| 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 |
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 10:14 pm
|
| djf01 wrote: | | 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. |
djf01 in your view where would be the ideal location for a City Terminus?
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
|
|
 |
djf01
Junior Train Controller
Joined: May 15, 2008
Last Visited: Jan 7, 2009
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 10:57 pm
|
| GeoffreyHansen wrote: |
djf01 in your view where would be the ideal location for a City Terminus? |
Just out of earshot of *my* office!
Seriously, I think the location of that proposed Pitt St station (IIRC between Martin Place & Market St?) on the cross harbour tunnel would have the best catchment location. <=10 min walk from pretty much the entire financial district. At least from a PAX perspective.
|
|
|
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 11:13 pm
|
| tonyp wrote: | ^^
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. |
Quite correct. I was a commercial pilot in a 'past life' and the problem of putting large aircraft into Bankstown mostly has more to do with airspace limitations than runway considerations. The 11/29 alignment at Bankstown is at an odd angle to Sydney's 16/34 and 07/25 runways, so routing large aircraft to Bankstown is messy, especially under instrument flying rules (IFR). Don't know the current practice, but for light aircraft years ago I recall ATC bringing IFR aircraft down the approaches for Sydney airport (slotted in with heavier flights proceeding there), then give them a turn at an appropriate point close to Bankstown (e.g. a left turn over around Padstow if they were coming down the Sydney 07 approach).
The Bankstown control zone is small and uses (mostly visual) General Aviation Airport Procedures (GAAP). That's quite OK for lighties and DC-3 era aircraft, but 737s and even DASH-8s require more maneuvering and approach space. That would take them outside the existing control zone into uncontrolled (but busy) airspace to the north and west and/or infringe into the Sydney zone to the east. (e.g. a 737 would probably be best approached onto 11 from out around Prospect, or onto 29 from around Georges River Bridge. Enlarging the controlled airspace (Bankstown Zone stops at about Cabramatta) would infringe on the operations of light aircraft who make up the vast majority of Bankstown movements. On the plus side, it would be much cheaper to run aircraft into Bankstown than Sydney.
I live under the 11 approach and some charters using larger aircraft do run in and out of Bankstown, sometimes quite late at night when it is uncontrolled. The money made by the new owners out of non-aviation activities at Bankstown would far exceed their income from aviation operations, so there is no big incentive for them to push the latter. The same owners are about to close Hoxton Park airport (was October, now December), but they appear to be having difficulty selling/leasing industrial development there, probably due to a glut in the latter and current general economic malaise, so it might remain as an operating airport for a little longer yet. Shame when it closes, as it's easily one of the best and busiest, yet safest training fields in the country.
Returning closer to topic, my belief is the first operating Metro we'll see in Sydney will be Westmead/Parramatta to Railway Sq/Barangaroo, roughly following Parramatta Rd and/or the motorway. IMHO it has the best economic arguments - good population centres at each end, serving frequently used venues and growing business/residential developments at Olympic Park, a huge potential for urban renewal from Strathfield to Auburn, trendy and moderately dense suburbs and a Uni from Glebe to Concord, a likely positive response from most along the route, far less topographical challenges than the Victoria Road corridor, can be marketed as a 'green' alternative to extending a motorway into the city at great expense, and the potential to take the pressure off the (by then) vastly overloaded Granville to Homebush Cityrail bottleneck and enable the latter to focus on providing Western Line capacity for the more outer suburban commuters.
A man of great genius makes no mistakes; his errors are volitional and become the portals of discovery (James Joyce).
|
|
|
a6et
Chief Commissioner
Joined: Aug 13, 2006
Last Visited: Jan 5, 2009
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 11:19 pm
|
| djf01 wrote: | 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. |
The whole line from Rouse Hill to Chatswood was a package, basically it would take much of the now congested (M2) traffic that has many western workers who work in the MacQuarie park business area as well as the Uni & the many who also commute to Chatswood & lower north shore by road.
Thus, we are not talking about the failed Airport line but a totally different concept. Although no one can ignore the fact that it will not come cheap, & really what does it cost to subsidise road transport & build roads anyway?
The sad part of the Airport line is the ridiculous surchage cost, & the reality that no new travellers from O/seas or for that matter anyone arriving at either terminal is aware of a train connections. I have never seen anything advertised on in flight notice sheets, but when you go overseas, rail connections are well advertised, in flight & at the terminals.
| 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  . |
Read in with what I said with bus interchanges. Instead of bus only lanes, they become metro or LR.
| 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]
Agreed, so why not have one system. What I am propossing is that the current LR consortium would want compensation if they lost the Lilyfield section, so by giving them them the area they want in CBD, will more than compensate. Remember also it could eliminate a lot of buses out of the CBD as well, thus a cleaner air.
| 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. |
No! I am talking about Sydney yard, a large area exists to the west of the the terminating platforms past the old office/staff building. This area was called Bondi, had several roads for cleaning & preperation shed for night passenger trains, & for extra cars. It includes the spot where there is a road access through the flyovers.
| Quote: | | 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! |
One of the problems is fitting in extra services is when terminated trains occupy platforms, thus delays are encountered by other incoming services waiting for a clear platform. Placing extra roads in there, that have arrival & departue facilities from both ends would enable terminating trains to "shunt" into those roads allowing other trains access to the platforms.
It is possible that maybe 3-4 extra services an hour in the morning peak could benefit. Also less prospect of delays to other incoming services.
| Quote: | | 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. |
St James was used to both transfer or turnback (modern talk) in the peak times, & then to stable trains at the end of the peak. Then in the afternoon started from St James, usually running to/from the East Hills or Bankstown line. It worked extremely well the same as the Wynyard relay services.
|
|
|
wurx
Lithgovian Ambassador-at-Large
Joined: Dec 07, 2003
Last Visited: Jan 6, 2009
Location: the wurxcorral, Corrimal, NSW - official site of the Illawarra's Lithgovian Embassy
contact
|
post
|
|
| wurx |
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 11:29 pm
|
IMHO a cheaper (and more viable & realistic) alternative to the Iemmetro  would be to convert those stupid busways into light rail 
* Don't blame me - I voted 
* BRING BACK THE BIFURCATION
* Dedicated free~range barker egg farmer
* Nota Poe Store |
|
|
djf01
Junior Train Controller
Joined: May 15, 2008
Last Visited: Jan 7, 2009
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 1:05 am
|
| a6et wrote: |
The whole line from Rouse Hill to Chatswood was a package, basically it would take much of the now congested (M2) traffic that has many western workers who work in the MacQuarie park business area as well as the Uni & the many who also commute to Chatswood & lower north shore by road.
|
I seem to recall that the Rouse Hill line was at least loosely on the agenda even before Chatswood - Parramatta was announced.
And Chatswood-Epping was still supposed to be (eventually) part of Chatswood-Parramatta when construction started IIRC.
I was never intending to suggest the Airport lines and ECL failed for the same reasons (or even failed at all). But they do have these traits in common:
1) huge cost overruns - essentially due to committing to the projects before the engineering was done to get a solid price estimate
2) minimal/negligible additions to capacity or usefulness of the network
3) created operational problems for the rest of the network (ECL because of probable restrictions on the stock usable on it, the Airport line by contractually requiring a high portion of southern/EH line trains to use a longer slower route with inappropriate - for an airport shuttle - rolling stock)
4) Both made sense as fitting into a longer term agenda (Airport to eventually provide a rail link to Badgery's Creek, and ECL as part of Chatswood-Parra or Chatswood-Rouse Hill) that has since been abandoned.
| Quote: | | Quote: |
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 . |
Read in with what I said with bus interchanges. Instead of bus only lanes, they become metro or LR.
|
So am I right in thinking you are talking about LRT in the kerbside lanes on Victoria road instead of bus lanes?
| Quote: |
One of the problems is fitting in extra services is when terminated trains occupy platforms, thus delays are encountered by other incoming services waiting for a clear platform.
|
Is this really a problem at ST? CR has 13 platforms at it's disposal (if you count 3, which they use every now and again) and deals with what - 8 trains an hour max?
| Quote: |
It is possible that maybe 3-4 extra services an hour in the morning peak could benefit. Also less prospect of delays to other incoming services.
|
Again, I just don't get why this would be done. All those PAX on terminating ST services still have to go somewhere.
| Quote: |
St James was used to both transfer or turnback (modern talk) in the peak times, & then to stable trains at the end of the peak. Then in the afternoon started from St James, usually running to/from the East Hills or Bankstown line. It worked extremely well the same as the Wynyard relay services. |
Was this ever done post the completion of the Circle? And if it was, was it done for any reason other than stabling?
|
|
|
a6et
Chief Commissioner
Joined: Aug 13, 2006
Last Visited: Jan 5, 2009
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 8:37 am
|
| djf01 wrote: | I seem to recall that the Rouse Hill line was at least loosely on the agenda even before Chatswood - Parramatta was announced.
And Chatswood-Epping was still supposed to be (eventually) part of Chatswood-Parramatta when construction started IIRC. |
For years there was dribbling of suggestions by all sides of governments. Promises to the electorate out that way, problem was/is it is in general all blue ribbon lib area that sits on the edges of a labor area. As per usual, they can promise & do nothing. After all when Johny got to Canberra on a huge promise campaign & did not deliver, & was taken to the Supreme Court, who handed down a decision.
Promises given during election campaigns are given in good faith, but are not binding on a party on election. or words very close.
So the promise was there for years, then the Parra-Carlo thing was part of the Epping-Chatswood line, finances came in & so did Costa, along with the new NWL promise, along with it being an intergral part of the one line.
Surveys in the NW corridor found a huge proportion of the residants worked at Mac Park & the lower NS, plus the incentive to open up the Uni to a wider area was part of the promise & spin by the government to the people & councils out in the NW to agree to the land releases & housing devolpments on the scale we see now.
Current bus services direct to the City are now reaching saturation point as people leave their cars behind, & commute, this would increase dramatically with a direct link to the shore to take buses off the route along with those heading to the LNS.
| Quote: | I was never intending to suggest the Airport lines and ECL failed for the same reasons (or even failed at all). But they do have these traits in common:
1) huge cost overruns - essentially due to committing to the projects before the engineering was done to get a solid price estimate
2) minimal/negligible additions to capacity or usefulness of the network
3) created operational problems for the rest of the network (ECL because of probable restrictions on the stock usable on it, the Airport line by contractually requiring a high portion of southern/EH line trains to use a longer slower route with inappropriate - for an airport shuttle - rolling stock)
4) Both made sense as fitting into a longer term agenda (Airport to eventually provide a rail link to Badgery's Creek, and ECL as part of Chatswood-Parra or Chatswood-Rouse Hill) that has since been abandoned. |
The situation is no different with the cost blow outs with roads, I honestly cannot remember one major road project that came in under budget, especially those involved tunnelling. One only has to look at the wonderful cost benefits of the cross city & Lane cove tunnel projects to compare with the rail concepts.
The issue really is that, this state has had no real rail P/T planning now for yonks, new industrial & housing estates have sprung up over the whole of the Sydney basin with no allowances for any sort of PT except local buses. We suffer or actually are suffocating as a result.
Unless there is a real attempt to actually do more than talk things will get worse, not only that the longer the delay the worse it will get, & that is what we see happening now. Would we see the ES line built today, & where would we be without it?
How many years has the Sutherland - Cronulla upgrade been going on & what cost, & actually benefit is that when population densities are considered?
Likewise, the amount of money projected on providing an extra lane at Iron Cove, for a 5-10minute saving, that is stupid wasted money & could go into more worthy PT works.
[/quote]
So am I right in thinking you are talking about LRT in the kerbside lanes on Victoria road instead of bus lanes?
| Quote: |
Actually yes. The bus lanes could easily have LR track built in, for the main form of PT to the city, whilst it could also allow for bus use as well.
|
One of the problems is fitting in extra services is when terminated trains occupy platforms, thus delays are encountered by other incoming services waiting for a clear platform.
Is this really a problem at ST? CR has 13 platforms at it's disposal (if you count 3, which they use every now and again) and deals with what - 8 trains an hour max?
| Quote: |
When one sits under Regent St to await a departing service, or empty cars, yes.
| Quote: | It is possible that maybe 3-4 extra services an hour in the morning peak could benefit. Also less prospect of delays to other incoming services.
|
Again, I just don't get why this would be done. All those PAX on terminating ST services still have to go somewhere. |
Looking at Central & to a lesser degree Redfern they are very much interchange platforms as it is, as such the terminus could fit more services in. These could very well be express services from the West & North, or even from Campeltown, with interchange at either Redfern or Central>
If we are looking to move mor people onto PT & rail in particular, then you need more services. Thus any option should be looked at.
| Quote: |
| Quote: | | St James was used to both transfer or turnback (modern talk) in the peak times, & then to stable trains at the end of the peak. Then in the afternoon started from St James, usually running to/from the East Hills or Bankstown line. It worked extremely well the same as the Wynyard relay services. |
Was this ever done post the completion of the Circle? And if it was, was it done for any reason other than stabling? |
Mate, whilst I may be old, the operations pre opening of the Quay/circle is before my time.
Now I can assure you that it was very much part of the working during my time as an ETR driver in the 2nd half of the 70's. As I said it worked & worked well.
The other aspect of all these Costa inspired turn backs is the fact that several were actually in place at previous times, & the one at Homebush is basically built over the old neck/storage sideing used each day.
Lidcombe used the old Rookwood sidings, & what of the massive waste there, & will it be completed?
More Costa bungles, & he says the state's broke & can't afford the new projects, well we can look to where a lot of the wasted money has gone.
|
|
|
a6et
Chief Commissioner
Joined: Aug 13, 2006
Last Visited: Jan 5, 2009
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 8:46 am
|
| Oldfart wrote: | | [Returning closer to topic, my belief is the first operating Metro we'll see in Sydney will be Westmead/Parramatta to Railway Sq/Barangaroo, roughly following Parramatta Rd and/or the motorway. IMHO it has the best economic arguments - good population centres at each end, serving frequently used venues and growing business/residential developments at Olympic Park, a huge potential for urban renewal from Strathfield to Auburn, trendy and moderately dense suburbs and a Uni from Glebe to Concord, a likely positive response from most along the route, far less topographical challenges than the Victoria Road corridor, can be marketed as a 'green' alternative to extending a motorway into the city at great expense, and the potential to take the pressure off the (by then) vastly overloaded Granville to Homebush Cityrail bottleneck and enable the latter to focus on providing Western Line capacity for the more outer suburban commuters. |
My only problem with the Westmead & Parramatta Rd concept is that until it reaches the Strathfield area, & even then it would need a rethink is that the population densities along the section really are not up there, owing to the long sections of industrial & commercial business centres.
Its been a long time since workers have had the benefit of let alon used workers trains. Certainly from the intersection of Concord Road to the city would be more feasible with the population density there.
Again the cost of purchasing land & construction will be huge, unless they went Chicago like & built a line running over the top of Parramatta Road for LR or metro style services.
Of course the metro from Parramatta, could actually go over the river at Rhodes & then follow Concord road to the city.
|
|
|
awsgc24
Minister for Railways
Joined: Feb 18, 2003
Last Visited: Jan 8, 2009
Location: Sydney, NSW
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 4:20 pm
|
|
The gradient profile of the Airport Line between Central and Green Square was modified at a cost of a few million dollars to create a section clear of vertical curves where it would be possible to build an underground flying junction. The tracks from this junction could go almost anywhere such as Central Platforms 14-15-16.
|
|
|
T_sets_rnt_crap
Beginner
Joined: Sep 03, 2008
Last Visited: Oct 4, 2008
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 7:26 pm
|
my view after living and commuting for five years from castle hill to the city is that they (state, federal, local govt) wont do anything because no one wants to pay for the mistakes that all three have combined to create.
But if your not going to do anything or at least a bandaid I would get rid of the bus lanes on the M2, convert them to L/R or above ground metro (like that one in Perth that runs down some freeway) only problem is what to do at the end of the M2... either take it up epping road and then onto the Gorehill or terminate it at epping station for a transfer to the city on heavy rail
on a side the line from rouse hill to the city was original penciled into street directories in 1996 or 1998 iirc and was ment to be finished at latest 2010.....
|
|
|
jaseee
Locomotive Driver
Joined: Feb 08, 2005
Last Visited: Dec 11, 2008
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 8:57 pm
|
|
The grades on the M2 are too steep to support light rail or metro, hence bus lanes are the best. I'd like to see a tram try to get up the hills near the Pennant Hills Rd and Windsor Rd intersections. I'm sure this has been mentioned here before somewhere...
|
|
|
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: Tue Sep 09, 2008 8:59 pm
|
| awsgc24 wrote: | | The gradient profile of the Airport Line between Central and Green Square was modified at a cost of a few million dollars to create a section clear of vertical curves where it would be possible to build an underground flying junction. The tracks from this junction could go almost anywhere such as Central Platforms 14-15-16. |
Was this for the Speedrail proposal which planned to go from platforms 14/15, via the Airport and onto the East Hills Line?
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
|
|
|
djf01
Junior Train Controller
Joined: May 15, 2008
Last Visited: Jan 7, 2009
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 10:32 pm
|
| a6et wrote: |
The situation is no different with the cost blow outs with roads, I honestly cannot remember one major road project that came in under budget, especially those involved tunnelling. One only has to look at the wonderful cost benefits of the cross city & Lane cove tunnel projects to compare with the rail concepts.
|
Not that I'm a big follower of road projects, but IIRC the Harbour Tunnel, M5, M4, M2, M7 & Eastern Distributor projects were deemed successes - without major cost over runs (not sure about Eastern Distributor). It's the more recent cross city tunnel and the lane cove tunnel than have been costly flops, and they both bear an an uncanny resemblance to the Airport Line and ECR projects in many respects, not just the tunneling.
So 6/8 for road, 0/2 for rail.
| Quote: | | Would we see the ES line built today, & where would we be without it? |
IIRC, the ESR failed to deliver the anticipated PT benefits to the eastern suburbs. It too went way over initial estimites by the time it was finally built, and less than half of what was planned ever got built. The prime benefit has turned out to be the added of CBD capacity to CR, and I understand that feature was only added as an afterthought!
| Quote: |
How many years has the Sutherland - Cronulla upgrade been going on & what cost, & actually benefit is that when population densities are considered?
|
I agree, the cost benefit here is atrocious. Short segments of single track do not have to propagate delays if they are correctly time-tabled (and the route is not capacity constrained), nor do sections of ST at the end of a route.
| Quote: |
When one sits under Regent St to await a departing service, or empty cars, yes. |
OK, I'm with you now. I remember that all too well, especially if the V set I was riding go sidled off onto the western approach tracks. I thought that was a operational issue rather than a capacity constraint one. The choke point being the yard throat (and it's management) rather than number of platforms.
An alternative to your suggestion might be to re-commission platforms 1&2 at Wynyard, extend the tunnels southward enough to have bifurcated platforms on the Shore Line, and use Wynyard as a V set terminal, funded by the sale of the ST site. It'd cost some slots on the Shore line though.
Ultimately, that's the direction CR is headed (decommissioning ST, not upgrading Wynyard) , once all the V sets are retired.
| Quote: | | Quote: |
Was this ever done post the completion of the Circle? And if it was, was it done for any reason other than stabling? |
..
Now I can assure you that it was very much part of the working during my time as an ETR driver in the 2nd half of the 70's. As I said it worked & worked well.
|
Thanks for that. I presume that was decommissioned sometime in the early 80s?
As for OF's assertion there are no cheap options, I think I've come up with one - or at least one that's in the ballpark:
Instead of qauding St James to Central:
- Recommission/Commission the extra 2 platforms at St James & the turnbacks/stabling at St James.
- Connect the centre tracks to the outer tracks south of St James.
- Re-signal St James to Central for a (gasp) 90 second headway (up to 40 tph!).
- The big one: close Museum Station. (Hey, it's only 500m from St James anyway, and 800m from Central)
Operationally:
- Bankstown line changes to 2 routes:
1) Lidcombe (term) - Bankstown - St James (term) (6-8tph peak)
2) Liverpool (term) - Bankstown - St James (term) (4-6tph peak) Limited stops Bankstown to City
Almost an isolated system I'll refer to as sector X.
- "Slow" tracks from Strathfield to Blacktown get transfered to Sector 2.
- *All* EH/Campbo trains go via the Airport.
- Main routes are:
1) Cambo - Airport - Circle - Parra - Blacktown (stopper between Parra & Blacktown) (6-8tph)
2) Revesby - Airport - Circle - Homebush (Stopper) (4-6 tph)
3) Bringelly/Leppington/EastHills (term) - Circle - Granville - Liverpool - Glenfield (term) (4-6tph)
4) Because there is no Cambo - Granville - City route, I think a re-instatement of Cambo - Y-Link - Blacktown stopper (at ~2-4tph)
Pros:
+ Frees up 6-8 slots on sector 3. Overall I think I'm increasing CR's CBD capacity by ~10-12tph.
+ Radically simplifies sector 2, even after clearways is finished, to (almost) a simpler dog bone topology. (3 routes down from 7 or 8, 0 loops down from 3 or 4, still 4 or 5 flat junctions but down from 
+ As the idea is a bit half baked, it should fit right in .
It's certainly not perfect:
Cons:
- Depends on achieving >30 tph between St James & Central, which is probably a touch fanciful. Bradfield actually intended to use bifurcated platforms to achieve this sort of tight headway when he designed the system - even though it was never really built. This is why he pushed for the automated signaling.
- Sectors 2 & 3 have to share track at the Blacktown flyover. It works better if the Richmond Line also goes to sector 2, but I think that's only possible/practical if the inner west goes somewhere else.
- 5min added to Cambo -> CBD route (but - possibly - less delays)
- Sector 2 & sector X share trackage St James to Central (obviously)
- Sector 2 & Sector X share trackage between Cabramatta & Liverpool.
- Stuffs up the NW Metro proposal (which in *theory* is still on the table) to use those platforms at St James
Back of the envelope costing - most figures plucked out of the air:
Refit of St James platforms: $10mil
Tunnelling (southern end) @ St James: $5mil?
6 sets of points @ St James: $12 mil
1000m of new track: $10 mil
Resignalling St James to Central: $15mil?
Draining the Northern End Tunnels: $3mil?
Admin/Corruption/Cost blowouts: $44mil
Closure of Museum Station: 300,000 Votes
Total: $99mil
Or put another way, about 25% the benefit of a new cross harbour link, at ~1% of the cost.
Given CR has an annual operating loss of $2bil a year, that could be paid for with a 2 day strike!
|
|
|
Riccardo
Minister for Railways
Joined: Aug 20, 2003
Last Visited: Jan 5, 2009
Location: Elsewhere
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 11:29 pm
|
| djf01 wrote: | | a6et wrote: |
The situation is no different with the cost blow outs with roads, I honestly cannot remember one major road project that came in under budget, especially those involved tunnelling. One only has to look at the wonderful cost benefits of the cross city & Lane cove tunnel projects to compare with the rail concepts.
|
Not that I'm a big follower of road projects, but IIRC the Harbour Tunnel, M5, M4, M2, M7 & Eastern Distributor projects were deemed successes - without major cost over runs (not sure about Eastern Distributor). It's the more recent cross city tunnel and the lane cove tunnel than have been costly flops, and they both bear an an uncanny resemblance to the Airport Line and ECR projects in many respects, not just the tunneling.
So 6/8 for road, 0/2 for rail.
| Quote: | | Would we see the ES line built today, & where would we be without it? |
IIRC, the ESR failed to deliver the anticipated PT benefits to the eastern suburbs. It too went way over initial estimites by the time it was finally built, and less than half of what was planned ever got built. The prime benefit has turned out to be the added of CBD capacity to CR, and I understand that feature was only added as an afterthought!
| Quote: |
How many years has the Sutherland - Cronulla upgrade been going on & what cost, & actually benefit is that when population densities are considered?
|
I agree, the cost benefit here is atrocious. Short segments of single track do not have to propagate delays if they are correctly time-tabled (and the route is not capacity constrained), nor do sections of ST at the end of a route.
| Quote: |
When one sits under Regent St to await a departing service, or empty cars, yes. |
OK, I'm with you now. I remember that all too well, especially if the V set I was riding go sidled off onto the western approach tracks. I thought that was a operational issue rather than a capacity constraint one. The choke point being the yard throat (and it's management) rather than number of platforms.
An alternative to your suggestion might be to re-commission platforms 1&2 at Wynyard, extend the tunnels southward enough to have bifurcated platforms on the Shore Line, and use Wynyard as a V set terminal, funded by the sale of the ST site. It'd cost some slots on the Shore line though.
Ultimately, that's the direction CR is headed (decommissioning ST, not upgrading Wynyard) , once all the V sets are retired.
| Quote: | | Quote: |
Was this ever done post the completion of the Circle? And if it was, was it done for any reason other than stabling? |
..
Now I can assure you that it was very much part of the working during my time as an ETR driver in the 2nd half of the 70's. As I said it worked & worked well.
|
Thanks for that. I presume that was decommissioned sometime in the early 80s?
As for OF's assertion there are no cheap options, I think I've come up with one - or at least one that's in the ballpark:
Instead of qauding St James to Central:
- Recommission/Commission the extra 2 platforms at St James & the turnbacks/stabling at St James.
- Connect the centre tracks to the outer tracks south of St James.
- Re-signal St James to Central for a (gasp) 90 second headway (up to 40 tph!).
- The big one: close Museum Station. (Hey, it's only 500m from St James anyway, and 800m from Central)
Operationally:
- Bankstown line changes to 2 routes:
1) Lidcombe (term) - Bankstown - St James (term) (6-8tph peak)
2) Liverpool (term) - Bankstown - St James (term) (4-6tph peak) Limited stops Bankstown to City
Almost an isolated system I'll refer to as sector X.
- "Slow" tracks from Strathfield to Blacktown get transfered to Sector 2.
- *All* EH/Campbo trains go via the Airport.
- Main routes are:
1) Cambo - Airport - Circle - Parra - Blacktown (stopper between Parra & Blacktown) (6-8tph)
2) Revesby - Airport - Circle - Homebush (Stopper) (4-6 tph)
3) Bringelly/Leppington/EastHills (term) - Circle - Granville - Liverpool - Glenfield (term) (4-6tph)
4) Because there is no Cambo - Granville - City route, I think a re-instatement of Cambo - Y-Link - Blacktown stopper (at ~2-4tph)
Pros:
+ Frees up 6-8 slots on sector 3. Overall I think I'm increasing CR's CBD capacity by ~10-12tph.
+ Radically simplifies sector 2, even after clearways is finished, to (almost) a simpler dog bone topology. (3 routes down from 7 or 8, 0 loops down from 3 or 4, still 4 or 5 flat junctions but down from
+ As the idea is a bit half baked, it should fit right in .
It's certainly not perfect:
Cons:
- Depends on achieving >30 tph between St James & Central, which is probably a touch fanciful. Bradfield actually intended to use bifurcated platforms to achieve this sort of tight headway when he designed the system - even though it was never really built. This is why he pushed for the automated signaling.
- Sectors 2 & 3 have to share track at the Blacktown flyover. It works better if the Richmond Line also goes to sector 2, but I think that's only possible/practical if the inner west goes somewhere else.
- 5min added to Cambo -> CBD route (but - possibly - less delays)
- Sector 2 & sector X share trackage St James to Central (obviously)
- Sector 2 & Sector X share trackage between Cabramatta & Liverpool.
- Stuffs up the NW Metro proposal (which in *theory* is still on the table) to use those platforms at St James
Back of the envelope costing - most figures plucked out of the air:
Refit of St James platforms: $10mil
Tunnelling (southern end) @ St James: $5mil?
6 sets of points @ St James: $12 mil
1000m of new track: $10 mil
Resignalling St James to Central: $15mil?
Draining the Northern End Tunnels: $3mil?
Admin/Corruption/Cost blowouts: $44mil
Closure of Museum Station: 300,000 Votes
Total: $99mil
Or put another way, about 25% the benefit of a new cross harbour link, at ~1% of the cost.
Given CR has an annual operating loss of $2bil a year, that could be paid for with a 2 day strike! |
Very interesting post...will give it some thought
I like your allowance for corruption! Maybe your 300,000 votes lost for Museum could also be budgeted back via a pork barrel 
What were you hinting was the connection between the recent tollway failures and rail failures? The ALP? Macquarie Bank?
I don't see a problem with 90 second headways as this is routine elsewhere and you do need a headshunt which is what you are proposing. There was a time when St James turnback held Bankstown, East Hills and Illawarra services so it must have been fairly intensive in there.
If you need to get in touch, drop a comment at the Transport Textbook or on my blog.
|
|
|
arctic
Train Controller
Joined: Apr 26, 2006
Last Visited: Jan 6, 2009
contact
|
post
|
|
| arctic |
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 11:42 pm
|
| jaseee wrote: | | The grades on the M2 are too steep to support light rail or metro, hence bus lanes are the best. I'd like to see a tram try to get up the hills near the Pennant Hills Rd and Windsor Rd intersections. I'm sure this has been mentioned here before somewhere... |
They do look too steep, but are they? The M2 contract IIRC specifically states the busways can be converted to LR. LR can go up surprisingly steep gradients.
Maybe they should stop smeging about with pie in the sky billion dollar schemes that will never be delivered due to political and economic cycles and put LR in on the M2 and convert the existing other busways to LR as well (as I think Wurx suggested). At least something like this has a hope of being done before someone gets an opportunity to cancel it..
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
