Frequency is important, but for those of us who work long hours every day, the single most important consideration is to spend as little time commuting as possible. Hopefully the timetable wizards will keep that in mind..
Not sure where this metro comparison has arisen from. Sure, metro does some things better than Sydney Trains, but the dwells are longer with ST simply because the trains have greater capacity per unit length and therefore have more passengers per train movement.
The comparison is because we have both types of trains now and the difference between them is observable.We won't have a proper comparison until the city section of the metro opens. I'm picking Victoria Cross northbound in the PM to have the worst dwell on the system.
To meet the frequency of 24tph it is going to require dwells that DD's are just not capable of in the Sydney underground.
60 years of operation show that DD's take longer to dwell and signalling isn't the issue.
I'm not sure what you mean by operating marginThe headway is governed by (1) dwell time at the busiest station, (2) the minimum safe operating distance or time between trains and (3) an operating margin to allow for late running and avoid a cascading delay. Last I heard, the operating margin was set at 60 seconds, although this was mentioned in conversation so I'm not 100% certain if this is still accurate.
(sort of off topic) I've heard news that the Port Kembla branch will be closing for passengers in 2026? Is this true?Sounds like a foamer rumour. Haven't heard anything to suggest it is true. Would also be a pain for the railway given how many trains they stable at Port every night.
SCO services would continue on the Local to Sydney Terminal.Agreed that South Coast Line (unrelated, but why is the South Coast Line SCO and not SCL?) should terminate at Sydney Terminal, it's an intercity service and logically should terminate at the intercity platforms instead of continuing down the Eastern Suburbs line and having the seats will with suburban passengers.
Departing Wolli Creek, trains would be timetabled at 150 second intervals. The trains not stopping at Tempe will make up 30 seconds to Sydenham. At Sydenham, trains would depart in pairs 120 seconds apart, with 180 seconds between pairs. The leading train would run express to Erskineville. The second train would slow down to stop at St Peters, using up that 30 second advantage it had (plus 30s dwell), so by the time it reaches the ESR turnout, it is once again 150 seconds behind the train in front.Are you suggesting one train stop at Erskeville and the other stop at St Peters, this would create a situation where one needs to catch two trains to go one stop, yes one-stop passengers are rare, but stopping patterns like this lead to a confusing and complicated network.
(sort of off topic) I've heard news that the Port Kembla branch will be closing for passengers in 2026? Is this true? Also, what will happen for the local Wollongong services then? Will they disappear like in Newcastle?The Port Kembla Branch has every low patronage but there is potential to extend it through Warrawong, Windang, and Shellharbour City Centre and link back to the main line and create a very useful local service, closing the line for passengers would be a waste of this potential.
Agreed that South Coast Line (unrelated, but why is the South Coast Line SCO and not SCL?) should terminate at Sydney Terminal, it's an intercity service and logically should terminate at the intercity platforms instead of continuing down the Eastern Suburbs line and having the seats will with suburban passengers.In answer to your query about the acronym for the South Coast Line, all of the Intercity line acronyms are based on their destinations without including 'Line', i.e. SCO, CCN, BMT and SHL. I agree that it is sensible for all Intercity services to terminate at Sydney Terminal. It remains to be seen whether peak CC services via the North Shore Line will continue as they will likely be 10 car D-sets once they become operational.
Only one big problem with using the local though, how would the train stop at Wolli Creek? that station should it definitely one of the poorest designed stations on the network, it should had had extra surface platforms and Platforms 1/2 should have been an island with a direct lift to the surface platforms (with the concourse as an intermediate), as it stands Wolli Creek is a station with the most stairs, slowest lifts, and tightest connections.
But unfortunately it is too much of an important station to skip for SCO services, being an interchange for the T8 and the airport, SCO trains should also stop at Sydenham for interchange to Bankstown/Liverpool, and the metro, and for that matter, NOT stop at Redfern due to close proximity to Central, and maybe consider not stopping at Hurstville.
I'm not suggesting that this should occur all day. It would only be during the peak hours and only in the peak direction, when there would be a train every 2.5mins. Anyone on the 'wrong' train can step back onto the following service at Sydenham.Departing Wolli Creek, trains would be timetabled at 150 second intervals. The trains not stopping at Tempe will make up 30 seconds to Sydenham. At Sydenham, trains would depart in pairs 120 seconds apart, with 180 seconds between pairs. The leading train would run express to Erskineville. The second train would slow down to stop at St Peters, using up that 30 second advantage it had (plus 30s dwell), so by the time it reaches the ESR turnout, it is once again 150 seconds behind the train in front.Are you suggesting one train stop at Erskeville and the other stop at St Peters, this would create a situation where one needs to catch two trains to go one stop, yes one-stop passengers are rare, but stopping patterns like this lead to a confusing and complicated network.
It's bad enough we have trains that terminate at Homebush, but at least it's not like pre-2017 where a Homebush resident would need to catch 2 trains to go 1 stop to Flemington Markets.
Double decker multiple units were pioneered on the Sydney suburban back in the 1960s and these are spreading around the world, being increasingly ordered for the busiest non-metro passenger heavy rail lines with a large enough loading gauge. Greater capacity and passenger comfort are given as the reasons.Double decker trains are great for longer distance commutes with fewer stops, but for shorter trips, single decker metro style trains really can’t be beat in terms of getting people on/off quickly and efficiently. The nominal (pre-COVID) experience of being seated on a Sydney DD in peak hour was one of having to climb over two other seats, then pushing your way up/down the stairs and out of a crowded vestibule packed tighter than a clown car. I.e. not great. It would be downright scary were it to be replicated in COVID times. The comfort of sitting down just doesn’t add up against those other problems.
One of those is the Paris R.E.R where 30 double decker trains are run per hour.
Double decker trains are great for longer distance commutes with fewer stops...Sydney is low density and commutes within the metropolitan area can be quite long. Think of all the trains running to and from the outer suburbs that run express in the inner suburbs.
The faster we convert all of the suburban Sydney trains services to single decker Metro, the better imo.All suburban services?
So what are buses doing on the M2 tollway?I think 607X and 610X won't be going anywhere. Other than their terminus connections at Bella Vista / Castle Hill, they serve entirely different catchments to the metro. That being said, there could be a strong case for diverting these buses to Macquarie Centre and Macquarie Park full-time, with a peak-hours-only extension into the city via Lane Cove Tunnel.
The faster we convert all of the suburban Sydney trains services to single decker Metro, the better imo.Double deck allows more passengers per train movement. This enables a mix of fast and slow services on the same track pair (e.g. West Local between Granville and Redfern). If there is less capacity per train movement, you need to run more trains. By way of example, the inner west ('T2') all stops trains might need to run every 10mins instead of every 15mins if a conversion to single deck was made. However, this wouldn't give the express 'T2' trains ex Leppington enough of a gap to run express between the all stops trains.
The faster we convert all of the suburban Sydney trains services to single decker Metro, the better imo.
IMO there isn't a single DD train line in Sydney that could be converted to metro without some sort of problem or large expense.Very true. The new metro lines have already compromised Sydney Trains' services by taking over the Epping to Chatswood Rail Link, the Bankstown Line and the new cross harbour link which was meant to allow for an increase in services on T3 and T8 as well as the Northern Line, North West Rail Link and a possible future Northern Beaches Railway.
The T4 would probably be the best candidate, but it honestly doesn't need it. As a T4 commuter, I can honestly say things are fine the way they are, and the work needed to upgrade the line to metro (quad tracking to separate freight and the SCO) would not be worth the minuscule improvements on what is Sydney's most efficient train line. The T4 will have the capacity it needs after the express and local tracks are switched and when the ETCS goes in.
Metro works best in Sydney on lines which target high density areas, and only high density areas. The Parramatta line is a great example of this. The western airport line... not so much. Metro has the potential to be something great, but sadly politics gets in the way far too much, and we get left with projects like the Bankstown metro, which gives high capacity to Sydney's least used major line. They're not even converting the full line, introducing yet another shuttle service. Putting metro on a suburban line isn't a good idea.
The Bankstown Line conversion and its linking with the new cross harbour tunnel cuts off any option for additional Sydney Trains' services, such as for T8, as they will not be compatible. The Bankstown Line metro is unlikely to ever warrant more than 15tph, so half the capacity of the new cross harbour link from the south is wasted, unless there is a change of heart about branching of metro lines.The Bankstown Line conversion was purely political (in a move that completely failed due to the Covid response against the South-East and the seeming lack of one against the Eastern Suburbs. There is a lot of resentment in the South). Sure, it helps by removing the T3 from the City Circle. That's a great benefit, but a benefit that doesn't mean anything until the T2 has its express and local services segregated like the T8 does between Wolli Creek and Revesby. If they truly wanted to fix things they'd be investing in quad track between Redfern to Lidcombe, Cabramatta to Liverpool. This would allow two main stopping patterns much like the T8 has: All stops to Liverpool via Regents Park, Limited stops to Leppington via Granville. Until this happens, T2 capacity won't increase much, because its biggest limitation is sharing tracks with itself, not sharing tracks with the T3. It's also worth noting that the Govt's failure to extend the metro by only two stops means that there will also be a new shuttle service competing with the T2 between Regents Park and Lidcombe, although I'm sure it could be timetabled to have negligible impact.
Turning to T4, the merging of the Hurstville all stoppers and Cronulla/Waterfall semi-express services will deliver up to 24tph between Wolli Creek and Bondi Junction, which is probably more than a single metro line would provide. If you converted the Main to metro from Hurstville to Bondi Junction, then where do the Cronulla/Waterfall services go? What benefit would there be in conversion? I'd suggest none.
No, there's no place for further metro conversions as compromises have to be made as demonstrated with the Bankstown Line conversion. Better to stick with building new fully segregated metro lines to areas not currently serviced by rail.
Oh hell no! Sydney suburban is far too big for that. Rouse Hill to the city by metro is pushing the levels of discomfort people are willing to take. I live out that way and only take the metro when I'm in a hurry. I'd rather spend the extra 20 minutes or so and drive to Riverstone.I agree with the first part about ST not being converted but definitely not about the metro being uncomfortable. It's seats are no less comfortable then a waratah train. It's average speed is 20km/h faster then ST and so the comfort thing is actually in the metro's favour since the journey is shorter with that service.
Having said that, the metro is awesome and we need more of it, it just sucks for anything over 30 mins.
The metro is not less comfortable because the seats are less comfortable but because there are fewer of them, so fewer people get a seat.
The metro is not less comfortable because the seats are less comfortable but because there are fewer of them, so fewer people get a seat.I am from Victoria and I do not understand the opposition to Sydney Metro. It is better than anything the Victorian Government is hoping to do. I can understand the reservations of converting the Bankstown line to Metro. I can also understand why the NSW Government is doing so.