Back to basics Mytone
Govt had two options1) DD line doing similar in track as now.
Starting from NW and running to Bankstown. However this would have included Hornsby via Epping and running to Liverpool and Lidcombe.
There would have been no mixing with other lines in the timetable, but trains could be swapped out of timetable
Operate as Manual 2 crew train, fixed 8 car sets.
Need for inflexible and slow to adjust timetabling and associated crewing.
Peak frequency on opening based on demand filling 8 car trains, ie they won't run them partly full so frequency is adjusted to match demand for cost control purposes.
Considering modern line, stations etc, it may have in future pushed if required in future 24-25 trains per hour. Unlikely practical to go beyond.
Off-peak and off shoulder frequency of say 15min to each branch due to costs of operating such high capacity crewed trains.
Reminder of recent train suppliers and design issues
Reminder that Sydney has never built a large railway tunnel project that hasn't turned into a disaster project for the incumbent govt with typical higher construction costs per km.
Operating subsidy above 60% like now
OR2) SD Automated
(You like to call it Metro, but that's just a tag from Paris, there is no such definition of what a Metro is)
Issue in that it won't (initially at least) run to Hornsby so this needs to be resolved and ironically the ECRL was built to solve this issue in the first place and additionally will terminate at Bankstown, not continue through to either Liverpool and Lidcombe. In all three cases causing problems that need to be resolved, ie money!
Stations built to standard 160m, but initial trains are shorter (6 cars?) to enable higher frequencies
Capable of 2min frequencies, likely slightly better.
Removal of timetabling and costs and issues in designing timetables, able to operate frequency to match live turnstile demand.
Trains have platform doors for safety and security, yes could have also been built for Option 1
No on board Operations train crew, replaced with increased number of customer service and revenue/asset protection
Shorter lower operating cost trains enables higher frequency at all hours of the day
More standard train design, faster more reliable delivery and lower cost. Less supplier risk! More suited to steeper grades and curves.
Tunnel design more standard, built previously used existing design, cheaper per km due to smaller bore, which after 60km of linear tunnel is not insignificant and future projects/extensions as well. Remember tunneling is the most expensive part of this whole project.
On going subsidy projected to be lower than Option 1
Now place yourself in govt position, which makes more financial sense but still gets the job done?