I just discovered this T.D.U document, and it debunks six claims from the metro proponents. Imagine a train with one passenger per square metre of floor space, such as a 1 metre wide aisle and two seats per square metre to each side of the aisle.

I'm not sure it was actually his plan, but why let fact get in front of fiction now.

And why did the photographer bother going to Asia when you could take the same photos in Sydney 30 years ago and now more so.

Myrtone obviously doesn't understand that our trains are already like this because of the interlinking our network has. Our DD trains run at 3 minute intervals but during peak hour that can blow out to 4 minutes due to platform dwell time issues in the city circle. What we need are more train lines to complete the existing lines. It doesn't matter if they are single or double deck if we can get closer to getting more trains running.

If you look at Tripview during peak hour you will see trains running 1-2 minutes late regularly due to an extra minute or 2 at town hall and/or central. Getting on a train at Glenfield in morning peak hour looks like this metro shot. By getting the Bankstown line onto metro there will be double the amount of services on the east hills line to Campbelltown. There will be an extra 4 trains an hour north of Chatswood per hour.

Had the NWRL been DD and feeding into existing NSL

- two lines would merge at Epping, Northern and NW services,
- then merge again at Chatswood to achieve a frequency of 20-24 trains per hour according to Mytone this is doable.
- Not forgetting some of the NSL trains start from the Central Coast, 60km north, some from Berowra (+20km away) and others between Lindfield and Hornsby.
- all feeding into a single track starting from Chatswood and running all the way to Straithfield, over 30km away.

How the hell does anyone thing this would be reliable/functional????

The reality is that once the City Metro is built, we are more than likely to see people change at Chatswood onto the Metro for a faster ride.

The original plan was to built a second Harbour crossing as well as the Northwest rail link accessible to standard double decked rolling stock.

I have no issue what so ever with people standing for 20-30min, especially when the number of stops are few and far between.

I would have built the West Connex the same and similar to so many other transport related movements, ie bus trip around an airport going from one terminal to another etc etc and probably 25% of all Sydney peak commuters.

The issue is how tight should the cattle be packed to body to body is too much.

The original plan was to built a second Harbour crossing as well as the Northwest rail link accessible to standard double decked rolling stock.

The original now plan did not include a 2nd harbor crossing

The original plan was to built a second Harbour crossing as well as the Northwest rail link accessible to standard double decked rolling stock.

That is not true. The original plan was to run a tunnel from Epping using DD's to the north west. The new epping station p4 and 5 were built with 2 sets of tunnels on them for future use to Parramatta or the north west in addition to the current tunnels which head north to Hornsby.

Labor did have a metro plan that went underneath Victoria road but this was only ever smoke and mirrors from a government that was completely washed up by 2011.

Apparently, the Epping to Chatswood rail link was supposed to go all the way to Paramatta, but that part wasn't built. The fact is that the current Northwest rail link will lead to more passengers per square metre of floor space in each train carriage, with a higher portion of passengers standing than would have been the case under the original plan. If you want to get people out of their cars, and the buses on the nearby motorway, you don't make more passengers stand on the trains than on buses. You need comfortable trains. Making more passengers stand for longer than before is the problem here. Does anyone here have anything to say about this?

• FICTION The metro is being built to provide improved public transport to existing suburbs.
• FACT Metro would represent a dramatic deterioration in passenger comfort and capacity. Metro systems characteristically operate over short distances with stations typically less than a kilometre apart. Metro is not appropriate for Sydney with its long commuting distances.
• FICTION Hong Kong MTR is primarily a rail operator.
• FACT Hong Kong MTR is primarily a property developer. They have the development rights around every new station they build – a form of “value capture” to profit a private company. The Metro is part of a dirty deal to enable MTR to turn large tracts of Sydney’s suburbs into mini Hong Kongs.
• FICTION Only a metro can provide increased capacity and service frequency.
• FACT The existing Sydney double deck trains can, and do, run at 2-3 minute intervals through the CBD, in peak hour. The Paris RER system is progressively converting all of its lines to double-deck trains running at 2 minute intervals in the peaks to increase the capacity of the network.

Note the mention of little Hong Kong's.

Had a feeling who it was even before opening that stupid document.

Wouldn't take me much credibility of what he or that group says.

They are like two other certain groups, where they try to claim that happened because this was done, blah, blah, blah.

And then we get another lobby group about transport (& NO, not SOR - although going from some of their publications, they do similar) at what was a disguised political public meeting claiming that this North West Metro is being built to a different gauge! He got mixed up between gauge & loading gauge, and was actually off topic.

Another group (not SOR) at another political public meeting disguised as another transport meeting, claimed that the Port Melbourne & St Kilda tram lines are tram-train lines. Nor did they like being corrected about that.

And again, this group in that document is not reliable.

FICTION The metro is being built to provide improved public transport to existing suburbs.

Um excuse me, Mr Gateby, your group DOES support the North West Metro, but they said it should have been built as other rail lines, ie: that can take double decks.

FACT Metro would represent a dramatic deterioration in passenger comfort and capacity. Metro systems characteristically operate over short distances with stations typically less than a kilometre apart. Metro is not appropriate for Sydney with its long commuting distances.

Mr Gateby, my answers: Piccadilly Line to Heathrow Airport;
London's Underground Northern Line;
The longest lines on the said city's District Line;
And you could possibly include Melbourne's tram line to Greensborough, if you count that as a "metro service".

And a line of the Shanghai Metro when completed will be 62 km long: http://tinyurl.com/hpzz4na

Etc, etc & etc.

Mr Gateby, how about YOU getting your facts correct first?

Eco Transit leader: Prove that that document is correct.

• FICTION The metro is being built to provide improved public transport to existing suburbs.

Utter rubbish. Since when is building a greenfield railway degrading PT?

• FACT Metro would represent a dramatic deterioration in passenger comfort and capacity. Metro systems characteristically operate over short distances with stations typically less than a kilometre apart. Metro is not appropriate for Sydney with its long commuting distances.

Utter rubbish. There is no such definition as previously posted and should such a definition be used attempted it would be based on time and hence fits in with similar systems world wide.

• FICTION Hong Kong MTR is primarily a rail operator.

Utter Rubbish. Relevance to how the HK MTR is structured is irrelevant.

• FACT Hong Kong MTR is primarily a property developer. They have the development rights around every new station they build – a form of “value capture” to profit a private company. The Metro is part of a dirty deal to enable MTR to turn large tracts of Sydney’s suburbs into mini Hong Kongs.

Utter rubbish. HK does not provide social welfare on the same lines of Australia and has a much lower taxation base as a result and hence to fund such projects they use a different funding model. A similar approach as used by HK is also done by others.

To even think this will happen to Sydney is a sign of insanity, especially since the apartment sector is expected to be in over supply for years to come. HK is a island with very limited available land.

• FICTION Only a metro can provide increased capacity and service frequency.

Utter Rubbish. What has ben stated is that the Metro technology has greater capacity than the current DD technology because (Mytone and SERIOUSLY you need to THINK about your posts contradicting each other) the higher seating capacity on the DD chews up space and by default lowers the density of the train.

• FACT The existing Sydney double deck trains can, and do, run at 2-3 minute intervals through the CBD, in peak hour. The Paris RER system is progressively converting all of its lines to double-deck trains running at 2 minute intervals in the peaks to increase the capacity of the network.

Utter Rubbish, Sydney does not timetable 2min frequencies because it cannot. Yes there is some minor buffer they use for late running but to timetable this AS YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD MANY TIMES, is impractical. The locations the Paris RER runs 2 min are generally on wide open stations and they have more door density per passenger than Sydney trains. They do not run 2min frequencies for 30km!

Since when is building a greenfield railway degrading PT?
This is the only greenfield line even projected in New South Wales.

There is no such definition as previously posted and should such a definition be used attempted it would be based on time and hence fits in with similar systems world wide.
The rolling stock is smaller and lighter than suburban rolling stock, but larger and heavier than light rail.

What has ben stated is that the Metro technology has greater capacity than the current DD technology because the higher seating capacity on the DD chews up space and by default lowers the density of the train.
[Part in parenthesis not included]
But Sydney's double decker trains have about 40% more floor space, so more seats compared to an equivalent single decker does not lower capacity. How are we supposed to get people out of buses and cars with fewer seats? You need comfortable trains to do so for a long commute.

Since when is building a greenfield railway degrading PT?This is the only greenfield line even projected in New South Wales.

There is no such definition as previously posted and should such a definition be used attempted it would be based on time and hence fits in with similar systems world wide.
The rolling stock is smaller and lighter than suburban rolling stock, but larger and heavier than light rail.

What has ben stated is that the Metro technology has greater capacity than the current DD technology because the higher seating capacity on the DD chews up space and by default lowers the density of the train.
[Part in parenthesis not included]
But Sydney's double decker trains have about 40% more floor space, so more seats compared to an equivalent single decker does not lower capacity. How are we supposed to get people out of buses and cars with fewer seats? You need comfortable trains to do so for a long commute.

NSW has a number of greenfield rail based projects in the last 12 years.

Means nothing, times are changing, we no longer build rollingstock that is based on similar heavy design standards as freight trains.

I think you will find the packed capacity of the NWRL is more than DD and can unload faster.
Buses and cars have seats for different reasons that has nothing to do with rail.

Personally I care less what they build. However if it was a matter of extending the ECRL to the NW and adding 4 trains per hour to a not so busy NSL, yes it would make sense, however this is not the case and hence time to look at other options that deliver greater value to both taxpayers and users.

How are we supposed to get people out of buses and cars with fewer seats? You need comfortable trains to do so for a long commute.

I realise that I am tempting the Demons of Total Non-Comprehension, but I would like to highlight and object to Myrtone's suggestion that passengers need to be lured from buses and put on trains, because:

1. Buses are amazing. They serve many purposes that trains cannot, such as feeding trains, serving lower-density areas and providing door-to-door local service across the metropolitan area. They are heavily used by commuters in Sydney, far more than in Melbourne, because buses in Sydney actually do the job they are supposed to do, in spite of a horrendously flawed route network, broken fare system and utterly hideous infrastructure deficit. But if someone can take a train instead of a bus, nine times out of ten they will.
2. Buses are not cars. Another passenger on a bus is still another car not on the road.
3. Comfort is secondary. We're running commuter services, not Qantas International Business Class. We don't have to be cushy and comfortable — we just have to suck less than driving, and believe me, you can make driving suck a lot more.

I am now going to take my leave and curl up to binge-read Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, because there is no other coping method strong enough to help me after one of these threads.

I realise that I am tempting the Demons of Total Non-Comprehension, but I would like to highlight and object to Myrtone's suggestion that passengers need to be lured from buses and put on trains, because:

1. Buses are amazing. They serve many purposes that trains cannot, such as feeding trains, serving lower-density areas and providing door-to-door local service across the metropolitan area. They are heavily used by commuters in Sydney, far more than in Melbourne, because buses in Sydney actually do the job they are supposed to do, in spite of a horrendously flawed route network, broken fare system and utterly hideous infrastructure deficit. But if someone can take a train instead of a bus, nine times out of ten they will.
2. Buses are not cars. Another passenger on a bus is still another car not on the road.
3. Comfort is secondary. We're running commuter services, not Qantas International Business Class. We don't have to be cushy and comfortable — we just have to suck less than driving, and believe me, you can make driving suck a lot more.

Isn't getting people off the roads the point of building this rail link?

1. There are no trams in suburban Sydney.
2. Buses share the road with cars, and like cars are manually steered.
3. Don't reduce comfort if you want to get more people on mass transit. If you currently have two passengers per square metre. You may be running a commuter service and not a business class plane, but if getting people onto trains and out of cars, don't make the passengers stand if they would get a seat on a bus, same for the people you get out of their cars. Don't make more passengers stand than before.

Isn't getting people off the roads the point of building this rail link?

Yes and no.

I've held the view for some time that the NWRL is pointless because trying to serve such a spread-out swathe of suburbia like the Hills District is damn near impossible, which led me some years ago to conclude the best course of action was to put everyone on conveniently frequent and direct Hillsbus services to an Epping interchange, from which they could proceed into the City on trains via both possible routes (that is, via Eastwood and via Chatswood), distributing the load.

This is much cheaper and just as effective for weekday commuting purposes; for weekends, it works even better when you take into account that there is no real reason to leave the Hills on the weekend if you live there.

There are no trams in suburban Sydney.

Yes and no.

They're being brought back, which is pointless because based on current propaganda, the trams to Kingsford and Randwick will be slower than and just as crowded as the current State Transit buses plying Anzac Pde and Alison Rd.

Buses share the road with cars, and like cars are manually steered.

What's that got to do with anything?

Don't reduce comfort if you want to get more people on mass transit. If you currently have two passengers per square metre. You may be running a commuter service and not a business class plane, but if getting people onto trains and out of cars, don't make the passengers stand if they would get a seat on a bus, same for the people you get out of their cars. Don't make more passengers stand than before.

Mate, I seriously need to know what you've been taking, because it's definitely got you properly cooked.

I'm going to point out that four passengers per square metre is a perfectly acceptable standing density, and that standing is actually not that bad, even on a bus — standing can be quite pleasant on morning X9* and X7* buses that use the Eastern Distributor — and will now retreat back to my literature in order to recover from my latest dose of Myrtone's radiation.

3. Don't reduce comfort if you want to get more people on mass transit. If you currently have two passengers per square metre. You may be running a commuter service and not a business class plane, but if getting people onto trains and out of cars, don't make the passengers stand if they would get a seat on a bus, same for the people you get out of their cars. Don't make more passengers stand than before.

Denial denial denial.

How many times have you been told the trains are full now and they do not have an issue. No commuter service in the world is suffering people have to stand for 30min.

When we have trains with full seating and few standing running parrellel to congested roads then you will be correct.

1. There are no trams in suburban Sydney.

And what do you think goes to Dulwich Hill via Pyrmont since early 2014, and Wentworth Park since 1997 & Lilyfield since 2000?

12. Buses share the road with cars, and like cars are manually steered.

Mostly, but what about the T80 & other "T" named routes in Sydney, & Adelaide's O Bahn?

3. Don't reduce comfort if you want to get more people on mass transit.

Longer distance trains such as interurban trains need to have comfort considered.

They're being brought back, which is pointless because based on current propaganda, the trams to Kingsford and Randwick will be slower than and just as crowded as the current State Transit buses plying Anzac Pde and Alison Rd.

Only one line in the southeast.

I'm going to point out that four passengers per square metre is a perfectly acceptable standing density, and that standing is actually not that bad, even on a bus — standing can be quite pleasant on morning X9* and X7* buses that use the Eastern Distributor — and will now retreat back to my literature in order to recover from my latest dose of Myrtone's radiation.

Imposing four passengers per square metre for a long commute where previous passenger density was less is going to seem pretty steamy. Sydney commuters seem to be used to more floor space and more seats.

How many times have you been told the trains are full now and they do not have an issue. No commuter service in the world is suffering people have to stand for 30min.

If the trains are full now, there is a good case against reducing floor space, and maintaining capacity per train. We all remember that you are in Dubai, and the criticisms I mention, being in that brochure, are from those in the same metropolis where this is happening.

And what do you think goes to Dulwich Hill via Pyrmont since early 2014, and Wentworth Park since 1997 & Lilyfield since 2000?

But not street running. It follows a former freight railway.

Longer distance trains such as interurban trains need to have comfort considered.

If suburban trains 80 years ago had it considered and we want to get people out of their cars, why not today?

I am no longer able to process the output of the monsoon drain that is Myrtone. I urgently require a large shipment of wine (preferably moscato) to be delivered to my residence as soon as humanly possible to prevent my brain and other essential organs from shutting down permanently from this damage. Please PM ASAP. #prayforwatson374

The original scheme for the NWRL was for the line to connect with the Northern Line between Cheltenham and Beecroft and quadruplicate the Northern Line to Epping.  This would have allowed for services to the Sydney CBD to be split between the Northern Line via Eastwood/Strathfield and the ECRL via the North Shore Line.  A long term plan for a second harbour crossing had always been on the agenda as part of the existing network.

However, after community consultation, the Cheltenham/Beecroft NIMBYS knocked it on the head and strangely the then Labor Government withdrew that link and subsequently flirted with the North West Metro concept along the Victoria Rd corridor with a direct tunnel from Cherrybrook to Epping.  It did not connect with the ECRL, but instead proposed a new underground station at Epping on the opposite side of Beecroft Rd.  In the dying days of the Labor Government, they switched back to the original heavy rail scheme but with a direct tunnel connection to the ECRL via the stub tunnels which were built for a future extension to Parramatta.  Interestingly, they had also proposed that the option of the original direct connection with the Northern Line to the north of Epping be brought back onto the agenda.  This would have allowed for an additional shallower station at West Pennant Hills.  But alas, it went no further as they were turfed out of office 6 months later.

The Liberals upon gaining power conducted a community consultation process for the NWRL as part of the existing DD network, but with the direct tunnel connection to the ECRL.  However, without any consultation, that mysteriously morphed into a segregated rapid transit/metro system after Infrastructure Australia refused to transfer funding promised by the Gillard Government for the Parramatta to Epping Rail Link during the prior Federal Election campaign.  The metro proposal is now a reality and only time will tell through public response if this was the right decision

Had the NWRL been DD and feeding into existing NSL

- two lines would merge at Epping, Northern and NW services,
- then merge again at Chatswood to achieve a frequency of 20-24 trains per hour according to Mytone this is doable.
- Not forgetting some of the NSL trains start from the Central Coast, 60km north, some from Berowra (+20km away) and others between Lindfield and Hornsby.
- all feeding into a single track starting from Chatswood and running all the way to Straithfield, over 30km away.

How the hell does anyone thing this would be reliable/functional????

As a strong proponent in the belief that that should have happened and would have been in the city's best interests, I will respond.

No more merging at Epping, I would have advocated the NWRL maintain separation to the Northern Line at Epping.

Based on my experience, I have gradually come to the consideration that in the morning peak, there probably should not be any direct services between Central Coast and the North Shore. It causes too many issues operationally and is against the mantra of 'Rail Clearways' and untangling the network.

You mention the single track between Chatswood and 'Strathfield', the second harbour rail crossing and CBD Relief line would have provided duplication to enable more functional running. While the original Shore line between Chatswood and Redfern would have operationally remained the 'main' line with a higher proportion of services, the CBD Relief would have the spare capacity to enable it to have been used as an Option B, operationally, in case anything were to block normal running on the Shore as happens not infrequently.

Only one line in the southeast.

Imposing four passengers per square metre for a long commute where previous passenger density was less is going to seem pretty steamy. Sydney commuters seem to be used to more floor space and more seats.


If the trains are full now, there is a good case against reducing floor space, and maintaining capacity per train. We all remember that you are in Dubai, and the criticisms I mention, being in that brochure, are from those in the same metropolis where this is happening.

But not street running. It follows a former freight railway.


If suburban trains 80 years ago had it considered and we want to get people out of their cars, why not today?

Actually SW with SE line under construction

We are not talking long commute, we are talking 15min from Chatswood, or 15-20min tops from NWRL to average destination.

That comment makes no sense what so ever

Its still called LR

You have been told time and time again, Sydney trains does not have an issue in getting people out of Cars. This is not a road block to filing trains. 80 years ago there was no bloody cars to compete with, only the very wealthy could afford them and they were unreliable.

As a strong proponent in the belief that that should have happened and would have been in the city's best interests, I will respond.

No more merging at Epping, I would have advocated the NWRL maintain separation to the Northern Line at Epping.

Based on my experience, I have gradually come to the consideration that in the morning peak, there probably should not be any direct services between Central Coast and the North Shore. It causes too many issues operationally and is against the mantra of 'Rail Clearways' and untangling the network.

You mention the single track between Chatswood and 'Strathfield', the second harbour rail crossing and CBD Relief line would have provided duplication to enable more functional running. While the original Shore line between Chatswood and Redfern would have operationally remained the 'main' line with a higher proportion of services, the CBD Relief would have the spare capacity to enable it to have been used as an Option B, operationally, in case anything were to block normal running on the Shore as happens not infrequently.

As I have said before, I actually care less on what they use, DD or SD automation.

However a few points
- Running Central Coast to city via Nth Shore Line was introduced in the 80's to save people travel time to the popular lower North Shore. If the numbers stack up this is still the right thing to do, then so be it but I see your point.

- The concept of a "relief line" in commuter networks is a misnomer. It is only a relief while population growth catches up and then you are back to the clearways and more worldly concept of A-B on Track 1, C-D on Track 2 and never the twain shall meet. If you assume the NSL is at capacity now and all the growth is on the new connection, it maybe 20 years before the option of changing tracks due to a issue is gone and certainly long before then limited connectivity.

If the ECRL was connected drectly to the city as per the City Metro, there is would be no connection from the NSL to the new route anyway, would they build it it was DD? Maybe? Maybe not? likely the line would have Quaded Chatswood to St Lenards on the surface, maybe? the Metro could do this, but they are keeping in UG at significant cost so this must be cheaper. We will never know.

Overall my issue and focus is this.
- Sydney trains are known to be costly to buy, costly to operate and costly to maintain.

- The operating subsidy is 65% and by world standards this is very poor and will always limit the network expansion to what the state can afford. One senior NSW pollie said in last 10 years, NSW can only afford one moderate network expansion per decade and they are decades behind. So something needs to change and the obvious one is cost of building and operating.

- Within the inner half of Sydney, there is zero surface running options for Greeenfield lines and many of the current ones are slow to very slow due to poor alignment. Hence the future is underground.

- Sydney has a poor history in building network expansion especially underground within budget

- NSW ALP in govt switched to the NW Metro project for a reason and the reason was cost. If they line was going to be 100% underground, then we need to look at all options. You can throw the union issue into the pile as well, but if the union issue results in more cost, then its an issue.

- The bulk of the NWRL and City metro to Liverpool is U/G and hence we need to keep an open mind.
Does it have to be DD?
Does it have to be an extension of the existing network?
If we reclaim parts of the existing network are we amputating a limb?

and most importantly
Are there are alternatives that will save significant costs from the taxpayer over 40 years of operation from the first shovel to the retirement of Generation 1 trains and enable a subsidy below 50%?

If the answer is yes, then the Metro is the right outcome, if not it should have been done as DD.

All the crap by Mytone and others on standing room and distance, don't like a computer doing a mans job etc etc is nothing if the costs to the taxpayer are overall lower and yet the line is still well populated and for that we will see when it opens. Most commuters only want basic things from PT, clean, reliable, affordable and safe. Seats are rarely mentioned.

They're being brought back, which is pointless because based on current propaganda, the trams to Kingsford and Randwick will be slower than and just as crowded as the current State Transit buses plying Anzac Pde and Alison Rd.

Only one line in the southeast.

It's two branches, but named as one line.

And what do you think goes to Dulwich Hill via Pyrmont since early 2014, and Wentworth Park since 1997 & Lilyfield since 2000?

But not street running. It follows a former freight railway.

Yet again, you are wrong. It runs IN (as on "the road") Hay St. Please check next time.