The graphic shows them running around the city circle 

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

Edit: Just checked and simonl is correct, the graphic shows 14 extra trains and they run from the blue mountains/ Penrith and Richmond through the CBD via both the North Shore line and the City circle. Interestingly they end at Hornsby, not Berowra. So it seems to indicate that 8 tph from the western line will run to the East Hills line via the City circle.

New South Wales and transport planning - more changes than a baby's nappy.

Cracks me up every time 

If I lived at Vineyards and was looking at having to catch a bus to Rouse Hill, a private train to Chatswood then a wrestling match onto a government train at Chatswood to eventually get to the city, I'd be livid.

I don't understand why this proposed north western line will go to Chatswood rather than Epping, considering the Epping-Chatswood line has only been open three years. Epping is a lot closer to the north west and would be a cheaper build, plus it is convenient to the M2. Chatswood isn't.

This is a knee jerk decision that will probably never see the light of day in its current proposed format. This is an example of the government trying to appear to be doing something while actually intending to do nothing.

If I lived at Vineyards and was looking at having to catch a bus to Rouse Hill, a private train to Chatswood then a wrestling match onto a government train at Chatswood to eventually get to the city, I'd be livid.

I'd actually think you're borderline retarded for not using the Richmond Line.

I don't understand why this proposed north western line will go to Chatswood rather than Epping, considering the Epping-Chatswood line has only been open three years. Epping is a lot closer to the north west and would be a cheaper build, plus it is convenient to the M2. Chatswood isn't.

The new construction goes from Rouse Hill to Epping. The service will also include the ECRL. Strange question.

The graphic I was taking about is the NWRL/Metro/Harbour crossing which goes via Metro Pitt!!! Which happens to be the subject of this discussion.

The graphic I was taking about is the NWRL/Metro/Harbour crossing which goes via Metro Pitt!!! Which happens to be the subject of this discussion.

Look again.

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.

Exactly.


I've certainly been thinking of using existing infrastructure as a means to defer the harbour tunnel expenditure, not as a substitute.  Given events of the last 36 hours a mixed operation as a trensition using ATO, pending full automatic, giving some sort of service in the meantime still seems to have merit.  Unfortunately I doubt anyone that matters is choosing to listen.

A bit of a difference going from opposition to government.  Everything changes - or does it

Maybe they figure that most hill residents have company cars or novated leases anyway and thus not affected.

If I lived at Vineyards and was looking at having to catch a bus to Rouse Hill, a private train to Chatswood then a wrestling match onto a government train at Chatswood to eventually get to the city, I'd be livid.

I'd actually think you're borderline retarded for not using the Richmond Line.

you still have to fight for a seat at Seven hills or Westmead. As the Richond line is changing to the cumberland line with the lib reforms

I am referring to the graphic on the first page of this thread which showes the NWRL using metro Pitt ,after the harbour tunnel is built .

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.

Singapore's original MRT lines. E-W and N-S were driver in 2000, they were converted. Likewise the platform edge doors are still being added. 18mths ago the western and nth lines were mostly absent of them.

Come to Dubai, 100% driver less. Only persion on the train is female attendent to chase away the people in Gold Class with economy tickets and keep the guys out of the ladies section. Both in the last carriage or first carriage, depending on direction of travel but always same on the platform.

What I like about Dubai is that you can stand and look out front or back. As emergency drivers controls are locked away. This is very popular, google Youtube Dubai Red or Green line as the guy recorded the full length on opening days. (On Green line video in the tunnel you can see a reflection of small child, thats my boy.)

Vancouver also operates staff less trains from day one.

In this day and age, there is no loss in safety between driver or driverless. There is that much safety put on the driverless services there is little to go wrong. Compare the km's per day by Dubai, Singapore and Vancouver alone and you couldn't argue. However they do need to be grade seperated or well fenced. Meanwhile Rio is happy to run 3-5km long iron ore trains on auto pilot at grade.

regards
Shane

Singapore's original MRT lines. E-W and N-S were driver in 2000, they were converted. Likewise the platform edge doors are still being added. 18mths ago the western and nth lines were mostly absent of them.

They have ATO, but as recently as February, when I was last there, there's still a guy at the front.

Come to Dubai, 100% driver less. Only persion on the train is female attendent to chase away the people in Gold Class with economy tickets and keep the guys out of the ladies section. Both in the last carriage or first carriage, depending on direction of travel but always same on the platform.

Cool. Be nice if every train had a guard to keep the bogans in line.

What I like about Dubai is that you can stand and look out front or back. As emergency drivers controls are locked away. This is very popular, google Youtube Dubai Red or Green line as the guy recorded the full length on opening days. (On Green line video in the tunnel you can see a reflection of small child, thats my boy.)

Ah, yes. The 'railfan window/seat'.

Vancouver also operates staff less trains from day one.

And it is ruthlessly exploited in Vancouver, as they happily run 15tph until like midnight, because of the disconnect between labour costs and other railway operational costs. The result is that everyone uses it because they can just show up and take it - all day, every day.

In this day and age, there is no loss in safety between driver or driverless. There is that much safety put on the driverless services there is little to go wrong. Compare the km's per day by Dubai, Singapore and Vancouver alone and you couldn't argue. However they do need to be grade seperated or well fenced. Meanwhile Rio is happy to run 3-5km long iron ore trains on auto pilot at grade.

Building a new sealed, sterile environment for driverless is definitely possible. What isn't easy is automating an existing railway - you can go up to ATO/ATP without too much difficulty, but beyond is much harder.

That having been said, apparently the Germans have done it.

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

Probably nothing but cost and inconvience of conversion of brownfield stations on an extremely busy line. there maybe also an issue in that 3 door rolling stock is not a good match for platforms with tight bends. Notice most new 3 door stock systems has straight platforms.

Stopping at Chatswood is only a short term solution, realistically they should continue to St Leonards and terminate there for now and in future build a Greenfield tunnel.

Guys the standard Metro tunnel rolling stock in the world is SD. So rollingstock, station design, tunnel boring equipment, every damn thing is going to be cheaper. Everytime NSW tries to get new rollingstock for Syd, there is a problem. Its not off the shelf equipment, limited suppliers, many inexprienced. Buy Metro stuff, give Alstom a call or their like competitors and your new trains will turn up, ready to run with few issues as there are already thousands of them elsewhere. Boring machines same again.

I strongly oppose converting existing city tunnels to metro, the costs and disruption would blow your mind, but Greenfield when they are doing it this way yes. Its the right approach. So expansion wise, SW rail link is probably the last, although I wouldn't cancel the E-P link just yet. I only hope the south connection via harbour tunnel is done quickly. I'm also betting on the inner NW Metro coming alive again by 2025, ie Epping via Victoria Rd through Sydney then on to NSW University in SE.

regards
Shane

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/for-some-reason-logic-dictates-the-original-plan-should-be-binned-20120620-20omg.html

Analysis

I'd put long odds on platform screens. I think that they're better at crowded underground stations and do require trains to be stopped at a precise point on the platform.

Everytime NSW tries to get new rollingstock for Syd, there is a problem. Its not off the shelf equipment, limited suppliers, many inexprienced. Buy Metro stuff, give Alstom a call or their like competitors and your new trains will turn up

Alstom is not the only manufacturer with designs for double-deck trains.

Loading gauge will constrain more what type of rolling-stock you can buy. Sydney's is wide enough but the platform lengths wouldn't match an international standard. Platform lengths could be adjusted but the practice in New South Wales remains to design custom trains instead.

Power supply will also constrain what you can buy.

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

Probably nothing but cost and inconvience of conversion of brownfield stations on an extremely busy line. there maybe also an issue in that 3 door rolling stock is not a good match for platforms with tight bends. Notice most new 3 door stock systems has straight platforms.

Stopping at Chatswood is only a short term solution, realistically they should continue to St Leonards and terminate there for now and in future build a Greenfield tunnel.

Guys the standard Metro tunnel rolling stock in the world is SD. So rollingstock, station design, tunnel boring equipment, every damn thing is going to be cheaper. Everytime NSW tries to get new rollingstock for Syd, there is a problem. Its not off the shelf equipment, limited suppliers, many inexprienced. Buy Metro stuff, give Alstom a call or their like competitors and your new trains will turn up, ready to run with few issues as there are already thousands of them elsewhere. Boring machines same again.

I strongly oppose converting existing city tunnels to metro, the costs and disruption would blow your mind, but Greenfield when they are doing it this way yes. Its the right approach. So expansion wise, SW rail link is probably the last, although I wouldn't cancel the E-P link just yet. I only hope the south connection via harbour tunnel is done quickly. I'm also betting on the inner NW Metro coming alive again by 2025, ie Epping via Victoria Rd through Sydney then on to NSW University in SE.

regards
Shane

The station platform is not strictly required to be straight, it can be curve, but this will increase the risk that passengers trip over by the larger gap in some place(plenty examples around the world, including London and New York)

I totally agree with your words about choosing SD rolling stock rather than a DD one for metro. There are only limited rail systems over the world using DD stocks for commuter services, and most systems use SD and many rolling stock manufacturers produce tons of SD trains every year (Japan, China, Europe, everywhere!). They are more experienced on making SD trains. They have plenty well-developed SD train design / models for their client to choose from and can produce a lot of SD trains straight away. A vivid example is when China building the body for Waratah trains, they spent longer time to configure, test and reconfigure their machine to produce a fitted body for the new trains, and of course you can see, still have some problems. And when they were trying to build the body of the A set, they built couple SD metro stocks and delivered to Guangzhou, Middle East and somewhere else.

In my point, what passengers want is fast, reliable and comfortable rail service, they don’t care whether those services are operated by a DD stock or a SD stock. If you could give the NW 10-12tph, they still can have seats as trains coming frequently and if the platform is crowded and you really want a seat, simply wait the next train, it won’t take much time isn’t it? How about powering the train? You can convert it to third rail and you are free to worry about the vehicle height.

There are tons of solutions to make Sydney rail system better BUT the most important thing is the state government should TALK LESS and WORK MORE, and WORK NOW!! If you are out of budget, don't talk about it! I feel angrier when the government keep making promises to me than they just told me “we won’t do anything on the rail network this year”.

The station platform is not strictly required to be straight, it can be curve, but this will increase the risk that passengers trip over by the larger gap in some place(plenty examples around the world, including London and New York)

London's gaps are hilarious.

I totally agree with your words about choosing SD rolling stock rather than a DD one for metro. There are only limited rail systems over the world using DD stocks for commuter services, and most systems use SD and many rolling stock manufacturers produce tons of SD trains every year (Japan, China, Europe, everywhere!). They are more experienced on making SD trains. They have plenty well-developed SD train design / models for their client to choose from and can produce a lot of SD trains straight away. A vivid example is when China building the body for Waratah trains, they spent longer time to configure, test and reconfigure their machine to produce a fitted body for the new trains, and of course you can see, still have some problems. And when they were trying to build the body of the A set, they built couple SD metro stocks and delivered to Guangzhou, Middle East and somewhere else.

Yes and no. I'll call upon the analogy of the shoe and the foot. Logically, you would fit the shoe to the foot, amirite? That would mean taking a good look at the suburban railways in Sydney and getting them the train they need; fitting the foot to the shoe would be like looking at the trains on the shelves, picking one and shoehorning it into Sydney.

Just because SD stock is easily obtained doesn't mean it should be bought. To me, this reeks of some highly-placed "advisors" and their attraction to SD stock, trying to find an application for SD stock. I realise I'm cynical in saying that, and possibly also conservative in preferring the retention but reconfiguration of DD stock.

In my point, what passengers want is fast, reliable and comfortable rail service, they don’t care whether those services are operated by a DD stock or a SD stock. If you could give the NW 10-12tph, they still can have seats as trains coming frequently and if the platform is crowded and you really want a seat, simply wait the next train, it won’t take much time isn’t it?

Ya - that's the point. There has to be the frequency and the capacity. The passenger cares not whether the train has fluted sides or not; he cares for the train to show up quickly, have a decent seat for his bum and take him where he wants to go in a jiffy.

How about powering the train? You can convert it to third rail and you are free to worry about the vehicle height.

orly.jpg

I do believe that there's still a height restriction due to the height of the tunnel. Also, I would not advocate the conversion or introduction of third rail in Sydney.

There are tons of solutions to make Sydney rail system better BUT the most important thing is the state government should TALK LESS and WORK MORE, and WORK NOW!! If you are out of budget, don't talk about it! I feel angrier when the government keep making promises to me than they just told me “we won’t do anything on the rail network this year”.

While I can certainly sympathise with your burning desire to see something actually built in our lifetime, I merely wish to point out that every project requires some degree of planning. In this case, I very much doubt that the physical infrastructure of the NWRL will change much; rather, what will run on those tracks has been changed.

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"

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.

Rather than a mixed operation, I think rapid transit will fully take over ECRL, Bankstown Line and a pair of track from Illawarra Line.
This will keep rapid transit completely separated from Cityrail.

Rather than a mixed operation, I think rapid transit will fully take over ECRL, Bankstown Line and a pair of track from Illawarra Line.
This will keep rapid transit completely separated from Cityrail.

Why exactly do you want complete segregation, other than to screw the unions? I'm curious.

Rather than a mixed operation, I think rapid transit will fully take over ECRL, Bankstown Line and a pair of track from Illawarra Line.
This will keep rapid transit completely separated from Cityrail.

Why exactly do you want complete segregation, other than to screw the unions? I'm curious.

Not that I typically take stupid_girl's side on, well...just about anything NWRL related, but complete segregation does offer significant benefits in terms of operational efficiency of the network as a whole.  As a self described fan of the London Underground I would have thought you would be well versed in these benefits, especially when something goes snap, crackle or pop (as invariably it will) somewhere on the network.  The difference in reliability between the Piccadilly line (segregated) and say the Hammersmith and City/Circle/Metropolitan Lines (shared track) springs to mind.

Rather than a mixed operation, I think rapid transit will fully take over ECRL, Bankstown Line and a pair of track from Illawarra Line.
This will keep rapid transit completely separated from Cityrail.

That's what they have said.  Whether on not it will survive five terms of government is another matter.  



My point is that while all this is happening there should be, and can be, a better transition than people storming across the platform at Chatswood to pile on already full Shore trains.  I repeat: The only reason that a better solution cannot be found is because the government has been persuaded by its advisors that it must completely seperate the NWRL from day 1.  There is no technical reason for this.  Mixed operation is not ideal but sometimes a little compromise in the interim can produce a better service.  The same advisors would be well aware that existing infrastructure, with some track rearrangement and automatic train operation, can fit another 8 or even 10 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.

Incidentally Europe abounds with double deck trains.  We are not unique.

I am referring to the graphic on the first page of this thread which showes the NWRL using metro Pitt ,after the harbour tunnel is built .

Well we were talking about the Western Line which the graphic clearly shows using the city circle as well as the harbour bridge.

That's what they have said. Whether on not it will survive five terms of government is another matter.
My point is that while all this is happening there should be, and can be, a better transition than people storming across the platform at Chatswood to pile on already full Shore trains. I repeat: The only reason that a better solution cannot be found is because the government has been persuaded by its advisors that it must completely seperate the NWRL from day 1. There is no technical reason for this. Mixed operation is not ideal but sometimes a little compromise in the interim can produce a better service. The same advisors would be well aware that existing infrastructure, with some track rearrangement and automatic train operation, can fit another 8 or even 10 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. Incidentally Europe abounds with double deck trains. We are not unique.

I read it differently, it seemed to indicate to me that the separation of the line is mostly to do with how the NSW Government has to pay for this new link with no PRL money from the Feds. No private company is going to enter into a venture where they are at the mercy of "Sydney trains" and it just makes complete sense to keep the line separate.

I found the comments of a poster (on here I think?) about ATP on the shore line suggesting that in testing its actually been worse then what we have now very interesting. Although based on an article in the SMH this morning it seems the Government believes they can not only fit 20TPH but 24 TPH on the North Shore line!!! I cant imagine it could be any slower but it may well be!

I tell you what, it will be much nicer to be a passenger using the Sector 1 and 2 trains then what is going to happen for passengers in sector 3 under all these plans shown so far. Especially interesting when the property development has been geared towards the areas that are serviced by this sector. Thank Labor for that one.

 I read it differently, it seemed to indicate to me that the separation of the line is mostly to do with how I read it differently, it seemed to indicate to me that the separation of the line is mostly to do with how the NSW Government has to pay for this new link with no PRL money from the Feds. No private company is going to enter into a venture where they are at the mercy of "Sydney trains" and it just makes complete sense to keep the line separate.

.

I am sure that that you are right and that this is a major reason.  Even so, bear in mind though that the Airport Link is at the mercy of Sydney Trains and the freight business was sold with this prospect.  I'm not suggesting either of these are without problems.  I do think, however, that there are other reasons (mainly trying to isolate the unions) that this is being done.

I am suggesting that the only interface need be that the 'Rapid' run its trains over some relatively short sections of shared track as far as Wynyard, and turn them around there.  The details have all been spelled out over the past 12 months or so in this and other forums, albeit without the revelations of the past few days.  The risk plan would be that if there are any problems the Rapid would terminate its trains at Chatswood.  Passengers are no worse off than they would be at any other time under the current scheme and the Rapid owner can be compensated as necessary.  The private owner would have full and absolute control of all of the infrastructure from Chatswood to his depot beyond Rouse Hill.

I am sure that that you are right and that this is a major reason. Even so, bear in mind though that the Airport Link is at the mercy of Sydney Trains and the freight business was sold with this prospect. I'm not suggesting either of these are without problems. I do think, however, that there are other reasons (mainly trying to isolate the unions) that this is being done. I am suggesting that the only interface need be that the 'Rapid' run its trains over some relatively short sections of shared track as far as Wynyard, and turn them around there. The details have all been spelled out over the past 12 months or so in this and other forums, albeit without the revelations of the past few days. The risk plan would be that if there are any problems the Rapid would terminate its trains at Chatswood. Passengers are no worse off than they would be at any other time under the current scheme and the Rapid owner can be compensated as necessary. The private owner would have full and absolute control of all of the infrastructure from Chatswood to his depot beyond Rouse Hill.

I believe the NWRL will be very different to the Airport link, especially being actually run by the private sector. However I completely understand what you are saying and it is valid and would be better for the end user but I just see no scenario where the private sector would be willing to share tracks with Sydney trains. It seems as it stands the private sector will basically be given the tracks from the Chatswood turnback through the ECRL and onto the NWRL as a completely seperate sector that they control. Sharing the two tracks past Chatswood would not be something they would consider I bet, imagine the buck passing when something goes wrong? (very likely in the mess that is this sector). It also allows the Government to hold the private sector to strict performance measures on their patch. Also other then some upgrades in the ECRL there appears to be no additional infrastructure changes for the Sydney trains network to support this new NWRL and I am sure that is a consideration.