Should we link Parramatta and Epping rail via the Carlingford line?

 
  safeworking Station Master

Location: Bungendore
Some proposals here for additional metro lines involve branching from existing lines. Many existing and planned metro system favour independent lines which intersect at transfer stations. I suppose the reasoning is to avoid capacity bottlenecks being introduced and to stop incidents on one line impacting on other lines (the problem with the existing heavy rail network).  How would using independent lines change these proposals?

Sponsored advertisement

  viaprojects Chief Train Controller

Some proposals here for additional metro lines involve branching from existing lines.
safeworking


need to watch your terms or words ... there is three rail systems .. light rail , metro rail , Sydney rail  ( heavy rail ) ..in Sydney and change over's from one type to another at a few spots on the network... and the posted topics are mostly for the Sydney rail options ...

basically you will need to change platforms to change rail systems ...
  Transtopic Deputy Commissioner

Location: Sydney
Some proposals here for additional metro lines involve branching from existing lines. Many existing and planned metro system favour independent lines which intersect at transfer stations. I suppose the reasoning is to avoid capacity bottlenecks being introduced and to stop incidents on one line impacting on other lines (the problem with the existing heavy rail network).  How would using independent lines change these proposals?
safeworking
I agree with you that in a perfect world it would be preferable to have completely independent lines without branching and I'm assuming you're referring to existing "metro" lines.  

However, IMO in the Sydney context because of its relative low density, I can't see how it could be justified to run 30 plus tph except through the CBD core.  It would be gross overkill to run that sort frequency on the outer reaches of the currently proposed metro lines to and from the North West and Bankstown.  15 tph should be more than adequate, having regard to what is ever likely to be the potential patronage for well into the future. I'm not even sure the proposed Metro West warrants 30 tph, when it will basically be servicing a new rail corridor through the Inner West.

That means that for the metro to realise its full potential through the CBD core, it would have to branch at either end of its respective lines.  Regardless of all the development taking place in Sydney, it is still a relatively low density sprawling city compared with many overseas cities with established metro systems.  Branching can still work without impacting on its efficiency as long as the branches are grade separated.  It goes without saying that there should be no more than one branch at either end of each metro line.

To answer your specific question, "How would using independent lines change these proposals?", it would depend on what the potential patronage might be.  I doubt if having independent lines through what are essentially low density areas would be viable, when a branch can provide an adequate service, without the need to interchange.
  62440 Chief Commissioner

Remember we are talking about a year 11 project, not a consultancy brief. There are a lot of good pointers in the correspondence above which can be considered. Limit the study to show some research has been done, pick a small number of options and identify key issues with heavy rail, light rail and automatic. Presumably you have an indication of the number or words expected, aim for that number, start with a summary, list and describe the options and key technical issues and then reach a conclusion. Focus on the purpose of the study which is to show you can evaluate options in a study format.
  Transtopic Deputy Commissioner

Location: Sydney
Remember we are talking about a year 11 project, not a consultancy brief. There are a lot of good pointers in the correspondence above which can be considered. Limit the study to show some research has been done, pick a small number of options and identify key issues with heavy rail, light rail and automatic. Presumably you have an indication of the number or words expected, aim for that number, start with a summary, list and describe the options and key technical issues and then reach a conclusion. Focus on the purpose of the study which is to show you can evaluate options in a study format.
62440
That's all well and good, but it's still academic now, as the Carlingford Line is never likely to be used for a heavy rail extension to Epping, or even light rail for that matter.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
That's all well and good, but it's still academic now, as the Carlingford Line is never likely to be used for a heavy rail extension to Epping, or even light rail for that matter.0
Transtopic
Agree,
One day they will connect the north side (pick your options of Epping or Eastwood and other detail) to Paraamatta by heavy rail having realised the mistake in the LR option. Carlingford station or other on LR line I suspect will get a HR station underground as a connection. Without the need to run the Carlingford Line it will be cheaper and simpler around about 12km in length.

Eventually common sense will prevail.
  Transtopic Deputy Commissioner

Location: Sydney
That's all well and good, but it's still academic now, as the Carlingford Line is never likely to be used for a heavy rail extension to Epping, or even light rail for that matter.0
Agree,
One day they will connect the north side (pick your options of Epping or Eastwood and other detail) to Paraamatta by heavy rail having realised the mistake in the LR option. Carlingford station or other on LR line I suspect will get a HR station underground as a connection. Without the need to run the Carlingford Line it will be cheaper and simpler around about 12km in length.

Eventually common sense will prevail.
RTT_Rules
Hopefully!  I might add, that if the metro link between Parramatta and Macquarie Park followed the more direct alignment via Eastwood,  it could interchange with a future Victoria Rd Metro from Top Ryde to Baulkham Hills via Eastwood, Carlingford and North Rocks as well as the Northern Line. It's a straight alignment all the way to the CBD.  With the Carlingford metro station located adjacent to the Carlingford Court Shopping Centre at the intersection of Pennant Hills Rd and Carlingford Rd, that could justify the expense of extending the light rail by constructing the short length of tunnel from the existing Carlingford Station to the metro station.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
That's all well and good, but it's still academic now, as the Carlingford Line is never likely to be used for a heavy rail extension to Epping, or even light rail for that matter.0
Agree,
One day they will connect the north side (pick your options of Epping or Eastwood and other detail) to Paraamatta by heavy rail having realised the mistake in the LR option. Carlingford station or other on LR line I suspect will get a HR station underground as a connection. Without the need to run the Carlingford Line it will be cheaper and simpler around about 12km in length.

Eventually common sense will prevail.
Hopefully!  I might add, that if the metro link between Parramatta and Macquarie Park followed the more direct alignment via Eastwood,  it could interchange with a future Victoria Rd Metro from Top Ryde to Baulkham Hills via Eastwood, Carlingford and North Rocks as well as the Northern Line. It's a straight alignment all the way to the CBD.  With the Carlingford metro station located adjacent to the Carlingford Court Shopping Centre at the intersection of Pennant Hills Rd and Carlingford Rd, that could justify the expense of extending the light rail by constructing the short length of tunnel from the existing Carlingford Station to the metro station.
Transtopic

Yeah that might work too.

My thinking was also the the Victoria Road Metro would run to North Ryde or Macq Park stations, then head west to Eastwood, cross the Carlingford LR at what ever station that is and on to Parramatta and then head SW to Green(??) area.

The NWRL Metro and Carlingford LR projects have pushed me away from supporting going via Carlingford to Epping, Eastwood with a connection to the ECRL as mentioned above makes far more sense now.


Comments on a another post recently
Sydney is changing, the CBD is less the centre of the universe for Sydney, hence why the NWRL is basically what it is with the Macquarie Park area a major employment hub and hence 4 x the number of people get off the train there than get on and the numbers are not minor, predicted that less than half the people joining the train west of Epping will still be on it at Chatswood. Western Sydney is developing a similar employment catchment and the Y link will eventually grow into a major service.

When the existing Sydney railways were being rolled out, they lasted the best part of 75 years without major expansion apart from Duplicaton, some amplification and DD. Very little new trackage especially into the city was added apart from ESR. The Metro lines being built now and not designed for today, but 30-70 years away. The NWRL Metro will not achieve capacity, ie 8 cars, 2min frequency before most of us are long gone. The Western Metro is probably the same considering the Metro line is basically doubling capacity between Central and Parramatta.

Sponsored advertisement

Display from:   

Quick Reply

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