NSW Future Rail Plan - NWRL/Metro/Harbour Crossing

 
  Watson374 Chief Commissioner

Location: Fully reclined at the pointy end.
I actually like djf01's compromise solution but I'd go for an 8RER design.

Sponsored advertisement

  djf01 Chief Commissioner

I actually like djf01's compromise solution but I'd go for an 8RER design.
Watson374
In terms of capacity, a 3 door DD car would be a better solution than a 3 door SD car.  And I agree the RER design is superior to the Sydney design in terms of total line capacity - but not by much.   For around 10-15% more trains your lose 5-10% train capacity.

The biggest issue with this sort of fleet renewal solution is you need to replace pretty much the whole fleet in one go before it delivers any benefit.
  Watson374 Chief Commissioner

Location: Fully reclined at the pointy end.
In terms of capacity, a 3 door DD car would be a better solution than a 3 door SD car.  And I agree the RER design is superior to the Sydney design in terms of total line capacity - but not by much.   For around 10-15% more trains your lose 5-10% train capacity.
djf01


Bear in mind I use seven long cars to replace an eight-car suburban, and use eight long cars to replace a ten-car suburban.

The biggest issue with this sort of fleet renewal solution is you need to replace pretty much the whole fleet in one go before it delivers any benefit.
djf01


Tangara replacement time?
  simonl Chief Commissioner

Location: Brisbane
I hear what you're saying Simon.  To provide the frequencies and run-times people expect, Sydney needs 5 sectors, not 3.
djf01
5 sectors?  I don't know that it needs more than 4 this decade.
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

OK, my Nostradamas hat back on, here his my latest thinking on how the network *will* (not should) look in 2030, prepared using the absolute latest in computer graphics technology:


After the "success" of the NWRL, the outrage at the adverse effects on CityRail, and the unaffordablity of the second crossing:

The "Rapid Transit" (RT) will be extended across the bridge and along the Suburbans to Westmead.

The Western Line will be rolled into Sector 2.
The Richmond Line will be rolled into the Cumberland line.

A new isolated Northern sector will be created.

Routes:
RT: Westmead - City - Hornsby
Westmead - City - Chatswood

North:
Central - Epping
Central - Berowa
Central - Central Coast (inc Newcastle)

Sector 2:
Penrith - City Circle - Airport - Campbelltown
Leppington - Granville - City Circle - Sydenham - Leppington
Lidcombe - Bankstown - City Circle - Bankstown - Liverpool
Richmond - Parramatta - Campbelltown

Sector 1:
As now

Fleet Details:

RT:
- The trains will be 8 cars, 6 doors, ~240 longitudinal seats with ~300m^2 of standing space in a form factor compatible with the NWRL specification.

- The system should have a capacity of ~28kPAX/hr (28tph with an average standing load of 2.5/m^2), achieved primarily because of better signalling and the absence of the need to adhere to a timetable.

- Platform screens at Town Hall and Central will boost platform capacity and PAX throughput "a bit".

- New privatised Stabling and Maintenance facility build on the decommissioned Flemington site.

Northern:
- Mostly H sets with a few Ts, mostly out of Hornsby

Sector 2:
- All A sets (on the 3 suburban routes) out of Auburn, and Ms on the Cumberland line (maintained out of Everleigh)
Ms on the Cumberland line is for safety (ie they don't meet evacuation standards in the city tunnels) and because they can operate in 4 car trains.

Sector 1:
- All Ts, plus Hs for the South coast commuter runs out of Mortdale & Everleigh.

Operations:

The new system will effectively isolate the main north, which will operate 3 basic routes: Epping, Berowa & the Central Coast (including Broadmeadow). All PAX will be expected to change to RT et either Hornsby, Epping, Strathfield or Central to complete their journey.

The remainder of the Western Line will be added to Sector 2. PAX for the city will be expected to do a cross platform transfer at Westmead. Western trains will continue to the city stopping at every station on a true milk run. Penrith - City will be >90 min, but that's OK because no-one is expected to make the entire journey by this mode, they are expected to transfer to RT at any of Westmead, Lidcombe or Strathfield.

Similarly Richmond line trains can all got to Campbelltown on that basis (PAX for the city will change @ Westmead).

Equally, PAX from the main south travelling to Nth Sydney are encouraged to switch to RT at Granville/Paramatta rather than Central.

Dubbo XPT will need to access Sydney Terminal via the Bankstown line and the Y at Lidcombe. Western Freighters will need to access Chullora the Lidcombe Y too.

Mountains trains won't have access to Sydney Terminal either, so the few remaining V sets will run around the Y at Granville and turn back at Liverpool. Again, PAX expected to change for RT @ Westmead.

On the Main South, PAX can get a direct train to the city from Campbelltown, or they can get the first train that turns up and change at Glenfield if need be.

The Carlingford line will be isolated, so that will probably precipitate it's conversion to LRT/tram, and interchanging with HR & RT at Granville. No doubt the freight at those yards at Auburn will be redirected to the roads.

RT will operate the Olympic Stadium route, with the Lidcombe shuttle typically but some western trains during special events.

Capacity:
Total Peak Hour Capacity of the system will likely be ~130kPAX to the City & Nth Sydney (CityRail does ~100k now, probably has capacity for 120k). Even though there are a lot more interchanges, this design distributes them across the network and away from Town Hall and Central much more than now.

How rapid RT turns out to be is an interesting question. Definitely faster than the DDs doing all stops milk runs, but I suspect safety requirements of these under-strength NWRL capable vehicles will restrict their allowed operating speed to a max of 80kph.

All northern trains stopping all stations Epping-Strathfield will encourage interchange to RT at Hornsby or Epping rather than at Central or Strathfield, including city bound PAX from between Epping and Strathfield encouraged to travel via Epping.

From the outset passenger loads on RT will be at least 2/m^2 from Parramatta through to Chatswood, and while certainly practical, it's unlikely to be popular given people complain about 1/m^2 loadings now. I expect this "demand management feature" will ensure this system is able to cope up till 2040.

Costs:
It's a surprisingly cheap system to implement. For a 180min route trip run they'll need ~90 trains plus a few spares, which is 75 new trains (after you count the NWRL order) or anywhere from $2-$4bil ifor 600 vehicles of rolling stock. Only a few crossovers, newer signalling and platform screens are needed on the infrastructure front. No doubt this will be funded by deferring the renewal of the T set fleet which will be due by then.

Operating costs are likely to be either in line or higher than current $/pax km because:
- There will be more trains/PAX than now
- There will be similar crew : PAX ratios, but more "drivers" on the increased number of trains.
  simonl Chief Commissioner

Location: Brisbane
I don't understand that at all.  How would RT terminate at Westmead?
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

I don't understand that at all.  How would RT terminate at Westmead?
simonl
A new crossover between the main UP and Down roads west of the station.
  seb2351 Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney
So any updates on what actually is happening, rather then what people wish would happen?
  Watson374 Chief Commissioner

Location: Fully reclined at the pointy end.
So any updates on what actually is happening, rather then what people wish would happen?
seb2351
Is it not blindingly obvious that this is the speculation thread?
  simonl Chief Commissioner

Location: Brisbane
A new crossover between the main UP and Down roads west of the station.
djf01
My point is more why would you bother?  If you've given the harbour bridge lines over to the Western line completely, why not continue on to Penrith and Richmond?

Personally, I don't really see what you are suggesting because I don't think the locals to Homebush can handle additional trains.
  simonl Chief Commissioner

Location: Brisbane
So any updates on what actually is happening, rather then what people wish would happen?
seb2351
The obvious answer being no - or they would have posted something.
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

My point is more why would you bother?  If you've given the harbour bridge lines over to the Western line completely, why not continue on to Penrith and Richmond?

simonl

Why bother?

- Increase harbour bridge capacity
- Fix the Chatswood NWRL interchange problem
- Defer building the second crossing
- Increase capacity to the west
- Decrease the size of CityRail
- DOO/Driverless operation and privatisation

> Personally, I don't really see what you are suggesting because I don't think the locals to Homebush can handle additional
> trains.

There wouldn't be many extra trains.  There would be no ex-Hombush City trains.  Ex-Penrith Trains would form the stoppers on the inner west.  Western Line PAX for the city are expected/encouraged to change to Rapid Transit at Westmead.

Richmond Line city PAX would *have* to change at Westmead.

> If you've given the harbour bridge lines over to the Western line completely, why not continue on to Penrith and Richmond?

Under this scenario, the bridge is handed over the the NWRL format.  If it runs all the way to Penrith, it has to share the perway with freighters and interurbans.  Even if it's not physically incompatible, HR issues alone will mean the NWRL format won't be interoperable with RailCorp.  

Richmond I suppose is possible, but the traffic densities would be too low for the private operator - and besides - that's too far to expect people to stand all the way Smile.  I'd suggest a future extension to Blacktown if and when patronage west of Parramatta exceeds 20k/hr.

Look, this is not really a recommendation on my part.  But given the government wants to pursue an agenda of:
- privatised metros
- cutting the size and cost of CityRail
- avoiding the second harbour crossing

it's the only feasible way I can see it being done.
  simonl Chief Commissioner

Location: Brisbane
I thought we'd established upthread that single deck doesn't really increase capacity except at very high density of standing room.  If you're going to metrify sector 3, why go beyond Parramatta 3 & 4?  Metrifying from Granville to Glenfield would remove one of the real limitations of the plan which abruptly ends at Cabramatta.  Of course, these plans mean the western line runs into Sydney Terminal without the WEX.
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

simonl
> I thought we'd established upthread that single deck doesn't really increase capacity except at very high density of standing room.

All other things being equal.  But RT would also encompass rollout out of automated signalling, no timetable operation, platform screens and yes, high standing densities.

> If you're going to metrify sector 3, why go beyond Parramatta 3 & 4?
One thing I don't think I made clear is RT would (probably) cross from the Suburbans to the Mains between Strathfield and Homebush.  The reasons for that are:
- Avoid having to deal with the complex Sector 2 topology (what do you do at Cabramatta?) & the non-flat junction at Granville
- Provide cross platform interchange (at Westmead)

> Metrifying from Granville to Glenfield would remove one of the real limitations of the plan which abruptly ends at Cabramatta.  Of course, these plans mean the western line runs into Sydney Terminal without the WEX.

And there is that too.  I came with this idea on the premis that the Shore and Bridge would be converted to the NWRL format, what is the easiest way of dealing with the southern side.
  Watson374 Chief Commissioner

Location: Fully reclined at the pointy end.
Metro between Parramatta and Sydney isn't as offensive as it seems at first blush; after all, it's only going to be about half an hour's ride; the Westmead termination makes sense for two reasons - first, parallel cross-platform interchange, and second, the ability to terminate the rapid transit immediately after using a scissors crossover at the down end of the station.

(Normally, I would suggest a scissors crossover at the up end, but that would destroy the consistent parallel cross-platform interchange.) Not ideal, though, but it works.
  kypros1992 Locomotive Fireman
  Murasaki Chief Train Controller

Location: Going sideways... in carriage DET-9216 (>ω<)
There would be no ex-Homebush City trains.  Ex-Penrith Trains would form the stoppers on the Inner West.  Western Line PAX for the city are expected/encouraged to change to Rapid Transit at Westmead.
"djf01"


Cool beans! Let's punish the residents of the real Western Sydney with a longer trip, resulting from potentially botched interchanges at a town whose notable sights are a rather tiny station for such interchanges, a sick kids' hospital, and…that's pretty much it (òwó). Why don't you just shove the entire Penrith and Richmond branches in with the NSW Trains' Blue Mountains, Dubbo and Broken Hill routes while you're at it. Y'all can call us «the Blue Plains», or «Chopped Liver».

Richmond I suppose is possible, but the traffic densities would be too low for the private operator - and besides - that's too far to expect people to stand all the way
"Then djf01"


Ch'yeah! A whole five smeggin' kilometres compared to Penrith. (ò_ó)*
  Rails Chief Commissioner

Interesting thoughts djf01, I enjoyed reading that. However I would put a fiver on it never happening, I think that the Main West will stay as DD territory for as long as we have DD trains in Sydney. You will also find the SD trains will not have longitudinal seating.

Off the top of my head I think that if there is no second harbour crossing you may see them take up the iNSW plan with the North Shore line from Hornsby (10tph) and the NW line from Rouse Hill (20tph) running as SD via the bridge and the existing line to Central and then feeding the Bankstown line to Cabramatta/Lidcombe (10tph) and inner west line to Homebush (10tph). However I think in addition to what iNSW said you would also have to see the inner west line on the locals extended to terminate at Liverpool, Casula or Glenfield (10tph). All non SD trains from prior to Glenfield take the East Hills line. Cumberland shuttles serving Parramatta would also be SD trains but run no further than the Glenfield interchange (4-6tph). This is for transfers from the Campbelltown section bound for Parramatta via the Cumberland line.  

So you can then “sectorise” the western corridor. The local tracks run the SD inner west/ Liverpool lines shown above, the Mains are for the DD Western and Northern Interurbans plus the Northern line trains (from Berowra) and the Suburban tracks are for the DD Western and Richmond lines that now runs into the City Circle and onto the Airport/East Hills lines. You would hope to see the mains running at least 16tph, the suburbans into the City Circle running up to 24 tph and there would be 30tph for both lines to change to for access to the Lower North Shore plus the 20tph to the ECRL and NW employment centres plus 70 citybound trains for the Interurbans/ Northern line folks to board to the CBD (assuming they have not changed at Hornsby, Epping or Strathfield). You could also break the sector by running some Northern line trains into the Circle of course.

Good spread of services at turn up and go frequencies even on the Cumberland line to support Parramatta and the three busiest parts of the SD network would see a large volume of trains (inner west 20tph, ECRL 20tph and lower North Shore 30tph) and the outer West and inner SW 24 tph in DD form. You could even look to build the PERL if needed and provide 10tph in SD form between Parramatta and Chatswood since there is no harbour crossing. This would also help make use of the Cumberland line to avoid the CBD if you had people from the SW bound for the Northern employment centres like Macquarie Park.

Having said this, I still believe the Second Harbour Crossing will get up and the Libs will most likely use this line (plus other projects) as a carrot to help get the privatisation of the poles and wires across the line.
  abesty1 Chief Commissioner

Location: The CityRail Network
Residents worried about high-rise buildings


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfNhNO-O95g&feature=youtu.be
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

Interesting thoughts djf01, I enjoyed reading that. However I would put a fiver on it never happening, I think that the Main West will stay as DD territory for as long as we have DD trains in Sydney. You will also find the SD trains will not have longitudinal seating.

Off the top of my head I think that if there is no second harbour crossing you may see them take up the iNSW plan with the North Shore line from Hornsby (10tph) and the NW line from Rouse Hill (20tph) running as SD via the bridge and the existing line to Central and then feeding the Bankstown line to Cabramatta/Lidcombe (10tph) and inner west line to Homebush (10tph). However I think in addition to what iNSW said you would also have to see the inner west line on the locals extended to terminate at Liverpool, Casula or Glenfield (10tph). All non SD trains from prior to Glenfield take the East Hills line. Cumberland shuttles serving Parramatta would also be SD trains but run no further than the Glenfield interchange (6tph). This is for transfers from the Campbelltown section bound for Parramatta via the Cumberland line.  
Rails

My friend, you have a bet!  Shall we say "never" as after 20 years or completion of the 2nd harbour crossing - whichever comes first?

There is no doubt the idea of operating the Inner West, Bankstown or Hurstville routes as metro is preferable to the other possible routes.  

The main issue with this is how do you route bridge traffic to those track pairs on sector 2?

It's not at all obvious to me where you could put in the requisite flyovers.  Perhaps a flyunder from Sydney Yard (integrating with the flying junctions to the Illawarra locals at Redfern (ie the roads through Redfern 7&8 ).  But even if there is a way, it'll almost certainly involve significant shutdowns (6 months +) of both sector 2 and 3 - possibly at the same time - to build.
  Rails Chief Commissioner

My friend, you have a bet!  Shall we say "never" as after 20 years or completion of the 2nd harbour crossing - whichever comes first?

There is no doubt the idea of operating the Inner West, Bankstown or Hurstville routes as metro is preferable to the other possible routes.  

The main issue with this is how do you route bridge traffic to those track pairs on sector 2?

It's not at all obvious to me where you could put in the requisite flyovers.  Perhaps a flyunder from Sydney Yard (integrating with the flying junctions to the Illawarra locals at Redfern (ie the roads through Redfern 7&8 ).  But even if there is a way, it'll almost certainly involve significant shutdowns (6 months +) of both sector 2 and 3 - possibly at the same time - to build.
djf01
Heh, I actually edited my post which obviously didnt stick to correct "never" as that was unintendedly a bit disrespectful, its an entirely plausible option you have put forward but I cant see it sticking because of the political fall out more than anything else but also its surely not as good an option as the other SD plans already assessed over the years by Railcorp. However you are correct, it would most likely be VERY difficult to implement the solution to link up the inner west line and I am sure that is why its no longer part of the current SD plan. I see the Bankstown/ Hurstville conversion as quite straight forward in comparison (you may note what I wrote did not include the Hurstville SD branch). Still, I think it can be done and one or two plans Ive seen over the years that look like they could facilitate such a configuration although ironically intended for DD trains... Also I believe Railcorp did have a plan that worked without shutting down both Sector 2 and 3 at the same time but it would still be disruptive, that is part of the reason it was disbanded in favour of the second harbour crossing I think. Still, they are ripping up George st for rail despite that being dispruptive!
  djf01 Chief Commissioner


My friend, you have a bet!  Shall we say "never" as after 20 years or completion of the 2nd harbour crossing - whichever comes first?
"djf01"

Heh, I actually edited my post which obviously didnt stick to correct "never" as that was unintendedly a bit disrespectful, its an entirely plausible option you have put forward but I cant see it sticking because of the political fall out more than anything else but also its surely not as good an option as the other SD plans already assessed over the years by Railcorp.

Rails
So, what you are really saying is that 5 days into a bet due to run for 20 years, your welching!  SmileSmileSmile.
  Rails Chief Commissioner

So, what you are really saying is that 5 days into a bet due to run for 20 years, your welching!  SmileSmileSmile.
djf01
Not at all, im saying the opposite. Well Im actually saying they will build the second crossing to avoid all this but we are talking hypotheticals right now. It was not that long ago that the previous Government was quietly talking about SD on the main Western line (which also morphed into all out at Central to board the CBD Metro) and that plus all the following western corridor SD ideas were swiftly put to bed, this wont be any different for the Minister of Western Sydney BOF. As stated should your thoughts turn out to be correct, I think at the bare minimum it will die with political pressure and they would take the operationally more difficult inner west option. They have already done alot of work on it so they obviously think it can work on some level, the SD Western line planning it seems did not get far at all. In the end if you remember the work done by TNSW just before the 20 year plan was released they looked at all options and still chose the second harbour crossing, I think it will stick, whether it takes the same form as promised is the interesting part, the West Connex hasnt.
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

Not at all, im saying the opposite. Well Im actually saying they will build the second crossing to avoid all this but we are talking hypotheticals right now. It was not that long ago that the previous Government was quietly talking about SD on the main Western line (which also morphed into all out at Central to board the CBD Metro) and that plus all the following western corridor SD ideas were swiftly put to bed, this wont be any different for the Minister of Western Sydney BOF. As stated should your thoughts turn out to be correct, I think at the bare minimum it will die with political pressure and they would take the operationally more difficult inner west option. They have already done alot of work on it so they obviously think it can work on some level, the SD Western line planning it seems did not get far at all. In the end if you remember the work done by TNSW just before the 20 year plan was released they looked at all options and still chose the second harbour crossing, I think it will stick, whether it takes the same form as promised is the interesting part, the West Connex hasnt.
Rails

Given the timing of this tender: http://www.railpage.com.au/f-t11366673.htm  That tender also called for a specification of the capital works (ie flyovers) to enable this type of operation.

I think what happened was they got their detailed analysis to confirm their original plan of:



only to discover it wasn't going to work.

That tender also called for a specification of the capital works (ie flyovers) to enable this type of operation.

You'll notice - as with the earlier Sydney Rail Options discussion paper - a WEX has been surreptitiously added Smile.

So I think the results of that tender made this concept non-viable.  The whole idea of this concept was to defer building the second crossing in the first place.

I think the other issue the line capacity model threw up was the DD format wasn't going top deliver 24tph either, even with ATP, though was probably very close.  I think the timing of the train marshal's trial: http://www.railpage.com.au/f-t11371451.htm - *after* the master plan was released - was very curious.  The capacity gains of using pushers are now very critical to how soon the 2nd crossing will need to be built.

I'll have to get Jake Saulwick onto getting the results of that trial using FOI so we can find out just how much difference the pushers might make.  It's probably crucial to the outcome of our bet!
  Rails Chief Commissioner

Interesting thoughts, its entirely possible that the inner west connection cant be done and they cant quite get 24 tph with the DD but I am not sure how either of us can know that with the info available. It would be guesswork. Although arent all these ideas about deferring the second crossing? I think where we disagree is that you believe that like the previous Government, the current Government still dont want to build the second crossing despite it now being official policy. I dont agree, they want to build it and they seem to be indicating it would be around the price that they are shelling out for the NWRL, partly because the push for SD trains is also based on making a Second Harbour crossing going under the harbour "more" affordable. The affordable part is where I have my issues and I really think they need to look at other options aswell as the under harbour path.

In its absence of this second crossing which is what you are talking about (and highly likely should the current mob be turfed out) you would have to look at these options but surely wherever the SD line from the North goes has to be separated from the DD network? So it would have to stick only on the Suburbans in your plan, or another separated line should it go elsewhere. However it is funny that they kept on adding the CBD Relief line to all the Western Corridor SD plans, surely this recognises what I spoke of, the political fallout of SD on that corridor but I guess also because unlike the CBD Metro plan with the SD transfer station directly under ST, the Cityrail conversion plan makes transfers from the western line much more difficult. Should they build the CBD relief line in place of the SHC surely that means that what happens on the suburbans is then of less importance? Not that there are not issues with that project too.

On a side note it is interesting to see that Sydney SD network taking about 20-28-30tph, the benchmark should really be 40tph.

Sponsored advertisement

Display from:   

Quick Reply

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