Are Australian cities really implementing a metro system?

 
  Myrtone Chief Commissioner

Location: North Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria
There is more to designing a commuter railway line and its capacity than a specific train design. Why not use the Indian Profile, its 6 seats across with arm rests?
RTT_Rules

I don't know the answer to your question but I wish the Indian profile were more common.

Let me tell you something, catering for bikes is optional, catering for wheel chairs is a legal requirement and community expectation.
RTT_Rules

I know about those requirements, but my point is that there is a strong case for catering for bicycles, especially on heavy suburban rail with its wide station spacings:

*Wheelchairs must be accomodated and bicycles take up less space than wheelchairs
*Bicycle accomdation on trains means that people can bike to and from stations instead of walking, a great advantage on a line with widely spaced stations.

Nothing to do with size of train meaning there is space for bikes, its loading capacity. of the trains and even Sydney's high density loading would have no room on many services for bikes or if you tried you'd pi$$ alot of people off doing so and add to the dwell time. Fortunately Sydney has yet to have enough problems yet that will require the govt to ban them at certain times.
RTT_Rules

What is "loading capacity"? And what problems?

Longer trains would be nice, but on existing tunnel lines its difficult to implement once built and rarely is as a result. Surface and viaduct is much more viable for extension.
RTT_Rules

Is it true that no underground platforms have ever been lengthened?


Quad track on south Line
Hex track on western then Quad
Quad on north (partial)
Rest are mostly double track
RTT_Rules

The south and western lines are the two in the inner southern suburbs. And express trains sharing tracks with all stations trains is also not the sort of thing Dr. Bradfield would have proposed.

DD are being deployed in a very narrow part of the world and Luxembourg is basically a regional station stop for a line from Germany so I wouldn't count it (yes I've been there, I parked at the station). And again dear Mytone, the bulk of what you quoted is regional or outer suburban lines which no one has ever argued against. The rest of the RP forum is talking about inner suburban commuter, mostly underground. One day I hope you actually travel and learn the difference.
RTT_Rules

What is this "narrow part of the world"? Indeed, most heavy rail networks with a large enough loading gauge for double decker trains are indeed regional and outer suburban.
Double decker trains are also being increasingly deployed in North America, again on the busiest systems that can covert.
Any rail operator sticking to single decker trains either doesn't have enough passenger traffic to justify double deckers, a too small loading gauge, or both.

DD stock is far more specific in design than SD and modern SD design was more closely unified than DD. Sydney is already a DD stock island in the DD world.  Each batch is designed for only Sydney and basically would need to be rebuilt from ground up to be used in EU due to different loading gauge, length, min curve radius width, platform height etc etc. There will always be something. Sydney is already unqie being only 20m in car length.
RTT_Rules

The Syndey double decker trains are the only ones built by EDI rail, the rest are from different suppliers. Single decker trains built for New South Wales also came from local suppliers such as Tulloch, and they were also unique to New South Wales.
Differences in maximum length and maximum width and differences in platform height and in minimum curve radius also affect single decker trains. If European double deckers would be too long for Sydney suburban, than so would single deckers of the same length.
Even Melbourne single deckers, fitted with standard gauge bogies, would not be able to run in Sydney.

Sponsored advertisement

  mejhammers1 Assistant Commissioner

Unlike London, all of Sydney's suburban lines now traverse the CBD, so there is virtually no need for any further cross city connections from the outer suburbs.  However, that doesn't mean to say that future track amplification wouldn't be required on existing lines to meet the increased patronage demand for future suburban extensions, such as a link to Badgerys Creek Airport.  The only CBD extensions I would make for the existing network is for an express tunnel from Granville to Barangaroo to augment the Western Line and diversion of the Airport Line from the City Circle to a new terminus (St James perhaps).  All other new inner city lines should be part of a segregated automated metro system.
Metro was developed for cities like London, these didn't have mainline railways traversing the historic core, and London still doesn't. Sydney differs from many other global cities in a number of ways:
*Late development with surface rail serving the busiest parts of the city right from the beginning. The suburban railways were electrified before there was a need for underground railways, first through the C.B.D and later out to the Eastern suburbs. This early electification meant that the existing network could be extended underground instead a separate third-rail electric network being started. This was due to the intervention of Dr. Bradfield.
*Generous loading gauge which meant larger trains with more seats and a larger luggage size limit. Again, Dr. Bradfield fought for this before double decker trains.
The Hong Kong MTR luggage size limit is such that a student got into trouble simply for carrying his cello on a train. Larger train size allows means that trains could be fitted with bike racks so that bicycles can be carried onto trains mean that many commuters can cycle to and from stations instead of walking, a great advantage with wide station spacing. A double decker train with bicycle racks may still have higher capacity than a "cattle class" single decker without them.
Myrtone
"Metro was developed for cities like London, these didn't have mainline railways traversing the historic core, and London still doesn't. Sydney differs from many other global cities in a number of ways:"

Thameslink does and Crossrail will from 2019 traverse the historic core.

The metro suburban divide is where one network has smaller trains  with stops every kilometre or so and another network in the same city has larger trains stopping further apart.

As regards to London that simply isn't true. Network Rail franchises in the London area operate both all stopping Inner Suburban services and express services which serve Major stops within the London area such as East Croydon, Stratford and Bromley South and satellite towns further out.

These are cases where the metro is largely confined to the old part of the city, and came before suburban rail, or at least before it was electrified.
For example, there is the London Tube North of the Thames, which was already built up by the time of the coming of the railways.

No, many Overground and suburban railways as regards to London came before the London Underground. Most of the tube network is North of the Thames because of 1. The difficult geology in digging tunnels south of the river and 2. South London had already an extensive suburban rail network.

Michael


  RTT_Rules The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: Dubai UAE
Unlike London, all of Sydney's suburban lines now traverse the CBD, so there is virtually no need for any further cross city connections from the outer suburbs.  However, that doesn't mean to say that future track amplification wouldn't be required on existing lines to meet the increased patronage demand for future suburban extensions, such as a link to Badgerys Creek Airport.  The only CBD extensions I would make for the existing network is for an express tunnel from Granville to Barangaroo to augment the Western Line and diversion of the Airport Line from the City Circle to a new terminus (St James perhaps).  All other new inner city lines should be part of a segregated automated metro system.
Metro was developed for cities like London, these didn't have mainline railways traversing the historic core, and London still doesn't. Sydney differs from many other global cities in a number of ways:
*Late development with surface rail serving the busiest parts of the city right from the beginning. The suburban railways were electrified before there was a need for underground railways, first through the C.B.D and later out to the Eastern suburbs. This early electification meant that the existing network could be extended underground instead a separate third-rail electric network being started. This was due to the intervention of Dr. Bradfield.
*Generous loading gauge which meant larger trains with more seats and a larger luggage size limit. Again, Dr. Bradfield fought for this before double decker trains.
The Hong Kong MTR luggage size limit is such that a student got into trouble simply for carrying his cello on a train. Larger train size allows means that trains could be fitted with bike racks so that bicycles can be carried onto trains mean that many commuters can cycle to and from stations instead of walking, a great advantage with wide station spacing. A double decker train with bicycle racks may still have higher capacity than a "cattle class" single decker without them.
"Metro was developed for cities like London, these didn't have mainline railways traversing the historic core, and London still doesn't. Sydney differs from many other global cities in a number of ways:"

Thameslink does and Crossrail will from 2019 traverse the historic core.

The metro suburban divide is where one network has smaller trains  with stops every kilometre or so and another network in the same city has larger trains stopping further apart.

As regards to London that simply isn't true. Network Rail franchises in the London area operate both all stopping Inner Suburban services and express services which serve Major stops within the London area such as East Croydon, Stratford and Bromley South and satellite towns further out.

These are cases where the metro is largely confined to the old part of the city, and came before suburban rail, or at least before it was electrified.
For example, there is the London Tube North of the Thames, which was already built up by the time of the coming of the railways.

No, many Overground and suburban railways as regards to London came before the London Underground. Most of the tube network is North of the Thames because of 1. The difficult geology in digging tunnels south of the river and 2. South London had already an extensive suburban rail network.

Michael


mejhammers1
As I said before to Mytone, "The metro suburban divide is where one network has smaller trains  with stops every kilometre or so and another network in the same city has larger trains stopping further apart."

Is basically figment of Mytone's imagination desperately trying to pigeon a very select number of locations and technologies to try and prove a point.

In the real world rail expansion is dependent  
1) Money available
2) Political direction
3) existing technology is considered but typically only followed when connected directly with existing network, with time this is becoming less and often ignored completely of the line being built will operate stand-alone.
4) Geology
5) Terrain
6) Population density
7) Time frame available
8) Existing structures, both above and below ground.
9) Reserved corridors
10) Need to cater for other services

In the case of underground inner urban/city expansion, frequently these are new stand alone lines because existing corridors are at or near capacity or do not offer sufficient spare capacity or non-compatible infrastructure for the proposed service. Major UG projects are 99.9% always Single Decker for blatantly obvious reasons that Mytone cannot comprehend for some ungodly reason. Underground based services using modern automated SD trains are well documented to deliver more passengers per hour faster and cheaper in both OPEX and CAPEX than anything with two decks available on the market today.

For nearly 100 years Sydney expanded services to the city and through the city on the back of spare capacity in the city tunnels with the exception of ESR. This is now full and hence the current future growth must be in a tunnel nearly 25km long that upon opening will reach likely 50% of capacity within 1 year. Gone are the days it takes generations to fill a line capacity. There are still numerous holes in the inner half of the Sydney population and these holes will be filled by the same approach and Mytone rather than argue the point that 100's of millions or people use every day and the fastest growing mode of transport world wide, maybe put more effort into trying to understand.

Meanwhile expansion of Greater Sydney will continue to be DD, again for obvious reasons.
  Myrtone Chief Commissioner

Location: North Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria
Thameslink does and Crossrail will from 2019 traverse the historic core.

But it doesn't yet. And it didn't exist when any of the Tube lines were built.

As regards to London that simply isn't true. Network Rail franchises in the London area operate both all stopping Inner Suburban services and express services which serve Major stops within the London area such as East Croydon, Stratford and Bromley South and satellite towns further out.

Again, the Tube and the Overground are separate networks in the same city, Tube trains are smaller and stop more frequently, this is the divide.

No, many Overground and suburban railways as regards to London came before the London Underground. Most of the tube network is North of the Thames because of 1. The difficult geology in digging tunnels south of the river and 2. South London had already an extensive suburban rail network.
mejhammers1

Do you realise that the tube network dates back to the 19th century? Surely the Overground suburban services are newer than that. The railways may have been there but the services would have been regional.

As I said before to Mytone, "The metro suburban divide is where one network has smaller trains  with stops every kilometre or so and another network in the same city has larger trains stopping further apart."

Is basically figment of Mytone's imagination desperately trying to pigeon a very select number of locations and technologies to try and prove a point.
RTT_Rules

As noted above, many older cities do have metro and suburban rail on separate networks. This is the divide. It is even mentioned in page 15 of 1855 revisted.

In the case of underground inner urban/city expansion, frequently these are new stand alone lines because existing corridors are at or near capacity or do not offer sufficient spare capacity or non-compatible infrastructure for the proposed service. Major UG projects are 99.9% always Single Decker for blatantly obvious reasons that Mytone cannot comprehend for some ungodly reason. Underground based services using modern automated SD trains are well documented to deliver more passengers per hour faster and cheaper in both OPEX and CAPEX than anything with two decks available on the market today.
RTT_Rules

All regional and suburban rail networks are mostly surface, some have double decked rolling stock, most have single decked rolling stock.
Major underground projects, so far, have been metro style rail, mostly in older cities, and metro style rail that is mostly elevated is also single decker.

For nearly 100 years Sydney expanded services to the city and through the city on the back of spare capacity in the city tunnels with the exception of ESR. This is now full and hence the current future growth must be in a tunnel nearly 25km long that upon opening will reach likely 50% of capacity within 1 year. Gone are the days it takes generations to fill a line capacity. There are still numerous holes in the inner half of the Sydney population and these holes will be filled by the same approach and Mytone rather than argue the point that 100's of millions or people use every day and the fastest growing mode of transport world wide, maybe put more effort into trying to understand.
RTT_Rules

I don't get most of this. Same approach as what? The services expanded through the city are suburban services, not metro style rail. It seems really incoherent.

Meanwhile expansion of Greater Sydney will continue to be DD, again for obvious reasons.
RTT_Rules

The North West Rail link is an example of expansion in greater Sydney that is single decked, and I believe these are smaller single decker trains than ran in Sydney as late as the 1990s.
  mejhammers1 Assistant Commissioner

Thameslink does and Crossrail will from 2019 traverse the historic core.

But it doesn't yet. And it didn't exist when any of the Tube lines were built.

As regards to London that simply isn't true. Network Rail franchises in the London area operate both all stopping Inner Suburban services and express services which serve Major stops within the London area such as East Croydon, Stratford and Bromley South and satellite towns further out.

Again, the Tube and the Overground are separate networks in the same city, Tube trains are smaller and stop more frequently, this is the divide.

No, many Overground and suburban railways as regards to London came before the London Underground. Most of the tube network is North of the Thames because of 1. The difficult geology in digging tunnels south of the river and 2. South London had already an extensive suburban rail network.

Do you realise that the tube network dates back to the 19th century? Surely the Overground suburban services are newer than that. The railways may have been there but the services would have been regional.

As I said before to Mytone, "The metro suburban divide is where one network has smaller trains  with stops every kilometre or so and another network in the same city has larger trains stopping further apart."

Is basically figment of Mytone's imagination desperately trying to pigeon a very select number of locations and technologies to try and prove a point.

As noted above, many older cities do have metro and suburban rail on separate networks. This is the divide. It is even mentioned in page 15 of 1855 revisted.

In the case of underground inner urban/city expansion, frequently these are new stand alone lines because existing corridors are at or near capacity or do not offer sufficient spare capacity or non-compatible infrastructure for the proposed service. Major UG projects are 99.9% always Single Decker for blatantly obvious reasons that Mytone cannot comprehend for some ungodly reason. Underground based services using modern automated SD trains are well documented to deliver more passengers per hour faster and cheaper in both OPEX and CAPEX than anything with two decks available on the market today.

All regional and suburban rail networks and mostly surface, some have double decked rolling stock, most have single decked rolling stock.
Major underground projects, so far, have been metro style rail, mostly in older cities, and metro style rail that is mostly elevated is also single decker.

For nearly 100 years Sydney expanded services to the city and through the city on the back of spare capacity in the city tunnels with the exception of ESR. This is now full and hence the current future growth must be in a tunnel nearly 25km long that upon opening will reach likely 50% of capacity within 1 year. Gone are the days it takes generations to fill a line capacity. There are still numerous holes in the inner half of the Sydney population and these holes will be filled by the same approach and Mytone rather than argue the point that 100's of millions or people use every day and the fastest growing mode of transport world wide, maybe put more effort into trying to understand.

I don't get most of this. Same approach as what? The services expanded through the city are suburban services, not metro style rail. It seems really incoherent.

Meanwhile expansion of Greater Sydney will continue to be DD, again for obvious reasons.

The North West Rail link is an example of expansion in greater Sydney that is single decked, and I believe these are smaller single decker trains than ran in Sydney as late as the 1990s.
Myrtone
Myrtone. A lot of the London Overground which was British Rail pre dates the Underground. For e.g the West London Line was built in 1844, 20 years before the first London Underground line was constructed. The London and Greeenwich Railway was built in 1836. The Eastern Counties Railway between Stratford and North Woolwich in 1846. Need I go on. The first deep level tube was not built until 1890 and all of the deep level tube lines bar which is now the Northern line were built in the 20th Century.

Do you Understand what the Tube is Myrtone? The tube has both deep level smaller trains and larger Sub Surface stock. They both on 95$ of occasions stop at all stations. And the Network Rail and Overground services also serve inner city stations and stop frequently. The divide between the Tube and NR and Overground networks apart from the Tube being self contained does not exist in London. If that were true than many places in London South of the Thames and Boroughs like Hackney simply would not be served be rail.

Myrtone you said that no Suburban Rail traverses London now. Thameslink has done since 1988 and Crossrail will from 2019. and Crossrail will stop at all Stations, whilst Thameslink will have a mixture of expresses and trains stopping at all stations.

Michael
  Myrtone Chief Commissioner

Location: North Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria
A lot of the London Overground which was British Rail pre dates the Underground. For e.g the West London Line was built in 1844, 20 years before the first London Underground line was constructed. The London and Greeenwich Railway was built in 1836. The Eastern Counties Railway between Stratford and North Woolwich in 1846. Need I go on. The first deep level tube was not built until 1890 and all of the deep level tube lines bar which is now the Northern line were built in the 20th Century.
mejhammers1

But surely it was British Rail at the time the underground was built. Didn't suburban services begin later? Also, all tube lines pre-date the first world war, except for the Jubilee line, which came after the second one.

The tube has both deep level smaller trains and larger Sub Surface stock. They both on 95$ of occasions stop at all stations. And the Network Rail and Overground services also serve inner city stations and stop frequently. The divide between the Tube and NR and Overground networks apart from the Tube being self contained does not exist in London. If that were true than many places in London South of the Thames and Boroughs like Hackney simply would not be served be rail.
mejhammers1

Both the deep level trains and the Sub-Surface stock are on a separate network to even larger overground trains.

The tube was built at a time when surface trains were steam hauled and North London was already heavily developed. North London had no room for surface rail and steam trains could not run underground. I know that the world's first underground railway opened in London and it did use steam trains, but still, all other tube lines were electric from the beginning.

...you said that no Suburban Rail traverses London now. Thameslink has done since 1988 and Crossrail will from 2019. and Crossrail will stop at all Stations, whilst Thameslink will have a mixture of expresses and trains stopping at all stations.
mejhammers1

I think I have heard of a Thameslink light rail, but not the Thameslink heavy rail. And the Crossrail, as I said, doesn't yet traverse London. Even Thameslink didn't yet exist when any of the Tube lines were built.

Glasgow is a British city which does have heavy suburban rail right into a through its busiest parts, and does have surface rail even in the inner city, and even a central station.

The only tube-style rail in Glasgow is a single circular line that runs under the River Clyde twice, and appears to be in the part of Glasgow must heavily developed as of when it was built. Built in 1986, it has never been extended. Glasgow appers to have never needed more tube style rail because the busiest parts of the city could be served by mainline style rail right from the coming of the railways.

Bringing things closer to home, in no Australian city other than Sydney is a metro separate from the existing suburban rail network even being faintly considered.
  railblogger Chief Commissioner

Location: At the back of the train, quitely doing exactly what you'd expect.
@Myrtone There is no Thameslink light rail. It is a heavy rail service that runs north-south through London using a tunnel from St. Pancras to Blackfriars.
  mejhammers1 Assistant Commissioner

A lot of the London Overground which was British Rail pre dates the Underground. For e.g the West London Line was built in 1844, 20 years before the first London Underground line was constructed. The London and Greeenwich Railway was built in 1836. The Eastern Counties Railway between Stratford and North Woolwich in 1846. Need I go on. The first deep level tube was not built until 1890 and all of the deep level tube lines bar which is now the Northern line were built in the 20th Century.

But surely it was British Rail at the time the underground was built. Didn't suburban services begin later? Also, all tube lines pre-date the first world war, except for the Jubilee line, which came after the second one.

The tube has both deep level smaller trains and larger Sub Surface stock. They both on 95$ of occasions stop at all stations. And the Network Rail and Overground services also serve inner city stations and stop frequently. The divide between the Tube and NR and Overground networks apart from the Tube being self contained does not exist in London. If that were true than many places in London South of the Thames and Boroughs like Hackney simply would not be served be rail.

Both the deep level trains and the Sub-Surface stock are on a separate network to even larger overground trains.

The tube was built at a time when surface trains were steam hauled and North London was already heavily developed. North London had no room for surface rail and steam trains could not run underground. I know that the world's first underground railway opened in London and it did use steam trains, but still, all other tube lines were electric from the beginning.

...you said that no Suburban Rail traverses London now. Thameslink has done since 1988 and Crossrail will from 2019. and Crossrail will stop at all Stations, whilst Thameslink will have a mixture of expresses and trains stopping at all stations.

I think I have heard of a Thameslink light rail, but not the Thameslink heavy rail. And the Crossrail, as I said, doesn't yet traverse London. Even Thameslink didn't yet exist when any of the Tube lines were built.

Glasgow is a British city which does have heavy suburban rail right into a through its busiest parts, and does have surface rail even in the inner city, and even a central station.

The only tube-style rail in Glasgow is a single circular line that runs under the River Clyde twice, and appears to be in the part of Glasgow must heavily developed as of when it was built. Built in 1986, it has never been extended. Glasgow appers to have never needed more tube style rail because the busiest parts of the city could be served by mainline style rail right from the coming of the railways.

Bringing things closer to home, in no Australian city other than Sydney is a metro separate from the existing suburban rail network even being faintly considered.
Myrtone
Myrtone. That patch of Railway which links North and South London (Snow Hill Tunnel) opened in 1866. Was closed in 1916 and was reopened in 1988 to form Thameslink. It has since been moved to a different alignment.

The Lea Valley Line network from Liverpool Street was started in 1840 and completed in 1891. The London Tilbury and Southend railway was completed in 1886 having started in 1852. A lot of the suburban network North of the Thames predates the Tube.

The Victoria line was not built until 1968! The extension to Brixton not until 1971. The First Stage of the Jubilee Line was between Baker Street and Charing Cross was not built until 1979. From Baker Street to Stanmore, the line was simply transferred from the Bakerloo. Indeed a lot of the current "Tube" were transfers from the suburban rail network, e.g Leyton to Epping on the Central line.

Thameslink is heavy rail, I do not know where you got light rail from. Maybe you are mixing it up with the Docklands Light Railway.

Both the deep level trains and the Sub-Surface stock are on a separate network to even larger overground trains.

Parts of the Tube shares track with National Rail and Overground. Between Gunnersbury and Richmond on the District Line. Between Harrow on the Hill and Amersham on the Metropolitan and between Queens Park and Harrow and Wealdstone on the Bakerloo.

Michael
  Myrtone Chief Commissioner

Location: North Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria
Here is what London, Paris and many other European cities faced when the railways came:
There was no room for surface rail into, let alone through, their historic cores and the trains of the time were steam hauled and could not run underground. So trains serving them terminated on the edge of the cities.
There was therefore a need for transport between the stations and the buisest parts of these cities. When electric traction became viable, the solution was to run electric trains under the historic core, in London, Budapest and later Paris.
But the surface railways weren't yet electrified so these had to be separate from the regional railways and (on mainland Europe) international ones. This is the problem that metro style rail was designed to solve.

The separation of underground and overland trains limited trips on the underground trains to something like 10km, and so these underground lines have stations every kilometre or so, and most peak period passengers could stand.
And metro trains would have run frequently right from the beginning.

All Australian cities had surface rail serving the busiest parts right from the beginning and so were able to avoid the problem that metro style rail was designed to solve. Heavy development mostly came later. Centres of cities like Melboure and Syndey did develop a lot early on.
There was no railway through Sydney central until the 1930s when the Harbour bridge was built, when a railway was built through the centre and on the west side of the bridge, being underground between it and Central station.
Then there was the underground City Circle between Central station and Circular Quay, also underground and in the heavily developed centre. And then the Eastern Suburbs railway, serving the heavily developed inner east. The Sydeny suburban was electrifed by the time any of these were built and so these could simply be underground extensions of the existing network.

Neither Melbourne nor Sydney are or ever will be where many European cities were in the 19th century because they have heavy suburban rail serving the busiest parts. Some inner suburbs are served by surface rail too, like Kesnington (VIC), North Melbourne, Collingwood, Jolimont, Richmond, Burnley, Redfern and North Sydney.
There are others not currently served by heavy rail such as Parkville, Carlton, Fitzroy, South Melbourne, Bondi and Randwick.
In Melbourne, there is a North-South underground railway under construction which will serve Parkville and South Melbourne, on the eastern edge of the latter.
It may be a long tunnel but it will be used by our suburban trains, not smaller metro trains like those in London, Paris, Berlin and Budapest.
Other inner suburbs listed not served by heavy rail could be served by underground extensions of the existing network.

Sponsored advertisement

Display from: