The rail network is moving to stand alone lines anyway. The days of one train type that can run anywhere by a driver trained to operate it everywhere are behind us.
It's extremely unlikely that the Sydney Trains' network will move to stand alone lines without further amplifications.  It wouldn't be justified for outer suburban lines anyway.  I also question the need for metro stand alone lines when its maximum frequency of 30tph relative to the demand would only be warranted in the inner city core.  

The Bankstown Line metro on its own certainly wouldn't warrant that level of frequency and capacity in the longer term.  Having one branch at either end would suffice and make greater use of its inherent capacity, while expanding the rail network into other regions at the same time.  

This was the original intention, e.g. the metro to the south branching to Cabramatta/Lidcombe and Hurstville.  That's why I keep banging on about the capacity on the cross harbour metro tunnel being wasted without further branching and preferably to regions without an existing rail service.

It is very much on that path now, thats what sectorisation is all about. Amplifications will come in due course as needed.

M1 is justified 30t/h capable from Epping to Sydneham within 20 years and if the extension to Liverpool is ever built, then to Bankstown. Bankstown is probably more justified over Hurstville but even if not the reason Bankstown was taken over Hurtsville was obvious and why the later was quickly dropped. I think there were even discussions here at the time that it was the wrong choice.

Branching at the northern and southern legs may happen, discussed this in the past that I believe Epping - Hornsby is a prime candiate and agree Syd - Hurtsville is also, but both have the same issue that they need track amplification to do so, which I believe will occur in due course, but in the near future. This would solve partt of the T9 issue and along with the Western Metro would basically relegate the T9 to a local service that doesn't require a run to central moving people between one of three major interchanges. Likewise M1 to go to Hurtsville is more complicated, but is used as a all stopper and allow the DD's to all run express over this corridor it mostly works apart from what to do with freight. Anyway, not going to happen any time soon, so who knows.

I am inclined to agree with RTT that SWRL > Metro won't happen. I'm not as definite as RTT is, but RTT is right that so many projects get suggested and end up falling over, and this one is more than likely to be another one of those. Maybe it's wishful thinking on my part but converting the SWRL and the Old South to metro is such a bad idea, I can't believe that anyone would actually go through with it, let alone over so many other projects that would politically be so much better. This is a change for me since I tend to agree with Transtopic on pretty much everything else.

The M1 should branch. I don't know where it would branch to, as the T4 should remain untouched, but nothing south of Waterloo and west of Epping, arguably even Chatswood requires more than 10tph. Even well into the future the 30tph isn't warranted for the far majority of the line. The one thing that's certain for me is that it should extend to Schofields for interchange with the T1 and T5.

M2 (Airport line) should go to Schofields and Macarthur. Maybe then the line will actually be useful. Not much need to branch it.

M3 (West) doesn't really need to branch anywhere on the western side. Maybe one branch could head to meet the M1 and another branch could head down south somewhere. To the East, I could see it branching, one side going to La Perouse, the other to Kogarah.

It's a good thing that T4 Hurstville services aren't being converted. Like the Bankstown line, the T4 Hurstville trains aren't busy enough to warrant metro style services, but the Bankstown line being removed from the City Circle benefits the T2 and T8. Imo when new signalling comes into effect on the T4, the number of Hurstville trains should stay the same (6tph). All the extra trains should be Cronulla or Waterfall services, mainly Cronulla. If Hurstville trains start to fill up, have some Waterfall or Cronulla trains stop at Rockdale and Kogarah. That's where all the patronage for Hurstville trains comes from anyway

I am inclined to agree with RTT that SWRL > Metro won't happen. I'm not as definite as RTT is, but RTT is right that so many projects get suggested and end up falling over, and this one is more than likely to be another one of those. Maybe it's wishful thinking on my part but converting the SWRL and the Old South to metro is such a bad idea, I can't believe that anyone would actually go through with it, let alone over so many other projects that would politically be so much better. This is a change for me since I tend to agree with Transtopic on pretty much everything else.

The M1 should branch. I don't know where it would branch to, as the T4 should remain untouched, but nothing south of Waterloo and west of Epping, arguably even Chatswood requires more than 10tph. Even well into the future the 30tph isn't warranted for the far majority of the line. The one thing that's certain for me is that it should extend to Schofields for interchange with the T1 and T5.

M2 (Airport line) should go to Schofields and Macarthur. Maybe then the line will actually be useful. Not much need to branch it.

M3 (West) doesn't really need to branch anywhere on the western side. Maybe one branch could head to meet the M1 and another branch could head down south somewhere. To the East, I could see it branching, one side going to La Perouse, the other to Kogarah.

It's a good thing that T4 Hurstville services aren't being converted. Like the Bankstown line, the T4 Hurstville trains aren't busy enough to warrant metro style services, but the Bankstown line being removed from the City Circle benefits the T2 and T8. Imo when new signalling comes into effect on the T4, the number of Hurstville trains should stay the same (6tph). All the extra trains should be Cronulla or Waterfall services, mainly Cronulla. If Hurstville trains start to fill up, have some Waterfall or Cronulla trains stop at Rockdale and Kogarah. That's where all the patronage for Hurstville trains comes from anyway

When was the last time you caught the Metro east of Epping? We rode it in both peak and out of peak a few months after opening and sorry, completely disagree with the statement not required west of Chatswood. This section will be inhertiantly busy because under DD more people were on the train as it left Epping for Chatswood that arrived into Chatswood. Under Metro these numbers apparently trippled.

Will the line require 30 t/h, well unliely in the first 20 years, but never say never. Connecting M1 to Scofields will no doubt add more bodies, not just from the area but transfer for Schofields to Epping section along with future growth and redevelopment of the corridor as houses get replaced with low rise as has happened in many other corridors on the rail network. Asquith - MT Colah - Mt Kuring' rows of low rise apartments where there used to be houses took me a bit by surprise last month.

Again if Bankstown is connected to Liverpool, I'll call it game over for the lack of high density need along the Banstown corridor when combined with higher density development along there as well.

Hurtsville Metro was a godo idea if the DD's can be relieved of servicing the stations north of Hurtsville and thus speed up southern services and I think would work to balance the Bankstown line with Hurstville branch, but taking two tracks off the quad isn't a good idea. Perhaps if a freight line was available it would then be fine as the suburbans would be getting in the way of the south coast services as both would have a similar stopping pattern. Quad could be built further south to allow some passing. Anyway, its messy unlikely worth the cost, but there needs to be significant investment in the south line to Sutherland to revolve issues, maybe the solution involves a Metro in some manner?

T5 conversion to Metro
1) whats the problem the project is trying to solve?
Its not like ECRL or Bankstown line conversions, this is why I say it won't happen, alot of money spent for what benefit?

2) If it were done, whats the negative impact on the DD network?
Overall, if freight isn't an issue, pretty much almost none.

Hence I say it won't happen not because its a bad project once completed, rather its just not adding any real value to the networ or commuters.  Maybe in the future when T5 is 12 trains an hour?????

3) Timing, said before,
its so far away that this project shouldn't be taken seriously.


M2 (West, WAS Airport is M3) eastern end,
- there will be an eastern extension and no doubt likely branched, again a 2030's issue. So who really knows, it won't be to La Perouse (if you cannot justify an extension of the ESR to Bondi how the hell is this justified?) unless its to cross the bay (solution for T8 congestion north of the river by converting the Cronulla line to Metro?)

- Western End, I think this will find a single line terminus somewhere further west of Westmead at some stage in the future, but its not WAS.

I just want to correct any perception that I'm advocating the metro conversion of the SWRL and the South Line, which I'm certainly not.  I don't want to see any further conversions period, nor do I have to justify it.

I merely pointed out what is on the public record at this time until the plan changes again.  People can make up their own minds about whether it proceeds or not.  I hope it doesn't.

I just want to correct any perception that I'm advocating the metro conversion of the SWRL and the South Line, which I'm certainly not.  I don't want to see any further conversions period, nor do I have to justify it.

I merely pointed out what is on the public record at this time until the plan changes again.  People can make up their own minds about whether it proceeds or not.  I hope it doesn't.

TT, I think the one thing that is not in any shaddow of a doubt is your position on whether or not any Sydney Trains track should be now, past or future be converted to Metro. Whether I agree or not depends on the application, but I respect it.

I just want to correct any perception that I'm advocating the metro conversion of the SWRL and the South Line, which I'm certainly not.  I don't want to see any further conversions period, nor do I have to justify it.

I merely pointed out what is on the public record at this time until the plan changes again.  People can make up their own minds about whether it proceeds or not.  I hope it doesn't.

TT, I think the one thing that is not in any shaddow of a doubt is your position on whether or not any Sydney Trains track should be now, past or future be converted to Metro. Whether I agree or not depends on the application, but I respect it.

Thank you.

I am inclined to agree with RTT that SWRL > Metro won't happen. I'm not as definite as RTT is, but RTT is right that so many projects get suggested and end up falling over, and this one is more than likely to be another one of those. Maybe it's wishful thinking on my part but converting the SWRL and the Old South to metro is such a bad idea, I can't believe that anyone would actually go through with it, let alone over so many other projects that would politically be so much better. This is a change for me since I tend to agree with Transtopic on pretty much everything else.

The M1 should branch. I don't know where it would branch to, as the T4 should remain untouched, but nothing south of Waterloo and west of Epping, arguably even Chatswood requires more than 10tph. Even well into the future the 30tph isn't warranted for the far majority of the line. The one thing that's certain for me is that it should extend to Schofields for interchange with the T1 and T5.

M2 (Airport line) should go to Schofields and Macarthur. Maybe then the line will actually be useful. Not much need to branch it.

M3 (West) doesn't really need to branch anywhere on the western side. Maybe one branch could head to meet the M1 and another branch could head down south somewhere. To the East, I could see it branching, one side going to La Perouse, the other to Kogarah.

It's a good thing that T4 Hurstville services aren't being converted. Like the Bankstown line, the T4 Hurstville trains aren't busy enough to warrant metro style services, but the Bankstown line being removed from the City Circle benefits the T2 and T8. Imo when new signalling comes into effect on the T4, the number of Hurstville trains should stay the same (6tph). All the extra trains should be Cronulla or Waterfall services, mainly Cronulla. If Hurstville trains start to fill up, have some Waterfall or Cronulla trains stop at Rockdale and Kogarah. That's where all the patronage for Hurstville trains comes from anyway

When was the last time you caught the Metro east of Epping? We rode it in both peak and out of peak a few months after opening and sorry, completely disagree with the statement not required west of Chatswood. This section will be inhertiantly busy because under DD more people were on the train as it left Epping for Chatswood that arrived into Chatswood. Under Metro these numbers apparently trippled.

Will the line require 30 t/h, well unliely in the first 20 years, but never say never. Connecting M1 to Scofields will no doubt add more bodies, not just from the area but transfer for Schofields to Epping section along with future growth and redevelopment of the corridor as houses get replaced with low rise as has happened in many other corridors on the rail network. Asquith - MT Colah - Mt Kuring' rows of low rise apartments where there used to be houses took me a bit by surprise last month.

Again if Bankstown is connected to Liverpool, I'll call it game over for the lack of high density need along the Banstown corridor when combined with higher density development along there as well.

Hurtsville Metro was a godo idea if the DD's can be relieved of servicing the stations north of Hurtsville and thus speed up southern services and I think would work to balance the Bankstown line with Hurstville branch, but taking two tracks off the quad isn't a good idea. Perhaps if a freight line was available it would then be fine as the suburbans would be getting in the way of the south coast services as both would have a similar stopping pattern. Quad could be built further south to allow some passing. Anyway, its messy unlikely worth the cost, but there needs to be significant investment in the south line to Sutherland to revolve issues, maybe the solution involves a Metro in some manner?

T5 conversion to Metro
1) whats the problem the project is trying to solve?
Its not like ECRL or Bankstown line conversions, this is why I say it won't happen, alot of money spent for what benefit?

2) If it were done, whats the negative impact on the DD network?
Overall, if freight isn't an issue, pretty much almost none.

Hence I say it won't happen not because its a bad project once completed, rather its just not adding any real value to the networ or commuters.  Maybe in the future when T5 is 12 trains an hour?????

3) Timing, said before,
its so far away that this project shouldn't be taken seriously.


M2 (West, WAS Airport is M3) eastern end,
- there will be an eastern extension and no doubt likely branched, again a 2030's issue. So who really knows, it won't be to La Perouse (if you cannot justify an extension of the ESR to Bondi how the hell is this justified?) unless its to cross the bay (solution for T8 congestion north of the river by converting the Cronulla line to Metro?)

- Western End, I think this will find a single line terminus somewhere further west of Westmead at some stage in the future, but its not WAS.

When was the last time I caught the metro east of Epping? Tuesday. I catch the ECRL two days a week, twice a day, every week. I catch it in and out of the morning and afternoon peaks, because my schedule changes a lot. I have likely caught it hundreds of times more than you have. The ECRL does not currently require more than 10tph and will not require more than 12-15 for the next decade or so, especially if they extend the trains to 8 cars. Past Epping won't require more than 10tph for the next decade at least, even if it connects with Schofields. The real patronage will be between Chatswood and Waterloo. Epping, Chatswood and Sydenham all have crossovers, there's no reason why they can't be used as intermediate termini.

The T4 should not be touched by metro. It would require a great deal of cost to construct extra tracks to Hurstville in order to clear up services on the most well-run line in Sydney. There's no purpose to that. Between signalling upgrades and the new crossovers at Hurstville and Erskineville, the T4 is set capacity-wise for the next 15 years. If capacity really starts to become an issue after that, Cronulla via Kogarah and Waterfall via Banksia trains can replace the Hurstville services. Before you ask, I catch the T4 twice a day, every day for the last decade, once again both in and out of both peaks.

The negative impact of conversion of the T5 isn't "pretty much almost none". Currently, T5 commuters can either go to Parramatta, or to the City. Most people want to go to the City, and will continue wanting to go to the City. Converting the T5 removes that choice, screwing over most commuters who now have to change trains at Parramatta. So no, the impact isn't "pretty much almost none". The average commuter on that line gets shafted.

When was the last time I caught the metro east of Epping? Tuesday. I catch the ECRL two days a week, twice a day, every week. I catch it in and out of the morning and afternoon peaks, because my schedule changes a lot. I have likely caught it hundreds of times more than you have. The ECRL does not currently require more than 10tph and will not require more than 12-15 for the next decade or so, especially if they extend the trains to 8 cars. Past Epping won't require more than 10tph for the next decade at least, even if it connects with Schofields. The real patronage will be between Chatswood and Waterloo. Epping, Chatswood and Sydenham all have crossovers, there's no reason why they can't be used as intermediate termini.

The T4 should not be touched by metro. It would require a great deal of cost to construct extra tracks to Hurstville in order to clear up services on the most well-run line in Sydney. There's no purpose to that. Between signalling upgrades and the new crossovers at Hurstville and Erskineville, the T4 is set capacity-wise for the next 15 years. If capacity really starts to become an issue after that, Cronulla via Kogarah and Waterfall via Banksia trains can replace the Hurstville services. Before you ask, I catch the T4 twice a day, every day for the last decade, once again both in and out of both peaks.

The negative impact of conversion of the T5 isn't "pretty much almost none". Currently, T5 commuters can either go to Parramatta, or to the City. Most people want to go to the City, and will continue wanting to go to the City. Converting the T5 removes that choice, screwing over most commuters who now have to change trains at Parramatta. So no, the impact isn't "pretty much almost none". The average commuter on that line gets shafted.

Thanks
1) I caught a number of DD services to/from Gosford and in the city last month including 5pm to the airport, likewise in Brisbane both in and out peak on Gold Coast line. What I saw aligns heavily with Transport NSW rider data which shows a 50% reduction compared to pre CV-19 levels, although the Metro was marginally less % loss compared to Sydney Trains NSL and T9. I last caught Sydney trains and Metro in August 201, standing room only out of peak on ECRL.

Moral of the story, what ever you see on the trains today, double it to return to normal, which will take up to a year although there maybe some permant loss of patronage for all PT that due to WFH culture taking a big leap and this then applies to all services and does not under value the original design requirement, but does impact on future project time frames, which I believe will be extended out by up to 5 years beyond Western Metro.

2) The ECRL and later its Metro replacement up until CV-19 collects riders up to Epping from nth main and now NW Metro and dumps half of them in the ECRL stations, so the trains are busier leaving Epping than arriving at Chatswood. This was a key driver for the Metro design and choice for reclaiming the ECRL. Post extension into the city, things will change. How many will leave the Nth Main or change at Chatswood is the great unknown.

3) Metro Train length will not be extended over frequency reduction, much cheaper and customer friendly to run shorter trains more often than longer trains, one of the key arguments for Pro-Metro vs Sydney trains 8 car less frequent operations.

4) 2min timetables on through running lines makes its more difficult to have terminating services on the main, something Sydney Trains has had designed out. However as we have discussed here before Epping has this easily upgradable capability for terminating into a shunt neck then returning.

5) Yes perhaps a 3rd platform should have been added in some locations for terminating in a few locations, but I suppose the ones I see like this in Dubai and Singapore and Vancouver are sitting there, never used, often with rusty rails as the tracks are closed for regular use. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. The current cross overs are more so for emergenny use to terminate all services and return to enable continued operation for the rest of the line when there is a drama.

6) No argument for T4 (sorry I think I said T8 previously).


7) Ok why  negative impact of conversion of the T5 isn't "pretty much almost none"

We actually discussed this before as a longterm option to simplify the timetable (with DD), no mention of metro.

Question.
Are we considering today or are we talking considering 2035 and beyond when the timeframe of the Metro would be complete? I'm focused on longer term, not proposing this decade.

When we discussed this for DD, the reason being to remove T2 competing with T1 and T3 and that only T5 would run up from Glenfield to Marylands and allow more Liverpool T3 and T1. T3 could be extended to Glenfield to solve (they want to go to the city). But the key part of the argument being the asumption that in 15 years or so, most communters in that area would actually be travelling to Para hub, not the city. ie 20 years ago T5 was non-existant and has grown over the years with growth fo demand and as Para hub grows so will demand.  (yes, lots of if's, I suspect the govt's modelling supports these if's).

For those north of Cabramatta to Marylands who want to go to the city, its a few stops, then change, no drama.
Currently there is a train every 20min
If Metro is extended to Liverpool, its every 2 - 6min
Glenfield to city every 3-10min
Services on western corridor + Metro West is every 1min across all services.
T5 Metro would be every few minutes.

The trip "may" actually be faster than catching the current service.

Alternatively
Assume T5 Metro
- Glenfield to City DD
- Liverpool to City Metro
- Cabaramatta to City DD
- Main West Corridor
- West Metro
A few stops to numerous options.

Anyway, it won't happen, the money it would cost to convert the T5 would would build a large a few stations of new to rail metro SW of Paramatta so lets not get too excited.

In view of the new Federal Labor government's audit of all funding commitments by the Coalition, it will be interesting to see what their reaction will be to the Western Sydney Airport Metro, which will be jointly funded by the Feds, having regard to the scathing assessment by Infrastructure Australia.

In view of the new Federal Labor government's audit of all funding commitments by the Coalition, it will be interesting to see what their reaction will be to the Western Sydney Airport Metro, which will be jointly funded by the Feds, having regard to the scathing assessment by Infrastructure Australia.

If tenders have gone out, then unlikely to be changed as this gives govt projects a black mark for which future projects will be tendered with this in mind and hence cost more.

Cutting this project now will kill the airport business park project and air passenger service viability and help make it a white elephant. Something the world has plenty of examples to learn from.

In view of the new Federal Labor government's audit of all funding commitments by the Coalition, it will be interesting to see what their reaction will be to the Western Sydney Airport Metro, which will be jointly funded by the Feds, having regard to the scathing assessment by Infrastructure Australia.

2 contracts worth $2.3B were signed last year and works began over 6 months ago. The train has left the platfrom. What exactly are you suggesting?

In view of the new Federal Labor government's audit of all funding commitments by the Coalition, it will be interesting to see what their reaction will be to the Western Sydney Airport Metro, which will be jointly funded by the Feds, having regard to the scathing assessment by Infrastructure Australia.

2 contracts worth $2.3B were signed last year and works began over 6 months ago. The train has left the platfrom. What exactly are you suggesting?

That's only a fraction of the ultimate cost of $11B.  It wouldn't be the first time a project has been deferred.  I'm not suggesting that it could be cancelled.  It's next to useless as an early rail link to the new airport anyway.  It's essentially a property development proposal along that corridor, with the airport link ancillary to it.  The business case predicts that it will only carry 880 passengers per hour in its early years, which is bugger all.  It could well end up being a stranded asset.  It doesn't warrant the priority it's been given, when there are other more worthy projects.

The new Federal government will be reviewing all expenditure, so it still remains to be seen how they will consider this one.

In view of the new Federal Labor government's audit of all funding commitments by the Coalition, it will be interesting to see what their reaction will be to the Western Sydney Airport Metro, which will be jointly funded by the Feds, having regard to the scathing assessment by Infrastructure Australia.

2 contracts worth $2.3B were signed last year and works began over 6 months ago. The train has left the platfrom. What exactly are you suggesting?

That's only a fraction of the ultimate cost of $11B.  It wouldn't be the first time a project has been deferred.  I'm not suggesting that it could be cancelled.  It's next to useless as an early rail link to the new airport anyway.  It's essentially a property development proposal along that corridor, with the airport link ancillary to it.  The business case predicts that it will only carry 880 passengers per hour in its early years, which is bugger all.  It could well end up being a stranded asset.  It doesn't warrant the priority it's been given, when there are other more worthy projects.

The new Federal government will be reviewing all expenditure, so it still remains to be seen how they will consider this one.

Why is it useless, it will open in the early days of the airport and business park opening.

880 /h 16h a day 365 days a year is more than many of the current Sydney and IU lines. Its more than Brisbane airport line now.

They won't cut the airport funding, its all aimed at their support base. Yes a LNP State and LNP Fed govt go funded an entire airport, railway and business park costing close to $20B that is 100% aimed at the ALP leaning workers and resisdents of Western Sydney.

Why is it useless, it will open in the early days of the airport and business park opening.

880 /h 16h a day 365 days a year is more than many of the current Sydney and IU lines. Its more than Brisbane airport line now.

It's useless in the context of providing a viable rail connection with the airport in its early days, when the Fed and State governments' own scoping study showed that the east-west rail links performed better.  Infrastructure Australia concluded that it was more to do with promoting property development, which would receive the most benefit, rather than a serious attempt to connect rail to the airport.

BTW, the forecast 880 passengers per hour is for peak line capacity only, which represents 11% of the single line capacity.  It would be a lot less outside the peak.  

In view of the recent commitment to fund a business case for what would appear to be a conversion of the SWRL to metro and its extension to Bradfield (Aerotropolis), it begs the question why this has suddenly come onto the agenda when the SWRL extension was previously given a low priority?

For the benefit of those who have not already seen it, I attach Infrastructure Australia's assessment.  It's also worth mentioning that the new Federal Labor government has forewarned that projects must be supported by business cases approved by Infrastructure Australia.

https://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-03/SMWSA%20Evaluation%20Summary.pdf

Why is it useless, it will open in the early days of the airport and business park opening.

880 /h 16h a day 365 days a year is more than many of the current Sydney and IU lines. Its more than Brisbane airport line now.

It's useless in the context of providing a viable rail connection with the airport in its early days, when the Fed and State governments' own scoping study showed that the east-west rail links performed better.  Infrastructure Australia concluded that it was more to do with promoting property development, which would receive the most benefit, rather than a serious attempt to connect rail to the airport.

BTW, the forecast 880 passengers per hour is for peak line capacity only, which represents 11% of the single line capacity.  It would be a lot less outside the peak.  

In view of the recent commitment to fund a business case for what would appear to be a conversion of the SWRL to metro and its extension to Bradfield (Aerotropolis), it begs the question why this has suddenly come onto the agenda when the SWRL extension was previously given a low priority?

For the benefit of those who have not already seen it, I attach Infrastructure Australia's assessment.  It's also worth mentioning that the new Federal Labor government has forewarned that projects must be supported by business cases approved by Infrastructure Australia.

https://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-03/SMWSA%20Evaluation%20Summary.pdf

Promoting property development, ie the busines park. No PT, who would go there? AKA Japanese style.

Probably more than OP, with no driver or guard and a train 1/4 the size so alot cheapere to operate.

That SWRL conversion proposal is 20 years away, don't get excited and really I very much doubt it will happen.  We are about to enter an economic correction and the ALP will want their own stamp on things.

Even if IA approve it the SWRL conversion, which I doubt they will. Its easy to just ignore it, happened in Qld for the CRR project.

As for the Airport Metro, its an enabler project. Kill it and the airport precident project is dead.

Thanks for the link

Why is it useless, it will open in the early days of the airport and business park opening.

880 /h 16h a day 365 days a year is more than many of the current Sydney and IU lines. Its more than Brisbane airport line now.

It's useless in the context of providing a viable rail connection with the airport in its early days, when the Fed and State governments' own scoping study showed that the east-west rail links performed better.  Infrastructure Australia concluded that it was more to do with promoting property development, which would receive the most benefit, rather than a serious attempt to connect rail to the airport.

BTW, the forecast 880 passengers per hour is for peak line capacity only, which represents 11% of the single line capacity.  It would be a lot less outside the peak.  

In view of the recent commitment to fund a business case for what would appear to be a conversion of the SWRL to metro and its extension to Bradfield (Aerotropolis), it begs the question why this has suddenly come onto the agenda when the SWRL extension was previously given a low priority?

For the benefit of those who have not already seen it, I attach Infrastructure Australia's assessment.  It's also worth mentioning that the new Federal Labor government has forewarned that projects must be supported by business cases approved by Infrastructure Australia.

https://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-03/SMWSA%20Evaluation%20Summary.pdf

I'm with RTT on this, it's a bit late and a bit too expensive to cancel or defer it.

Infrastructure Australia is right, it is centered around property development. Did it warrant the priority it was given? No. But it's too late for that now, and RTT is also right that Western Sydney is ALP territory.

IMO the SWRL conversion is now dead (it was dead the moment Albo got sworn in but it's especially dead if the Feds are going to require IA to approve business cases). The SWRL extension as part of Sydney Trains may well be back on the cards though and I really hope it gets done. Without it, the Airport Link continues to be useless. If they want anyone not on the T1 to actually use it, they need the SWRL.

Why is it useless, it will open in the early days of the airport and business park opening.

880 /h 16h a day 365 days a year is more than many of the current Sydney and IU lines. Its more than Brisbane airport line now.

It's useless in the context of providing a viable rail connection with the airport in its early days, when the Fed and State governments' own scoping study showed that the east-west rail links performed better.  Infrastructure Australia concluded that it was more to do with promoting property development, which would receive the most benefit, rather than a serious attempt to connect rail to the airport.

BTW, the forecast 880 passengers per hour is for peak line capacity only, which represents 11% of the single line capacity.  It would be a lot less outside the peak.  

In view of the recent commitment to fund a business case for what would appear to be a conversion of the SWRL to metro and its extension to Bradfield (Aerotropolis), it begs the question why this has suddenly come onto the agenda when the SWRL extension was previously given a low priority?

For the benefit of those who have not already seen it, I attach Infrastructure Australia's assessment.  It's also worth mentioning that the new Federal Labor government has forewarned that projects must be supported by business cases approved by Infrastructure Australia.

https://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-03/SMWSA%20Evaluation%20Summary.pdf

I'm with RTT on this, it's a bit late and a bit too expensive to cancel or defer it.

Infrastructure Australia is right, it is centered around property development. Did it warrant the priority it was given? No. But it's too late for that now, and RTT is also right that Western Sydney is ALP territory.

IMO the SWRL conversion is now dead (it was dead the moment Albo got sworn in but it's especially dead if the Feds are going to require IA to approve business cases). The SWRL extension as part of Sydney Trains may well be back on the cards though and I really hope it gets done. Without it, the Airport Link continues to be useless. If they want anyone not on the T1 to actually use it, they need the SWRL.

Yes, I concede that it's probably too late now to cancel or defer the St Marys/Bradfield link, but nonetheless I would still be interested to see how the new Federal Labor government views it, as there is still a substantial financial commitment pending, with contracts yet to be placed.  

As I mentioned in my previous post, it begs the question why funding has been committed out of the blue for the business case for conversion to metro and extension of the SWRL, when it had previously been given a low priority.  Is this an acknowledgement that the St Marys link is a dud as a viable rail link to the airport, at least in the short term?

I agree that Federal funding for conversion of the SWRL to metro is now questionable with the election of the Labor government and their requirement that business cases must be approved by IA.  Extension of the SWRL as part of the Sydney Trains' network would be more cost effective IMO.  It should also at least be extended to the airport terminal and not terminate at the Aerotropolis.

Yes, I concede that it's probably too late now to cancel or defer the St Marys/Bradfield link, but nonetheless I would still be interested to see how the new Federal Labor government views it, as there is still a substantial financial commitment pending, with contracts yet to be placed.  

As I mentioned in my previous post, it begs the question why funding has been committed out of the blue for the business case for conversion to metro and extension of the SWRL, when it had previously been given a low priority.  Is this an acknowledgement that the St Marys link is a dud as a viable rail link to the airport, at least in the short term?

I agree that Federal funding for conversion of the SWRL to metro is now questionable with the election of the Labor government and their requirement that business cases must be approved by IA.  Extension of the SWRL as part of the Sydney Trains' network would be more cost effective IMO.  It should also at least be extended to the airport terminal and not terminate at the Aerotropolis.

Some Contracts have been placed for a number of major items, Fed and State funding is in the respective 2019-2020 budgets for the West Airport railway.

Tunneling contracts have been issued and is expected to start Q1 2023

The project is a goer, the Feds will have hell to pay with their support base is already pi$$ off over the KK pre-selection if they try and pull the pin now, rather the locals will be asking for when the soutern extension to Macurthur will be approved. Fed ALP is holding onto power, just and hence needs to play nice with their support base and Dutton and NSW LiB Premier is sitting their just waiting for the Fed ALP to do something stupid like cancel this project. NSW Govt goes to polls next March.

The SWRL metro conversion project was a pie in the sky election project, not due to happen for a long long time and I'm not sure why you give it any attention. With LNP Feds gone this project will quickly be forgotten.

SWRL will no doubt be extended at some stage, but how many railways do we need to a pi$$ ant airport and barely started business park? This project would be something for an election after the N-S line is open.

I don't see why the Fed's should fund the SWRL this is a project for Sydney taxpayers.

I wonder what Infrastructure Australia thinks of Albo’s high speed rail from Brisbane to Melbourne? Perhaps the SWRL/Metro extension still compares favourably to that..

I wonder what Infrastructure Australia thinks of Albo’s high speed rail from Brisbane to Melbourne? Perhaps the SWRL/Metro extension still compares favourably to that..

All sounds good in an election.

I think ALBO had a few things up his sleeve in some of his election propaganda, ie a global recession to nullify anything he chooses that is no longer "appropriate". ALP know as much as anyone that report after report after report says no HSR this side of mid 2030's, at the earilist. It would also be madness consider the other issues.

I wonder what Infrastructure Australia thinks of Albo’s high speed rail from Brisbane to Melbourne? Perhaps the SWRL/Metro extension still compares favourably to that..

They won't support it, but that's kind of irrelevant, because nothing will come of HSR proposals anyway, just like how nothing came of proposals under Morrison, Turnbull, Abbott, Gillard, Rudd, Howard... come to think of it pretty much every past PM in recent memory.

SWRL metro is a terrible idea. Is it preferable to HSR? Probably, but they're both terrible ideas and Infrastructure Australia won't support either so it doesn't really matter which one is better or worse. What will most likely happen is eventually the SWRL extension as part of Sydney Trains (which should've happened from the start).

What will most likely happen re: HSR is some improvements along the CCN. That was the one thing that both parties actually committed to before the election.

Yes, I concede that it's probably too late now to cancel or defer the St Marys/Bradfield link, but nonetheless I would still be interested to see how the new Federal Labor government views it, as there is still a substantial financial commitment pending, with contracts yet to be placed.  

As I mentioned in my previous post, it begs the question why funding has been committed out of the blue for the business case for conversion to metro and extension of the SWRL, when it had previously been given a low priority.  Is this an acknowledgement that the St Marys link is a dud as a viable rail link to the airport, at least in the short term?

I agree that Federal funding for conversion of the SWRL to metro is now questionable with the election of the Labor government and their requirement that business cases must be approved by IA.  Extension of the SWRL as part of the Sydney Trains' network would be more cost effective IMO.  It should also at least be extended to the airport terminal and not terminate at the Aerotropolis.

Some Contracts have been placed for a number of major items, Fed and State funding is in the respective 2019-2020 budgets for the West Airport railway.

Tunneling contracts have been issued and is expected to start Q1 2023

The project is a goer, the Feds will have hell to pay with their support base is already pi$$ off over the KK pre-selection if they try and pull the pin now, rather the locals will be asking for when the soutern extension to Macurthur will be approved. Fed ALP is holding onto power, just and hence needs to play nice with their support base and Dutton and NSW LiB Premier is sitting their just waiting for the Fed ALP to do something stupid like cancel this project. NSW Govt goes to polls next March.

The SWRL metro conversion project was a pie in the sky election project, not due to happen for a long long time and I'm not sure why you give it any attention. With LNP Feds gone this project will quickly be forgotten.

SWRL will no doubt be extended at some stage, but how many railways do we need to a pi$$ ant airport and barely started business park? This project would be something for an election after the N-S line is open.

I don't see why the Fed's should fund the SWRL this is a project for Sydney taxpayers.

I don't see why the Feds should fund any of it at all.

It's not that the ALP "needs" to play nice with their support base, it's more that there's no reason why they would piss off their support base. It's too late to cancel the metro and even if it wasn't, there is no point to cancelling it, it doesn't get them anything. They'll change the future of it but not what's already in motion.

NSW Lib Premier will be looking for ammunition but Dutton has his own problems atm. He's completely unelectable and his party is suffering a PR disaster. Really his main focus is separating himself from Morrison and repairing his public image, hence all of the "I'm different once you get to know me, I regret boycotting the apology" BS he's been putting out. The last time the LNP held this few seats was 1983.

Airport metro needs to be extended to Macarthur, or ST SWRL needs to be extended to Bradfield. Without one of those, the link is completely useless because anyone not on the T1 won't use it. SWRL would be better but either would suffice.

I don't see why the Feds should fund any of it at all.

missing the point - why should Sydney / nsw gov pay for all the infrastructure for the fed government project... including all transport options to/from the airport..

just lucky the nsw gov put in the requirement for rail as a transport solution ...

Some update on the the BC for the WSA Metro extension. We've discussed this at length and as feared this does indicate a premise of an ext to Glenfield which hopefully does not happen. It also makes no financial sense given the major project budget blow outs and budget pressures. It will be very silly not to stick to the original plan of extending SWRL to Bradfield/Aero and extending SWA metro to Macarthur

Image posted to highlight current metro costings

Some update on the the BC for the WSA Metro extension. We've discussed this at length and as feared this does indicate a premise of an ext to Glenfield which hopefully does not happen. It also makes no financial sense given the major project budget blow outs and budget pressures. It will be very silly not to stick to the original plan of extending SWRL to Bradfield/Aero and extending SWA metro to Macarthur

Image posted to highlight current metro costings

The image they've got on that website is a render showing Glenfield with three heavy rail platforms and one metro platform, presumably allowing T8 trains to continue to Macarthur while T2 trains terminate on platform 2 and metro trains terminate on platform 1. Who knows if it's accurate to the business case or just an artistic interpretation. Glenfield station looks unrecognisable in their image