Are Australian cities really implementing a metro system?

Here is a video made with a detailed explanation of the history of the rail network and how the metro projects are just extensions of the existing suburban network and will provide line to line connection to allow less delays and easier operations.

Edit: fixed (video wasn't so good)



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuLNfeQ9P4I&t=1073s

The video has been taken down, sorry

All Australasian cities have surface rail right into and often through city centres, and were able to avoid the problem that metro-style rail was designed to solve.

can I watch the video please?

The bulk of all the branch lines in Australian cities were laid when there was no city and the lines were predominately built for freight. As the fields were replaced with houses most of the lines morphed into a suburban network. Extendions and upgrades up to the 1970s mostly involved land resumption
Which was then cheap.  The few inner city expansions involved costly but short tunnels.

The Sydney ESR being the first major attempt at more than a city tunnel project and the lack of experience resulted in a cluster project that was trucated by more than 50%.

In places like Paris where built up medium density housing has existed before the invention of rail they had to bite the bullet early and go UG. Fortunately the population justified such a move and the lines mostly made money or close to it abd hence they have experience in these projects and roll new projects out as a matter of course without drama..


The inner suburban parts of Australian cities are no longer cheap low density housing having now statted to morph into a modern version of early indudtral Paris and hence the
need to build metro style rail expansion projects that are justified and funded by the growing more dense population they will serve.

It is basically now impossible to replicate and inner surface branch line expansion projects on the same low cost approach as in the past. Long distance tunnel branch lines require a completely different approach.

The Sydney ESR being the first major attempt at more than a city tunnel project and the lack of experience resulted in a cluster project that was trucated by more than 50%.

I'm not entirely sure what this means. But that was a extension of a rail network that had long since been electrified. It easier to extend an long existing and established electrified rail network than building a separate line with its own depot, even if that extension is underground.

In places like Paris where built up medium density housing has existed before the invention of rail they had to bite the bullet early and go UG. Fortunately the population justified such a move and the lines mostly made money or close to it abd hence they have experience in these projects and roll new projects out as a matter of course without drama..

Again I don't fully understand this but indeed, surface trains, steam hauled in those days, had to terminate on the edge of the city. They could not have surface rail serving the historic core and steam trains are unsitable for underground operation.
It's as if surface rail serving Sydney had to terminate at Redfern or on the North Shore. Or if country and interstate services serving Melbourne terminated at Richmond, Kensington or Footscray.

The inner suburban parts of Australian cities are no longer cheap low density housing having now statted to morph into a modern version of early indudtral Paris and hence the
need to build metro style rail expansion projects that are justified and funded by the growing more dense population they will serve.

These are quite different from older cities such as London and Paris because surface rail serves the city centre. Both Melbourne and Sydney suburban are long electrified. Every underground railway in Sydney was built after electrification of the suburban network and so could simply be done as an extension of the existing network because electric trains can easily run underground.
It's like that here too. The only Melbourne suburban extension within the city part since electrification is the City Loop, and that was decades after electrification. Our first inner suburban extension in that whole timeframe is currently under construction, between Northwest and Southeast.
The "growing more dense population" doesn't change the fact that we were able to avoid the problem that metro style rail was designed to solve.

It is basically now impossible to replicate and inner surface branch line expansion projects on the same low cost approach as in the past. Long distance tunnel branch lines require a completely different approach.

What "different approach"?
If Paris were built again with the arrival of railways, they would have brought surface rail right into and through the rebuilt core, and maybe the Paris metro would have never existed.

The issues that faced Paris in the dawn of rail, ie inability to build surface rail lines through expense built up inner suburbia now face the Sydney and Melbourne and do a degree Brisbane and the other capitals. If you need to repossess any significant about of land, the cost is horrific due to rising land prices.

In the past the simply connected a short section of tunnel to existing suburban lines, ie city tunnels in Sydney and Brisbane and in effect Melbourne. However now they are looking to build new lines in areas that lack rail infrastructure and this must be underground and since its no longer just a few km, but rather 20-40km is underground, hence a different more cost effective approach must be used as you are no longer building a surface branch with the odd tunnel, rather the whole line is sunk. Building a suburban line underground with few changes is expensive, so you need to look at (more modern parts of) Paris, Singapore and others to see how to reduce costs when going underground. The failed experiment of how not to build a line UG, such as the ESR should not be forgotton.

Nothing in Sydney or Melbourne was built to avoid the problems of Paris. The lines were built for freight and morphed into commuter with time, although until recent 10-20 years, most were operated more like IU services than typical inner commuter. By population is catching and hence the timetables and operating practices as also changing.

BAck to the OP, yes the major city surfaces are more closely replicating a typical Metro if a label must be applied. ie same stopping pattern, change trains if you want to change lines, limited to no express running on dual track corridors.   We are seeing dedicated sectors operated independently of others and pigeon holed train sets and staff. No longer go anywhere do anything. With time, I predict the lines will move to be more operationally seperated including trains and staff and the first signs are already there.

The issues that faced Paris in the dawn of rail, ie inability to build surface rail lines through expense built up inner suburbia now face the Sydney and Melbourne and do a degree Brisbane and the other capitals. If you need to repossess any significant about of land, the cost is horrific due to rising land prices.

The historic cores of older cities like Paris were not served by any heavy rail before the metros were built. Every Australasian city has a centre already served by surface heavy rail. We may have some expensive built up inner suburbia, but much of it, like Richmond, North Melbourne, Refern and North Sydney, are already accessible by heavy rail. Older cities, having developed before railways, had built-up areas not already served by heavy rail.

In the past the simply connected a short section of tunnel to existing suburban lines, ie city tunnels in Sydney and Brisbane and in effect Melbourne. However now they are looking to build new lines in areas that lack rail infrastructure and this must be underground and since its no longer just a few km, but rather 20-40km is underground, hence a different more cost effective approach must be used as you are no longer building a surface branch with the odd tunnel, rather the whole line is sunk. Building a suburban line underground with few changes is expensive, so you need to look at (more modern parts of) Paris, Singapore and others to see how to reduce costs when going underground. The failed experiment of how not to build a line UG, such as the ESR should not be forgotton.

The new areas that lack heavy rail infrastructure are not inner suburban territory. What do you mean by "building a suburban line with a few changes"? More modern parts of both London and Paris have mostly surface rail, Overground in London and R.E.R in Paris. Parts of the R.E.R are within metro territory and these parts are mostly underground.

Nothing in Sydney or Melbourne was built to avoid the problems of Paris. The lines were built for freight and morphed into commuter with time, although until recent 10-20 years, most were operated more like IU services than typical inner commuter. By population is catching and hence the timetables and operating practices as also changing.

I didn't say that anything in our cities was built to avoid the problems of older cities. I said that we were able to avoid these problems being served by rail before the building-up of inner suburbia.

Yes, new extensions in inner suburbia, such as the Melbourne Metro rail thing, will need to be underground, but since our suburban (surface) rail is electrified, we can simply extend the existing network underground, because the train fleet on our suburban networks is already suitable for underground use.

The issues that faced Paris in the dawn of rail, ie inability to build surface rail lines through expense built up inner suburbia now face the Sydney and Melbourne and do a degree Brisbane and the other capitals. If you need to repossess any significant about of land, the cost is horrific due to rising land prices.

The historic cores of older cities like Paris were not served by any heavy rail before the metros were built. Every Australasian city has a centre already served by surface heavy rail. We may have some expensive built up inner suburbia, but much of it, like Richmond, North Melbourne, Refern and North Sydney, are already accessible by heavy rail. Older cities, having developed before railways, had built-up areas not already served by heavy rail.

In the past the simply connected a short section of tunnel to existing suburban lines, ie city tunnels in Sydney and Brisbane and in effect Melbourne. However now they are looking to build new lines in areas that lack rail infrastructure and this must be underground and since its no longer just a few km, but rather 20-40km is underground, hence a different more cost effective approach must be used as you are no longer building a surface branch with the odd tunnel, rather the whole line is sunk. Building a suburban line underground with few changes is expensive, so you need to look at (more modern parts of) Paris, Singapore and others to see how to reduce costs when going underground. The failed experiment of how not to build a line UG, such as the ESR should not be forgotton.

The new areas that lack heavy rail infrastructure are not inner suburban territory. What do you mean by "building a suburban line with a few changes"? More modern parts of both London and Paris have mostly surface rail, Overground in London and R.E.R in Paris. Parts of the R.E.R are within metro territory and these parts are mostly underground.

Nothing in Sydney or Melbourne was built to avoid the problems of Paris. The lines were built for freight and morphed into commuter with time, although until recent 10-20 years, most were operated more like IU services than typical inner commuter. By population is catching and hence the timetables and operating practices as also changing.

I didn't say that anything in our cities was built to avoid the problems of older cities. I said that we were able to avoid these problems being served by rail before the building-up of inner suburbia.

Yes, new extensions in inner suburbia, such as the Melbourne Metro rail thing, will need to be underground, but since our suburban (surface) rail is electrified, we can simply extend the existing network underground, because the train fleet on our suburban networks is already suitable for underground use.

The RER operates in a similar fashion to the main suburban line s in Aus having been originally or still ued by freight and part of a greater Paris rail system only relying on high cost underground section in the  very inner part of Paris, usually limited to less than 5km or so connecting the major regional stations. So for these short distances they were able to wear the higher costs of UG construction for an RER type system over a Metro.  London is similar as is many other cities.

When building the inner commuter lines, that were solely underground, different technologies are employed to reduce the very high cost of underground railway construction, ie single decker, in the past often narrow rolling stock, although this is not an issue for today and hence most modern UG only lines use rolling stock around 2.4m wide plus the need for greater capacity and more efficient operation than trains of the past.

There are still numerous parts of inner Sydney, Brisbane and Melbourne that are outside a 2km catchment radius of a railway station or corridors that are reaching or at capacity. Hence with few if any options left of mostly surface railway at economic cost or at least community acceptance. The future for expansion is therefore underground. In some cases it will be short sections connecting to surface railways, in others it will be dedicated Metro lines which are completely separated from the existing network to save costs and take a advantage of modern operating train and underground construction technology. This has already started in Sydney and will continue and again overseas experience is very clear on how it will continue and Sydney is on that path.

For the legacy networks, the future is further rationalisaton of routes and timetables such that no matter what time of day you use the train from almost any station to any other station, the stopping pattern is the same and changing lines will usually require a change of train. Services will replicate much of the Metro approach of A-B-A only, not mixing. Frequencies pushing 3min or below will not have tolerance for mixing of express and local services and where demand exists this will drive track amplification and in some cases this will involve expanding underground.

As mentioned above, simply expanding the current surface fleets underground can come at significant cost and cheaper train technologies exist. However it depends on the distance of the UG and surface route before making a decision either way. The Paris RER has hundreds of km of surface corridors, so for a few km of tunnel, you do whats needed. But for other projects like Sydney, its likely cheaper to build a stand alone line designed for UG construction and operatings.  You don't build underground lines for +10min frequencies, they are simply too expensive to justify the cost.

The RER operates in a similar fashion to the main suburban line s in Aus having been originally or still ued by freight and part of a greater Paris rail system only relying on high cost underground section in the  very inner part of Paris, usually limited to less than 5km or so connecting the major regional stations. So for these short distances they were able to wear the higher costs of UG construction for an RER type system over a Metro.  London is similar as is many other cities.

The underground parts of the R.E.R were never used by freight trains, and built only in 1970s onwards, by that time, the metro was well established and integrating it into the R.E.R would be way more complicated than it's worth, not just too costly but too much disruption. It has to do not only with tunnel size but also station spacing and minimum curve radius.

When building the inner commuter lines, that were solely underground, different technologies are employed to reduce the very high cost of underground railway construction, ie single decker, in the past often narrow rolling stock, although this is not an issue for today and hence most modern UG only lines use rolling stock around 2.4m wide plus the need for greater capacity and more efficient operation than trains of the past.

Such lines were built in older cities back in the 19^th century and early in the 20^th century. They did use different technologies but that was because surface trains were steam-hauled and a different motive power, usually electric, was needed for underground use. Also, double decker trains, or at least double decker multiple units, did not yet exist at that time.

There are still numerous parts of inner Sydney, Brisbane and Melbourne that are outside a 2km catchment radius of a railway station or corridors that are reaching or at capacity. Hence with few if any options left of mostly surface railway at economic cost or at least community acceptance. The future for expansion is therefore underground. In some cases it will be short sections connecting to surface railways, in others it will be dedicated Metro lines which are completely separated from the existing network to save costs and take a advantage of modern operating train and underground construction technology. This has already started in Sydney and will continue and again overseas experience is very clear on how it will continue and Sydney is on that path.

If they aren't too far from an existing line, than a short section connecting to existing lines will likely be enough. For example, even though the Eastern suburbs are outside the catchment radius of all surface railway stations, they are close enough to the city centre that a short section connecting to the existing network was enough.
Nowhere near as long as the Northwest rail link, well outside metro territory, and is to have some elevated sections. Remember this was planned as an extension of the existing network until Rodd Staples changed the plans. He has a history of looking for ways to convert parts of the Sydney system to single deck metro.

For the legacy networks, the future is further rationalisaton of routes and timetables such that no matter what time of day you use the train from almost any station to any other station, the stopping pattern is the same and changing lines will usually require a change of train. Services will replicate much of the Metro approach of A-B-A only, not mixing. Frequencies pushing 3min or below will not have tolerance for mixing of express and local services and where demand exists this will drive track amplification and in some cases this will involve expanding underground.

I don't get this.

As mentioned above, simply expanding the current surface fleets underground can come at significant cost and cheaper train technologies exist. However it depends on the distance of the UG and surface route before making a decision either way. The Paris RER has hundreds of km of surface corridors, so for a few km of tunnel, you do whats needed. But for other projects like Sydney, its likely cheaper to build a stand alone line designed for UG construction and operatings.  You don't build underground lines for +10min frequencies, they are simply too expensive to justify the cost.

Paris R.E.R runs as many as 30 double decker trains an hour. Remember that parts of Sydney a significant distance from the existing network are likely less dense areas. Inner suburban parts of Sydney, as far as I know, are close enough to existing lines that could be served with sections no longer than the Eastern Suburbs line.

Sydney seems to have the largest suburban railway network in the world, and very comprehensive within its area. Yet you say they are going to need more than 100km of new track in areas that have already run out of surface options.

For the legacy networks, the future is further rationalisaton of routes and timetables such that no matter what time of day you use the train from almost any station to any other station, the stopping pattern is the same and changing lines will usually require a change of train. Services will replicate much of the Metro approach of A-B-A only, not mixing. Frequencies pushing 3min or below will not have tolerance for mixing of express and local services and where demand exists this will drive track amplification and in some cases this will involve expanding underground.

As mentioned above, simply expanding the current surface fleets underground can come at significant cost and cheaper train technologies exist. However it depends on the distance of the UG and surface route before making a decision either way. The Paris RER has hundreds of km of surface corridors, so for a few km of tunnel, you do whats needed. But for other projects like Sydney, its likely cheaper to build a stand alone line designed for UG construction and operatings.  You don't build underground lines for +10min frequencies, they are simply too expensive to justify the cost.

I totally agree Shayne.  The ultimate goal for the legacy network should be to aim for a single stopping pattern on each line to maximise its frequency, possibly as high as 24tph with ATO and upgraded signalling.  Inner Sydney lines such as the North Shore Line from the CBD to Hornsby, the Inner West Line from the City Circle to Parramatta, the Airport Line from the City Circle to Revesby/Glenfield  and the Eastern Suburbs/Illawarra Line from Bondi Junction to Hurstville could effectively become high frequency all stations turn up and go services.

However, to achieve this, there would have to be further investment in the legacy network to separate Outer Suburban and Intercity express services from the Inner Suburban lines with track amplification.  This particularly applies to the Inner Western Line corridor, which has to cater for Western, South and Northern Line express services between Strathfield and the CBD.  This could only be by an express tunnel.  Regrettably, the current State Government seems to be reluctant to make any investment in upgrading the current network infrastructure, instead putting all its eggs in the metro basket.

I'm against converting any part of the existing network, including the Bankstown Line, to metro but support the establishment of a separate stand alone metro system to inner city areas not currently serviced by rail.

I have nothing to say on most of this but:

I'm against converting any part of the existing network, including the Bankstown Line, to metro but support the establishment of a separate stand alone metro system to inner city areas not currently serviced by rail.

Look above to see why many elder global cities have it. You realise our cities have heavy suburban rail actually serving and even traversing the C.B.D, and that's something elder global cities don't have or didn't have at the time their metros were built.

Rodd Staples proposed a C.B.D metro sometime before he was put in charge of the Northwest rail link and it was wildly unpopular.

I have nothing to say on most of this but:

I'm against converting any part of the existing network, including the Bankstown Line, to metro but support the establishment of a separate stand alone metro system to inner city areas not currently serviced by rail.

Look above to see why many elder global cities have it. You realise our cities have heavy suburban rail actually serving and even traversing the C.B.D, and that's something elder global cities don't have or didn't have at the time their metros were built.

Rodd Staples proposed a C.B.D metro sometime before he was put in charge of the Northwest rail link and it was wildly unpopular.

I'm not sure what your point is Myrtone.  Are you agreeing or disagreeing with my comments?

I have been in agreement with what you say. Well, I don't live in the Sydney area but still, you have been known for opposition to converting any part of the suburban system to metro and building any metro in what is not metro territory.
Knowing that Sydney has been able to avoid the problem that metro was originally designed to solve, it seems like Sydney doesn't have any real metro territory.
Metro territory in cities like London and Paris is in the old parts of those cities, in case of London, mostly north of the Thames. Most routes are entirely north of the Thames, the rest partly so.

The old parts of many of those cities are (virtually) without surface rail. The parts of the R.E.R within the old part of Paris are underground and are all newer that all but one Paris metro line.

Australian cities, such as Sydney, don't have old parts like that, having developed late enough that most of the inner suburbs got served by surface rail, and this was in the days of steam. Sydney's suburban railways were electrified before being extended through the C.B.D and later the eastern suburbs, these indeed being inner suburbs without a surface rail corridor. Electrification meant that the existing network could be extended underground, no need for a separate network as was the case with metros built in the days of steam.

I have been in agreement with what you say. Well, I don't live in the Sydney area but still, you have been known for opposition to converting any part of the suburban system to metro and building any metro in what is not metro territory.
Knowing that Sydney has been able to avoid the problem that metro was originally designed to solve, it seems like Sydney doesn't have any real metro territory.
Metro territory in cities like London and Paris is in the old parts of those cities, in case of London, mostly north of the Thames. Most routes are entirely north of the Thames, the rest partly so.

The old parts of many of those cities are (virtually) without surface rail. The parts of the R.E.R within the old part of Paris are underground and are all newer that all but one Paris metro line.

Australian cities, such as Sydney, don't have old parts like that, having developed late enough that most of the inner suburbs got served by surface rail, and this was in the days of steam. Sydney's suburban railways were electrified before being extended through the C.B.D and later the eastern suburbs, these indeed being inner suburbs without a surface rail corridor. Electrification meant that the existing network could be extended underground, no need for a separate network as was the case with metros built in the days of steam.

I now understand the point you're making, but I don't agree that any new rail lines which service inner Sydney suburbs, say within a 25km to 30km radius of the CBD (it's over 60km to Penrith), should be part of the existing Sydney Trains heavy rail network.  As I said, I don't support the conversion of any of the existing lines to metro, but I do support new segregated metro lines, which would obviously have to be underground, such as the proposed West Metro, a South East Metro, a Miranda Metro, a Northern Beaches Metro, a Parramatta to Macquarie Park Metro and a Victoria Road Corridor Metro.  There may be others.

On the other hand, any new outer suburban lines, including a rail link to Badgerys Creek Airport, should be an extension of the existing network connecting with existing or future amplified express tracks through the inner suburbs.

The bulk of all the branch lines in Australian cities were laid when there was no city and the lines were predominately built for freight. As the fields were replaced with houses most of the lines morphed into a suburban network..............

Melbourne’s early railways were built by private companies to carry suburban passengers from the get-go. The first line to Port Melbourne (Sandridge) ran at 30 min frequency. The second line to St Kilda was built to carry people to the beach. It’s doubtful it carried much freight as, of the four stations on the line, only the terminus had any sort of freight siding. Other subsequent lines such as Hawthorn and St Kilda – North Brighton were built to carry passengers as much as, if not more than, freight.

With regard to Sydney

There are still a number of inner to medium suburban areas not within 2km of an existing rail station. Victoria Road corridor is case in point. These can only be serviced with Metro type train technology if look ing to use the most cost effective underground rail technology.

The ESR used DD because the route was short but this project was a never ending saga that saw the line truncated to around 40% of route km. It also used existing tunnels through TH and connected to Southern line. These options don't exist anymore and ESR project should not be used as a guide to the future. Rather not what to do.

The missing links in Sydney are much longer.

With regard to lines like NSL going to 3min all stopper to city. The longterm issue is lack of capacity with population growth and elongated travel times from outer suburbs. Hence we may see inner suburban stations removed and replaced wirh underground Metro stations as part of new line expansion.

However in other cases parallel metro lines will be built to existing surface lines to relieve capacity and provide more of an express service than surface rail due to cost of building underground stations to replace existing surface stations but filling in gaps such as North Sydney to Chatswood Metro.

With regard to Paris RER. The 2min frequency is limited to stations  built to a higher standard than Sydney UG and only occurs for short distances. The rolling stock also has lower density per door.

While Sydney was able to avoid the problems Paris had for the early need of a Metro. It's now in the same position and hence all expansion is UG.

Regard to Brisbane
A much simpler network to Brisbane bit now pretty much maxed out on the inner suburban sections. Further expansion will only be UG. The only corridors preserved are Trouts Road and following the interstate.

Large inner suburban sections away from rail.

The cross river rail type projects enable capacity increase on med to outer Suburban lines.

The most probably candidate for Metro type line is the occasionally mentored E-W city metro. However Brisbane narrow train profile make tunneling cheap and low capacity trains means the 2 door arrangement isn't a dwell time impediment. The EW line may also be used to eventually boost capacity through the city for the Ipswich and Springfield lines.

The missing links in Sydney are much longer.

With regard to lines like NSL going to 3min all stopper to city. The longterm issue is lack of capacity with population growth and elongated travel times from outer suburbs. Hence we may see inner suburban stations removed and replaced wirh underground Metro stations as part of new line expansion.

What Sydney needs, and really always has needed, is it's 3 sectors expanded into 5.

I know about the sectors but not sure how you mean expand.

I suppose the Metro is effectively adding a 4th.

Some people get hung up on trains can operate everywhere. But that's not where modern commuter railways are headed. More a series of stand alone lines that are operationally segregated. This makes ingremental upgrades far easier and more practical. Ie automation, platform doors, change of train standard, signalling. ...


I assume you mean something like this.

There are still a number of inner to medium suburban areas not within 2km of an existing rail station. Victoria Road corridor is case in point. These can only be serviced with Metro type train technology if look ing to use the most cost effective underground rail technology.

Thank you for giving an example. This corrider used to be served by trams in fact. Two suburban lines already serve different parts of that corridor.
Apparently, J. J. Bradfield himself planned a railway up Victoria road, part of the system that he designed.

The ESR used DD because the route was short but this project was a never ending saga that saw the line truncated to around 40% of route km. It also used existing tunnels through TH and connected to Southern line. These options don't exist anymore and ESR project should not be used as a guide to the future. Rather not what to do.

I recall reading this was built in the 1970s, when there was no talk of a separate metro. In fact, there was a U.I.T.P conference held in Sydney, and building tunnels under the city large enough for suburban trains was regarded as a great achievement. This was at the time that Paris had just finished linking the R.E.R

With regard to Paris RER. The 2min frequency is limited to stations  built to a higher standard than Sydney UG and only occurs for short distances. The rolling stock also has lower density per door.

Some R.E.R rolling stock only has two doors per side of each carriage. Not sure what else to say on this.

While Sydney was able to avoid the problems Paris had for the early need of a Metro. It's now in the same position and hence all expansion is UG.

Okay, the Paris metro dates back to 1900. That was the same year as the Exposition Universelle was held there for the forth time, all other three in the 19^th century. Before the metro:


1. There was no heavy rail anywhere within the periferique ring, which is more or less a ring of mainline railways stations in Paris.
All regional and international rail serving Paris terminated on the edge of that ring.

2. There was simply no room for surface trains within this ring.
3. Mainline trains serving Paris were steam hauled, so those lines simply could not be extended underground.

So a separate, electric metro was the only off-street rail that could run within Paris itself. Sydney has heavy suburban rail right into and through the busiest part of the metropolitan area and so cannot be in the same position as Paris and other older cities where when the railways came.

Has anyone here realised this?
When people of cities like Sydney travel to those older cities, their use of the transit system there is different from a local commuter. The old parts of these cities are also the most touristed and many tourists only visit those parts. Because these are parts where the transit is best, people come back home thinking it would be great to have the same kind of service.

...but I do support new segregated metro lines, which would obviously have to be underground, such as the proposed West Metro, a South East Metro, a Miranda Metro, a Northern Beaches Metro, a Parramatta to Macquarie Park Metro and a Victoria Road Corridor Metro.  There may be others.

I didn't realise that you too want a recreation of the metro-suburban divide of older heavily developed cities. Remember than no city anywhere else in the world is setting out to do that.

good video mate

I've used the Paris RER, I think the line that uses the two car trains is the one closest to where we always stay and the local station is quite curvy, like Sydney. Three door trains cannot be used on stations that have excessive curvature track because the middle door could be too far away from the platform. If I recall the station we used the platform was even low set because of the curve.

This is why you see all new lines these days have fairly straight or straight platforms to reduce the gap and make 3/4 door sets in future possible. The Sydney Metro will be rebuilding some of the Bankstown line stations to accommodate the 3 door car trains.

The Victoria Road corridor to Ryde and then across Eastwood and into the mid NW surburbs is a very busy traffic corridor and just because it has existing rail lines in just two locations, the overall corridor is worthy of a line and note the existing rail lines have their own capacity issues so the Victoria Line or Inner NW Line  would benefit both this corridor which is heavily serviced by buses due to lack of rail and remove some capacity of the Western and Northern lines to enable them to cater for growth off the respective corridors.

The tram will never be returned, no one builds trams on roads anymore apart from short sections and crossing roads. Bradfield didn't reserve a ROW for the line, just visioned one would be needed as none exists, the future line will need to be a Metro, building the line as a DD line would be retrograd and costly with no benefit to anyone. At least the Metro can be built cheaper and longterm lower operating costs.

The reason 100 years ago they couldn't build tunnels for DD stock or large profile stock was because it was done with pick and shovel efficiently. The TBM's technology is certainly more practical and capable, but still incurs an elevated cost over smaller profile stock. Longer trains are cheaper to cater for than wider and taller trains.

Sydney's abilty to build through corridors for the DD under the city is tribute to the short distance and timing connecting existing lines. Paris wasn't trying to do this, it was trying to build a inner suburban railway network in a growing, very old existing narrow street city. Even trams were of limited effectiveness. The city is also built on ground that is easy to dig by hand. Sydney is built on Sandstone, not so hard to dig by hand and doesn't need extensive shoring up as you dig hence easier to allow for larger profile tunnel.

So back to the start again, Sydney is now where Paris was 100+ years ago. Growth will only be under ground corridors and most of this will be Metro type technology.  To try and do otherwise would incur building underground tunnels to connect the parts of the existing network that are not congested that are 20-40km long, commonsense says this isn't going to happen is it. Its not what Bradfield, Rod Staples did or didn't do, its where we are today that matters. Numerous cities build new Metro lines completely technology islanded from existing to grab the latest technology, no need to mix lines as this is inherently poor design for growth and upgrades as Sydney is finding out. Segregation of the Bankstown line to the Metro will enable this line to be moderised more rapidly in the future than the legacy network as backward compatibility is less of an issue.

I've used the Paris RER, I think the line that uses the two car trains is the one closest to where we always stay and the local station is quite curvy, like Sydney. Three door trains cannot be used on stations that have excessive curvature track because the middle door could be too far away from the platform. If I recall the station we used the platform was even low set because of the curve.

I didn't know that the R.E.R also had some curved platforms.

The tram will never be returned, no one builds trams on roads anymore apart from short sections and crossing roads. Bradfield didn't reserve a ROW for the line, just visioned one would be needed as none exists, the future line will need to be a Metro, building the line as a DD line would be retrograd and costly with no benefit to anyone. At least the Metro can be built cheaper and longterm lower operating costs.

Building the line to the loading gauge that Dr. Bradfield wanted would mean more comfortable trains with more seats.

The reason 100 years ago they couldn't build tunnels for DD stock or large profile stock was because it was done with pick and shovel efficiently. The TBM's technology is certainly more practical and capable, but still incurs an elevated cost over smaller profile stock. Longer trains are cheaper to cater for than wider and taller trains.

Any idea how much the added cost is elevated? Percentage wise? In hard currency? Longer trains need longer platforms, and tenches for stations are the biggest part of the tunneling cost.

Sydney's abilty to build through corridors for the DD under the city is tribute to the short distance and timing connecting existing lines. Paris wasn't trying to do this, it was trying to build a inner suburban railway network in a growing, very old existing narrow street city. Even trams were of limited effectiveness. The city is also built on ground that is easy to dig by hand. Sydney is built on Sandstone, not so hard to dig by hand and doesn't need extensive shoring up as you dig hence easier to allow for larger profile tunnel.

First of all, at least some, if not most of the C.B.D tunnels were cut and covered. Also, it was done before double decker trains and but it turned out to be large enough for them.

So back to the start again, Sydney is now where Paris was 100+ years ago. Growth will only be under ground corridors and most of this will be Metro type technology.  To try and do otherwise would incur building underground tunnels to connect the parts of the existing network that are not congested that are 20-40km long, commonsense says this isn't going to happen is it. Its not what Bradfield, Rod Staples did or didn't do, its where we are today that matters. Numerous cities build new Metro lines completely technology islanded from existing to grab the latest technology, no need to mix lines as this is inherently poor design for growth and upgrades as Sydney is finding out. Segregation of the Bankstown line to the Metro will enable this line to be moderised more rapidly in the future than the legacy network as backward compatibility is less of an issue.

Yes, inner Sydney has indeed run out of surface options, and the old parts of cities like Paris never had them. But Sydney already has heavy rail, including surface rail in its busiest parts, those older cities did not before they had metro.

And in London, Paris and Berlin, the focus now is on extending (electric) suburban rail into and through the centres. Nowhere else in the world is anyone setting out to recreate the metro-suburban divide. History shows why that divide exists.

...but I do support new segregated metro lines, which would obviously have to be underground, such as the proposed West Metro, a South East Metro, a Miranda Metro, a Northern Beaches Metro, a Parramatta to Macquarie Park Metro and a Victoria Road Corridor Metro.  There may be others.

I didn't realise that you too want a recreation of the metro-suburban divide of older heavily developed cities. Remember than no city anywhere else in the world is setting out to do that.

What you don't appreciate is that I'm suggesting new segregated metro lines be restricted to the higher density inner and middle ring suburbs, which would have to be underground and would be cheaper to build and operate than the existing heavy rail.  Because of their relatively short distance, seating is not a priority.  I agree with Shayne on this point.

However, for longer distance services to the outer suburbs, then I support the expansion of the existing heavy rail network, which will require further track amplification through the inner city suburbs, mostly underground, such as an express tunnel from Granville to the CBD which I have mentioned earlier.  This could support an express rail link from Badgerys Creek Airport to the CBD via Parramatta in addition to an express link to the CBD via the East Hills Line.  An express tunnel on the Western Line corridor could potentially be extended via the previously proposed City Relief Line to interchange with the metro at Barangaroo.  An underground extension of the East Hills Line from Wolli Creek Junction to the CBD may also be required in the longer term for south west services.  This mirrors what is happening with London's Crossrail.  Many of the major cities in Europe have U-Bahns and S-Bahns, including Paris with the metro and RER.  It's horses for courses.  I don't agree with the North West Rail Link being metro operation BTW, but that's history now.

There is still scope to improve reliability and speed of the current network with a goal of reducing the operating patterns to preferably a single pattern on selected lines, cutting the fat from the current timetable and introducing ATO with upgraded signalling.  Dispensing with guards and introducing driver only operation would also greatly reduce costs.  The latest and planned rolling stock is capable of much higher speeds and acceleration/deceleration characteristics.