T4 and SCO post NIF and T3 Metro conversion

 
  alleve Junior Train Controller

Location: T4 Illawarra Line
"I am from Victoria and I do not understand the opposition to Sydney Metro. It is better than anything the Victorian Government is hoping to do. I can understand the reservations of converting the Bankstown line to Metro. I can also understand why the NSW Government is doing so."
The opposition isn't to Sydney Metro itself, but rather the execution. Sydney Metro should be entirely new lines, like the North-West, as opposed to converting existing lines and not even converting them well. The Bankstown conversion doesn't even go the full way, meaning they have to introduce a shuttle service. And the airport line theyre now building is just plain stupid. There are so many better options that the Govt has just ignored.

Sydney Metro as a concept, as executed so far and for some of the lines as proposed, is a very good thing that shouldve come sooner. But there are still issues with it that should be solved. It's just frustrating that the Govt wants to waste the potential. I don't think anyone here is really "opposed" to it, at least not that I've seen. More so that we want better because we could have better

Sponsored advertisement

  simstrain Chief Commissioner

I agree that the execution of bankstown metro is bad. It should either stop at Sydenham or go all the way to either Lidcombe or Cabramatta.  Building underground from Birrong to Lidcombe would be my preferred option. Terminating at Bankstown is just a bad idea.
  scadam Locomotive Driver

Building underground from Birrong to Lidcombe would be my preferred option. Terminating at Bankstown is just a bad idea.
simstrain

It's important to remember that the long-term plan is to continue the line direct to Liverpool with a new underground section, which would make a more direct link between Liverpool, Bankstown and the city. Extending the metro to Lidcombe and Cabramatta might 'fill the gaps' in the short term but this would form too many branches to provide a frequent through-service for each section of line, particularly if a new line to Liverpool is eventually built.

I suspect that the right-of-way between Bankstown, Yagoona and Birrong will someday form part of a Parramatta-Bankstown-Kingsgrove-Kogarah railway line (this concept has been featured in a number of planning documents). In this scenario, there are no shuttle trains and only Yagoona and Birrong lose direct city service, instead having direct service to Parramatta.
  BaysideManny Chief Train Controller

"I am from Victoria and I do not understand the opposition to Sydney Metro. It is better than anything the Victorian Government is hoping to do. I can understand the reservations of converting the Bankstown line to Metro. I can also understand why the NSW Government is doing so."
The opposition isn't to Sydney Metro itself, but rather the execution. Sydney Metro should be entirely new lines, like the North-West, as opposed to converting existing lines and not even converting them well. The Bankstown conversion doesn't even go the full way, meaning they have to introduce a shuttle service. And the airport line theyre now building is just plain stupid. There are so many better options that the Govt has just ignored.

Sydney Metro as a concept, as executed so far and for some of the lines as proposed, is a very good thing that shouldve come sooner. But there are still issues with it that should be solved. It's just frustrating that the Govt wants to waste the potential. I don't think anyone here is really "opposed" to it, at least not that I've seen. More so that we want better because we could have better
alleve
Thank you for that explanation. Yes they should have gone all the way to Lidcombe or stop at Sydenham. And the NW Metro should have gone a further 2 kms from Tallawong to Schofields. And I agree, the line to Western Sydney Airport should be Sydney Trains.

The point is was making though is that I am envious of the Sydney system. It is far better than Melbourne's. You will have a fully functional Metro covering 66km and 31 Stations fully automated by 2024, whilst we in Vic are insisting of building much of our network using Diesel rolling stock from the mid 1990's. A regional rail line acting as a Suburban service using outdated DMU's and is already very near capacity.

Mannie
  Transtopic Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney
The Bankstown Line conversion was purely political (in a move that completely failed due to the Covid response against the South-East and the seeming lack of one against the Eastern Suburbs. There is a lot of resentment in the South). Sure, it helps by removing the T3 from the City Circle. That's a great benefit, but a benefit that doesn't mean anything until the T2 has its express and local services segregated like the T8 does between Wolli Creek and Revesby. If they truly wanted to fix things they'd be investing in quad track between Redfern to Lidcombe, Cabramatta to Liverpool. This would allow two main stopping patterns much like the T8 has: All stops to Liverpool via Regents Park, Limited stops to Leppington via Granville. Until this happens, T2 capacity won't increase much, because its biggest limitation is sharing tracks with itself, not sharing tracks with the T3. It's also worth noting that the Govt's failure to extend the metro by only two stops means that there will also be a new shuttle service competing with the T2 between Regents Park and Lidcombe, although I'm sure it could be timetabled to have negligible impact.

The T4 would presumably operate the same way as a metro as it currently does, with all services past Hurstville being all stops due to the lack of quad track. The biggest issue with a T4 metro is that freight and SCO trains use the T4's tracks. They would need entirely new double track between Waterfall and Wolli Creek.
alleve
I agree with you that the Bankstown Line conversion was ill-conceived for purely political and ideological reasons, just as every other aspect of the government's metro agenda has been so far.  The only reason why it is being converted is because the metro extension from the north was looking for a destination and converting the Bankstown Line was the cheapest way to go, not that in itself it warranted a metro style service.  They could have extended the metro to Miranda via Sydney Airport from Sydenham, but that would obviously cost a lot more.  Just like the conversion of the Epping to Chatswood Rail Link, they completely ignored how it impacted on the Sydney Trains' network as though it was of no consequence.

The Bankstown Line conversion has removed 10tph in the peak from the City Circle, which isn't a bad thing, but as I mentioned in my previous post it has also limited the number of additional services for T8 which could potentially use a new cross harbour link if it was a part of the Sydney Trains' network. The Bankstown Line metro is never going to warrant 30tph, even if extended to Liverpool, which is by no means certain.  It's a huge waste.

T2 is a major issue for the Sydney Trains' network, in that it's the only line which doesn't allow for the separation of all stations and longer distance express services in sharing a single track pair.  Sextuplication of the Western Line from Homebush to Granville would go some way to addressing this, but it needs to go further by constructing an express tunnel from Homebush to the previously proposed City Relief Line from Eveleigh to Wynyard.  This could separate the all stations and semi-express T2 services in tandem with the T1 and T9 semi-express services.  My suggested pattern would be an all stations service from Bankstown to the City Circle via Lidcombe; a semi-express service from Leppington via Regents Park, stopping all stations to Burwood, then express to Redfern on the Suburban tracks and a semi-express service from Liverpool via Granville, also stopping all stations to Burwood and express to Redfern on the Suburban tracks.  The Suburban tracks from Strathfield to the CBD and across the Harbour Bridge would be shared by T2 and T9.  All T1 services would use the new track pair from Granville and the express tunnel to Wynyard via the City Relief Line.

A previous proposal for the Homebush to Parramatta sextuplication is shown below, although I would suggest some amendments.

https://i.imgur.com/ncvg9dg.png

With regard to T4, I don't think there is any prospect of the line south of Hurstville being converted to metro, nor in fact from Hurstville to Bondi Junction, as I previously commented.  With the proposed upgrades now underway, it will work out just fine.
  Transtopic Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney
I am from Victoria and I do not understand the opposition to Sydney Metro. It is better than anything the Victorian Government is hoping to do. I can understand the reservations of converting the Bankstown line to Metro. I can also understand why the NSW Government is doing so.

Just compare what the previously unserved NW Suburbs of Sydney now have in terms of rail provision, with the previously unserved SW Suburbs of Melbourne are getting.

NW Suburbs of Sydney

36km of Railway, 8 new stations running from Tallawong to Chatswood, with Interchanges with Sydney Trains at Epping and Chatswood, served by trains every 4 mins during the peak and every 10 mins off peak. Operated by Automated 6 car electric trains. From 2024 the service will be extended through the CBD to Bankstown, with a capacity of 30 trains per hour.

SW Suburbs of Melbourne

28km of Railway, 2 new stations from Deer Park to Wyndhamvale. served by 3 car velocity DMU's served by trains every 10 mins during the peak and every 20 mins off peak.

So whilst Sydney gets a game changing Metro network capable of moving thousands of extra commuters, Melbourne gets a pathetic low frequency by-pass. Just a dirt cheap way of providing a suburban service to Tarneit and Wyndhamvale at very little cost to the Vic Government.

Think Sydney Metro is a bad idea, I just don't get it.

Mannie
BaysideManny
You may not understand criticism of Sydney Metro by those like myself, who are not opposed to the concept, but the manner in which it has been implemented.

The original North West Rail Link was proposed as an extension of the existing CityRail, now Sydney Trains' network, by the LNP Opposition leading up to the 2011 State election.  When attaining government, true to their word, a community consultation process was implemented proposing the NWRL as part of the existing network.  Then mysteriously out of the blue, without any further consultation, it suddenly morphed into a privately operated incompatible metro line which terminated at Chatswood, requiring interchange to continue to the CBD. Had it been an extension of the existing network, then trains could have continued to the CBD via the North Shore Line until the further extension to the CBD via a new cross harbour tunnel was constructed.  The same frequency and capacity would have been possible, but with double the number of seats, using DD trains.  It would also continue to allow Upper Northern Line Trains to travel to the CBD via the North Shore Line and new CBD link.  

It would not be driverless, but it would be the next best thing with ETCS Level 2 ATO.  The government has been at pains to differentiate the driverless metro system with the existing DD system by misrepresenting the comparative operating performance of the two systems.  They compared the new metro line with a frequency of 30tph with the current DD network of 20tph, without acknowledging that a new DD line with upgraded signalling and modern station design would be capable of higher frequencies.  I'd suggest as much as 26 to 28tph.  Their whole strategy was based on a lie and without any regard to how it impacted on the broader rail network.
  BaysideManny Chief Train Controller

I am from Victoria and I do not understand the opposition to Sydney Metro. It is better than anything the Victorian Government is hoping to do. I can understand the reservations of converting the Bankstown line to Metro. I can also understand why the NSW Government is doing so.

Just compare what the previously unserved NW Suburbs of Sydney now have in terms of rail provision, with the previously unserved SW Suburbs of Melbourne are getting.

NW Suburbs of Sydney

36km of Railway, 8 new stations running from Tallawong to Chatswood, with Interchanges with Sydney Trains at Epping and Chatswood, served by trains every 4 mins during the peak and every 10 mins off peak. Operated by Automated 6 car electric trains. From 2024 the service will be extended through the CBD to Bankstown, with a capacity of 30 trains per hour.

SW Suburbs of Melbourne

28km of Railway, 2 new stations from Deer Park to Wyndhamvale. served by 3 car velocity DMU's served by trains every 10 mins during the peak and every 20 mins off peak.

So whilst Sydney gets a game changing Metro network capable of moving thousands of extra commuters, Melbourne gets a pathetic low frequency by-pass. Just a dirt cheap way of providing a suburban service to Tarneit and Wyndhamvale at very little cost to the Vic Government.

Think Sydney Metro is a bad idea, I just don't get it.

Mannie
You may not understand criticism of Sydney Metro by those like myself, who are not opposed to the concept, but the manner in which it has been implemented.

The original North West Rail Link was proposed as an extension of the existing CityRail, now Sydney Trains' network, by the LNP Opposition leading up to the 2011 State election.  When attaining government, true to their word, a community consultation process was implemented proposing the NWRL as part of the existing network.  Then mysteriously out of the blue, without any further consultation, it suddenly morphed into a privately operated incompatible metro line which terminated at Chatswood, requiring interchange to continue to the CBD. Had it been an extension of the existing network, then trains could have continued to the CBD via the North Shore Line until the further extension to the CBD via a new cross harbour tunnel was constructed.  The same frequency and capacity would have been possible, but with double the number of seats, using DD trains.  It would also continue to allow Upper Northern Line Trains to travel to the CBD via the North Shore Line and new CBD link.  

It would not be driverless, but it would be the next best thing with ETCS Level 2 ATO.  The government has been at pains to differentiate the driverless metro system with the existing DD system by misrepresenting the comparative operating performance of the two systems.  They compared the new metro line with a frequency of 30tph with the current DD network of 20tph, without acknowledging that a new DD line with upgraded signalling and modern station design would be capable of higher frequencies.  I'd suggest as much as 26 to 28tph.  Their whole strategy was based on a lie and without any regard to how it impacted on the broader rail network.
Transtopic
The original North West Rail Link was proposed as an extension of the existing CityRail, now Sydney Trains' network, by the LNP Opposition leading up to the 2011 State election.  When attaining government, true to their word, a community consultation process was implemented proposing the NWRL as part of the existing network.  Then mysteriously out of the blue, without any further consultation, it suddenly morphed into a privately operated incompatible metro line which terminated at Chatswood, requiring interchange to continue to the CBD.

I agree, Gladys as Transport Minister suddenly changed her tune. I would not be surprised if Nick Greiner of Infrastructure NSW, had put pressure on her.

I do understand that much of the criticism is due to execution rather than the concept of Sydney Metro. It is just that I am comparing the rail systems of two similar sized cities and Melbourne's is nowhere near it. The Government should seek to improve Sydney Trains. A lot of Sydneysiders may not think so but you have a fantastic system. I spent a week in Sydney and it is a true rail network, unlike the basket case we have in Melbourne.

Sydney Metro may not be executed to its full potential but at least it is a modern system. We in Victoria are upgrading much of our network using Diesel rail Cars using mid 1990 technology.


Mannie
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

It's important to remember that the long-term plan is to continue the line direct to Liverpool with a new underground section, which would make a more direct link between Liverpool, Bankstown and the city. Extending the metro to Lidcombe and Cabramatta might 'fill the gaps' in the short term but this would form too many branches to provide a frequent through-service for each section of line, particularly if a new line to Liverpool is eventually built.
scadam

Extending to Liverpool isn't going to happen on a new alignment. There is a reason why the current line takes the alignment it does and it is to do with the geography of the Georges river specifically in the section they are looking at. It is all former sand and clay mines with significant subsidence issues. It isn't nice sandstone like most of the rest of Sydney but rather more like a sand slush.
  scadam Locomotive Driver

It's important to remember that the long-term plan is to continue the line direct to Liverpool with a new underground section, which would make a more direct link between Liverpool, Bankstown and the city. Extending the metro to Lidcombe and Cabramatta might 'fill the gaps' in the short term but this would form too many branches to provide a frequent through-service for each section of line, particularly if a new line to Liverpool is eventually built.

Extending to Liverpool isn't going to happen on a new alignment. There is a reason why the current line takes the alignment it does and it is to do with the geography of the Georges river specifically in the section they are looking at. It is all former sand and clay mines with significant subsidence issues. It isn't nice sandstone like most of the rest of Sydney but rather more like a sand slush.
simstrain
You seem very dismissive of the possibilities of today's technology. The section of the Main line via Regents Park was built about 100 years ago. If we can manage to build things like cross-harbour rail tunnels, then I'm sure we could also manage to build underground through some less-than-ideal ground conditions for a few kilometres. If the political will is there and capital becomes available, it will happen.

The current service takes about 26mins between Liverpool and Bankstown, only running every half-hour. A new underground section would bring this down to 12-15mins. It makes economic sense to join two of Sydney's biggest regional centres with proper rapid transit like this.
  viaprojects Chief Train Controller

You seem very dismissive of the possibilities of today's technology. The section of the Main line via Regents Park was built about 100 years ago. If we can manage to build things like cross-harbour rail tunnels, then I'm sure we could also manage to build underground through some less-than-ideal ground conditions for a few kilometres. If the political will is there and capital becomes available, it will happen.

The current service takes about 26mins between Liverpool and Bankstown, only running every half-hour. A new underground section would bring this down to 12-15mins. It makes economic sense to join two of Sydney's biggest regional centres with proper rapid transit like this.
scadam



would look at the map ..crossing Sydney harbour is easy.. but would not do a tunnel under a flood basin and Bankstown airport - even if the airport may like the option ..
  ExtremeCommuter Locomotive Fireman

Agreed that South Coast Line (unrelated, but why is the South Coast Line SCO and not SCL?) should terminate at Sydney Terminal, it's an intercity service and logically should terminate at the intercity platforms instead of continuing down the Eastern Suburbs line and having the seats will with suburban passengers.

Only one big problem with using the local though, how would the train stop at Wolli Creek? that station should it definitely one of the poorest designed stations on the network, it should had had extra surface platforms and Platforms 1/2 should have been an island with a direct lift to the surface platforms (with the concourse as an intermediate), as it stands Wolli Creek is a station with the most stairs, slowest lifts, and tightest connections.

But unfortunately it is too much of an important station to skip for SCO services, being an interchange for the T8 and the airport, SCO trains should also stop at Sydenham for interchange to Bankstown/Liverpool, and the metro, and for that matter, NOT stop at Redfern due to close proximity to Central, and maybe consider not stopping at Hurstville.
In answer to your query about the acronym for the South Coast Line, all of the Intercity line acronyms are based on their destinations without including 'Line', i.e. SCO, CCN, BMT and SHL.  I agree that it is sensible for all Intercity services to terminate at Sydney Terminal.  It remains to be seen whether peak CC services via the North Shore Line will continue as they will likely be 10 car D-sets once they become operational.

On the question of SCO services stopping at Wolli Creek on the Local, this has been discussed at length on other threads and although new platforms might be feasible, I suspect that it won't happen.  SCO passengers wishing to interchange to the Airport Line will be able to interchange at Hurstville on the same platform to a following Cronulla/Waterfall semi-express service to Wolli Creek.  Not ideal I know, but relatively seamless.  SCO services should definitely stop at Hurstville and Sydenham.  Not sure about Redfern, but it will become an increasingly important destination for Sydney University students and workers in the Australian Technology Park.  You could legitimately classify it as a CBD station now.
Transtopic
Sorry for the late response and thanks for explaining the abbreviations, maybe those North Shore services may stick to 8 car OSCars, or 8 car D-sets running more frequently and set down only/does not pick up restrictions, I guess time will tell.

Considering Wolli Creek is the interchange for the airport, making passengers who will most likely have luggage change at Hurstville into a crowded Tangara and then again at Wolli Creek would be a nightmare, changing at Wolli Creek alone is a big enough nightmare (seriously, that stations looks like a kid made it with Duplo) with it's slow lifts, multitude of stairs, and narrow platforms, without the hassle of an additional change of Hurstville.

Regarding stopping at Hurstville and Redfern, I feel as though the Hurstville stop benefits suburban travellers hitching a quick ride more than it does SCO commuters, and leads to a slower and more crowded service,
as for Redfern, I also consider it a CBD station, but it's close proximity to Central makes it hard to justify as a stop, sure there is the Australian Technology Park, but there is also the medical precinct at Kogarah, does that mean SCO services should stop there?


For that matter, down south, I don't think express SCO trains should be stopping at North Wollongong, more frequent Wollongong locals should make up for this, likewise Newcastle expresses should not stop at Hamilton or Broadmeadow, with more frequent local services taking over.
These are meant to be express services, not snail rail services.

Departing Wolli Creek, trains would be timetabled at 150 second intervals. The trains not stopping at Tempe will make up 30 seconds to Sydenham. At Sydenham, trains would depart in pairs 120 seconds apart, with 180 seconds between pairs. The leading train would run express to Erskineville. The second train would slow down to stop at St Peters, using up that 30 second advantage it had (plus 30s dwell), so by the time it reaches the ESR turnout, it is once again 150 seconds behind the train in front.
Are you suggesting one train stop at Erskeville and the other stop at St Peters, this would create a situation where one needs to catch two trains to go one stop, yes one-stop passengers are rare, but stopping patterns like this lead to a confusing and complicated network.

It's bad enough we have trains that terminate at Homebush, but at least it's not like pre-2017 where a Homebush resident would need to catch 2 trains to go 1 stop to Flemington Markets.
I'm not suggesting that this should occur all day. It would only be during the peak hours and only in the peak direction, when there would be a train every 2.5mins. Anyone on the 'wrong' train can step back onto the following service at Sydenham.

This leaves only the following journeys affected: St Peters to Erskineville in the AM, and Erskineville to St Peters in the PM. The walking distance between these two stations is less than 1km, so anyone who is physically able would already be making this trip on foot rather than relying on the train every day.

People who are not physically able and want to make these oddly specific trips during peak hours can either catch the bus or double back at Redfern by crossing the platform.
scadam
Fair enough that a small amount of people would be affected, as I acknowledged, but this opens up the door to a whole new can of worms, who knows what other two adjacent stations that new timetabling would require one to catch two trains to get between? Oatley and Mortdale? Como and Janalli? Homebush and Flemington AGIAN?

Keep it simple, one express, one all stops, with both running frequently enough to allow easy transfers between the two, they should really fix up the transfer at Revesby for that matter, residents of Panania and East Hills are literally cut off from local resources at Padstow and Riverwood.


"I am from Victoria and I do not understand the opposition to Sydney Metro. It is better than anything the Victorian Government is hoping to do. I can understand the reservations of converting the Bankstown line to Metro. I can also understand why the NSW Government is doing so."
The opposition isn't to Sydney Metro itself, but rather the execution. Sydney Metro should be entirely new lines, like the North-West, as opposed to converting existing lines and not even converting them well. The Bankstown conversion doesn't even go the full way, meaning they have to introduce a shuttle service. And the airport line theyre now building is just plain stupid. There are so many better options that the Govt has just ignored.

Sydney Metro as a concept, as executed so far and for some of the lines as proposed, is a very good thing that shouldve come sooner. But there are still issues with it that should be solved. It's just frustrating that the Govt wants to waste the potential. I don't think anyone here is really "opposed" to it, at least not that I've seen. More so that we want better because we could have better
alleve
The Sydney Metro is designed to look good and make Sydney appear to be in line with the rest of the of the world, but from a practical standpoint, it terrible:

-The Northwest line has stations that are too far apart, meaning that most stations are useless park&rides that are always full (pre-covid), and terminates 2km from where it could have interchanged with the Richmond line.
-The line then duplicates the north shore line, digging a new tunnel could have given an opportunity to serve new areas not currently served by rail, an opportunity that was missed.
-The Bankstown conversion terminates at Bankstown (people here have already explained the issues with that), this creates the need for inefficient shuttle services, and puts Birrong and Yagoona stations, as well as a useful north-south link, at risk.
-The proposed Metro West line has bugger-all stations on it despite running through areas not served by rail, and in the end, doesn't even to go to Central!
-The Western Sydney Airport line lacks any connectivity, the Northwest line could have run through Schofields to St Marys then onto the airport and then connect to Leppington, but it doesn't.

Basically the Sydney Metro looks good with it's automated operations and large fancy over-engineered stations, but it lacks connectivity, it's uncomfortable, and it takes away jobs.
It makes people say that Sydney is in-line with the rest of the world, but metro's around the world are for short-distance travel and have many stations, Sydney Metro has barley any stations, and travels long distance with uncomfortable longitudinal seating.
It's like the proposal for High Speed rail, they say Europe has it so NSW should have it too, not realising that generally every city in said European country probably has access to reliable public transport, whereas HSR in NSW would leave one stranded in Newcastle without a car as local transport options are simply unusable.

It goes to show that Sydney Metro is nothing more than a political statement designed to take away jobs when you consider that two lines are converted Sydney Trains lines (Bankstown and ECRL) and two other one were originally meant to be Sydney Trains (Northwest and Airport), that's not to say that there are not good elements to Sydney Metro such as line separation, but the entire project is just there to look good, take jobs, and privatise public transport.
  scadam Locomotive Driver

would look at the map ..crossing Sydney harbour is easy.. but would not do a tunnel under a flood basin and Bankstown airport - even if the airport may like the option ..
viaprojects
The reason I think it should be a tunnel from Bankstown to Liverpool is that land acquisition costs are now extremely high, and this reduces the cost savings of building (say) a viaduct on the surface. The limitation on a tunnel is, as you've pointed out, flooding of the Georges River.

Stations underwater is obviously a worst-case scenario, but if the station boxes are suitably located then their entrances at the surface will be out of the maximum flood zone. There could be maybe 3 intermediate stations. #1 about 2km west of Bankstown, #2 on the north side of Bankstown Airport, and #3 alongside Newbridge Rd at the border between Chipping Norton and Moorebank. These locations are all on slightly higher ground and outside the maximum flood extent. Between them it won't matter since the tunnels will be watertight.
  alleve Junior Train Controller

Location: T4 Illawarra Line
I seriously doubt that Bankstown to Liverpool is ever going to happen. The Govt doesn't spend big on public transport unless it appears politically popular, or it lets them and their mates make profit. An expensive rail tunnel between Bankstown and Liverpool fits into neither of these categories.

What is needed is for the T2 to become quad track between Redfern and Lidcombe, and Cabramatta and Liverpool. The T8 should also have its quad extended from Revesby to East Hills. The Govt won't do this any time soon, if at all, because of the extremely high cost and low political potential.

Instead, they'd rather spend billions on a glorified metro version of the Cumberland line that isn't even compatible with the other metro line, let alone Sydney Trains, all the while neglecting the far far cheaper and far far more useful option of extending the SWRL to the airport.
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

The reason I think it should be a tunnel from Bankstown to Liverpool is that land acquisition costs are now extremely high, and this reduces the cost savings of building (say) a viaduct on the surface. The limitation on a tunnel is, as you've pointed out, flooding of the Georges River.

Stations underwater is obviously a worst-case scenario, but if the station boxes are suitably located then their entrances at the surface will be out of the maximum flood zone. There could be maybe 3 intermediate stations. #1 about 2km west of Bankstown, #2 on the north side of Bankstown Airport, and #3 alongside Newbridge Rd at the border between Chipping Norton and Moorebank. These locations are all on slightly higher ground and outside the maximum flood extent. Between them it won't matter since the tunnels will be watertight.
scadam

Except as I mentioned the land under the Georges river is unstable and that tunnel will fail with a 100% guarantee.

The other thing is that an ST train can already do a limited stop run in about 18 minutes between these 2 stations. This is achieved when T2 services were sent via Bankstown during track work weekends. If you tunnel it is going to need to be an extremely deep tunnel.
  Transtopic Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney
I do understand that much of the criticism is due to execution rather than the concept of Sydney Metro. It is just that I am comparing the rail systems of two similar sized cities and Melbourne's is nowhere near it. The Government should seek to improve Sydney Trains.

Mannie
BaysideManny
The government is now belatedly committed to further upgrading of the Sydney Trains' network under its More Trains, More Services program, with the upgrading of T4 and T8 being the first stage.  Eventually, this program will be extended across the whole network with the introduction of upgraded digital signalling in combination with ETCS - Level 2 Automatic Train Operation.  The program will also include as yet to be announced track amplifications to separate express and all stations services on some lines.

While this is certainly welcome, it should have started much earlier with an even greater investment of funding.  The government was so preoccupied with its metro agenda, that it literally ignored investment in upgrading the existing network until an exponential growth in patronage pre-Covid forced its hand. Now it's playing catchup, although Covid has given them some reprieve.  

The funding they have committed to so far is underwhelming compared with what they are spending on the metro.  It needs to be speeded up.  I'd even go so far as to say that Metro West should be delayed until the congestion issues on the existing Western Line are addressed.  There is no compelling reason why Metro West should be prioritised, notwithstanding that its primary function is to provide a rail service on a new corridor between Parramatta and the CBD, and it won't even do that well with so few stations.  It's not that urgent.  

It's also a myth that it will resolve the congestion issue on the existing Western Line, by forcing interchange, when direct investment in amplification and upgrading the existing line would be far more cost effective.
  scadam Locomotive Driver

Except as I mentioned the land under the Georges river is unstable and that tunnel will fail with a 100% guarantee.
simstrain
I'm no expert on geology, but where are you sourcing this claim from? Do you have some kind of qualification in geotechnical engineering? (if so then I'd be happily proven wrong)
I was under the impression that the soil out there is mostly shale overlaid by sediment. It may not be self-supporting like Hawkesbury sandstone, but all you need is a different type of TBM.

I seriously doubt that Bankstown to Liverpool is ever going to happen. The Govt doesn't spend big on public transport unless it appears politically popular, or it lets them and their mates make profit. An expensive rail tunnel between Bankstown and Liverpool fits into neither of these categories.
alleve
There are definitely higher priorities today than a Bankstown-Liverpool metro extension. I think it's a project for 2050 and beyond. By that time, it could end up proving politically popular if the main lines through Strathfield are at capacity and Liverpool is stuck with an all-stops 'T2' train at peak hour. While a metro via Bankstown would also be 'all stops' it would likely be considerably faster. It could also then be extended further west than Liverpool if there is ever a need to develop new housing growth areas.
  BaysideManny Chief Train Controller

I do understand that much of the criticism is due to execution rather than the concept of Sydney Metro. It is just that I am comparing the rail systems of two similar sized cities and Melbourne's is nowhere near it. The Government should seek to improve Sydney Trains.

Mannie
The government is now belatedly committed to further upgrading of the Sydney Trains' network under its More Trains, More Services program, with the upgrading of T4 and T8 being the first stage.  Eventually, this program will be extended across the whole network with the introduction of upgraded digital signalling in combination with ETCS - Level 2 Automatic Train Operation.  The program will also include as yet to be announced track amplifications to separate express and all stations services on some lines.

While this is certainly welcome, it should have started much earlier with an even greater investment of funding.  The government was so preoccupied with its metro agenda, that it literally ignored investment in upgrading the existing network until an exponential growth in patronage pre-Covid forced its hand. Now it's playing catchup, although Covid has given them some reprieve.  

The funding they have committed to so far is underwhelming compared with what they are spending on the metro.  It needs to be speeded up.  I'd even go so far as to say that Metro West should be delayed until the congestion issues on the existing Western Line are addressed.  There is no compelling reason why Metro West should be prioritised, notwithstanding that its primary function is to provide a rail service on a new corridor between Parramatta and the CBD, and it won't even do that well with so few stations.  It's not that urgent.  

It's also a myth that it will resolve the congestion issue on the existing Western Line, by forcing interchange, when direct investment in amplification and upgrading the existing line would be far more cost effective.
Transtopic
@Transtopic Thank you for your detailed reply. I hope the State Government realizes the asset it has with Sydney Trains. It is awesome. If it tweaks its policy and add more stations to the current North West and City and South West Metros and change the Metro West to Sydney Trains, then Sydney will have a world class rail network.

And I stress again, it is far better than what Melbourne has.

Mannie
  Valvegear Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Richmond Vic
Agreed - and I live in Melbourne.
  BaysideManny Chief Train Controller

Agreed - and I live in Melbourne.
Valvegear
So do I. Melbourne is WAY behind.

Mannie
  Transtopic Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney
The government is now belatedly committed to further upgrading of the Sydney Trains' network under its More Trains, More Services program, with the upgrading of T4 and T8 being the first stage.  Eventually, this program will be extended across the whole network with the introduction of upgraded digital signalling in combination with ETCS - Level 2 Automatic Train Operation.  The program will also include as yet to be announced track amplifications to separate express and all stations services on some lines.

While this is certainly welcome, it should have started much earlier with an even greater investment of funding.  The government was so preoccupied with its metro agenda, that it literally ignored investment in upgrading the existing network until an exponential growth in patronage pre-Covid forced its hand. Now it's playing catchup, although Covid has given them some reprieve.  

The funding they have committed to so far is underwhelming compared with what they are spending on the metro.  It needs to be speeded up.  I'd even go so far as to say that Metro West should be delayed until the congestion issues on the existing Western Line are addressed.  There is no compelling reason why Metro West should be prioritised, notwithstanding that its primary function is to provide a rail service on a new corridor between Parramatta and the CBD, and it won't even do that well with so few stations.  It's not that urgent.  

It's also a myth that it will resolve the congestion issue on the existing Western Line, by forcing interchange, when direct investment in amplification and upgrading the existing line would be far more cost effective.
@Transtopic Thank you for your detailed reply. I hope the State Government realizes the asset it has with Sydney Trains. It is awesome. If it tweaks its policy and add more stations to the current North West and City and South West Metros and change the Metro West to Sydney Trains, then Sydney will have a world class rail network.

And I stress again, it is far better than what Melbourne has.

Mannie
BaysideManny
Unfortunately, too few of the misguided metro protagonists on here appreciate how well the Sydney Trains' network performs day in and day out, in spite of its limitations.  The proposed upgrades with Automatic Train Operation will significantly enhance its performance with greater frequencies and faster journey times.  As I said, the whole metro strategy is based on a lie, when comparative analysis is skewed to favour metro and seating capacity for longer distance journeys isn't even mentioned, when you would think that would be a significant consideration.
  Myrtone Chief Commissioner

Location: North Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria
Is the WestConnex on the agenda of those same protagonists? It is on the corporate agenda of the government getting this metro built. The WestConnex needs a lot of road traffic to succeed for its owners, and it will have more of it if rail travel is less compeditive.
As it happens, one of the pro-metro people on this site also goes too far with advocating battery electric vehicles, appearing to skew analysis relating to them.
  viaprojects Chief Train Controller

protagonists?
Myrtone
many on this site .. some still think every one works in the sydney CBD .. going by road and rail is the only option and all projects should end at central etc ..

it more like who has the income to use some thing or live some where ..
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

Except as I mentioned the land under the Georges river is unstable and that tunnel will fail with a 100% guarantee.
I'm no expert on geology, but where are you sourcing this claim from? Do you have some kind of qualification in geotechnical engineering? (if so then I'd be happily proven wrong)
I was under the impression that the soil out there is mostly shale overlaid by sediment. It may not be self-supporting like Hawkesbury sandstone, but all you need is a different type of TBM.
scadam
From about Macquarie Fields north to Chipping Norton Lakes, and then south east to about Voyager Point, the river flows across a plane of Quaternary sediment, deposited by floods[4] over many centuries.

https://dictionaryofsydney.org/entry/geology_and_geography_of_the_georges_river

No sandstone and no shale.
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

protagonists?
many on this site .. some still think every one works in the sydney CBD .. going by road and rail is the only option and all projects should end at central etc ..

it more like who has the income to use some thing or live some where ..
viaprojects
Agreed, unlike Melbourne and as shown by just looking down streets in Sydney at the moment. The Sydney CBD is no longer the central focus for actual Sydneysiders who live here. Other areas like Parramatta, Liverpool, Chatswood, Hurstville, Campbelltown, Castle Hill, Hornsby etc etc mean that there is no reason at all for a high percentage of the population to actually go in to the Sydney CBD. Melbourne CBD on the other hand is the central focus for the whole city.

For most of my 45 years I have spent trying to get my disabled father and uncles on and off DD trains and I can tell you from experience how bad it is. I like the Sydney metro because it ticks every box for access. It is level boarding, no gaps so the wheels (or walking sticks) can slip in to. It doesn't require either a Driver, Guard or station attendant to get a ramp out to get my father on or off the metro.

As for the western airport it doesn't need a connection in to the Sydney CBD because of this phenomenon in Sydney. It would be nice to have a connection through to the metro at Tallawong for the nice cross connections it would make rather then a trip all the way in to the CBD.
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

Is the WestConnex on the agenda of those same protagonists? It is on the corporate agenda of the government getting this metro built. The WestConnex needs a lot of road traffic to succeed for its owners, and it will have more of it if rail travel is less compeditive.
As it happens, one of the pro-metro people on this site also goes too far with advocating battery electric vehicles, appearing to skew analysis relating to them.
Myrtone

The westconnex project is nearly done already. Westconnex doesn't really compete with passenger rail. It's main problem is that the tolls are so high that drivers are actively avoiding the toll roads and clogging up local roads again.

Sponsored advertisement

Display from: