NSW Gov funding for services post-Bankstown Metro Opening

 
  s3_gunzel Not a gunzel developer

Location: Western Sydney, AU
Well, @s3_gunzel has come back to try and shut me down again? Not this time mother.... Where are my manners? I left them the moment you made this comment.
AheadMatthewawsome
Thought we could apply some logic, Matthew. I must have been wrong, I apologise - I thought that you would be logical about all of this and I was wrong. You’re letting emotion get in the way of having a discussion based on the facts, and you’re not being objective.

Before I start... I understand why you are thinking that it's self centred. It's because these things that your all talking about would affect my life.
AheadMatthewawsome
Cry me a river, you’re not the only one it would affect. Places change, things move around.

First, IT'S A FREAKING JOKE! DO YOU SERIOUSLY THINK THAT YOU'LL COME AND KNOCK DOWN MY HOUSE LIKE THE EMPORER OF PERSIA?! Just like Paul Keeting said, "You gotta be joking!"
AheadMatthewawsome
Compulsory acquisition? Anyone? Anyone at all?

Next, Did you know that Turramurra is my local station. The staff know me, I know them. I get my Hot Chocolate at Cafe Oasis. Then I catch either the Bus or Train to wherever I need to go. That can be for Work, School, Train Spotting, Exercise, going to the Airport for a funeral, and seeing the Attractions of Sydney.
AheadMatthewawsome
Could have guessed, didn’t need to.

Turramurra has 4 stands. Which serve routes 571, 572, 573, 575, 576T, 577, and 577P. And serves School Buses for 6 High Schools. 2 Primary Schools, which is rare in Sydney. And numerous private School Buses and Charters. This is way more than say Gordon. And serves over half of the buses in Region 12!
AheadMatthewawsome
River, tears. Again, bus stops (which *is* what Turramurra is, even with 4 stands) can be moved, and routes re-aligned. It is not difficult.

Next, There is a whole project called the Highline is doing exactly this. And has quite a lot of support from the locals. I acknowledge my affiliation with Luna Park Sydney. Because one of you would have a go at me for not saying it. I seem to never get anything right with you lot. And your not helping it, Gunzel!
AheadMatthewawsome
If you didn’t act like the media throwing about sensationalism, this would not be an issue, but alas, here you are, throwing around sensationalism in the name of “ThIs MiGhT AfFeCt My LiFe”.

What is your affiliation with them, Matthew? Are you a member, or do you do something of use?

Lots of you have been talking about rebuilding the tracks on the Eastern Side of the Harbour Bridge. This would require for the Cahill Expressway to close. This is a fantastic opportunity to reuse the strip. The Expressway has been hated since it was built. Even by Clover Moore. She said that "The Cahill Expressway coast off Sydney Harbour". So, you ARE closing down a major road then!
AheadMatthewawsome
No, it would not. It would reduce the lane count. You don’t need to close a main arterial to re-build two tracks where they shouldn’t have been removed in the first place. We don’t listen to the Lord Mayor of Sydney as they have no control over state assets. Which is what roads are. State assets.

Grammar is not where I shine, it really helps for there to be a spell checker on my devices. So it's completely unesseseary to shut me down about it.
AheadMatthewawsome
Not your grammar, teaching you the right term. I don’t care what grammar you use.

Sponsored advertisement

  AheadMatthewawsome Junior Train Controller

Location: Opening Train Lines
Oh, my, lord. I thought so too! But I can’t do that with someone who hates on everything that people say. Because that isn’t compatible. This is what happens every, time. There is actually quite a few things that I agree here! Like curve easing, relocating Mount Kuring-gai station, relocating the sidings to St Leonards, and the additional tracks at North Sydney. Can’t you find something nice to say about any of this?

I am obviously not gonna say where my house is. I just don’t want you all deciding that this plan is the best. And consequently, it’s my house! Can’t you see that some of the (not all) of the things that are said are a bit exaggerated for comedic effect? Or maybe the King Of The Word gave me too many bath salts. (That sentence before is an example.)

It may not be as big as Mt Druitt. But it’s a major interchange for the community. If you look af a map, it’s a terminal. Compared to other nearby terminals like Chatswood, Gordon, Hornsby, and Macquarie Centre. It’s a terminal.

You are not responsible for acquisitions. That is the responsibility of the NSW Government. That’s why I said “you’ll”, rather than “the NSW Government”.

I have been an ‘Honorary Team Member’ of Luna Park for almost 4 years. If you think I’m telling a fib. Contact them!

Clover Moore has responsibility for the local roads in the City of Sydney Council. But, yes. The A, B, and M class roads are the responsibility of the Roads and Maritime Service. In the past few years. All the toll roads have been transferred  to Transurban. Which is a private company. I have quite a strong opinion on privatisation of Toll Roads. Because it hasn’t worked well in Sydney. But I won’t talk about it today. This is just her opinion. One that lots of people in the City agree with. If you have the Council agreeing with you idea. It will make it easier to happen.

I won’t worry about the last thing you said. It’s the most respectful thing you’ve said! Thanks for clarifying.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
"But don't expect more tracks beyond St Leonards. There's just simply not enough space. The rest have been taken up."
From the bridge about 500m or so north of the station this is very much true and personally I don't see the need for it as there is nowhere south of the bridge or even on the bridge for this extra traffic.

Transtopic was correct in that there should be a move to a consistent stopping pattern with two exceptions, Berwora and CC via shore. Both of these can operate limited express using Gordon and the proposed tunnel St L to Nth Syd. Both of which I would not expect more than 2 trains per hour from each.

So on that basis,
- CC arrives at Hornsby (2 per hour), its 6min behind the previous service, it runs express to Chatswood,
- 8 intermediate stops, saves about 3-4min, so its caching up to the all stopper in front.
- After the CC leaves both Hornsby and Gordon a all stopper follows enabling around 3min separation.
- CC would skip Artarmon and stop St L and then Nth Sydney, skip Milisons Point.
- The all stopper infront of the CC would take the long way via W&W and then fall behind the CC at Nth Sydney by 3min and then the train from Gordon and then one followed from Hornsby.

For Berowra trains (2 x hour), I'd express from Hornsby to Gordon and then all stop from there and also by-pass W&W.

just off the top of m head, may need some tweaking.

Agree that there needs to be a lift of track speed on straight track and that some island stations need to be alerted to improve the express speed past the station.  70 - 80km/h through the platform and 100 - 120 km/h on the long straights is not unreasonable.





  Transtopic Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney
"But don't expect more tracks beyond St Leonards. There's just simply not enough space. The rest have been taken up."
From the bridge about 500m or so north of the station this is very much true and personally I don't see the need for it as there is nowhere south of the bridge or even on the bridge for this extra traffic.

Transtopic was correct in that there should be a move to a consistent stopping pattern with two exceptions, Berwora and CC via shore. Both of these can operate limited express using Gordon and the proposed tunnel St L to Nth Syd. Both of which I would not expect more than 2 trains per hour from each.

So on that basis,
- CC arrives at Hornsby (2 per hour), its 6min behind the previous service, it runs express to Chatswood,
- 8 intermediate stops, saves about 3-4min, so its caching up to the all stopper in front.
- After the CC leaves both Hornsby and Gordon a all stopper follows enabling around 3min separation.
- CC would skip Artarmon and stop St L and then Nth Sydney, skip Milisons Point.
- The all stopper infront of the CC would take the long way via W&W and then fall behind the CC at Nth Sydney by 3min and then the train from Gordon and then one followed from Hornsby.

For Berowra trains (2 x hour), I'd express from Hornsby to Gordon and then all stop from there and also by-pass W&W.

just off the top of m head, may need some tweaking.

Agree that there needs to be a lift of track speed on straight track and that some island stations need to be alerted to improve the express speed past the station.  70 - 80km/h through the platform and 100 - 120 km/h on the long straights is not unreasonable.




RTT_Rules
I still think that there is some uncertainty whether the CC services via the NSL will continue when the D sets come on stream.  There is clearly an intention to run all Intercity peak hour services in 10 car sets with the initial order boosted to make up the 55x10 car sets from 77x4 car and 34x6 car sets including 1x4 car spare set.  As discussed earlier, it's debatable whether they would run 10 car sets on the NSL through the city underground.  It's almost certain that the D sets won't run in an 8 car configuration.  It will be 4, 6 or 10 car sets, with the smaller consists only running off-peak.  If the CC via NSL are diverted via the Northern Line to Central, then it would free up capacity on the NSL to run more semi-express Berowra services interleaving with an all stations pattern from Hornsby.  As there won't be the same need for the higher frequency on the NSL from Chatswood after the metro is extended, that could also allow the Berowra services to skip Wollstonecraft and Waverton, as the ECRL once did.

From my analysis of the timetables, the current all stations service from Berowra to Central via the NSL takes 65 mins and the semi-express takes 55 mins.  If a permanent semi-express service from Berowra to Central via the Northern Line were to take place, it would take 60 mins.  The current CC Intercity service from Hornsby to Central via the NSL (all stations from Chatswood) takes 48 mins and express via the Northern Line 36 mins.

With the proposed signalling upgrade, all journey times could potentially be reduced by at least 5 minutes just to bring them back to the previous times before the timetable was slowed down in 2005 to improve on-time running.  A total saving of 10 mins per journey is not out of the question.
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

Agree that there needs to be a lift of track speed on straight track and that some island stations need to be alerted to improve the express speed past the station.  70 - 80km/h through the platform and 100 - 120 km/h on the long straights is not unreasonable.
I still think that there is some uncertainty whether the CC services via the NSL will continue when the D sets come on stream.
...
With the proposed signalling upgrade, all journey times could potentially be reduced by at least 5 minutes just to bring them back to the previous times before the timetable was slowed down in 2005 to improve on-time running.  
...
A total saving of 10 mins per journey is not out of the question.
Transtopic

I completely agree.  I think mixed stopping patterns on the NSL (post full D set deployment) to provide a faster service to Berowa are as likely as mixed stopping patterns to improve the service to Tallawong.

I remain unconvinced signalling alone will allow much faster transit times (at least not 10min worth).  The whole line is engineered for a 60kph top speed, as that's all that's required for single stopping pattern service, and given the other traffic it's all that's possible even with skip stopping.  Visual signal placement and separation in the limiting factor for speed in only a few locations including the Blues Point bends (I hate trying to spell those other little station's names).  

@RTT_Rules
The cynic in me suggests the current TfNSE administration, and their (over) emphasis on $/trip KPI, have every reason to encourage NSL PAX north of Chatswood to transfer to the Metro, and a faster HR service - even if implemented for free using magic fairy dust, will hurt their KPIs.  $s might be the same, but the Trip/$ KPI drops if the same journey of the same distance can be completed with one service rather than two.

I like the concept of those tunnels, but pricing their construction cost is too difficult IMHO, unless the TBMs are brought in.  In which case there is a high overhead and $/km makes little sense for such a short distance.  In Nth Sydney, $500m wouldn't buy back enough real estate for the requisite work site.

I sparked this whole debate by suggesting the NSL corridor is where I would amplify.  But I want to leave you all with a thought.

IMHO the second biggest problem with the network (behind inadequate CBD paths for HR) is the sextup between Strathfield and Redfern.  The below rail hardware is segregated by class (short, medium and long haul).  Above rail operations are segregated by geography.  Concord West gets an (infrequent) express service, Leppington and Liverpool get the milk run.  The way to fix this is with amplification, and IMHO as I've argues before, this is needed to realise any meaningful benefit of other amplifications further west.  Either get the local off T2, or build another express path for interurbans, the latter being an East West amplification for a mostly North South service.

So here is how I'd like you to think of NSL amplification:
It's *not* an amplification of the NSLs for the benefit of the NSL (in fact it introduces the problems most other lines have to the NSL).  It's an amplification of Strathfield-Redfern, with a 20km shortcut thrown in for good measure.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
St Leonards station area and alignment towards the tunnel has amble area for tunnel construction base.

Would it be with a TBM? Not sure, 2km in Sydney sandstone is not exactly a big task, I suspect it would be with drill method.
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

That north sydney to st leonards tunnel is only a proposal on this forum RTT. There is nothing official that I know of. I don't disagree with transtopic's post that all CCN will be sent via strathfield. My suggestion for third platforms is only if the CCN residents want a direct connection to chatswood and some CCN services are required to be run along the north shore.
  Myrtone Chief Commissioner

Location: North Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria
This conversion may mean that commuters who currently get a seat, maybe working on laptops, doing reading or just relaxing might now need to stand and not be able to use laptops, read books or relax. And luggage limits might well be tighter than on the double decker trains. It is also being pushed by the same government that also has the WestConnex on its corporate agenda.
The first section was originally planned as an extension of the existing suburban network apparently under a Labor government, something New South Wales hasn't had since 2011 and Labor is generally better public transport wise. That line was complete and all extensions are being done under a liberal premier.

Also not sold on unstaffed trains.
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

This conversion may mean that commuters who currently get a seat, maybe working on laptops, doing reading or just relaxing might now need to stand and not be able to use laptops, read books or relax. And luggage limits might well be tighter than on the double decker trains. It is also being pushed by the same government that also has the WestConnex on its corporate agenda.
The first section was originally planned as an extension of the existing suburban network apparently under a Labor government, something New South Wales hasn't had since 2011 and Labor is generally better public transport wise. That line was complete and all extensions are being done under a liberal premier.

Also not sold on unstaffed trains.
Myrtone
There is going to be more frequency to overcome this and the trains are supposed to be expanded to 8 cars. But the main thing is that the metro will be 10 minutes faster to/from Bankstown for the all stops service then the current T3 train.
  Myrtone Chief Commissioner

Location: North Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria
The other thing is that reducing loading gauge is a step down when looking to increase capacity. More frequency is possible even with double decker trains with improved signaling.

Once again, metro originally evolved to solve a problem in older cities that were heavily developed before the railways when mainline railway services (steam hauled in those days) had to terminate on the edge. Metro was the only way to get people into the centres of these cities.

Since metro-type rail needs most peak period passengers to stand to make it work, it might not be right for a city able to avoid the problem metro was originally designed to solve.

Even the metros in cities like Paris and London are largely confined to the older parts of these cities. Newer parts of these cities are served by heavy suburban/regional rail which in Paris are accessible to double decker trains. Double decker multiple unit trains were pioneered in Sydney are being increasingly deployed on the busiest heavy rail systems where they fit the loading gauge.
  Transtopic Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney
The other thing is that reducing loading gauge is a step down when looking to increase capacity. More frequency is possible even with double decker trains with improved signaling.

Once again, metro originally evolved to solve a problem in older cities that were heavily developed before the railways when mainline railway services (steam hauled in those days) had to terminate on the edge. Metro was the only way to get people into the centres of these cities.

Since metro-type rail needs most peak period passengers to stand to make it work, it might not be right for a city able to avoid the problem metro was originally designed to solve.

Even the metros in cities like Paris and London are largely confined to the older parts of these cities. Newer parts of these cities are served by heavy suburban/regional rail which in Paris are accessible to double decker trains. Double decker multiple unit trains were pioneered in Sydney are being increasingly deployed on the busiest heavy rail systems where they fit the loading gauge.
Myrtone
Alas, as much as I generally agree with your sentiments, the horse has bolted and there's next to no chance that the conversion of the Bankstown Line will be reversed.  It's now progressed too far.  It's also unlikely that any new stand alone lines will be DD as part of the existing network, other than an extension of the South West Rail Link from Leppington to Bradfield (Aerotropolis).  

Now, even that appears to be somewhat ambiguous, with the latest long term plan showing the SWRL being integrated with the proposed Parramatta to Epping metro via Liverpool and Parramatta (T5 Cumberland Line).  That seems to suggest that the SWRL and the Old South Line will be converted to metro, although it could equally mean that the future Parramatta to Epping metro could be an extension of the existing DD network.  

The future plan still shows the SWRL extension terminating at Bradfield alongside the two metro lines from St Marys and Westmead.  If the intention is to convert the SWRL, then you would think that it would be logical for the Metro West extension (from Westmead) to have a continuous link with the SWRL instead of having two terminating lines plus the through line to Macarthur, which would only require 4 platforms instead of 6.

I don't have anything against new metro lines, where they serve higher density inner city regions, particularly those not currently serviced by rail such as for cross regional travel.  My argument has always been against converting existing lines to metro where it compromises the remainder of the network, which the current project has done with the conversion of the Epping to Chatswood Rail Link and the Bankstown Line.  It's got nothing to do with DD v SD.

Work is already belatedly underway to upgrade the existing network with digital signalling and ATO under the More Trains, More Services Program, which will improve journey times and frequencies.  That could have potentially been done on the Bankstown Line with some track amplification and temporarily terminating the Airport Line at Central to free up extra capacity on the City Circle, pending a future extension into the CBD.  The current metro line now under construction could have extended from Sydenham to Miranda via Sydney Airport International Terminal and Brighton le Sands, which is a corridor not serviced by rail.  That would add far greater value to the broader rail network than converting an existing line, i.e. the Bankstown Line.

Even though the metro is purportedly 10 minutes faster than the existing all stations service and having regard to how the timetable was slowed in 2005 to improve on-time running, the proposed upgrade to other lines if applied, would enable the Bankstown Line to more than match the metro frequency of 15tph, and more, and reduce journey time by at least 5 minutes, which would make it more than competitive with the metro and provide double the number of seats on DD to boot.
  maestro Junior Train Controller

The Mariyung trains have now been approved by the Office of the National Rail Safety Regulator.

Transport for NSW release

Transport for NSW and NSW TrainLink are working through the final arrangements to bring the Mariyung fleet into service as soon as possible. There are currently 16 trains testing on the network, eight of which are ready to progressively enter customer service.
Transport for NSW
  Totoro Locomotive Driver

That’s excellent news. Smile Can’t wait to see these flying past our place.
  AheadMatthewawsome Junior Train Controller

Location: Opening Train Lines
The Mariyung trains have now been approved by the Office of the National Rail Safety Regulator.

Transport for NSW release

Transport for NSW and NSW TrainLink are working through the final arrangements to bring the Mariyung fleet into service as soon as possible. There are currently 16 trains testing on the network, eight of which are ready to progressively enter customer service.
maestro
Is there an exact date of when the first one will be in service?
  s3_gunzel Not a gunzel developer

Location: Western Sydney, AU
Is there an exact date of when the first one will be in service?
AheadMatthewawsome
No, the ONRSR approval is merely a rubber stamp. There's still a few things to be sorted out. Like crewing, for example. ONRSR saying 'This is safe' doesn't mean people will crew it.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
This conversion may mean that commuters who currently get a seat, maybe working on laptops, doing reading or just relaxing might now need to stand and not be able to use laptops, read books or relax. And luggage limits might well be tighter than on the double decker trains. It is also being pushed by the same government that also has the WestConnex on its corporate agenda.
The first section was originally planned as an extension of the existing suburban network apparently under a Labor government, something New South Wales hasn't had since 2011 and Labor is generally better public transport wise. That line was complete and all extensions are being done under a liberal premier.

Also not sold on unstaffed trains.
Myrtone
Why would the luggage limits be changed? Realistically on the DD the only place for luggage is if you are in the end sections. There is no space for luggage on either upper or lower levels and getting your bags to different levels is another issue.

In 2021 and for last 20 years there has been no technical justification to provide a driver and guard on a green field or heavily updated brown field project. Globally most Greenfiled projects are both driver and guardless. The legacy networks of Qld and NSW usually require dual staff trains adding to their operating costs and in Mel they have gone down to one as per Adelaide and Perth which is closer to a global standard.

However this does not mean the trains are staff less as most driverless metro's I've used still have an onboard staff member who's job is to focus on the people as a combination of security, assiatance and occasionally technical support if there is an issue with the train and let the computer drive the train and control the doors.

ALP is no better at building and operating PT vs LNP. This whole ALP is pro PT and LNP is anti-PT is a pile a crap and there is plenty of evidence to demonstrate that over the last 50 years in Australia.

I doubt there are many sitting on a crowded DD using a laptop. You can read books standing, I know many used to do it when I commuted. A Commuter train travelling less than 25 km is hardly the place for a lounge type envronment.  Its very much, get them in, provide some seating for longer run users with expectation most will stand when crowded as the travel time is less than 30min for 25km. The former operation of the Bankstown line was a dogs breakfast, the Metro wil modernise and users will quickly not want the old line back. While building a line to Miranda isn't certainly valid (Transtopic comments), it was never going to happen with this project as the  Bankstown line and city circle needed fixing urgently and the costs of building the line to Miranda exceeded budgetry capacity at the time and even today with other priorities. Miranda is a post 2030 project along with the Inner NW line.    

And your whole 120 year old ideology for Metro design is also very much out of date. The technology and design applied to the NWRL and now Bankstown line is mostly current best practice for building new railways in city and medium suburban areas, especially underground. This project is nothing like the 120 year old lines in Paris.
  Transtopic Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney
The former operation of the Bankstown line was a dogs breakfast, the Metro wil modernise and users will quickly not want the old line back. While building a line to Miranda isn't certainly valid (Transtopic comments), it was never going to happen with this project as the  Bankstown line and city circle needed fixing urgently and the costs of building the line to Miranda exceeded budgetry capacity at the time and even today with other priorities. Miranda is a post 2030 project along with the Inner NW line.    

RTT_Rules
In your words, the operation of the Bankstown Line may be a dog's breakfast, but it didn't have to be converted to metro to modernise it.  

If the current strategy of upgrading the existing Sydney Trains' network with digital signalling and ATO had been applied to the Bankstown Line, the current frequency could be upgraded from 10tph to at least 14tph, taking into account that there are already 2 spare paths available on the City Circle via Museum without the upgrade.  The upgrade to the City Circle will provide an additional 10tph overall. To achieve this frequency, it would have to be an all stations service, which could match the journey time of the metro with the upgrade.  A faster journey time from Liverpool to the CBD via Regents Park, already announced, could also be provided.  

There were also other alternatives to freeing up capacity on the City Circle such as terminating the Airport Line at Central as an interim measure until it was extended into the northern CBD.  I have my doubts whether existing Bankstown Line commuters will consider the metro to be an improvement, when there will be far less seats available, something which the metro protagonists continually downplay.

My suggestion that the CBD metro from Chatswood now under construction should terminate at Sydenham was as an interim measure until an extension to Miranda was warranted and not necessarily as part of the current project.  However, that's academic now as it appears that the Bankstown Line conversion is a fait accompli.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
The former operation of the Bankstown line was a dogs breakfast, the Metro wil modernise and users will quickly not want the old line back. While building a line to Miranda isn't certainly valid (Transtopic comments), it was never going to happen with this project as the  Bankstown line and city circle needed fixing urgently and the costs of building the line to Miranda exceeded budgetry capacity at the time and even today with other priorities. Miranda is a post 2030 project along with the Inner NW line.    

In your words, the operation of the Bankstown Line may be a dog's breakfast, but it didn't have to be converted to metro to modernise it.  

If the current strategy of upgrading the existing Sydney Trains' network with digital signalling and ATO had been applied to the Bankstown Line, the current frequency could be upgraded from 10tph to at least 14tph, taking into account that there are already 2 spare paths available on the City Circle via Museum without the upgrade.  The upgrade to the City Circle will provide an additional 10tph overall. To achieve this frequency, it would have to be an all stations service, which could match the journey time of the metro with the upgrade.  A faster journey time from Liverpool to the CBD via Regents Park, already announced, could also be provided.  

There were also other alternatives to freeing up capacity on the City Circle such as terminating the Airport Line at Central as an interim measure until it was extended into the northern CBD.  I have my doubts whether existing Bankstown Line commuters will consider the metro to be an improvement, when there will be far less seats available, something which the metro protagonists continually downplay.

My suggestion that the CBD metro from Chatswood now under construction should terminate at Sydenham was as an interim measure until an extension to Miranda was warranted and not necessarily as part of the current project.  However, that's academic now as it appears that the Bankstown Line conversion is a fait accompli.
Transtopic
Nah, have to disgaree

- Liverpool to CBD via RP is seperate of the Metro project
- 10 - 14 t/h, yah and then what? Again multiple lines all fighting to access the same tunnels for which will likely all be full even with the most optmistic upgrades by the end of the decade.
- Metro starts at what 12 t/h and capable of growth to 30t/h and with train set lengthing the growth potential is available for another +50 years and all the while completely free of distributions caused by other lines.
- Terminating the airport, aka East Hills line at Central is not a solution, its a stop gap.
- I think Sim's said the all stop Metro would still be 5min or so faster than all stop DD

The Bankstown Metro was loced in as soon as the contract was signed for NWRL. Terminating the Metro at Sydnam is a non solution and up with with Bondi Junction stopping 3-4km short of where people want to go and NWRL not connecting with Richmond line. Finish the job correctly and convert the cluster of an operation Bankstown line to something worthy of the 21st century.

Miranda to Sydnaham is 15km all underground and will cost +$4B vs the $500 m or so what ever they spending on Bankstown. Its also parallels an existing four track line 6 - 7km and only provides new to rail between Kogragh and Miranda. Its really to provide the Cronulla with a alternative means to get to the city via transfer at Miranda with a 2 maybe 3 new to rail stops. Per passenger mile and new passenger collected to rail thats alot of money. The alt would be to Quad from Hurtsvlle to Sutherland for a fraction of the cost and divert some of T8 traffic into the empty slots provided by the Bankstown line.

Considering the numbers standing right now, the hotch potch time table and stopping pattern, a regular consistant stopping pattern, more than likely far less crowded, I'd be surprised if commuter usuage didn't increase faster than recent historic rates. Similar to what was experienced on ECRL.
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

The all stop metro is 10 minutes faster then the all stop DD from Central to Bankstown. It is also 2 minutes faster then the limited stop train. If the metro was extended around the existing T3 it could get to either Lidcombe or Chester Hill before the DD gets to Bankstown.
  Myrtone Chief Commissioner

Location: North Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria
Why would the luggage limits be changed? Realistically on the DD the only place for luggage is if you are in the end sections. There is no space for luggage on either upper or lower levels and getting your bags to different levels is another issue.
RTT_Rules
More passengers per square metre means a smaller luggage size limit.

I doubt there are many sitting on a crowded DD using a laptop. You can read books standing, I know many used to do it when I commuted. A Commuter train travelling less than 25 km is hardly the place for a lounge type envronment.  Its very much, get them in, provide some seating for longer run users with expectation most will stand when crowded as the travel time is less than 30min for 25km. The former operation of the Bankstown line was a dogs breakfast, the Metro wil modernise and users will quickly not want the old line back. While building a line to Miranda isn't certainly valid (Transtopic comments), it was never going to happen with this project as the  Bankstown line and city circle needed fixing urgently and the costs of building the line to Miranda exceeded budgetry capacity at the time and even today with other priorities. Miranda is a post 2030 project along with the Inner NW line.
RTT_Rules
The portion of passengers seated on a double decker is higher because there are more seats, not just the absolute amount but relative to the floor space.

And your whole 120 year old ideology for Metro design is also very much out of date. The technology and design applied to the NWRL and now Bankstown line is mostly current best practice for building new railways in city and medium suburban areas, especially underground. This project is nothing like the 120 year old lines in Paris.
RTT_Rules

It's not an ideology for metro design but urban rail.

The all stop metro is 10 minutes faster then the all stop DD from Central to Bankstown. It is also 2 minutes faster then the limited stop train. If the metro was extended around the existing T3 it could get to either Lidcombe or Chester Hill before the DD gets to Bankstown.
simstrain

But the metro has a frequency of 30 trains per hour, at least at the busiest times. 30 double decker trains per hour is possible with modern signaling as has been done elsewhere in the world.

If double decker multiple units were pioneered in Sydney and are spreading around the world, why should Sydney learn from places that first adopted them later?
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE

More passengers per square metre means a smaller luggage size limit.
Mtytone
And suitcases fit so well where the seats are in a DD?

Reality is the Metro's will be less crowded than the DD as there are more of them and the space of the upper and lower decks is not lost.

The portion of passengers seated on a double decker is higher because there are more seats, not just the absolute amount but relative to the floor space.
Mytone
Its a 10-30min train ride, depending in your destinsation. Seating is not a critical part of PT services that are so short in time. Been there enough myself to know. Rather its an expensive luxury on the taxpayer. If you are going far enough seats will eventually come up due to turnover.

Mytone
It's not an ideology for metro design but urban rail.

The way you talk about it, it is an ideology.

Its a train designed for short to medium haul surburb services on a high frequency cycle designed for modern use, thats it! Nothing more, nothing less.

But the metro has a frequency of 30 trains per hour, at least at the busiest times. 30 double decker trains per hour is possible with modern signaling as has been done elsewhere in the world. If double decker multiple units were pioneered in Sydney and are spreading around the world, why should Sydney learn from places that first adopted them later?
Mytone

30 x DD per hour is a pipe dream of unreliabiity and per the disastor called Paris RER, line C or is it A. The rest do not operate this frequent and their trains have 3 doors per 24m car vs Sydney 2 doors per 20m car hence more efficent and have less seating per linear length of train than Sydney. Yes I've used it.

Is it just me Mytone or is it that the one line that is alsmost copy and past of Sydney in rolling stock design, track curvature, station design/curves and 3min train frequency is the one line you NEVER use as an example????

DD's Spread is a loose term. They are used in a few country's for regional and outer Suburban use. Not as per the Sydney Metro project NWRL to Bankstown line. No, nope, NADA!

DD is designed and works best to provide low frequency services on longer haul mostly surface routes radiating from the city with long distance between stations and then all converge on a busy centre core. Not 2-3min services over a inner to medium suburban commuter network operating on mostly dedicated lines.  Sydney is learning that throwing all your eggs in one basket works until it doesn't and when it doesn't you need to fork out alot of money. The Metro line in Sydney is designed for the next 50 years of growth in mind, not next the next election. Growth is now addressed through making sets longer and operating more frequently withotu compromising the timetable of other lines or introducing ad-hoc tiimetables and stopping patterns.

The Metro now enables more growth on the remaining city circle lines however at some point another service will need to be removed and then we have the disastor called the Inner West conflicting with T3 that will need addressing at some point, as a starter.

Could the Metro have been built as a stand alone DD line, yes, but it would have cost more and basically brought with it early 20th century technology design restrictions. As we have seen OS, often new greenfield projects are technical fenced from existing operations to ensure the newest lines operate with the latest technolgies. Which s exactly what Paris has done.

Other growing issues include the BJ line is becoming a bottle neck for Hurtsville, Cronulla and Waterfall lines.
  Transtopic Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney
The former operation of the Bankstown line was a dogs breakfast, the Metro wil modernise and users will quickly not want the old line back. While building a line to Miranda isn't certainly valid (Transtopic comments), it was never going to happen with this project as the  Bankstown line and city circle needed fixing urgently and the costs of building the line to Miranda exceeded budgetry capacity at the time and even today with other priorities. Miranda is a post 2030 project along with the Inner NW line.    

In your words, the operation of the Bankstown Line may be a dog's breakfast, but it didn't have to be converted to metro to modernise it.  

If the current strategy of upgrading the existing Sydney Trains' network with digital signalling and ATO had been applied to the Bankstown Line, the current frequency could be upgraded from 10tph to at least 14tph, taking into account that there are already 2 spare paths available on the City Circle via Museum without the upgrade.  The upgrade to the City Circle will provide an additional 10tph overall. To achieve this frequency, it would have to be an all stations service, which could match the journey time of the metro with the upgrade.  A faster journey time from Liverpool to the CBD via Regents Park, already announced, could also be provided.  

There were also other alternatives to freeing up capacity on the City Circle such as terminating the Airport Line at Central as an interim measure until it was extended into the northern CBD.  I have my doubts whether existing Bankstown Line commuters will consider the metro to be an improvement, when there will be far less seats available, something which the metro protagonists continually downplay.

My suggestion that the CBD metro from Chatswood now under construction should terminate at Sydenham was as an interim measure until an extension to Miranda was warranted and not necessarily as part of the current project.  However, that's academic now as it appears that the Bankstown Line conversion is a fait accompli.
Nah, have to disgaree
RTT_Rules
And I beg to differ - again!

This is not about comparing DD with SD on a new greenfield line, but more specifically in the case of the Bankstown Line metro conversion, whether it has been adequately justified compared with the alternative of upgrading the existing DD service.  From evidence produced at the recent Legislative Council Inquiry, that does not appear to be the case.  

One of the key findings of the Inquiry was the lack of transparency in arriving at this decision and in particular the reluctance of the government to release the full business case, rather than just a summary, which omitted some of the main financial data to enable a meaningful analysis to be made.

It is noteworthy that according to the Inquiry Report, the Bankstown Line is one of the least busiest lines on the Sydney Trains' network in the morning peak hour, which hardly justifies a metro style service, when alternative options to improve services are available at a far more economical cost. The government also deliberately understates the line capacity of the DD service in comparison with a metro by comparing a moderately loaded DD train with standing room of 2 passengers per sq metre and a crush loaded SD metro with standing room of 4 passengers per sq metre.

I refer you to the link below for the Inquiry Report which includes a dissenting report from the  Liberal and National Party committee members, which is nothing more than a political attack and which doesn't address the Inquiry's concerns.  

Report (nsw.gov.au)

I also attach an appraisal of the Sydney Rail Network metro strategy by John Austen, who is a Transport Economist and a former senior executive with Infrastructure Australia.

https://www.thejadebeagle.com/dogs-breakfast-for-all.html
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
And I beg to differ - again!

This is not about comparing DD with SD on a new greenfield line, but more specifically in the case of the Bankstown Line metro conversion, whether it has been adequately justified compared with the alternative of upgrading the existing DD service.  From evidence produced at the recent Legislative Council Inquiry, that does not appear to be the case.  

One of the key findings of the Inquiry was the lack of transparency in arriving at this decision and in particular the reluctance of the government to release the full business case, rather than just a summary, which omitted some of the main financial data to enable a meaningful analysis to be made.

It is noteworthy that according to the Inquiry Report, the Bankstown Line is one of the least busiest lines on the Sydney Trains' network in the morning peak hour, which hardly justifies a metro style service, when alternative options to improve services are available at a far more economical cost. The government also deliberately understates the line capacity of the DD service in comparison with a metro by comparing a moderately loaded DD train with standing room of 2 passengers per sq metre and a crush loaded SD metro with standing room of 4 passengers per sq metre.

I refer you to the link below for the Inquiry Report which includes a dissenting report from the  Liberal and National Party committee members, which is nothing more than a political attack and which doesn't address the Inquiry's concerns.  

Report (nsw.gov.au)

I also attach an appraisal of the Sydney Rail Network metro strategy by John Austen, who is a Transport Economist and a former senior executive with Infrastructure Australia.

https://www.thejadebeagle.com/dogs-breakfast-for-all.html
Transtopic
If you upgraded the Bankstown Line to the same standard as Metro, how much moeny would actually be saved? The Metro investment into the Banstown line is a complete 21st century transformation, not just abotu changing signally and platform doors.

Passenger numbers comment in the Inquiry report is irrelevent rubbish and written by peopel who don't even read the actual train numbers. There were only three possible brownfield options, Inner West, Bankstown and Hurtsville, however Inner West would have required a complete Greenfield project, so really own two options and we know why the original proposal Hurtsville was dropped.

2018
T1 NSL - 45 m
T1 Main - 47 m
T1 West - 50 m
T2 Inner W - 25 m
T2 Lepping - 33m
T3 Banks - 30 m
T4 All - 70m
T5 Cumberland - 7.5 m
T7 Olypmic - 1.7 m
T8 Airport and SW - 45 m

Clearly Bankstown was the right choice although the numbers below include sections of the Bankstown line that won't be part of the opening phase of the Metro. However a quick peak at older indiviudal stations numbers and around 1/4 to 1/3 of T3 is outside Metro so say 20 m.

The whole T3 actually carries more in any month prior to CV-19 than NW Metro line.

My personal preference would have been a Greenfield UG line to replace the surface Inner West line which would remove 4 - 5 trains per hour off the circle for growth by others + sexup and removal of at grade cross overs north of Sydneham. However this option like Miranda would have added $4B - 5B to the project cost.

The so called signally upgrades to increase the CC capacity to 24 trains per hour is going to be a partial sucess that is aided by the removal of the Bankstown line to reduce complexity. However based on pre CV-19 growth rates, this extra capacity would be exhausted within a decade, where as the Metro project provides a 50 year solution to the Bankstown line and a 15 year solution for the CC congestion. Completing the Bankstown Metro to Liverpool will further extend the benefit to other lines by removing some of the T2 and most of T3 traffic on inner west and to a lessor degree SW services.
  mejhammers1 Chief Commissioner

Location: Banned
The other thing is that reducing loading gauge is a step down when looking to increase capacity. More frequency is possible even with double decker trains with improved signaling.

Once again, metro originally evolved to solve a problem in older cities that were heavily developed before the railways when mainline railway services (steam hauled in those days) had to terminate on the edge. Metro was the only way to get people into the centres of these cities.

Since metro-type rail needs most peak period passengers to stand to make it work, it might not be right for a city able to avoid the problem metro was originally designed to solve.

Even the metros in cities like Paris and London are largely confined to the older parts of these cities. Newer parts of these cities are served by heavy suburban/regional rail which in Paris are accessible to double decker trains. Double decker multiple unit trains were pioneered in Sydney are being increasingly deployed on the busiest heavy rail systems where they fit the loading gauge.
Myrtone
Even the metros in cities like Paris and London are largely confined to the older parts of these cities. Newer parts of these cities are served by heavy suburban/regional rail which in Paris are accessible to double decker trains. Double decker multiple unit trains were pioneered in Sydney are being increasingly deployed on the busiest heavy rail systems where they fit the loading gauge.

As regards to London, what are you talking about? High Barnet and Cockfosters are much newer than Kingston and Bromley. And inner city areas such as Peckham and Camberwell are ancient and they are not served by the tube. It is not about new and old suburbs in London it is about geology. That's why very little of the London Underground was built South of the River.

I do not understand the opposition of Metro for Bankstown. They are going to receive a ton load more services. Trying to solve rail network issues in Sydney is far harder than in Melbourne, where our system is far less complex. I was sceptical at first with Metro but fair play to the NSW Govt. It seems they are getting more bang for their buck for heavy rail than Victoria. Victoria is building a branch line to the Airport that has a budget of $10 Billion. Which will be served by just 6 trains an hour. I hope that most of that money will be used for other projects, or its money down the drain.


Michael
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Even the metros in cities like Paris and London are largely confined to the older parts of these cities. Newer parts of these cities are served by heavy suburban/regional rail which in Paris are accessible to double decker trains. Double decker multiple unit trains were pioneered in Sydney are being increasingly deployed on the busiest heavy rail systems where they fit the loading gauge.
Mytone
Again ideological beliefs on what a Metro "should be"

- Vancouver, Metro, not old City

- Dubai, Metro, not old city

- Singapore, Metro, not old city

- Riyah, Metro (under const), not old city

- Proposed Doha Metro, not old city

- Proposed Paris Line 15,

- Proposed Paris Line 18

...and there are many more new city examples


"Metro's", if there is such a thing, are typically undergound or in some cases elevated usually inner suburban railways built after an area is developed. Sydney is building and in some cases converting sections of existing DD into more modern versions of "Metro's" where stations are spaced much further apart in part due to the cost of building underground stations and also to save running time. Some original lines in Paris have station spacings on average 500m apart. NOONE would do this today with a few rare and minor exceptions.

Likewise Greenfield HR is frequently seeing lower seating ratio's except for longer haul or outer urban / IU commuter services to increase standing room and their stations are being built even further apart as they focus on large scale rail commuter hubs design for more efficent and practical last mile transport and less of foot traffic. ie high volume people numbers per station, large carparks, bike racks, kiss'n'ride drop offs and bus interchanges were bus routes now often run from one station interchange to another.

Sponsored advertisement

Display from: