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.
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.
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
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.
