Parramatta-Epping rail link & Carlingford line options

 
  Raichase Captain Rant!

Location: Sydney, NSW
To be fair, anyone that realistically thought this would happen was dreaming. It was a completely transparent vote-buying exercise that everyone saw straight through. Considering the end of the mining boom and the recent federal budget talk, there's hardly spare money lying around for a project that the state government doesn't want built...

Sponsored advertisement

  abesty1 Chief Commissioner

Location: The CityRail Network
Seven news:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHHdWnw-t1g&feature=youtu.be
  Toddles177 Station Staff

Location: Banned
I think the Carlingford service could be extended from the Clyde end. Carlingford line trains terminate (at Clyde) at the same side of the railways that the Olympic Park line branches off (at Lidcombe) so it's easily achievable. Both services are brief trips and by combining both services into one, it kills two birds with one stone.

People who travel westbound have to usually board a train to Olympic Park from Lidcombe. Or they have to catch a train to Clyde if they want to travel up the Carlingford branch.

So by fusing the services, the customer has the option of boarding a train to Olympic Park from Clyde (for those that travel eastbound) or by boarding a train from Lidcombe to go to Carlingford.

It's a shame the Parramatta-Epping link has been postponed. It could have bought a lot more patronage to Carlingford station.
  thadocta Chief Commissioner

Location: Katoomba
I think  
Toddles177
No actual evidence of that so far in any  of your posts.

Dave
  Toddles177 Station Staff

Location: Banned
No actual evidence of that so far in any  of your posts.

Dave
thadocta
My posts are opinions. That is what forums are.

All this hostility because I had an opinion that a few footbridges could be removed around a few of Sydney stations Sad
  aamslfc Deputy Commissioner

I think the Carlingford service could be extended from the Clyde end. Carlingford line trains terminate (at Clyde) at the same side of the railways that the Olympic Park line branches off (at Lidcombe) so it's easily achievable. Both services are brief trips and by combining both services into one, it kills two birds with one stone.

People who travel westbound have to usually board a train to Olympic Park from Lidcombe. Or they have to catch a train to Clyde if they want to travel up the Carlingford branch.

So by fusing the services, the customer has the option of boarding a train to Olympic Park from Clyde (for those that travel eastbound) or by boarding a train from Lidcombe to go to Carlingford.

It's a shame the Parramatta-Epping link has been postponed. It could have bought a lot more patronage to Carlingford station.
Toddles177

I sympathise with Dave. I'll try to be nice, but seriously, how on earth do you propose linking the Carlingford and Olympic Park lines? I'm assuming by your "same side of the railways" statement that you propose a direct line between Clyde and Lidcombe.

If you have EVER travelled between Clyde and Lidcombe, you'll have noticed that the alignment does not allow for another track to the left of the Up Main.

  • At Clyde, there's a rather large (and still operational) yard right after the station.
  • Auburn approach on the country end is constrained by the signal box on one side, and the Maintrain entry on the other, plus the Crescent St overpass and Rawson St to the left.
  • Auburn station is at a higher level than Rawson St; you'd have to bulldoze all of Rawson St to even put an extra track there (and if you've driven on Rawson St, you'll know how stupid that idea is).
  • Any track would then have to plough through the community park, and cut off the station entry and pedestrian tunnel between both sides of Auburn.
  • Post-Auburn, you would have to bulldoze all the commuter/resident parking spaces past the local Mosque, and then possibly encroach onto the access points for the very popular Sports Centre further down near Silverwater Road.
  • At Lidcombe, the alignment is tight and grade-separated; you would have to build another bridge over Silverwater Rd and then bulldoze every building on that side.
  • At Lidcombe station, you would also have to cut off Church St - in other words, cutting access to Dooleys, the local businesses, the bus stops, the fire station, and the train station itself.


Now, if you wanted to use existing infrastructure, there would be all sorts of issues re: paths (especially in peak hour). You'd be blocking the Up and Down Mains at least once an hour for no good reason. In effect, you'd be using a crucial main line (for Western pax and freight) to service two rather independent branch lines.

So, does that explain why there's no Carlingford-Lidcombe connection? Those issues are blindingly obvious to anyone who travels on the line regularly, or who has an understanding of the network. I'm not trying to be rude or anything, but it gets tiring after a while when the same things keep being discussed.



My posts are opinions. That is what forums are.

All this hostility because I had an opinion that a few footbridges could be removed around a few of Sydney stations Sad
Toddles177

It's frustration, not hostility, and you can hardly blame them. You've clearly never used Granville, Lidcombe, or any of those other stations (especially in peak), otherwise you wouldn't have said "let's demolish them".
  Toddles177 Station Staff

Location: Banned
I sympathise with Dave. I'll try to be nice, but seriously, how on earth do you propose linking the Carlingford and Olympic Park lines? I'm assuming by your "same side of the railways" statement that you propose a direct line between Clyde and Lidcombe.

If you have EVER travelled between Clyde and Lidcombe, you'll have noticed that the alignment does not allow for another track to the left of the Up Main.

  • At Clyde, there's a rather large (and still operational) yard right after the station.
  • Auburn approach on the country end is constrained by the signal box on one side, and the Maintrain entry on the other, plus the Crescent St overpass and Rawson St to the left.
  • Auburn station is at a higher level than Rawson St; you'd have to bulldoze all of Rawson St to even put an extra track there (and if you've driven on Rawson St, you'll know how stupid that idea is).
  • Any track would then have to plough through the community park, and cut off the station entry and pedestrian tunnel between both sides of Auburn.
  • Post-Auburn, you would have to bulldoze all the commuter/resident parking spaces past the local Mosque, and then possibly encroach onto the access points for the very popular Sports Centre further down near Silverwater Road.
  • At Lidcombe, the alignment is tight and grade-separated; you would have to build another bridge over Silverwater Rd and then bulldoze every building on that side.
  • At Lidcombe station, you would also have to cut off Church St - in other words, cutting access to Dooleys, the local businesses, the bus stops, the fire station, and the train station itself.


Now, if you wanted to use existing infrastructure, there would be all sorts of issues re: paths (especially in peak hour). You'd be blocking the Up and Down Mains at least once an hour for no good reason. In effect, you'd be using a crucial main line (for Western pax and freight) to service two rather independent branch lines.

So, does that explain why there's no Carlingford-Lidcombe connection? Those issues are blindingly obvious to anyone who travels on the line regularly, or who has an understanding of the network. I'm not trying to be rude or anything, but it gets tiring after a while when the same things keep being discussed.




It's frustration, not hostility, and you can hardly blame them. You've clearly never used Granville, Lidcombe, or any of those other stations (especially in peak), otherwise you wouldn't have said "let's demolish them".
aamslfc

I should have been more succinct in my explanation. The track from Platform 1 at Clyde connects onto the Platform 2 track where services head city bound on the track.


Courtesy of Wikipedia

Some Carlingford services head into the city, once a weekday from my memory.

Then let's take getting from Lidcombe to Olympic Park. When the Easter Show is on, trains from the west travel through to Lidcombe (via Platform 1) then veer off onto another track after the sprint platform ends at Lidcombe (eastern end). So the furthest track on the North side of the Western corridor sees the track from Carlingford connect onto it and also sees a junction that heads into Olympic park further ahead past Lidcombe.


Courtesy of Wikipedia

This was the basis of my support for a Carlingford- Olympic Park service.

I do agree though about the issue of extra traffic on the up and down (North side) tracks but I am sure that there is room for the timetable to be slightly amended, especially if you just make the service every 30 minutes or hour so less regularly.

And thank you for putting your view forward in a respectful manner Smile
  aamslfc Deputy Commissioner

I should have been more succinct in my explanation. The track from Platform 1 at Clyde connects onto the Platform 2 track where services head city bound on the track.

Some Carlingford services head into the city, once a weekday from my memory.

Then let's take getting from Lidcombe to Olympic Park. When the Easter Show is on, trains from the west travel through to Lidcombe (via Platform 1) then veer off onto another track after the sprint platform ends at Lidcombe (eastern end). So the furthest track on the North side of the Western corridor sees the track from Carlingford connect onto it and also sees a junction that heads into Olympic park further ahead past Lidcombe.

This was the basis of my support for a Carlingford- Olympic Park service.

I do agree though about the issue of extra traffic on the up and down (North side) tracks but I am sure that there is room for the timetable to be slightly amended, especially if you just make the service every 30 minutes or hour so less regularly.

And thank you for putting your view forward in a respectful manner Smile
Toddles177

Looking at the timetable, the current sprint service gets 6tph in peak and 3tph off-peak. The peaks are slightly extended compared to the rest of the network; 10 min frequencies run from about 6am to 10:30am, then again from about 3pm to 9pm.


Carlingford is limited to one train every 45-60 mins right now because of a few factors. The biggest problem is that there is no signalling past Rosehill; this means only one train can be in the section between Rosehill and Carlingford at any one time. There are also limitations because of a lack of passing loops (though there was talk of one at Rydalmere), platforms that need extending for 8 car services, and an overhead that may or may not cope well with power demand.


The one service a day that goes Carlo-Central-Carlo does it by departing early enough in the morning and arvo peak period (plus I'm willing to bet that it allows a points clean at Rosehill).


The problem with your idea is that, somehow, you need to maintain the Sprint frequencies whilst also linking Carlingford and Lidcombe. Sprint services are sometimes 4, often 8 cars now. These would have to be balanced with a 4-car Carlingford service once every hour. That in turn would have to mingle with everything barreling down the Mains - be it freight, Sydney/NSW Trains, and Countrylink/Indian Pacific services.


On the Up, you block the Up Main twice at Clyde and Lidcombe, which removes a path for another train with more capacity and more relevance.

On the Down it's even worse. Crossing onto the Down Main at Lidcombe then crossing back onto the Carlingford line means blocking BOTH the Up and Down Mains twice. That's one whole path wasted in two different directions for a 4 car train with little capacity and likely zero patronage.


The whole thing would be a scheduling and pathing nightmare.
  Watson374 Chief Commissioner

Location: Fully reclined at the pointy end.
aamslfc has hit the nail on the head - very thorough explanation of why Toddles177's new "idea" is about as workable as his last one (i.e. not very). It's a nice idea, certainly, but it's one without solid basis in need. There isn't the patronage for this service, and it would be a infrastructure/scheduling-pathing catastrophe.
  awsgc24 Minister for Railways

Location: Sydney
Some good ideas here with a Carlingford-Olympic Park service.

Some points.

Firstly, interchange for Carlingford trains at Lidcombe is better that at Clyde which has few trains.

Secondly, the existing double line, etc, to too short to support a 30minute service to CFG with only one train.

Thirdly, a 40 minute service from OP to CFD would match a 40 service from OP to LID, making 20 minute intervals overall.

IIRC, the OHW to Carlingford is too week to support 8-car trains, unless an extra substation is built.

The two Wiki diagrams are a bit out of date.

* Lidcombe now has a platform 5 for terminating trains from Bankstown.

* track through Platform 6 at Clyde is now wired again, and is connected to numerous sidings.
  Murasaki Chief Train Controller

Location: Going sideways... in carriage DET-9216 (>ω<)
Track through Platform 6 at Clyde is now wired again, and is connected to numerous sidings.
"Part of what awsgc24"


Would that explain why Platform 6 at Clyde has its numbers now, or have I mistaken Clyde for another station with a numberless Platform (probably Summer Hill)?
  Raichase Captain Rant!

Location: Sydney, NSW
Clyde has been used for shunting of AMF for a while now, hence why it's wired.
  thadocta Chief Commissioner

Location: Katoomba
IIRC, the OHW to Carlingford is too week to support 8-car trains, unless an extra substation is built.
awsgc24
Not to mention that the platforms are too short to accommodate them.

Dave
  thadocta Chief Commissioner

Location: Katoomba
To be fair to the OP, I can see where they are coming from. Instead of running Olympic Park-Lidcombe-Olympic Park shuttles, as well as Carlo-Clyde-Carlo shuttles, why not run Carlo-Clyde-Lidcombe-OLY (and return) shuttles.

Amd there is a point there. It would increase connection opportunities, reducing the number of connections required for a given journey.

The only thing is that there isn't the line capacity to facilitate this, on the main line (and it would HAVE to be the main line for this to work).

The other thing is the service level disparity. OLY has become such a popular service that there is now a service every ten minutes, it is about once an hour on the Carlo line. This might cause rostering and timeteabling issues.

Dave
  simonl Chief Commissioner

Location: Brisbane
I might be doable outside of peak hour though.  And every second (or 2/3) train from OLY terminating at Lidcombe, or similar.  You might have to upgrade the second platform at Rosehill for DDA to allow passing there though.
  Faceless Locomotive Fireman

Location:
I can't see Epping to Parramatta connected in the near future. The chances of closing the line? I would put my money on the latter. The other option not mentioned is to use the current line to Carlingford and convert it to light rail with a connection to Granville doing yoyo's and eliminating Clyde station completely. This is my opinion of course and far cheaper in regards to running and infrastructure costs. Like most things in the railways, I will believe it when I see it. Might as well add the Northwest Rail link to that equation. All we need is a change of state government for all the grand plans to go out the window. As for all the feasibility studies and land purchases? The land can sit idle for years and be sold off at a profit later down the track. Confused
The current state government will either shine or fail in grand style.
  Murasaki Chief Train Controller

Location: Going sideways... in carriage DET-9216 (>ω<)
...[Olympic Park] has become such a popular service that there is now a service every ten minutes...
"Part of what thadocta"


Funny. I figured that the frequency was also to allow reliable connections between the shuttle and the station's other available lines, without the clashing resulting from through-running, as made example with the Clyde~Olympic Park shuttle proposal.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
I can't see Epping to Parramatta connected in the near future. The chances of closing the line? I would put my money on the latter. The other option not mentioned is to use the current line to Carlingford and convert it to light rail with a connection to Granville doing yoyo's and eliminating Clyde station completely. This is my opinion of course and far cheaper in regards to running and infrastructure costs. Like most things in the railways, I will believe it when I see it. Might as well add the Northwest Rail link to that equation. All we need is a change of state government for all the grand plans to go out the window. As for all the feasibility studies and land purchases? The land can sit idle for years and be sold off at a profit later down the track. Confused
The current state government will either shine or fail in grand style.
Faceless
Options I see

1) Cost is why the line would be closed and cost can be improved on. The current two man operation of trains on this line needs a big "WTF" are we doing review. All platforms bar one are straight. The line runs mostly as a shuttle so modify a few 4 car sets to DOO as per Melbourne arrangements! Perhaps Olympic Park line can be done the same.

The interchanges are Clyde on the main line timetables are designed to support the CFD line service, so running to Lidcombe has minimal benifit.

2) The current timertable shows it takes 13-14min to run each leg. If the train was kept as two man crew, but operated by two guys with dual roles, you could turn the train around faster. ie no swapping ends. However this doesn't provide suitable time for toilet breaks etc without rostering a 3rd person.

3) Forget 30min timetable, why cannot it be run as 40-45min timetable? Still with DOO

The PERL will one day happen, but currently ring lines are not a priorty nor logistically practical. Perhaps once the NWRL Metro style services have proved their worth at delievring HR at lower capital and operating cost than CR standards this is a longterm option to run every 2nd train from Chatswood via CFD to Parramatta and other to NWRL.
  victorwilson Junior Train Controller

Location: Temporarily stuck in the ACT
The interchanges are Clyde on the main line timetables are designed to support the CFD line service, so running to Lidcombe has minimal benifit.
RTT_Rules
This is incorrect. The timetable is designed for passengers travelling between Carlingford Line stations and the city, and connections to the city at Clyde are excellent. However, passengers have no way to travel west - the connecting services from Clyde to Penrith arrive almost 30 minutes after the Carlingford train arrives at Clyde most of the time. Passengers are unable to get to South Line stations or Richmond branchline stations, without either taking the up train to Lidcombe and changing, waiting 30 minutes for the next down Penrith service and changing at Granville, or exiting Clyde and walking to Granville to continue their journeys west or south.
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

Options I see

1) Cost is why the line would be closed and cost can be improved on. The current two man operation of trains on this line needs a big "WTF" are we doing review. All platforms bar one are straight. The line runs mostly as a shuttle so modify a few 4 car sets to DOO as per Melbourne arrangements! Perhaps Olympic Park line can be done the same.

The interchanges are Clyde on the main line timetables are designed to support the CFD line service, so running to Lidcombe has minimal benifit.

2) The current timertable shows it takes 13-14min to run each leg. If the train was kept as two man crew, but operated by two guys with dual roles, you could turn the train around faster. ie no swapping ends. However this doesn't provide suitable time for toilet breaks etc without rostering a 3rd person.

3) Forget 30min timetable, why cannot it be run as 40-45min timetable? Still with DOO
RTT_Rules


I think another option is conversion to LRT, with an on-street terminus at Granville.  The Capex for that should be minimal (as in less than $50mil, but this is NSW so it'd be 5 times that), and the government could make $20mil (re-disposing) of the re-zoned land around the Granville/Clyde.  It'd save $1mil a year in just being able to close down Clyde station.  As a secondary benefit, with just two trams it could operate a 15min peak 30min off peak service with a staffing level of at most 3 and at least 1.  


The PERL will one day happen, but currently ring lines are not a priorty nor logistically practical. Perhaps once the NWRL Metro style services have proved their worth at delievring HR at lower capital and operating cost than CR standards this is a longterm option to run every 2nd train from Chatswood via CFD to Parramatta and other to NWRL.
RTT_Rules


I think they are likely to find that whatever labour productivity benefits the new NWRL metro brings, the capital productivity will be so abysmal they will be looking at *anything* else by the time the PRL comes back on the agenda!  Of course, they will have the "experience" of the new Randwick Tram by then, who's productivity will make CityRail look like bastion of efficiency!

Sponsored advertisement

Display from:   

Quick Reply

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