with perhaps intermediate termini at Homebush and Ashfield.
Inner West increase from 4 to 6 trains an hour from Homebush
The all stops locals would then all terminate at Homebush
The locals would then be free for all stops services and 20 trains an hour to Homebush.
Terminating at Homebush is part of one of the big problems with current Sydney Trains operations in my opinion, that problem being timetabling that assumes everyone is going to the city, this is a barrier to people using the train for leisure travel, shopping, and even working in places that are not the city, it is a problem that needs to be fixed.
The reason terminating at Homebush is an issue is because of the limited service further west, currently there are half hourly trains from Homebush to Parramatta so that is something, but prior to the new 2017 timetable, in order to just get from Homebush to Flemington (two adjacent stations), you had to catch two trains, that's ridiculous, and would certainly send people to their cars.
I understand that trains terminate at Homebush because the suburban tracks end there, but unless express services are going to stop at Homebush (which is unlikely), this needs to change.
I saw someone else recommend this and I would like to see it implemented, and that is turning arond all-stop locals at Carlingford, trains should run all stations from the City Circle to Clyde, and then all stations to Carlingford, as this would kill two birds with one stone, no more inconveniently terminating at Homebush, and no more inefficient Carlingford shuttle. The difficulties with this though would be having to extend the suburban tracks to Clyde, at which point, and then having to construct a flyover to get the trains over the western mains to the Carlingford Line.
While Ethan is concerned about the loss of the roles of Driver and/or guard will have a major impact on Sydney's unemployment, the reality is that every industry has always been reducing its manning per unit of output and to object is living with your head in the sand. Reduced costs means customers and/or employers have more money to spend on other things/activities and hence sustain the employment levels. Remember Sydney trains was formerly operated which much higher manning levels than today moving less people in the past. The very move to DD was to negate the need for more drivers and guards for the same number of passengers. I think poor Ethan would be shocked to see how many roles have been automated in the back rooms of Sydney Trains over last 20-30 years. Certainly the gone were the manual track gangs of old I used to see.
Yes it's true that every industry is reducing employees to reduce costs, and I'd say it's living with your head in the sand to think it's okay and just assume that all the redundant drivers and guards are going to be able to find work elsewhere.
Of course I know that many roles have been automated over the decades, and in the perfect world, moderate automation would be able to co-exist with a sustainable employment level where everyone who wants a job can get one, but that's not what I see nowadays, a lot of companies are cutting staff to reduce costs and work is hard to come by.
Anyway, Sydney Trains currently runs 8 carriage trains between Lidcombe and Olympic Park on a 5 minute shuttle service on a late Sunday night, so this thread is about how to cut costs and reduce subsidy percentage to below 50% without going down the staff cut routes.
While I'm sure in peak Sydney Train's balance sheet looks more favorable off-peak especially late at night running high capacity trains lightly loaded must be far less viable. Hence could a small number of smaller say 4 car sets be purchased that are designed and operated only for light loads in off-peak shuttles.
- Sutherland to Cronulla and Sutherland to Waterfall shuttles with the 8 car sets only running as far as Sutherland.
The night trains would be better designed for night running, ie improved security, no locked away guard, toilets etc.
Would it be practical to have the 8 carriage train divide at Sutherland and have a 4 carriage set from the divided train go to Waterfall and Cronulla rather than a shuttle?
Build new rolling stock that can be easily divided into shorter sets
No, terrible idea as its cheaper to have fixed 8 car sets. Most of the money in a trainset is spent on the the driving cabs as these are the most complicated and important areas. Computers, couplers, crash protection, lights etc are all here. I could write a full essay of why its better for sydney trains to have fixed 8 car sets.
Cheaper initially maybe, but overtime, will it be cheaper when you have to do all the extra maintenance on carriages that run empty late at night?
Signage to encourage passengers to spread out along the platform to reduce dwell time
Agree with, and is already done to a certain extent, along with platform announcements.
I'm thinking signs along the platforms showing what carriage will be closest to the exit where they get off, for example, at someone travelling from Central Bankstown would be best off boarding at the southern end of the platform, and if they are travelling to Revesby, the nothern end of the platform. Signs should point things like this out and hopefully encourage people to spread out based on where they are getting off, this would benefit commuters not having to walk the length of the platform when they get off, and benefit everyone on the platform trying to cram in through one door, and benefit the network as a whole by lowering dwell times.
I said one of the benfits of the Metro is its more standard design, lower construction and operating costs is far more attractive to the govt to invext in.
The DD network is too costly in comparison and hence as the future for Sydney rail expansion is mostly underground, we have come to the end of the era for large scale DD roll out and the switch to a more world standard should be expected.
The problem with the switch to a 'world standard' is that Sydney is not like other cities in the world, it has a large urban sprawl and low density in many areas, possibly due to the Australian dream of the big backyard, Sydney keeps expanding outwards with housing estates, and this means longer travel times between destinations, compared to the dense cities around the world where metro style rail currently operates.
If the double deck trains are the issue, I would be open to single deck trains that are compatible with the existing network and infrastructure, as long as they have enough forward facing seats though, and are staffed with driver and gaurd, to reduce dwell time they could have 2x2 seating (people tend to avoid the middle seat anyway) with slightly wider seats and a wider aisle to get people on and off quicker. The big issue with such a train though is that it would probably have to run at 3-4 times the current frequency of the double deck trains in peak to provide enough seats for everyone. What's your opinion on such a train? would it take the advantages of the metro, without the disadvantages?
Which actually brings up another point about efficiency since we are talking about low dwell times:
Provide level train access at all stations
Although extending platforms to accommodate longer trains at all stations is not practical with island and underground platforms. It would be possible to make sure all station platforms are level with the train floor and are as close to the train as possible, this would allow for shorter dwell times when wheelchair access is required, and also benefit anyone who may have issues with large gaps such as the elderly.