The Paris Metro is too slow to be extended great distances. Built in an era where tunnel construction wasn't done with a TBM, the wider the porthole the slower the construction rate.

Paris Metro is the source of the name "Metro", but few systems deserve this tag as they are a fair bit different. The Paris Metro has very close station spacing making longer distance travel slow. Average speeds are around 20-25km/hr.

So you are confirming that tunnel boring machines didn't yet exist.

Yes, you admit that longer distance travel wasn't feasible with the metro, so it was an advantage for the regional rail not use share tracks with metro trains.

Most of the more Modern "Metros", such as Dubai, Vancouver and Singapore and Line 14 in Paris have station spacing that exceeds the average for the Sydney North Shore. Their typical four across seating is not alot different from Non-Metro type networks such as Brisbane so if Brisbane is not a Metro, in reality neither is Dubai, Vancouver and most of Singapore and indeed many others that often wear the tag because they are underground. The main difference between Brisbane and the above is the frequency of services which doesn't exceed 3min and is double staffed per train.

These modern metros don't seem to interoperate with regional/intercity rail, Brisbane does. Many modern metros are mostly elevated, and as noted before, those in Singapore, Vancouver and Dubai do not co-exist with extensive electrified suburban rail networks.

Diesel trains operate in tunnels in many locations, why not the city. Yes there are people on the station, but this I'm sure was managed and would have been low horse power trains compared to now. No you would do it regularly and its best avoided these days.

I've heard of diesel trains operating in short tunnels through hills, mainly in the country, but not ones as long as the ones in urban areas such as our city loop.

Let's sum up how systems tagged as metro differ from suburban rail. First of all, metro in a given city tends to be completely separate from regional/intercity railways serving the city, while suburban railway networks, such as the ones here in Australasia, all interrun with country/interstate trains.

Most, though not all metros use third rail electrification, and except for Delhi, even the overhead electric ones, however new, are DC electrified.

Although the Brisbane suburban might appear to have a metro type loading gauge, remember that it has a narrow track gauge, and most non-metro heavy rail either broad or standard track gauge does have a larger loading gauge than systems tagged as metro.

There are also variations among metros not shared with suburban rail. Some but not all are rubber tyred for example, while non-metro rail is always steel on steel.

Older metros tend to have closer station spacing than other heavy rail.

While each of the above is a feautre that some metros have and others don't, it seems evident that metro is a different heavy rail technology because many suppliers do offer different rolling stock for metro that what they offer for other forms of heavy rail. For example, Alstom offers the Metropolis for metro type systems and Xtrapolis for commuter rail.

Shane (RTT), I have been enjoying your informed and well researched internet posts on allied topics on QRIG since about the turn of the century and Dave (thadocta) similar on aus.rail groups last century. Gee, has it been that long?

EDIT:  I agree with Shane and Dave. More background on urban rail needs can be found in some of John Dunn's Comeng books.

I've looked through history of Comeng, and one time they proposed a second rail network for Sydney called the Comeng Electric Rapid transit (COMERT), much more interesting that the metro currently under construction.
The proposal was to have low floor trains and lower platforms, and very small bore tunnels. But, this proposal in conjuction with standard City Rail tunnel dimensions could have allowed double decker trains with doors on both decks, therefore being able to run at exactly the same frequency as single deckers.

I've looked through history of Comeng, and one time they proposed a second rail network for Sydney called the Comeng Electric Rapid transit (COMERT), much more interesting that the metro currently under construction.
The proposal was to have low floor trains and lower platforms, and very small bore tunnels. But, this proposal in conjuction with standard City Rail tunnel dimensions could have allowed double decker trains with doors on both decks, therefore being able to run at exactly the same frequency as single deckers.

Interesting!

How come we can go all around the world comparing trains but when it comes to a real possibility like a fast train Central/Parramatta it gets put in the fantasy section boo hoo

Because Parrahub is a fantasy!

How come we can go all around the world comparing trains but when it comes to a real possibility like a fast train Central/Parramatta it gets put in the fantasy section boo hoo

Actually what we are doing is attempting to prove that the current (Sydney Metro) system is better objectively than whatever Myrtone is arguing for.

And what s3_gunzel said.

I don't think I was arguing for anything, by the way, I recall than the current system (formally CityRail) is called Sydney trains, and have heard of Sydney metro refering to that new standalone line.

I don't think

That much is pretty obvious.

]I was arguing for anything

Rubbish, you have been nothing but argumentative in every thread you post in, constantly refusing to accept when you are clearly proven to be wrong.

by the way, I recall than the current system (formally CityRail) is called Sydney trains, and have heard of Sydney metro refering to that new standalone line.

Once again, you are confusing marketing names with operational terms.

As has been pointed out to you, "Sydney Trains", just like "CityRail", are purely there for marketing and publicity reasons, nothing more, nothing less, and do not define a system as being different from any other rail system.

In fact, using your logic, Melbourne uses the term "Metro" for all suburban services, yet it is the complete antithesis of what you claim a metro should be. (You should be an expert on Melbourne, since it is the forum which you spam the most).

But it is only a marketing term, and shows that the word "metro" is not a definition of a type of transit system.

Dave

Because Parrahub is a fantasy!

Nowhere have I mentioned Parrahub in the original thread I posted that was put in the armchair section and there is a great need for a Central/Parramatta rail and it could be just a non stop metro branch off the CBD metro 15 minutes or a gold plated 250kph train that would take 5 minutes and cost about $13 a ticket.

Once again, you are confusing marketing names with operational terms.

So why then do some manufacturers offer different rolling stock for a typical metro than for other heavy rail? Consider Alstom's Metropolis versus Xtrapolis.

As has been pointed out to you, "Sydney Trains", just like "CityRail", are purely there for marketing and publicity reasons, nothing more, nothing less, and do not define a system as being different from any other rail system.

No, someone used the term Sydney metro to refer to the current suburban rail network, which is not the official name according to reading I've done. I was refering to the official names, not the operational terms.

In fact, using your logic, Melbourne uses the term "Metro" for all suburban services, yet it is the complete antithesis of what you claim a metro should be.

Actually, from my reasoning, we have used the term "metro" since MTR was made the operator (quite recently) even though it is indeed, and always has been, different in many ways from what is typical of systems officially known as metro (outside North America) and "subway," in the US and Canada.

No, someone used the term Sydney metro to refer to the current suburban rail network, which is not the official name according to reading I've done. I was refering to the official names, not the operational terms.

Current system is referring to the actual Sydney Metro (to add to the confusion there are actually two current systems, the Sydney Trains heavy rail and the Sydney Metro metro) being built which was the point of this thread and not why Cityrail/Sydney trains is better.

The fact is that we got a metro and we are sticking to it whether it is good or not (which it is. the facts are there). The 2nd SHC, Bankstown, NWRL - Richmond extension, Northern Beaches and Inner West are all on the table as extensions with the latter two being vaguely discussed between interested parties and not publicly announced in any way shape or form.

Meanwhile on the Heavy rail front we are getting a SWRL extension to the airport and south west Sydney and possibly St Marys with nothing else being discussed as far as I know.

I don't think Labor would be that stupid to not extend the Sydney Metro system.

No, someone used the term Sydney metro to refer to the current suburban rail network, which is not the official name according to reading I've done. I was refering to the official names, not the operational terms.

Current system is referring to the actual Sydney Metro (to add to the confusion there are actually two current systems, the Sydney Trains heavy rail and the Sydney Metro metro) being built which was the point of this thread and not why Cityrail/Sydney trains is better.

The fact is that we got a metro and we are sticking to it whether it is good or not (which it is. the facts are there). The 2nd SHC, Bankstown, NWRL - Richmond extension, Northern Beaches and Inner West are all on the table as extensions with the latter two being vaguely discussed between interested parties and not publicly announced in any way shape or form.

Meanwhile on the Heavy rail front we are getting a SWRL extension to the airport and south west Sydney and possibly St Marys with nothing else being discussed as far as I know.

I don't think Labor would be that stupid to not extend the Sydney Metro system.

I agree with you to a point, but the metro network should be extended to inner city regions not currently serviced by rail. I'm not an advocate of converting any part of the existing Sydney Trains network to metro.  It's a complete waste of limited resources, when the funds would be better spent in servicing new markets.

I agree with you to a point, but the metro network should be extended to inner city regions not currently serviced by rail. I'm not an advocate of converting any part of the existing Sydney Trains network to metro.  It's a complete waste of limited resources, when the funds would be better spent in servicing new markets.

The inner west metro was proposed a while back during the original Sydney metro (as part of the west metro iirc) and I'm assuming the current mod thought of that and then decided to convert what is the most isolated and cheapest line to do so. As per (i think it was) rtt_rules idea (which is now part of my Cityrail future map (ongoing since 2008 and will never be released)) the current inner west stations will be underground replacing the current DD service to allow for more western express trains (capacity relief and potential new markets in the western Sydney area).


If we are talking potential new inner city metro markets than we should look at reviving the CBD metro (just the concept as the idea was terrible) and extending it a bit further west and also connecting it to a Eastern Suburbs Metro and maybe one to Green Square (unless light rail is built).

Because Parrahub is a fantasy!

Nowhere have I mentioned Parrahub in the original thread I posted that was put in the armchair section and there is a great need for a Central/Parramatta rail and it could be just a non stop metro branch off the CBD metro 15 minutes or a gold plated 250kph train that would take 5 minutes and cost about $13 a ticket.

I don't really be the one to break this to you Eddie, but we've already got a train line to Parramatta.

Besides which, Eddy, Parrahub is what you alluded to in your first post in the thread

I agree with you to a point, but the metro network should be extended to inner city regions not currently serviced by rail. I'm not an advocate of converting any part of the existing Sydney Trains network to metro.  It's a complete waste of limited resources, when the funds would be better spent in servicing new markets.

The inner west metro was proposed a while back during the original Sydney metro (as part of the west metro iirc) and I'm assuming the current mod thought of that and then decided to convert what is the most isolated and cheapest line to do so. As per (i think it was) rtt_rules idea (which is now part of my Cityrail future map (ongoing since 2008 and will never be released)) the current inner west stations will be underground replacing the current DD service to allow for more western express trains (capacity relief and potential new markets in the western Sydney area).


If we are talking potential new inner city metro markets than we should look at reviving the CBD metro (just the concept as the idea was terrible) and extending it a bit further west and also connecting it to a Eastern Suburbs Metro and maybe one to Green Square (unless light rail is built).

I agree with you that a new underground metro line paralleling the existing Inner West Local is worthy of further consideration.  It would free up capacity allowing express services from the South Line via Granville and potentially from Liverpool via Regents Park from say between Burwood and Redfern. It's a question of which would be the most cost effective.  Would it be eliminating all of the existing surface stations between say Burwood and Redfern and constructing new underground stations, or having an express underground line without any intermediate stations?

As for new metro lines, I would suggest a line from Epping along the Victoria Rd corridor via Eastwood, Top Ryde, Gladesville, Drummoyne and Rozelle to St James and along the Oxford St corridor to Bondi Beach.

I agree with you that a new underground metro line paralleling the existing Inner West Local is worthy of further consideration.  It would free up capacity allowing express services from the South Line via Granville and potentially from Liverpool via Regents Park from say between Burwood and Redfern. It's a question of which would be the most cost effective.  Would it be eliminating all of the existing surface stations between say Burwood and Redfern and constructing new underground stations, or having an express underground line without any intermediate stations?

As for new metro lines, I would suggest a line from Epping along the Victoria Rd corridor via Eastwood, Top Ryde, Gladesville, Drummoyne and Rozelle to St James and along the Oxford St corridor to Bondi Beach.

The inner west metro is basically a tunnel off the current proposed metro line they are building so a single deck driverless all stops train.

My suggestion for new Metro lines would be vaguely what Christie proposed. Olympic park to Kingsford via Rhodes, Top Ryde, Drummoyne Rozelle, Pyrmont/Darling Harbour (Harbourside Shopping Centre), Barangaroo South, Martin Place, St James, Fox Studios, UNSW and Randwick. I have avoided Townhall and Wynard due to overcrowding and are instead forcing people to use Barangaroo South, Martin Place and St James.

I agree with you to a point, but the metro network should be extended to inner city regions not currently serviced by rail. I'm not an advocate of converting any part of the existing Sydney Trains network to metro.  It's a complete waste of limited resources, when the funds would be better spent in servicing new markets.

The inner west metro was proposed a while back during the original Sydney metro (as part of the west metro iirc) and I'm assuming the current mod thought of that and then decided to convert what is the most isolated and cheapest line to do so. As per (i think it was) rtt_rules idea (which is now part of my Cityrail future map (ongoing since 2008 and will never be released)) the current inner west stations will be underground replacing the current DD service to allow for more western express trains (capacity relief and potential new markets in the western Sydney area).


If we are talking potential new inner city metro markets than we should look at reviving the CBD metro (just the concept as the idea was terrible) and extending it a bit further west and also connecting it to a Eastern Suburbs Metro and maybe one to Green Square (unless light rail is built).

I agree with you that a new underground metro line paralleling the existing Inner West Local is worthy of further consideration.  It would free up capacity allowing express services from the South Line via Granville and potentially from Liverpool via Regents Park from say between Burwood and Redfern. It's a question of which would be the most cost effective.  Would it be eliminating all of the existing surface stations between say Burwood and Redfern and constructing new underground stations, or having an express underground line without any intermediate stations?

As for new metro lines, I would suggest a line from Epping along the Victoria Rd corridor via Eastwood, Top Ryde, Gladesville, Drummoyne and Rozelle to St James and along the Oxford St corridor to Bondi Beach.

The idea of the Inner West being converted to metro sounds good, but phew, what would that cost?

How many extra trains could then be run through that section? I suppose you could then have separate clean runs for the Northern Line, the South Line and the Western Line.

It would be a good chance to eliminate and realign a few things but where would you connect to when hitting the CBD, remembering you already have the Bankstown metro tangled in there somewhere.

Anyhow if viable, I'd keep a station at Redfern for connectivity, head toward King Street to new stations at Sydney Uni and Newtown, (eliminate Macdonaldtown which could be amalgamated with Erkinsville on the new Bankstown metro line), swing out under Stanmore Road with a new stations at Enmore/Stanmore/Petersham, turn back in and move Lewisham under the new light rail stop, head straight for Ashfield (have a new spot for Summer Hill), back to rail corridor with stations at Croyden, Burwood, Strathfield, then above ground to Homebush to existing turnback.

The idea of the Inner West being converted to metro sounds good, but phew, what would that cost?

The cost would be justified by being a much better PR move than buying and demolishing houses and potentially cheaper.

How many extra trains could then be run through that section? I suppose you could then have separate clean runs for the Northern Line, the South Line and the Western Line.

Separate clean runs are desired, gets people to the city faster and reduces overcrowding.

It would be a good chance to eliminate and realign a few things but where would you connect to when hitting the CBD, remembering you already have the Bankstown metro tangled in there somewhere.

The metro won't have any issues connecting. If we eliminate the Hurstville Metro (current service does pretty well) than we have 15 tph from Inner West, 15 tph from Bankstown, 15 tph from North West and 15 tph from Northern beaches making 30 tph from Central to Nth Sydney which means the CBD corridor should cope well to the metro lines that are being built/will be built and are being proposed (but unannounced).

Anyhow if viable, I'd keep a station at Redfern for connectivity, head toward King Street to new stations at Sydney Uni and Newtown, (eliminate Macdonaldtown which could be amalgamated with Erkinsville on the new Bankstown metro line), swing out under Stanmore Road with a new stations at Enmore/Stanmore/Petersham, turn back in and move Lewisham under the new light rail stop, head straight for Ashfield (have a new spot for Summer Hill), back to rail corridor with stations at Croyden, Burwood, Strathfield, then above ground to Homebush to existing turnback.

The govt has Erkinsville and St Peters are never going to eliminated (very bad PR)  I've heard a rumor from a friend of mine that the Campbelltown express trains are going to stop at Erkinsville and St Peters ( I think Illawarra locals are more likely). That same friend who happens to go to Sydney Uni also says it seems more likely the USyd station is going to be built than the than the Waterloo alternative. (Not too sure where he getting all this info from)

Hi guys,
Metro route 1 has I call it us NWRL to Banks town later extended to junction of Reagents Park and Marsden Industrial estate at other end.

Metro route 2 will be my guess Nth Beaches to Ashfield and maybe later extended to Staithfield and or Olypmic park. This will be announced in mI'd 2020s. This line will use harbour crossing two with Metro 1.

Above stations removed west of Mcdonald town up to but not including Ashfield.

Why do this over running western express DD or metro simple it's cost and better natural outcome.

You have a tunnel half the distance and Metro is doing what it's best suited for. The stations are not cheap but cost around 1km of tunnel each for a basic station.

Also you now have an extra 12 paths for more west and SW trains.

Also by 2030 the 2nd airport will be growing. So you have option for loop airport to airport to CBD  and Para CBD semi express also forming the city to Paramatta express service.

The East Hills line will need full Quad as well to get the express route there and for Sth Highlands services.

And 6 tracks to Lidcombe.

Metro line 3 will I think be Ashfield to Top Ryde and Epping and maybe to Paramatta via Carlingford line. It may also be extended to form a short line south west of Paramatta to name escapes me. It's about 6km.

Hurtsville,  the issue for that line is south of Hurtsville and I doubt anything between Hurtsville and city will change. The 6 track project to William Creek will be completed but will not get platforms on extra tracks as these wI'll be for express services.

This plan not only opens up new corridors but also improves track efficency and capacity and cross country connections. Something that isn't achieved but stuffing around with signalling on existing city tunnels in a half arsed attempt to accomdation the NWRL.

My crude estimate is $30B after city Metro link funding over 20 years.

The 6 track project to William Creek will ...

6 tracks to William Creek ???!!!???



Now *that* is ambitious .

It's called vision build it and they will come.

For those who didn't guess its Wolli Creek.

Since we're doing fantasy lines & plans, I'll bore you all with the brief version of mine.  

I should stress, the object of this plan is to address the problems of Sydney's greater rail network, as well as address the issues the NWRL and associated second crossing is (allegedly) supposed to solve.  Primarily, it's intended to address to cost efficiency and cost recovery of the RailCorp network by increasing speed, load balancing, extending the range of peak loading and addressing load imbalances.

1) Terminate the NWRL at Epping rather than Chatswood.  Single platform terminus for both system.  The idea here is to move the NWRL/RailCorp interchange further upstream and away from the critical load point at Chatswood.  Less convenient for PAX travelling Hills to Macquarie Park.   More convenient for everyone else travelling to Macquarie Park and neutral for those travelling from the hills to the city.  Even though the interchange is not as efficient as the one at Chatswood, it won't have the same load for the same system wide load.  

Turning trains on a single platform would prevent through trains on the ECL from Hornsby, so this gets serviced by a shuttle.  Peak load for this segment of stations is less than 2k PAX/hr.  

My calcs suggest this alone will defer the need for the second crossing by ~5 years, perhaps more.  But it actually decreases the cost of operations of CityRail over trying to cope with inadequate turning facilities on the Nth Shore.

2) Build this (for reasons which may become apparent later) at Redfern Jtn:


3) Create a 4th sector by Quadding from Central to St James:


All of 1.3km of new line, a third of which already exists.

Train Operations become:
Rt 4A Liverpool - Bankstown - St James
Rt 4B Lidcombe - Bankstown - St James
Rt 4C Homebush - Ashfield - St James


Rt 2A Campbelltown - Airport - St James - Wynyard
Rt 2B Leppington - Airport - St James - Wynyard
Rt 2C Reveseby - Airport - St James - Wynyard

Rt 2E Parramatta - (all to) Strathfield - Wynyard
Rt 2F (Glenfield) - Liverpool - Granville - Wynyard
Rt 2G Epping - Strathfield - Wynyard

Rt 3A Hornsby - Chatswood - Wynyard
Rt 3B Epping - Chatswood - Wynyard

Rt 3D Penrith - Blacktown - Parramatta (express) - Wynyard
Rt 3E (Richmond) - Schofields (all to) - Parramatta (express) - Wynyard

3) A BRT busway is built along the unused formation allowing Woolstoncraft & Waiverton to be closed as rail stations.

This presents an issue for interurban operations.  This is dealt with by incorporating Springwood - Gosford into the Sydney Trains family.  3 peak trains from Wyong and Mt Vic (loading gauge permitting), but the rest of the time they get shuttles.  The Capital improvements program is to
- add "high speed" deviations on the Cowan Bank
- tripling Hornsby to Mt Kuringai
- extra refuge/crossing loops at Brooklyn and Woy Woy

This will ultimately allow Sydney Trains to operate Gosford-Mt K single track, part/most of the Hornsby - Epping shuttle as single track, as well as the Parra river crossing single track.  This delivers ARTC a (near) dedicated northern corridor into Sydney while reducing Sydney Train's perway maintenance burden.

The other problem this solves is the inadequacy of the H sets routes as long as the central coast interurban runs.  It fixes this problem by reducing the run time to (hopefully) below 60 minutes.

Further:
- quading Chatswood - Hornsby, progressively replacing the island platforms with straight side platforms.
- upgraded signalling Westmead to Chatswood
- more entry/exit points at Town Hall platforms 2&3 (expensive)
- completing the 5th&6th sets of stairs at Wynyard 3&4 (planned by Bradfield but never built)

This plan should work till the early/mid 2030s, by which time Epping interchange will break.  At that point through running of NWRL trains will be needed, and that will require fleet renewal of some sort - yet to be determined.

With only 4 sectors, my plan relied heavily on squeezing more out of the track pair between Chatswood and Parramatta - as does Sydney's Rail Future FWIW.  It's certainly doable within the constraints of the current signalling system.  Paris RER line A achieves 30tph using a similar (albeit slightly faster loading) form factor using conventional block signalling.  In Sydney the same is possible with moving block.

Between 2040 and 2050 the system would need a 5th sector.  I think the way to do this is convert the Inner West line to BRT, leaving just Burwood, Ashfield & Newtown on the HR system (Newtown & Ashfield generate more than 60% of the traffic on the entire line).  The demographics make have changed by then.  It might need to be an LRT system .

But by then Sydney will be 10-15km larger in diameter again, and new lines to the north and west will be needed.  I think a branch north from Rouse Hill toward Catai, a branch from Hornsby across Galstone Gorge toward Wiseman's Ferry, and perhaps a line south of the main west toward Wallacia.  Sector 3 will need to be split to form a 5th sector.  This could be a Western Express and terminating North Shore trains at Nth Sydney.  It could have the two sector's sharing track across the Bridge as RER lines B&D do across the Sein.  Or could even be a second crossing.  But IMHO it's a project we'll need by 2040, not 2020.