Metro raises more problems than solutions for public transport

 
Topic moved from News by dthead on 31 Mar 2019 20:19
  freightgate Minister for Railways

Location: Albury, New South Wales
Post the NSW election and these guys keep the info coming good on them.

Metro raises more problems than solutions for public transport

Sponsored advertisement

  Transtopic Deputy Commissioner

Location: Sydney
Post the NSW election and these guys keep the info coming good on them.

Metro raises more problems than solutions for public transport
freightgate
It's been ignored in the hope that the problem will go away.  Still no credible explanation of how Sydney Trains' services will continue to function post metro conversion.  They're just Labor voters anyway, so who cares?
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

This is the only part of the metro I do not like. It completely screws over residents from yagoona to berala and carramar. It is clearly being done solely for developers and creates a horrible situation at bankstown station.
  nswtrains Chief Commissioner

This is the only part of the metro I do not like. It completely screws over residents from yagoona to berala and carramar. It is clearly being done solely for developers and creates a horrible situation at bankstown station.
simstrain
We will all be doomed. But someone voted for the coalition last Saturday, including a lot of rail workers that I know. That's in spite of the fact that they probably voted away their jobs.

Well I didn't vote for them so as far as I am concerned the coalition can do what it wants and if you don't like it don't moan about it. The voting public had their chance but overwhelmingly endorsed Gladys' programs.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
The announced Metro Southwest Liverpool extension just doesn’t work with approved plans for Bankstown station.

1. Bankstown interchange has Sydney Trains (heavy rail) on the western end and Sydney Metro on the eastern end.

2. Bankstown interchange will not be underground but Metro to Liverpool (new corridor not replacing existing T3 line) will almost certainly be a tunnel.

3. There is no space for a continual Metro line and a heavy rail terminal at Bankstown station.

Could this mean Yagoona is now at risk of being undermined by Metro with tunnels starting at Gazzard Park?

As far as I can see, there are two options.
Option 1: is to head due west from Bankstown and underground to Liverpool,

Option 2: the other is to use the surface option and use the existing line to Liverpool via Yagoona with the exception of an extra pair of tracks following the main South. The DD's would terminate at Sefton.

Option 2b: Would be terminate the Metro at Sefton but this is a waste of time for the cost.

I'm quite sure how a tunnel from Gazzard Park would work, unless the govt wants the line to head north to Yagoona then head west to Liverpool? This I assume would appease the potential loss of Yagoona rail service. Bijong is not worth worrying about and close enough to either the DD line or the Yagoona station to be resolved.

I'm also not sure what the locals are bitching about digging tunnels?

Assuming the Metro heads to Liverpool either directly or via Yagoona but not Sefton, this means the Liverpool to city serviced via Regents Park will be returned. The locals should be happy, they wanted this. However this cannot occur until the Western Metro is complete and about half the Paramatta services are removed to make room for more North Main, Liverpool via Granville and Liverpool via Regents Park services.
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

This is the only part of the metro I do not like. It completely screws over residents from yagoona to berala and carramar. It is clearly being done solely for developers and creates a horrible situation at bankstown station.
We will all be doomed. But someone voted for the coalition last Saturday, including a lot of rail workers that I know. That's in spite of the fact that they probably voted away their jobs.

Well I didn't vote for them so as far as I am concerned the coalition can do what it wants and if you don't like it don't moan about it. The voting public had their chance but overwhelmingly endorsed Gladys' programs.
nswtrains

Yeah well we weren't going to vote labor in were we. 16 years we had of them and look at the mess they left the state in. Just because I don't like one part of the metro plan doesn't mean that I want Labor in charge. I also disagreed about the Newcastle line closure.
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

I'm also not sure what the locals are bitching about digging tunnels?

Assuming the Metro heads to Liverpool either directly or via Yagoona but not Sefton, this means the Liverpool to city serviced via Regents Park will be returned. The locals should be happy, they wanted this. However this cannot occur until the Western Metro is complete and about half the Paramatta services are remov  Edited to make room for more North Main, Liverpool via Granville and Liverpool via Regents Park services.
RTT_Rule

The western metro will not be removing western line services and via regents park is not returning outside of the 2-3 daily services that currently operate.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
I'm also not sure what the locals are bitching about digging tunnels?

Assuming the Metro heads to Liverpool either directly or via Yagoona but not Sefton, this means the Liverpool to city serviced via Regents Park will be returned. The locals should be happy, they wanted this. However this cannot occur until the Western Metro is complete and about half the Paramatta services are remov  Edited to make room for more North Main, Liverpool via Granville and Liverpool via Regents Park services.

The western metro will not be removing western line services and via regents park is not returning outside of the 2-3 daily services that currently operate.
simstrain
Of course the Western Metro will remove some Paramatta - City trains, why wouldn't it?

We all know the western corridor is a squeezed mess with minimal room for growth and in the short term the NWRL Metro has helped the issue with more services from the Nth Main. The Bankstown/liverpool Metro will make a similar short-term mess of the T3 "Y". Plus growth and over crowded trains from Granville/Lidcombe to the city.

Plus the ongoing call to return T3 via Regents Park.

Simple fix
- Build the Western metro, the line adds another +20,000 people/h capacity on start-up without trying. About half as much as use the whole western corridor now.

- Reduce the number of Paramatta to city services, yes you will need a well designed transfer station to make the cattle not smeg too much.

- Fill the empty slots with more Liverpool trains via Granville AND/OR Regents Park AND North Main.

EDIT: Then extend the Western Metro further West to reduce the numbers that need to change at Paramatta or Westmead.
Personal opinion the Western Metro should run Paramatta, Westmead and Blacktown.
The DD services that used to run into the city, simply get diverted to run along the South Main to Leppington and on to the airport, thus providing a direct connection for most of the west to their new airport.

The Bankstown/Liverpool Metro will remove 3t/h of the trains on Main South, thus increasing capacity on this corridor for above.

You may also find some on the main south station between Granville and Glenfield, catch the train to Liverpool to get to the city.  

Job done

EDIT2:
- Extend the NW Metro to Schofields. This then reduces some numbers off the western line accessing the northern part of teh city.

With
NW Metro to Scofields
Wst Metro to Blacktown
SW Metro to Liverpool

You now have faster and high capacity on three of the main branches into the city and places in between thus providing significant relief for the DD network for years to come.

Oh, one more thing, build the damn Epping to Paramatta Metro!
  Transtopic Deputy Commissioner

Location: Sydney
I'm also not sure what the locals are bitching about digging tunnels?

Assuming the Metro heads to Liverpool either directly or via Yagoona but not Sefton, this means the Liverpool to city serviced via Regents Park will be returned. The locals should be happy, they wanted this. However this cannot occur until the Western Metro is complete and about half the Paramatta services are remov  Edited to make room for more North Main, Liverpool via Granville and Liverpool via Regents Park services.

The western metro will not be removing western line services and via regents park is not returning outside of the 2-3 daily services that currently operate.
simstrain
I'm inclined to agree sims.  Now that the Coalition has been re-elected, they really need to put aside their bias towards the one size fits all metro expansion, and look objectively at how best to sort out the mess they've created by converting the Bankstown Line to metro.  This includes the existing Western Line and the proposed Metro West.  

I don't think forcing commuters from the west to interchange to the metro to reach the Sydney CBD is going to be very popular, once it dawns on them what's in store.  The solution has to be a combination of selected upgrading and extensions of the existing network in tandem with the metro lines.  It shouldn't be either/or.  Then we might have an amplification of the Western Line into the CBD to allow for increased direct journeys from the Outer West without interchange and reinstatement of the Liverpool via Regents Park service.  It would also benefit the Northern Line.  The Liverpool via Bankstown Metro and Metro West would complement the existing Sydney Trains' services, not replace them.

I get the feeling that the government is now paying more attention to upgrading the existing network to catch up with the unprecedented demand.  They've dropped the ball in this regard, while being overly focused on the metro expansion, which can't alone resolve all of the congestion issues.  They need to adopt a more balanced strategy.
  nswtrains Chief Commissioner

I'm also not sure what the locals are bitching about digging tunnels?

Assuming the Metro heads to Liverpool either directly or via Yagoona but not Sefton, this means the Liverpool to city serviced via Regents Park will be returned. The locals should be happy, they wanted this. However this cannot occur until the Western Metro is complete and about half the Paramatta services are remov  Edited to make room for more North Main, Liverpool via Granville and Liverpool via Regents Park services.

The western metro will not be removing western line services and via regents park is not returning outside of the 2-3 daily services that currently operate.
I'm inclined to agree sims.  Now that the Coalition has been re-elected, they really need to put aside their bias towards the one size fits all metro expansion, and look objectively at how best to sort out the mess they've created by converting the Bankstown Line to metro.  This includes the existing Western Line and the proposed Metro West.  

I don't think forcing commuters from the west to interchange to the metro to reach the Sydney CBD is going to be very popular, once it dawns on them what's in store.  The solution has to be a combination of selected upgrading and extensions of the existing network in tandem with the metro lines.  It shouldn't be either/or.  Then we might have an amplification of the Western Line into the CBD to allow for increased direct journeys from the Outer West without interchange and reinstatement of the Liverpool via Regents Park service.  It would also benefit the Northern Line.  The Liverpool via Bankstown Metro and Metro West would complement the existing Sydney Trains' services, not replace them.

I get the feeling that the government is now paying more attention to upgrading the existing network to catch up with the unprecedented demand.  They've dropped the ball in this regard, while being overly focused on the metro expansion, which can't alone resolve all of the congestion issues.  They need to adopt a more balanced strategy.
Transtopic
Well come up with some plans how you could upgrade the existing system without being more costly than putting greenfield metros in. I dont think its possiblebut you seem to think it is.
  Transtopic Deputy Commissioner

Location: Sydney
The western metro will not be removing western line services and via regents park is not returning outside of the 2-3 daily services that currently operate.
I'm inclined to agree sims.  Now that the Coalition has been re-elected, they really need to put aside their bias towards the one size fits all metro expansion, and look objectively at how best to sort out the mess they've created by converting the Bankstown Line to metro.  This includes the existing Western Line and the proposed Metro West.  

I don't think forcing commuters from the west to interchange to the metro to reach the Sydney CBD is going to be very popular, once it dawns on them what's in store.  The solution has to be a combination of selected upgrading and extensions of the existing network in tandem with the metro lines.  It shouldn't be either/or.  Then we might have an amplification of the Western Line into the CBD to allow for increased direct journeys from the Outer West without interchange and reinstatement of the Liverpool via Regents Park service.  It would also benefit the Northern Line.  The Liverpool via Bankstown Metro and Metro West would complement the existing Sydney Trains' services, not replace them.

I get the feeling that the government is now paying more attention to upgrading the existing network to catch up with the unprecedented demand.  They've dropped the ball in this regard, while being overly focused on the metro expansion, which can't alone resolve all of the congestion issues.  They need to adopt a more balanced strategy.
Well come up with some plans how you could upgrade the existing system without being more costly than putting greenfield metros in. I dont think its possiblebut you seem to think it is.
nswtrains
The whole point of my argument is that the government should take a more pragmatic view and look at ALL options, including upgrading and expansion of the existing network where warranted, which hasn't been done to date, and not be wedded to the metro expansion alone.  What could be fairer than that?  After an objective transparent analysis, whichever strategy proves to be superior, then so be it.  We haven't had that debate yet and the metro strategy has just been presented as a fait accompli and upgrading and expansion of the existing network ignored.  It still remains to be seen how the public will accept the metro once it's up and running.

Now you may beg to differ and I respect your opinion, but that doesn't mean you're right.

Since you asked the question, the single most important upgrade to the existing network is to amplify the track between Parramatta and the CBD by way of an express tunnel on a straighter alignment, which would effectively be a lot cheaper than Metro West with multiple stations along its route.  Waratah DD trains could then utilise their potential maximum service speed of 130 km/h, would would be faster than an all stops metro.  Not that Metro West wouidn't be warranted as a separate stand alone line servicing a new rail corridor, but lets put to bed this myth that it will resolve congestion on the existing Western Line.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
The western metro will not be removing western line services and via regents park is not returning outside of the 2-3 daily services that currently operate.
I'm inclined to agree sims.  Now that the Coalition has been re-elected, they really need to put aside their bias towards the one size fits all metro expansion, and look objectively at how best to sort out the mess they've created by converting the Bankstown Line to metro.  This includes the existing Western Line and the proposed Metro West.  

I don't think forcing commuters from the west to interchange to the metro to reach the Sydney CBD is going to be very popular, once it dawns on them what's in store.  The solution has to be a combination of selected upgrading and extensions of the existing network in tandem with the metro lines.  It shouldn't be either/or.  Then we might have an amplification of the Western Line into the CBD to allow for increased direct journeys from the Outer West without interchange and reinstatement of the Liverpool via Regents Park service.  It would also benefit the Northern Line.  The Liverpool via Bankstown Metro and Metro West would complement the existing Sydney Trains' services, not replace them.

I get the feeling that the government is now paying more attention to upgrading the existing network to catch up with the unprecedented demand.  They've dropped the ball in this regard, while being overly focused on the metro expansion, which can't alone resolve all of the congestion issues.  They need to adopt a more balanced strategy.
Well come up with some plans how you could upgrade the existing system without being more costly than putting greenfield metros in. I dont think its possiblebut you seem to think it is.
The whole point of my argument is that the government should take a more pragmatic view and look at ALL options, including upgrading and expansion of the existing network where warranted, which hasn't been done to date, and not be wedded to the metro expansion alone.  What could be fairer than that?  After an objective transparent analysis, whichever strategy proves to be superior, then so be it.  We haven't had that debate yet and the metro strategy has just been presented as a fait accompli and upgrading and expansion of the existing network ignored.  It still remains to be seen how the public will accept the metro once it's up and running.

Now you may beg to differ and I respect your opinion, but that doesn't mean you're right.

Since you asked the question, the single most important upgrade to the existing network is to amplify the track between Parramatta and the CBD by way of an express tunnel on a straighter alignment, which would effectively be a lot cheaper than Metro West with multiple stations along its route.  Waratah DD trains could then utilise their potential maximum service speed of 130 km/h, would would be faster than an all stops metro.  Not that Metro West wouidn't be warranted as a separate stand alone line servicing a new rail corridor, but lets put to bed this myth that it will resolve congestion on the existing Western Line.
Transtopic
Need to look at some of the reasons why the govt is going down the Metro path
1) Its cheaper to build, especially when the future is underground.
2) Its cheaper to operate
3) Its more dynamic to demand

Almost every major DD rolling-stock contract has had a "drama".

Building express lines into the city to achieve 130km/h would be horrifically expensive. Do I support it? yes. Will it happen? No. These express lines would need a reasonably straight alignments, which means mostly UG and significant cost. So it won't happen. If you are going UG, its Metro.

Overall I think as the NWRL was the first major venture underground since the ESR and ECRL, both of which were classified as cluster night projects suffering technical, political and financial issues one after the other, the govt built the NW line as a vertically integrated Metro to prove to itself they can actually build a complex and costly rail project on time and on budget, something that has not been readily achieved in NSW for many many years, if ever. If the NWRL Metro project had become a cluster project, there would be no Western Metro and likely Bankstwon Metro.

Will people change trains to the Western Metro? yes they will! Crowded trains vs non-crowded trains, of course they will change. To reduce the complaints you need to keep the change simple, cross platform etc, no waiting time.

Yes, I'm sure everyone would love to upgrade the Western Corridor, but we have all debated on the cost and issues of doing so for many years. It would be likely a 5yr plus project, cause delays to the existing services at various times, impossible to bid lump sum and expected to run over budget and prone to delays worse than the CSELR.

The Western Metro on the other hand is much easier project to predict and control as mostly under the complex interface issues and doesn't interact with existing operations. Once complete it adds nearly 50% of the capacity to the corridor and then easy to improve the surface corridor, which is ultimately still needed.

The three Metro lines provide a rapid high capacity corridor and generally faster approach into the city even with a few stops along the way. The Bankstown/Liverpool less so, due to the extra stops operating more as a all stopper than express or limited express. One day I'm sure there will also be a Metro to Hurtsville, as well as Inner West and yes the Inner NW Metro. They may or may not use existing rail infrastructure, probably not or not much.

With growth of the western CBD at Paramatta, the number of commuters Paramatta bound from western suburban lines will grow. it will therefore be interesting to see how much growth there is towards the city, i suspect this won't change, but just slow. The "Y" link is likely to be the growth corridor of the future.
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

Need to look at some of the reasons why the govt is going down the Metro path
1) Its cheaper to build, especially when the future is underground.
2) Its cheaper to operate
3) Its more dynamic to demand

Almost every major DD rolling-stock contract has had a "drama".

Building express lines into the city to achieve 130km/h would be horrifically expensive. Do I support it? yes. Will it happen? No. These express lines would need a reasonably straight alignments, which means mostly UG and significant cost. So it won't happen. If you are going UG, its Metro.

Overall I think as the NWRL was the first major venture underground since the ESR and ECRL, both of which were classified as cluster night projects suffering technical, political and financial issues one after the other, the govt built the NW line as a vertically integrated Metro to prove to itself they can actually build a complex and costly rail project on time and on budget, something that has not been readily achieved in NSW for many many years, if ever. If the NWRL Metro project had become a cluster project, there would be no Western Metro and likely Bankstwon Metro.

Will people change trains to the Western Metro? yes they will! Crowded trains vs non-crowded trains, of course they will change. To reduce the complaints you need to keep the change simple, cross platform etc, no waiting time.

Yes, I'm sure everyone would love to upgrade the Western Corridor, but we have all debated on the cost and issues of doing so for many years. It would be likely a 5yr plus project, cause delays to the existing services at various times, impossible to bid lump sum and expected to run over budget and prone to delays worse than the CSELR.

The Western Metro on the other hand is much easier project to predict and control as mostly under the complex interface issues and doesn't interact with existing operations. Once complete it adds nearly 50% of the capacity to the corridor and then easy to improve the surface corridor, which is ultimately still needed.

The three Metro lines provide a rapid high capacity corridor and generally faster approach into the city even with a few stops along the way. The Bankstown/Liverpool less so, due to the extra stops operating more as a all stopper than express or limited express. One day I'm sure there will also be a Metro to Hurtsville, as well as Inner West and yes the Inner NW Metro. They may or may not use existing rail infrastructure, probably not or not much.

With growth of the western CBD at Paramatta, the number of commuters Paramatta bound from western suburban lines will grow. it will therefore be interesting to see how much growth there is towards the city, i suspect this won't change, but just slow. The "Y" link is likely to be the growth corridor of the future.
RTT_Rules

I find all of these arguments particularly lame.

As everyone here knows, I share similar view on this subject to @Transtopic, except perhaps for the respect of other's views Smile.

Initially I was a support of the Western Metro, it makes far more sense than the NW Metro, and infinitely more sense than the Bankstown Metro.  But after studying possible routes, it's pretty clear it's corridor will never attract sufficient density to justify that mode.  

In fact IMHO it woulds make more sense to re-route the Western Metro along the Victora Road corridor, then on to Epping and convert the ECL back to HR Smile.

Seriously, the there is too much water and too much heritage along the routes to make more than a handful of successful redevelopment sites.  This reflects the problem that while property developers clearly see the value of good transport infrastructure for their projects (especially if it's all state funded), it's nowhere near as important as a water frontage.

The main thing driving the Western Metro is the desire to maximise the value (and in part address the unsuitability of existing surrounding infrastructure) of the Bays Precinct redevelopment, and the ongoing development at Olympic Park.  

However, this alone isn't anything like enough to justify a $20b metro.  So the second reason for being is the growing pains of the Western Line.

To me, this project epitomises what a terrible job the current gvt is doing in allocating our transport infrastructure spend.  

Having the Western Line achieve 15min transit time to the city (not just Central) is a 9 figure project.  But this will *not* be done to boost the (alleged) viability of an 11 figure project to support a couple of 10 figure property developments.

Hopefully the current gvt will learn from their close shave at the polls, and not delude themselves into thinking they've received a ringing endorsement to underfund non-metro rail and tear down stadiums.
  Transtopic Deputy Commissioner

Location: Sydney
The western metro will not be removing western line services and via regents park is not returning outside of the 2-3 daily services that currently operate.
I'm inclined to agree sims.  Now that the Coalition has been re-elected, they really need to put aside their bias towards the one size fits all metro expansion, and look objectively at how best to sort out the mess they've created by converting the Bankstown Line to metro.  This includes the existing Western Line and the proposed Metro West.  

I don't think forcing commuters from the west to interchange to the metro to reach the Sydney CBD is going to be very popular, once it dawns on them what's in store.  The solution has to be a combination of selected upgrading and extensions of the existing network in tandem with the metro lines.  It shouldn't be either/or.  Then we might have an amplification of the Western Line into the CBD to allow for increased direct journeys from the Outer West without interchange and reinstatement of the Liverpool via Regents Park service.  It would also benefit the Northern Line.  The Liverpool via Bankstown Metro and Metro West would complement the existing Sydney Trains' services, not replace them.

I get the feeling that the government is now paying more attention to upgrading the existing network to catch up with the unprecedented demand.  They've dropped the ball in this regard, while being overly focused on the metro expansion, which can't alone resolve all of the congestion issues.  They need to adopt a more balanced strategy.
Well come up with some plans how you could upgrade the existing system without being more costly than putting greenfield metros in. I dont think its possiblebut you seem to think it is.
The whole point of my argument is that the government should take a more pragmatic view and look at ALL options, including upgrading and expansion of the existing network where warranted, which hasn't been done to date, and not be wedded to the metro expansion alone.  What could be fairer than that?  After an objective transparent analysis, whichever strategy proves to be superior, then so be it.  We haven't had that debate yet and the metro strategy has just been presented as a fait accompli and upgrading and expansion of the existing network ignored.  It still remains to be seen how the public will accept the metro once it's up and running.

Now you may beg to differ and I respect your opinion, but that doesn't mean you're right.

Since you asked the question, the single most important upgrade to the existing network is to amplify the track between Parramatta and the CBD by way of an express tunnel on a straighter alignment, which would effectively be a lot cheaper than Metro West with multiple stations along its route.  Waratah DD trains could then utilise their potential maximum service speed of 130 km/h, would would be faster than an all stops metro.  Not that Metro West wouidn't be warranted as a separate stand alone line servicing a new rail corridor, but lets put to bed this myth that it will resolve congestion on the existing Western Line.
Need to look at some of the reasons why the govt is going down the Metro path
1) Its cheaper to build, especially when the future is underground.
2) Its cheaper to operate
3) Its more dynamic to demand

Almost every major DD rolling-stock contract has had a "drama".

Building express lines into the city to achieve 130km/h would be horrifically expensive. Do I support it? yes. Will it happen? No. These express lines would need a reasonably straight alignments, which means mostly UG and significant cost. So it won't happen. If you are going UG, its Metro.

Overall I think as the NWRL was the first major venture underground since the ESR and ECRL, both of which were classified as cluster night projects suffering technical, political and financial issues one after the other, the govt built the NW line as a vertically integrated Metro to prove to itself they can actually build a complex and costly rail project on time and on budget, something that has not been readily achieved in NSW for many many years, if ever. If the NWRL Metro project had become a cluster project, there would be no Western Metro and likely Bankstwon Metro.

Will people change trains to the Western Metro? yes they will! Crowded trains vs non-crowded trains, of course they will change. To reduce the complaints you need to keep the change simple, cross platform etc, no waiting time.

Yes, I'm sure everyone would love to upgrade the Western Corridor, but we have all debated on the cost and issues of doing so for many years. It would be likely a 5yr plus project, cause delays to the existing services at various times, impossible to bid lump sum and expected to run over budget and prone to delays worse than the CSELR.

The Western Metro on the other hand is much easier project to predict and control as mostly under the complex interface issues and doesn't interact with existing operations. Once complete it adds nearly 50% of the capacity to the corridor and then easy to improve the surface corridor, which is ultimately still needed.

The three Metro lines provide a rapid high capacity corridor and generally faster approach into the city even with a few stops along the way. The Bankstown/Liverpool less so, due to the extra stops operating more as a all stopper than express or limited express. One day I'm sure there will also be a Metro to Hurtsville, as well as Inner West and yes the Inner NW Metro. They may or may not use existing rail infrastructure, probably not or not much.

With growth of the western CBD at Paramatta, the number of commuters Paramatta bound from western suburban lines will grow. it will therefore be interesting to see how much growth there is towards the city, i suspect this won't change, but just slow. The "Y" link is likely to be the growth corridor of the future.
RTT_Rules
Sorry, you're biased and delusional.  How can you intimate with a straight face that an express DD tunnel with possibly only one intermediate station would be more expensive, slower and difficult to build than a metro line with up to 12 intermediate stations, where the greatest cost is? C'mon get real!  A DD tunnel isn't going to cause any significant disruption to existing Sydney Trains' services other than completing a simple crossover on a weekend maintenance shutdown.  Why should building a metro or Sydney Trains' tunnel be any different when it's controlled by the same entity, i.e. the State Government?

You've got to do better than that Shayne to justify your position.
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

Need to look at some of the reasons why the govt is going down the Metro path
1) Its cheaper to build, especially when the future is underground.
2) Its cheaper to operate
3) Its more dynamic to demand

Almost every major DD rolling-stock contract has had a "drama".
RTT_Rules

There is a reason for this: every 30 years we change the loading gauge.  The very non-standard platform is a consequence of the accumulation of these decisions.

I fully expect that within out lifetimes, there will be a NWRL DD format.  By the time we belatedly get around to replacing the T sets, we'll go with a shorter DD format that can operate through the CBD metro and NWRL Metro - as this will be a cheaper option that rebuilding many of the existing lines - or building new capacity compatible with the current HR format.  

Now *that* format will have dramas!
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

The metro west will have 6 stations between Parramatta and the CBD and so forcing people to change at parramatta means that all of those metro trains will be full before they get to those nice new stations if you force an interchange. Metro west is about those new places it is connecting to between the cbd and parramatta and not transferring passengers off the sydney trains line west of parramatta.

On the sydney trains network there is only 2-3 stops between parramatta and the CBD as it is. Hence why they already get a sub 30 minute express trip. How much faster does the western line need to be. Parramatta trains only stop at lidcombe, strathfield and redfern before central and only take 27 minutes. The blue mountains services take about 25 minutes although some of that is the slow portion into and out of central terminal.
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

Need to look at some of the reasons why the govt is going down the Metro path
1) Its cheaper to build, especially when the future is underground.
2) Its cheaper to operate
3) Its more dynamic to demand

Almost every major DD rolling-stock contract has had a "drama".

There is a reason for this: every 30 years we change the loading gauge.  The very non-standard platform is a consequence of the accumulation of these decisions.

I fully expect that within out lifetimes, there will be a NWRL DD format.  By the time we belatedly get around to replacing the T sets, we'll go with a shorter DD format that can operate through the CBD metro and NWRL Metro - as this will be a cheaper option that rebuilding many of the existing lines - or building new capacity compatible with the current HR format.  

Now *that* format will have dramas!
djf01

wow do you have no idea.
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

I do agree that Hurstville or a new metro along the T4 corridor will eventuate in the future. I think it will be inevitable that the t2 inner west will need to be separated in the future as well.
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

>wow do you have no idea

You are right.  I have no idea how old you are.  If u r far enough North of 50 you might not live to see my prediction come to pass Smile.
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

>wow do you have no idea

You are right.  I have no idea how old you are.  If u r far enough North of 50 you might not live to see my prediction come to pass Smile.
djf01

Luckily I'm south of 50 and you have no idea because DD is not going to happen on the north west or cbd metro system. If they need more capacity they will just put more trains on up to 30 an hour.

More new metro systems are a no brainer to occur which will leave the existing system to handle outer suburban and intercity services.
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

>wow do you have no idea

You are right.  I have no idea how old you are.  If u r far enough North of 50 you might not live to see my prediction come to pass Smile.

Luckily I'm south of 50 and you have no idea because DD is not going to happen on the north west or cbd metro system. If they need more capacity they will just put more trains on up to 30 an hour.

More new metro systems are a no brainer to occur which will leave the existing system to handle outer suburban and intercity services.
simstrain

What I think will happen over the next 20-30 years is the HR catchment will continue to expand.  Further, there will be further expansion north of Rouse Hill, and that area is likely to end up in the same lack-of-rail-PT predicament the Hills district ended up in.

The growth in patronage will disproportionately fall onto HR.  
I think there will be at least one new line off the main south - probably to Oran Park, but perhaps to the new Airport.  Electrification will extend to Picton.  

The operational problems post Bankstown Metro conversion will become tangible.

It will emerge as being obviously preferable to have a common fleet.

Organic growth, plus city and system expansion, will see patronage demand for HR increase 150%-200% in the next 20 years.

At this point - and probably before it - it will be clear the existing system just won't be able to cope (though 2min headways achieved by replacing the drivers and signallers with robots will go part of the way).  

The choices on offer will be:

  • Build more parallel Metro (at $1.5bil/km)
  • Amplify HR & build more City terminal capacity
  • Convert more existing lines to Metro
  • Spec in the next fleet order: high capacity (ie DD) and dual system compatibility

If history tells us anything, the last option is the way we are likely to go.
  Transtopic Deputy Commissioner

Location: Sydney

What I think will happen over the next 20-30 years is the HR catchment will continue to expand.  Further, there will be further expansion north of Rouse Hill, and that area is likely to end up in the same lack-of-rail-PT predicament the Hills district ended up in.

The growth in patronage will disproportionately fall onto HR.  
I think there will be at least one new line off the main south - probably to Oran Park, but perhaps to the new Airport.  Electrification will extend to Picton.  

The operational problems post Bankstown Metro conversion will become tangible.

It will emerge as being obviously preferable to have a common fleet.

Organic growth, plus city and system expansion, will see patronage demand for HR increase 150%-200% in the next 20 years.

At this point - and probably before it - it will be clear the existing system just won't be able to cope (though 2min headways achieved by replacing the drivers and signallers with robots will go part of the way).  

The choices on offer will be:

  • Build more parallel Metro (at $1.5bil/km)
  • Amplify HR & build more City terminal capacity
  • Convert more existing lines to Metro
  • Spec in the next fleet order: high capacity (ie DD) and dual system compatibility

If history tells us anything, the last option is the way we are likely to go.
djf01
Since you've accused me of being disrespectful to others' points of view, and in the context of robust debate, I agree with some of your propositions, but not all.  While I am sympathetic to extension of the Sydney Trains' network to the outer reaches of North Western and South Western Sydney as you suggest, I can't see that there would ever be any compatibility with the metro system, let alone introducing DD metro operation.  For better or for worse, it's just not feasible. We have what we have and just have to accept it and plan accordingly.

I definitely agree that the SWRL should be extended to the new Badgerys Creek Airport, and not just the Aerotropolis, as the first priority rather than the north/south metro link from St Marys.  This is not typical metro territory in the outer suburbs of Sydney. Similarly, the north/south link from Macarthur to Schofields, interchanging with an extended Metro Northwest, should be part of the Sydney Trains' network. While I can accept the proposed extension of Metro West to the airport, I'd suggest that even this is questionable, considering the distance involved from the CBD.

With regard to your choices on offer,  I can't see that building parallel metro lines to the existing lines could ever be justified, having regard to the likely drying up of funding from the sell-off of public assets.  It would be a waste of resources.  I agree that amplification of the HR network on the Western Line, including more CBD terminal capacity such as the City Relief Line is certainly warranted.  I doubt if converting more existing lines to metro would be contemplated, having regard to the inconvenience and disruption caused during the closedown phase.  Realistically, dual system compatibility won't be feasible, because for starters, the lower profile of the metro tunnels won't allow for DD operation and the Level 2 ETCS signalling system proposed for Sydney Trains won't be compatible with the driverless Level 4 ETCS of the metro.  The best we could hope for is that compatible SD trains will be reintroduced to the Sydney Trains' network to service the two airports.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Sorry, you're biased and delusional.  How can you intimate with a straight face that an express DD tunnel with possibly only one intermediate station would be more expensive, slower and difficult to build than a metro line with up to 12 intermediate stations, where the greatest cost is? C'mon get real!  A DD tunnel isn't going to cause any significant disruption to existing Sydney Trains' services other than completing a simple crossover on a weekend maintenance shutdown.  Why should building a metro or Sydney Trains' tunnel be any different when it's controlled by the same entity, i.e. the State Government?

You've got to do better than that Shayne to justify your position.
Transtopic
You comparing two different concepts. ie

DD express not stations AND Metro on same route with some stations.

Both the NWRL and Western Metro are opening new to rail locations with extra stations.

Expanding the Western Corridor on the surface with some tunnels will cause disruption.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Need to look at some of the reasons why the govt is going down the Metro path
1) Its cheaper to build, especially when the future is underground.
2) Its cheaper to operate
3) Its more dynamic to demand

Almost every major DD rolling-stock contract has had a "drama".

There is a reason for this: every 30 years we change the loading gauge.  The very non-standard platform is a consequence of the accumulation of these decisions.

I fully expect that within out lifetimes, there will be a NWRL DD format.  By the time we belatedly get around to replacing the T sets, we'll go with a shorter DD format that can operate through the CBD metro and NWRL Metro - as this will be a cheaper option that rebuilding many of the existing lines - or building new capacity compatible with the current HR format.  

Now *that* format will have dramas!
djf01
I think if you tried to introduce the DD's today with the existing height, they would be rejected due to the limited head room in the double decker section. Yes I hit my head.

So no, I very much doubt that the Metro will ever be converted to DD. There is simply no need for it.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
The metro west will have 6 stations between Parramatta and the CBD and so forcing people to change at parramatta means that all of those metro trains will be full before they get to those nice new stations if you force an interchange. Metro west is about those new places it is connecting to between the cbd and parramatta and not transferring passengers off the sydney trains line west of parramatta.

On the sydney trains network there is only 2-3 stops between parramatta and the CBD as it is. Hence why they already get a sub 30 minute express trip. How much faster does the western line need to be. Parramatta trains only stop at lidcombe, strathfield and redfern before central and only take 27 minutes. The blue mountains services take about 25 minutes although some of that is the slow portion into and out of central terminal.
simstrain
There is no way in hell you would spend $10B (or what ever) building a Metro line that long for just a few stations, one or two of which already exist on the DD network and one or two of the others are not that far away.

Let me make it perfectly clear, the Western Metro is being built Primarily as way to increase capacity between Paramatta/Westmead and the City.

The extra stations are simply killing multiple birds with one stone, ie the line is there, why wouldn't you add a station if its viable and keep a few other voters on side, especially since its their taxes helping to pay for it. The number of stops has however been limited to ensure the Western Metro's transit time between Paramatta and City is comparable if not slightly faster than the express DD's to make the loss of DD services more palatable.

As for the trains being full by the time it reaches the midway stations, answer for that is simple, run more trains, the line can take it, easily!

EDIT: Have a think about the Chatswood to City Metro, do you really think its aimed at only an extension of the NWRL? It has been designed to encourage transfer at Chatswood to save time and reduce congestion on the Nth Shore line. The Western Metro will be basically the same.

Sponsored advertisement

Subscribers: RTT_Rules, Transtopic, wurx

Display from:   

Quick Reply

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