NSW Future Rail Plan - NWRL/Metro/Harbour Crossing

 
  Rails Chief Commissioner

Speed,

I think there would be a decent price difference between tunnels for SD trains vs DD but I think the desire for the SD also extends to the fact that they can easily cope with the grades of an under harbour train line. Plus I would imagine that they can get their hands on off the shelf SD trains to the private sectors specifications cheaper and quicker.

Sponsored advertisement

  Rails Chief Commissioner

Oh, I also agree with your line separation comments, WEX would help here too.
  lyjjimmy Station Master

Speed, I think there would be a decent price difference between tunnels for SD trains vs DD but I think the desire for the SD also extends to the fact that they can easily cope with the grades of an under harbour train line. Plus I would imagine that they can get their hands on off the shelf SD trains to the private sectors specifications cheaper and quicker.
"Rails"


I think boarding time is having a great impact on it. The current DD trains only has two doors per carriage and although the some sets widen the doorway, passengers still boarding slow as they need to seek a seat and jammed in the doorway. More doors should help.

Another one is acceleration and deceleration, which gives the train more time to run in higher speed when departing and arriving stations. Some of the slow junctions should receive an upgrade to allow train crossing at higher speed (like the one approaching Sydenham into the Bankstown pairs, which requires train to slow down to 25kph and enter Sydenham, and the triangle junction approaching Birrong / Regents Park as well, which train need to go really slow)
  stupid_girl Assistant Commissioner

Well I certainly wasn't expecting to read this article so soon into this governments life. However, when you command such a large majority, announcing unpopular projects is the way to go. They will be in for 2 terms easy, and will see the project complete.

I find it interesting that the Illawarra will be linked to North Sydney via the new harbour crossing. I wonder what the implications will be for the freight and interurban services for the Illawarra? 
"seb2351"

I think rapid transit will only take over one pair of tracks and leave the other pair for freight/interurban services.
  stupid_girl Assistant Commissioner

that the second harbour crossing had to be under the harbour and that is depressing but at least with tunnels built for Single Deck trains the deep NW and Harbour crossings are viable, faster and cheaper.
"Rails"

The saving of digging for single-deck trains rather than double-deck ones doesn't seem great. I agree with Legends of Steam and CrypticOne that it would be better to allow room for double-deck trains, if only for emergencies.

Despite the hype over single deck trains, I think that the more significant part of this plan is the segregation of the network. Melbourne has a similar idea being floated. It reduces the potential for a disruption in one part of the network affecting the rest of the network. It could be detrimental to employee satisfaction.

In the case of Sydney, this segregation might make it easier for a future government to outsource operation of trains to multiple private operators.
"Speed"

If you use existing DD, you will have to tailor the tunnel based on the design of old DD.
Now, you can now design the tunnel and then tailor the new SD (such as with steeper grade).

This provides much more freedom.
  stupid_girl Assistant Commissioner

Now I wonder what the upgrading that is required for the existing Epping Chatswood line and mentioned in the SMH? Anybody taking bets on platform edge doors? Intrestlingly the Wall street Journal article has a picture of a Singapore MRT train to illustrate their story about this new link. I just spent a few days in Singapore. Of course, I noticed the platform edge doors, but it was a few days before I realised that there were no drivers on any train I took. It felt a bit strange at first but I soon got used to it.
"Airvan99"


This is indeed so for the North East and Circle lines, as well as the LRTs and Changi Airport Skytrain. However, if you were on the original trunks of the North South and East West lines, there are indeed drivers (of sorts) in front, as the system is crewed ATO.

As for this, I read about it in the mX after work. I was tilted off vertical, but I quickly got used to it. My main concern is that they're chasing single-deck trains like they're some sort of utopia incarnate. It got me wondering again if the solution to this problem could actually be to use double-deck trains with three doors, a la RER, coupled with ATO/ATP. I thus have revived my old 7RER idea from a few months ago and may start a new thread to foam about how the new trains should be configured.

At any rate, the tunnels should be built large enough to take double-deck trains, if only for emergency run-throughs.
"Watson374"

Building larger tunnel can easily make the cost explode and become unaffordable.
  Watson374 Chief Commissioner

Location: Fully reclined at the pointy end.
that the second harbour crossing had to be under the harbour and that is depressing but at least with tunnels built for Single Deck trains the deep NW and Harbour crossings are viable, faster and cheaper.
"Rails"

The saving of digging for single-deck trains rather than double-deck ones doesn't seem great. I agree with Legends of Steam and CrypticOne that it would be better to allow room for double-deck trains, if only for emergencies.

Despite the hype over single deck trains, I think that the more significant part of this plan is the segregation of the network. Melbourne has a similar idea being floated. It reduces the potential for a disruption in one part of the network affecting the rest of the network. It could be detrimental to employee satisfaction.

In the case of Sydney, this segregation might make it easier for a future government to outsource operation of trains to multiple private operators.
"Speed"

If you use existing DD, you will have to tailor the tunnel based on the design of old DD.
Now, you can now design the tunnel and then tailor the new SD (such as with steeper grade).

This provides much more freedom.
"stupid_girl"


Freedom within the project per se, yes; but then you lose freedom as a whole - you end up with a line restricted to its own dedicated stock. Not necessarily a bad thing, but something best handled with great caution.

I still think reconfigured deckers are the way.

Now I wonder what the upgrading that is required for the existing Epping Chatswood line and mentioned in the SMH? Anybody taking bets on platform edge doors? Intrestlingly the Wall street Journal article has a picture of a Singapore MRT train to illustrate their story about this new link. I just spent a few days in Singapore. Of course, I noticed the platform edge doors, but it was a few days before I realised that there were no drivers on any train I took. It felt a bit strange at first but I soon got used to it.
"Airvan99"


This is indeed so for the North East and Circle lines, as well as the LRTs and Changi Airport Skytrain. However, if you were on the original trunks of the North South and East West lines, there are indeed drivers (of sorts) in front, as the system is crewed ATO.

As for this, I read about it in the mX after work. I was tilted off vertical, but I quickly got used to it. My main concern is that they're chasing single-deck trains like they're some sort of utopia incarnate. It got me wondering again if the solution to this problem could actually be to use double-deck trains with three doors, a la RER, coupled with ATO/ATP. I thus have revived my old 7RER idea from a few months ago and may start a new thread to foam about how the new trains should be configured.

At any rate, the tunnels should be built large enough to take double-deck trains, if only for emergency run-throughs.
"Watson374"

Building larger tunnel can easily make the cost explode and become unaffordable.
"stupid_girl"


I fail to see how exactly a marginally greater bore generates a cost blowout. The entire network so far has been built to fit medium decker stock. That having been said, anything can trigger a cost blowout in NSW, so I'd better get ready.
  stupid_girl Assistant Commissioner

that the second harbour crossing had to be under the harbour and that is depressing but at least with tunnels built for Single Deck trains the deep NW and Harbour crossings are viable, faster and cheaper.
"Rails"

The saving of digging for single-deck trains rather than double-deck ones doesn't seem great. I agree with Legends of Steam and CrypticOne that it would be better to allow room for double-deck trains, if only for emergencies.

Despite the hype over single deck trains, I think that the more significant part of this plan is the segregation of the network. Melbourne has a similar idea being floated. It reduces the potential for a disruption in one part of the network affecting the rest of the network. It could be detrimental to employee satisfaction.

In the case of Sydney, this segregation might make it easier for a future government to outsource operation of trains to multiple private operators.
"Speed"

If you use existing DD, you will have to tailor the tunnel based on the design of old DD.
Now, you can now design the tunnel and then tailor the new SD (such as with steeper grade).

This provides much more freedom.
"stupid_girl"


Freedom within the project per se, yes; but then you lose freedom as a whole - you end up with a line restricted to its own dedicated stock. Not necessarily a bad thing, but something best handled with great caution.

I still think reconfigured deckers are the way.

Now I wonder what the upgrading that is required for the existing Epping Chatswood line and mentioned in the SMH? Anybody taking bets on platform edge doors? Intrestlingly the Wall street Journal article has a picture of a Singapore MRT train to illustrate their story about this new link. I just spent a few days in Singapore. Of course, I noticed the platform edge doors, but it was a few days before I realised that there were no drivers on any train I took. It felt a bit strange at first but I soon got used to it.
"Airvan99"


This is indeed so for the North East and Circle lines, as well as the LRTs and Changi Airport Skytrain. However, if you were on the original trunks of the North South and East West lines, there are indeed drivers (of sorts) in front, as the system is crewed ATO.

As for this, I read about it in the mX after work. I was tilted off vertical, but I quickly got used to it. My main concern is that they're chasing single-deck trains like they're some sort of utopia incarnate. It got me wondering again if the solution to this problem could actually be to use double-deck trains with three doors, a la RER, coupled with ATO/ATP. I thus have revived my old 7RER idea from a few months ago and may start a new thread to foam about how the new trains should be configured.

At any rate, the tunnels should be built large enough to take double-deck trains, if only for emergency run-throughs.
"Watson374"

Building larger tunnel can easily make the cost explode and become unaffordable.
"stupid_girl"


I fail to see how exactly a marginally greater bore generates a cost blowout. The entire network so far has been built to fit medium decker stock. That having been said, anything can trigger a cost blowout in NSW, so I'd better get ready.
"Watson374"

The entire network so far has been built for DD and that is one of the reason why the cost is so high and we need to change.

Apart from tunneling cost, the difference in future operating cost is also significant.
The proposed driverless SD trains are much cheaper to operate than those DD trains with expensive drivers and guards.

A line restricted to its own dedicated stockis great because the company can run the system totally independent of Cityrail and don't need to deal with the inefficiency in Cityrail.
  Watson374 Chief Commissioner

Location: Fully reclined at the pointy end.
The entire network so far has been built for DD and that is one of the reason why the cost is so high and we need to change.
"stupid_girl"


I frankly don't see any problem with Bradfield's generous gauge.

Apart from tunneling cost, the difference in future operating cost is also significant.
The proposed driverless SD trains are much cheaper to operate than those DD trains with expensive drivers and guards.
"stupid_girl"


Ehh - what's stopping ATO DD trains run a la RER?

A line restricted to its own dedicated stock
is great because the company can run the system totally independent of Cityrail and don't need to deal with the inefficiency in Cityrail.
"stupid_girl"


A-HA! This is the 'screwing CityRail' thing all over again. I can see why though, in a way...
  stupid_girl Assistant Commissioner

The entire network so far has been built for DD and that is one of the reason why the cost is so high and we need to change.
"stupid_girl"


I frankly don't see any problem with Bradfield's generous gauge.

Apart from tunneling cost, the difference in future operating cost is also significant.
The proposed driverless SD trains are much cheaper to operate than those DD trains with expensive drivers and guards.
"stupid_girl"


Ehh - what's stopping ATO DD trains run a la RER?

A line restricted to its own dedicated stock
is great because the company can run the system totally independent of Cityrail and don't need to deal with the inefficiency in Cityrail.
"stupid_girl"


A-HA! This is the 'screwing CityRail' thing all over again. I can see why though, in a way...
"Watson374"

Simple.
The union stops ATO DD trains run.

If you build a brand new system with new rolling stock, then the union will have no say.

If developed properly, it can become the Sydney version of Crossrail.
  KymN Assistant Commissioner

Location: Sydney
Once I got over the initial shock there are some real positives with this Shocked . But the big issue is what to do while they find $10 billion to dig the hole under the harbour. Offloading a whole bunch of people off at Chatswood to change trains is a bit like adding the equivalent of about 8 minutes to the travel time in what the economists call generalised cost. Now if the new single deckers are technically compatible with CityRail trains they could keep going - just need capacity.

If this thread is any indication, the capacity at least to Wynyard is there. Some trains (and they could be North Shore trains) would need to turn back at Wynyard while others run through. 25 to 30 trains per hour is feasible: add two tracks Chatswood to St Leonards inclusive (surely they will use that for the Rapid Transit), reconstruct the quad North Sydney to St Leonards inclusive and build the turn back at Wynyard. Tolerate 25-30 trains per hour through the two Ws (stop some of the fast loading single deckers) and over the Bridge span (perfectly feasible).

Now I can see why they wouldn't want this to happen Bang Head. First, compatibility with CityRail trains is anathema to this lot. After all this the same crew that gave us the Metro in order to break RailCorp. Second they will give the ECRL to the NWRL builders/owners (and I guess later the Harbour /CBD /Hurstville /Bankstown+lines) and owners. Complete separation is likely to be contracted into the deal. Third, it would impose some timetabling issues east of Chatswood. There is a little bit of difference between the nimble rapid transit trains and the double deckers, but the Waratahs aren't that slow and that would work (see below). In my defence me 'lud, there is no reason that the trains need be incompatible. Maybe signalling should be the same (ATO) but this is beneficial. Second, this is the way in which double deck trains have been introduced into my favourite railway (the Paris RER) and were introduced in Sydney all those years ago, so this just reverses it. So while we wait for the new Metro, or for successive governments to procrastinate, we would have a service to the CBD for the two thirds of the passengers who need to change at Chatswood. I assume, by the way, that the new trains will resemble the US rapid transit trains like BART or the Washington Metro, and actually have more than a few seats. The images of the NWRL Web site look like a Waratah with the lower windows covered. 

Oops - they'll be automated.  All of the above won't work.....
Drunk
"KymN"
  Watson374 Chief Commissioner

Location: Fully reclined at the pointy end.

Simple.
The union stops ATO DD trains run.

If you build a brand new system with new rolling stock, then the union will have no say.

If developed properly, it can become the Sydney version of Crossrail.
"stupid_girl"


Great, we can have two parallel systems.

I believe members here have predicted that if push came to shove, the unions will fold. The problem is that the government probably won't shove.
  Alamein_Line Chief Commissioner

If the Chatswood - CBD line can be re-jigged for 20tph , what is to stop a decision to have the "Metro" running through and Upper North Shore passengers changing from DD stock at Chatswood ?

Using the excuse that a private operator is not interested unless they operate to the CBD , then some spin-marketing  ( "we are creating a Parisien-style RER service for Wahroonga - change at Chatswood for the CBD Metro" )

Admittedly , after Central , where does the "metro" continue without conflicting moves ?

I don't understand the 5 minute service on the NW line , particularly beyond Epping and certainly not Off Peak unless it takes most passengers from the higher density areas of Epping , Chatswood and St Leonards direct to the CBD









  Fred Scuttle Junior Train Controller

Location: Point Clare, NSW
I would imagine that they can get their hands on off the shelf SD trains to the private sectors specifications cheaper and quicker.
"Rails"


  The images of the NWRL Web site look like a Waratah with the lower windows covered.
"KymN"


Actually, I thought it looked like an electric version (with trailers) of the Hunter cars - which are essentially a single-deck version of the Oscars. That said, what would be more "bang for the buck" - locally-built sets from say, United Group or EDI, or something like the imported Siemens or Alsthom Xtrapolis sets that Melbourne has?
  Fred Scuttle Junior Train Controller

Location: Point Clare, NSW
Just to add to the above, I agree that boring the tunnels to DD size (which was Bradfield's specification, anyway) would be the way to go. It would cost little more than SD, and would provide an alternative route for emergency working.
  KymN Assistant Commissioner

Location: Sydney


Oops - they'll be automated.  All of the above won't work.
"KymN"



 OK.  I'm over my hangover.  It could work with ATO over any joint operation, which only needs to be St Leonards to Wynyard if the NW trains stop there.  Instead of running 20tph on the NW/ECRL you run say 10 (still leaves at least 15-20 for the Shore/through).  The only common track is the Ws and the bridge deck.

But I keep forgetting.  This is about screwing the unions, not customer service.
  bowralcommuter Chief Commissioner

Location: Asleep on a Manly Ferry
I don't have a deep understanding of the technical aspects of the plan but overall I think Barry and Gladys have got a good plan. The NWRL and Second Harbour Brdige is essential for a future efficient Sydney rail network. Obviously single deck trains increase capacity and speed of the journey or they wouldn't have chosen them. The only down side I see is the privatisation. If they are going to privatise some of the "Sydney trains" then eventually I see 100% privatisation of Sydney trains and NSW trains too. However there must not be any other fiscally responsible option available or they wouldn't go down this path obviously. Is there a way to subsidize fares if you do not operate the system or does the private company have the only say? It will also be interesting to see how non-timetabled services work along with timetabled services in northern sydney. 

As I said earlier, well done Barry for having the guts to tackle the issues, lets just hope he has the stomach to follow through.
 
  Rails Chief Commissioner

I don't think emergency running for the network will rate as an objective for this line. It will be completely separate from Cityrail and privately run so no interaction with Ciryrail period you would think. Plus if we have to go SD trains on this line I am all for any cost savings that can be achieved by smaller tunnels and not having to cater for the requirements of the DD trains, the whole line except for the Chatswood section have steep grades so it will mater. You can guarantee that the harbour tunnel the NWRL connects into will not be able to take DD trains so I really see no reason to build the NW line for DD specs but who knows.
  Rails Chief Commissioner


OK. I'm over my hangover. It could work with ATO over any joint operation, which only needs to be St Leonards to Wynyard if the NW trains stop there. Instead of running 20tph on the NW/ECRL you run say 10 (still leaves at least 15-20 for the Shore/through). The only common track is the Ws and the bridge deck. But I keep forgetting. This is about screwing the unions, not customer service.
"KymN"


I am not sure this is all about the Unions, I think the original Metro plans were though. As soon as funding was denied from the Federal Government for the NWRL I expected something along these lines (but kind of hoped the plan would look different...). However there is no doubt that long term having a line run across the harbour from the North Shore employment centres that is not able to be stopped on a whim by Unions, grinding the city to a halt is a very attractive option to any Government. The biggest barrier to reform of Cityrail is their ability to shutdown Sydney with a strike, this does help in that regard but its not like the current mob will be around to see that benefit based on being able to afford an under harbour rail tunnel...

However part of the benefit of running the Single Deck trains actually comes down to buses, they want to be able to interchange people from feeder buses so they can take the slots from the direct bus services to the CBD, this does that better then then a lesser number of higher capacity Double Deck trains. I would imagine that this is firstly aimed at connecting NW folks to the Employment centres of the Global arc to Chatswood and also creating more capacity for the rest of the network to the same centres along the ECRL aswell as opening up Norwest. I am wondering if before the NWRL comes online we may well see DD shuttle services from Chatswood via MP but at least every 10 mins... This will allow the trains between Hornsby and Penrith to run every 3 minutes.

Its been coming for a while but the future of Sydney is "changing" Wink
  simonl Chief Commissioner

Location: Brisbane
The big increase for the Suburban trains seems to be an extra 14 TPH for the Western line and 8 TPH for the East Hills line. I am not sure how they gain the trains on the Western Line though? 28 TPH DD with no listed Infrastructure changes? Still over the bridge? Or are they meaning 14 TPH spread over the three Western lines?
"Rails"

The graphic shows them running around the city circle as well as over the harbour bridge.  So that means either further slowing of trains on the locals to accommodate additional Western Line trains on the locals, or undoing Clearways and going back to having trains swapping between the locals and suburbans at Macdonaldtown.

As for the Northern Line, this clearly means that the upper northern line is to run into Sydney Terminal once the NWRL is opened, unless the changes I mention above are implemented by that time.
  KymN Assistant Commissioner

Location: Sydney
I am wondering if before the NWRL comes online we may well see DD shuttle services from Chatswood via MP but at least every 10 mins"changing"
"Rails"



I was cynical at first but this is probably the best shot at getting the Northwest Link.  The one major flaw it that it will be twenty years before it will take all of its users to work, two thirds of whom who work in the city. In my opinion the only reason that trains are not to work past Chatswood is because the government has been persuaded by its advisors that they should not do so.  

There is no technical reason for this - it is only if the trains are incompatible with CityRail DDs and could not share the same track.  DDs won't run on the ECRL for the same reason.  It is most likely that Rapid Transit trains are to use platform doors to suit their different door spacing, and platform doors are essential unless you have fully automatic operation.  But Automatic Train Operation (ATO) is perfectly feasible, and the Rapid Transit 'operator' (door monitor) employed by the private company could operate into ATO equipped CityRail territory mixed with the more modern CityRail DDs.  This public and private drivers mix right now (but with conventional signalling) in the freight sector.

The idea of mixed operation was floated in a number of forums as a transition to the Rapid Transit.  The same advisors would be well aware that existing infrastructure, with some track rearrangement and ATO, can fit another ten trains per hour whether double deck, single deck, or a mix of both between Chatswood and Wynyard.  It's done every day it the centre of Paris much more effectively than this proposal will.
  Watson374 Chief Commissioner

Location: Fully reclined at the pointy end.

As I said earlier, well done Barry for having the guts to tackle the issues, lets just hope he has the stomach to follow through.

 
"bowralcommuter"


Of course he has the stomach Rolling EyesLaughingLaughing

I was cynical at first but this is probably the best shot at getting the Northwest Link. The one major flaw it that it will be twenty years before it will take all of its users to work, two thirds of whom who work in the city. In my opinion the only reason that trains are not to work past Chatswood is because the government has been persuaded by its advisors that they should not do so.
"KymN"


But why? That is the question.

I think I'll need to pop on the M61 up to Castle Hill and ask some pointed questions...

There is no technical reason for this - it is only if the trains are incompatible with CityRail DDs and could not share the same track. DDs won't run on the ECRL for the same reason. It is most likely that Rapid Transit trains are to use platform doors to suit their different door spacing, and platform doors are essential unless you have fully automatic operation. But Automatic Train Operation (ATO) is perfectly feasible, and the Rapid Transit 'operator' (door monitor) employed by the private company could operate into ATO equipped CityRail territory mixed with the more modern CityRail DDs. This public and private drivers mix right now (but with conventional signalling) in the freight sector.
"KymN"


Theoretically, we could resort to the mixed operation as seen on parts of the London Underground shared with British Rail, where LU trains run on BR track and follow BR rules. It's worked fairly well for quite a while, so I don't see why we can't do it here.

It is, however, still sub-optimal when compared to just one operator.

The idea of mixed operation was floated in a number of forums as a transition to the Rapid Transit. The same advisors would be well aware that existing infrastructure, with some track rearrangement and ATO, can fit another ten trains per hour whether double deck, single deck, or a mix of both between Chatswood and Wynyard. It's done every day it the centre of Paris much more effectively than this proposal will.
"KymN"


Exactly.
  Oldfart Chief Commissioner

Location: Right base for BK 11R
 Is there a way to subsidize fares if you do not operate the system or does the private company have the only say? It will also be interesting to see how non-timetabled services work along with timetabled services in northern sydney. 
 
"bowralcommuter"


I guess there is a way to subsidise private operations. It already happens with the private bus services in Sydney and seems to be widely practiced in other cities. If private trains from Epping terminate in Chatswood then they can operate separately to timetabled services running on the North Shore or Northern LInes.
  Airvan99 Junior Train Controller


The graphic shows them running around the city circle 
"simonl"


The graphic shows them running thru the "metro pitt corridor not the city circle.


  Rails Chief Commissioner


I was cynical at first but this is probably the best shot at getting the Northwest Link. The one major flaw it that it will be twenty years before it will take all of its users to work, two thirds of whom who work in the city. In my opinion the only reason that trains are not to work past Chatswood is because the government has been persuaded by its advisors that they should not do so. There is no technical reason for this - it is only if the trains are incompatible with CityRail DDs and could not share the same track. DDs won't run on the ECRL for the same reason. It is most likely that Rapid Transit trains are to use platform doors to suit their different door spacing, and platform doors are essential unless you have fully automatic operation. But Automatic Train Operation (ATO) is perfectly feasible, and the Rapid Transit 'operator' (door monitor) employed by the private company could operate into ATO equipped CityRail territory mixed with the more modern CityRail DDs. This public and private drivers mix right now (but with conventional signalling) in the freight sector. The idea of mixed operation was floated in a number of forums as a transition to the Rapid Transit. The same advisors would be well aware that existing infrastructure, with some track rearrangement and ATO, can fit another ten trains per hour whether double deck, single deck, or a mix of both between Chatswood and Wynyard. It's done every day it the centre of Paris much more effectively than this proposal will.
"KymN"


If they can reliably make a 3 minute peak service between Hornsby and Penrith via the CBD then I personally dont have an issue with the short term change of trains at Epping and Chatswood. It will relieve platform congestion at Wynyard and Town Hall as everyone will be getting on whichever train comes along and they will be very frequent. There will be increased platform congestion at Blacktown, Epping and Chatswood but these stations should be able to handle it. Central, I am not so sure. However I think its better then mixing the lines even though its possible. Sector 3 is already too complex without adding the SD and DD mix IMO plus I would think you would rather keep the private line seperate or it could get very messy. 

Also with this plan its still not too late to see the Chatswood to Wynyard section utilise the bridge instead of a mega dollar under harbour crossing. It would just mean the NW line would run from St Leonards to Milsons Point via the existing path utilising the benefits of SD trains through that twisty path and the upper North Shore line would get the faster tunneled section to meet the Western line after North Sydney station. With the number of trains on the NW SD line increased you would decrease the number of upper North Shore DD trains and run all the Central Coast express trains via the shore using the faster tunnel and onto the western line.

Sponsored advertisement

Display from:   

Quick Reply

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