It's rediculous to claim that Sydney suburban is constrained by old technology and pretend that classic metros that predate Sydney suburban electrification, let alone underground Sydney railways, are somehow ahead
I don't want to build a classic Metro, I want to build something from this century. One of the advantages of doing this is that we can look at other and better options. Like everywhere else I've been, the simple ability to look out the front and back will be a huge winner alone!

There are many hard line constraints to upgrading to RER and hence why it will never happen.

OH voltage and signally is the least of Sydney's concerns and not prevent upgrades to RER standard. Voltage actually has zero impact.

ABC Fact check used an optimistic number for DD (not yet achieved in Sydney and debatable) and a conservative number for SD (easily achieved in many of the modern networks). Hence the data is flawed.

Operationally, there is no need for NWRL-Sydney Metro  and Sydney Trains to be connected, whether its same train technology or different.

Practically, there will more than likely be a single connection for infrastructure trains during construction and longterm. Assuming sufficient time tabling, rails for the tunnel construction will be delivered by train from ECRL.

Rolling stock will be delivered to the new depo via road for final commissioning and trials.  More often than not these days trains coming to the country and leaving the country don't go to/from the port on rails, they go on rubber tyres. The reasons, cost, legal, insurance, practicality, certification, compatibility......

"I don't want to build a classic Metro, I want to build something from this century. One of the advantages of doing this is that we can look at other and better options. Like everywhere else I've been, the simple ability to look out the front and back will be a huge winner alone!"

I don't think your own personal preferences would really be a winner in off-street transit. What you want to build is prettry similar to classic metro in many ways, including loading gauge, sure there may be newer systems that have it, it's still a technical constraint.

"There are many hard line constraints to upgrading to RER and hence why it will never happen."

Let's see, does the RER have a wider minimum curve radius than Sydney suburban?

"OH voltage and signally is the least of Sydney's concerns and not prevent upgrades to RER standard. Voltage actually has zero impact."

I was pointing out examples of legacies on the Sydney suburban, these not being shared by all other electrified mainline/suburban systems, especially newer ones. The point is, enhancing the signalling alone will allow more trains per hour on each track, at least in absence of level crossings.

"ABC Fact check used an optimistic number for DD (not yet achieved in Sydney and debatable) and a conservative number for SD (easily achieved in many of the modern networks). Hence the data is flawed."

How are the numbers conservative for single decker and optimistic for doubles?

"Operationally, there is no need for NWRL-Sydney Metro  and Sydney Trains to be connected, whether its same train technology or different."

Such a connection will allow transfer of rolling stock between networks, which may be desirable at some point.

"Operationally, there is no need for NWRL-Sydney Metro  and Sydney Trains to be connected, whether its same train technology or different."

Such a connection will allow transfer of rolling stock between networks, which may be desirable at some point.

Using that logic, they should reinstate the bogie exchange facilities at Wodonga and Dynon, and build new bogie exchange facilities somewhere in Brisbane, because it "may be desirable at some point" to transfer some Sydney rolling stock to Melbourne, or Melbourne rolling stock to Brisbane, or who knows what to who knows where.


Dave

I'm thinking of transfer of rolling stock between different parts of the same metropolitan area where the track gauge is the same throughout, not between transfer of rolling stock between different states, let alone states that use different local track gauge.

I've just heard this morning that RER carriages are only slightly longer than Sydney suburban ones.

As far as I know, the longest dwell time recorded at Town Hall station was 50 seconds but the doors were only open for 40 and most of the passengers went through the doors within the first 30 seconds. Is that enough to run 30 trains an hour with enhanced signalling?

I'm thinking of transfer of rolling stock between different parts of the same metropolitan area where the track gauge is the same throughout, not between transfer of rolling stock between different states, let alone states that use different local track gauge.

I've just heard this morning that RER carriages are only slightly longer than Sydney suburban ones.

As far as I know, the longest dwell time recorded at Town Hall station was 50 seconds but the doors were only open for 40 and most of the passengers went through the doors within the first 30 seconds. Is that enough to run 30 trains an hour with enhanced signalling?

If you travel around a bit you will note that high capacity/frequency lines usually retain their own rollingstock for the bulk of the time. Dubai has two lines, same technology but the only connection is for infrastructure and occasion set transfer for maintenance purposes.

I did not say this was a bad idea nor should it be avoided.

As typical Metro rolling stock is different to the surface (even if both are SD) usually driven by automation, traction what ever, they don't transfer stock. Just supply and remove 30-40 years later.



You obviously heard incorrectly and haven't bother again to do your own research.

AGAIN AGAIN AGAIN Sydney DD is ~20m long RER DD's are ~24m long, well the ones I have seen in wiki at least, maybe there are others? My own personal experience on the RER (note the R stands for Regional, not suburban) is also towards the fact the trains are longer. NSW V-set cars are almost RER length, but not used in the Sydney tunnels too often anymore as they can only have 4 and 6 car sets stop at the stations. I believe V-sets are now only the domain of the Blue Mountains due to width issues.

AGAIN AGAIN AGAIN, RER trains are 24m long with 3 doors per car but overall seating is the same as the Sydney DD cars. However the standing capacity and dwel times are much faster due to the extra set of doors.

Central Coast when I traveled in 80's had 8 and 10 car V set DD's and ~21m U boats. The U sets are now retired, the V sets I believe have long since left the Central Coast and 10 car trains ceased long before the V sets left the coast run. So NSW was running 10 car trains around 240m long over the long interurban runs up to Gosford and they reduced it 160m long trains? And you are worried about a tunnel that has been proven to have exactly the same capacity?

Train was at the station for 50 sec, you say most but obviously not all off in 30sec. the guard also needs a few seconds to establish that the train is now ready to close all the doors (remember there are always stragglers) and on a narrow crowded platform like Town Hall limited visibility makes this difficult. Remember the peoples safety is his/her job! People also have to move away from the edge of the platform so the train can depart.

By my calculations it takes 12 sec for the train to start rolling and clear the platform It takes another trains 12sec to arrive (clear the port hole) and stop.

Remember the spacing between the trains must never drop below the same reaction time of the signally system and driver response time with a buffer. On an automated train this is no driver response time, the train can react instantly (within the constraints of block system used and sensors on the front of the train).

I can see 2 to 2:30 min spacing on a well designed platform and extra doors, but not 60-90 sec at Town Hall on a crowded Sydney DD.

If you travel around a bit you will note that high capacity/frequency lines usually retain their own rollingstock for the bulk of the time. Dubai has two lines, same technology but the only connection is for infrastructure and occasion set transfer for maintenance purposes.

I did not say this was a bad idea nor should it be avoided.

As typical Metro rolling stock is different to the surface (even if both are SD) usually driven by automation, traction what ever, they don't transfer stock. Just supply and remove 30-40 years later.

Typical metro rolling stock, whether on elevated or an underground system does differ from non-metro rolling stock in a number of ways, including size and weight.

You obviously heard incorrectly and haven't bother again to do your own research.

This is straight from a rail expert.

AGAIN AGAIN AGAIN Sydney DD is ~20m long RER DD's are ~24m long, well the ones I have seen in wiki at least, maybe there are others? My own personal experience on the RER (note the R stands for Regional, not suburban) is also towards the fact the trains are longer. NSW V-set cars are almost RER length, but not used in the Sydney tunnels too often anymore as they can only have 4 and 6 car sets stop at the stations. I believe V-sets are now only the domain of the Blue Mountains due to width issues.

That's a difference of only 4 metres. That doesn't sound like much. I didn't realise that any double deckers in New South Wales were the same length as the RER trains.

AGAIN AGAIN AGAIN, RER trains are 24m long with 3 doors per car but overall seating is the same as the Sydney DD cars. However the standing capacity and dwel times are much faster due to the extra set of doors.

Not all RER trains have three doors per side of each carriage, some have only two, but yet they still manage to run 30 per hour.

Central Coast when I traveled in 80's had 8 and 10 car V set DD's and ~21m U boats. The U sets are now retired, the V sets I believe have long since left the Central Coast and 10 car trains ceased long before the V sets left the coast run. So NSW was running 10 car trains around 240m long over the long interurban runs up to Gosford and they reduced it 160m long trains? And you are worried about a tunnel that has been proven to have exactly the same capacity?

The tunnel has not be proven to have the same capacity.

Train was at the station for 50 sec, you say most but obviously not all off in 30sec. the guard also needs a few seconds to establish that the train is now ready to close all the doors (remember there are always stragglers) and on a narrow crowded platform like Town Hall limited visibility makes this difficult. Remember the peoples safety is his/her job! People also have to move away from the edge of the platform so the train can depart.

It was Colin Schroeder that timed this, he didn't say most, giving it as a reason why the doors didn't need to be open for more than 30 seconds.

And limited visibility would make it just as difficult with single deckers as with doubles. Platform screen doors, which could be adapted for use on the existing network would also help.

"I don't want to build a classic Metro, I want to build something from this century. One of the advantages of doing this is that we can look at other and better options. Like everywhere else I've been, the simple ability to look out the front and back will be a huge winner alone!"

I don't think your own personal preferences would really be a winner in off-street transit. What you want to build is prettry similar to classic metro in many ways, including loading gauge, sure there may be newer systems that have it, it's still a technical constraint.

"There are many hard line constraints to upgrading to RER and hence why it will never happen."

Let's see, does the RER have a wider minimum curve radius than Sydney suburban?

"OH voltage and signally is the least of Sydney's concerns and not prevent upgrades to RER standard. Voltage actually has zero impact."

I was pointing out examples of legacies on the Sydney suburban, these not being shared by all other electrified mainline/suburban systems, especially newer ones. The point is, enhancing the signalling alone will allow more trains per hour on each track, at least in absence of level crossings.

"ABC Fact check used an optimistic number for DD (not yet achieved in Sydney and debatable) and a conservative number for SD (easily achieved in many of the modern networks). Hence the data is flawed."

How are the numbers conservative for single decker and optimistic for doubles?

"Operationally, there is no need for NWRL-Sydney Metro  and Sydney Trains to be connected, whether its same train technology or different."

Such a connection will allow transfer of rolling stock between networks, which may be desirable at some point.

Mytone,
I have used commuter trains in dozens of cities, I know exactly what I mean and your reference is trying to imply exactly why I said I didn't mean. Please refrain from doing this BS with me.

The govt has stated the trains will be in a format similar to Brisbane or Melbourne, I'm not sure if they targeted 2+2 or 2+3 across seating, what ever I don't care. There will no need for a timetable with minimal waiting times. In peak longterm you will probably spend more time cross the road than waiting for a train. This is a well established and proven success story, so popular they are.

I have said a few times, revenue systems connection between the two is not needed, but infrastructure connection maybe desirable. As NWRL won't being using sydney stock and vice versa and neither is compatible in revenue service, there will be no transfers. Maintenance wise, I suspect the facility at the end of the line will negate any need for transfers. Trains are built pretty modular these days, especially modern Metro stock, so if something is broken and cannot be repaired in a timely manner, its replaced.

I have used commuter trains in dozens of cities, I know exactly what I mean and your reference is trying to imply exactly why I said I didn't mean. Please refrain from doing this BS with me.

What reference do you mean, a rail expert who has also used a great deal of commuter trains has suggested that DD trains can and do run at 2 minute intervals.

The govt has stated the trains will be in a format similar to Brisbane or Melbourne, I'm not sure if they targeted 2+2 or 2+3 across seating, what ever I don't care. There will no need for a timetable with minimal waiting times. In peak longterm you will probably spend more time cross the road than waiting for a train. This is a well established and proven success story, so popular they are.

Even double decker trains can, and do run at turn-up-and-go frequencies.

I have said a few times, revenue systems connection between the two is not needed, but infrastructure connection maybe desirable. As NWRL won't being using sydney stock and vice versa and neither is compatible in revenue service, there will be no transfers. Maintenance wise, I suspect the facility at the end of the line will negate any need for transfers. Trains are built pretty modular these days, especially modern Metro stock, so if something is broken and cannot be repaired in a timely manner, its replaced.

Building the NWRL so that it cannot be used by CityRail rolling stock could have quite unfortunate consequences later on. In fact, a single decker train with drivers cab and also automation ready could in fact run on both systems.

Smaller tunnel diameter among other things will indeed preclude transfer. But if you look at it as if it were built to the standard tunnel diameter and the trains having driver's cabs, can you still explain why there would never be transfers?

This is straight from a rail expert
Then the person is clearly not an expert when he cannot even use the basic dimensions section of the online references. 4m is alot, but chewed up by doors and stairs, so you loose alot too.

The proposed tunnel technology and Sydney DD has been proven to have same capacity. You have yet to demonstrate any data otherwise and keep producing non apples for apples comparisons and I doubt even know the capacity of the DD or the proposed trains. As I said a poster (name I cannot) remember posted a while back in great detailed the full calculations. LOOK IT UP, HE BOTHERED TOO.

Metro is automated, doors close when no longer obstructed and also the metro is not using TOWN HALL station, so 90% of the problem is solved there.

From what I can tell, only the

This is straight from a rail expert
Then the person is clearly not an expert when he cannot even use the basic dimensions section of the online references. 4m is alot, but chewed up by doors and stairs, so you loose alot too.

I know he is a rail expert, more details will follow via email.

The proposed tunnel technology and Sydney DD has been proven to have same capacity. You have yet to demonstrate any data otherwise and keep producing non apples for apples comparisons and I doubt even know the capacity of the DD or the proposed trains. As I said a poster (name I cannot) remember posted a while back in great detailed the full calculations. LOOK IT UP, HE BOTHERED TOO.

With enhanced signalling, may have been shown to have the same capacity as the Sydney suburban with existing signalling, but the capacity of the Sydney suburban with enhanced signalling would in fact be greater.

Metro is automated, doors close when no longer obstructed and also the metro is not using TOWN HALL station, so 90% of the problem is solved there.

Not all metro is automated, especially not classic metro.

From what I can tell, only the Z 20500 is a 2 door DD car and if my very limited french is correct the car length is 17.8m, shorter than Sydney, DD and only operates in 4 and 5 car lengths and may (I don't have time to did much more) spend most of its operations in the country side.

Perhaps it would be a good idea to look at headways and capacity of other networks using double decked rolling stock.

Mytone, As you cannot be bothered to AGAIN look up some facts when I told you there was a good calculation summary, here it is.
Grog Post this on 11th June, Page 4 in this thread,
The calculations are I thing very detailed and explained well, his calculation applies to the Sydney DD at Town Hall using Sydney DD rolingstock and using the Sydney Metro technology as applied to a long mostly underground line and future network.
He does not reference rolling stock and conditions that cannot be replicated in or apply to Sydney, like the RER.

From the video fly troughs and documentation I have worked out the following as far as planned configuration of the trains:

End car:

3 x longitudinal seats - door - 5 x 2 seat rows - door - 9 x longitudinal seat - door - 7 x longitudinal seats

                                *** Aisle ***

3 x longitudinal seats - door - 9 x longitudinal seat - door - 5 x 2 seat rows - door - 7 x longitudinal seats

Total seats: 58

Middle cars:

7 x longitudinal seats - door - 5 x 2 seat rows - door - 9 x longitudinal seat - door - 7 x longitudinal seats

                                *** Aisle ***

7 x longitudinal seats - door - 9 x longitudinal seat - door - 5 x 2 seat rows - door - 7 x longitudinal seats


Total seats: 66


Initial train configuration: 6 car trains (2 x end, 4 x middle)
Total initial seats per 6 car train = 380

Initial frequency = 15tph
Initial seated capacity = 5700/hour (equivalent to 6.3 tph DD stock @ 900 seats per train)

This fits within the documentation published which stated that the initial service would be 5500 - 6000 seats per hour with 6 car trains.

Eventual train configuration: 8 car trains (2 x end, 6 x middle)
Total eventual seats per 8 car train = 512

Eventual NWRL frequency = 18tph (designed to support up to 20tph on the NWRL and 30tph in the core section)
Eventual seated capacity = 9216/hour (equivalent to 10.24 tph DD stock @ 900 seats per trains)

That seated capacity for the NWRL is greater than the current seated capacity provided to 8tph DD Macarthur to CBD via East Hills services, and still allows another 12tph to run on a branch to Neutral Bay/Spit Junction to allow a bus interchange to be built to remove Northern Beaches buses from the CBD.

This is all seated capacity for the NWRL, lets consider the maximum capacity. 30tph @ 512 seats = 15360 seats/hour, which is 85% of the current maximum seated capacity on an existing 20tph DD line in Sydney.

Then you get the standing capacity on top of that (40% seated, 60% standing, 1300 per train total) for a total line capacity of 39000/hour vs 24000/hour currently. This standing capacity can be used to support intensive apartment and job development around stations within 20 minutes travel time of the CBD.

You can see they have made the right call on the new line, maintaining most of the seating capacity of DD by buying cheaper, simpler off the shelf technology, rather than wasting time and money trying to squeeze DD higher by moving to 24tph. Even 24tph @ 1200 people current train capacity (900 seated, 300 standing) is only an incremental increase to 28800/hour - still well below the total SD capacity

Mytone, As you cannot be bothered to AGAIN look up some facts when I told you there was a good calculation summary, here it is.
Grog Post this on 11th June, Page 4 in this thread,
The calculations are I thing very detailed and explained well, his calculation applies to the Sydney DD at Town Hall using Sydney DD rolingstock and using the Sydney Metro technology as applied to a long mostly underground line and future network.
He does not reference rolling stock and conditions that cannot be replicated in or apply to Sydney, like the RER.

No, I wasn't sure how to do it, it would involve going through many pages, I couldn't remember the name of the poster who wrote it.

From the video fly troughs and documentation I have worked out the following as far as planned configuration of the trains:

End car:

3 x longitudinal seats - door - 5 x 2 seat rows - door - 9 x longitudinal seat - door - 7 x longitudinal seats

                                *** Aisle ***

3 x longitudinal seats - door - 9 x longitudinal seat - door - 5 x 2 seat rows - door - 7 x longitudinal seats

Total seats: 58

Middle cars:

7 x longitudinal seats - door - 5 x 2 seat rows - door - 9 x longitudinal seat - door - 7 x longitudinal seats

                                *** Aisle ***

7 x longitudinal seats - door - 9 x longitudinal seat - door - 5 x 2 seat rows - door - 7 x longitudinal seats


Total seats: 66


Initial train configuration: 6 car trains (2 x end, 4 x middle)
Total initial seats per 6 car train = 380

Initial frequency = 15tph
Initial seated capacity = 5700/hour (equivalent to 6.3 tph DD stock @ 900 seats per train)

This fits within the documentation published which stated that the initial service would be 5500 - 6000 seats per hour with 6 car trains.

Eventual train configuration: 8 car trains (2 x end, 6 x middle)
Total eventual seats per 8 car train = 512

Eventual NWRL frequency = 18tph (designed to support up to 20tph on the NWRL and 30tph in the core section)
Eventual seated capacity = 9216/hour (equivalent to 10.24 tph DD stock @ 900 seats per trains)

The data given is very complicated and difficult to understand.

That seated capacity for the NWRL is greater than the current seated capacity provided to 8tph DD Macarthur to CBD via East Hills services, and still allows another 12tph to run on a branch to Neutral Bay/Spit Junction to allow a bus interchange to be built to remove Northern Beaches buses from the CBD.

8 tph is less than a third of the frequency that the current signalling allows. In order to get such a great seated capacity for the NWRL, you need to run the trains many times more frequently than on the existing network, and signalling capacity being equal, it isn't possible to run even 50% more single decker trains in a given timeframe.

This is all seated capacity for the NWRL, lets consider the maximum capacity. 30tph @ 512 seats = 15360 seats/hour, which is 85% of the current maximum seated capacity on an existing 20tph DD line in Sydney

The seated capacity is only 85%, not 100%, not any greater.

You can see they have made the right call on the new line, maintaining most of the seating capacity of DD by buying cheaper, simpler off the shelf technology, rather than wasting time and money trying to squeeze DD higher by moving to 24tph. Even 24tph @ 1200 people current train capacity (900 seated, 300 standing) is only an incremental increase to 28800/hour - still well below the total SD capacity

But they are actually reducing seating capacity, not maintaining or increasing it.

How would running 24 tph be a waste of money? Don't you just need to upgrade the signalling? If 30 SD/h has 85% of the seating capacity of 20 DD/h, then 24 DD/h is sure to have more.

I know he is a rail expert, more details will follow via email.


With enhanced signalling, may have been shown to have the same capacity as the Sydney suburban with existing signalling, but the capacity of the Sydney suburban with enhanced signalling would in fact be greater.


Not all metro is automated, especially not classic metro.


Perhaps it would be a good idea to look at headways and capacity of other networks using double decked rolling stock.

If he is an expect he would have done his research. If he han't he is not an expert or you have mis quoted. Why  couldn't you post details before or now?

Most of the studies done over last 15 years have not included more trains at Town Hall for good reason and its been explained to you why. I know you won't bother to look it up, but below is a photo of Town Hall Station with its Narrow platfoms, although some of the worst areas are not shown.
- Narrow platforms with limited exits.
- In many parts of the platform the width is less than the train due to building, stairs etc.
- People get off the train, with some people waiting for the next train, more obstacles, even if they stand back you are still constrained to a few metres at best and then at the next train door, more people.
- Look in the middle of the photo, there is a walk almost on the safety line, but next to him are some people leaning against the all and their feet are less than 1m away from him.
- the escalator in the picture is just wide enough for one escalator.

As I have said before, I grew up thinking that the centre platforms on each level were actually added on for the ESR (wasn't yet running when I was very small). I think most people who have been to Town Hall would feel similar unless they know the history. It looks like a nice well designed old station, that someone has squeezed down by adding extra two tracks.

I've also said perhaps the down shore should be switched to the centre platform No.5 and then both centre platforms opened to the platform on both sides. However the realignment of the tracks is probably extremely costly and intrusive on operations.

The costs to go to 24t/hr is med-high priced and high risk with the likely hood of a very public failure and a loss of nearly 5 years or more of time.

The ability to run trains at 2.5min from Chatswood to Straithfield is not in question, the ability to get people to move through the station safely, reliably and efficiently without turning Town Hall station in a crowded Japanese commuter station is the question and to date few in power want to risk this. Additionally once the high cost project is done, capacity would be eated up within 10 years, then back to a Metro. So just build the F/n Metro and solve the issue for the next 25 years, low risk, lowest cost per passenger mile, DONE!

Imagine some major disaster at the station, such as a fire or lots of smoke and likely death count from the panic? The technical people may say yes, but if the fire people say no, likely in this case it won't happen. (yes I have been to Town Hall in peak)

When I refer to Metro, I only refer to something built in lat 30 years and Automated (call it what you like). I am not focused or care about the dinosaur systems built 100yrs ago that you always focus on.

Head ways of other networks regardless of technology is irrelevant as none of them have to deal with Town Hall. Are there busies stations? yes. But they are typically much better designed than this disaster.


And I'm think we (I) are about done on this as you have brought nothing new to the table and ignoring basics.

If he is an expect he would have done his research. If he han't he is not an expert or you have mis quoted.

He is very knowledgable, and has posted on a related thread on busaustralia, see here, he's the one who said it will be a white elephant. He does have plenty of personal experience, inculding with the RER.

Most of the studies done over last 15 years have not included more trains at Town Hall for good reason and its been explained to you why. I know you won't bother to look it up, but below is a photo of Town Hall Station with its Narrow platfoms, although some of the worst areas are not shown.
- Narrow platforms with limited exits.
- In many parts of the platform the width is less than the train due to building, stairs etc.
- People get off the train, with some people waiting for the next train, more obstacles, even if they stand back you are still constrained to a few metres at best and then at the next train door, more people.
- Look in the middle of the photo, there is a walk almost on the safety line, but next to him are some people leaning against the all and their feet are less than 1m away from him.
- the escalator in the picture is just wide enough for one escalator.

I don't see what this has to do with building a separate uninteoperable network. None of the problems with Town Hall station have anything to do with the design of the trains.

I puzzles me that this station was even built that way, particularly if no other station, undergound or especially on the surface has them.

The costs to go to 24t/hr is med-high priced and high risk with the likely hood of a very public failure and a loss of nearly 5 years or more of time.

But it must surely be cheaper and easier than starting a second network that has the potential to be a white elephant.

The ability to run trains at 2.5min from Chatswood to Straithfield is not in question, the ability to get people to move through the station safely, reliably and efficiently without turning Town Hall station in a crowded Japanese commuter station is the question and to date few in power want to risk this. Additionally once the high cost project is done, capacity would be eated up within 10 years, then back to a Metro. So just build the F/n Metro and solve the issue for the next 25 years, low risk, lowest cost per passenger mile, DONE!

Surely rebuliding Town Hall station is sure to be much less costly than buliding one or more separate lines uninteoperable with the existing network. Has there been talk of doing something like that?

When I refer to Metro, I only refer to something built in lat 30 years and Automated (call it what you like). I am not focused or care about the dinosaur systems built 100yrs ago that you always focus on.

Here's my actual focus; The ones built in the last 30 years with the metro tag are in fact based on the classic metro recipe, with certain technical constraints (such as smallbore tunnel, and sometimes steeper grades and tighter curves), but also with modern technology not (originally) fitted to classic metros.

Head ways of other networks regardless of technology is irrelevant as none of them have to deal with Town Hall. Are there busies stations? yes. But they are typically much better designed than this disaster.

And maybe Sydney suburban wouldn't either if they could actually upgrade Town Hall, easy, problem solved with an upgrade of just one station.

I know the basics, but I believe, and this has been mentioned by others, that there are easier solutions that starting a second uninteroperable network.

And I'm think we (I) are about done on this as you have brought nothing new to the table and ignoring basics.

Dave
As I said above (a few times) Myrtone is a troll, and is merely arguing for the sake of arguing, blindly refusing to accept any argument that does not support their opinion.

https://3dwarehouse.sketchup.com/search.html?q=barangaroo+station&rsi=sbis&backendClass=entity



To be ready for a key turn start as soon as the route is determined.

TBM transported directly to site unless parts need work done elsewhere.

Only one site needed for both drives.

NSW owns the road saving money.

It is easier to convey material downhill

Material can be trucked away at night or loaded onto a barge for ocean disposal

Can start immediately on launchbox and backup while people are used to construction.

Investors will see stuff really happening.

They will have extra time to work out where they want to surface

Prove the harbour tunnel is OK.

What do people think of my suggestion for a TBM launchbox 25mx25mx200m on the eastern side of Hickson road north of gate five to be built immediately so Isabelle and Maria can drive north below the harbour with Elizabeth and Florence driving to Martin place.

At the same time the stockpile shed and backup could be installed on the now vacant section of Barangaroo where excavated material can either be trucked away overnight or loaded onto a barge for disposal at sea.

When finished it could be Barangaroo station with parking for 200 cars, and some shops above  with only a 5% grade to the harbour tunnel.  

https://3dwarehouse.sketchup.com/search.html?q=barangaroo+station&rsi=sbis&backendClass=entity

The advantages I see.

To be ready for a key turn start as soon as the route is determined.

TBM transported directly to site unless parts need work done elsewhere.

Only one site needed for both drives.

NSW owns the road saving money.

It is easier to convey material downhill

Material can be trucked away at night or loaded onto a barge for ocean disposal

Can start immediately on launchbox and backup while people are used to construction.

Investors will see stuff really happening.

They will have extra time to work out where they want to surface

Prove the harbour tunnel is OK.

I mostly agree with following change

- 2 x TBM (choose your own names), start from St Leonards (where ever that location is supposed to be) head south.
spoil can be removed by rail off-peak if not needed locally

- 2 x TBM from your Bangaroo site heading south through city to Sydnam

Regards
Shane

RTT-Rules
Perhaps I am wrong but I do not think they have worked out a launch site yet for St Leonards or at least not any that I can find and the first pair of TBM will be finished in a couple of weeks so it may be best to start from Barangaroo where they have the space for both pair to launch and the pair going north will easily convey the material downhill.

If double decker trains could run at 2 minute frequencies, then the case for metro style rail (originated and still most common in older cities) would fall apart completely.
Upon hearing that Paris does so, they turn statistics to back up their claim that 30 DD per hour isn't possible with the Sydney format. Who here has ever timed trains at any station? If you all tell me to do my research, when I actually have done plenty, I'd like to see at least one poster here, who lives near a busy Sydney station to actually time trains at some busy station, before concluding whether enhanced signalling would allow 30 DD/hr, or anything close.
Okay, so there are problems with Town Hall that limit the frequency of trains that pass through it and the solution according to someone living in Dubai is to build a completely separate metro line with smaller tunnels. Really?
Is it really credible that upgrading the existing network would be higher priced than starting a second network?

Myrtone
I used to like DD but Sydney has ideal geology for tunnels and SD work better in them because there is less headwind and easier to get wheelchairs out the ends so allowing smaller, cheaper tunnels.

Yes you could get DD trains to have all the bells a whistles but they would not so easy to get off the shelf.

Please use your brains not to win a DD argument but contribute to the metro discussion.

I really appreciate feedback from people and am looking forward to yours.

RTT-Rules
Perhaps I am wrong but I do not think they have worked out a launch site yet for St Leonards or at least not any that I can find and the first pair of TBM will be finished in a couple of weeks so it may be best to start from Barangaroo where they have the space for both pair to launch and the pair going north will easily convey the material downhill.

eddyb
I think you are right, so yes potentially you have a point as it will take a year or so to get that far so plenty of time.

Also there maybe an issue and delay in having a TBM arrive at Bangaroo station that is supposed to be under construction. but I think you met all four TBM's start from there and 2 head nth and 2 head south.

Headed nth the material won't be going down hill, they need to go under the harbour first. Angle of the tunnel is really irrelevant anyway to removing spoil, they are designed to dig at much steeper angles for roads and pipelines.

I'm a supporter of just "keep going in projects rather than stop-start" as you can save alot of money.

For the two TBM's headed south, once complete if possible I'd reverse them back and start doing the Inner West. OR dig the port holes branching off for 500m then park them up. Likewise on the Nth side for Nth Beaches.


Mytone,
I'm not taking part any further in the DD vs SD debate, others of course may however choose to continue so enjoy.

RTT-Rules

It is hard to know what they want to keep secret and what they just have not decided on yet.

They are still drilling a lot in the harbour but that may just be for the eventual road tunnel, there a few deep holes and dykes there so they need to be sure to get the best route but that should not stop them setting up a launch site at Barangaroo as it is the only place they definitely want to go.

The only reason I put my Barangaroo station up is I heard they were waiting for a station proposal and I thought it may give somebody food for thought.

St Leonards is 70m above Hickson road so I meant it would be easier to convey the material downhill from there.

Martin place is only 12m above Hickson road and would be about 2km from Barangaroo central so there would be no problem with grade there.

The 4 new TBM on order may arrive before the launch site is made as I would imagine it would take about 6 months from when the decision was made to do it.

i see your point. I think you will probably find the drilling is all for the Metro.

Vertical height will make no difference on removing spoil on tunnels, it doesnt come out under gravity, rather mechanical removal.

RTT-Rules


From my 4 years on the underground coal mine conveyors we had to have a number of drive heads when hauling uphill and it says here http://www.therobbinscompany.com/en/our-products/conveyors/conveyor-components/ it is important to have a low belt tension.


I had thought that perhaps by hauling downhill there may be no need for any boosters.

Here's another idea, if we are to extend the metro service into the CBD, an alternative is to divert existing Sydney trains into the second harbour crossing and covert the existing section between Chatswood and Bankstown to metro. This section already has some closely spaced stations and thus the lighter and smaller NWRL trains would serve the shorter run with more frequent stops. The new deep tube line will have more widely spaced stations and should be able to take double decker trains. What a nice reversal of the Staples plan!