Sydney Metro train is on the rails!

 
  TomBTR Chief Train Controller

Location: near Sydney
I don't claim to be an expert, but I have seen a neat solution to the "what if the automation fails" problem.

The Docklands Light Rail system in east London has high platforms, no platform screens and third rail power supply but is otherwise similar to our metro. There are no drivers so passengers are free to sit at the front and watch the approaching track. If there is an issue in the next section between stations then someone from the station (looked like an ordinary member of the station staff) gets on, opens a console with a key and drives the train to the next station, then locks up and gets off. The change in mode seemed to take less than 10 seconds at each end.

I don't know if Sydney metro station assistants will be trained to do this. The trains themselves will have three modes of operation: auto, manual and wash, so it would be possible.

Sponsored advertisement

  Myrtone Chief Commissioner

Location: North Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria
...will now harp on about the Paris RER and be an expert of a system he has never used and try and compare to Sydney's new Metro line, but the two are completely different in so many ways its not even funny and these have all been discussed to excess previously.
RTT_Rules
Some who have used the R.E.R, including Matthew Geier, very knowledgeable, do liken it to the Sydney suburban. That comparison isn't my own.
If Paris can run 30 double decker trains an hour, surely a stand-alone double decker train line in Sydney could too. Yes, I really mean a stand alone one.
  TrainLover222 Junior Train Controller

Location: ...And then all stations to Central
...will now harp on about the Paris RER and be an expert of a system he has never used and try and compare to Sydney's new Metro line, but the two are completely different in so many ways its not even funny and these have all been discussed to excess previously.
Some who have used the R.E.R, including Matthew Geier, very knowledgeable, do liken it to the Sydney suburban. That comparison isn't my own.
If Paris can run 30 double decker trains an hour, surely a stand-alone double decker train line in Sydney could too. Yes, I really mean a stand alone one.
Myrtone
City Circle can. That's absolute rapid transit - three mins or better frequency, high capacity, etc. However, as it is already an extremely busy and complex network, current traffic already puts stress on the Sydney rail system. The signalling system that leads trains in and out of the City Circle is going to be automated later this year, so I guess that has the opportunity to ease strains on our great rail network. It will also undeniably cause major disruptions (as the City Circle is the core of the entire network):

https://www.9news.com.au/national/2018/02/19/17/39/sydney-trains-more-disruptions-ahead-with-operations-centre-to-be-decommissioned

I can't see that being helped by all the regional and intercity services that need to access Central...

Cheers
  Myrtone Chief Commissioner

Location: North Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria
Also, many of the others who post here have completely disregarded the history behind it. Sydney pioneered double decker multiple units and they are spreading to other regional and suburban type networks that can accommodate them.
And I wonder why that signalling system wasn't automated back in the 1980s, surely they already had the technology to do it. Another idea would be to eventually install a communications based train control with one-man operation on communicating trains wherever and whenever the C.B.T.C is in use. Two man operation would be retained on manually driven trains.
  justapassenger Minister for Railways

I don't claim to be an expert, but I have seen a neat solution to the "what if the automation fails" problem.

The Docklands Light Rail system in east London has high platforms, no platform screens and third rail power supply but is otherwise similar to our metro. There are no drivers so passengers are free to sit at the front and watch the approaching track. If there is an issue in the next section between stations then someone from the station (looked like an ordinary member of the station staff) gets on, opens a console with a key and drives the train to the next station, then locks up and gets off. The change in mode seemed to take less than 10 seconds at each end.

I don't know if Sydney metro station assistants will be trained to do this. The trains themselves will have three modes of operation: auto, manual and wash, so it would be possible.
TomBTR
The DLR crew who can drive the train to the next station in the event of a failure are onboard staff (not station staff) known as 'train captains' who are normally deployed checking tickets and providing customer service. They can move to the front and switch to manual at any time, not just in the event of the train failing at a station.

It's basically 'guard only operation.' You get all the normal benefits of having onboard staff who are visible to passengers plus the ability to limp to the next station and steely disembark passengers there.

The key lesson that is to be learned from DLR is that Sydney Metro should be setup as a new system and not an extension of the Sydney Trains heavy rail system. Doing so will allow the creation of new staff roles (e.g. train captain) without the baggage of previous union deals and demarcation disputes.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
...will now harp on about the Paris RER and be an expert of a system he has never used and try and compare to Sydney's new Metro line, but the two are completely different in so many ways its not even funny and these have all been discussed to excess previously.
Some who have used the R.E.R, including Matthew Geier, very knowledgeable, do liken it to the Sydney suburban. That comparison isn't my own.
If Paris can run 30 double decker trains an hour, surely a stand-alone double decker train line in Sydney could too. Yes, I really mean a stand alone one.
Myrtone
I really don't give a crap what Mathew Geier said as I'm talking from first hand experience.

Basically the RER has little in common with Sydney apart from it being double decker based stock. The one line that has the most in common with Sydney is the C Line and it has all the problems that the Metro in Sydney is being designed to avoid.

From wiki
"The RER C line is the second-longest in the network, with over 187 km (116 mi) of route. RER C was created from an amalgamation and renovation of several old SNCF commuter lines unlike RER A and B which had newer sections owned and constructed by RATP. Each day, over 531 trains run on the RER C alone.......................The numerous stops combined with an old and fragile infrastructure the line inherited, makes the Parisian section of the RER C very slow and inefficient. The numerous old curves and steep grades on RER C means trains sometimes need to slow down to 40km/h to safely pass sections with tight alignments.[2] ...................These problems are particularly evident on trips to and from the northern suburbs to the city center as taking Transilien lines and transferring to the Métro is much faster than taking the meandering RER C with closely spaced stops. In addition, the RER C's complicated operating schedule created by its complex network of numerous branches means the entire line is vulnerable to delays from even the smallest incidents. These issues have led to the line been called "réseau escargot régional" (Regional Snail Network) by the local populace"

The C line also has limited to 2 door trains, has stations on tight curves such that they have low height platforms and the list goes on.

The Current NSL infrastructure will not support frequencies above 20t/h and Town Hall Station is one of the key restraints in doing so which is very difficult to resolve. The Metro will have ultimate capacity to run 30t/h, something unlikely to be achieved with the current DD rolling stock on any line with reasonable station usage.

The modern Sydney Metro is automated and being built with this in mind and existing sections will be upgraded to the standard required for Automation and in general what a modern suburban railway should have. ie platform screen doors, straight or mostly straight platforms, tunnels with full length emergency access platforms and frequent exit locations. I also strongly suspect most of the station staff and any on board staff regardless of function will be trained to operate a Metro train for short distances at low speeds and evacuation procedures. If not the Management need replacement.

I know you don't give a crap about lifecycle operating costs Mytone, but the bulk of the NSW taxpayers do and as the new line is mostly underground, there are significant savings in building a SD line and this is what the bloody French do. The RER is basically a surface network with a few high density tunnels connecting in the city, the new line is more like a Paris Metro in this regard being and as stated previously, no one builds predominately underground lines 30km long in DD format, No one!

Sydney Rail has some of the highest operating subsidies in the world and one of the most expensive construction costs per km and a history of screwing up major tunnel projects and unfortunately nearly all inner middle suburban construction projects will be underground going forward. This is in part the cause for lack of investment in recent decades and we want more rail infrastructure, something has to change if we expect the govt to fund it.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Also, many of the others who post here have completely disregarded the history behind it. Sydney pioneered double decker multiple units and they are spreading to other regional and suburban type networks that can accommodate them.
And I wonder why that signalling system wasn't automated back in the 1980s, surely they already had the technology to do it. Another idea would be to eventually install a communications based train control with one-man operation on communicating trains wherever and whenever the C.B.T.C is in use. Two man operation would be retained on manually driven trains.
Myrtone
The history behind where we are today is mostly irrelevant, its how we move forward that matters.

I think you will find the signally system was automated long before the 80's, however some parts of the converging network close to the city were too complex for the technology of the time to schedule the traffic into the tunnels.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
I think the biggest issue with the Metro is that it will be delivered over a long period of time, nearly 8 years just for Phase 1 and 2 and after each phase the Metro will cause problems of sorts in the existing Sydney network. Phase 3 and beyond has not been announced in any great detail out leaving question marks on how much better the system will be longterm.

For me to fully maximise the Metro the following needs to be in plan.

1) extend to Richmond line, I believe there is a loose plan to go to Marsden Industrial
2) extend to Liverpool
3) potentially extend to Regents Park (this isn't a must but I think it would help and be cheap)
4) extend north to Hornsby placing freights and Central Coast line trains onto their own pair of tracks and reduce the demand for North Main Line suburban to use the western corridor, limit of 6 trains per hour south of Epping will suffice I imagine for many years.

The above enables the Metro to operate in a Double >-----
  Myrtone Chief Commissioner

Location: North Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria
Basically the RER has little in common with Sydney apart from it being double decker based stock. The one line that has the most in common with Sydney is the C Line and it has all the problems that the Metro in Sydney is being designed to avoid.
RTT_Rules
And what about the problems with the Paris metro, all but one line pre-dating the second world war?

The C line also has limited to 2 door trains, has stations on tight curves such that they have low height platforms and the list goes on.
RTT_Rules
And London's Underground has this too.

...as the new line is mostly underground, there are significant savings in building a SD line and this is what the bloody French do. The RER is basically a surface network with a few high density tunnels connecting in the city, the new line is more like a Paris Metro in this regard being and as stated previously, no one builds predominately underground lines 30km long in DD format, No one!
RTT_Rules
The part of the R.E.R within the metro territory is indeed mostly underground as far as I know, but much of it runs through less built up areas and these are the surface parts of the network.
No regional or suburban rail network is mostly underground because they run mostly through areas where there is room for surface rail, this is the case with ones that only have single decker trains. And all double decker passenger trains are built for this type of heavy rail.

No comment on the rest but if we want to get people out of their cars, we don't want less comfortable trains than we had 80 years ago.
Can one carry a cello on a spacious modern double decker train with impunity? If so, the single deck metro trains, carrying four passengers per square metre will have to have a smaller luggage size limit, like that in Hong Kong.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Basically the RER has little in common with Sydney apart from it being double decker based stock. The one line that has the most in common with Sydney is the C Line and it has all the problems that the Metro in Sydney is being designed to avoid.
And what about the problems with the Paris metro, all but one line pre-dating the second world war?

The C line also has limited to 2 door trains, has stations on tight curves such that they have low height platforms and the list goes on.
And London's Underground has this too.

...as the new line is mostly underground, there are significant savings in building a SD line and this is what the bloody French do. The RER is basically a surface network with a few high density tunnels connecting in the city, the new line is more like a Paris Metro in this regard being and as stated previously, no one builds predominately underground lines 30km long in DD format, No one!
The part of the R.E.R within the metro territory is indeed mostly underground as far as I know, but much of it runs through less built up areas and these are the surface parts of the network.
No regional or suburban rail network is mostly underground because they run mostly through areas where there is room for surface rail, this is the case with ones that only have single decker trains. And all double decker passenger trains are built for this type of heavy rail.

No comment on the rest but if we want to get people out of their cars, we don't want less comfortable trains than we had 80 years ago.
Can one carry a cello on a spacious modern double decker train with impunity? If so, the single deck metro trains, carrying four passengers per square metre will have to have a smaller luggage size limit, like that in Hong Kong.
Myrtone
1) Relevance/so-what ???

2) Relevance/so-what ???

3) Relevance/so-what ??? For your information, the focus of this debate is the Sydney Metro line from Bankstown to end of NW line.

Run a train with actual room and people will get out of their cars. As others have stated many of Sydney's trains are exceeding 130% capacity on arrival to the CBD. Obviously seats are not key part in making a decision in using the train nor is this an issue in most parts of the world that run similar sorts of trains.

I would suggest if you try and get on most city bound DD's in morning peak with a Cello you will be met with the same "WTF" as if you hoped on any over crowded train anywhere in the world. Its also common for many networks to have various types of bans for large items like a Cello or a bike in peak direction for this reason.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
(Railpage seems to have a bug that truncates posts at times)

As I mentioned a few posts up, I think the Metro line should have a longer term plan spelled out how its going to interact with the exist network and fill in the gaps mentioned above. Having a double branch at each end as I mentioned above allows services to more efficiently service the areas of the existing network most affected by the Metro.

Additionally what I would do for the NSL
1) Build a 2km tunnel from Nth Sydney station Northern beach stubs to the end of the straight section south of St Leonards and then four tracks to St Leonards

2) 4 trains per hour would continue via the existing line via Wollestoncraft to St Leonards and terminate.

3) remainder of services would run Nth Sydney via new tunnels direct to St Leonards and then up the shore line as far as required, ie Lindfield/Gordon/Hornsby/Berowroa saving around 9min per service which would have significant annualised savings.

4) The trains that follow the Wollestoncraft loop services can then run semi express to Hornsby/Berowra thus saving a further 3min.

5) A small storage yard could be built north of St Leonards for off-peak storage of trains, more efficient that using Lavender Bay and enable it to be closed.

6) Future option to extend the Wollestoncraft loop service to Artarmon via a 2nd pair of tracks if required to boost capacity and frequency from here.

I think the above along with the extension of the Metro to Hornsby via Epping and extension of Metro to Richmond line connecting with the Y-link service would provide significant travel time, capacity and operational savings to the whole Nth side rail services for decades to come.
  Myrtone Chief Commissioner

Location: North Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria
Run a train with actual room and people will get out of their cars. As others have stated many of Sydney's trains are exceeding 130% capacity on arrival to the CBD. Obviously seats are not key part in making a decision in using the train nor is this an issue in most parts of the world that run similar sorts of trains.
RTT_Rules
Sydney trains exceeding 130% capacity must already be carrying more people than could ever fit on an equivalent single decker. Comfort does make a difference, you can't get people out of their cars if train comfort levels are less than those of most cars.

I would suggest if you try and get on most city bound DD's in morning peak with a Cello you will be met with the same "WTF" as if you hoped on any over crowded train anywhere in the world. Its also common for many networks to have various types of bans for large items like a Cello or a bike in peak direction for this reason.
RTT_Rules
Given an overcrowded single decker carriage, and equivalent double decker carrying the same number of passengers will not be overcrowded because it will have fewer passengers per square metre. More floor space (capacity being equal) means less of a need for bans on large items.
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

(Railpage seems to have a bug that truncates posts at times)

As I mentioned a few posts up, I think the Metro line should have a longer term plan spelled out how its going to interact with the exist network and fill in the gaps mentioned above. Having a double branch at each end as I mentioned above allows services to more efficiently service the areas of the existing network most affected by the Metro.

Additionally what I would do for the NSL
1) Build a 2km tunnel from Nth Sydney station Northern beach stubs to the end of the straight section south of St Leonards and then four tracks to St Leonards

2) 4 trains per hour would continue via the existing line via Wollestoncraft to St Leonards and terminate.

3) remainder of services would run Nth Sydney via new tunnels direct to St Leonards and then up the shore line as far as required, ie Lindfield/Gordon/Hornsby/Berowroa saving around 9min per service which would have significant annualised savings.

4) The trains that follow the Wollestoncraft loop services can then run semi express to Hornsby/Berowra thus saving a further 3min.

5) A small storage yard could be built north of St Leonards for off-peak storage of trains, more efficient that using Lavender Bay and enable it to be closed.

6) Future option to extend the Wollestoncraft loop service to Artarmon via a 2nd pair of tracks if required to boost capacity and frequency from here.

I think the above along with the extension of the Metro to Hornsby via Epping and extension of Metro to Richmond line connecting with the Y-link service would provide significant travel time, capacity and operational savings to the whole Nth side rail services for decades to come.
RTT_Rules

I like options 1, 2 ,3 and 4. 5 is a meh and 6 is a why bother.

A hell no to running metro to Hornsby and the metro will eventually be extended to cross the richmond line at some point in the future.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Run a train with actual room and people will get out of their cars. As others have stated many of Sydney's trains are exceeding 130% capacity on arrival to the CBD. Obviously seats are not key part in making a decision in using the train nor is this an issue in most parts of the world that run similar sorts of trains.
Sydney trains exceeding 130% capacity must already be carrying more people than could ever fit on an equivalent single decker. Comfort does make a difference, you can't get people out of their cars if train comfort levels are less than those of most cars.

I would suggest if you try and get on most city bound DD's in morning peak with a Cello you will be met with the same "WTF" as if you hoped on any over crowded train anywhere in the world. Its also common for many networks to have various types of bans for large items like a Cello or a bike in peak direction for this reason.
Given an overcrowded single decker carriage, and equivalent double decker carrying the same number of passengers will not be overcrowded because it will have fewer passengers per square metre. More floor space (capacity being equal) means less of a need for bans on large items.
Myrtone
The reason you don't understand is because you don't want to or refuse to try and understand. We have been through this all before.

No one is saying SD Metro is superior to DD as a rule, just when you look at the big picture for this project, the SD Metro moves more people for less cost. Per passenger in construction and operating cost the SD Metro is cheaper to build and operate. It makes us for its lower capacity by having less seating and capability at operating at high frequency than that currently or practically capable in Sydney.

As the Metro corridor is basically Greenfield or modernised brownfield, DD could have been built to operate at 24-25 trains per hour. I believe with the current design of Sydney DD's its impractical to go much beyond this without bifurcation platforms at the busiest stations where dwel times would be pushing 1min. A SD train with 3-4 doors per train can easily push 90sec dwell times.  

Town Hall station for the North Shore line corridor cannot be upgraded beyond its 20t/h limit and even then this is pushing a few boundries in platform loading and movements.

At the end of the day, frequency quickly over takes higher capacity for a common fixed length of train and at quieter times of the day is cheaper to run.

Sydney needs DD's on most of existing branch lines because the bulk of the lines operate at much lower frequencies than the cored network in the city tunnels. Or in case of NSL and Western line, that 30km track pair from Chatswood to Straithfield where train frequency in excess of 20t/h would likely be unreliable.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE

I like options 1, 2 ,3 and 4. 5 is a meh and 6 is a why bother.

A hell no to running metro to Hornsby and the metro will eventually be extended to cross the richmond line at some point in the future.
simstrain
With regard to Hornsby, its Epping to Hornsby only I'm talking about. No proposal to go further.

This would require 4 tracks Epping - Hornsby. 2 for Metro and 2 for IU and Freight. Platform 3 Hornsby would be the terminating platform for Metro. No need for 2 platforms for 10min frequency.

This resolves the issues of the E-C corridor being lost to Metro and impact on Epping- Hornsby suburbans, the Metro option would likely be a faster trip for Cheltenham - Normanhurst and remove the impact on the Western line from the NW Metro project.
  Myrtone Chief Commissioner

Location: North Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria
The reason you don't understand is because you don't want to or refuse to try and understand. We have been through this all before.
RTT_Rules
I understand that the history behind it has been disregarded, the history you say is irrelevant. It is evidence against the claim that double decker trains were a mistake for Sydney.

No one is saying SD Metro is superior to DD as a rule, just when you look at the big picture for this project, the SD Metro moves more people for less cost. Per passenger in construction and operating cost the SD Metro is cheaper to build and operate. It makes us for its lower capacity by having less seating and capability at operating at high frequency than that currently or practically capable in Sydney.
RTT_Rules
It is running at the same frequency as the R.E.R runs double deckers. Regardless of how the R.E.R compares to the Sydney suburban, that does give it a higher capacity than metro style rail.

As the Metro corridor is basically Greenfield or modernised brownfield, DD could have been built to operate at 24-25 trains per hour. I believe with the current design of Sydney DD's its impractical to go much beyond this without bifurcation platforms at the busiest stations where dwel times would be pushing 1min. A SD train with 3-4 doors per train can easily push 90sec dwell times.
RTT_Rules
If double decked trains on that line don't have to inter-operate with the existing Sydney ones, they could be made more like the R.E.R ones and therefore run at the same frequency as the R.E.R.

At the end of the day, frequency quickly over takes higher capacity for a common fixed length of train and at quieter times of the day is cheaper to run.
RTT_Rules
What does this mean?
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
The reason you don't understand is because you don't want to or refuse to try and understand. We have been through this all before.
I understand that the history behind it has been disregarded, the history you say is irrelevant. It is evidence against the claim that double decker trains were a mistake for Sydney.

No one is saying SD Metro is superior to DD as a rule, just when you look at the big picture for this project, the SD Metro moves more people for less cost. Per passenger in construction and operating cost the SD Metro is cheaper to build and operate. It makes us for its lower capacity by having less seating and capability at operating at high frequency than that currently or practically capable in Sydney.
It is running at the same frequency as the R.E.R runs double deckers. Regardless of how the R.E.R compares to the Sydney suburban, that does give it a higher capacity than metro style rail.

As the Metro corridor is basically Greenfield or modernised brownfield, DD could have been built to operate at 24-25 trains per hour. I believe with the current design of Sydney DD's its impractical to go much beyond this without bifurcation platforms at the busiest stations where dwel times would be pushing 1min. A SD train with 3-4 doors per train can easily push 90sec dwell times.
If double decked trains on that line don't have to inter-operate with the existing Sydney ones, they could be made more like the R.E.R ones and therefore run at the same frequency as the R.E.R.

At the end of the day, frequency quickly over takes higher capacity for a common fixed length of train and at quieter times of the day is cheaper to run.
What does this mean?
Myrtone
RER C line operate at no less than 3min frequency, A line operates on average for 1h or so in AM peak at 25 trains per hour or 2.5min frequency.

The reliability of the D lLne is a joke and reason enough to avoid using the RER as a shinning example of rail utopia.
B Line suffers a similar issue due to sharing the common section of the D Line.

The RER is a predominately surface railway and a small inner core of underground.

Back to the topic, the Sydney Metro from Bankstown to the NW terminus will have tunnel length at least 50% of its length and hence cost per passenger km is the controlling force and hence the cheapest option is and will also be SD, JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER PREDOMINATELY UNDERGROUND RAILWAY IN THE WORLD FOR EXACTLY THE SAME REASON, COST! AND PRACTICALITY.

Long term the Sydney Metro has the capability to reach 90 to 120 sec in frequency if needed.
  Myrtone Chief Commissioner

Location: North Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria
The RER is a predominately surface railway and a small inner core of underground.
RTT_Rules
As noted, most of it is beyond the territory of the metro. Parts of the R.E.R within metro territory are mostly underground.

Back to the topic, the Sydney Metro from Bankstown to the NW terminus will have tunnel length at least 50% of its length and hence cost per passenger km is the controlling force and hence the cheapest option is and will also be SD, JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER PREDOMINATELY UNDERGROUND RAILWAY IN THE WORLD FOR EXACTLY THE SAME REASON, COST! AND PRACTICALITY.
RTT_Rules
Right, I noted that every other predominantly underground railway in the world is metro style rail. All metro style rail, including mostly elevated rail, is always with single decker trains.

The same government that pushed ahead with this, and bought new intercity trains from overseas, is the same government that dug the Arncliffe pedestrian tunnel for a greater price per metre than the Sydney Harbour Bridge or the Airport rail tunnel.
It also built the Albert "Tibby" Cotter bridge in the wrong place and costing more than any other pedestrian bridges, some with considerable engineering challenges, and more per metre than any general traffic bridge.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
The RER is a predominately surface railway and a small inner core of underground.

As noted, most of it is beyond the territory of the metro. Parts of the R.E.R within metro territory are mostly underground.

Back to the topic, the Sydney Metro from Bankstown to the NW terminus will have tunnel length at least 50% of its length and hence cost per passenger km is the controlling force and hence the cheapest option is and will also be SD, JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER PREDOMINATELY UNDERGROUND RAILWAY IN THE WORLD FOR EXACTLY THE SAME REASON, COST! AND PRACTICALITY.

Right, I noted that every other predominantly underground railway in the world is metro style rail. All metro style rail, including mostly elevated rail, is always with single decker trains.

The same government that pushed ahead with this, and bought new intercity trains from overseas, is the same government that dug the Arncliffe pedestrian tunnel for a greater price per metre than the Sydney Harbour Bridge or the Airport rail tunnel.
It also built the Albert "Tibby" Cotter bridge in the wrong place and costing more than any other pedestrian bridges, some with considerable engineering challenges, and more per metre than any general traffic bridge.
Myrtone
Interesting read on RER D Line, French call it "RER poubelle"  which is French for RER Trash with a reliability of around 90% and only a few seconds delay has significant knock on effects that takes hours to resolve if it occurs in peak.

Mytone, you also seriously need to remember that the RER is 87% low to medium density surface railway which is squeezed into a short high to very high density underground section, of which some parts are questionable in design standards and very difficult to improve without spending billions and in many cases money is not the road block, ie conflict with existing infrastructure. This is unfortunately the commonality it has with Sydney.

The New Sydney Metro is going to be medium density line. The number of seats on the Bankstown line (quoted to exceed will actually improve with growth for more. The Bankstown line currently has an average load factor of 120%, but only 17% of commuters due to packed trains.

The alt to Metro would have been a DD tunnel from Sydneham to the NW line, over 30km long (excluding existing tunnel) and around half the total distance. Would have cost more to build and more to operate longterm. Realisticly the only advantage in doing so is the ability for existing Hornsby via Epping to continue to use the tunnel and links on south side with Liverpool and Reagents Park. However I suspect that many commuters on Cheltneham  to Normanhurst will change trains at Epping if it saves more than 5-10min which happens on the RER where its slower than the Metro. Also on south side I suspect the govt will extend the Metro to Liverpool or something similar in future.  
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

In essence by bringing up the RER. Myrtone is showing that multiple system types in a city is not an issue. Paris has RER, Metro and TGV. If we build more metro's then slowly the pressure can be taken off the sydney trains network. Metro services don't actually need to go all the way into the CBD in the future. They could link north south from say hornsby to hurstville for instance.
  Myrtone Chief Commissioner

Location: North Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria
First of all, the T.G.V is an intercity service. Also, the Paris metro pre-dates the underground portion of the RER and also electrification of the rest. Multiple system types in a city is for historical reasons. Paris is an old city that was heavily developed back in the 18th century, so with the coming of the railways, this development meant that mainline rail services (steam hauled in those days) had to terminate on the edge of the city.
The solution was to run smaller trains in tunnels under the old, heavily developed part of the city. But this meant interchanges on the edge of the city. The way they made it work is by making most peak period passengers stand in addition to running the trains frequently, and this means that metro style rail works best in cities of this type.



https://youtu.be/iPWhK6P79Tc

Sydney developed mostly with the (surface) railways and was able to avoid that problem. The Sydney suburban was electrified before there was a need for underground railways and so Dr. Bradfield saw that it could be extended into and through the centre.
And because of this, outer suburban commuters don't have to change trains, let alone to smaller trains with fewer seats. All the changes since the 1940s, in technology, commuter dynamics, etc don't change the fact that this is a priceless advantage.

Note there there have been more extensions to non-metro rail in London, Paris and Berlin than to metros in those same cities.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
In Paris there are at least two non interchangeable RER networks and more non interchangeable Metros in Paris. All up without checking specific details Paris is serviced by around 5 or 6 different and non interchangeable RER/Metro lines.

That 2nd paragraph in Mytones reference of Paris actually defines Sydney today. Underground trains required to connect the future growth of outer Sydney Suburban services.
  nswtrains Chief Commissioner

In Paris there are at least two non interchangeable RER networks and more non interchangeable Metros in Paris. All up without checking specific details Paris is serviced by around 5 or 6 different and non interchangeable RER/Metro lines.

That 2nd paragraph in Mytones reference of Paris actually defines Sydney today. Underground trains required to connect the future growth of outer Sydney Suburban services.
RTT_Rules
The Washington DC Metro is some what similar in that the various lines cross over each other but don't have an actual connection. To interchange lines you have to alight at an interchange staion and then either go up or down a level to the next line you require. Whilst this Metro suffers from bad maintenance practices the overall system works well as trains are not bottle necked at junctions.
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

The london metro is nowhere near applicable because it has a tiny loading gauge and the trains total length is only 130 metres at best. Sydney's metro trains are much larger then the london tube's rolling stock in width, height and length.

The RER also has single and double deck trains and not all RER lines do 30 trains an hour. The RER c which most resembles Sydney is hamstrung the same as Sydney's system is. The RER A and B operate at 30tph mainly due to it's simple design.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Sims
They don't operate at 30t/h continuously. Only on and off during the hour. The actual in the busiest hour of the day is 25t/h.

The B and D line which overlap and this is only section that achieves 2min on and off during peak is plagued with delays. WE DONT WANT THIS IN SYDNEY.

The C line as you said only does 20t/h and most like Sydnsy and hence ends the fallacy that Sydney can or should be pushed above 20t/h into an increasing unreliable and difficult to sustain +20t/h frequency.

Sponsored advertisement

Subscribers: Myrtone, RTT_Rules

Display from:   

Quick Reply

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