The Disconnected Mess of Sydney Metro

 
  scadam Locomotive Driver

It would easily be feasible for the line to go Wynyard > St James > Central > Green Square before heading South-East.
alleve
St James won't be possible with the Metro West alignment through the CBD. The stub tunnels will be a little too far east
https://majorprojects.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/prweb/PRRestService/mp/01/getContent?AttachRef=SSI-19238057%2120211027T225340.744%20GMT

I'm also of the opinion that we shouldn't call Hunter Street 'Wynyard'. Despite it being in the locale, it's an entirely separate station. If you're a tourist or a first-time user, it would be a bit misleading to name Hunter Street as 'Wynyard', since this would imply a direct interchange with the existing station. It will in fact be equidistant with the new City & Southwest platforms at Martin Place.

Sponsored advertisement

  Transtopic Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney
A scenario which explains my viewpoint:

Let's assume that 24 trains per hour can be run on the express pattern from Blacktown on the mains all the way (Seven Hills, Westmead, Parramatta, Strathfield, Redfern, etc). This would include trains ex BMT, ex Penrith, ex St Marys and ex Richmond. In this mock scenario, the mains from the west would feed the new City Relief Line. BMT all the way to Wynyard since the City Relief platforms would be 10-cars long.

4 trains ex Central Coast via Strathfield could be squeezed in onto the main into Sydney Terminal, providing that the inbound platform at Strathfield remains separate from the main west inbound platform, and the City Relief line diverges from the mains before reaching Redfern surface platforms (therefore no station dwells to worry about between Strathfield and Redfern). 30 tph is well within the capabilities of the new in-cab signalling if this layout is applied.

This leaves a combined 48 train paths to the Shore and City Outer, which could be made up of any number of patterns, but here's a quick example...

Suburbans:
4 tph ex Blacktown - all stops to Burwood, Ashfield, Redfern, to Shore (plus 4tph Cumberland line ex Blacktown)
8 tph ex Leppington / Liverpool via Granville - all stops to Burwood, Ashfield, Redfern, to Shore
4 tph ex Liverpool via Regents Park - all stops to Burwood, Ashfield, Redfern, to Shore
4 tph ex Hornsby - limited stops to Burwood, Ashfield, Redfern, to Shore
4 tph ex Epping - all to Burwood, Ashfield, Redfern, to Shore

Locals:
4 tph ex Parramatta - all stops to City Outer (you'd probably need a new siding west of Parramatta for this to work)
4 tph ex Liverpool via Regents Park - all stops to City Outer
4 tph ex Homebush - all stops to City Outer
4 tph ex Ashfield - all stops to City Outer
(also to City Outer) 8 tph Sundries ex East Hills via Sydenham (e.g. future SWRL extension to Airport, express trains to City)

This is a dramatic service increase without any additional tracks between Homebush and Granville. There would be plenty more space on inner west trains because the longer-distance trains will run express from Burwood to Redfern. Yes I am aware that this example would mash together the Shore and City Circle into a single sector - but with the City Relief added there would still be 3 sectors, with Strathfield, Parramatta and Blacktown still being covered by 2 separate sectors. The direct North Sydney service, being just slightly slower than the express trains on the mains, would also get less overwhelmed by commuters at Strathfield trying to get to Town Hall and Wynyard.

Hence my opinion that City Relief should come before Homebush to Granville 6 tracks. If there really is enough demand to warrant 3 track pairs through Granville, then my suggestion would be try building the previously discussed Bankstown to Liverpool metro extension, since this might divert at least some of the traffic away from Strathfield. Diverting Leppington trains via East Hills could help with this too.
scadam
I like your suggested service pattern scadam and you've obviously put a lot of thought into it, particularly with the single patterns on the Main, Suburban and Locals from Strathfield to the CBD.  Including Ashfield on the semi-express Suburbans is also a good idea.  However, I'm still concerned about some aspects in that it doesn't allow much room for expanding Liverpool via Granville, Bankstown via Lidcombe, Hornsby/Epping via Strathfield or CCN and BMT Intercity services.  While it could certainly work as an interim solution, I think that it would still be preferable to complete the Homebush-Granville sextup before a City Relief Line.  It would be a lot cheaper, without any station infrastructure, compared with the City Relief Line which would require up to 4 new underground stations.  In the intervening period, the Main services could be run into Sydney Terminal until the City Relief Line is built.  

The STAR (Sydney Terminal Area Reconfiguration) project will provide an additional track pair into the terminating platforms with the slewing of the current Suburban tracks from the Main through Redfern 3 & 4 into the yard throat.  All other lines through Redfern (Platforms 5 to 10) will be similarly slewed in parallel to ensure that the existing paths to the Central Suburban platforms are maintained.  With up to 24tph on the Main combined with up to 6tph from the Illawarra Dive for SCO Intercity services, the additional track pair into the terminal should be able to cope.  If the single track pair terminating at Bondi Junction will be able to handle 24tph, then Sydney Terminal with two track pairs feeding into it with 14 platforms should be able to handle 30tph or more. In the longer term, an extension of the sextup with a new express tunnel, providing 4 track pairs between Strathfield and Central, should link directly with a City Relief Line.
  alleve Junior Train Controller

Location: T4 Illawarra Line
"St James won't be possible with the Metro West alignment through the CBD. The stub tunnels will be a little too far east"
That's an interesting document, I didn't realise the stub tunnels were so long. Perhaps Museum could be a solution instead, although it could be tough connecting the concourse

As for Central, there's could be space for new metro platforms next to the NWRL ones, or even over east of the ESR platforms, deep under Chalmers street
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
It would easily be feasible for the line to go Wynyard > St James > Central > Green Square before heading South-East.
St James won't be possible with the Metro West alignment through the CBD. The stub tunnels will be a little too far east
https://majorprojects.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/prweb/PRRestService/mp/01/getContent?AttachRef=SSI-19238057%2120211027T225340.744%20GMT

I'm also of the opinion that we shouldn't call Hunter Street 'Wynyard'. Despite it being in the locale, it's an entirely separate station. If you're a tourist or a first-time user, it would be a bit misleading to name Hunter Street as 'Wynyard', since this would imply a direct interchange with the existing station. It will in fact be equidistant with the new City & Southwest platforms at Martin Place.
scadam
I think its more likely SE line would look like

Darlinghurst
East Central
Waterloo to interchange with Metro
Green Square
Beaconsfield
East Lakes
MJ.
11km from Hunter Street to terminus

No car parks of course, just UG stations. Its a short run in a reasonable density area, so you can safely space stations 1.5 km apart.  

I very much doubt it would be run to La Perouse, this is where bringing the tram Kingsford tram down through the old ROW (cheap) to Little Bay area when the tram can act as a feeder to the SE line as well as Central station / city.
  Transtopic Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney
It would easily be feasible for the line to go Wynyard > St James > Central > Green Square before heading South-East.
St James won't be possible with the Metro West alignment through the CBD. The stub tunnels will be a little too far east
https://majorprojects.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/prweb/PRRestService/mp/01/getContent?AttachRef=SSI-19238057%2120211027T225340.744%20GMT

scadam
I agree.  They seem to be more orientated towards Taylor Square or thereabouts, or even possibly Whitlam Square, which would allow a more gradual curve back to Central.  Looking at it from the perspective of future SE metro commuters, it won't exactly be convenient unless it goes via Central.  

It would have been better if Metro West followed the alignment through the CBD of the defunct North West Metro, which had stations under Margaret St adjoining Wynyard, Martin Place and St James, between Market and Park Sts under Hyde Park.  There was provision for the line to continue to the south towards Central.  This would also have been far more convenient for SE commuters. However, the current CBD Metro may have nipped that in the bud.
  scadam Locomotive Driver

However, I'm still concerned about some aspects in that it doesn't allow much room for expanding Liverpool via Granville, Bankstown via Lidcombe, Hornsby/Epping via Strathfield or CCN and BMT Intercity services.  While it could certainly work as an interim solution, I think that it would still be preferable to complete the Homebush-Granville sextup before a City Relief Line.  It would be a lot cheaper, without any station infrastructure, compared with the City Relief Line which would require up to 4 new underground stations.  In the intervening period, the Main services could be run into Sydney Terminal until the City Relief Line is built.
Transtopic
I will preface this (long) reply by saying that I'm enjoying this discussion. Obviously this future network stuff is a bit imaginative, but I still think it's fun to discuss.

- BMT and CCN don't need any service increase for a very long time. Even without covid, the trains were only so full because they are used as de-facto express services for busy suburban stations (Blacktown & Penrith for BMT, Epping & Hornsby for CCN). If crowding continues to be a problem, then an express suburban train should be scheduled just in front of the Intercity train to sweep up all of the suburban passengers.

- Bankstown via Lidcombe. I'd opt for a new direct Parramatta to Bankstown service rather than the old all stops to City Circle via Strathfield. It could be scheduled to precede or follow an express train to/from the City to make an easy change for Yagoona and Birrong passengers. This way we don't have an almost empty service taking up a valuable train path between Lidcombe and Strathfield on the suburban. A flyover from the Up Main South into Lidcombe 4 could be built to avoid crossing conflicts, with Lidcombe 5 converted into a through track and becoming the down suburban platform.

- Hornsby/Epping via Strathfield, see below.

The mathematics still aren't working for me if we're talking about City Relief Line versus Homebush-Granville 6-tracks. If there are only two track pairs (a theoretical 48 train paths per hour) through the CBD from the west, then why do we need to provide three track pairs (a theoretical 72 train paths per hour) between Homebush and Granville? If the trains are scheduled appropriately then there are plenty of paths available to move huge amounts of people with the current track layout.

3 track pairs between Redfern and Strathfield are enough to move about 100,000 people per hour if fully utilised. I just don't think any more tracks are needed here. The demand for train paths through Strathfield is a function of the lines that feed it, rather than raw passenger demand on the corridor itself. The main offenders here are the Liverpool via Granville and Hornsby via Strathfield trains which run west from the City, and then make 90 degree turns towards their respective destinations. Some of the busy destinations on these lines could be better served by new, more direct lines towards the City. Building lines on new corridors to redistribute demand also achieves the 'building rail to new areas' theme that has come up multiple times in many of these type of threads.

One such new line could run underground following Victoria Road from the City to Parramatta. This line could branch at West Ryde, with a northern branch being fed by Northern Line trains ex Hornsby. Whether it's metro or Sydney trains doesn't really matter - basically it would just do what the ECRL used to do by taking trains away from Strathfield. Obviously if the people in charge want a metro, then the Northern line would need to be fully quad-tracked to leave a dedicated express track pair for freight + CCN + regional trains. This hypothetical new line could probably save about 15mins to Town Hall vs the current service. That frees up an extra 4 express train paths for other services to run via Strathfield.

Other solutions (mentioned previously) could include sending Leppington trains to the City via East Hills, extending Metro South West from Bankstown to Liverpool, or even something a little more radical like building an underground Epping to Merrylands line (via Carlingford and Parramatta) as a branch of the Metro North West to provide another bypass of Strathfield and an alternative, faster route to Macquarie Park, Chatswood and St Leonards (Crows Nest) from the South West and Parramatta. Such a route could even prove to be marginally faster as a travel option from Merrylands all the way to North Sydney (Victoria Cross). I'd prefer having a crack at some of these projects rather than spending lots of capital on another track pair between Granville and Homebush / underground tunnel between Strathfield and Central.
  scadam Locomotive Driver

It would easily be feasible for the line to go Wynyard > St James > Central > Green Square before heading South-East.
St James won't be possible with the Metro West alignment through the CBD. The stub tunnels will be a little too far east
https://majorprojects.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/prweb/PRRestService/mp/01/getContent?AttachRef=SSI-19238057%2120211027T225340.744%20GMT
I agree.  They seem to be more orientated towards Taylor Square or thereabouts, or even possibly Whitlam Square, which would allow a more gradual curve back to Central.  Looking at it from the perspective of future SE metro commuters, it won't exactly be convenient unless it goes via Central.
Transtopic
Whitlam Square has my vote, it provides a good future opportunity... In the far distant future there may be the possibility to build a Bondi Beach line running under Oxford Street as an extension of a line from Victoria Road (it would form a nice direct route through the city via Town Hall / Pitt Street). This line could interchange with the Metro West at Whitlam Square, allowing passengers from the east to head north to Hunter Street or south to Central without needing to navigate a Town Hall / Pitt Street super-station.
  scadam Locomotive Driver

I think its more likely SE line would look like

Darlinghurst
East Central
Waterloo to interchange with Metro
Green Square
Beaconsfield
East Lakes
MJ.
11km from Hunter Street to terminus
RTT_Rules
I'd put the stations about 1km apart. The south east is one of the few corridors where endless suburbia has been blocked by the ocean, with the entire catchment within 15km of the CBD. Major development and rezoning for high density only really occurs within 500m of new stations, and since the corridor is quite short, there is no reason to space the stations out so much in the name of travel time savings for long distance commuters.

If I could pick the stations and alignment:
Hunter Street, Whitlam Square, Central (interchange - everything), Cleveland Street, Waterloo East, Zetland, Kensington (interchange - L3), UNSW High Street (interchange - L2 and potential future ESR extension from Bondi Junction), Rainbow Street, Randwick Barracks, Maroubra Junction, Beauchamp Road, Malabar, Chifley, Little Bay, La Perouse.

La Perouse to Hunter Street would probably take about 30 minutes.
  Totoro Junior Train Controller

@ExtremeCommuter

This is a really interesting discussion, thanks for starting it, even if I disagree with actual title hehe.

“Disconnected” is being said like it’s a bad thing, but isn’t that the whole point? The Metro lines are separate to ST specifically to de-tangle the existing mess. I agree that the question of Metro vs ST is a somewhat separate question, but stress that if you are going to the trouble of building a separate line, then why not also use the best technology available at the time.

The key success of Metro is/will be INTERCHANGE, and I think that’s where much of the design & timetabling focus really needs to be. The physical interchange points at Epping and Chatswood are quite painless (a transfer between the Metro/ST platforms at Epping takes about 2-3 mins, at Chatswood it’s about 10 seconds). The main issue is a lack of frequency for the ST services, you’re typically waiting 7-15 mins for a T9 connection in the late PM.

If transfers between ST/Metro at Martin Place, Hunter St, Nth Strathfield, Westmead and St Mary’s (and perhaps, eventually, Leppington and Schofield??) can be kept below about 3 minutes, and the frequency of connecting ST services also improved, then it should be fine in my view. This should be doable through aerial/underground concourses, well-designed pedestrian paths at street level, and hopefully also ATO playing a more central role on the ST side.

Regarding the Hunter St station, it seems like an excellent choice of location to me. It’s right next to Wynyard and the LR stop, again this shouldn’t require more than 2-3 minutes on foot if the interchange is designed well. It’s really interesting to see how people would extend the MW line past that point. I tend to see a turn towards the SE as the natural extension, but the other suggestions are good too.
  s3_gunzel Not a gunzel developer

Location: Western Sydney, AU
“Disconnected” is being said like it’s a bad thing, but isn’t that the whole point?
Totoro
It's a hell of a disincentive to use the Metro when you're in - say - Quakers Hill and have to get to Castle Hill. And yes, I have been in this position before.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
I think its more likely SE line would look like

Darlinghurst
East Central
Waterloo to interchange with Metro
Green Square
Beaconsfield
East Lakes
MJ.
11km from Hunter Street to terminus
I'd put the stations about 1km apart. The south east is one of the few corridors where endless suburbia has been blocked by the ocean, with the entire catchment within 15km of the CBD. Major development and rezoning for high density only really occurs within 500m of new stations, and since the corridor is quite short, there is no reason to space the stations out so much in the name of travel time savings for long distance commuters.

If I could pick the stations and alignment:
Hunter Street, Whitlam Square, Central (interchange - everything), Cleveland Street, Waterloo East, Zetland, Kensington (interchange - L3), UNSW High Street (interchange - L2 and potential future ESR extension from Bondi Junction), Rainbow Street, Randwick Barracks, Maroubra Junction, Beauchamp Road, Malabar, Chifley, Little Bay, La Perouse.

La Perouse to Hunter Street would probably take about 30 minutes.
scadam

UG railway's and stations are very expensive to build, 1km spacing for a low density location isn't justfiied and certainly not south of Malabar Jnct, this is the job for the tram and/or buses.

The suburban legacy network spacing is around 1.5 km or so. In the built-up high density areas like Green Square 1.5km would be ok, but SE of Zetland, closer to 2 - 2.5km.
  scadam Locomotive Driver

UG railway's and stations are very expensive to build, 1km spacing for a low density location isn't justfiied and certainly not south of Malabar Jnct, this is the job for the tram and/or buses.
RTT_Rules
Yes, underground stations are very expensive, but on a citywide scale it is more environmentally friendly and cost effective to redevelop 'low density' areas close to the city as high density areas. Development and rezoning is a given if metro ever extends to the south east. I think this is a better solution than new greenfields developments in the west and south west, which are generally car-dependent and require major investment in other critical infrastructure like roads and sewage (among others). The cost savings here offset the cost of building additional railway stations. Urban planning 101.

The suburban legacy network spacing is around 1.5 km or so. In the built-up high density areas like Green Square 1.5km would be ok, but SE of Zetland, closer to 2 - 2.5km.
RTT_Rules

It's worth noting that station spacing on some inner suburban corridors (such as Inner West or North Shore) is closer to 1km. The vast majority (90%+) of 'walk up' passengers at railway stations live within 500m of the station. By this logic, it is generally only within 500m of new stations that high density housing is built. Therefore the station spacing should be about 1km for a future South East metro to maximise development yield.

For the current Northwest 'metro' it's understandable that the station spacing is a lot bigger, since journeys towards the city will be up to 45km long by rail. Likewise, the West 'metro' has the potential to extend all the way to the new Western Sydney Airport, meaning maximum journeys to the city of up to 50km. This line length is more like a suburban railway, and the stations are spaced accordingly. However, for the south east corridor the maximum distance would be only about 15km to the city by rail, and therefore it is reasonable to build stations closer together, since there is virtually zero possibility of the line ever extending past La Perouse.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
UG railway's and stations are very expensive to build, 1km spacing for a low density location isn't justfiied and certainly not south of Malabar Jnct, this is the job for the tram and/or buses.
Yes, underground stations are very expensive, but on a citywide scale it is more environmentally friendly and cost effective to redevelop 'low density' areas close to the city as high density areas. Development and rezoning is a given if metro ever extends to the south east. I think this is a better solution than new greenfields developments in the west and south west, which are generally car-dependent and require major investment in other critical infrastructure like roads and sewage (among others). The cost savings here offset the cost of building additional railway stations. Urban planning 101.

The suburban legacy network spacing is around 1.5 km or so. In the built-up high density areas like Green Square 1.5km would be ok, but SE of Zetland, closer to 2 - 2.5km.

It's worth noting that station spacing on some inner suburban corridors (such as Inner West or North Shore) is closer to 1km. The vast majority (90%+) of 'walk up' passengers at railway stations live within 500m of the station. By this logic, it is generally only within 500m of new stations that high density housing is built. Therefore the station spacing should be about 1km for a future South East metro to maximise development yield.

For the current Northwest 'metro' it's understandable that the station spacing is a lot bigger, since journeys towards the city will be up to 45km long by rail. Likewise, the West 'metro' has the potential to extend all the way to the new Western Sydney Airport, meaning maximum journeys to the city of up to 50km. This line length is more like a suburban railway, and the stations are spaced accordingly. However, for the south east corridor the maximum distance would be only about 15km to the city by rail, and therefore it is reasonable to build stations closer together, since there is virtually zero possibility of the line ever extending past La Perouse.
scadam
At $150 - $250 m a station, I would say its simply too much money to have every km and line only as far as MJ.

As for converting the area into high rises, this may happen, I hope not, but its 20 - 30 years away.

I think the important part is that potential infill station locations should be nominated in the orginal project track / tunnel design to enable construction with minimal impact on operations.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Metro from Hornsby to West Ryde then city removes the interchange options with legacy and Western Metro stations south side of the river.



- North Main & North Pair of tracks to Straithfield


We discussed previously that I think the North main suburban tracks (yes there will need to be 4 tracks) would be Metro from Hornsby to Epping then junction with the NWRL. Reason is because I think that the NWRL trains to city will be well used south of Epping and to provide a suitable frequency the trains west of Epping will be under uterlised. So there would be capacity to have a branch running up to Hornsby to balance the demand. The tunnels and most requirements for the junction are still there and we just need four tracks to Hornsby so CCN and regional can operate independently and helps reduce conflict between IU/regional and suburban.



Whats left is Epping to Central suburbans, which would probably surfice at 4 - 6 t/h DD for many years to come. Epping, CCN and BMT could then share the mains from Straithfield to Central. Epping trains could terminate at Central, say platforms 14 and 15 for easy transfer to Metro platforms, but also easy transfer at Nth Strathefield as well.      



No need for the City Western relief line.



- Western Main  

Centre pair of tracks
16 t/h limited express to Paramatta then all to their Penrith / Richmond destinatins.
4 t/h Liverpool via RP to city using centre pair of tracks, fly over to Regents Park line.

Southern pair of tracks
4 t/h Liverpool via Granville to city using existing Southerm tracks Homebush Inner west.
8 t/h all stopper on Inner West


BMT trains, somewhere between Homebush and Liodcombe the Nth pair of tracks duck under the centre pair of tracks and merge with southern pair of tracks, lets say after Lidcombe.



Y link
4 t/h sloting into the 4 t / h gap left by Liverpool via RP to Schofields
4 t/h remaining on southern tracks until terminating at St Mary's
  ExtremeCommuter Locomotive Fireman

Distance is not a factor in determining what design train is provided, its travel time. 20- 25 min is an acceptable standing time and if you think that is too much you havn't travelled in Sydney long before the Metro especially interurban.

The NWRL stations are fit for purpose, adding more stations adds more cost and more to the travel time.

The NWRL corridor if it had the village style stations would still not be a "walk up" service as the area it services it sprawling. Walk up catchment is 500 -1000m radius, beyond that people move to driving. Sydney Rails own stats prove this.

If those large carparks were not there, the cars would be parked at the office. The line was also built for bigger things than just today's communter volume. Roll the dice forward 20 years and there wlll double the freuqnecy of trains. Overall, no one builds village style stations anymore, look at the other 21st century lines, ie Gold Coast and Perth Southrn line. Even the Leppington line is the same as well all new lines.

Electric scooters will help solve the last mile issue. Govt knows it, just needs to deal with it.

If you want to walk to a station, move to a location where one is next to your house. Don't ask the govt to build a $10B railway to within everyones front door. By nd large its hard to find fault with the success of the NWRL, which actually suffered less during CV-19 than some other lines in loss of ridership. If nothing else the lines success has exceeded govt expectations.

You don't build the railway for todays problem, you build it for the problem in next 25 years. If you don't think Sydney is dense enough population, come back in 2040.

My understanding why the NWRL was connected to the ECRL and then down to central rather than going via Top Ryde and Victoria road was in part cost, but because thats the demographc of the commuters from the NW area. ie the expectation is that most of the commuters that would use rail work in the ECRL lower north shore catchment. The design interchange at Chatswood with the high frequency of service would also encourage some commuters to change services for a faster and potentially more convient ride especially if travelling to areas such as Martin Place and Pitt Street.

Yes, Central can be left off the Western Metro route, once again please pick up a topographic map of Sydney and study the options nothig there are already two undergroud lines at Central. Any E-W type line would need to be very deep. Remember the L1 Tram goes up-hill from Darling Hrabour to Central. The options to bring in the Western Metro is actually very limited. The Western Metro will then discharge almost in the heart of the city (Town Hall is the busiest station) with change of train options actually more convient than Central.

From there the Western Metro can then curve around and service new to rail areas, going under Central it cannot do as easily.

Australia'a unemployment is less than 5%, what was SCOMO's comment this week about
RTT_Rules
Yeah I meant to say travel time instead of distance in regards to train design, sorry about the mistake, but Tallawong to the City is something like 48 minutes, so yeah, we still need seats.

Adding more stations would probably increase travel time by about 10 minutes (I'm comparing all-stops vs express between Revesby and Wolli Creek to get this number), but many passengers would probably experience quicker overall journey times by being able to walk to the station, as currently, the only people who experience any benefit of faster journeys at the cost of stations, are the lucky few who were able to find a parking spot.

Not saying we should get rid of the car parks we currently have or have some level of commuter parking at stations, as you are right, many cars would be parked at the office instead, but building entire stations and lines that primarily functions on park&ride, as the car parks serve very few people relative to station patronage, for example, a car park this size might serve about 365 people, whereas a 'village style station' could serve between 1,000-2,000 people, sure we could keep expanding car parks until we use up the entire 'walkable' radius around the station, but this still wouldn't be enough due to induced demand, the cost would be higher than adding more stations due to raw materials and land acquisition, and so much land that could be used for affordable housing is lost.

I'm not expecting the government to build '$10B railway to within everyones front door', and yes urban sprawl will mean even with closer stations won't allow everyone to walk, and I already live within walking distance of a station, but if the government is building a suburban railway line (which the Northwest Metro really is), then I think it's reasonable to expect it to serve the suburbs it travels through, not just a bunch of car parks for the lucky few who find a spot,
and the concept of more stations = more cost may sound right, it's irrelevant when the government has over-engineered the stations to make a poltical statement, stations like Tallawong and Bella Vista which primarily serve modern developments of single family homes, don't need two lifts per platform, escalators, huge concourses, or giant glass skylights.

Living within walking distance to a station on modern lines is extremely difficult, as the few stations that exist have almost the entire 'walkable' radius filled up with commuter parking and the giant concourse, this is not just for the Northwest Metro, but also the SWRL and the East Hills-Glenfield line.
The government also seems pretty insistent on keeping electric scooters illegal, even further making closer stations important, not everyone can ride them anyway, but they still would be good for solving the 'last mile' for people not living near the rail corridor.

Lastly in regards to the Northwest Metro, sure a benefit of running through the ECRL gives a single  ̶s̶e̶a̶t̶  train journey to the Macquarie Precinct and Chatswood which is a good benefit, ultimately we can't have single seat journeys to everywhere, and an interchange at Epping would have been a small price to pay so we could have rail to Top Ryde through the Victoria Road corridor. I suspect the reason they just used the ECRL is laziness, as every planned metro line including the Northwest screams laziness, with issues like not connecting to Schofields, terminating at Bankstown, Western metro not going to Central, and the airport line not connecting the SWRL.


Onto the Western Metro, the fact that most likely an extension will head southeast of the city, to Zetland and beyond will send the line very close to Central, why not just stop there an interchange with literally every other line, including the Northwest/Southwest metro, like @scadam said,
you are right that Town Hall is the busiest station, and the area should definitely be served, but it does not have change of train options that are more convenient than Central, as Central has all the same change options as Town Hall in addition to intercity/interurban and regional trains, eastern City Circle stations, L1 light rail, and peak hour T9 express services, why anyone would think it's sane to have a line go within spitting distance of there but not interchange there is simply crazy.


Lastly, do you really believe ScoMo and his 4.2% unemployment statistic? if there is any truth to his numbers at all that is due to a few factors mainly being; fewer people being eligible unemployment benefits, people having 1 hour of work per week being considered employed, and students, homeless, and disabled not counting towards unemployment statistics.
A few factors due to recent events have made more people ineligible to receive unemployment benefits including; people who lost jobs to vaccine mandates not being eligible for at least 2-3 months, people who moved from a capital city not being eligible for 6 months, and anyone having more than 5.5k in their savings not being eligible at all until their savings are lost.

I understand you are located in Dubai at the moment, so let me fill you in on what is going on in Sydney right now, the city and locations around such as Newtown as very quiet as fear of the Omicron variant has put is in a 'self-imposed or shadow lockdown' causing the economy and spending to slump, many small business have shut down and many more are struggling to hang on, many business are understaffed, and hiring signs are everywhere as many business can't seem to employ the workers they need, does this sound like the description of the largest city of a country with only 4.2% unemployment.

[b]@ExtremeCommuter[/b]

This is a really interesting discussion, thanks for starting it, even if I disagree with actual title hehe.

“Disconnected” is being said like it’s a bad thing, but isn’t that the whole point? The Metro lines are separate to ST specifically to de-tangle the existing mess. I agree that the question of Metro vs ST is a somewhat separate question, but stress that if you are going to the trouble of building a separate line, then why not also use the best technology available at the time.

The key success of Metro is/will be INTERCHANGE, and I think that’s where much of the design & timetabling focus really needs to be. The physical interchange points at Epping and Chatswood are quite painless (a transfer between the Metro/ST platforms at Epping takes about 2-3 mins, at Chatswood it’s about 10 seconds). The main issue is a lack of frequency for the ST services, you’re typically waiting 7-15 mins for a T9 connection in the late PM.

If transfers between ST/Metro at Martin Place, Hunter St, Nth Strathfield, Westmead and St Mary’s (and perhaps, eventually, Leppington and Schofield??) can be kept below about 3 minutes, and the frequency of connecting ST services also improved, then it should be fine in my view. This should be doable through aerial/underground concourses, well-designed pedestrian paths at street level, and hopefully also ATO playing a more central role on the ST side.

Regarding the Hunter St station, it seems like an excellent choice of location to me. It’s right next to Wynyard and the LR stop, again this shouldn’t require more than 2-3 minutes on foot if the interchange is designed well. It’s really interesting to see how people would extend the MW line past that point. I tend to see a turn towards the SE as the natural extension, but the other suggestions are good too.
Totoro
Lol, no worries for the topic, please enjoy, when I say "Disconnected" I am referring to issues like what @s3_gunzel said such as;

  -Northwest line not travelling another 2km to connect at Schofields
  -Very few stations on the Northwest line
  -Southwest line terminating at Bankstown creating the need for inefficient shuttle services and putting Yagoona and Birrong at risk
  -Western Metro having bugger-all stations are not even going to Central to interchange with every other line
  -Airport not liking to nearby Northwest line through St Marys, Marsden Park, and Schofields
  -Airport line being completely incompatible with Northwest line with different train length and electrification, meaning it will never connect

I actually support the lines being separate and de-tangling other lines as I personally got stuck on a train for quite some time once due to points failure, but if the main advantage of the Metro is interchange, why not connect Schofields, why terminate at Bankstown, and the biggest question of all; why not go to, yet go within spitting distance of, the biggest interchange of all so the metro can even interchange with itself?

Nothing against the Hunter St station at all, I like it's location as well, although an interchange at Wynyard which doesn't involve going in and out of ticket barriers would be seriously beneficial, and heading Southeast is good too, hopefully to Eastgardens, a major location that is difficult to get to, and the maybe even under Botany Bay to Ramsgate, and then to Kogarah to continue onto the proposed Georges River Rail, long shot as going under the bay could be expensive, but we will see.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Is the NWRL design lazy? No, as someone said they bolted the project onto previous studies to save time and money and to get the project up ASAP. As it was it still took over 5 years. Unfortunately for govts operating on 4 year terms they do need to deliver some things within 4 years or be seen as doing nothing.

You acknowledged the ECRL region was a destination for the NWRL commuters so I'm not sure why this is a problem, but also cost was defintly a factor. When the NWRL was approved, it was one one of the most expensive projects ever annouced by a NSW state govt and the funding arrangement was marginal and involved selling part of the electricty network if I recall (feel free to correct). The massive revenue stream from the real estate market was yet to commence and the extension to the city was still a maybe. To then bolt on the Inner NW project would likely have been seen as simply unaffordable and a risk of the NWRL terminating at Epping was not viable.

Are the NWRL stations over kill or a political statement, No. I've used I think it was Kellyville in August 2019 parking in a non marked parking spot around lunch time after 10min of driving around. The design is similar in concept as elevated Metro stations in Dubai (which have AC'ed platforms) and other modern ones I've used. There really wouldn't be alot you could tone down and still remain within the design criteria and 2020's architecture.   The stations on the Gold coast  Line are ground level but otherwise not a huge amount different. As the stations are elevated you need escalators and lifts. But I believe the station  also I believe are the transformer/rectifier supply for the traction power.

Extra elevated stations may reduce the need for the size of the carpark at the existing stations, but wouldn't reduce the overall car parking needs by much and the stations wouldn't look alot different otherwise.

If you are boarding at Tallawong or next stop, I suspect getting a seat isn't an issue. For those who join later in peak may not get a seat but with the large turn over on ECRL, a seat will materialise. I commuted in Sydney for nearly 10 years and it was common to stand from Hornsby to Woy Woy, around 30 - 40min.  

The connection of NWRL to Scofields will I'm sure happen in due course and yes I'm not a fan of terminating a railway 2km from another and personally I think it should be in budget for 2023 project commencement. A connection may reduce numbers marginally on the main west.

The Metro West couldn't come in to Central as the need to service other locations. Its arrival station in the city is Hunter Street, whether it goes to Central or not eventually will be seen and if not is certainly not "lazy" as there are far more practical considerations as existing a future planned infratsructure. If you are coming into the city on Metro West, the need to change to Interurban is a very low priority for >99% of users. The George Street tram line for L2 and L3 is next to Hunter Street station and Prymont station next to L1.  

On the unemployment I'm confused. On one hand you say the number is unrealisticly low and other you say shops are advertising for staff? From all my feedback I'm getting from friends and relatives is that there is a large skill and labour shortage. Are people in hiding over CV-19? No idea. The current unemployment data is not a one off from Omicron, but for at least a year.

If someone lost your job because of refusal to get jabbed, then we all lie in the beds we make and no way should they be entitled to unemployment benefits as they effectively resigned. As far as the counting to unemployment is concerned, has the statsicical metric changed much in the last 10 years? As far as I'm aware the 1h rule is a longterm metric.
  scadam Locomotive Driver

Not saying we should get rid of the car parks we currently have or have some level of commuter parking at stations, as you are right, many cars would be parked at the office instead, but building entire stations and lines that primarily functions on park&ride, as the car parks serve very few people relative to station patronage, for example, a car park this size might serve about 365 people, whereas a 'village style station' could serve between 1,000-2,000 people, sure we could keep expanding car parks until we use up the entire 'walkable' radius around the station, but this still wouldn't be enough due to induced demand, the cost would be higher than adding more stations due to raw materials and land acquisition, and so much land that could be used for affordable housing is lost.
ExtremeCommuter
To say that the NW metro 'primarily functions on park&ride' is quite misleading. Commuter car parks were only built at 5 out of the 8 new stations. On top of this, if you look at each of the new car parks on satellite imagery (e.g. google maps), you will notice that they are not immediately adjacent to the station entrances. There are some huge empty lots which sit closer to the station entrances and are ripe for development. Take a look at the plans for the lot opposite Tallawong station: https://tallawongvillage.com.au.

Lol, no worries for the topic, please enjoy, when I say "Disconnected" I am referring to issues like what @s3_gunzel said such as;

 -Northwest line not travelling another 2km to connect at Schofields
 -Very few stations on the Northwest line
 -Southwest line terminating at Bankstown creating the need for inefficient shuttle services and putting Yagoona and Birrong at risk
 -Western Metro having bugger-all stations are not even going to Central to interchange with every other line
 -Airport not liking to nearby Northwest line through St Marys, Marsden Park, and Schofields
 -Airport line being completely incompatible with Northwest line with different train length and electrification, meaning it will never connect
ExtremeCommuter

If money grew on trees, then I'm sure the following would have happened:

- Northwest line would continue to Schofields and Marsden Park
- Bankstown to Liverpool metro would have been built at the same time as the new city section
- A south east Metro would be built at the same time as Metro West (single project)

But unfortunately, capital is not unlimited and political will comes and goes. Rather than trying to build it all at once and go bankrupt, or end up saying 'it's too hard', I think it's better to build the network one piece at a time as we are able. The cancelled 'North West Metro' of the early 2000s failed here by probably trying to achieve a bit too much in a single project phase. Sydney Metro has done this well by having distinct program stages.

RE Airport metro and NW metro electrification. I don't think it's a huge issue. St Marys to the new western airport (and maybe Macarthur in the future) is a north-south cross country route. It will hardly justify the 3-car trains it will be operating from day one. The Metro NW, however, forms part of a trunk corridor to the CBD, so the trains need to be bigger and more frequent. 25KV AC is the modern standard for new standalone systems - but the NW and Bankstown metro are re-using a lot of expensive Sydney Trains infrastructure, hence staying with 1500V DC.

My opinion is also that building a new section of line between St Marys and Schofields is quite indirect and doesn't really connect very many strategic centres. If the aim of such an extension is to connect stations on the western line with employment hubs at Norwest, Castle Hill, Macquarie Park etc., then I think a better and cheaper solution is to build a new section of line direct from Blacktown to Norwest. This would only be about 7km long and is far a more direct route between most of the major trip generators.

Nothing against the Hunter St station at all, I like it's location as well, although an interchange at Wynyard which doesn't involve going in and out of ticket barriers would be seriously beneficial, and heading Southeast is good too, hopefully to Eastgardens, a major location that is difficult to get to, and the maybe even under Botany Bay to Ramsgate, and then to Kogarah to continue onto the proposed Georges River Rail, long shot as going under the bay could be expensive, but we will see.
ExtremeCommuter

Unfortunately, Maroubra Junction and Eastgardens are on an east-west axis, and any line to the south east will be on a north-south alignment. From a strategic perspective, you'd have to pick Maroubra Junction over Eastgardens. That 'River Rail' proposal also looks like a good idea (I would add a few more stations onto it) but I highly doubt there will ever be a line under Botany Bay joining with it. More likely that any lines between Kogarah and the eastern suburbs will run via the airport and then towards Randwick.
  62440 Chief Commissioner

"But unfortunately, capital is not unlimited and political will comes and goes. Rather than trying to build it all at once and go bankrupt, or end up saying 'it's too hard', I think it's better to build the network one piece at a time as we are able. The cancelled 'North West Metro' of the early 2000s failed here by probably trying to achieve a bit too much in a single project phase. Sydney Metro has done this well by having distinct program stages."

It takes me back a long way to Liverpool vs Manchester. Liverpool had a shopping list of standalone projects and worked through it as funds became available. Manchester had a grand plan and went back to start again when funding was cut and achieved nothing much for many years.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Scofields to St Mary's is probably 20 years away and a now, agree low priority. Getting to Scofields is the priority, hopefully not long.

On the carparking, look at Schofields station on Google satilite and the streets of cars parked in the side streets because the 2 bob station carpark is full. However there is a marker on the map to shop there is a large carpark being built on western side of station. So older village style station getting the mega carpark treatment. Perhaps the Metro line will run into the top of the carpark?

With modern ticketting its not a big deal to walk out past the gate and back into another location.

Eastgardens is a suburban shopping centre not worthy of a $150m railway station, destination is MJ.

The cost to go under Botany Bay to get to Cronulla would not be worth the numbers. A new Metro down the shore suburbs and connecting with Miranda at some point would be far better.

Bankstown to Liverpool according to govts study isn't a viable project at this time and the numbers on the existing two services running north and east probably justify this statement.
  alleve Junior Train Controller

Location: T4 Illawarra Line
"Capital is not unlimited and political will comes and goes. Rather than trying to build it all at once and go bankrupt, or end up saying 'it's too hard', I think it's better to build the network one piece at a time as we are able"
I don't buy that they didn't extend it to Schofields because they didn't have enough money or because it would've been too hard. The NWRL is 36km long, mostly underground, with 27 platforms. An additional 2km above ground or so and an additional 2 platforms would not have broken the bank or expanded the project to some massive scale unachievable by the government of the day. The way it seems to me is that the Govt was lazy and wanted to build it quick, all the while ignoring an incredibly obvious connection. Perhaps this can be defended as the Govt just copying earlier proposals for the line, but I honestly don't believe that the project would've been canned had they added Schofields onto the line. Money and political will is why the NWRL and the Bankstown metro are being built separately, or why Metro West and the South-East expansion are being built separately. It's not the reason why they left off an obvious short and easy link on the end of the NWRL, much the same way it's not why they haven't bothered connecting the SWRL to the new Airport.


"The cost to go under Botany Bay to get to Cronulla would not be worth the numbers. A new Metro down the shore suburbs and connecting with Miranda at some point would be far better"
AFAIK the Govt plan is for a line to run from Randwick > Airport > Brighton Le Sands > Kogarah
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
"Capital is not unlimited and political will comes and goes. Rather than trying to build it all at once and go bankrupt, or end up saying 'it's too hard', I think it's better to build the network one piece at a time as we are able"
I don't buy that they didn't extend it to Schofields because they didn't have enough money or because it would've been too hard. The NWRL is 36km long, mostly underground, with 27 platforms. An additional 2km above ground or so and an additional 2 platforms would not have broken the bank or expanded the project to some massive scale unachievable by the government of the day. The way it seems to me is that the Govt was lazy and wanted to build it quick, all the while ignoring an incredibly obvious connection. Perhaps this can be defended as the Govt just copying earlier proposals for the line, but I honestly don't believe that the project would've been canned had they added Schofields onto the line. Money and political will is why the NWRL and the Bankstown metro are being built separately, or why Metro West and the South-East expansion are being built separately. It's not the reason why they left off an obvious short and easy link on the end of the NWRL, much the same way it's not why they haven't bothered connecting the SWRL to the new Airport.


"The cost to go under Botany Bay to get to Cronulla would not be worth the numbers. A new Metro down the shore suburbs and connecting with Miranda at some point would be far better"
AFAIK the Govt plan is for a line to run from Randwick > Airport > Brighton Le Sands > Kogarah
alleve
Someone already stated the NWRL ran off the backbone of previous work and to do the extension would have more than likely delayed the project. So hardly lazy, just realistic.

Yes they damn well wanted to build it quick. It was an election promise and a project that had been on the horizon for years under the previous govt.

Broken the bank? Not sure but as it would have been part of the first project then potentially yes.

No the project would not have been canned if too much, they simply would not have done the Scofields bit and surprise, here we are!

If you live in the Scofields area or within a few stops on the Richmond line, then it matters little. a short drive on non busy roads to Tallawong and job done. The connection (which I support) is probably only projected have very low numbers for the near future which I strongly suspect is the case. For those wanting to transfer between the lines, bus 748 runs every 30min through the day.

The line won't run from Randwick to Kograh, rather closer to Green Square, which would make sense.
  scadam Locomotive Driver

AFAIK the Govt plan is for a line to run from Randwick > Airport > Brighton Le Sands > Kogarah
The line won't run from Randwick to Kograh, rather closer to Green Square, which would make sense.
RTT_Rules
I'm not so sure that building a new line from Kogarah to Green Square make more sense than Kogarah to Randwick. A reasonably direct, one-change journey between Kogarah and Green Square already exists. Kogarah to Randwick would provide access to the big university and hospital precinct from the Illawarra and South West. If it also goes via the airport, then anyone bound for Green Square could just change onto the existing airport line.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
AFAIK the Govt plan is for a line to run from Randwick > Airport > Brighton Le Sands > Kogarah
The line won't run from Randwick to Kograh, rather closer to Green Square, which would make sense.
I'm not so sure that building a new line from Kogarah to Green Square make more sense than Kogarah to Randwick. A reasonably direct, one-change journey between Kogarah and Green Square already exists. Kogarah to Randwick would provide access to the big university and hospital precinct from the Illawarra and South West. If it also goes via the airport, then anyone bound for Green Square could just change onto the existing airport line.
scadam
Not Green Square, someone had a link here that showed it was south east of Green Square, maybe Eastlakes. From Eastlast a branch would continue to Maroubra JNCT, the other branch would head more south under the airport and then Brighton Le Sands and beyond.

I would have thought following the
Green Square
East Lakes (branch to Maroubra Jcnt)
Brighton Le Sands,
Ramsgate,
Blakehurst,
Sylvania Waters,
Miranda.

Interchange at Kograh, probably not a bad idea.
  Transtopic Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney
For those who may be interested, this was the final route for the former North West Metro and station locations at Pyrmont, Barangaroo-Wynyard (Margaret St), Martin Place and St James.  Note that it was proposed to operate with 5 car trains.  Also note that it was more direct to the CBD and the line continued to the south from St James parallel to Elizabeth St, presumably to Central.









  alleve Junior Train Controller

Location: T4 Illawarra Line
Here are the actual Govt maps for the metro future

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSJDqHyLN7J36GyWh8rtr0huqbhWpjy_Hm4LA&usqp=CAU

https://i.redd.it/quc7a0c7l4o51.png


It seems that Metro West will pass through Central, and the line through Kogarah will come from Randwick, and pass through Eastlakes. Interestingly, there is a line poking out from Kogarah that is out of frame, coloured for 2041. I couldn't find much on this line but it seems to be one that travels to Parramatta, presumably through Campsie

Sponsored advertisement

Display from: