Metro raises more problems than solutions for public transport

 
Topic moved from News by dthead on 31 Mar 2019 20:19
  djf01 Chief Commissioner


A couple of points I need to make:
1) @Transtopic.  Sorry if I implied you did not respect other's opinions.  I was *trying* to while *you* may well respect other's opinions, I don't necessarily.

2) This NWRL DD idea is *not* something I think should happen.  I just think it's something that *will* happen.

Guys, just think about why Sydney went DD in the first place: basically it's a cheap way of expanding a system without having to lay more track.

You'll be able to get from Oran Park "directly" to Richmond via Glenfield,Liverpool,Sefton,Bankstown,Baragaroo,Epping and Rouse Hill Smile.

Sponsored advertisement

  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE

What I think will happen over the next 20-30 years is the HR catchment will continue to expand.  Further, there will be further expansion north of Rouse Hill, and that area is likely to end up in the same lack-of-rail-PT predicament the Hills district ended up in.

The growth in patronage will disproportionately fall onto HR.  
I think there will be at least one new line off the main south - probably to Oran Park, but perhaps to the new Airport.  Electrification will extend to Picton.  

The operational problems post Bankstown Metro conversion will become tangible.

It will emerge as being obviously preferable to have a common fleet.

Organic growth, plus city and system expansion, will see patronage demand for HR increase 150%-200% in the next 20 years.

At this point - and probably before it - it will be clear the existing system just won't be able to cope (though 2min headways achieved by replacing the drivers and signallers with robots will go part of the way).  

The choices on offer will be:

  • Build more parallel Metro (at $1.5bil/km)
  • Amplify HR & build more City terminal capacity
  • Convert more existing lines to Metro
  • Spec in the next fleet order: high capacity (ie DD) and dual system compatibility

If history tells us anything, the last option is the way we are likely to go.
djf01
The terrain north of Rouse Hill is increasingly less practical for rail and will always be population density constrained. Any PT growth North of the NWRL and East of the Richmond line will be a bus.

The issues with the Bankstown Metro are solved by finishing the line to Liverpool.

The DD network has a common fleet, the Metro network will I assume have a common fleet, hence there are no issues. If you look beyond the horion, the high frequency networks often run line captive fleets and certainly captive fleet time tables whether they be compatible or not. Again the high performing city rail systems often thrown up as where Australia needs to go mostly have multiple incompatible fleets.

Organic growth on DD network will be solved by a either or a combination of options
1) expand track capacity and remove bottle necks
2) build additional Metro's to remove selective loads off the DD network, case in point Western Metro, building a Inner NW Metro etc etc.

2min headways on the DD is I think unlikely to occur. Often Paris RER is thrown up why it can, but if we look closely the lines of the RER that are more closely matched to Sydney in rolling stock design do not go below 3min and the lines that do are an operational nightmare with shocking reliability/on-time performance. You could maybe get away with 2.5min for short lengths of track, but not the +40km long Chatswood to Straithfield T1.

Not sure what you mean by high capacity DD? Extending train length to 10 cars on certain lines is an option I think that maybe explored one day. There will be no DD's on the Metro as the Metro design is the alternative to the reason the DD's were needed in the first place. ie, high capacity trains collecting from a multiple of low capacity branch lines all combining for a short section of high frequency track through the city tunnels. As the Metro has no branches, is capable of doubling in frequency and increasing train length by 1/3, then it will be a very long time before its capacity is max'ed. Dubai moves 500,000/day people on two metro lines totally 75km. Sydney is barely 50% more than that in people numbers but with 15 x the route km.

...and no the Metro does not cost $1.5B/km, barely 1/4 of that.

what the govt has learned from the NWRL project is that rail projects can be delivered on top and budget, especially if buying off the shelf. Potential future projects beyond the Western Metro and extension of existing include the Inner NWRL, Northern Beaches will go along way in absorbing the growth of Sydney.
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE

A couple of points I need to make:


2) This NWRL DD idea is *not* something I think should happen.  I just think it's something that *will* happen.

Guys, just think about why Sydney went DD in the first place: basically it's a cheap way of expanding a system without having to lay more track.

You'll be able to get from Oran Park "directly" to Richmond via Glenfield,Liverpool,Sefton,Bankstown,Baragaroo,Epping and Rouse Hill Smile.
djf01
You got this wrong.

Sydney went DD because while much of its suburban lines didn't justify greater than 10min frequencies and yes I went to school on the North Shore and North main lines in 80's I know what it was like then. All the suburban lines converged in one of two pairs of tracks for which the only way these two pairs of tracks could handle this volume of traffic was buy going DD and 160m train lengths. Plus it also allowed for express and all stopper operation on the longer suburban lines.

A third pair of track through the city built in the 60's along with some other de-bottle necking would have prevented the need for DD's for another 40-50 years and improved frequency on the suburban lines.

On the other hand, the Metro follows the much more modern concept of
- Dedicated trains
- No branches
- One stopping pattern
- Capable of 90-120sec frequency

Train capacity growth in the Metro projects currently under way is therefore not going to face the same issues that was forced on Sydney by mid-term stop gap planning. Remember the max capacity of the Metro line is nearly 50% of the entire Sydney network carries now, so unless you think a replica of Hong Kong is to be built along the Metro corridor any time soon, the Metro should be up to the task for 100 years.
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

Guys, just think about why Sydney went DD in the first place: basically it's a cheap way of expanding a system without having to lay more track.
You got this wrong.

Sydney went DD because  ...TLDR ...

A third pair of track through the city built in the 60's along with some other de-bottle necking would have prevented the need for DD's for another 40-50 years and improved frequency on the suburban lines.
RTT_Rules

Isn't that what I said?


Train capacity growth in the Metro projects currently under way is therefore not going to face the same issues that was forced on Sydney by mid-term stop gap planning.


????  Of course they will.  


Remember the max capacity of the Metro line is nearly 50% of the entire Sydney network carries now, so unless you think a replica of Hong Kong is to be built along the Metro corridor any time soon, the Metro should be up to the task for 100 years.


Which is why, when the HR system is overloaded and the Metro underloaded, it will be so tempting to try and balance this out.


Organic growth on DD network will be solved by a either or a combination of options
1) expand track capacity and remove bottle necks
2) build additional Metro's to remove selective loads off the DD network, case in point Western Metro, building a Inner NW Metro etc etc.
3) The issues with the Bankstown Metro are solved by finishing the line to Liverpool.


Well I don't think any of this will happen.  It probably needs to happen, but it won't.  
The options under consideration will be:
a) Convert Bankstown to Lidcombe and Bankstown to Liverpool to Metro - including parallel track from Cabrramatta to Liverpool
b) Extend the metro to Liverpool

The third alternative is to simply (irony intended with the use of that word) specify the next generation of fleet is compatible with both systems simultaneously.  All the people complaining about having to change at Bankstown will be placated.  All the people complaining about not getting a seat from Rouse Hill will be placated.  Only those tall male whingers complaining about the ceiling being too low will be left, and lets face it - in 20 years most of the work force and all of the politicians will be women, so this concern can be safely ignored.
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE
Guys, just think about why Sydney went DD in the first place: basically it's a cheap way of expanding a system without having to lay more track.
You got this wrong.

Sydney went DD because  ...TLDR ...

A third pair of track through the city built in the 60's along with some other de-bottle necking would have prevented the need for DD's for another 40-50 years and improved frequency on the suburban lines.

Isn't that what I said?


Train capacity growth in the Metro projects currently under way is therefore not going to face the same issues that was forced on Sydney by mid-term stop gap planning.

????  Of course they will.  


Remember the max capacity of the Metro line is nearly 50% of the entire Sydney network carries now, so unless you think a replica of Hong Kong is to be built along the Metro corridor any time soon, the Metro should be up to the task for 100 years.

Which is why, when the HR system is overloaded and the Metro underloaded, it will be so tempting to try and balance this out.


Organic growth on DD network will be solved by a either or a combination of options
1) expand track capacity and remove bottle necks
2) build additional Metro's to remove selective loads off the DD network, case in point Western Metro, building a Inner NW Metro etc etc.
3) The issues with the Bankstown Metro are solved by finishing the line to Liverpool.

Well I don't think any of this will happen.  It probably needs to happen, but it won't.  
The options under consideration will be:
a) Convert Bankstown to Lidcombe and Bankstown to Liverpool to Metro - including parallel track from Cabrramatta to Liverpool
b) Extend the metro to Liverpool

The third alternative is to simply (irony intended with the use of that word) specify the next generation of fleet is compatible with both systems simultaneously.  All the people complaining about having to change at Bankstown will be placated.  All the people complaining about not getting a seat from Rouse Hill will be placated.  Only those tall male whingers complaining about the ceiling being too low will be left, and lets face it - in 20 years most of the work force and all of the politicians will be women, so this concern can be safely ignored.
djf01
Today that third pair of tracks would need to start from Sydnaham and run via the city to Strathfield and on to Granville and not add 1 extra station to the network.

Capacity wise the Metro is very different to the DD and yes it could have been built exactly the same way and been DD and still be very different from rest of the network provided the track layout was the same. ie no branches.

If you look at the current network with the potential exception of the lower shore, not one section of any branch is at capacity due to the traffic on that section. The various lines are at capacity because of mixing of services. The NWRL and future Metro to Bankstown/Liverpool and even Western Metro will be islanded from mixing of services and branch lines so their capacity to handle growth will into the future is secure.

The Metro is underloaded because of its design, location and prevention of mixing of services. The Western Metro will however likely be running a higher capacity factor than NWRL more quickly.

The DD is over loaded because of hotch potch expansion looking at short term solutions, which includes the use of DD technology. Prior to the untangle project we had trains terminating on the mains all over the network. The country trains that operate around the country don't even do that. The three lines if built to Liverpool, Blacktown and Schofields will however take some traffic off the DD network and combined with some investment resolve some of the issues. Other projects such as PERL would help further.

Metro to Liverpool via a more direct route than DD will likely happen. Adding the extra stations via Sefton is likely just too many stops. Bankstown - Yagoona - (another station) - Liverpool is the likely and most  practical outcome. This would leave Liverpool via Reagents Park to the city as a future option once the Western Metro is complete and eliminate the complexity of Metro dealing with freights.

No one in their right mind would try and build a DD - Metro compatible set. You have the worst of everything the best of nothing.
- Mid train doors cannot be used on many DD stations, so wasted space for seats
- Driver needs a cab, people will loose out of visual front and rear train views (trust me, this will be extremely popular)
- Cost of building a manual driven train for an automated corridor
- DD height simply not practical
- the list goes on
Why the hell do you need to anyway. Each network has its own fleet. Its not like that either will operate with multi million dollar train sets just sitting around looking for a customer.
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

In peak hour Parramatta has 23 trains an hour to Central and so once you transfer those standing only room trains or about 2000 passenger per 8 car train (46,000) you have the capacity of a 30 train per hour metro.

From my understanding the Parramatta metro station will also be to the north of the current station to have an interchange with the parramatta light rail rather then the sydney trains station.

The western metro will have at minimum 6 stops. Westmead, Parramatta, Olympic Park, Northern Line (North Strathfield or Concord), Bays precinct and the CBD. There may also be stops at around five dock, rose hill/camelia and silverwater.
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

The DD is over loaded because of hotch potch expansion looking at short term solutions,
RTT_Rules

Including expanding the system with an incompatible loading gauge as a way of ensuring:
  • the problems with the old system don't spill into the new
  • the problems with the old system remain not just unresolved, but worsened



No one in their right mind would try and build a DD - Metro compatible set. You have the worst of everything the best of nothing.
RTT_Rules

And yet, this is exactly what NSW did in the 70s.

Some future transport minister/cabinet will be faced with the options:

1) We need to buy a big new DD fleet  AND
We need to build 20km+ of new metro! (and buy a different fleet for that too)

or

2) We need to buy a big new DD fleet  AND
We need to convert 30km+ of old system to metro (and buy a different fleet for that too)

The logical response will be: "WTF can't we just buy a single fleet that can do both jobs?"

I suppose they could try answering the minister with "no-one in their right mind would do this".  

Maybe the minister themselves will be tall and sympathize with the "I'll bang my head" argument.  Good luck with the rest of the cabinet though.

Perhaps there will be a flood of angry constituents from the Hills district demanding that their standing space on the train not be taken away to just for provide a seat for lazy a-holes?
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE
The DD is over loaded because of hotch potch expansion looking at short term solutions,

Including expanding the system with an incompatible loading gauge as a way of ensuring:
  • the problems with the old system don't spill into the new
  • the problems with the old system remain not just unresolved, but worsened



No one in their right mind would try and build a DD - Metro compatible set. You have the worst of everything the best of nothing.

And yet, this is exactly what NSW did in the 70s.

Some future transport minister/cabinet will be faced with the options:

1) We need to buy a big new DD fleet  AND
We need to build 20km+ of new metro! (and buy a different fleet for that too)

or

2) We need to buy a big new DD fleet  AND
We need to convert 30km+ of old system to metro (and buy a different fleet for that too)

The logical response will be: "WTF can't we just buy a single fleet that can do both jobs?"

I suppose they could try answering the minister with "no-one in their right mind would do this".  

Maybe the minister themselves will be tall and sympathize with the "I'll bang my head" argument.  Good luck with the rest of the cabinet though.

Perhaps there will be a flood of angry constituents from the Hills district demanding that their standing space on the train not be taken away to just for provide a seat for lazy a-holes?
djf01
No they didn't. They built a DD train using the same safe working, number of doors, manning extra extra. They only difference was that between the two doors was two passenger compartments, not one. And with this move all the problems of the past continued, nothing changed and we have those same problems today.

Why do you need a single fleet to do both. You carry the worst of both worlds into one, not the best.

Dozens if not more networks around the world operate multiple fleet networks because each new project took advantage of new technology and didn't need to factor in backwards compatibility. Sydney Trains network is not a Countrylink type network with a relatively low density of services.

Sydney Trains fleet orders have a legacy of delays and problems with each order and thats just buying trains. How hard could it be?

The ESR project was a cluster tunnel project that saw the project cut in half and millions and years over budget.

The CPRL project was only marginally better that again was cut in half and suffered significant technical problems.

Meanwhile the NWRL project which required, new trains, longest rail tunnels ever built in Australia, extensive viaduct and conversion of the ECRL has come in below budget which was cheaper than if built to DD standards anyway and either on time or faster. Its longterm operating costs will also be lower and not subject to union issues and be more operationally reliable, more frequent and by international standards safer.

Considering the bulk of all new rail projects within the existing built up areas will involve extensive tunneling, why on earth would the taxpayers even think twice about funding anything apart Metro technology system? The DD system still needs investment to fix many issues and enable growth. But any attempt to merge the two networks and build common stock which you cannot anyway so no point thinking about is really an act of stupidity. Absolutely nothing positive will be achieved by it.
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

Absolutely nothing positive will be achieved by it.
RTT_Rules

On that point we can agree!  

But the reason to do it is simple: Standarisation.  
Don't you know that Standarisation is a great leap forward, will bring endless savings through synergies, and allow us to achieve the best of both worlds!    /s

But the real reason is it will also allow incremental extension of the rail system without needed to spend billions building more routes/capacity through the networks' cores.

Now please - spare me the rants and the history revision - I think we both know more than any healthy person should about the history of urban rail in Sydney.  And we both know what history tells us about how this will pan out: Every time we add a new route, we add a new requirement to the "standard" fleet, and rather than being "a new start", this ultimately just get added to the hodgepodge of unusual requirements.  I have no doubt that in 30 years time (maybe 40, we'll probably need to make this mistake again before this blunder is appreciated) the decision to "metro" will be viewed the same way.

Oh, and BTW, do you have a *good* answer (by that I mean one that doesn't involve extending metros, or HR) for the Minister's question?

"WTF don't we just order a new fleet that works on both systems?"
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

So this coming weekend is the last open day at rouse hill station. Do we have any takers DJF, Transtopic, nswtrains or anybody else who is interested in coming? As you can see there were trains testing and rouse hill will be a much better spot for photographs.
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE
But the reason to do it is simple: Standarisation. Don't you know that Standarisation is a great leap forward, will bring endless savings through synergies, and allow us to achieve the best of both worlds! /s
Difo1

Standardisation hasn't been a huge priority with Sydney Trains in the past, so why would it be today. The fleet size is more than big enough to achieve the most out of economics of scale.


But the real reason
Difo1
Oh, ok then its not standardisation. At least we now both agree standardisation at this level has limited benefit, if any.

is it will also allow incremental extension of the rail system without needed to spend billions building more routes/capacity through the networks' cores
difo1 again!
So increment away.
Add another line to DD, but some more DD's
Add another line or few stations to Metro, but some more Metro's,
problem solved.

With the current growth patterns the DD's pushed off the ECRL and Bankstown lines will easily be accommodated by growth in the network. I'm sure these trains have already been deployed in future timetables.

Now please - spare me the rants and the history revision
difo1
Ohhh, but if it works, why not go with it!

I think we both know more than any healthy person should about the history of urban rail in Sydney. And we both know what history tells us about how this will pan out: Every time we add a new route, we add a new requirement to the "standard" fleet, and rather than being "a new start", this ultimately just get added to the hodgepodge of unusual requirements. I have no doubt that in 30 years time (maybe 40, we'll probably need to make this mistake again before this blunder is appreciated) the decision to "metro" will be viewed the same way.
difo1, again again
Actually I don't, Mytone however loves his history of Sydney Trains.

On rest, mixed.

Yes every edition, technology update, new rolling stock, new signally etc etc. Always required to be backwards compatible unless it was something that could be changed literally overnight. Ask Microsoft about the issues of building code today that need to run on systems design in the era not long after colour TV. I'm sure projects in Sydney Trains have come to a complete halt because of the backwards compatibility issues and inability to island various parts of the network.

The Metro is stand alone, therefore any investment to upgrade the DD, does not have to consider the Metro and VV. Future Metro upgrades and expansion will need to deal with the Metro of today systems and standards, but not something from the early 20th century.

Oh, and BTW, do you have a *good* answer (by that I mean one that doesn't involve extending metros, or HR) for the Minister's question?

"WTF don't we just order a new fleet that works on both systems?"
difo1, one more time

But again why?

A Metro train capable of running in the manual part of the network is more expensive.

A DD train capable of running in the Metro is more expensive, has less seats, doors that cannot be used all the time, the list goes on.

WHY would anyone do this!

Its not like the trains need to operate in each others territory. Basically Sydney trains operates that way today.

The simple answer to the future Minister is
"It will cost you more money to deliver trains with less seats and you will get complaints of tourists and irregular users not able to get off at their stations"
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

OK, if you lot haven’t figured it out by now, I have been string the pot in this thread to a point bordering on trolling.  I still think the outcome I'm predicting is more likely than not, and I'll give some (mostly) serious suggestions as to how this might happen.

Spec for a dual system fleet options:

1) SD, almost identical to the Metro format, just a few extra transverse seats to shut up those whinging bogans boarding at Picton in the marginal seat of Wollondilly.  (Post electrification Wollondilly will change to safe Labor, so these people can be ignored anyway).  

2) DD, Using RER (Line A) MI09/MI2N format with 3 side doors and 4 short decks.  80 seats and 20 standing spaces replaces 30 seats and 30 standing spaces per car.  Only slightly increased dwells in metro, but decreased on HR.

3) DD, using our current format (but doors matching the metro screens), and only using 2 of three doors at screened stations.  Add 100 seats and 30 standing spaces for loss of 30 seats and 50 standing spaces.  Train throughput reduced by 75% in the Metro, but each train has 150% increase in passenger capacity for a slight overall system capacity increase.  

Obviously the trains will need to be:
  1. Shorter, by about 150mm, than current DDs.  (Gladys will be fine, but you guys might want to duck!)
  2. Light enough and powerful enough to go up 1:20 grades fully loaded, presumably requiring composite materials.
  3. Equipped with a dual control system.  But it only has to be compatible with the HR control system of 2040, not 1940,- which could be an AI anyway, and if not, run as an App on the Guard's iPhone s36.

Edit: For Shane's benefit: /s  Smile
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

But the reason to do it is simple: Standarisation. Don't you know that Standarisation is a great leap forward, will bring endless savings through synergies, and allow us to achieve the best of both worlds! /s

Standardisation hasn't been a huge priority with Sydney Trains in the past, so why would it be today. The fleet size is more than big enough to achieve the most out of economics of scale.
RTT_Rules

Did you *not* read my post (or any of a thousand shareholder takeover proposals)?
  • Standarisation is a great leap forward.
  • Will bring endless savings through Synergies!
  • Allow us to achieve the best of both worlds!

But most importantly:    !!  /S  !!
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE
But the reason to do it is simple: Standarisation. Don't you know that Standarisation is a great leap forward, will bring endless savings through synergies, and allow us to achieve the best of both worlds! /s

Standardisation hasn't been a huge priority with Sydney Trains in the past, so why would it be today. The fleet size is more than big enough to achieve the most out of economics of scale.

Did you *not* read my post (or any of a thousand shareholder takeover proposals)?
  • Standarisation is a great leap forward.
  • Will bring endless savings through Synergies!
  • Allow us to achieve the best of both worlds!

But most importantly:    !!  /S  !!
djf01
Ok, got you now!

I generally don't believe that crap anymore than most people I suspect. Yes there often is some benefits, but not as much as often made out. Also it often takes years to complete a merger so the staff reductions follow suit and usually by the time it does occur, something is being sold so ramp up again.
  Transtopic Assistant Commissioner

On the subject of the standardisation of fleets for the HR and metro systems, I'm sorry djf01, but I have to agree with Shayne (RTT) on this one.  You could never operate a DD train, even as fully automated, on the metro system being built, as the narrower tunnel profile just wouldn't allow for it. Nor would it be warranted, because the whole purpose of the SD metro is to allow for a maximum of frequency and passenger turnover in the more densely populated regions, which are typically for short to medium distances in the inner city.  Not that the government has got this right either in building the Metro Northwest into regions which are typically suburban long distance territory, which should be an extension of the existing HR network.  As the metro system will be fully segregated from the existing HR network, then I can't see the need for a standardised fleet servicing both systems.  

To put it simply, rail extensions into the outer suburbs should be part of the HR network and new lines in the inner and middle ring suburbs should be extensions to the metro system, preferably along corridors without an existing rail service.  I cannot see any justification for building new metro lines parallel to existing HR lines in the inner city or converting any further existing lines to metro operation.  It would be a waste of resources.  New rolling stock for each system could be ordered as demand warrants it.

Having said that, there is no reason why compatible SD trains with metro-like capabilities, couldn't be re-introduced to the existing HR network to service specific lines such as the Inner West Line and Hurstville T4 services or even the Airport Line to Revesby/Glenfield.  With the prospect of ATO being introduced, it would be a far more economical proposition than duplicating or converting these lines to metro operation.  The metro purists may not like it, but in the real world you can't always get what you want or whether it's even warranted.  The world is full of compromises, which hasn't yet dawned on some.

For this very same reason, I'm opposed to the proposed metro lines servicing Badgerys Creek Airport, perhaps with the exception of the extension of Metro West from Westmead, but even that's questionable IMO.  The North/South Line from Schofields to Macarthur via the new airport should be part of the existing HR network, joined by the extension of the SWRL from Leppington.  With new compatible SD rolling stock, it could operate as a fully automated line, similar to the metro, but with the ability to operate on existing HR lines with ATO and a driver/attendant on board.  This is not dissimilar to the proposed operation on London's new Crossrail (Elizabeth Line) which services both outer suburban lines under manual control and an automated line through London's city core.
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE

To put it simply, rail extensions into the outer suburbs should be part of the HR network and new lines in the inner and middle ring suburbs should be extensions to the metro system, preferably along corridors without an existing rail service.  I cannot see any justification for building new metro lines parallel to existing HR lines in the inner city or converting any further existing lines to metro operation.  It would be a waste of resources.
Transtopic
In general I agree, the bulk of the inner to middle new projects will be Metro style because mostly they are underground and this is where Metro wins over DD.

In general yes, I agree it should be mostly for new to rail locations, however there will be some locations where considerable cost savings can be found taking over part of the DD network with minimal impact on the DD network, ie the city to NW Metro project uses the ECRL.

Bankstown going to Metro is maybe not ideal and in hindsight I do think knowing what we know today which includes the govt revenues since the decision was made, yes it may have been better to simple run out the Western Metro off the Northern Metro. Bankstown I suspect was more a cost saving option and solve a problem at the same time. However I'm still on the fence with Bankstown and provided it connects to Liverpool in a direct route, not against it as this closes a lot of the issues causes by the Bankstown Metro.

While the govt quietly walked away from Hurtsville because of freight and other factors, I wouldn't write it off just yet and I think we will see it revived as part of a means to improve traffic on the South Coast corridor. Maybe not reclaiming the actual HR lines, but built parallel or similar, like wise for Inner West or at least part of the Inner west and then heading up the Inner NW. Apart from this only the Northern Beaches is an obvious candidate for a later major Metro project with maybe some future commonsense connecting Epping to Paramatta. I cannot see much scope for Metro's in future above all this.

The govt is I think poor at marketing the grand plan. The Liverpool and Schofields extensions shouldn't have been left to guess work and they should simple be part of a later phase of the project with defined scope and timeline.
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

On the subject of the standardisation of fleets for the HR and metro systems, I'm sorry djf01, but I have to agree with Shayne (RTT) on this one.
Transtopic

No need to apologise, as I am just stirring the pot.  

But in that vein, I shall continue to argue you are completely wrong with an exhibit from Japan's 3'6" narrow gauge system:



A DD car in a narrow gauge metro size envelope!.  (I'd like to quote the exact height, but my Japanese isn't up to it.  I think it's ~4000mm, but possibly up to 4100, not sure)  

I don't know what the height of the new Sydney Metro trains is, nor the loading gauge adopted.  I *do* know the unrestricted NSW Loading gauge is 4220mm and the A&B sets 4400mm tall (Se Sets "only" 4370mm).  The Sydney Metro loading gauge and train height is unknown to me too.  It's something they don't seem to want to publish for some reason.  (Other trains in the Metropolis family Wikipedia has a height spec for is 3860mm in Barcelona & 3700mm in Singapore)

None of this means it's not possible though, just less comfortable!
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

And just to show how everything old in new again, I'll illustrate the likely outcome with a bit of Sydney rail history ...

When Bradfield converted Sydney's Steam Suburban system to an all electric metro, he broaded the loading gauge from 9'6 to 10'6  (mostly by reducing the required structure gauge clearance from 12" to 6" - but also raising the floor height of trains a few inches to clear close platforms) to move from 2+2 to 2+3 seating "comfortably".

When we migrated from SD to DD, the train loading gauge had to be consistent above and below platform height, so loading gauge was pared back to 9'10 - while retaining 2+3 seating - to create the "medium gauge" us OSCAR commuters from Kiama know and love today.

But more than that, when the ESR was built, it raised the platforms to the Bradfield floor height and medium gauge which meant ....

No future government could ever run those horrible old red single decker trains (ohh the horror) on our brand new underground rapid transit system.  They could only ever run the latest and greatest double deckers instead!

Again, rather than stumping the cash to shave a few platforms, NSW made it's trains narrower,  significantly less comfortable, and created a perennial safety problem at all the Bradfield era (and before) constructed platform.  At least it's kept the guards employed!
  Transtopic Assistant Commissioner

I'm sympathetic to your views on standardization of the loading gauge djf01, particularly for the suburban and intercity network. Now that the New Intercity Fleet will be similar to the Oscars and Waratahs, perhaps it might be a good time to start the process of standardization by adopting the latest rolling stock as the template, including future rolling stock whether SD or DD, and progressively upgrade platform interfaces over time to meet the new standard for both height and clearance.  This shouldn't include the metro, which should be completely separate.
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

RER carriages are not compatible with Sydney as they are 112 metres for 5 carriage sets. Each carriage is about 22.4 metres in length and can supposedly hand 1300 passengers but this is mostly standing and not sitting. There is only 34 seats per carriage.
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

RER carriages are not compatible with Sydney as they are 112 metres for 5 carriage sets. Each carriage is about 22.4 metres in length and can supposedly hand 1300 passengers but this is mostly standing and not sitting. There is only 34 seats per carriage.
simstrain

RER operates multiple formats on it's various lines: 3 door SD, 4 door SD (IIRC), 2 door DD like Sydney, and 3 door DD.

I'm taking this way too seriously, but this is how I see a NWRL extended suburban could (and in my view probably will) be implemented:

 

(See: https://i.imgur.com/Gs8NXwO.png )

This is the 3 door DD design from RER Line A (busiest).  6 rows per deck, 4 decks per car for 24 rows of 3+1 & 3+2.  It's better to have most of the seats facing the same way, as leg room can be provided beneath the seat in front, but that's not needed in Paris as it will be in Sydney.

For the NWRL it'd be 4 rows of 2+3 per deck as the car length is shorter, and the doors have to match the platform screens.  There would also be fewer staircase platforms - as the trains will necessarily be shorter.

How much shorter?  Can't tell.  A Sydney DD now is 4400mm, the NWRL might need to be as short as 3800mm.

The train can be made shorter in various way, all of which have a cost trade off, usually in passenger comfort.

A) Ceiling height.  The obvious one.  I believe A is currently 1800mm or 5'11", just enough to ensure 6' tall men have to duck their heads.  Reducing ceiling height further is great, as this distance counts twice!  (Up to 50mm x 2 = 100mm)

B) Allowable Clearances.  By stiffening up the suspension, more frequent track inspection and/or reducing top end allowable speed (oh my gosh, in Sydney?) the allowable clearances could be reduced from 150mm to 100mm safely.  (Up to 100mm)

C) Offset Standing and Seating Floor/Ceiling Positions.  This is a variant of the US "gallery car" design, where the top deck seats are at the height of overhead luggage racks, not the ceiling of the walkway.  Note the (exaggerated) potential discomfort of the person in seat 5.  

Like quiet carriages, in this #MeToo era we could have "Women Only" decks (a bit like India), and thus lower the ceiling height on that top deck even more!

If C could "comfortably" be as much as 300mm (most people are 400mm-450mm shorter seated than standing), but beyond that you'd be looking at 2+2 seating on the top deck.

Up to 400mm saved.

D) Composite Materials.  Reducing the thickness of the floor and ceiling with carbon fibre/composites rather than steel construction.  This will be needed anyway to reduce weight to get up the 1:20s.  (Up to 100mm).  

Adopting all of these measures to their maximum, you could reduce the height of a DD vehicle from 4400mm to 3700mm  !!

Sydney has a long (and sorry) history of compromising passenger comfort and safety to comply with the evolved "standards".  Don't think it can't happen, despite the best efforts of the Metro's designers!

BTW, I'd be curious to know the lateral dimensions of the NWRL Metro.  It looks awfully narrow to me, though I was under the impression the system was speced to use the same lateral width, so when lines were converted they wouldn't need to rebuild *all* the stations Smile.
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE
RER carriages are not compatible with Sydney as they are 112 metres for 5 carriage sets. Each carriage is about 22.4 metres in length and can supposedly hand 1300 passengers but this is mostly standing and not sitting. There is only 34 seats per carriage.

RER operates multiple formats on it's various lines: 3 door SD, 4 door SD (IIRC), 2 door DD like Sydney, and 3 door DD.

I'm taking this way too seriously, but this is how I see a NWRL extended suburban could (and in my view probably will) be implemented:

 

(See: https://i.imgur.com/Gs8NXwO.png )

This is the 3 door DD design from RER Line A (busiest).  6 rows per deck, 4 decks per car for 24 rows of 3+1 & 3+2.  It's better to have most of the seats facing the same way, as leg room can be provided beneath the seat in front, but that's not needed in Paris as it will be in Sydney.

For the NWRL it'd be 4 rows of 2+3 per deck as the car length is shorter, and the doors have to match the platform screens.  There would also be fewer staircase platforms - as the trains will necessarily be shorter.

How much shorter?  Can't tell.  A Sydney DD now is 4400mm, the NWRL might need to be as short as 3800mm.

The train can be made shorter in various way, all of which have a cost trade off, usually in passenger comfort.

A) Ceiling height.  The obvious one.  I believe A is currently 1800mm or 5'11", just enough to ensure 6' tall men have to duck their heads.  Reducing ceiling height further is great, as this distance counts twice!  (Up to 50mm x 2 = 100mm)

B) Allowable Clearances.  By stiffening up the suspension, more frequent track inspection and/or reducing top end allowable speed (oh my gosh, in Sydney?) the allowable clearances could be reduced from 150mm to 100mm safely.  (Up to 100mm)

C) Offset Standing and Seating Floor/Ceiling Positions.  This is a variant of the US "gallery car" design, where the top deck seats are at the height of overhead luggage racks, not the ceiling of the walkway.  Note the (exaggerated) potential discomfort of the person in seat 5.  

Like quiet carriages, in this #MeToo era we could have "Women Only" decks (a bit like India), and thus lower the ceiling height on that top deck even more!

If C could "comfortably" be as much as 300mm (most people are 400mm-450mm shorter seated than standing), but beyond that you'd be looking at 2+2 seating on the top deck.

Up to 400mm saved.

D) Composite Materials.  Reducing the thickness of the floor and ceiling with carbon fibre/composites rather than steel construction.  This will be needed anyway to reduce weight to get up the 1:20s.  (Up to 100mm).  

Adopting all of these measures to their maximum, you could reduce the height of a DD vehicle from 4400mm to 3700mm  !!

Sydney has a long (and sorry) history of compromising passenger comfort and safety to comply with the evolved "standards".  Don't think it can't happen, despite the best efforts of the Metro's designers!

BTW, I'd be curious to know the lateral dimensions of the NWRL Metro.  It looks awfully narrow to me, though I was under the impression the system was speced to use the same lateral width, so when lines were converted they wouldn't need to rebuild *all* the stations Smile.
djf01
And after doing all this you have less seats in the combined fleets than now.
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

And after doing all this you have less seats in the combined fleets than now.

Yes, but more standing spaces!
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE
RER carriages are not compatible with Sydney as they are 112 metres for 5 carriage sets. Each carriage is about 22.4 metres in length and can supposedly hand 1300 passengers but this is mostly standing and not sitting. There is only 34 seats per carriage.
simstrain
The RER stock is over rated.

The 2 door DD's are similar to Sydney but 4m longer

The 3 door DD's are still 4 m longer, but with an extra set of doors and with minimal vestibule seating the total number of seats is similar to Sydney. The 3rd doors does allow for faster dwell times.

The RER network on the busy lines makes Sydney's on time reliability look good. Sydney and the RER have gone down the same path and hence used the same cheap fix to solve the same issue that no longer works. ie large surface network congested into a short common set of tunnels for only a few km. Paris is going to have to bite the bullet in near future and duplicate the city tunnels to allow the RER to increase train frequency.

Sponsored advertisement

Subscribers: RTT_Rules, Transtopic

Display from: