Running Carlingford line at 30 minute frequency

 
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
The Proposed LR route is close enough to Rosehill it would be ok for this, but I doubt few would use it for this. Racing is no where near as popular as in days gone by and those who go likely drive.

Camelia as a station is a lost cause as it is off to the side of the population catchment and too close to Harris Park which has more frequent services and direct services.

While I disagree with the LR option, LR or back to the heavy rail option Paramatta to North Line, Clyde as a station should be closed with the Carlingford line. Basically a waste of space that benefits few.

Racing is actually quite popular still and so a rail shuttle to Rosehill from Cylde is still possible. It is also possible that the line to Clyde could also be converted to allow light rail to continue doing what rail currently does between Clyde and Carlingford.

Camelia will be extremely important once all that land is converted into high rise apartments. Did you think that area was going to be wasteland for eternity?

What is the point of closing Clyde. The station serves the industrial area to it's immediate north well. The station also provides access to a nearby Sydney trains facilities for staff. It isn't just an interchange line for Carlingford services. Would it also surprise you to know that Clyde is the busiest station on the Carlingford branch. Remember that doesn't count the Carlingford changes since there is no need to tap off at the barrier.
simstrain
I have no idea on how many use the train to Rosehill for racing but the peak hour numbers are less than a mini bus load now, but as you rightly say the redevelopment may see things change, however we can forget 1 stop shuttles. I think QR stopped supporting the races in Qld with special Race day services due to a lack of demand as the Doomben line (which has alot of parallels with the Carlingford Line) has a 1hr service frequency and smaller operating window during the day as Carlingford. The Ropes Creek line closed with similar opportunity and I don't see this changing.  

in 2012 Clyde got 170 on / 290 off in AM peak. Granville is 533 metres away. Duck River basically blocks access east of the station. There is one driveway that crosses nth of railway, but hard to tell if access is allowed via this route, but doesn't look like it. You could improve access from Granville to the light industrial area to the nth of Clyde by building a walkway from end of East street. The few residents on the south of Clyde have straightforward access to Granville via Memorial Dr.

Camilla would need to be moved regardless of the plan. The area has been a industrial zone for 100 years, no I wasn't holding my breath for rapid change. but if it does happen you can justify building a new station under the park (if it was Metro and rebuild Camilla 150m further north to get it off the curve. LR would do same either way.

Sponsored advertisement

  simstrain Chief Commissioner

Yes it is written in stone RTT. The parramatta light rail will include the section to Carlingford. The only thing that will stop it is Labor winning in 2019 and that is unlikely since all that Foley wants to do is cancel projects that are underway or soon to be underway. Basically he is going to do what the previous labor government did.

The only piece of LR project cancelled is the Olympic park and Strathfield section.


Here is the route map.

http://www.parramattalightrail.nsw.gov.au/route-map
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

That driveway across the duck river is where the mtpv vehicles are stored and is nsw trains property and not publicly accessible. Clyde isn't the reason why the western line, main south and inner west have capacity issues. 1-2 trains an hour stopping at Clyde isn't going to hurt the system.

Did you know that Clyde has more passengers in 24 hours then Villawood or Carramar. So what are you trying to achieve in closing clyde?
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Yes it is written in stone RTT. The parramatta light rail will include the section to Carlingford. The only thing that will stop it is Labor winning in 2019 and that is unlikely since all that Foley wants to do is cancel projects that are underway or soon to be underway. Basically he is going to do what the previous labor government did.

The only piece of LR project cancelled is the Olympic park and Strathfield section.


Here is the route map.

http://www.parramattalightrail.nsw.gov.au/route-map
simstrain
Construction is due to start in H1 2018, with the following year a fixed term election year so once started the project will not stop.
Further changes are likely but I wouldn't count on it. The govt won't delay the start as a way to protect the project from ALP interference should they win or at least limit the harm the ALP can do to it.

Overall I don't agree with this project as an alternative to the current railway, especially if not connected to Epping. the Metro option is my view, right or wrong but I think its a mistake. Just expressing why I think it should proceed over the LR and a long term alt to the current timetable issue. Likewise I also disagree with the CSELR over extension of the Bondi Junction line.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Yes it is written in stone RTT. The parramatta light rail will include the section to Carlingford. The only thing that will stop it is Labor winning in 2019 and that is unlikely since all that Foley wants to do is cancel projects that are underway or soon to be underway. Basically he is going to do what the previous labor government did.

The only piece of LR project cancelled is the Olympic park and Strathfield section.


Here is the route map.

http://www.parramattalightrail.nsw.gov.au/route-map
simstrain
Construction is due to start in H1 2018, with the following year a fixed term election year so once started the project will not stop.
Further changes are likely but I wouldn't count on it. The govt won't delay the start as a way to protect the project from ALP interference should they win or at least limit the harm the ALP can do to it.

Overall I don't agree with this project as an alternative to the current railway, especially if not connected to Epping. the Metro option is my view, right or wrong but I think its a mistake. Just expressing why I think it should proceed over the LR and a long term alt to the current timetable issue. Likewise I also disagree with the CSELR over extension of the Bondi Junction line.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
That driveway across the duck river is where the mtpv vehicles are stored and is nsw trains property and not publicly accessible. Clyde isn't the reason why the western line, main south and inner west have capacity issues. 1-2 trains an hour stopping at Clyde isn't going to hurt the system.

Did you know that Clyde has more passengers in 24 hours then Villawood or Carramar. So what are you trying to achieve in closing clyde?
simstrain

For the south side, the locals have Granville at or less than 530m away, which is less than a reasonable distance alternative.

North side yes no so clear.

My issue isn't Clyde so much, its the cost of the network. Sydney trains operates with an excessive subsidy and its expansion is constrained by the subsidy. With each upgrade to the network, steps should be taken to find ways to reduce the operating cost. With Granville literally 3 train lengths away platform to platform, opportunity needs to be found to use it and close Clyde once the LR goes in and even these passengers are diverted away from this lightly used by very large station. Remember the cost of having trains stop/start all day long, wear and tear, energy, lighting, maintenance, cleaning etc. The fares from this station each year probably don't even cover the power bill. The actual timetable benefit wasn't even as consideration as its buggerall.  

Its a 12min walk station to station but a simple pedestrian overpass could cut this down a few minutes.

Villawood and Carramar like other stations on the network could probably be reviewed, but I'll leave that to another thread.

Again just my observation.
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

If labor wins foley has said he will tear everything the libs have done up and this will mean that NSW labor will lose in 2019. There is no prospect in which Labor wins in 2019 because regardless of some of the liberals issues on certain things done by mike baird. Gladys is looking to fix those up and continue building in NSW.
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

Don't worry about the wear and tear on the trains and waratah trains have regenerative braking so no big cost deal. Closing Clyde isn't going to fix costs and in any case it doesn't matter that the trains are only recovering 21% because without that 1 million passengers a day using our train system the city wouldn't function. The problem with costs could easily be fixed by going to 4 car trains in the off peak period. Instead we have 8 car waratahs running at night time and off peak periods.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Don't worry about the wear and tear on the trains and waratah trains have regenerative braking so no big cost deal. Closing Clyde isn't going to fix costs and in any case it doesn't matter that the trains are only recovering 21% because without that 1 million passengers a day using our train system the city wouldn't function. The problem with costs could easily be fixed by going to 4 car trains in the off peak period. Instead we have 8 car waratahs running at night time and off peak periods.
simstrain
There is no one thing driving the large subsidy. But there is an endless list of things that are and you point out running around at night with a 350t train mostly empty is one of them. So is stopping at stations that few or no body uses, the cost of running that station is probably a minimum of few $100kpa. Regen braking only gets about 50% at best. You still have wear and tear.

1m people may use it everyday, but 5m are paying for it and many don't like paying for something they don't use, yes 5m benefit in way or form but many don't see this and form part of the road lobby. The easiest way to improve the network and add new lines and by-passes of bad alignment is to find ways to reduce the longterm operating cost in every capital project, basically Sydney Trains to gradually keep doing more with less or more with what they have, ie more trains per track, more people per train, more people per station etc,dilute the fixed costs amongst more passengers. If you do this over time, you slowly walk out the built in high cost and progressively bring down the subsidy from 79% which is ridiculous for the number of people it moves and the fare price. This reduces the politics and influence by those who don't use it and makes expansion easier.

As I said above, closing Clyde as part of this project would be something that should be considered or investigated and as you mentioned there are others worse than Clyde and each one of those is probably worth a thread on this topic for that reason.
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

Only 1-2 trains an hour stop at clyde just like carramar, villawood and leightonfield and so that is hardly the issue. If every train was stopping I would have a problem but 1-2 an hour is not a big issue. The main reason why Sydney is only getting 21% recovery is because the system hasn't expanded like it should have. The system should be moving much more then 1 million passengers a day but because of the way the system is it can not achieve this.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Only 1-2 trains an hour stop at clyde just like carramar, villawood and leightonfield and so that is hardly the issue. If every train was stopping I would have a problem but 1-2 an hour is not a big issue. The main reason why Sydney is only getting 21% recovery is because the system hasn't expanded like it should have. The system should be moving much more then 1 million passengers a day but because of the way the system is it can not achieve this.
simstrain
The number of trains stopping at the station is one cost. But another cost is having lightly or rarely used infrastructure burning power, maintenance, compulsory upgrades for security and safety etc etc. What do you think the power bill is for a station with 3 island platforms?

However I do agree that the more stations the network has the more useful it is to use, but highly doubt further expansion of the network is unlikely to boost the number of many of these lightly used stations because of the very limited number of people who would use it regardless of how big the network was or wasn't. ie limited local residential population and/or limited employment options. If the station is well spaced from others, then I think it longterm future is secure. However if there is another station within 750m, or in this case less than 550m, you need to have a review.

Leightonfield is similar. will Villawood 750m away and the bus that parallels the railways doesn't even have a stop between. Again need to review who uses it and why and how would closure impact on these people. For example you might find that some people go to it over Villawood but are close to the halfway point so closure has no impact on them.

With Cararamar, its typical for a station close to another line. While its roughly 1.5km from Villawood, Fairfield, Canley Vale and the large green space means that its catchment is always going to be limited. Is closure a worthy consideration, who knows?

As I said before, the costs that drive Sydney trains to a 79% subsidy is a series of costs, not just 1 or 2 things. Station optmisation needs to be considered, among other things which includes removing bottle necks in track capacity.
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

Villawood and Carramar's catchment numbers are down because of the city via regents park services being reduced to only 3 a day and nearby persons heading to fairfield instead. Clyde doesn't use that much power and is pretty much unmanned as it is. An array of solar panels on the roof of the 3 platform buildings would not only provide enough power for the lights at night at Clyde but would also generate enough electricity to power Granville's lights and other electricity needs. Granville also has enough roof space to have it's own solar panels to generate a significant amount of electricity as well.

My point in regards to expansion was not in reference to existing stations but items like extending the ESR towards Randwick and Maroubra. The new metro will significantly add to rail numbers in Sydney. Adding the 2 extra tracks between Strathfield and Lidcombe would allow a re introduction of liverpool via regents park services.
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

My main point I suppose is that instead of reducing service levels that other ways to make money need to be looked at instead.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
My main point I suppose is that instead of reducing service levels that other ways to make money need to be looked at instead.
simstrain
Villawood and Carramar's catchment numbers are down because of the city via regents park services being reduced to only 3 a day and nearby persons heading to fairfield instead. Clyde doesn't use that much power and is pretty much unmanned as it is. An array of solar panels on the roof of the 3 platform buildings would not only provide enough power for the lights at night at Clyde but would also generate enough electricity to power Granville's lights and other electricity needs. Granville also has enough roof space to have it's own solar panels to generate a significant amount of electricity as well. My point in regards to expansion was not in reference to existing stations but items like extending the ESR towards Randwick and Maroubra. The new metro will significantly add to rail numbers in Sydney. Adding the 2 extra tracks between Strathfield and Lidcombe would allow a re introduction of liverpool via regents park services.
and again
There are a couple of things here

Services Carramar/Villawood to Central is faster via Main South, Liverpool to City via main south and west line is 49/54min depending on service and as you say nearly twice as frequent. Via Bankstown, its 58min. So coupled with reduced frequency of 3/hr, the average travel time spills over 1hr easily and hence you would naturally be included to walk/ride/drive to the Main South stations. Also less of a stop/start ride.

I think we agree the Bankstown Metro will and needs to be extended to Liverpool via the more direct route due west of Bankstown and operate with likely a 5-10min time saving over going via Granville. This will may see people headed south to Liverpool from their nearest station in this catchment.

For me once the Metro is extended to Liverpool, the trains from Liverpool travel via Granville and Regents parks, alternating. Birrong and Yagonna would then close as its not practical to service them using Heavy Rail anymore and the numbers don't justify it and there will be more frequent options on 1-2km away north or south on either line.

.......

Station Power Consumption, remember that Sydney Trains is a very large user of power and hence would get a significant bulk buyer discount over what you or I pay and hence the cost effectiveness of solar power for station lighting would likely be questionable at today's prices. Additionally despite having amble roof space, it is still an industrial setting and hence installation costs are significantly higher than your average house. I also dare say if it was cost effective, they would be doing it on mass. Even Adelaide Trains hasn't resorted to this yet. But I'm sure the time will come for both.

......

Sydney Trains operates as you say with a 78% subsidy. If you look it up this is one of the worst in the developed world and for me not sustainable and the rest of the country's suburban services is no better. I previously thought Sydney was around 65-70%, with Brisbane the worst at 80%. Brisbane is similar in usage as Perth, but a physically much larger network and hence higher costs and built in inefficiency.

Back to Sydney, its likely that in Peak Sydney Trains (Suburban) is likely at break even or even better. So increasing peak fares significantly isn't resolving the problem of where it bleeds money. But how to bring the subsidy down? Note I said down not remove. The target should be 50%.

Like any business you cut costs and/or increase sales. The problem for Sydney trains is that its strangled by the city core. You can barely add more trains in AM peak to the place people want to go and there will more than likely be spillage onto road and other modes because of the excessive congestion on some of the trains. The Inner west and Bankstown lines are a classic. Crowded trains running running between 40% and 60% of the track capacity of a pair of tracks. The Metro will resolve Bankstown, but not the Inner west unless the timetable is changed. However this can only result in slower trips from beyond Homebush.

For the outgoings, need to look at fixed costs, and that is simply maintaining infrastructure that is underused for the cost of keeping it. These days its painting, cleaning, safety systems, help points, lighting, DAA access etc etc. Not every underused station can or should be cut, but when there is another one within a 10min walk near by, questions need to be asked. Having a 350t train stop to pick up a hand full if you are lucky people is never going to be economic.  

Bad alignment that eats up train time, driver users onto other modes and drives higher costs is another pet hate. South Coast and the Wollestoncraft/Waverston bends are two of my icons of grossly outdated track alignment that does not belong in the 21st century.
......

Underuse of rail or competition with other modes that are also subsidised is also stupid waste of money, as you said extension of the ESR to the SE over the CSELR. . Also extension of the ESR to Bondi, BJ station is I think 6th busiest on the network, yet most of the people spill out onto a bus to complete their journey in the same direction, Greater Bondi!!! Extend the train 2 or 3 stops and most of those buses and their impact on local roads would vaporise. The existing ESR can accommodate another 10,000-12,000 users per hour in AM peak and no extra cost. You don't even need to run one more train, the seats are there now due to an unbalanced load from the south, just extend the line and add the extra trains that are required to extend existing services.  

The worst part is the local council for Bondi propose to connect LR from Bondi to BJ and on to the city!!! WTF. Yet for likely the same price you can extend the ESR adding 3 new stops over 4km, Bondi, Bondi Beach and North Bondi with anywhere near the intrusiveness of digging up Old Head Road where the LR will be lucky to hit speeds of 40km/hr. Plus the ESR still has the potential to complete Woollahra at the fraction of the cost of a new station. All this alone is likely to dump an extra 5000 a day onto the ESR and the benefit drive up off peak and reserve flow peak numbers to the popular Bondi Beach.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_rail_in_Sydney#Bondi

........

City to West Metro appears to be certainty if the Libs retain govt beyond 2019 and this combined with Bankstown Metro will resolve the issues on this corridor. ALP may also support it as well with their own spin (ie not use automated Metro, use a DD, should they win. For me the line should start at St James, Pitt Street, Central, Syd Uni, Straithfield, Paramatta and Westmead. Simple dedicated stand alone service up and back.  

.........

Back to Clyde, once the Carlingford line is closed, its future needs to be seriously looked into and start with interviewing each one of the users.
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

Here is the thing RTT. Not everybody along this line is heading into central. Lots of trips were just made to go 1-4 stops and with the lack of regents park services to get from say sefton to homebush it now takes 3 changes of trains and is about 30 minutes longer. First you have to go to birrong, then change to a lidcombe service, then change for a service to strathfield before catching a train back to homebush. This is a trip that used to take only 5 stops and about 10 minutes which now takes 40 minutes. Oh and it affects western and main south line trains because guess what trains people have to catch when they get off the train at Lidcombe.

Adding the extra track pairs opens up opportunities to increase services to 24-28 tph through the core on both the city circle and across the bridge.
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

We are starting to get off topic. The Carlingford line runs to a 40 minute frequency in peak times at the moment and 60 minutes at other times of the day. Once the parramatta light rail construction is started the line will mostly be converted to light rail. Nothing has been mentioned as of yet about the line from clyde to rose hill post conversion.
  arctic Deputy Commissioner

Location: Zurich
As a former 19 year resident of Rydalmere and former user of the line in its current form, I say that a 30min frequency would be better but not as good as the 7.5min frequency the LR will provide. Also a lot of (perhaps a majority) of all local trips - all modes- are not to the Sydney CBD but to Parramatta which is the local CBD, so the alignment of LR to Parramatta is also good - those going to the Sydney CBD will have anyhow better connections at Parramatta. A metro would be better and extension to Epping a must for LR but I would not torpedo the current proposal to go back to the "what if" stage and yet more navel gazing.

Also LR can be just as quick as HR in a separate reservation which most of the line will be. The concern and question here is the NSW mentality of running everything slowly will be applied.

What I really would have preferred is that NSW Labor had kept its word years ago and built the entire flippen Parramatta to Chatswood link!
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
As a former 19 year resident of Rydalmere and former user of the line in its current form, I say that a 30min frequency would be better but not as good as the 7.5min frequency the LR will provide. Also a lot of (perhaps a majority) of all local trips - all modes- are not to the Sydney CBD but to Parramatta which is the local CBD, so the alignment of LR to Parramatta is also good - those going to the Sydney CBD will have anyhow better connections at Parramatta. A metro would be better and extension to Epping a must for LR but I would not torpedo the current proposal to go back to the "what if" stage and yet more navel gazing.

Also LR can be just as quick as HR in a separate reservation which most of the line will be. The concern and question here is the NSW mentality of running everything slowly will be applied.

What I really would have preferred is that NSW Labor had kept its word years ago and built the entire flippen Parramatta to Chatswood link!
arctic
It would actually be interesting to see the study by the govt on where the people actually want to go, rather than guessing.

However I also agree, the opportunity not to extend the Epping - Chatswood Railway is I think something Sydney will live to regret even if the numbers didn't stack up at the time, it will soon enough.

And again the opportunity to not build a Metro extension is also something Sydney will live to regret. This link just seems so natural when you look at the Geographic layout of Sydney. Connecting the Metro to the Richmond line is also a natural (again stopping 2-3km from the HR line, but not a replacement for Epping - Chatswood. And one final 2-3km gap is Bondi Jnct to Bondi, but thats for another thread. (why do we do this to ourselves over and over)

And again the opportunity to not build the LR the "RIGHT" way and connect it with Epping or Eastwood is also something that will be written off as a mistake and need a later project to fix, but as Epping is only 2-3km from Carlingford, JUST DO IT at the same time. As soon as the leg to Olympic park was cut, this should have been extended.
  Jim_telopea Beginner

As a former 19 year resident of Rydalmere and former user of the line in its current form, I say that a 30min frequency would be better but not as good as the 7.5min frequency the LR will provide. Also a lot of (perhaps a majority) of all local trips - all modes- are not to the Sydney CBD but to Parramatta which is the local CBD, so the alignment of LR to Parramatta is also good - those going to the Sydney CBD will have anyhow better connections at Parramatta. A metro would be better and extension to Epping a must for LR but I would not torpedo the current proposal to go back to the "what if" stage and yet more navel gazing.

Also LR can be just as quick as HR in a separate reservation which most of the line will be. The concern and question here is the NSW mentality of running everything slowly will be applied.

What I really would have preferred is that NSW Labor had kept its word years ago and built the entire flippen Parramatta to Chatswood link!
arctic
Hi Artic,

The point is they can make this 30 minutes now. I will be very surprised if they ever build the light rail camillia to carlingford section, I fully expect it to be cancelled if they decide to go ahead with Metro West. Much better would be Metro extension Epping through to new Metro west.

I actually asked TFNSW about their plans and they replied:

"
We’re investing more than $1.5 billion over the next three years on the More Trains, More Services program which will boost capacity through hundreds of extra services, better infrastructure and new trains for Sydney.



We know that our customers’ needs are changing and acknowledge that more services on weekdays and on weekends are needed to meet demand into the future.



Improvements to weekday services on the T6 Carlingford Line are being considered.



We are still finalising the full program of work and will ensure the community are kept up to date as the program progresses.  



We will use feedback from our stakeholders and customers to make improvements to the program where possible. All feedback will also be considered as part of future planning to improve services on Sydney’s rail network.


Should you require more information about the More Trains, More Services program, please visit http://www.transport.nsw.gov.au, call 131 500 or email us again at moretrainsmoreservices@transport.nsw.gov.au"

Doesn;t say much, but there are directly looking at it at least!

cheers,

James
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

Why would they cancel the light rail if metro west goes ahead Jim. Metro west makes the light rail more viable, not less viable and between Epping and Parramatta there is already a bus service. The light rail will most likely get extended to Epping but since that needs signifcant capital work the conversion of the carlingford line is a great start.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Why would they cancel the light rail if metro west goes ahead Jim. Metro west makes the light rail more viable, not less viable and between Epping and Parramatta there is already a bus service. The light rail will most likely get extended to Epping but since that needs signifcant capital work the conversion of the carlingford line is a great start.
simstrain
Rail is generally the preferred and faster mode of transport across a developed city, what ever the numbers on the bus now, you can easily double it by just building a railway line. If it wasn't true the govt of the world would be building busways, not railways. Busways such as the O-bahn were deemed the cheaper future pathway in the past, however this has proven to be the general failure it was also going to be.

In a few years time, the missing link between the North and West will be recognized.

The conversion of the Carlingford line from HR to LR is going to be the cheapest rail based project in $/km in the Greater Sydney Area the govt will undertake. Adding another 3km especially after the cancellation of the Olympic park extension is a must.
  Transtopic Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney
Just jumping in here, I doubt if extension of the light rail from Carlingford to Epping will ever happen.  There have been frequent comments at public meetings by TfNSW representatives and by the Minister himself, that such an extension presents significant engineering and costs challenges, which suggests to me it's just too hard, without major tunnelling.  If tunnelling is to be considered, then they might as well build it as a metro, which I wouldn't disagree with.  However, connecting it to the new metro line at Epping would cause considerable disruption to that service once it is operating, so that's also unlikely to happen.

The recently exhibited Epping Planning Review made no mention of any potential light rail extension from Carlingford and current road works in the Town Centre have no provision to accommodate it. It's dead, buried and cremated.  The only option to connect a future Parramatta light rail link to Macquarie Park would be to resurrect Parramatta Council's original preferred route from Dundas on the Carlingford Line via Kissing Point Rd and the Eastwood County Road reservation.  It's more direct and faster.  It would complement the light rail conversion to Carlingford Station and also create a major new strategic transport corridor in conjunction with the County Road upgrade between Parramatta and the Northern Suburbs.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
While I agree that the Metro could easily spilt services from Chatswood to both Paramatta and NW, aa you said the project is going ahead without this option and a 2nd retrofit downtime of this corridor in as many years won't be tolerated by the public.

However, the alternative and more practical option now is to simply build an addition platform at Epping. A metro from Paramatta only needs one terminating platform, but two improve reliability.

Keeping tge two lines seperate is also more aligned wirh clearways strategy to prevent flow on disruptions, should it occut.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Oh yes seperate platforms is also a good starating point for a future line to Top Ryde and follow Victoria Rd to the city.
  Transtopic Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney
Oh yes seperate platforms is also a good starating point for a future line to Top Ryde and follow Victoria Rd to the city.
RTT_Rules
Yes, that is a possibility. The original North West Metro proposed by the previous Labor Government did not connect directly with the Epping to Chatswood Rail Link underground platforms, which remained as part of the existing network, but had separate underground metro platforms on the opposite side of Beecroft Rd (between Beecroft Rd and Rawson St) with an interconnecting pedestrian link to the existing station.

A potential metro link as an extension of the original North West Metro from the CBD along the Victoria Rd corridor through Top Ryde and Eastwood, from Epping to Carlingford and Parramatta, utilising the Carlingford Line, would make sense, but if the light rail conversion of the Carlingford Line proceeds, which appears likely, then that option is effectively cut off.

However, it could also open up the possibility of instead extending a metro link from the CBD via the Victoria Rd corridor from Epping to Carlingford (to interchange with the light rail line) through to North Rocks and Baulkham Hills, which is badly served by high capacity public transport.

Sponsored advertisement

Subscribers: RTT_Rules, Transtopic

Display from:   

Quick Reply

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