| home |
|
| news |
|
| discussions |
|
| content |
|
| site |
|
|
| technical support | Need Help? Lodge a support ticket!
Note: This is for technical support only. General questions about railways should be posted to the Forums.donation 
Please Donate!photo comp Have YOU voted yet on Photo of the Month?
Click Here!
Voting Closes 31/1search |
| |
| Author |
Message |
tonyp
Chief Train Controller
Joined: Dec 20, 2007
Last Visited: Jan 4, 2009
Location: Sydney
contact
|
post
|
|
| tonyp |
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 07, 2008 10:46 am
|
| rjaygee wrote: | | Reclaim the eastern tracks over the SHB but to replace the road lanes lost with another road tunnel under the harbour. A road tunnel is a much cheaper option as the gradients at each end can be much steeper than for a rail tunnel. The since discarded plan for a rail tunnel required a start at St Leonards for grades suitable for rail use. |
There should be no need for an extra road tunnel. The SHT and the bridge (main 6 lane deck) provide sufficient capacity to feed the eastern and western distributers. There is no reason for anybody to drive into the CBD in peak hour and there should be a congestion tax to reinforce this. The eastern lanes should have been handed back to railway when the SHT was built, but of course we know the way things are in NSW.....
|
|
 |
Oldfart
Chief Commissioner
Joined: Jan 01, 2006
Last Visited: Jan 6, 2009
Location: Right base for BK 11R
contact
|
post
|
|
| Oldfart |
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 07, 2008 1:40 pm
|
| djf01 wrote: | | Oldfart wrote: |
Cityrail effectively reaches its peak capacity with Clearways. After that there are no cheap options.
|
How about quading Central to St James & operating Bankstown & possibly inner west to terminate at St James as prior to CC.
Viaduct * portal on Wentworth Ave & into the Oxford St tunnels to term at St James. $500mil?
Or the expensive version, tunnel to platforms 26/27 (is there ever a CBD proposal that doesn't use those?) & connect sth of central. $1bil or so?
Or convert Bankstown (& possibly inner west) to LRT, with surface running down Pitt St as far as Market St. Probably about $1bil (mostly new rolling stock), but the option of throwing up a few "M for Metro" signs selling the resulting system off to MacBank & reduce CR's size and future costs.
- All of these add ~18 slots capacity - or half the benefit (the important half) of the second cross city link.
Perhaps not cheap, or even cheap enough, but cheaper than the NW metro. |
I guess it will all depend on what is perceived as "cheap" in the future in NSW. Given some of the noises coming out of Treasury I wouldn't be too optimistic. I certainly expect the NW Metro will soon become the NoWhere Metro.
Having said that, some of the ideas you've suggested are quite viable. Another that has occurred to me is to run future Clearways Campbelltown Express services through Central 26/27 and up to terminate under Pitt Street (Bondi Junction style), thus freeing up City Circle capacity, and providing for a future link to a second harbour crossing (however that might ultimately be engineered).
I would be less enthusiastic about making the Inner West into LRT, given that the (Christie/Clearways) intention is to route all South Line services on the IW "local" tracks to create enough capacity on the "suburban" tracks for needed additional Western line services.
Likewise the Bankstown line is also intended as a second route to Liverpool (hopefully speeded up a little through Bankstown to give similar travel times to the CBD as the South Line). This alleviates having to add more South Line services in future which would compete for paths on the limited available tracks from Granville to Homebush with Western Line services.
At some stage some relief will probably need to be provided for overworked Western Line paths. My bet would be a metro from Parra through Olympic Park, Concord, Leichardt, UniSyd, Railway Sq, and under Sussex St to Barrangaroo, but doubt I'll live to see it.
The spare platforms at St James are always an alluring possibility, but I would rather they be used for providing a connection with a (now probably distant future) metro line with Cityrail. (e.g. a metro from Epping or Ryde through under Victoria Rd to St James then out under Oxford Street to Paddington, Randwick, UNSW and Maroubra Junction.
Tonyp has previously made the interesting suggestion of running metro services through those platforms and Central 26/27 and connecting it (underground) with the existing Airport line, making an exclusively Metro line from Revesby through the airport into the CBD and off to the NW (with Cityrail C'town/SW Link services going via Sydenham and using the separate express tracks to Revesby and beyond).
Whatever happens we appear to be faced with a future full of urgent and important needs, but few available state funds; which opens the possibility of a bigger federal and/or private role. Interesting times ahead.
A man of great genius makes no mistakes; his errors are volitional and become the portals of discovery (James Joyce).
|
|
|
johnboy
Chief Commissioner
Joined: Nov 22, 2004
Last Visited: Jan 6, 2009
Location: Maybe Blue Mtns, Maybe Gulgong...
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 07, 2008 3:43 pm
|
Back in Carr's day, there was those 'pencil' plans to have another road tunnel across the north-west harbour, which would feed down from Lane Cove area and pop up in somewhere near the city. It was part of the connection plan of the F3.
Along with the M4 East Tunnel, the M4/M5 Mascot Connect tunnel, it was one of Bob Carr's "Look, I am solving Sydney's transport crisis" PR stunts to have road tunnels everywhere.
|
|
|
djf01
Junior Train Controller
Joined: May 15, 2008
Last Visited: Jan 7, 2009
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 07, 2008 4:02 pm
|
[quote="Oldfart"]| djf01 wrote: | | Oldfart wrote: |
Cityrail effectively reaches its peak capacity with Clearways. After that there are no cheap options.
|
How about quading Central to St James & operating Bankstown & possibly inner west to terminate at St James as prior to CC.
I guess it will all depend on what is perceived as "cheap" in the future in NSW.
|
Still a better use of taxpayer funds than sextupling Redfern to Sydenham.
And better than a lot of the clearways projects that have already been built, but I guess that's spilt milk.
| Quote: |
Having said that, some of the ideas you've suggested are quite viable. Another that has occurred to me is to run future Clearways Campbelltown Express services through Central 26/27 and up to terminate under Pitt Street ... |
Yep. That'd do it too.
| Quote: |
I would be less enthusiastic about making the Inner West into LRT, given that the (Christie/Clearways) intention is to route all South Line services on the IW "local" tracks to create enough capacity on the "suburban" tracks for needed additional Western line services.
|
There are pros and cons. One of the issues with the clearways proposal is it ends up mixing stoppers and expresses between Redfern & Homebush. This effectively reduces the capacity of the circle, with the inner west suburban tracks being the squeeze point, unless you start drawn Bankstown services onto the outer circle, which introduces it's own problems.
If Bankstown alone is taken out of CR, then I'd suggest sector 2 goes to 3 basic routes:
Campbelltown - Circle - Blacktown
Bringelly - Circle - Granville - Glenfield
Revesby - Circle - Homebush (stopper)
And if Inner West is taken out:
Campbelltown - Circle - Richmond/Riverstone
Bringelly - Circle - Granville - Glenfield
Revesby - Circle - Blacktown
All on the suburban tracks. Western & Northern Line all on the "country" tracks between Strathfield & Redfern. (One more interurban would need to go down the shore to make that work, but that slot should open up with ECL).
| Quote: |
The spare platforms at St James are always an alluring possibility, but I would rather they be used for providing a connection with a (now probably distant future) metro line with Cityrail.
|
I think the way to do it is when/if the NW metro is built, then the Bankstown and possibly the inner west) portions of CR be added to it. It means the metro would need more capital for rolling stock (so $13bil vs $12bil), but it would be twice the system with twice the revenue potential of current metro proposal.
Tonyp's idea about the airport line sort of works too, but it doesn't free up anywhere near as many slots as getting Bankstown off CR.
| Quote: |
Whatever happens we appear to be faced with a future full of urgent and important needs, but few available state funds; which opens the possibility of a bigger federal and/or private role. Interesting times ahead. |
What I'd like to hear is what Fatty O'Barrel has in mind for transport in Sydney - if anything.
|
|
|
hornetfig
Chief Train Controller
Joined: May 13, 2004
Last Visited: Jan 6, 2009
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 07, 2008 4:18 pm
|
| tonyp wrote: | | There should be no need for an extra road tunnel. The SHT and the bridge (main 6 lane deck) provide sufficient capacity to feed the eastern and western distributers. |
But what do you do about the lost bus lane? Put it on the main deck? Remembering the Cahill Expressway lanes did until 1958 and since 1992 primarily serve lower north shore/northern beaches commuters who were the intended beneficiaries of these outside lanes in the first place - not some line to Rouse Hill.
The most effective answer is you incorporate a two lane bus roadway on a second lower deck within the existing frame work. Difficult part is what to do at each approach.
|
|
|
tonyp
Chief Train Controller
Joined: Dec 20, 2007
Last Visited: Jan 4, 2009
Location: Sydney
contact
|
post
|
|
|
|
tonyp
Chief Train Controller
Joined: Dec 20, 2007
Last Visited: Jan 4, 2009
Location: Sydney
contact
|
post
|
|
| tonyp |
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 1:47 am
|
| djf01 wrote: |
Tonyp's idea about the airport line sort of works too, but it doesn't free up anywhere near as many slots as getting Bankstown off CR.
|
Thanks guys for the flattering notion of having a rail scheme named after my Railpage Australia™ username! I have a further permutation of that notion after consulting the Met Strategy - that is to extend the metro line beyond Revesby to Liverpool via Bankstown Airport (employment centre), thus serving two significant centres in the Strategy.
Of course, yes djf01, this extension could also come off the Bankstown line. But I think linking to Sydney Airport/Mascot via EH line might be a better bet in terms of what makes good planning strategy to link up.
|
|
|
Oldfart
Chief Commissioner
Joined: Jan 01, 2006
Last Visited: Jan 6, 2009
Location: Right base for BK 11R
contact
|
post
|
|
| Oldfart |
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 9:05 am
|
| tonyp wrote: | | djf01 wrote: |
Tonyp's idea about the airport line sort of works too, but it doesn't free up anywhere near as many slots as getting Bankstown off CR.
|
Thanks guys for the flattering notion of having a rail scheme named after my Railpage Australia™™ username! I have a further permutation of that notion after consulting the Met Strategy - that is to extend the metro line beyond Revesby to Liverpool via Bankstown Airport (employment centre), thus serving two significant centres in the Strategy.
Of course, yes djf01, this extension could also come off the Bankstown line. But I think linking to Sydney Airport/Mascot via EH line might be a better bet in terms of what makes good planning strategy to link up. |
That's interesting. A few years back there was an informal proposal for a line from advocates of using Bankstown for airline ops (up to 737s). I don't have any references, but IIRC it involved extending the line from Revesby underground with a station at UWS Milperra and splitting into a loop line running to stations at an air terminal on the SE corner (Milperra bridge side) of the airport and under the vacant land just west of the Marion Street airport entrance. The idea was obviously to provide a rail link between Sydney Domestic, Sydney International and "Sydney Metro" (Bankstown) terminals.
Going back still further the original Bankstown line was planned to swing south from Bankstown station, around the hill, through Condell Park (where a remnant of the plan exists as a street named Railway Pde) across what is now Bankstown Airport, over the river, through Chpping Norton and run through Warwick Farm racecourse platforms before turning south to join the Main South just north of Liverpool. The Bankstown line was to be quadrupled much of the way and was intended to provide a route for country (south) services as well as a 40 min route from Liverpool to the CBD.
I think Christie briefly mentions the idea of a new line from Bankstown to Liverpool, coming off the existing tracks west of Punchbowl, then running under Marion street, across/under (?) the Georges River and Chipping Norton to Liverpool. He appears to dismiss it as not being justified by the likely patronage; which leaves us stuck with (after the demise of the Glenfield 'Y' link proposal that would have enabled circular Airport/South Line operations) the much slower Clearways Bankstown via Regents Park route being identified as Liverpool's second route to the city.
I've rambled on about these in posts way back, so apologies if it's "old news".
A man of great genius makes no mistakes; his errors are volitional and become the portals of discovery (James Joyce).
|
|
|
tonyp
Chief Train Controller
Joined: Dec 20, 2007
Last Visited: Jan 4, 2009
Location: Sydney
contact
|
post
|
|
| tonyp |
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 11:01 am
|
^^
Last I read about Bankstown airport Oldfart is that for operational/air safety reasons it was too close to Mascot to be a second airport for big jets so I'm not sure that scenario will ever be on. However Bankstown airport is a major employment centre identified in Metropolitan Strategy - this is more the angle I was looking at. And in this sense it may be better to link it to Liverpool in one direction and CBD via Sydney airport and CIA in the other. Just thoughts, I can't plan Sydney's transport/planning single-handedly, its just that those that we elect/pay to do that don't seem to perform their job very well so it is left to us on Railpage Australia™ to do it for them!
|
|
|
djf01
Junior Train Controller
Joined: May 15, 2008
Last Visited: Jan 7, 2009
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 11:03 am
|
| tonyp wrote: |
Of course, yes djf01, this extension could also come off the Bankstown line. But I think linking to Sydney Airport/Mascot via EH line might be a better bet in terms of what makes good planning strategy to link up. |
| OF wrote: |
That's interesting. A few years back there was an informal proposal for a line from advocates of using Bankstown for airline ops (up to 737s). I don't have any references, but IIRC it involved extending the line from Revesby underground with a station at UWS Milperra and splitting into a loop line running to stations at an air terminal on the SE corner (Milperra bridge side) of the airport and under the vacant land just west of the Marion Street airport entrance. The idea was obviously to provide a rail link between Sydney Domestic, Sydney International and "Sydney Metro" (Bankstown) terminals.
[parra].. sorry about old news ... [/parra]
|
This idea isn't old news to me. When I read it, I first thought "oh no, a combination of the worst aspects of the Epping/Chatswood & Airport lines": a hugely expensive retro fit of HR into an already developed area that very few people want to use (yet), and creates as many operational problems as it solves. But .... given the (Mascot) airport line is already in place, and the quading to Revesby is underway, then Revesby->Bankstown Airport is not all that silly. Certainly not as silly as some of the things that have been built!
OF is right about the Bankstown line being originally intended as a short cut to the southern line, it was one of the original arguments for building it, before Bradfield and electrification. The same argument was used to support the East Hills line, and I think even the quadding to Hurstville. Given the shortcut to the southern line has already been built - twice - extending west of Bankstown line is a bit pointless.
|
|
|
GeoffreyHansen
Minister for Railways
Joined: Apr 13, 2004
Last Visited: Dec 22, 2008
Location: Waiting for the next commuter service to Bathurst
contact
|
post
|
|
| GeoffreyHansen |
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 2:09 pm
|
|
I remember it being suggested a few years back that regional turboprop flights could be diverted to Bankstown. I'm not sure if I'd support the idea unless public transport links to Bankstown airport were improved.
Bring the 3900s back to Brisbane
Bring Karlsruhe Tramtrains to Australian cities
Extend the proposed Metro to Taylor Square
Extend the Gold Coast line to the Tweed
|
|
|
a6et
Chief Commissioner
Joined: Aug 13, 2006
Last Visited: Jan 5, 2009
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 3:27 pm
|
It still comes to me regarding the overall expense of new tunnels that are required for the Metro. How much is to go underground etc, especially under rivers & to meet the criteria of noise levels.
I still believe, & this is only my opinion, & based on what has gone on before, reasons for the NWL concept, promises to councils re land releases for housing devleopments, & the actual work locations for those in that area. Thus the need for a basic single concept that had HR run from Rouse Hill, serving existing but also the new housing estates & work locations at Mac park & chatswood.
As such, I believe in the original HR line going across to Epping & then Chatswood, so moving on to a Metro, & I agree that one that can run from Parramatta to Ryde & then into the city is a good option & makes a very sound future PT option.
Why not something radical, such as a minimum use of underground & perhaps the use of edge of road corridors for inward & outward services. Get buses off the main city routes with buses serving interchanges at strategic points radiating out.
Prior to the current high Gladesville bridge there was an opening bridge just upstream, & you can still see the approaches to it. By using this corridor & going over the Parramatta river, instead of under would be cheaper????? Engineers please.
Once over the river on the city side you have the Iron Cove problem, but again, why not go underground on the City side, & instead of the money that has been allocated for one extra lane on the Iron Cove bridge, (saving 5minutes in travel time) make it a metro bridge instead, & then underground to Rozelle & link up with what is now the LR system at Lilleyfield.
Remove the LR line, making it metro, to DH, & the LR can then take over to provide a Central - George St - Circular Quay - Elizabeth St Central connection. That would compensate the LR consortium.
Now, the existing yard at Rozelle could still be used if needed for Heavy rail frieght services, with the goods line being single tracked, & one converted to Metro use through to Dulwych Hill Triangle with an interchange with CR being built there.
I am also all for the use of the old St James sidings being reintroduced as they served a great purpose. Likewise, in peak hour, the Waverton neck could also be used for turn back services. The exisiting Down Shore platform could be easily converted into an Island platform for that use.
Another old use of the down shore was for terminating trains at Wynyard, using a relay driver to get in the rear cab, & ride up to the points & then take over for a down west or south service.
The current use of Sydney terminal with the last two platforms (13-14?) being used as a turn back area. The old carriage shed area, known as Bondi, could easilly have 2 lines that could take 8car sets, in them. Trains in the morning peak terminating & waiting to go back to the sheds, could be routed into those sidings once passengers are out.
Surelly by the time the driver changes ends, with staff checking the train & getting the passengers out, would be sufficient time for the train to then go into that siding & then allow another to take its place? Once a path is available to go to the sheds, it can then depart freeing up the siding for another service.
I see no need for tieing up a platform when it can be utilised for passengers. & especially when there is space available that would not cost a lot to put track back in.
|
|
|
awsgc24
Minister for Railways
Joined: Feb 18, 2003
Last Visited: Jan 7, 2009
Location: Sydney, NSW
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 4:16 pm
|
| hornetfig wrote: | | tonyp wrote: | | There should be no need for an extra road tunnel. The SHT and the bridge (main 6 lane deck) provide sufficient capacity to feed the eastern and western distributers. |
But what do you do about the lost bus lane? Put it on the main deck? Remembering the Cahill Expressway lanes did until 1958 and since 1992 primarily serve lower north shore/northern beaches commuters who were the intended beneficiaries of these outside lanes in the first place - not some line to Rouse Hill.
The most effective answer is you incorporate a two lane bus roadway on a second lower deck within the existing frame work. Difficult part is what to do at each approach. |
Firstly, it is hard to be sure, but some of the pillars holding up the Hotel over North Sydney station may be in the way of any restoration of 4 tracks through this area.
Secondly, a second harbour tunnel for rail ends up with a second North Sydney station, making 6 platforms in all. A new stations at Crows Nest is also very useful.
This is arguably an improvement, as two existing platforms can be retained for train termination. Therefore let the RTA keep lanes 8, with the STA keeping lane 7 for buses.
|
|
|
tonyp
Chief Train Controller
Joined: Dec 20, 2007
Last Visited: Jan 4, 2009
Location: Sydney
contact
|
post
|
|
| tonyp |
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 7:07 pm
|
| awsgc24 wrote: |
Firstly, it is hard to be sure, but some of the pillars holding up the Hotel over North Sydney station may be in the way of any restoration of 4 tracks through this area.
Secondly, a second harbour tunnel for rail ends up with a second North Sydney station, making 6 platforms in all. A new stations at Crows Nest is also very useful.
This is arguably an improvement, as two existing platforms can be retained for train termination. Therefore let the RTA keep lanes 8, with the STA keeping lane 7 for buses. |
I'd have to go and have a look at the pillars but I don't think this is the case at all - the hotel doesn't go far beyond the ends of the platforms. And I've said before on this forum a tunnel under the harbour is going to be too far down (at least 80 metres below North Sydney) to achieve a station there. You'll be lucky to get first landfall on a workable grade at St Leonards. The bridge is the most feasible way for additional tracks to cross the harbour.
a6et there'll be no need for goods at Rozelle as the port is closing eventually. The White Bay rail corridor will eventually be redeveloped as housing/commercial with a good chance of a light rail branch to Balmain along it.
|
|
|
djf01
Junior Train Controller
Joined: May 15, 2008
Last Visited: Jan 7, 2009
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 7:31 pm
|
| a6et wrote: |
I still believe, & this is only my opinion, & based on what has gone on before, reasons for the NWL concept, promises to councils re land releases for housing devleopments, & the actual work locations for those in that area. Thus the need for a basic single concept that had HR run from Rouse Hill, serving existing but also the new housing estates & work locations at Mac park & chatswood.
As such, I believe in the original HR line going across to Epping & then Chatswood
|
I think almost everyone did. The problem isn't the mode, it's been the price (or extreme cost:benefit of the ECL & Airport lines) of the most recent HR projects undertaken. They've cost a lot and delivered very little.
In fact, the HR from Epping to Rouse Hill on it's own would have been a better use of money than Epping to Chatswood on it's own IMHO.
The only plus I can see of the NW metro is it opens up the possibility of completing the Chatswood - Parramatta line as the ECL was originally conceived. This is effectively a "cheap" 2nd harbour crossing, made cheaper by locating that crossing at Rose Hill.
| Quote: |
Why not something radical, such as a minimum use of underground & perhaps the use of edge of road corridors for inward & outward services. Get buses off the main city routes with buses serving interchanges at strategic points radiating out.
|
a6et, this has me puzzled. What are these "edge of the road" corridors of which you speak? It sounds like a new form of transit that runs down the footpath  .
| Quote: |
Remove the LR line, making it metro, to DH, & the LR can then take over to provide a Central - George St - Circular Quay - Elizabeth St Central connection. That would compensate the LR consortium.
|
In many respects, metros are little more than buried LRT systems.
| Quote: |
The current use of Sydney terminal with the last two platforms (13-14?) being used as a turn back area.
|
I think (IIRC this is possible the way the Airport line enters into the flying junctions) this could be done with platforms 21 & 22, for the cost of 2 or 3 crossovers and some resignalling. And it's avoid the problems of the flat junctions and ST's throat.
The question is why would you want to do it? As with the interurbans at ST, 95% of the PAX then have to change for the last stop or 2 into the city. They are using mid-distance commuter trains as a metro - and so stand in the doors and generally add to CR's dwell time problem. It might add to the train capacity, but not really much to the PAX capacity. But it would definitely increase the PAX frustration factor!
St James is not the ideal location for a city terminus, but it's close enough to the heart of the CBD that most people working in the financial district could/would get out and walk from there in preference waiting for a connection & changing trains to get a few hundred metres closer to the final destination.
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT + 10 Hours
|
You can post new threads in this forum
You can reply to threads in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB 2.0.6 © 2001 phpBB Group
Theme images and concept © 2004 by Michael Greenhill and Railpage, All Rights Reserved.
Version 2.0.6 of PHP-Nuke Port by Tom Nitzschner © 2002 www.toms-home.com
|
|
