hour via the Airport will provide 50% more standing room to cram short-haul passengers into, easing the inner-suburbs commuter crush to Green Square and Mascot, as well as providing more capacity to and from the Airport, which is especially important in the AM peak with the huge wave of international arrivals. This should also reduce the crowding faced by passengers along the East Hills Line between Revesby and Turella.
  2. It's much better use of the Revesby quadruplication. Previously, it wasn't possible for an express to overtake a local between Turella and Kingsgrove, because it was just too short a section; viewed in this context, it makes sense that the expresses were routed via Sydenham so that they could overtake. Given that running express from Revesby to Wolli Creek saves eight minutes, this is fast enough to overtake the all-stations service by Turella, immediately after which the express can merge back in front of the all-stations train and dive into Wolli Creek and then run into the City via the Airport (using crossovers that are already in place).
  3. It simplifies the network. If it's an East Hills Line train, it will leave from Platform 23 at Central and run via the Airport, express or all-stations — end of story. Minimising the variation means we have a simpler, easier network to use. This enhanced legibility makes it easier for commuters as well as tourists.  
  4. Its impact past Revesby is marginal. Four minutes is nothing when your commute is that long; better frequencies can easily make up for the marginal increase in travel time.
  5. Sydenham and Redfern don't need one-seat rides. Passengers can change at Wolli Creek to Eastern Suburbs & Illawarra Line services; again, better frequencies can easily make up for the marginal increase in travel time.

While the route can and should be kept alive for regional trains and emergencies, running this handful of metropolitan trains via Sydenham and East Hills is something we should leave in the past, because all the East Hills Line expresses via Sydenham do is waste valuable capacity for very little gain.

QED.

Just a couple of issues.

1. Those Campbelltown expresses tend to be full by Holsworthy and so how will that increase capacity on the airport line by 50% if there is no room for anybody to get on and off the train.
2. What will happen to Erskineville and St Peters after the Bankstown line conversion to metro?
3. After metro conversion there should be an additional 8 trains an hour to provide the extra capacity needed negating your idea.
simstrain
  1. Define 'full'. I'm actually quite keen for the all-stations services on the East Hills Line to also run to Campbelltown, providing more capacity.
  2. The Eastern Suburbs & Illawarra Line has platforms there already, so it can stop there (as it already does during engineering shutdowns).
  3. That means waiting around until 2024, or another eight years; in the meantime, we need to squeeze every bit of capacity out of the current infrastructure that we can.
  Ashjayeen13 Station Master

Location: Brisbane, Australia
Why are we still running East Hills Line expresses via Sydenham?

Look at the timetable: by running express from Revesby to Sydenham, Sydenham to Redfern and then stopping all stations to Circular Quay, the AM peak express up trains save twelve minutes over the trains stopping all stations via the Airport; however, of those twelve minutes saved, eight of them come from running express from Revesby to Wolli Creek; that is, running via Sydenham actually only saves four minutes.

I'm therefore of the view that all East Hills Line expresses should operate via the Airport, because:
  1. It improves frequency on the Airport Line. Running an extra four trains an hour via the Airport will provide 50% more standing room to cram short-haul passengers into, easing the inner-suburbs commuter crush to Green Square and Mascot, as well as providing more capacity to and from the Airport, which is especially important in the AM peak with the huge wave of international arrivals. This should also reduce the crowding faced by passengers along the East Hills Line between Revesby and Turella.
  2. It's much better use of the Revesby quadruplication. Previously, it wasn't possible for an express to overtake a local between Turella and Kingsgrove, because it was just too short a section; viewed in this context, it makes sense that the expresses were routed via Sydenham so that they could overtake. Given that running express from Revesby to Wolli Creek saves eight minutes, this is fast enough to overtake the all-stations service by Turella, immediately after which the express can merge back in front of the all-stations train and dive into Wolli Creek and then run into the City via the Airport (using crossovers that are already in place).
  3. It simplifies the network. If it's an East Hills Line train, it will leave from Platform 23 at Central and run via the Airport, express or all-stations — end of story. Minimising the variation means we have a simpler, easier network to use. This enhanced legibility makes it easier for commuters as well as tourists.  
  4. Its impact past Revesby is marginal. Four minutes is nothing when your commute is that long; better frequencies can easily make up for the marginal increase in travel time.
  5. Sydenham and Redfern don't need one-seat rides. Passengers can change at Wolli Creek to Eastern Suburbs & Illawarra Line services; again, better frequencies can easily make up for the marginal increase in travel time.

While the route can and should be kept alive for regional trains and emergencies, running this handful of metropolitan trains via Sydenham and East Hills is something we should leave in the past, because all the East Hills Line expresses via Sydenham do is waste valuable capacity for very little gain.

QED.

Just a couple of issues.

1. Those Campbelltown expresses tend to be full by Holsworthy and so how will that increase capacity on the airport line by 50% if there is no room for anybody to get on and off the train.
2. What will happen to Erskineville and St Peters after the Bankstown line conversion to metro?
3. After metro conversion there should be an additional 8 trains an hour to provide the extra capacity needed negating your idea.
simstrain
Erskineville and St Peters will probably become T4 Eastern Suburbs and Illawarra Line, and so platforms 1 and 2 at those stations will switch "roles" with platforms 3 and 4 i.e. platforms 1 and 2 will no longer be used and 3 and 4 will.
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

Full as in full to the brim. No more standing room unless you were to pack people in like sardine cans as they do in Japan.

Don't be so sure that the T4 will take over Erskineville and St Peters duties.
  bowralcommuter Chief Commissioner

Location: Asleep on a Manly Ferry
Full as in full to the brim. No more standing room unless you were to pack people in like sardine cans as they do in Japan.

Don't be so sure that the T4 will take over Erskineville and St Peters duties.
simstrain
Patronage has obviously increased significantly in the last 3 years. I used to regularly get off the ex-Goulburn at Macarthur and hop on the Macarthur-C'town-Glenfield-Holsworthy-Panania-Revesby-Beverly Hills-Sydenham-Redfern-City train. At Holsworthy it would only be 110% (120% at worst) capacity.
  Watson374 Chief Commissioner

Location: Fully reclined at the pointy end.
Full as in full to the brim. No more standing room unless you were to pack people in like sardine cans as they do in Japan.

Don't be so sure that the T4 will take over Erskineville and St Peters duties.
simstrain
  1. Extend my all-stations trains to Macarthur. Voilà!
  2. I'm sure they will. I'd even say that they should do so now, but that causes issues downstream with the faster services. (There are ways around this and I can propose a timetable to do this, if anyone on this forum besides me actually cares about the inner suburbs of Sydney.)
  tazzer96 Deputy Commissioner

One way you could make the expresses via sydenham better is to have them more of them and run some of them into sydney terminal.  Maybe also have them stop at erskenville and st peters.   Only problem is 16tph is pushing it due to the flat junction to get onto the illawarra mains from the locals.
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

Full as in full to the brim. No more standing room unless you were to pack people in like sardine cans as they do in Japan.

Don't be so sure that the T4 will take over Erskineville and St Peters duties.
  1. Extend my all-stations trains to Macarthur. Voilà!
  2. I'm sure they will. I'd even say that they should do so now, but that causes issues downstream with the faster services. (There are ways around this and I can propose a timetable to do this, if anyone on this forum besides me actually cares about the inner suburbs of Sydney.)
Watson374

I'm sure you could. But I am also sure that it would serve the inner suburbs so much and totally screw over those in the outer suburbs.
  Watson374 Chief Commissioner

Location: Fully reclined at the pointy end.
Full as in full to the brim. No more standing room unless you were to pack people in like sardine cans as they do in Japan.

Don't be so sure that the T4 will take over Erskineville and St Peters duties.
  1. Extend my all-stations trains to Macarthur. Voilà!
  2. I'm sure they will. I'd even say that they should do so now, but that causes issues downstream with the faster services. (There are ways around this and I can propose a timetable to do this, if anyone on this forum besides me actually cares about the inner suburbs of Sydney.)

I'm sure you could. But I am also sure that it would serve the inner suburbs so much and totally screw over those in the outer suburbs.
simstrain
I may care enough tomorrow to mock it up in a spreadsheet.

Meanwhile, yes — I shall try and see if I can cram in some expresses into Sydney Terminal.

Sponsored advertisement

Subscribers: Ashjayeen13, RTT_Rules, TomBTR

Display from:   

Quick Reply

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