T4 and SCO post NIF and T3 Metro conversion

 
  Transtopic Deputy Commissioner

Location: Sydney

Since we're all off in fantasy land, I'll post here what I was tinkering with down in Armchair Operators, *my* grand scheme for the one prosperous populous future Sydney.



Funded by cancelling the Western Metro, there are three main elements:
  • Western Express - with 240m platforms
  • Eastern Express - with 200m platforms
  • Inner West Extension to Olympic Park and (optionally) to Rhodes

There are two Outer Suburban systems, operated by NIFs or something similar (Orange and Green).  There is an S-Bahn type system over the SHB in the current format (yellow), and a short haul system via the airport (aqua) as well as the Metro (pink), which is a mix of all three.  T4 ignored for simplicity.

Orange Line: Penrith and Richmond to Parramatta, then all trains express non-stop to Central in 15 min, then Wyngaroo Hall (about 18 min).

Green Line: Campbelltown & Sydney Airport 2 to Revesby, then express (also about 15 minutes non stop) to Central, St James and maybe Bridge St.

Yellow Line: Glenfield via Granvile and Hornsby via Eastwood feed into the SHB line.  One of those two terminates at Nth Sydney, or maybe a new turnback at St Leonards.

Aqua Line: Olympic Park (Half Pattern, other half terminate at Homebush or proceed over new flyover to Rhodes on a segregated mostly single track sector) - City Circle - Airport - all to Reveseby.

Pink Line: The bloody metro.

HR Support routes:
Glenfield to Parramatta.  A much reduced Cumberland line, a feeder for the Orange Line
Liverpool to Bankstown express.  A metro feeder route
Lidcombe to Bankstown Shuttle.  Another Metro feeder route
Cabramatta to Bankstown milk run.
Parramatta to Bankstown shuttle (1/4 pattern)
Hornsby to Strathfield.  It's intended as a feeder for the metro at Epping, as Hornsby via Eastwood only gets a half yellow pattern.

These routes serviced by 4 car trains, or something smaller and cheaper anyway.
djf01
I've added further to my earlier post which you may care to comment on.

With regard to your above post, I regret to say that it truly belongs in fantasyland.  I can't even begin to respond to your suggestions as they are totally implausible.

However, getting back to T4 and SCO which is the subject of this thread, the scenario for future operation on this sector which I have suggested is a realistic assessment of what is likely to happen and certainly doesn't belong in the fantasyland category.

There is a clear intention to separate SCO services from the T4 all stations services and I would interpret that to specifically mean the sector between Wolli Creek and Erskineville.  SCO would still share the common express corridor with T4 between Hurstville and Wolli Creek, but switched to the Local instead of the current Main, with the T4 express services crossing over to the Main at Wolli Creek and the SCO services continuing on the Local to the Illawarra Dive to Sydney Terminal. Otherwise, what is the point of the new Hurstville crossover if the SCO services continue to run in a mixed pattern between Wolli Creek and Erskineville on the Illawarra Main, whether they proceed to Bondi Junction or Sydney Terminal?

The other point which you and others are missing, is that South Regional and Intercity trains would be able to cross from the Illawarra Dive from Sydney Terminal to the Local with a new crossover at Eveleigh, rather than the current operation where they have to share the Main with T4 and SCO services between Erskineville and Sydenham, before crossing over to the Local to access the East Hills Line express tracks.

I would expect that ultimately the Illawarra Local will become the express tracks between Hurstville and Redfern for SCO and T8 services via Sydenham, with intermediate stations like Tempe, St Peters and Erskineville being serviced exclusively by enhanced all stations T4 services from Wolli Creek to Bondi Junction.  That's not fantasy, but the reality.

Sponsored advertisement

  djf01 Chief Commissioner


Since we're all off in fantasy land, I'll post here what I was tinkering with down in Armchair Operators, *my* grand scheme for the one prosperous populous future Sydney.



...I've added further to my earlier post which you may care to comment on.

With regard to your above post, I regret to say that it truly belongs in fantasyland.  I can't even begin to respond to your suggestions as they are totally implausible.
Transtopic


Ouch !!!!

I'm sorry @trans, I wasn't intentionally having a go.  It's just that view is there are not going to be any investments in public transport, rail especially, for a very long time.  Be they metros, fantasy HR expansions, new airports or even Illawarra Locals to Mains double crossovers.  Even if that very stable genius is able to tweet out his retrospective vaccine from his toilet tomorrow (we all know he'll do it sooner or later), the reduction in PT use of this unspeakable event will take many years, probably decades, to recover from for a great many reasons.  That'd probably make a good thread for another topic.

On that basis I think *any* infrastructure upgrades - the topic we are all interested in here - are not in fantasyland.  So on that basis, I feel my more off world ideas are now no less valid.


There is another option to significantly increase terminating capacity at Sydney Terminal, which has previously been suggested by either djf or a6et. Apologies if I haven't correctly attributed your input.

As the Illawarra Main through platforms 9/10 at Redfern is now virtually redundant since the Airport Line took over their paths to the City Circle, the suggestion is that all track pairs between Eveleigh and Redfern should be shifted further east to the next pair.  That means that the Illawarra Dive would be exclusively through Redfern platforms 1/2, the Western Main switched to the Suburbans at Eveleigh through platforms 3/4, the Suburbans to the Inner West Local through platforms 5/6, the Inner West Local to the Illawarra Local through platforms 7/8 and the Illawarra Local to the unused Illawarra Main platforms 9/10.
Transtopic


Yep, that was mine - there was a lot more to it than that - but it's a fair summation.

But the purpose of it was not to increase capacity at Sydney Terminal, the reverse in fact, as it poached the Sydney Terminal paths off the Mains between Strathfield and Redfern to improve suburban operations.


However, getting back to T4 and SCO which is the subject of this thread,
Transtopic


Yep.


There is a clear intention to separate SCO services from the T4 all stations services and I would interpret that to specifically mean the sector between Wolli Creek and Erskineville.
Transtopic

I know that's how you interpret it.  But I'm still struggling to see why.

The new Hurstville crossover will allow the Illawarra Mains to act as the turnback facility with the same capacity as the Local's turnback facility.  That's what it does.

Yes, it would enable your scheme.  But I simply don't accept it is evidence TfNSW has any intentions of implementing your plan.  It could mean any number of other things, beyond your interpretation.

I'll give you yet another counter example - not to advocate it - just to illustrate my point.

In the past I've advocated converting the Illawarra from Wolli Creek to Hurtville to operate Up-Up-Down-Down.  It could be implemented with a couple of crossovers.  It would have the effect of removing opposing (passenger) movements at Wolli Creek Jtn, the same benefit of installing a flyover.  This new crossover  - while not essential - would certainly be helpful implementing that.  Up-Up-Down-Down ops would certainly increase capacity on Redfern to Arncliff, by effectively removing the non-flat junction.  But I don't for one second think the crossover is being built to allow Up-Up-Down-Down ops.

SCO would still share the common express corridor with T4 between Hurstville and Wolli Creek, but switched to the Local instead of the current Main, with the T4 express services crossing over to the Main at Wolli Creek and the SCO services continuing on the Local to the Illawarra Dive to Sydney Terminal. Otherwise, what is the point of the new Hurstville crossover if the SCO services continue to run in a mixed pattern between Wolli Creek and Erskineville on the Illawarra Main, whether they proceed to Bondi Junction or Sydney Terminal?


The other point which you and others are missing, is that South Regional and Intercity trains would be able to cross from the Illawarra Dive from Sydney Terminal to the Local with a new crossover at Eveleigh, rather than the current operation where they have to share the Main with T4 and SCO services between Erskineville and Sydenham, before crossing over to the Local to access the East Hills Line express tracks.
Transtopic

I'm not missing that point at all.  In fact I think it's the best argument for the scheme you've got.  This limitation is one of the reasons there are so few Southern Regional through services.  Of course there are other limitations as well, like lack of overhead wires on the main south and suitable alternate rolling stock.


I would expect that ultimately the Illawarra Local will become the express tracks between Hurstville and Redfern for SCO and T8 services via Sydenham, with intermediate stations like Tempe, St Peters and Erskineville being serviced exclusively by enhanced all stations T4 services from Wolli Creek to Bondi Junction.  That's not fantasy, but the reality.
Transtopic

I'm not trying to diss on the idea, but the fact remains - the idea it might actually be happening is all coming from one, and only one, source.

Now, can we go back to dissing my scheme with some reasons?
  Totoro Locomotive Fireman

@djf01, really interesting ideas, though I'd much prefer to keep the Metro West personally.

The fastest way to get from Rhodes to the CBD will be to change for the Metro West at North Strathfield. That would have to be 5-10 mins faster than anything running along the main line (especially given its track alignment full of 19th century curves).

P.S. I really hope we don't see a permanent shift away from PT investment as a result of all this. That would be a terrible shame, though perhaps it would lessen the immediate need for upgrades anyway (i.e. less crush-loading). Interesting times ahead..
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

@djf01, really interesting ideas, though I'd much prefer to keep the Metro West personally.

The fastest way to get from Rhodes to the CBD will be to change for the Metro West at North Strathfield. That would have to be 5-10 mins faster than anything running along the main line (especially given its track alignment full of 19th century curves).

P.S. I really hope we don't see a permanent shift away from PT investment as a result of all this. That would be a terrible shame, though perhaps it would lessen the immediate need for upgrades anyway (i.e. less crush-loading). Interesting times ahead..
Totoro

You'll lose 5-10 min in the transfer at Nth Strathfield.  4-6 min getting from one platform to the other, 1-4min wait for a train.  Worse going home, without a turn up and go frequency on the main north.  You've be better off going the direct journey on HR.  You might even get a seat!
  Transtopic Deputy Commissioner

Location: Sydney


There is a clear intention to separate SCO services from the T4 all stations services and I would interpret that to specifically mean the sector between Wolli Creek and Erskineville.

- Transtopic


I know that's how you interpret it.  But I'm still struggling to see why.

The new Hurstville crossover will allow the Illawarra Mains to act as the turnback facility with the same capacity as the Local's turnback facility.  That's what it does.

Yes, it would enable your scheme.  But I simply don't accept it is evidence TfNSW has any intentions of implementing your plan.  It could mean any number of other things, beyond your interpretation.

I'll give you yet another counter example - not to advocate it - just to illustrate my point.

In the past I've advocated converting the Illawarra from Wolli Creek to Hurtville to operate Up-Up-Down-Down.  It could be implemented with a couple of crossovers.  It would have the effect of removing opposing (passenger) movements at Wolli Creek Jtn, the same benefit of installing a flyover.  This new crossover  - while not essential - would certainly be helpful implementing that.  Up-Up-Down-Down ops would certainly increase capacity on Redfern to Arncliff, by effectively removing the non-flat junction.  But I don't for one second think the crossover is being built to allow Up-Up-Down-Down ops.

djf01
I can't understand how you can't see the logic for it.  It seems perfectly clear to me.

The current pattern is for the Cronulla/Waterfall express suburban and SCO Intercity services to run on the Illawarra Main directly to Bondi Junction via Wolli Creek with no crossing over.  The all stations Hurstville to Bondi Junction services, including Tempe but excluding St Peters and Erskineville, run on the Illawarra Local and it is these services which now make the cross  from the Local to the Main and merging with the other services to Bondi Junction.

The aim of the Hurstville Crossover project is to reverse this pattern, so that the all stops service will run on the Main from Hurstville directly to Bondi Junction with no crossing over at Wolli Creek.  It would also allow greater terminating capacity at Hurstville on platforms 3 & 4, rather than just platform 2 on the Local which is currently the case.  Except for weekend shutdowns for track maintenance and emergency diversions, I wouldn't expect the Local to be used for terminating services on a regular basis.  

The Suburban express and Intercity services will switch to the Local, with the Suburban services now making the cross at Wolli Creek and merging with the all stops to Bondi Junction.  The SCO Intercity would then continue directly to Sydney Terminal on the Local from the Wolli Creek crossover, separated from the Suburban services.  This is the only way they can increase services for both Suburban and Intercity as they can't all run to Bondi Junction.  They may not yet have spelt out what the future operating pattern will be, but I'm sure that will come in time.

Your idea of the Up-Up-Down-Down track reconfiguration between Wolli Creek and Hurstville  is also something which I have considered.  It would bring it into line with the other similar configurations on the Western, Northern and East Hills Lines where they have quadruplicated track.  Its advantage is that it allows cross platform interchange at the major stations like Hurstville between the express and slower all stations services and also merging without conflicting movements.

However, to do it properly it should be a grade separated crossover, either by a flyover or underpass, depending where it is constructed.  The Illawarra Down Local would cross either above or below both Illawarra Main tracks with appropriate realignment.  It would be the reverse image of the Westmead underpass on the Western Line.

The outer track pair would then become the express tracks to and from Sydney Terminal and the inner track pair the all stations tracks terminating at platforms 2 & 3 at Hurstville.  Platforms 1 & 4 would be exclusively for Suburban express and Intercity services.  Crossing conflicts at Wolli Creek would be virtually eliminated with simple crossovers between parallel tracks allowing for smoother merging.
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

...
I can't understand how you can't see the logic for it.  It seems perfectly clear to me.
Transtopic

I can see the logic for doing it.  I see can't the logic for thinking they are *going* to do it.
  Transtopic Deputy Commissioner

Location: Sydney
...
I can't understand how you can't see the logic for it.  It seems perfectly clear to me.

I can see the logic for doing it.  I see can't the logic for thinking they are *going* to do it.
djf01
Well, why would they bother with the Hurstville Crossover project?  They might as well just leave things as they are.  There's no other alternative to increase frequencies for both T4 and SCO in the scenario I have suggested.  Can you?  Admittedly, it still has to be spelt out when the future operating patterns are to be confirmed.

I had intended to add to my earlier post in response to your post, but I got timed out (which is a frequent irritation on this site).  
While the Up-Up-Down-Down concept on the Illawarra Line between Wolli Creek and Hurstville seems to be a logical long term solution to simplify the operating pattern on that corridor, bringing it into line with the other major rail corridors, it has so far not been on the agenda, at least not publicly.  Perhaps it might be in the longer term.  I agree that the Hurstville Crossover project has no relevance to that possibility.        

I still intend to respond to your earlier suggestion for a future operating pattern for the Sydney Trains network, but I will do so when I've had more time to think it through.  I think it may be more appropriate to continue that discussion on another thread, as it is not relevant to this thread.
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

...
I can't understand how you can't see the logic for it.  It seems perfectly clear to me.

I can see the logic for doing it.  I see can't the logic for thinking they are *going* to do it.
Well, why would they bother with the Hurstville Crossover project?  They might as well just leave things as they are.  There's no other alternative to increase frequencies for both T4 and SCO in the scenario I have suggested.  Can you?  Admittedly, it still has to be spelt out when the future operating patterns are to be confirmed.
Transtopic

OK, I'll provide *another* counter example.  I must say, the logic of suggesting "as there is not other explanation I'd accept, the proposition therefore must be true" is not entirely sound.  A counter example only has to be plausible, not likely, to counter "I must be right because there is not other explanation".

So here it is.  I must stress, it's not a suggestion, just possible and in keeping with TfNSW's stated objectives and general philosophy that prioritises simple stopping patterns and greater sectorisation over quality of service.  Remember, it only has to be plausible to be an effective counter example.  And the point I'm trying to prove here is not that @trans's scheme is unworkable, just that the Hurstville crossovers are not evidence it's being planned and implemented.

OK, here it is (said that last time).

There is a document in the Bankstown thread that preceded this, showing Revesby-Airport-Central running as a stand alone independent line.  (I'll see if I can dig it up, I think @trans might have even posted it).  If you could turn back ESR trains at Hurstville, ESR-Hurstville could operate as a stand alone system.  Both Revesby-Central and Hurstville-BJ are 45-50min run times.  They could run turn up and go frequencies (Airport would struggle with more than 6tph, but it's well within the patronage of Revesby to Central AFAIK).

That reduces the demand for slots from Cronulla and Campbelltown to 8 each, plus 4 more for SCO(/inc Waterfall).  So The Eastern arm of the CC becomes fed by those two core routes: Campbelltown and Cronulla.  Better sectorisation.  Reduced stopping patterns.  Simpler Operations.  Two short haul sections of the network go timetable-less.  All implemented with just a crossover.

They *could* also run 24tph between Central and the East Hills Junction at Tempe/Wolli Creek without infrastructure upgrades if they skip stopped Sydenham and Redfern.  16 tph off the Inner West (8 ex Parra all stops, 8 ex "Liverpool" skipping 2 stops), and with the magic of the flying junctions, 20tph around the circle each way.

It's not a perfect plan.  I'm not advocating it.  10 car SCO NIFs aren't catered for.  If they ran at all they'd have to thread through the ESR-Hurstville sector somehow to get to the Illawarra dive.  In fact @Trans' crossovers would be very helpful in this regard.  But it's not essential for this plan to be plausible, whereas the new Hurstville crossover is.  Further there *is* actual evidence they are considering at least part of it (to be presented later when I find it).  

That my friend, is a plausible counter example (one of many others I could present), and therefore "my idea must be right without evidence because there is no other plausible explanation" is false.

Edit: Found it:
https://www.railpage.com.au/f-p2166338.htm#2166338

  Totoro Locomotive Fireman

@djf01, really interesting ideas, though I'd much prefer to keep the Metro West personally.

The fastest way to get from Rhodes to the CBD will be to change for the Metro West at North Strathfield. That would have to be 5-10 mins faster than anything running along the main line (especially given its track alignment full of 19th century curves).

P.S. I really hope we don't see a permanent shift away from PT investment as a result of all this. That would be a terrible shame, though perhaps it would lessen the immediate need for upgrades anyway (i.e. less crush-loading). Interesting times ahead..

You'll lose 5-10 min in the transfer at Nth Strathfield.  4-6 min getting from one platform to the other, 1-4min wait for a train.  Worse going home, without a turn up and go frequency on the main north.  You've be better off going the direct journey on HR.  You might even get a seat!
djf01

I come up with slightly different numbers. Assuming a trip starting at the HR platforms at Nth Strathfield:

Option 1: HR from Nth Strathfield -> Wynard
* Timetabled travel time during AM peak: 27 minutes
Total Time = 27 minutes.

Option 2: Change from HR -> MW at Nth Strathfield; then MW -> Martin Place
Time spent transferring from HR -> MW platform: 4-5 mins (I'm being conservative here; it usually only takes me 2 mins at Epping).
Time spent waiting at Metro platform: 4 mins (again I'm being conservative; real-world average wait time will be less than this).
Time spent on Metro: 12.5 mins (Supposing a 25 minute trip from Parramatta -> Martin Place).
Total Time = 21.5 minutes.

Based on these conservative calcs, I reckon Metro West would save at least 5.5 mins, but in a real world scenario it will be anywhere from 5-10 minutes depending on your walking speed and/or Metro arrival times.

You do have a point regarding the wait times for T9 trains in the PM peak. However things may look quite different in 2030. My bet is that, by that time, all T9 services will terminating at Central but running at a higher frequency.

You're welcome to have my seat btw. :p
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

I come up with slightly different numbers. Assuming a trip starting at the HR platforms at Nth Strathfield:

Option 1: HR from Nth Strathfield -> Wynard
* Timetabled travel time during AM peak: 27 minutes
Total Time = 27 minutes.

Option 2: Change from HR -> MW at Nth Strathfield; then MW -> Martin Place
Time spent transferring from HR -> MW platform: 4-5 mins (I'm being conservative here; it usually only takes me 2 mins at Epping).
Time spent waiting at Metro platform: 4 mins (again I'm being conservative; real-world average wait time will be less than this).
Time spent on Metro: 12.5 mins (Supposing a 25 minute trip from Parramatta -> Martin Place).
Total Time = 21.5 minutes.

Based on these conservative calcs, I reckon Metro West would save at least 5.5 mins, but in a real world scenario it will be anywhere from 5-10 minutes depending on your walking speed and/or Metro arrival times.

You do have a point regarding the wait times for T9 trains in the PM peak. However things may look quite different in 2030. My bet is that, by that time, all T9 services will terminating at Central but running at a higher frequency.

You're welcome to have my seat btw. :p
Totoro

I reckon 17 minutes on the Metro from Nth Strathfield to Martin Place: 12km @ 100kph => 7.5 minutes.  5 stops with a 2 min stopping penalty (that might be a bit high for metro, but 1min is too slow) so 17.5min.  

Further, how long does it take to get from Rhodes to Nth Strathfield?  (4min according to NSW Trip Planner).

So 4 min mode 1, 4 min interchange, 3 min wait, 15 min mode 2 = 26min.

I don't think I appreciated just how close Nth Strathfield is to central Sydney, my perception coloured by how long it takes to get there by any mode currently available.

Thanks for the seat.  I hope you don't mind if I wait till I'm vaxinated. /s
  Transtopic Deputy Commissioner

Location: Sydney

There is a document in the Bankstown thread that preceded this, showing Revesby-Airport-Central running as a stand alone independent line.  (I'll see if I can dig it up, I think @trans might have even posted it).  If you could turn back ESR trains at Hurstville, ESR-Hurstville could operate as a stand alone system.  Both Revesby-Central and Hurstville-BJ are 45-50min run times.  They could run turn up and go frequencies (Airport would struggle with more than 6tph, but it's well within the patronage of Revesby to Central AFAIK).

That reduces the demand for slots from Cronulla and Campbelltown to 8 each, plus 4 more for SCO(/inc Waterfall).  So The Eastern arm of the CC becomes fed by those two core routes: Campbelltown and Cronulla.  Better sectorisation.  Reduced stopping patterns.  Simpler Operations.  Two short haul sections of the network go timetable-less.  All implemented with just a crossover.

They *could* also run 24tph between Central and the East Hills Junction at Tempe/Wolli Creek without infrastructure upgrades if they skip stopped Sydenham and Redfern.  16 tph off the Inner West (8 ex Parra all stops, 8 ex "Liverpool" skipping 2 stops), and with the magic of the flying junctions, 20tph around the circle each way.

It's not a perfect plan.  I'm not advocating it.  10 car SCO NIFs aren't catered for.  If they ran at all they'd have to thread through the ESR-Hurstville sector somehow to get to the Illawarra dive.  In fact @Trans' crossovers would be very helpful in this regard.  But it's not essential for this plan to be plausible, whereas the new Hurstville crossover is.  Further there *is* actual evidence they are considering at least part of it (to be presented later when I find it).  

That my friend, is a plausible counter example (one of many others I could present), and therefore "my idea must be right without evidence because there is no other plausible explanation" is false.

Edit: Found it:
https://www.railpage.com.au/f-p2166338.htm#2166338

djf01
I'm sorry to say that your suggestion IS implausible djf.  The document you posted is now way out of date and it was only a draft at the time.  It shows the Sydenham to Hurstville sector as a branch of the metro to Bankstown and no reference to Metro West.  As I previously suggested the Hurstville Metro project is now dead, buried and cremated, superseded by more recent planning. It also shows the T9 Northern Line all stations service from Epping crossing to the T2 Inner West Line at Strathfield running all stops to the City Circle, when more recent announcements of reinstating the Liverpool via Regents Park services would make this impossible.  It's no longer relevant.  I've already responded to this proposal on the other thread, and in simple terms, I called it crap.

If you're relying on that document to support your suggested future operating pattern, then you are totally misguided. Granted, Revesby to Central via the Airport Line and Hurstville to Bondi Junction via the ESR would and essentially do operate as stand alone all stations services.  

In the case of Revesby-Central, it also includes some T8 Campbelltown/Macarthur services which run to the same single pattern from Wolli Creek to Central, continuing into the City Circle east arm, which I expect would continue after the Bankstown Metro becomes operational.  The Airport Line already runs at a frequency of 10tph and is being upgraded to 15tph, so I don't think that the Revesby sector alone would justify that level of frequency and it should continue to include additional Campbelltown/Macarthur services.  Further additional Campbelltown/Macarthur services via Sydenham will also be possible when the Bankstown Line is converted to metro.  Ultimately the T8 via Sydenham services will merge into the City Circle inner and outer arms via the flying junctions, just as the current T3 Bankstown services do.

With regard to Hurstville-Bondi Junction, the clear intent is to make this a stand alone all stations corridor by switching it from the Local to the Main with the installation of the new crossover at Hurstville.  However, that couldn't justify a frequency of 20tph, let alone 24tph with ATO upgrading, for just the Hurstville-Wolli Creek all stations sector.  The logical conclusion is that it would also accommodate the Cronulla and Waterfall services crossing over and merging at Wolli Creek and continuing on a single all stations pattern to Bondi Junction at the lines maximum frequency.

There is no doubt that they want to separate the SCO services from the T4 all stations services, except for the shared express paths between Hurstville and Wolli Creek, switched from the Main to the Local.  There is also a clear intention to introduce the 10 car NIFs for SCO services with the lengthening of platforms at Wollongong and Waterfall to accommodate them.  It would be totally illogical, though dare I say impossible, to thread them through the Wolli Creek-Bondi Junction sector on the Main to reach the existing connection to the Illawarra Dive at Eveleigh. There is no other alternative but to construct the crossover from the Local to the dive at Eveleigh as I have suggested.  Watch this space.
  Transtopic Deputy Commissioner

Location: Sydney
@djf01, really interesting ideas, though I'd much prefer to keep the Metro West personally.

The fastest way to get from Rhodes to the CBD will be to change for the Metro West at North Strathfield. That would have to be 5-10 mins faster than anything running along the main line (especially given its track alignment full of 19th century curves).

P.S. I really hope we don't see a permanent shift away from PT investment as a result of all this. That would be a terrible shame, though perhaps it would lessen the immediate need for upgrades anyway (i.e. less crush-loading). Interesting times ahead..

You'll lose 5-10 min in the transfer at Nth Strathfield.  4-6 min getting from one platform to the other, 1-4min wait for a train.  Worse going home, without a turn up and go frequency on the main north.  You've be better off going the direct journey on HR.  You might even get a seat!

I come up with slightly different numbers. Assuming a trip starting at the HR platforms at Nth Strathfield:

Option 1: HR from Nth Strathfield -> Wynard
* Timetabled travel time during AM peak: 27 minutes
Total Time = 27 minutes.

Option 2: Change from HR -> MW at Nth Strathfield; then MW -> Martin Place
Time spent transferring from HR -> MW platform: 4-5 mins (I'm being conservative here; it usually only takes me 2 mins at Epping).
Time spent waiting at Metro platform: 4 mins (again I'm being conservative; real-world average wait time will be less than this).
Time spent on Metro: 12.5 mins (Supposing a 25 minute trip from Parramatta -> Martin Place).
Total Time = 21.5 minutes.

Based on these conservative calcs, I reckon Metro West would save at least 5.5 mins, but in a real world scenario it will be anywhere from 5-10 minutes depending on your walking speed and/or Metro arrival times.

You do have a point regarding the wait times for T9 trains in the PM peak. However things may look quite different in 2030. My bet is that, by that time, all T9 services will terminating at Central but running at a higher frequency.

You're welcome to have my seat btw. :p
Totoro
While I agree that Metro West is likely to go ahead, although perhaps delayed, I'm perplexed why you would bother changing twice from Rhodes to Wynyard to save 5 or even 10 minutes, when you can continue to have a direct journey on the existing service, possibly with a seat, without changing at all.  It's not rational thinking. You're also ignoring the possibility that the existing service can potentially be speeded up, particularly when ATO is introduced, which is likely to reduce or even eliminate that deficit.

It's a different scenario if you're going to Central for example, when the existing service would be faster.  A lot depends on where your final destination is in the CBD.  I'm sceptical of whether T9 commuters would be enticed to interchange to the metro at North Strathfield to reach the CBD.  It's a flawed strategy if the Metro West proposal relies on this to bolster its business case.
  Totoro Locomotive Fireman

@Transtopic

This is just a matter of preference, really. The trip is short enough that, being relatively young and able bodied, Im not at all fussed about getting a seat or having to make a 5 minute transfer. I can see how some might have an issue with that though.

The most important thing in my view is that the trip be as efficient as possible: and to me, efficiency is primarily about speed. If I get to spend 5-10 extra minutes being productive at work in the morning, and 5-10 minutes more with my family in the evening then I will absolutely take that option, and so will many others.
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

Transtopic, if the intent is to make Hurstville to Bondi a dedicated stand alone line then where will the trains from beyond Hurstville both T4 and SCO go?

You need to face it that there is no room for any extra or separation of services on the T4/SCO unless whole new lines are built.
  Transtopic Deputy Commissioner

Location: Sydney
Transtopic, if the intent is to make Hurstville to Bondi a dedicated stand alone line then where will the trains from beyond Hurstville both T4 and SCO go?

You need to face it that there is no room for any extra or separation of services on the T4/SCO unless whole new lines are built.
simstrain
What I meant was that the whole line from Hurstville to Bondi Junction on the Illawarra Main and ESR, would become a single all stops pattern, with the T4 express services crossing from the Local to the Main at Wolli Creek and merging with the all stops in the same pattern to Bondi Junction.  20tph or more wouldn't be justified for the Hurstville all stops alone.  It's a similar situation with the all stops Revesby-City Circle via the Airport Line service, shared with some Campbelltown services in a single pattern after the merge to the Airport Line between Turrella and Wolli Creek.

SCO services would continue on the Local to Sydney Terminal as I previously outlined. This arrangement would separate them from the T4 all stops pattern and allow an increase in services for all.
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

Transtopic, if the intent is to make Hurstville to Bondi a dedicated stand alone line then where will the trains from beyond Hurstville both T4 and SCO go?

You need to face it that there is no room for any extra or separation of services on the T4/SCO unless whole new lines are built.
simstrain

@Sims - that was my suggestion, not @Transtopics.  They would go to the eastern arm of the City Circle.  Revesby - Airport - Central services are removed from T8 to make space.

You know it makes sense Smile.
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

Transtopic, if the intent is to make Hurstville to Bondi a dedicated stand alone line then where will the trains from beyond Hurstville both T4 and SCO go?

You need to face it that there is no room for any extra or separation of services on the T4/SCO unless whole new lines are built.

@Sims - that was my suggestion, not @Transtopics.  They would go to the eastern arm of the City Circle.  Revesby - Airport - Central services are removed from T8 to make space.

You know it makes sense Smile.
djf01

Sorry TT for blaming you. That is not going to happen DJF because the T4 already has it's route through the city and it is to BJ. The T8 and the airport line carry way too many passengers to move them off the CC. The only way things change from how they are now on the T4 is the following.

1. A new path in the CBD that isn't the CC or ESR.
2. Quadding the line from Hurstville to Sutherland.
3. Extra platform at Wolli Creek.
4. Re arranging the track at Erskineville / Eveleigh to run in to the new path in the CBD.

What is most likely to happen under this government is none of the above and a new southern metro that will connect in to the metro west. But not until after the current crisis is over and done with.

The T4 / SCO will stay as it is as there is no other option. Hence why making the T4 all stops between Wolli Creek and redfern is stupid since the T8 will have plenty of spare capacity post T3 conversion to take all the passengers from Tempe to Erskineville and removing the strain from the T4 which doesn't have room to grow.
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

Transtopic, if the intent is to make Hurstville to Bondi a dedicated stand alone line then where will the trains from beyond Hurstville both T4 and SCO go?

You need to face it that there is no room for any extra or separation of services on the T4/SCO unless whole new lines are built.

@Sims - that was my suggestion, not @Transtopics.  They would go to the eastern arm of the City Circle.  Revesby - Airport - Central services are removed from T8 to make space.

You know it makes sense Smile.

Sorry TT for blaming you. That is not going to happen DJF because the T4 already has it's route through the city and it is to BJ.
simstrain

I never said it was going to happen.  I just said there was *more* evidence it might happen that @trans' scheme for Illawarra Dive crossovers.  The only evidence for @trans' scheme is he's repeated it three times, so it must be true.  

The T8 and the airport line carry way too many passengers to move them off the CC.
simstrain

Look at the picture.  They have considered, are possibly still planning to, hive off Revesby-Central into a stand alone system to free up slots on the CC.

Look at the picture, and the loadings on T4.  They are/were considering running the ESR partially self contained.

Would I do this?  No.  Would TfNSW?  It was seriously considered.  And what's more there is even evidence for it!

The T4 / SCO will stay as it is as there is no other option.
simstrain

Of course there are other options.  Since when does something not being rational (to us) mean it's not an option for gvt?
  Transtopic Deputy Commissioner

Location: Sydney

The T8 and the airport line carry way too many passengers to move them off the CC.

Look at the picture.  They have considered, are possibly still planning to, hive off Revesby-Central into a stand alone system to free up slots on the CC.

Look at the picture, and the loadings on T4.  They are/were considering running the ESR partially self contained.

Would I do this?  No.  Would TfNSW?  It was seriously considered.  And what's more there is even evidence for it!
djf01
I don't deny that there have been previous plans to hive off Revesby-Central into a stand alone system to free up slots on the CC.  I have also advocated this as an alternative option to removing the Bankstown Line from the CC through the metro conversion, avoiding the disruption to existing services during the major shutdowns which will be required.  With both the Airport and Bankstown Lines currently running at 10tph, either option would free up the same number of slots on the CC.  Add to that the 2 spare slots on the CC Inner (eastern) arm.

However, now that the Bankstown Line conversion option has been chosen for the metro, they have probably moved away from terminating the Airport Line at Central.  It's now proposed to upgrade the Airport Line to 15tph, which would allow for an increase in services for both Revesby and Campbelltown services, continuing into the City Circle, and merging with additional T8 via Sydenham services post metro conversion.

I still think that in the longer term, the Airport Line could be diverted from Central platforms 22 & 23, adjacent to the present viaduct to the City Underground, to a new terminus in the CBD such as Martin Place or thereabouts.  There is room for it between the viaduct and Elizabeth St, but it would have to be on a fairly steep grade to pass under Hay St and the Goulburn St carpark.  I don't know why this wasn't done under Bradfield's original plan for the City Underground, when it could have avoided the merge between the Illawarra Local and Main Lines into the CC.

Alternatively, the Airport Line could be diverted from the Prince Alfred Park tunnel portals to the unused underground platforms 26 & 27 at Central and extended further into the CBD if it's still feasible to use those platforms.  Maybe not.  In either case, it would free up even more slots on the CC for other services.
  Transtopic Deputy Commissioner

Location: Sydney
Transtopic, if the intent is to make Hurstville to Bondi a dedicated stand alone line then where will the trains from beyond Hurstville both T4 and SCO go?

You need to face it that there is no room for any extra or separation of services on the T4/SCO unless whole new lines are built.

@Sims - that was my suggestion, not @Transtopics.  They would go to the eastern arm of the City Circle.  Revesby - Airport - Central services are removed from T8 to make space.

You know it makes sense Smile.

Sorry TT for blaming you. That is not going to happen DJF because the T4 already has it's route through the city and it is to BJ. The T8 and the airport line carry way too many passengers to move them off the CC. The only way things change from how they are now on the T4 is the following.

1. A new path in the CBD that isn't the CC or ESR.
2. Quadding the line from Hurstville to Sutherland.
3. Extra platform at Wolli Creek.
4. Re arranging the track at Erskineville / Eveleigh to run in to the new path in the CBD.

What is most likely to happen under this government is none of the above and a new southern metro that will connect in to the metro west. But not until after the current crisis is over and done with.

The T4 / SCO will stay as it is as there is no other option. Hence why making the T4 all stops between Wolli Creek and redfern is stupid since the T8 will have plenty of spare capacity post T3 conversion to take all the passengers from Tempe to Erskineville and removing the strain from the T4 which doesn't have room to grow.
simstrain
No apology required sims.  

Just to comment briefly on your suggestions of how things could change from the current operations on T4, I respond as follows-

1.  A new path in the CBD that isn't the CC or ESR -

    It's not necessary in the short term to achieve greater separation and frequencies on T4 and SCO, when a simple crossover              from the Local to the dive at Eveleigh to Sydney Terminal is all that's needed.

2.  Quadding the line from Hurstville to Sutherland -

    Agree it's needed long term, but not relevant to this discussion.

3.  Extra platform at Wolli Creek -

    Also agree, but only if it's feasible and the demand for SCO commuters interchanging to the Airport Line warrant it.

4.  Re arranging the track at Erskineville/Eveleigh to run in to the new path in the CBD -

    Only needed for a new crossover from the Local to the dive as stated above, but no new path into the CBD is needed for T4              or T8 in the immediate future.

T4 and SCO won't stay as it is.  Why do you continue to deny the reasons for undertaking the Hurstville Crossover project?  It's there in black and white in the official documents.  I suggest that you read them again, unless you already haven't.  Just don't take my word for it.
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

The Hurstville crossover project is just a Turnback option for platform 4. What it isn't going to do is allow an increase of services on the T4 or move SCO trains in to Central terminal post D set introduction. The governments intention is to separate the T4 / SCO from the rest of the network which is what it currently achieves. Your solution completely goes against this policy by re introducing connections with the T3 and T8. Your solution also adds passengers on to the already full T4 where as using the T8 services post metro conversion helps relieve the T4.
  Sydney Metro Vlogs Locomotive Fireman

Location: On H1 in car OD6901
Would integrating Eveleigh locomotive dive, with a modified timetable, allow for South Coast services to reach Sydney Terminal?
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

Would integrating Eveleigh locomotive dive, with a modified timetable, allow for South Coast services to reach Sydney Terminal?
Sydney Metro Vlogs

No. That is on the wrong side of the tracks for a start and only a single track with a 5km/h speed limit. It still connects where you are going to have to merge with T9, CCN and BM services.
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

Would integrating Eveleigh locomotive dive, with a modified timetable, allow for South Coast services to reach Sydney Terminal?
Sydney Metro Vlogs

I'd never considered this.  I had to check my DRKD to see if it's feasible.  There are some problems as @Sims has pointed out, but I actually think this is a really interesting idea.  

If the dive connecting to the mains (points #266) could be moved toward central 200m, *after* the points #264, then the Main section of Sydney Terminal and either the Suburban section or the Bankstown section could operate independently.  That really would increase the throughput of Sydney Yard, single track not withstanding.

Obviously it would mean big changes at Everleigh, but even so, I think it's a reasonable idea - especially if the intend to terminate 20tph off the Mains at Sydney Terminal, as well as deal with SCO and potentially future Highlands Central terminators.
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

If you somehow managed to move the tunnel closer to central it still doesn't overcome that eveleigh is full of trains in peak hour either coming in or going out and not just in that tunnel. Rebuilding the dive so it comes out where suggested is the option you need but will this government do that.

Sponsored advertisement

Subscribers: PeeJay, Transtopic, WimbledonW

Display from: