To clarify my comments on using Blacktown or Rosehill. The later was said in jest.

Any HSR or MSR train to Sydney must run to the city and not just Paramatta, while people can always change trains as soon as you do this you will kill alot of boarding's. However it won't be doing 300km/hr to the CBD or through the burbs.

I've stated my prefered option above a few times, improved alignment Campbelltown to Goulburn and then to ??? (name escapes me, station nth of Canberra not Targo) north of Canberra and new alignment to Canberra Airport.
- Campbelltown to Canberra should be 2hr tops.
- Improved alignment also benefits all other users.
- Train technology is MSR which still enables the use of the current line side signally system although it would need to be improved and the bi-directional.
- I would also have frequent high speed crossovers to enable easy passing.
(Germany I'm sure will have very limited access by freights on HSR tracks where they are actually rated to HSR and the freights won't be 23t/axle 1800m long monsters like here)

I know some want it to go via Straithfield, but this will only slow it down and there are also capacity issues, perhaps some services may do this. There would need to be significant track capacity and alignment improvements on Western Main.

Sydney Terminal yard I've stated before is a dogs breakfast.
- This needs to be rebuilt at significant cost to a bi-level arrival departures to eliminate conflicting moves and increase capacity to 20t/hr and thus enable capacity for MSR services to arrive without taking 4min to run from Redfern.

I would propose most MSR from the south arrive via East Hills,
- Extending the Quad from Revesbey to Glenfield and on to Macurthur, the new quad tracks to be built for 160km/hr running.
- Complete the Six tracking through St Peters etc and remove the incomplete platforms to improve the alignment.
- to get the extra capacity and speed on East Hills Line, tunnel 15km Sydnam to Revesby (or potentially closer) to enable +120km/hr. This route can also be used by Melbourne and Southern highlands and South West express Commuter services + trains from new BC airport running via Mascot to the City and solves the biggest obstacle for Southern highlands from running more frequently. this tunnel would probably cost about $2-3B in its own right, but look at the benefits to so many users. It probably negates any reason to go via Straithfield as it will be quicker to get to the city and head back.
- I would propose a stop at Glenfield to enable access to the BC and the Y link to Paramatta and the West/NW.

Back to the airlines
- I doubt the Singapore flight will have too much impact on QF/VA Canberra to Sydney, Sydney to Singapore is barely 10% of the domestic route and I'd dare say Sydney and others from elsewhere make up the bulk of the users.
- The above rail proposal will not delay in anyway the BC airport, but I would expect it to take up to 500,000pa off the air route and more off the road and probably double Southern Highlands commuters on rail and thus justifying its existence and expense.

- It can be built over 5 years and have services progressively increased as people jump on the bandwagon with each new section coming on line
- I in no means propose that it would be cash flow positive, but would benefit the community overall.
- the XPT can contiunue to run to Melbourne, but it will save around 60-90min per trip as a result of above, thus increasing slightly its support and reduction of running costs.
- The XPL would sustain the CBR service, increasing frequency as track upgrades allow, but eventually new trains would replace and the XPL diverted to Southern Highlands to cater for expected growth.

For Parramatta service (and Liverpool, Blacktown too), it might be just as easy to make some improvements to the Cumberland line and make a seamless transfer at Campbelltown.

Or, controversially perhaps, have another MSR track using the Cumberland line and run independent Parramatta MSR services to Canberra.....

I've stated my prefered option above a few times, improved alignment Campbelltown to Goulburn and then to ??? (name escapes me, station nth of Canberra not Targo) north of Canberra and new alignment to Canberra Airport.
- Campbelltown to Canberra should be 2hr tops.
- Improved alignment also benefits all other users.
- Train technology is MSR which still enables the use of the current line side signally system although it would need to be improved and the bi-directional.

Agreed, mostly.  But MSR works best with in-cab signalling.  Lineside signalling can be used for speeds below 200km *if* the signals are appropriately sited.  ATM many of the speed boards on the main south are set based on signal visibility rather than track speed.  If you are going to relocate track, you *have* to relocate signals, and it's cheaper to just to install transponders than new traffic lights.

Sydney Terminal yard I've stated before is a dogs breakfast.
- This needs to be rebuilt at significant cost to a bi-level arrival departures to eliminate conflicting moves and increase capacity to 20t/hr and thus enable capacity for MSR services to arrive without taking 4min to run from Redfern.

Agreed.  The project design I have for this is a trailing (or double) crossover on the southern approaches to the roads into platforms 21 and 22 at Central.  These platforms are redundant.  This would allow trains to be turned here from either southern approach from sector 2 (ie airport or via Sydenham).

I would propose most MSR from the south arrive via East Hills,
- Extending the Quad from Revesbey to Glenfield and on to Macurthur, the new quad tracks to be built for 160km/hr running.
- Complete the Six tracking through St Peters etc and remove the incomplete platforms to improve the alignment.

Quad Revesby to Glenfield is overkill.  *Maybe* once there are new lines to Oran Park, BC and Warragamba.  ATM this area is speed boarded for 115.  It probably could be higher - or made higher by removing the island platforms at Holsworthy and Penania.  

Speed board don't really drop below 100 till Bexley, and then are 60 along the airport line because of underground visual signalling.

- to get the extra capacity and speed on East Hills Line, tunnel 15km Sydnam to Revesby (or potentially closer) to enable +120km/hr. This route can also be used by Melbourne and Southern highlands and South West express Commuter services + trains from new BC airport running via Mascot to the City and solves the biggest obstacle for Southern highlands from running more frequently. this tunnel would probably cost about $2-3B in its own right, but look at the benefits to so many users. It probably negates any reason to go via Straithfield as it will be quicker to get to the city and head back.

This tunnel is already in the pipeline.  However it won't deliver any of these benefits as it is in an incompatible format going via the Bankstown line because that line has trains at 150% capacity.

Syd - Sing had 113,000 pa in 2013. Sing Air is not about to drop the Sydney - Singapore route (I'm guessing, unlike Wantas) which is also ironically the busiest corridor from Sydney International.

Also of interest only 23,000 people flew Syd to Wellington, so assume Sing Air has looked at the users from Sydney and said that many come from Canberra assume many diplomats to Asia or alt access to EU.

Pretty sure the above values are monthly numbers not per annum. If it were per annum Sydney to Singapore could be done totally with two 737s.

Cheers

That's what they are doing with the Bankstown line just duplicating what's there and making everyone stand

Maybe look up the current capacity and loadings then look up the proposed capacity under the Metro plan.

As a starter, according to the Sydney trains survey, trains currently on Bankstown run at 150% of capacity.

150% of capacity means 150% of seating capacity in Sydney.

To clarify my comments on using Blacktown or Rosehill. The later was said in jest.

Any HSR or MSR train to Sydney must run to the city and not just Paramatta, while people can always change trains as soon as you do this you will kill alot of boarding's. However it won't be doing 300km/hr to the CBD or through the burbs.

I've stated my prefered option above a few times, improved alignment Campbelltown to Goulburn and then to ??? (name escapes me, station nth of Canberra not Targo) north of Canberra and new alignment to Canberra Airport.
- Campbelltown to Canberra should be 2hr tops.
- Improved alignment also benefits all other users.
- Train technology is MSR which still enables the use of the current line side signally system although it would need to be improved and the bi-directional.
- I would also have frequent high speed crossovers to enable easy passing.
(Germany I'm sure will have very limited access by freights on HSR tracks where they are actually rated to HSR and the freights won't be 23t/axle 1800m long monsters like here)

I know some want it to go via Straithfield, but this will only slow it down and there are also capacity issues, perhaps some services may do this. There would need to be significant track capacity and alignment improvements on Western Main.

Sydney Terminal yard I've stated before is a dogs breakfast.
- This needs to be rebuilt at significant cost to a bi-level arrival departures to eliminate conflicting moves and increase capacity to 20t/hr and thus enable capacity for MSR services to arrive without taking 4min to run from Redfern.

I would propose most MSR from the south arrive via East Hills,
- Extending the Quad from Revesbey to Glenfield and on to Macurthur, the new quad tracks to be built for 160km/hr running.
- Complete the Six tracking through St Peters etc and remove the incomplete platforms to improve the alignment.
- to get the extra capacity and speed on East Hills Line, tunnel 15km Sydnam to Revesby (or potentially closer) to enable +120km/hr. This route can also be used by Melbourne and Southern highlands and South West express Commuter services + trains from new BC airport running via Mascot to the City and solves the biggest obstacle for Southern highlands from running more frequently. this tunnel would probably cost about $2-3B in its own right, but look at the benefits to so many users. It probably negates any reason to go via Straithfield as it will be quicker to get to the city and head back.
- I would propose a stop at Glenfield to enable access to the BC and the Y link to Paramatta and the West/NW.

Back to the airlines
- I doubt the Singapore flight will have too much impact on QF/VA Canberra to Sydney, Sydney to Singapore is barely 10% of the domestic route and I'd dare say Sydney and others from elsewhere make up the bulk of the users.
- The above rail proposal will not delay in anyway the BC airport, but I would expect it to take up to 500,000pa off the air route and more off the road and probably double Southern Highlands commuters on rail and thus justifying its existence and expense.

- It can be built over 5 years and have services progressively increased as people jump on the bandwagon with each new section coming on line
- I in no means propose that it would be cash flow positive, but would benefit the community overall.
- the XPT can contiunue to run to Melbourne, but it will save around 60-90min per trip as a result of above, thus increasing slightly its support and reduction of running costs.
- The XPL would sustain the CBR service, increasing frequency as track upgrades allow, but eventually new trains would replace and the XPL diverted to Southern Highlands to cater for expected growth.

There is no need to extend the quad past revesby as that section of track isn't at capacity. Don't need to worry about the 6 tracking to sydenham as that is being done with the metro. The main problem for southern highlands trains is just south of sydenham where they have to make a conflicting move to switch tracks. This could be resolved post metro completion. With the bankstown line gone this could open up more pathways and remove the conflicting move south of sydenham for southern highlands and south coast trains at least till hurstville for south coast trains.

There is no need to extend the quad past revesby as that section of track isn't at capacity. Don't need to worry about the 6 tracking to sydenham as that is being done with the metro. The main problem for southern highlands trains is just south of sydenham where they have to make a conflicting move to switch tracks. This could be resolved post metro completion. With the bankstown line gone this could open up more pathways and remove the conflicting move south of sydenham for southern highlands and south coast trains at least till hurstville for south coast trains.

Thanks for that. Without looking up the timetable I cannot further comment apart from saying this is for the next 20-30 years and you don't want MSR being slowed by a EMU. If you build an extra pair of tracks as the corridor is fairly wide you can ensure higher speed operation. MSR would be moving up to 900km/hr faster than an EMU. But if not needed so be it.

I've read that the Bankstown Metro will still be in a tunnel at Sydenham , so if so then perhaps the MSR could surface earlier. But it will need to stay in a tunnel under Wolli Creek and still be UG at Tempe.

Depending on how the Bankstown Metro is done it maybe able to surface and connect with the former Bankstown branch just on the junction out of Sydenham station and from there have its own dedicated tracks to past Eskinville Station after the ESR branches off.

The current underpass used by the XPT and IMU's to Sydney Terminal would then extend to the wst side of the Southern Quad to connect to the MSR pair of tracks again to prevent conflicting moves.

Regards
Shane

Thanks for that. Without looking up the timetable I cannot further comment apart from saying this is for the next 20-30 years and you don't want MSR being slowed by a EMU. If you build an extra pair of tracks as the corridor is fairly wide you can ensure higher speed operation. MSR would be moving up to 900km/hr faster than an EMU. But if not needed so be it.

Based on the extremely objective evidence of something I heard a bus driver say once ...

The reason Murrays is killing Greyhound in the Syd-Cbr bus market is a direct airport connection.  

I think it would be highly preferable if the SYD-CBR MSR ran via the Airport, which really needs to Metro to not resume the sector 2 tracks between Redfern and Sydenham.

The main problem for southern highlands trains is just south of sydenham where they have to make a conflicting move to switch tracks. This could be resolved post metro completion. With the bankstown line gone this could open up more pathways and remove the conflicting move south of sydenham for southern highlands and south coast trains at least till hurstville for south coast trains.

Not really.  The issue is the Highlands trains need to cross to Sector 1 to get into Sydney Terminal.  They effectively need 2 slots: one on each of sectors 1&2.

Back to the airlines
- I doubt the Singapore flight will have too much impact on QF/VA Canberra to Sydney, Sydney to Singapore is barely 10% of the domestic route and I'd dare say Sydney and others from elsewhere make up the bulk of the users.

Don't underestimate the impact a CBR-SIN flight will have on QF and VA, and don't presume that this flight will be purely for Origin & Destination (O&D) traffic - that is not how hub carriers - such as SQ (as well as TG, CX, EK, etc) work.

At present, from CBR you have to fly to SYD or MEL and change to your international flight, and if travelling to northern Asia, Africa (everywhere except Johannesburg), or Europe, that international flight will also involve either a stop on a through flight (in DXB if on QF1 or 9, or in SIN if BA16), or a connection to another flight in places such as SIN, HKG, BKK, KUL, DXB or AUH, before proceeding on to the ultimate destination, so generally three sectors for a lot of SLC (Self Loading Cargo).

This SQ flight SIN-CBR and return will change that, and a lot of those African, north Asian and European destinations will now become a simple transfer in SIN (which, by the way, is one of the easiest airports in the world to transit/transfer through).

That, in and of itself, will encourage a lot of people to use the flight, even though SIN is not their ultimate destination. Why would you go through the hellish DOM-INT transfer process at SYD on a CBR-SYD-HKG-LHR or CBR-SYD-SIN-DME, or transit MEL when flying CBR-MEL-HKG-FRA, when you could change that to a nice and easy CBR-SIN-(wherever the ultimate destination is)? This is where this flight - if it eventuates - will be a winner.

Why is all of this on a rail board?

Simple really. If a quite a bit of demand is reduced for the existing air services between SYD and CBR, then that further greatly weakens the case for any sort of a HSR, and throws quite a bit of doubt on the viability of a MSR as well.

Dave

Abbreviation decode:


SYD Sydney

CBR Canberra
MEL Melbourne
SIN Singapore
HKG Hong Kong
LHR London Heathrow
FRA Frankfurt

BKK Bangkok
KUL Kuala Lumpur
DXB Dubai
AUH Abu Dhabi
DME Moscow

QF Qantas Airways
VA Virgin Australia
SQ Singapore Airlines
TG Thai Airways International
CX Cathay Pacific
EK Emirates

There is no need to extend the quad past revesby as that section of track isn't at capacity. Don't need to worry about the 6 tracking to sydenham as that is being done with the metro. The main problem for southern highlands trains is just south of sydenham where they have to make a conflicting move to switch tracks. This could be resolved post metro completion. With the bankstown line gone this could open up more pathways and remove the conflicting move south of sydenham for southern highlands and south coast trains at least till hurstville for south coast trains.

Thanks for that. Without looking up the timetable I cannot further comment apart from saying this is for the next 20-30 years and you don't want MSR being slowed by a EMU. If you build an extra pair of tracks as the corridor is fairly wide you can ensure higher speed operation. MSR would be moving up to 900km/hr faster than an EMU. But if not needed so be it.

I've read that the Bankstown Metro will still be in a tunnel at Sydenham , so if so then perhaps the MSR could surface earlier. But it will need to stay in a tunnel under Wolli Creek and still be UG at Tempe.

Depending on how the Bankstown Metro is done it maybe able to surface and connect with the former Bankstown branch just on the junction out of Sydenham station and from there have its own dedicated tracks to past Eskinville Station after the ESR branches off.

The current underpass used by the XPT and IMU's to Sydney Terminal would then extend to the wst side of the Southern Quad to connect to the MSR pair of tracks again to prevent conflicting moves.

Regards
Shane

The metro line will be going in a tunnel near Sydenham and then going to Waterloo. check here for more details. http://sydneymetro.info/home

Since there are so few regional services it isn't a problem with capacity once the Bankstown line is no longer using the track from Sydenham into Sydney. Removing these trains from the Illawarra line and moving the track onto the western pair doesn't require too much work and if done correctly could allow fast Campbelltown services to use the line with Kiama services, southern highlands (which only come into the city at peak times I believe) and NSW train link services on the main south. Plenty of capacity for that track pair to handle that traffic and with separation from the Illawarra line it will allow more capacity for that line.

Thanks for that. Without looking up the timetable I cannot further comment apart from saying this is for the next 20-30 years and you don't want MSR being slowed by a EMU. If you build an extra pair of tracks as the corridor is fairly wide you can ensure higher speed operation. MSR would be moving up to 900km/hr faster than an EMU. But if not needed so be it.

Based on the extremely objective evidence of something I heard a bus driver say once ...

The reason Murrays is killing Greyhound in the Syd-Cbr bus market is a direct airport connection.  

I think it would be highly preferable if the SYD-CBR MSR ran via the Airport, which really needs to Metro to not resume the sector 2 tracks between Redfern and Sydenham.

I don't thing a diesel passenger train has ever been in the airport tunnel. It would require electrification to canberra or a diesel electric hybrid train for that to be possible.

If you had a fast enough service, and a relatively easy transfer at Central, this market could switch over.  Who knows, perhaps a savvy MSR operator could enter into an interline/codeshare agreement with specific airlines and have the train ticket on the airline ticket.  Would be a little complicated but i did say the MHR operator was savvy...  It is apparently done in Germany between QF and Deutche Bahn so its not without precedent.

The main problem for southern highlands trains is just south of sydenham where they have to make a conflicting move to switch tracks. This could be resolved post metro completion. With the bankstown line gone this could open up more pathways and remove the conflicting move south of sydenham for southern highlands and south coast trains at least till hurstville for south coast trains.

Not really.  The issue is the Highlands trains need to cross to Sector 1 to get into Sydney Terminal.  They effectively need 2 slots: one on each of sectors 1&2.

This is something that needs resolving for more then southern highlands and south coast services and therefore I see it as a separate issue to be resolved. Outside of this common issue the crossover at Sydenham, congestion between Glenfield and Campbelltown and the steam train alignment south of douglas park are the main issues with speed to Canberra. The afternoon SHL to Moss Valle is timetabled to take 31 minues to glenfield. It does however take a lot less time to do so and often sits at glenfield for 5 minutes or more. This is where some quadding post Glenfield could come in handy, especially if it went all the way to Campbelltown.

The main problem for southern highlands trains is just south of sydenham where they have to make a conflicting move to switch tracks. This could be resolved post metro completion. With the bankstown line gone this could open up more pathways and remove the conflicting move south of sydenham for southern highlands and south coast trains at least till hurstville for south coast trains.

Not really.  The issue is the Highlands trains need to cross to Sector 1 to get into Sydney Terminal.  They effectively need 2 slots: one on each of sectors 1&2.

This is something that needs resolving for more then southern highlands and south coast services and therefore I see it as a separate issue to be resolved. Outside of this common issue the crossover at Sydenham, congestion between Glenfield and Campbelltown and the steam train alignment south of douglas park are the main issues with speed to Canberra. The afternoon SHL to Moss Valle is timetabled to take 31 minues to glenfield. It does however take a lot less time to do so and often sits at glenfield for 5 minutes or more. This is where some quadding post Glenfield could come in handy, especially if it went all the way to Campbelltown.

A cheaper option might be to build a pair of crossovers between Erskinville and Illawarra Junction (which I believe you're suggesting), so you can access the Illawarra dive and get into Sydney Terminal, then build another set of high speed crossovers onto the metropolitan goods line a Meeks Rd. You'll be sharing track with the freight anyway south of Macarthur for as long as anyone can foresee so you'll probably still get most of the benefit of quadding all the way from Revesby to C-town/Mac for a few million rather than a few billion. Not an ideal or elegant solution, but it's dirt cheap.

If you're really set on quadding, then I'd be looking at a Mac to north of C-Town station first up to allow more separation between your terminating and through services. Stage 2 would be Glenfield to just south of Ingleburn, stage 3 would link the Ingleburn and C-Town quad sections stage 4+ would be looking at the Glenfield to Revesby segment with a probably initial construction from revesby to East Hills. That would let a well tabled Highlands service be right behind an EMU at revesby and fly past as the EMU stops at Panania, without needing to build a second Georges River bridge at East Hills. Stage 5 would be Glenfield to somewhere east of Holsworthy. Finally stage 6 would be the Georges river bridge linking the quadded sections.


On a bit of a different tangent, there are a few different speeds been thrown about along the line that seem wildly inaccurate. Have a consult of the DRKDs:
https://railsafe.org.au/diagrams/drivers-route-knowledge-diagrams

Airport Line is 80km/h throughout
East Hills line is generally quite quick with some slower sections on the cures between Naree and Bevo and again between Bex Nth and Turella...quite a bit of variance there depending on what you're driving and which track you're on (anywhere from 60 to 105).
The really slow sections though are on the Illawarra between Wolli Creek and Redfern where there 50's and 60's, the most common board seems to be about 70km/h. (Although lets not forget those "delightful" 25's to access the ERS at Erko)

The only reason the DD can do CBD to Parramatta in less than 30 minute is because it doesn't stop at many stations.

If there was a VFT to Canberra via Parramatta then the DD could stop at all stations.

The rejected fast rail stopped at intermediate stations not allowing it to get to full speed and costing more than incorporating it as a one seat ride to Canberra via Parramatta which would only cost $3b CBD/Parramatta and giving it access to the 20,000 potential passengers there.

You really have no idea do you. The reason why the trains can run limited stops is because there is a service that also does all stops on the other pair on the western line. A vft to parramatta will never get to 300km/h because there is only 25 kilometres from the cbd to parramatta. If a VFT was built then the suburb in Sydney most in need of a vft stop would be liverpool as it has no direct line into the CBD, has a major hospital and is about to have Sydney's second airport within it's council boundary. Parramatta does not need a vft or to be part of a vft as it already has a decent rail service and it is not in the direction of one of the major capitals a vft to/from Sydney would go via.

The main problem for southern highlands trains is just south of sydenham where they have to make a conflicting move to switch tracks. This could be resolved post metro completion. With the bankstown line gone this could open up more pathways and remove the conflicting move south of sydenham for southern highlands and south coast trains at least till hurstville for south coast trains.

Not really.  The issue is the Highlands trains need to cross to Sector 1 to get into Sydney Terminal.  They effectively need 2 slots: one on each of sectors 1&2.

This is something that needs resolving for more then southern highlands and south coast services and therefore I see it as a separate issue to be resolved. Outside of this common issue the crossover at Sydenham, congestion between Glenfield and Campbelltown and the steam train alignment south of douglas park are the main issues with speed to Canberra. The afternoon SHL to Moss Valle is timetabled to take 31 minues to glenfield. It does however take a lot less time to do so and often sits at glenfield for 5 minutes or more. This is where some quadding post Glenfield could come in handy, especially if it went all the way to Campbelltown.

A cheaper option might be to build a pair of crossovers between Erskinville and Illawarra Junction (which I believe you're suggesting), so you can access the Illawarra dive and get into Sydney Terminal, then build another set of high speed crossovers onto the metropolitan goods line a Meeks Rd. You'll be sharing track with the freight anyway south of Macarthur for as long as anyone can foresee so you'll probably still get most of the benefit of quadding all the way from Revesby to C-town/Mac for a few million rather than a few billion. Not an ideal or elegant solution, but it's dirt cheap.

If you're really set on quadding, then I'd be looking at a Mac to north of C-Town station first up to allow more separation between your terminating and through services. Stage 2 would be Glenfield to just south of Ingleburn, stage 3 would link the Ingleburn and C-Town quad sections stage 4+ would be looking at the Glenfield to Revesby segment with a probably initial construction from revesby to East Hills. That would let a well tabled Highlands service be right behind an EMU at revesby and fly past as the EMU stops at Panania, without needing to build a second Georges River bridge at East Hills. Stage 5 would be Glenfield to somewhere east of Holsworthy. Finally stage 6 would be the Georges river bridge linking the quadded sections.


On a bit of a different tangent, there are a few different speeds been thrown about along the line that seem wildly inaccurate. Have a consult of the DRKDs:
https://railsafe.org.au/diagrams/drivers-route-knowledge-diagrams

Airport Line is 80km/h throughout
East Hills line is generally quite quick with some slower sections on the cures between Naree and Bevo and again between Bex Nth and Turella...quite a bit of variance there depending on what you're driving and which track you're on (anywhere from 60 to 105).
The really slow sections though are on the Illawarra between Wolli Creek and Redfern where there 50's and 60's, the most common board seems to be about 70km/h. (Although lets not forget those "delightful" 25's to access the ERS at Erko)

I'm suggesting that realigning the tracks post bankstown metro conversion to have the track align with the western pair of tracks. between redfern and sydenham. No flyovers necessary just shifting the tracks and in doing so seperating esr from intercity/regional traffic. thus avoiding the 25's at erko.

Don't need quadding from revesby to glenfield. The quadding is needed from glenfield to campbelltown because the main south (via granville) trains merge with east hills line trains.

I'm not suggesting flyovers either just a flat junction north or Erko for the reason you mention. Shifting the tracks isn't an option even post Banko removal as the C-town expresses use the route. Also I imagine there is a reason they maintain the crossovers accessing Eveleigh, although you'd need to ask someone at Sydney trains precisely how that happens. Point is it's not a simple case of remove and slew.

Thanks for that. Without looking up the timetable I cannot further comment apart from saying this is for the next 20-30 years and you don't want MSR being slowed by a EMU. If you build an extra pair of tracks as the corridor is fairly wide you can ensure higher speed operation. MSR would be moving up to 900km/hr faster than an EMU. But if not needed so be it.

Based on the extremely objective evidence of something I heard a bus driver say once ...

The reason Murrays is killing Greyhound in the Syd-Cbr bus market is a direct airport connection.  

I think it would be highly preferable if the SYD-CBR MSR ran via the Airport, which really needs to Metro to not resume the sector 2 tracks between Redfern and Sydenham.

Ok I'm surprised my error slipped through so quietly. 90km/hr faster, not 900km/hr

Yes I forgot about going via the Airport and point is certainly valid assuming there is only 1 train per hour from Canberra does make things a bit messy for this.

Ok how to solve

- All Canberra MSR's should run via Airport, but Southern Highlands not so.

However if the Airport tunnel is not designed for routine operation with a diesel or cannot be easily modified to do so or the CBR is not sparked (hard to justify for what won't be a frequent enough service) or certainly not capable of being a hybrid and using the O/H, then you must run via my previous post comment up through St Peter's.

So assuming above is ok to g via the tunnel.
- North of Mascot station, the line goes to the right, north is Sydney Park the South Coast line nth of St Peter's comes from west and head north, the tracks can be easily joined by a 2.7km long tunnel.
If only for CBR train, it could be a just a single track tunnel.

ESR takes east/south tracks so need to surface north of St Peters Station on Western side using the available corridor.

I'm thinking outloud so open to correction,

Plan A. The ESR junction would no longer be a junction, tracks would just ver to right and remove the straight through option.

The tunnel from nth of Mascot station would rise north of the current junction with ESR and enable non-conflicting movement with suburbans into the dive for Central Terminal. A new set of cross overs would be installed prior to the dive to give access for south coast and Southern highlands and access to the surface tracks running to Central.

Plan B would be to slew the Western pair of tracks to the incomplete sex north of St Peters until just prior to the junction with the main west and then have the MSR surface prior to Eskinville in the current western pair of tracks alignment. then after the ESR junction, all 6 tracks merge to 4 tracks and this would give both the CBR MSR, South Coast Interurbans and Southern Highlands trains access to the dive without conflict with the ESR.

Syd - Sing had 113,000 pa in 2013. Sing Air is not about to drop the Sydney - Singapore route (I'm guessing, unlike Wantas) which is also ironically the busiest corridor from Sydney International.

Also of interest only 23,000 people flew Syd to Wellington, so assume Sing Air has looked at the users from Sydney and said that many come from Canberra assume many diplomats to Asia or alt access to EU.

Pretty sure the above values are monthly numbers not per annum. If it were per annum Sydney to Singapore could be done totally with two 737s.

Cheers

YEs

On a bit of a different tangent, there are a few different speeds been thrown about along the line that seem wildly inaccurate. Have a consult of the DRKDs:
https://railsafe.org.au/diagrams/drivers-route-knowledge-diagrams

Airport Line is 80km/h throughout
East Hills line is generally quite quick with some slower sections on the cures between Naree and Bevo and again between Bex Nth and Turella...quite a bit of variance there depending on what you're driving and which track you're on (anywhere from 60 to 105).
The really slow sections though are on the Illawarra between Wolli Creek and Redfern where there 50's and 60's, the most common board seems to be about 70km/h. (Although lets not forget those "delightful" 25's to access the ERS at Erko)

Thanks for the link.  My copy pf the DRKD is from 2011, and is missing the quad to Revesby and is obviously a touch out of date.  I just checked the old and new versions.  Speed is limited to 60 through the platforms, 80 in the general tunnels, so my bad.

BTW, I thought DRKD was (to be) shifted off to "need to know" by the security Nazis.

Back to the airlines
- I doubt the Singapore flight will have too much impact on QF/VA Canberra to Sydney, Sydney to Singapore is barely 10% of the domestic route and I'd dare say Sydney and others from elsewhere make up the bulk of the users.

Don't underestimate the impact a CBR-SIN flight will have on QF and VA, and don't presume that this flight will be purely for Origin & Destination (O&D) traffic - that is not how hub carriers - such as SQ (as well as TG, CX, EK, etc) work.

At present, from CBR you have to fly to SYD or MEL and change to your international flight, and if travelling to northern Asia, Africa (everywhere except Johannesburg), or Europe, that international flight will also involve either a stop on a through flight (in DXB if on QF1 or 9, or in SIN if BA16), or a connection to another flight in places such as SIN, HKG, BKK, KUL, DXB or AUH, before proceeding on to the ultimate destination, so generally three sectors for a lot of SLC (Self Loading Cargo).

This SQ flight SIN-CBR and return will change that, and a lot of those African, north Asian and European destinations will now become a simple transfer in SIN (which, by the way, is one of the easiest airports in the world to transit/transfer through).

That, in and of itself, will encourage a lot of people to use the flight, even though SIN is not their ultimate destination. Why would you go through the hellish DOM-INT transfer process at SYD on a CBR-SYD-HKG-LHR or CBR-SYD-SIN-DME, or transit MEL when flying CBR-MEL-HKG-FRA, when you could change that to a nice and easy CBR-SIN-(wherever the ultimate destination is)? This is where this flight - if it eventuates - will be a winner.

Why is all of this on a rail board?

Simple really. If a quite a bit of demand is reduced for the existing air services between SYD and CBR, then that further greatly weakens the case for any sort of a HSR, and throws quite a bit of doubt on the viability of a MSR as well.

Dave

Abbreviation decode:


SYD Sydney

CBR Canberra
MEL Melbourne
SIN Singapore
HKG Hong Kong
LHR London Heathrow
FRA Frankfurt

BKK Bangkok
KUL Kuala Lumpur
DXB Dubai
AUH Abu Dhabi
DME Moscow

QF Qantas Airways
VA Virgin Australia
SQ Singapore Airlines
TG Thai Airways International
CX Cathay Pacific
EK Emirates

I totally agree with you on most points bar the first part which I think you missed.

That 115,000 number was per month from Sydney to Singapore on all airlines and includes all destinations either Singapore or hubbed via Singapore. That's 1.4mpa out of Mascot's 36mpa total loadings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_busiest_international_air_routes_in_Australia#Sydney

How many people from Greater Canberra (300,000 people) currently make up those using international flights from Sydney and currently use VA or QF?

Yes I agree SG will probably fill the plane (a plane and we don't even know if its daily?), no questions, but impact on QF or VA, I suspect they won't notice it in the noise.

Thanks for that. Without looking up the timetable I cannot further comment apart from saying this is for the next 20-30 years and you don't want MSR being slowed by a EMU. If you build an extra pair of tracks as the corridor is fairly wide you can ensure higher speed operation. MSR would be moving up to 900km/hr faster than an EMU. But if not needed so be it.

Based on the extremely objective evidence of something I heard a bus driver say once ...

The reason Murrays is killing Greyhound in the Syd-Cbr bus market is a direct airport connection.  

I think it would be highly preferable if the SYD-CBR MSR ran via the Airport, which really needs to Metro to not resume the sector 2 tracks between Redfern and Sydenham.

Ok I'm surprised my error slipped through so quietly. 90km/hr faster, not 900km/hr

Yes I forgot about going via the Airport and point is certainly valid assuming there is only 1 train per hour from Canberra does make things a bit messy for this.

Ok how to solve

- All Canberra MSR's should run via Airport, but Southern Highlands not so.

However if the Airport tunnel is not designed for routine operation with a diesel or cannot be easily modified to do so or the CBR is not sparked (hard to justify for what won't be a frequent enough service) or certainly not capable of being a hybrid and using the O/H, then you must run via my previous post comment up through St Peter's.

So assuming above is ok to g via the tunnel.
- North of Mascot station, the line goes to the right, north is Sydney Park the South Coast line nth of St Peter's comes from west and head north, the tracks can be easily joined by a 2.7km long tunnel.
If only for CBR train, it could be a just a single track tunnel.

ESR takes east/south tracks so need to surface north of St Peters Station on Western side using the available corridor.

I'm thinking outloud so open to correction,

Plan A. The ESR junction would no longer be a junction, tracks would just ver to right and remove the straight through option.

The tunnel from nth of Mascot station would rise north of the current junction with ESR and enable non-conflicting movement with suburbans into the dive for Central Terminal. A new set of cross overs would be installed prior to the dive to give access for south coast and Southern highlands and access to the surface tracks running to Central.

Plan B would be to slew the Western pair of tracks to the incomplete sex north of St Peters until just prior to the junction with the main west and then have the MSR surface prior to Eskinville in the current western pair of tracks alignment. then after the ESR junction, all 6 tracks merge to 4 tracks and this would give both the CBR MSR, South Coast Interurbans and Southern Highlands trains access to the dive without conflict with the ESR.

The only way that can happen at the moment is for a new hybrid train that can use the overheads in the Sydney network and that could then use the city circle to make a U-turn and head right back to Canberra. You don't need to build the 6th track pair because there is plenty of capacity on the western pair. Especially when the bankstown line is no longer using these tracks. Just need a simple crossing as mentioned by PDCL or for the sake of also solving the issue with sydney yard, realign the illawarra dive by building a new tunnel into sydney yard from it's current position. If realigned correctly this could also remove the crossover and provide a seamless connection for campbelltown express and south coast and southern highlands trains.

The only reason the DD can do CBD to Parramatta in less than 30 minute is because it doesn't stop at many stations.

If there was a VFT to Canberra via Parramatta then the DD could stop at all stations.

The rejected fast rail stopped at intermediate stations not allowing it to get to full speed and costing more than incorporating it as a one seat ride to Canberra via Parramatta which would only cost $3b CBD/Parramatta and giving it access to the 20,000 potential passengers there.

You really have no idea do you. The reason why the trains can run limited stops is because there is a service that also does all stops on the other pair on the western line. A vft to parramatta will never get to 300km/h because there is only 25 kilometres from the cbd to parramatta. If a VFT was built then the suburb in Sydney most in need of a vft stop would be liverpool as it has no direct line into the CBD, has a major hospital and is about to have Sydney's second airport within it's council boundary. Parramatta does not need a vft or to be part of a vft as it already has a decent rail service and it is not in the direction of one of the major capitals a vft to/from Sydney would go via.