NSW Future Rail Plan - NWRL/Metro/Harbour Crossing

 
  eddyb Chief Train Controller

Had a thought today that rather than waiting for the new TBM to get here we could launch the pair that are finished south from Barangaroo to Martin place etc. ASAP because they are designed exactly for that geology.

From reading the statement it would seem that the Tbm's will be starting from Chatswood and Sydenham and then heading towards Barangaroo with the spoil being removed from those sites because it would be too difficult to remove from the city.
simstrain
I thought I had read that Barangaroo would be the third launch site but maybe I was dreaming or maybe they changed their mind anyway if they do intend using it then it would be best in my opinion to do the Barangaroo, Martin place etc. bit first so there would be room in the same launch box to drive under the harbour when the new TBM comes.

It would be too easy to just put the excavated material on a barge at Barangaroo to be dumped at sea.

Sponsored advertisement

  simstrain Chief Commissioner

Had a thought today that rather than waiting for the new TBM to get here we could launch the pair that are finished south from Barangaroo to Martin place etc. ASAP because they are designed exactly for that geology.

From reading the statement it would seem that the Tbm's will be starting from Chatswood and Sydenham and then heading towards Barangaroo with the spoil being removed from those sites because it would be too difficult to remove from the city.
I thought I had read that Barangaroo would be the third launch site but maybe I was dreaming or maybe they changed their mind anyway if they do intend using it then it would be best in my opinion to do the Barangaroo, Martin place etc. bit first so there would be room in the same launch box to drive under the harbour when the new TBM comes.

It would be too easy to just put the excavated material on a barge at Barangaroo to be dumped at sea.
eddyb
It would also not be very environmentally friendly to dump it at sea and a waste of material that could be used elsewhere.
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

1 metre high entry is about 9 metres to low. When the Georges river floods at chipping norton it can get as high as 10.5 metres. Any glass structures would break allowing flood water in.
A few tips

1) I didn't propose the stations would be on the river bank, thus reducing the exposure to flooding by being at higher elevation where people actually live.

2) The 1m bump entrance was a number, not a design. I have seen "roughly" a one metre raised entrance to again reduce the exposure to flooding. ie the higher you go the less risk. It could be higher!

3) Any Engineer that proposes the use of glass flood doors didn't finish high school. If the flood protection doors are closed the line would also be closed as a safety precaution. The station would be closed and I think at this flood level people have better things to worry about. Even the surface network would be lucky to be fully operational with so much water around.

4) Yes I looked up flooding of the river. http://www.georgesriver.org.au/IgnitionSuite/uploads/docs/Have%20We%20Forgotten%20About%20Flooding%20on%20the%20Georges%20River.pdf

It rises 10m from the river in worst recorded but only 8m since 1900 (what changed?)

When I type in flooded Bankstown Airport, there are only images of partial flooding, not submerging? Is it higher than the flood level? A proposed station would be in the area of the airport.
RTT_Rules
The main flooding occurs at chipping norton because it is low level and is the main drainage basin and alternate route of the Georges river when it floods. All of the other areas around the georges river in that area reside on higher land and aren't affected. This is why it wouldn't be a problem for a station at the airport. The best place for a station in the area would be in moorebank which is on higher land and more appropriate from a population and business sense.
  eddyb Chief Train Controller

Had a thought today that rather than waiting for the new TBM to get here we could launch the pair that are finished south from Barangaroo to Martin place etc. ASAP because they are designed exactly for that geology.

From reading the statement it would seem that the Tbm's will be starting from Chatswood and Sydenham and then heading towards Barangaroo with the spoil being removed from those sites because it would be too difficult to remove from the city.
I thought I had read that Barangaroo would be the third launch site but maybe I was dreaming or maybe they changed their mind anyway if they do intend using it then it would be best in my opinion to do the Barangaroo, Martin place etc. bit first so there would be room in the same launch box to drive under the harbour when the new TBM comes.

It would be too easy to just put the excavated material on a barge at Barangaroo to be dumped at sea.
It would also not be very environmentally friendly to dump it at sea and a waste of material that could be used elsewhere.
simstrain
There will be millions and millions of tonnes of excavated sandstone in coming years and unless it is viable to crush it into sand a lot of it will have to be dumped somewhere.

How come it is OK to dump sewerage at sea but not sandstone.

As a matter of fact I believe it may be possible to replenish beaches if it was dumped in the right places.
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

Had a thought today that rather than waiting for the new TBM to get here we could launch the pair that are finished south from Barangaroo to Martin place etc. ASAP because they are designed exactly for that geology.

From reading the statement it would seem that the Tbm's will be starting from Chatswood and Sydenham and then heading towards Barangaroo with the spoil being removed from those sites because it would be too difficult to remove from the city.
I thought I had read that Barangaroo would be the third launch site but maybe I was dreaming or maybe they changed their mind anyway if they do intend using it then it would be best in my opinion to do the Barangaroo, Martin place etc. bit first so there would be room in the same launch box to drive under the harbour when the new TBM comes.

It would be too easy to just put the excavated material on a barge at Barangaroo to be dumped at sea.
It would also not be very environmentally friendly to dump it at sea and a waste of material that could be used elsewhere.
There will be millions and millions of tonnes of excavated sandstone in coming years and unless it is viable to crush it into sand a lot of it will have to be dumped somewhere.

How come it is OK to dump sewerage at sea but not sandstone.

As a matter of fact I believe it may be possible to replenish beaches if it was dumped in the right places.
eddyb
Sandstone is useful. Sewerage isn't. Putting sandstone at beaches is a viable use. Secondly we don't dump raw sewerage into the ocean anymore in any case. It's all treated before being pushed out into the sea via the ocean outfalls off Bondi, Malabar and North Head. Hence our cleaner beaches since the introduction of these facilities.
  eddyb Chief Train Controller

simstrain

Perhaps the sandstone could be crushed a bit further before it was dumped near a beach as the ocean could do the rest.
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE
Treated effluent is a water based liquid and mixed quite naturally with the surrounding sea with any left over nutrients feeding the local wild life. If we had our time again, this waste water would not be dumped at sea and in the distant future will be reused for suburban irrigation and industrial uses.  

Crushed rock dumped at sea is silt and will cover the vegetation on the ocean bottom. in some cases where this is done like off Gladstone there are established areas for dumping and/or the sea bottom is basically a sea desert. Having dived off Gladstone, the later is true for much of the bottom unless there is a reef or rocks. The energy taken to crush it to sand is huge. They basically need to build a large mine processing plant with crushers and mills to grind it under a slurry, then separate and dry it for transport and also require sediment ponds. Where do you build this infrastructure in the inner half of Sydney without whipping out half a suburb and pissing off many more?

The rocks from the TBM will be small and not of use for building based material.
  eddyb Chief Train Controller

Treated effluent is a water based liquid and mixed quite naturally with the surrounding sea with any left over nutrients feeding the local wild life. If we had our time again, this waste water would not be dumped at sea and in the distant future will be reused for suburban irrigation and industrial uses.  

Crushed rock dumped at sea is silt and will cover the vegetation on the ocean bottom. in some cases where this is done like off Gladstone there are established areas for dumping and/or the sea bottom is basically a sea desert. Having dived off Gladstone, the later is true for much of the bottom unless there is a reef or rocks. The energy taken to crush it to sand is huge. They basically need to build a large mine processing plant with crushers and mills to grind it under a slurry, then separate and dry it for transport and also require sediment ponds. Where do you build this infrastructure in the inner half of Sydney without whipping out half a suburb and pissing off many more?

The rocks from the TBM will be small and not of use for building based material.
RTT_Rules
Shane
Are you saying it would be OK to dump the excavated sandstone in the right places at sea or not.
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE
Shane
Are you saying it would be OK to dump the excavated sandstone in the right places at sea or not.
eddyb
Within the bounds of the Continental shelf off NSW coast, absolutely not is my view as being mostly broken rock and not sludge it would decimate the sea life underneath the dumping ship. In the deeper Ocean I suppose the impacts are far less as the material will spread more in the deeper water and there is a far less dense bio mass underneath with minimal direct impact on coastal sea life and fishing. I think overall it would be better to build something with the fill.
  eddyb Chief Train Controller

Shane
Are you saying it would be OK to dump the excavated sandstone in the right places at sea or not.
Within the bounds of the Continental shelf off NSW coast, absolutely not is my view as being mostly broken rock and not sludge it would decimate the sea life underneath the dumping ship. In the deeper Ocean I suppose the impacts are far less as the material will spread more in the deeper water and there is a far less dense bio mass underneath with minimal direct impact on coastal sea life and fishing. I think overall it would be better to build something with the fill.
RTT_Rules
There will be far more excavated sandstone than can be used for fill in the future particularly as tunnels get cheaper like phones have http://tunneltalk.com/Research-and-development-10Nov2015-European-NeTTUN-programme-of-TBM-innovations-approaching-readiness-for-real-life-testing.php

I have contacted the Government https://www.environment.gov.au/marine/marine-pollution/sea-dumping to see what they think about either replenishing beaches or as you suggest dumping it off the shelf and hope they say yes to one or the other as it sure would be a neat way to dispose of excess crushed sandstone in the centre of the city rather than conveying it a long way and then having to truck it.
  gordon_s1942 Chief Commissioner

Location: Central Tablelands of NSW
Because it is primarily sand anyway, there is no reason it couldnt be used in concrete products.
At the moment there is a sandstone quarry near Bell in the upper Blue Mountains that supplies sand for such use.
I did hear its been called 'Decomposing Sandstone' and unlike that Sandstone found around Gosford and somewhere south of Liverpool, its so 'soft', all you need to do is drag a sharp pointed stick or a Pick in to it to break it up.
If the material from the TBM is too coarse, I cant see it would be any problem to crush it to a suitable size.

Again, I cant see any problems in using this along the coast onto a beach that has suffered erosion from storms or tidal action.

There is a proposal waiting approval for the making of concrete blocks on the now closed Wallerawang Power Station site using fly ash as a material so why not from the NWRL tunnels?
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE
There will be far more excavated sandstone than can be used for fill in the future particularly as tunnels get cheaper like phones have http://tunneltalk.com/Research-and-development-10Nov2015-European-NeTTUN-programme-of-TBM-innovations-approaching-readiness-for-real-life-testing.php

I have contacted the Government https://www.environment.gov.au/marine/marine-pollution/sea-dumping to see what they think about either replenishing beaches or as you suggest dumping it off the shelf and hope they say yes to one or the other as it sure would be a neat way to dispose of excess crushed sandstone in the centre of the city rather than conveying it a long way and then having to truck it.
eddyb
I could be wrong but clean fill is always in demand. The material from the TBM's is usually processed at the tunnel porthole sites and then transported at night by truck. From tunnel excavation rarely are the volumes per day high enough to justify a train and in a city the size of Sydney there maybe numerous destinations. Even if not required right now, they will have an approved storage site, it may even be provided by the govt.

Anyway this is all just an estimated guess based on previous observation.

Yes some of the material maybe also suitable for beach use.

Off shore dumping I suspect won't be entertained as this maybe politically sensitive.
  eddyb Chief Train Controller

There will be far more excavated sandstone than can be used for fill in the future particularly as tunnels get cheaper like phones have http://tunneltalk.com/Research-and-development-10Nov2015-European-NeTTUN-programme-of-TBM-innovations-approaching-readiness-for-real-life-testing.php

I have contacted the Government https://www.environment.gov.au/marine/marine-pollution/sea-dumping to see what they think about either replenishing beaches or as you suggest dumping it off the shelf and hope they say yes to one or the other as it sure would be a neat way to dispose of excess crushed sandstone in the centre of the city rather than conveying it a long way and then having to truck it.
I could be wrong but clean fill is always in demand. The material from the TBM's is usually processed at the tunnel porthole sites and then transported at night by truck. From tunnel excavation rarely are the volumes per day high enough to justify a train and in a city the size of Sydney there maybe numerous destinations. Even if not required right now, they will have an approved storage site, it may even be provided by the govt.

Anyway this is all just an estimated guess based on previous observation.

Yes some of the material maybe also suitable for beach use.

Off shore dumping I suspect won't be entertained as this maybe politically sensitive.
RTT_Rules
Maybe it is more valuable than I thought and true it could be stockpiled as there is heaps of room at Barangaroo and carted away at night although it may be difficult to deliver at night as clean fill but perhaps it could be delivered to a concrete plant for their use if it was suitable.

If one TBM produces 1,500t per day http://nwrail.transport.nsw.gov.au/News/Latest-news/TBM-4-Maria-resurfaces-after-a-job-well-done then if one pair is driving north and one pair south the most they could produce is 6,000t per day or 120 trucks a night.
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE
The Brisbane Airport Link its exit point on the nth fringe of the CBD and was able to transport the bulk of its TBM residue away at night quite easily. They had a large amount of infrastructure set up at that location. Additionally Sydney has previously had the ECRL and city road tunnel E-W link and the current NWRL so I think they are well versed on managing this material.
  eddyb Chief Train Controller

The Brisbane Airport Link its exit point on the nth fringe of the CBD and was able to transport the bulk of its TBM residue away at night quite easily. They had a large amount of infrastructure set up at that location. Additionally Sydney has previously had the ECRL and city road tunnel E-W link and the current NWRL so I think they are well versed on managing this material.
RTT_Rules
After a bit more thought I don't think they would allow the sand to be carted away from Barangaroo at night because up until now they have restrictions on overnight haulage.

Perhaps it could be crushed into sand in a sound proof shed with one of these http://www.greatwallcrusher.com/products/VSI-Vertical-Shaft-Impact-Crusher.html?gclid=Cj0KEQiAvuWyBRDO_Yzhpv_4nvEBEiQANBdXMubIXMRbxqoV_8V8R7yAJIN_-EGlago3I-14ToV1RvoaAvcc8P8HAQ and then loaded on a ship to go to Hymix concrete plant nearby as they are set up for ship deliveries.
  eddyb Chief Train Controller
  Redaxe Locomotive Driver

I'm sure everyone's heard that the metro station to the South of Sydney will be built at Waterloo (the other choice was at Sydney University)...

http://sydneymetro.info/home

The NSW Government today announced the location of the new station at Waterloo – the 31st station on Sydney Metro.
The station will be built underground between Botany Road and Cope Street, south of Raglan Street, with discussions now underway with affected landowners and tenants.
The station at Waterloo is a key part of realising the area’s enormous potential and will make this rapidly growing part of Sydney more accessible and take pressure off Redfern and Green Square Stations.
The Environmental Impact Statement for the project will be released later this year, which will give the community the chance to have their say on the project.

A difficult decision I guess - there any many sites in inner Sydney that could use a metro station/line. But it seems that the government at least had enough foresight to realise what would happen if you stuffed thousands of apartments in Waterloo/Zetland/Alexandria/Beaconsfield with very little mass transit to handle the growing population.

The only thing I'm confused by is the location - it's only just over 500 meters South of Redfern Station and a kilometer from Green Sq. That distance is well inside Redferns 'catchment' area and sitting on the edge of Green Sq's. Most of the recent apartments are close to the Eastern Distributor (to the East of Elizabeth St). I would have expected the station to be placed there.

So that doesn't really address the issue that the area faces - the areas already serviced by rail get another station which still leaves the apartments on the East side of the area without easy rail access...
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

I'm sure everyone's heard that the metro station to the South of Sydney will be built at Waterloo (the other choice was at Sydney University)...

http://sydneymetro.info/home

The NSW Government today announced the location of the new station at Waterloo – the 31st station on Sydney Metro.
The station will be built underground between Botany Road and Cope Street, south of Raglan Street, with discussions now underway with affected landowners and tenants.
The station at Waterloo is a key part of realising the area’s enormous potential and will make this rapidly growing part of Sydney more accessible and take pressure off Redfern and Green Square Stations.
The Environmental Impact Statement for the project will be released later this year, which will give the community the chance to have their say on the project.

A difficult decision I guess - there any many sites in inner Sydney that could use a metro station/line. But it seems that the government at least had enough foresight to realise what would happen if you stuffed thousands of apartments in Waterloo/Zetland/Alexandria/Beaconsfield with very little mass transit to handle the growing population.

The only thing I'm confused by is the location - it's only just over 500 meters South of Redfern Station and a kilometer from Green Sq. That distance is well inside Redferns 'catchment' area and sitting on the edge of Green Sq's. Most of the recent apartments are close to the Eastern Distributor (to the East of Elizabeth St). I would have expected the station to be placed there.

So that doesn't really address the issue that the area faces - the areas already serviced by rail get another station which still leaves the apartments on the East side of the area without easy rail access...
Redaxe

I agree with you and if you look at the position of the metro station it isn't that far from the current rail line in that area. Why couldn't they have put a station on the airport line at that position.
  Redaxe Locomotive Driver

I'm sure everyone's heard that the metro station to the South of Sydney will be built at Waterloo (the other choice was at Sydney University)...

http://sydneymetro.info/home

The NSW Government today announced the location of the new station at Waterloo – the 31st station on Sydney Metro.
The station will be built underground between Botany Road and Cope Street, south of Raglan Street, with discussions now underway with affected landowners and tenants.
The station at Waterloo is a key part of realising the area’s enormous potential and will make this rapidly growing part of Sydney more accessible and take pressure off Redfern and Green Square Stations.
The Environmental Impact Statement for the project will be released later this year, which will give the community the chance to have their say on the project.

A difficult decision I guess - there any many sites in inner Sydney that could use a metro station/line. But it seems that the government at least had enough foresight to realise what would happen if you stuffed thousands of apartments in Waterloo/Zetland/Alexandria/Beaconsfield with very little mass transit to handle the growing population.

The only thing I'm confused by is the location - it's only just over 500 meters South of Redfern Station and a kilometer from Green Sq. That distance is well inside Redferns 'catchment' area and sitting on the edge of Green Sq's. Most of the recent apartments are close to the Eastern Distributor (to the East of Elizabeth St). I would have expected the station to be placed there.

So that doesn't really address the issue that the area faces - the areas already serviced by rail get another station which still leaves the apartments on the East side of the area without easy rail access...

I agree with you and if you look at the position of the metro station it isn't that far from the current rail line in that area. Why couldn't they have put a station on the airport line at that position.
simstrain

Yes it is a very bizarre decision. I would have thought swinging the metro further East and having 2 stops - 1 at Epsom Road (there is a tonne of apartments going up there & it is way too far from Green Sq) and 1 further North at Bourke & Danks/Lachlan St.

Alternatively you could keep the North station at Bourke & Lachlan St and put a second station at Green Sq so it would be a new interchange allowing passengers to get access to the airport line without having to do a messy change at Central - thus it would decentralise the overcrowded rail network and relieve Central and Redfern Stn.

The current proposed station (between Green Sq and Redfern) could be built into the airport line. However since the new line is already going through the area could take a lower priority - either way in the long term it would be better to have another airport line station here and utilise the existing infrastructure more effectively.

Anyway it seems like the final decisions have been made but I still fail to see how the masses of apartments near the Eastern Distributor/Sth Dowling St are going to be helped by having a Stn over near Redfern??? It seems like this decision was made on the cheap - and not really to solve the most pressing concerns that the area has.


The other thing to point out - I think we discussed this a bit earlier was the configuration of stations on the lower north shore.  They've scaled back the number of stations to the minimum; Chatswood, Crows Nest, Victoria Cross...
So no interchange station at St Leonards and no Artarmon Station either.

This probably makes reasonable sense. Having one or two less stops will take a few minutes of the journey time and help keep commutes within a reasonable time-frame.

Sponsored advertisement

Display from:   

Quick Reply

We've disabled Quick Reply for this thread as it was last updated more than six months ago.