Sydney to Canberra high speed train

 
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

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


I missed it.  I saw the 900k/hr and thought you were talking about planes again so I switched off Smile.


Ok how to solve ...
RTT_Rules

A bit off topic, but the problem and possible solutions all show the problems of the metro via Bankstown: it creates as many capacity problems as it solves.


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



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.
simstrain


Running MSR around the circle is problematic.  The trains would need a non-standard fast loading/unloading format, to limit dwells to ~50sec.  This could not be done without seriously compromising the MSR's design.

I was working on the basis the CBR service done in MSR would be sparked.  I know there are some non electric platforms about, but most - and certainly all you would regard as "standard" - are EMUs.

If MSR trains do run via the airport, then by necessity some trains along the East Hills will need to run via Sydenham (at least post Bankstown Metrofication).   In fact I think post Metro, most trains on the East Hills will run via Sydenham, if it's possible of course.


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,
RTT_Rules

Really?  With all that tunnelling I thought you'd let Eddy use your account Smile.


Plan A. The ESR junction would no longer be a junction ...

Plan B would be to slew the Western pair of tracks ...
RTT_Rules


The bottom line is there are 2 routes and 2 track pairs approaching the eastern City Circle track pair.  It's impossible to fully utilise them.  The western arm (potentially) feeds only the inner west, and the City Circle can't be fully utilised.  The Bankstown line makes used of some of the capacity created by this inequality.  But the Sydenham alternate route allows load balancing of the two arms of the circle.  

Even though this is a mess (and the metro makes it a bit worse), the fact it is a mess means there will be gaps in the timetable to thread non-circle trains through.  The issue for MSR is terminal facilities.

I should give a brief description of how I think it could work.
- CBR/Highlands MSR trains terminate at platform 21 (and/or 22).
- Stop IntAir-DomAir-Revesby-Glenfield-Cambo -> on to whereever.
- Their transit from Central to Campbelltown would be ~40min vs the fastest suburban train of ~45min.  
- With a scheduled overtake at (or about) Glenfield, this could be cut to ~30min.  You'd have to quad Revesby to Cambo to get it down to ~25min (2 overtakes), and eliminate all local stops to get it even lower.

Sponsored advertisement

  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
As the MSR would most likely be diesel, I'm doubting it is indeed practical to run via the airport and the cost is not viable, nor would the train probably have sufficient numbers to justify the expense. Perhaps a stop at Wolli Creek or other station to enable a transfer?

Its a 15min transfer to airport from Central

The MSR won't use the suburban platforms and it won't use the circle.

Regardless of the new Metro, there is some work needed on the Southern line from Eskinville. As we have discussed in other threads, Sydney's network has outground mixing services on the same tracks. Southern Highlands, XPT and 'Gong interurbans need to be able to move through the corridor without conflicting moves with the ESR services.
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

As the MSR would most likely be diesel, I'm doubting it is indeed practical to run via the airport and the cost is not viable, nor would the train probably have sufficient numbers to justify the expense. Perhaps a stop at Wolli Creek or other station to enable a transfer?

Its a 15min transfer to airport from Central

The MSR won't use the suburban platforms and it won't use the circle.

Regardless of the new Metro, there is some work needed on the Southern line from Eskinville. As we have discussed in other threads, Sydney's network has outground mixing services on the same tracks. Southern Highlands, XPT and 'Gong interurbans need to be able to move through the corridor without conflicting moves with the ESR services.
"RTT_Rules"


Those issues that you talk about are only really an issue on the tracks that head west. Once the bankstown trains dissapear there will likely be 4 campbelltown via sydenham trains per hour using the western pair to sydenham. Leaving plenty of space for the 1-2 south coast trains an hour and the 1 moss vale, goulburn or canberra service an hour. The problem that these trains cause is because they get moved onto the eastern track pair between eveleigh and sydenham, they interfere with getting 20 esr services an hour. So the only thing needed is to move these trains off the eastern track pair and onto the western pair which can be done north of Erskineville. This could coincide with fixing the issue at Sydney yard and the illawarra dive.

So the limitation of 20-24 trains an hour on the city circle is why there doesn't need to be quadding from revesby to glenfield. From glenfield to campbelltown however you have east hills services, main south services and cumberland line services so this will eventually need quadding if you want a faster time out to Campbelltown for southern highlands/nsw trainlink services.
  Frddunc Station Staff

Location: Goulburn, NSW australia
The last time I heard about the proposal for a High Speed Train Sydney to Canberra, every Mayor along the way wanted it to stop at stations in their electorate which somewhat defeated the whole concept of what a HST is......
"gordon_s1942"
the last development i herd on this was that there wool be a station at mitagong and a matinence centre and stop at Goulburn
  viaprojects Chief Train Controller

OK for the current topic of high speed rail.  the topic has been kicked off the table for the current time with this.==>  https://au.news.yahoo.com/nsw/a/30585189/high-speed-sydney-newcastle-rail-plan-would-cost-25-billion/
  Nightfire Minister for Railways

Location: Gippsland
OK for the current topic of high speed rail.  the topic has been kicked off the table for the current time with this.==>  https://au.news.yahoo.com/nsw/a/30585189/high-speed-sydney-newcastle-rail-plan-would-cost-25-billion/
viaprojects
Lets face It plans to really fund and build a high speed railway In Australia have never been on the table, due to the excessive costs, that would never be recovered !

It's always just been a good news story, for people to talk and get excited about.
  gordon_s1942 Chief Commissioner

Location: Central Tablelands of NSW
Or the next Election, Federal or State or there simply isnt anything interesting to report...............
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
OK for the current topic of high speed rail.  the topic has been kicked off the table for the current time with this.==>  https://au.news.yahoo.com/nsw/a/30585189/high-speed-sydney-newcastle-rail-plan-would-cost-25-billion/
viaprojects
Lets face It plans to really fund and build a high speed railway In Australia have never been on the table, due to the excessive costs, that would never be recovered !

It's always just been a good news story, for people to talk and get excited about.
"Nightfire"


Thats $25B now with the world in a slump, raw material prices crashed as have wages for major projects like this and by a Chinese group.

Just goes to show how much BS was in the original HSR proposal for B-S-M.
  PDCL Chief Train Controller

So, returning to the Canberra-Sydney proposal that this thread was initially on, I ran a few back of the envelope numbers...

Lets mostly ignore Sydney for the moment, say you buy a lot more land than is necessary for the HSR alignment around where you would propose to build parkway stations outside Moss Vale and Goulburn. Build the line and around said parkway stations develop new cities. If you're flogging your properties off at an average of $300,000 each (not exactly unreasonable for any sort of dwelling in our major cities) you would need sell a bit over 83,000 homes (mixture of houses/townhouses and apartments) to recover $25 Billion. Put differently this is between 75k and 100k people in each of Goulburn and Moss Vale. This is actually a super conservative number as the reality is all these people would need shops and offices which you would incorporate into the development, so realistically you're probably talking more like 50k-60k people at each city. Sell the development as living and working in the country, but doing business in the city (Syd/Canberra), with the HSR providing the access.

Ok so back to Sydney...
If you're a bit cheeky with restricting land releases in Sydney to artificially bump up demand just as you're new developments with direct CBD HSR access are coming online then this could (big emphasis on the could there) prove to be relatively viable. Couple this with some cleverly targeted incentives for businesses to set up shop in these two new cities, where you try and keep the costs restricted to the likely bounce in the existing local economies, then you can come up with a relatively low net cost but still full spec system. You've also created a captive market of business consumers to put a floor on you HSR patronage numbers, hopefully to keep the running costs at a viable number.

Building this kind of system would I assume run as a two tiered service, one running Sydney-Canberra direct in ~1hr, the other Sydney-Glenfield (when the SWRL is extended to an active WS ap)-Moss Vale Pkw-Goulburn Pkw-Canberra ~1.5hrs. The fares would probably be initially in the ~$100 range for Sydney to Canberra and proportionally less for the shorter trips. The direct service you'd probably put a slight premium on and mostly only run it in peak I'd think, while the slow service would be an hourly affair.

If you want to do a little future proofing on the line, put some stub tunnels in at Glenfield and near the current airport to allow for a future Airport express link to use the Sydney tunnel section connecting both airports and central.
  donttellmywife Chief Commissioner

Location: Antofagasta
So, returning to the Canberra-Sydney proposal that this thread was initially on, I ran a few back of the envelope numbers...

Lets mostly ignore Sydney for the moment, say you buy a lot more land than is necessary for the HSR alignment around where you would propose to build parkway stations outside Moss Vale and Goulburn. Build the line and around said parkway stations develop new cities. If you're flogging your properties off at an average of $300,000 each (not exactly unreasonable for any sort of dwelling in our major cities) you would need sell a bit over 83,000 homes (mixture of houses/townhouses and apartments) to recover $25 Billion. Put differently this is between 75k and 100k people in each of Goulburn and Moss Vale. This is actually a super conservative number as the reality is all these people would need shops and offices which you would incorporate into the development, so realistically you're probably talking more like 50k-60k people at each city. Sell the development as living and working in the country, but doing business in the city (Syd/Canberra), with the HSR providing the access.
PDCL
Did you allow for all that extra land acquisition cost (let alone all the community angst associated with land acquisition) in your $25 billion?  Who foots the bill for all the other infrastructure that's required for the very, very significant increase in population in those two centres?  Typically a good chunk of that would come back to the proponent - i.e. it also needs to be on top of your $25 billion for the rail.  Similarly, unless you are talking $300,000 on an unimproved basis (in which case your prices are a lot higher than current values in those towns), who foots the bill for the houses that these extra people are going to live in (or the shops and offices that are also incorporated into the development)?  

"Value capture" certainly should have a role to play in the funding of a system, particularly around station precincts (and beyond value capture, if a decision was made to proceed with this sort of system I think additional land taxes for properties in towns serviced by the route are the sort of things that could help with funding), but at the scale you are talking this strikes me as a case of the tail wagging the dog.
  eddyb Chief Train Controller

Eventually HST will run right from Brisbane to Melbourne but by that time Parramatta will be the Sydney CBD so


After much thought and discussion on another thread I now believe that Parramatta will be the Sydney CBD in fifty years so to me it makes sense to have the north and south HST terminate at a subway hub there with other privately owned and operated High Speed Trains and lines radiating out to many different places such as Wollongong, Lithgow and Central with a few intermediate stations like Olympic park.



Although these other lines would use exactly the same type of train they would have different frequencies, seats and speeds.
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

Eventually HST will run right from Brisbane to Melbourne but by that time Parramatta will be the Sydney CBD so


After much thought and discussion on another thread I now believe that Parramatta will be the Sydney CBD in fifty years so to me it makes sense to have the north and south HST terminate at a subway hub there with other privately owned and operated High Speed Trains and lines radiating out to many different places such as Wollongong, Lithgow and Central with a few intermediate stations like Olympic park.



Although these other lines would use exactly the same type of train they would have different frequencies, seats and speeds.
eddyb

No it won't. Tourist's aren't interested in Parramatta. They are interested in the harbour, the bridge, the beaches and the opera house and they aren't to be found in Parramatta.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
I tend to agree, there are plenty of examples of cities where the CBD is not geographically centric, in fact most seaside cities are not. Perth, Hobart, Brisbane are all similar, as is Vancouver, New York, Dubai, Abu Dhabi.... Many older land locked European cities yes because they are built on a river and the city grew during an era when most people walked.

As Sim also said, the bulk of the tourist icons are in the city or easily reached from the city and while the bridge, Centre point, Opera House and harbour is there, little will change. I am travelling back to Sydney in March and showing my kids around and we are staying in the Sydney CBD, not Paramatta. Is the west the current industrial hub, yes, but the commercial, education, legal, tourist and political hub is the Sydney CBD.

If and when HSR is built its still quite plausible the station will be in the west because as I and others have pointed out numerous times, there are huge costs to get to the city efficently. During the discussion on CBR MSR there were comments that the CBR MSR could use the existing suburban lines up to the city, however this would effectively kill the concept as it would crawl along at the same speed as the expresses go, slowing for poorly aligned points and curves, hence my reference to a tunnel for part of the trip through the 'burbs, however this tunnel would be supported by the ability to also have Southern highlands, XPT and potentially even Airport to Airport to CBD express trains using it to support the viability and with trains travelling 50 to 100% faster than on the current surface alignment.

The downside for HSR is that a tunnel limits HSR to MSR speeds. To get HSR to the city, fast or slow, more track capacity is needed on the western corridor and by that time the SW corridor and hence a tunnel on the SW corridor would still support HSR in the distant future.
  eddyb Chief Train Controller

Not sure how many other people are like me but I would much prefer to go to China and look at new stuff than the Opera house that cost 14 times what they estimated and is still to small to do the job it was designed for.

Imagine if they had built something useful.

PS. Shane have a drive along the M7 because that is where all the action will be in the future.
  apw5910 Chief Commissioner

Location: Location: Location.
Not sure how many other people are like me but I would much prefer to go to China and look at new stuff than the Opera house that cost 14 times what they estimated and is still to small to do the job it was designed for.

Imagine if they had built something useful.
eddyb
Or had followed the original plans and got it right first time instead of swapping and botching the opera theatre and concert hall spaces. But oh no, somebody knew better...
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

Not sure how many other people are like me but I would much prefer to go to China and look at new stuff than the Opera house that cost 14 times what they estimated and is still to small to do the job it was designed for.

Imagine if they had built something useful.

PS. Shane have a drive along the M7 because that is where all the action will be in the future.
eddyb
What is there to look at in China aside from smog.

As for the M7 what action aside from industrial and housing estates is there to look at.
  Nightfire Minister for Railways

Location: Gippsland
They found out during the Olympic Gams that the Sydney Olympic Aquatic Centre was a much better venue to play opera, than the Opera House !
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

I tend to agree, there are plenty of examples of cities where the CBD is not geographically centric, in fact most seaside cities are not. Perth, Hobart, Brisbane are all similar, as is Vancouver, New York, Dubai, Abu Dhabi.... Many older land locked European cities yes because they are built on a river and the city grew during an era when most people walked.

As Sim also said, the bulk of the tourist icons are in the city or easily reached from the city and while the bridge, Centre point, Opera House and harbour is there, little will change. I am travelling back to Sydney in March and showing my kids around and we are staying in the Sydney CBD, not Paramatta. Is the west the current industrial hub, yes, but the commercial, education, legal, tourist and political hub is the Sydney CBD.

If and when HSR is built its still quite plausible the station will be in the west because as I and others have pointed out numerous times, there are huge costs to get to the city efficently. During the discussion on CBR MSR there were comments that the CBR MSR could use the existing suburban lines up to the city, however this would effectively kill the concept as it would crawl along at the same speed as the expresses go, slowing for poorly aligned points and curves, hence my reference to a tunnel for part of the trip through the 'burbs, however this tunnel would be supported by the ability to also have Southern highlands, XPT and potentially even Airport to Airport to CBD express trains using it to support the viability and with trains travelling 50 to 100% faster than on the current surface alignment.

The downside for HSR is that a tunnel limits HSR to MSR speeds. To get HSR to the city, fast or slow, more track capacity is needed on the western corridor and by that time the SW corridor and hence a tunnel on the SW corridor would still support HSR in the distant future.
RTT_Rules

The expresses do not crawl along this line and travel at a similar speed to msr services and there are only a few of them in any case. The expresses, SHL and nsw trainlink services are actually quite quick along the east hills line because since the quadding to revesby they have there own track essentially as only the track was quadded and not the stations. Revesby is the only station with 4 platforms.

Most of the slowness comes from Sydney yard to Sydenham which once then Bankstown goes metro will solve most of this issue and from glenfield to macarthur where shl and trainlink services do get stuck behind stopping local services. With the overbridges for the swrl built there would be no points for a msr to negotiate if quadded all the way to macarthur from glenfield.
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

If and when HSR is built its still quite plausible the station will be in the west because as I and others have pointed out numerous times, there are huge costs to get to the city efficently. During the discussion on CBR MSR there were comments that the CBR MSR could use the existing suburban lines up to the city, however this would effectively kill the concept as it would crawl along at the same speed as the expresses go, slowing for poorly aligned points and curves,
The expresses do not crawl along this line and travel at a similar speed to msr services and there are only a few of them in any case. The expresses, SHL and nsw trainlink services are actually quite quick along the east hills line because since the quadding to revesby they have there own track essentially as only the track was quadded and not the stations. Revesby is the only station with 4 platforms.
simstrain

I obviously agree with Simstrain here.  Part of the route is already quaded.  And as argued before, I think there is merit in MSR stopping at the airport anyway.  Wolli Ck to Central is en effect quadded already, and most Metro there will be "express" surface tracks.  There are low speed points on this route, but not many.

Any MSR delays due to traffic are between Campbelltown and Glenfield.  Even with the current track arrangements scheduled overtakes can still occur at Glenfield (which are admittedly problematic).

The DOWN sequencing I would envisage:


1. Cambo Express via Sydenham
2. Cambo via Airport (uses local tracks to Revesby, probably stops Riverwood and/or Kingsgrove)
3. Reveseby via Airport Stopper
4. Leppington Express via Sydenham
5. CBR/Highlands MSR
... Repeat every 10 min

The CBR train runs via the airport, and has a smaller doors and a longer dwell.  It skip stops Mascot, Green Square, Wolli Ck to catch the local train ahead of it, then switches to the express tracks, ahead of train 4.  It then passes 2 and 3 by/at Revesby, then catches and passes 1 at Glenfield.  It then has clear air until it catches train 2 from the previous pattern, probably not until after Campbelltown anyway.

MSR is not going to be a full 10 min frequency, nor is the Cumberland line, so they alternate timetable slots between Glenfield and Cambelltown.

I think a scheduled overtake at Glenfield is potentially problematic because it needs synchronised gaps in the main south via Liverpool timetable.  My suggestion is to triple Glenfield - Macquarie fields, allowing this overtake to occur after Glenfield while the tin can stops at Macquarie Fields.
  PDCL Chief Train Controller

Did you allow for all that extra land acquisition cost (let alone all the community angst associated with land acquisition) in your $25 billion?  Who foots the bill for all the other infrastructure that's required for the very, very significant increase in population in those two centres?  Typically a good chunk of that would come back to the proponent - i.e. it also needs to be on top of your $25 billion for the rail.  Similarly, unless you are talking $300,000 on an unimproved basis (in which case your prices are a lot higher than current values in those towns), who foots the bill for the houses that these extra people are going to live in (or the shops and offices that are also incorporated into the development)?  

"Value capture" certainly should have a role to play in the funding of a system, particularly around station precincts (and beyond value capture, if a decision was made to proceed with this sort of system I think additional land taxes for properties in towns serviced by the route are the sort of things that could help with funding), but at the scale you are talking this strikes me as a case of the tail wagging the dog.
donttellmywife

To the first point yes, the Phase 2 report put the Sydney Canberra full up and running cost at a round $18 billion, in 2012 dollars.  A few years of inflation brings you to $19.something billion leaving $5 and a bit billion for additional paddock acquisition and other ancillary works.

In terms of infrastructure, you are diverting growth explicitly from Sydney, so whom ever is paying for the next Leppington (I believe this is a combination of State Govt, Local Govt, and estate developer) would be using those same funds in Moss Vale or Goulburn. While the numbers are certainly significant in terms of the existing population in these two centres, they're not at all grandiose terms of Sydney and the State's expansion, which is really what I'm talking about. With a bit of sensible and compact city design there actually isn't much you would need in terms of major infrastructure beyond what already exists.

I would have thought from the $300k per house/unit, pretty clearly indicated these are physical buildings I'm proposing to sell not 86,000 plots of unimproved land, also $300k is (again I thought obviously) your post construction average take home, if you want 100% cost recovery, the actual sale price would be higher...then again I don't think I ever actually suggested that, I suggested you could get something that resembles a viable project, so a 100% cost recovery price point isn't necessary. I realise this also implies that the State (or even Federal) Govt would have to be the "estate developer", which is necessary to an extent because of the scale of borrowings for the whole scheme, but there's no reason this couldn't be effectively subcontracted to one of the usual suspects

NIMBYism is I agree a potential issue, but then again, the government (of both major persuasions) has shown itself to be more than willing to raise it's middle finger to such complaints when if comes to increasing density around train services, not to mention fairly adept at deflecting the political heat. The new comers will pretty quickly outweigh any dissent in anycase, plus the new services that become available will also likely swing quite a few old timers. The trick will be to largely preserve the old town as is, while connecting it well to the new, which again, vaguely sensible design will achieve this.

As I final point, I suppose I should probably point out that this wouldn't really work with an MSR scheme, the Goulburn to Sydney and Moss Vale to Canberra journey segments realistically need to be kept within a 1hr maximum. At a rough guess this would mean you need to get your train to at least 250km/h I would think, if not a bit quicker, baring in mind that the 40~50km tunnel from central lets you run at a maximum of 200km/h.
  PDCL Chief Train Controller

If and when HSR is built its still quite plausible the station will be in the west because as I and others have pointed out numerous times, there are huge costs to get to the city efficently. During the discussion on CBR MSR there were comments that the CBR MSR could use the existing suburban lines up to the city, however this would effectively kill the concept as it would crawl along at the same speed as the expresses go, slowing for poorly aligned points and curves,
The expresses do not crawl along this line and travel at a similar speed to msr services and there are only a few of them in any case. The expresses, SHL and nsw trainlink services are actually quite quick along the east hills line because since the quadding to revesby they have there own track essentially as only the track was quadded and not the stations. Revesby is the only station with 4 platforms.

I obviously agree with Simstrain here.  Part of the route is already quaded.  And as argued before, I think there is merit in MSR stopping at the airport anyway.  Wolli Ck to Central is en effect quadded already, and most Metro there will be "express" surface tracks.  There are low speed points on this route, but not many.

Any MSR delays due to traffic are between Campbelltown and Glenfield.  Even with the current track arrangements scheduled overtakes can still occur at Glenfield (which are admittedly problematic).

The DOWN sequencing I would envisage:


1. Cambo Express via Sydenham
2. Cambo via Airport (uses local tracks to Revesby, probably stops Riverwood and/or Kingsgrove)
3. Reveseby via Airport Stopper
4. Leppington Express via Sydenham
5. CBR/Highlands MSR
... Repeat every 10 min

The CBR train runs via the airport, and has a smaller doors and a longer dwell.  It skip stops Mascot, Green Square, Wolli Ck to catch the local train ahead of it, then switches to the express tracks, ahead of train 4.  It then passes 2 and 3 by/at Revesby, then catches and passes 1 at Glenfield.  It then has clear air until it catches train 2 from the previous pattern, probably not until after Campbelltown anyway.

MSR is not going to be a full 10 min frequency, nor is the Cumberland line, so they alternate timetable slots between Glenfield and Cambelltown.

I think a scheduled overtake at Glenfield is potentially problematic because it needs synchronised gaps in the main south via Liverpool timetable.  My suggestion is to triple Glenfield - Macquarie fields, allowing this overtake to occur after Glenfield while the tin can stops at Macquarie Fields.
djf01

I tend to agree Sims and DJF on this one, if you table things sensibly the current infrastructure could be used quite effectively. Depending on the hardware you're using you could possibly get very quick transits out on the east hills line, the line is already posted at 160 in places, its not unreasonable that a tilt train could push even harder, in any case a Central to Campbelltown journey of 20 minutes should not be considered an unreasonable target.

Potential pitfalls
1)The government has looked at pushing 20 tph down the airport which would close out the option of threading an intercity through. However even if you just use the Sillywarra there is the aforementioned set of points between Erko and Illawarra Junction that need installation otherwise tabling a quick run to Tempe shouldn't be too challenging. Maybe some tidying up work, as mentioned by others, on the entrance to Sydney Yard so you don't have to crawl, not massively expensive.
2)While I like the idea of a bi-di triplication Glenfield to Mac Fields to add second overtake, I think this is potentially a very risky maneuver given the state of our signalling systems and prone to reliability issues. Rather than wide scale signal replacement, maybe a quad (possibly extending slightly further) would be a cheaper option?
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

PDCL would quading to ingleburn be a good start. There would seem to be enough spare space and should provide the gap for overtakes.  Campbelltown and Macarthur need an upgrade so that through running trains aren't interfering with terminating trains like what is currently the case at these 2 stations.
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

While I like the idea of a bi-di triplication Glenfield to Mac Fields to add second overtake, I think this is potentially a very risky maneuver given the state of our signalling systems and prone to reliability issues. Rather than wide scale signal replacement, maybe a quad (possibly extending slightly further) would be a cheaper option?
PDCL

Any serious MSR project will/should include in-cab signalling.  

BTW whatever happened to the ATP project recommended from the Waterfall crash inquiry?

The main reason I suggest a triple vs a quad is the SSFL would need to be relocated.  OTT IMHO.
  PDCL Chief Train Controller

PDCL would quading to ingleburn be a good start. There would seem to be enough spare space and should provide the gap for overtakes.  Campbelltown and Macarthur need an upgrade so that through running trains aren't interfering with terminating trains like what is currently the case at these 2 stations.
simstrain

Absolutely, that's essentially what I was thinking.

I also agree with a Mac/Cambo upgrade, however as Glenfield logically becomes the more important junction it may be worth just skipping Campbelltown altogether.

The other thing to think of longer term is integration with the SSFL, maybe putting a couple of platforms off the through tracks of the SSFL at Macarthur to facilitate a highlands service stopping and an intercity roaring past it. I would hazard a guess that the best place to organise something like this would be around the Minto intermodal terminal. Have a dive/flyover that gives access to the Intercity pax/freight network without conflicting with the suburbans at all.

EDIT: Here's a rough sketch of what I'm talking about.

  PDCL Chief Train Controller

While I like the idea of a bi-di triplication Glenfield to Mac Fields to add second overtake, I think this is potentially a very risky maneuver given the state of our signalling systems and prone to reliability issues. Rather than wide scale signal replacement, maybe a quad (possibly extending slightly further) would be a cheaper option?

Any serious MSR project will/should include in-cab signalling.  

BTW whatever happened to the ATP project recommended from the Waterfall crash inquiry?

The main reason I suggest a triple vs a quad is the SSFL would need to be relocated.  OTT IMHO.
djf01

Agreed, however within Sydney that may not be the case...mostly because it wouldn't really be necessary at the likely speeds.

No idea on ATP, last I heard anything about it I think they had finished testing and returned the test units to revenue service. Don't quote me on that, I could be way off the mark. What I do know of the signalling is there are different systems running in different areas and that causes more than a few head aches.

I agree in principle with your idea on the triple, I'm just not sure you will necessarily get the value for money due to other constraints. Again, more playing devils advocate rather than stating gospel.

Sponsored advertisement

Display from:   

Quick Reply

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