NSW Future Rail Plan - NWRL/Metro/Harbour Crossing

 
  djf01 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.
Rails

I'm sure they *want* to build the 2nd crossing too.  But they certainly don't want to pay for it!

Interesting comments about Western Sydney.  But my take on the WEX is it's an agenda item comming from the bottom up rather than the top down.  I doubt it has anything to do with the voters in Western Sydney.  The Master Plan doesn't have a WEX, and a lack of new services to the true west (not those psuedo westies up in the NW hills Smile) is a hallmark of the plan.

You have to remember that by the time a decision needs to be made to fund the current official plan, we'll likely be into the 3rd term of an O'Farrel (or more likely someone else) government.  The political landscape will no doubt be very different, and that government will be faced with choices over which of it's voters to be distributing largess too.  

I don't think SD has anything to do with a desire to make the second crossing cheaper per say.  It's a number of things really, and while cost is at the heart of these, this agenda pre-dates the second crossing being part of the Lib's policy.  I think a lot of the NWRL agenda is making the project a viable privately owned and operated entity.

For me, the heart of the problem in NSW is our government institutions are incapable of dealing with appropriately planning these large infrastructure projects, irrespective of the flavour of the politicians at the top.

The second harbour crossing has been an article of faith in NSW since Bradfield put those redundant rail lines across the harbour 80 years ago.  My issue is not so much how unlikely to be built for affordability reasons, it's that it *will* (eventually) be built but turn out to be a boondoggle like the Airport line - at the expense of providing the public transport scaffolding on which to build the future city.

Sponsored advertisement

  Rails Chief Commissioner

I cant understand your statement that they dont want to pay for it, they had their chance to put in a plan with no second harbour rail crossing and they didnt, its the path they have followed deliberately and knowing the cost. Also how does the master plan have less services to the West? Arent they saying 20-24 tph on the main western line alone? Then you have the inner west line, western interurbans and the future NW line? Why do you need a Wex if you say you can deliver the same number of trains from the west not only to Wynyard but beyond? Can they do it is the question!

I did mention the fact in my previous response that there is a good chance that the current Government will be gone by the time they have to fund this SHRC and thus considering the alternative Government is flatout against any SHRC you do have to think about the alternatives for sure. However I think eventually you will need the second harbour crossing either way even ignoring SD vs DD. I personally dont think sending more NW DD trains via the western corridor is in any way a long term solution, I think you need to keep that capacity for future western line growth and to allow for complete line seperation, to me what they have chosen is the better long term option and ive said that on here for many years.

Also you have to consider if the current Liberal Government stick to their plan, deliver what they have said they will with the SWRL/ NWRL (and other projects) and lay out the extension across the harbour and sell it to people, any incoming Labor Government who say they will scrap it, well there is a bit of political dynamite in doing so. In the eyes of the general public NSW Labor is already known for scrapping rail projects and not building "anything". If they put the wrecking ball again through a plan that has been entrenched, well at a minimum it will be a hard sell. At best I think they would use the old adage "deferred". They may even end up supporting it, they did under Carr.

Actually I think it is wrong to say that SD predates the plans for a SHRC, I recall you saying you were told directly that it was not part of any future Liberal Government plans but I was told otherwise, it was what they thought would happen but using existing DD trains. In opposition they actually seemed to be following the last Christie plan, only in Government it seems that they changed to follow the SD plan, so someone in the bureaucracy is doing a good sell or there are some compelling reasons to go down this path. Although I seem to recall early on they reviewed 5 options including staying DD and they still chose the SHRC, just using SD trains. Although the reasoning was not detailed, I am a strong believer that part of the reason is the difficulty in building the under harbour second crossing to suit the Cityrail rolling stock.

I also have to ask why the form the trains take automatically represents to posters privatised or public? Why cant the private sector use non cityrail DD trains in Sydney as easily as they use SD trains? I think they can, there is purpose in them choosing a SD network for Sydney. Its not like after the previous Metro debacle that SD trains have a great name with the public! Its not a political decision, it meant at least two broken election promises. They could have just used privatised DD trains on the NWRL but they have chosen not to.
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

I cant understand your statement that they dont want to pay for it, they had their chance to put in a plan with no second harbour rail crossing and they didnt, its the path they have followed deliberately and knowing the cost. Also how does the master plan have less services to the West? Arent they saying 20-24 tph on the main western line alone? Then you have the inner west line, western interurbans and the future NW line? Why do you need a Wex if you say you can deliver the same number of trains from the west not only to Wynyard but beyond? Can they do it is the question!
Rails

Well, IIRC the Master Plan does not include a funding commitment!  That was one of the immediate criticisms of the plan, and the fact that the second crossing element of the plan conflicted with the Infrastructure NSW report.

As for western line capacity (by that I mean west of Parramatta), the main north already needs to go to 6tph but can't, and post the NWRL we'll be adding 2-3kPAX during the peak from Hornsby-Epping on the main north as well.  Even if 24tph is sucessfully achieved, that will still probably leave 16 slots for the greater west, perhaps 18 at a stretch.  I know, I know, there are re-allocation solutions like running the main north suburbans into ST, but IIRC that is *not* part of the master plan or Sydney's Rail future.

I am absolutely certain 24tph can be achieved in the existing format, but it's almost certainly going to take more than ATP to do it IMHO.  Compromises in the door handling procedures and the OTR KPIs will be needed as well.
  Rails Chief Commissioner

Well, IIRC the Master Plan does not include a funding commitment!  That was one of the immediate criticisms of the plan, and the fact that the second crossing element of the plan conflicted with the Infrastructure NSW report.

As for western line capacity (by that I mean west of Parramatta), the main north already needs to go to 6tph but can't, and post the NWRL we'll be adding 2-3kPAX during the peak from Hornsby-Epping on the main north as well.  Even if 24tph is sucessfully achieved, that will still probably leave 16 slots for the greater west, perhaps 18 at a stretch.  I know, I know, there are re-allocation solutions like running the main north suburbans into ST, but IIRC that is *not* part of the master plan or Sydney's Rail future.

I am absolutely certain 24tph can be achieved in the existing format, but it's almost certainly going to take more than ATP to do it IMHO.  Compromises in the door handling procedures and the OTR KPIs will be needed as well.
djf01
In fairness though, the funding went into the NWRL, its a bit early to be funding the SHRC. To me it seems that for this term the Libs are sticking to their pre election commitments of the SWRL/ NWRL, one major road project and a light rail line. Although it seems Sydney will end up with the following:

SWRL
NWRL
Inner west light rail ext
Anzac Pde/ CBD light rail
West Connex (M5 and new M4 tunnels)
Expanded M5 above ground corridor
M2-F3 extension
Northern Beaches RBT (Maybe...)

If we do get all that I think that is pretty decent tbh. We havent exactly received lots of infrastructure in the last 16 years. Although I note that the NSW opposition seem to think its all a waste of time and we should be building the PERL instead.

I would guess that the SHRC would be the major commitment for the Libs to take to the next election and offset by the electricity privatisation but I may be wrong. On your other point, who cares what Greiner says Smile  Every transport project INSW forward seems to have been ignored or changed (Westconnex). INSW is a decent idea in theory but gee I bet BOF is wondering as we are if theyre worth it (esp Greiner).

Agreed that the Master plan was ambiguous on the point of where the western corridor improvements sit, i.e. does the 20-24tph for the west start at Strathfield or Parramatta? Is that confirmed in the Master plan? It may be and I missed it. Where does your figure come from for the NWRL pax transferring to the Northern line? That seems high to me and surely wont happen if they run the Northern line into ST... However you are right, that along with the Richmond line shuttles was not clarified as part of the Master plan, merely an SMH report. In fact not much of anything regarding the operational side of heavy rail side was really clarified in that document of which I was critical but in the end it is a guideline planning document not a set in stone nitty gritty plan.

Devils advocate, surely even 18-20 tph past Parramatta (4-6 tph for the Northern line) is decent though? Its 12-14 tph now I think? Plus express trains running into ST of which they seemed to hint there would be more of?
  Rails Chief Commissioner

djf01,

I’ve been thinking about the scenario where you suggest there would be no second harbour rail crossing. Let’s say that for example Labor get in and they refuse to build it, however they commit to the CBD Relief line instead. Quite plausible. That leaves the SD network as a dead duck but incompatible trains on the NWRL.

So as you suggest they convert the North Shore line from Hornsby to SD and run both it and the NWRL across the bridge with 28 tph to Central and onto the suburban middle tracks to Strathfield. Where to from here though? Well 12 SD tph from the upper North Shore line would use the existing flyover to run to Epping where they terminate, this would require completion of the track amplification between Strathfield and Epping which there is room to allow trains from the Coast and Freight to still pass through.

The 5 stops past Epping would be loaded onto the DD Central Coast trains of which there would be 6 tph. Every DD will run express between Epping and Strathfield, the SD take care of the local stops. The outer west is taken care of with the main Western line running on the Mains into the CBD Relief tunnel terminating at Wynyard with the above mentioned H sets from the Central Coast to make 24 tph and the odd western line interurban which diverts into ST. The WEX component has these trains running express from Parramatta to Central (perhaps stopping at Strathfield too although not part of the original plan).

Lots of happy outer western suburbs folks with more comfortable and fast DD trains that are for the most part in their own sector. Although those going past Wynyard will have to change trains there with no PERL in place so there will no doubt be some complaints but there will be 28 fast loading SD tph to board. The main south/ inner west line feeds the City Circle with 20 tph using the same comfortable DD trains but not as fast with more stops. They would also have to take on the Granville, Auburn and Lidcombe stops. This also helps balance out the few slots lost to DD trains on the WEX from trains past North Strathfield that also run into the CBD relief line.

However in addition to what happens after Strathfield on the suburban line, you’re also not really making good use of the SD functionality either. To help both issues, how about this, you remove the following stations from the DD main south/ inner west line and add them to SD suburban line:

Ashfield
Croydon
Burwood
Homebush
Flemington

At least two of those stations are big patronage generators I think so it should be worthwhile, you could also add Strathfield to that list based on the original WEX plan but I think it is the major interchange point so everything should stop there. From memory you would need to make some track amplification between Flemington and Strathfield to have 3 full track pairs but I believe there is room to do so, the cost should not be huge. What about the remaining 16 SD tph from the NWRL on the Suburban tracks after Flemington? You would run the trains through to a fly over that takes them into the Olympic Park loop. All these stations on the SD line would then be VERY heavily developed with high density housing and employment although most of them are being developed in that way already, especially Olympic Park, Burwood and Rhodes.
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

However in addition to what happens after Strathfield on the suburban line, you’re also not really making good use of the SD functionality either. To help both issues, how about this, you remove the following stations from the DD main south/ inner west line and add them to SD suburban line:
Rails

If they went down this track there would be 2 routes: Epping or Hornsby via Strathfield and Glenfield via Granville, and maybe a Liverpool - Parramatta shuttle around the Y-link.

the WEX would have to take not just Penrith & Richmond trains, but Northern and Western interurbans, so there would be fewer suburban trains, offset by those being 240m/12 cars long.
  Rails Chief Commissioner

If they went down this track there would be 2 routes: Epping or Hornsby via Strathfield and Glenfield via Granville, and maybe a Liverpool - Parramatta shuttle around the Y-link.

the WEX would have to take not just Penrith & Richmond trains, but Northern and Western interurbans, so there would be fewer suburban trains, offset by those being 240m/12 cars long.
djf01

As you may have noticed my aim was to make sure that all the lines remained separate on that main west corridor, I cant see any SD and DD line being allowed to mix, it seems clear that you can cleanly achieve this as far as Flemington and Epping with no issues, past there it gets more tricky. The reason I had the SD line terminating at Epping and the Coast DD taking the passengers past here was because of the limitations of getting freight and Interurban trains through the Epping to Hornsby half of the line, if you could get past that then I too would send the SD all the way though to Hornsby. It was also implied that the stations north of Hornsby would also be on the 6tph Coast services, as an express from Epping to the CBD these trains are quick and should be able to handle standing passengers.

I also listed that these Coast DD trains would have to join the WEX but I believe this was always the case with that plan, I’ve tried to offset this by moving some of the larger stations to the main south and as you mention the trains themselves should be 10 or 12 cars too. However the Interurban from the west probably created the biggest issue as they're V sets, at the moment anyway. However I count that as a Western line train.

As far as the Glenfield via Granville route, I had initially thought of that, you should be able to keep the SD line to Glenfield separate after the DD inner west line trains from the CC head into the Homebush turnback but it wont be enough trains, i.e. how do you balance the requirements for the DD trains for the other side of the CC (Airport, East Hills and Bankstown lines)?
  simonl Chief Commissioner

Location: Brisbane
Devils advocate, surely even 18-20 tph past Parramatta (4-6 tph for the Northern line) is decent though? Its 12-14 tph now I think? Plus express trains running into ST of which they seemed to hint there would be more of?
Rails
Surely it's not too much to ask to expect you to look at the timetable or the service capacity statistics!

16tph Parra-Town Hall + 4tph to Parra-Sydney Terminal 7:50am-8:49am @Central.  Heavily loaded!  Growth is going to be handled how?
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

@simonl Rail's scenario is for the Western Line to use a WEX (unlikely I grant you), whicm means 240m platforms and 12 car trains, or a 50% capacity upgrade, and close to a 50% productivity improvement too.
  simonl Chief Commissioner

Location: Brisbane
@simonl Rail's scenario is for the Western Line to use a WEX (unlikely I grant you), whicm means 240m platforms and 12 car trains, or a 50% capacity upgrade, and close to a 50% productivity improvement too.
djf01
It's not at all clear that is what he's referring to in the sentences that I quoted.  I read it as him denigrating the need for the WEX, and still do.
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

Just in case anyone is interested, here is an alternate "solution", which in many ways goes against the grain of a lot of what I've written here, but it does tantelisingly raise the prospect of attracting fed funding: http://www.railpage.com.au/f-p1825168.htm#1825168
  abesty1 Chief Commissioner

Location: The CityRail Network
http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-news/detention-company-could-run-new-rail-link-20130501-2it9w.html#ixzz2S4ucLLyI

Detention company could run new rail-link
Consortia led by detention centre company Serco and Hong Kong metro operator MTR, which also runs Melbourne's trains, have been shortlisted to operate Sydney's north-west rail link.

Transport Minister Gladys Berejiklian announced the two finalists in the tender to operate the new train line as a public-private partnership.

If built and run as planned, the north-west rail link between Epping and Rouse Hill will be the first line in Sydney to be managed exclusively by private operators. The line will incorporate the existing Epping to Chatswood line.

It will be limited to running single-deck trains with fewer seats than Sydney's double-decked trains. The tunnels being built by the government for the north-west rail link will be too small for the larger carriages.
Advertisement

The contract to operate the new line, expected to be running by the end of the decade, will not be awarded until the latter half of next year.

MTR, which has attracted controversy in Melbourne for its practice of skipping stations to meet on-time running requirements, is part of a consortium called ''Northwest Rapid Transit''. That consortium includes John Holland, Leighton Contractors, UGL Rail Services and Plenary Group.

''TransForm'', Serco's consortium, includes Bombardier Transportation Australia, Macquarie Capital, SNC-Lavalin Capital, McConnell Dowell Constructors and John Laing Investments.

Wednesday's announcement by Ms Berejiklian means a third group that included the manufacturer of RailCorp's Waratah trains, Downer EDI, has missed out on being shortlisted.

The public-private partnership will be one of the largest rail contracts in Australian history.

It will include obligations to build eight new stations and 4000 car parking spots.
  HeadShunt Chief Train Controller

http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-news/detention-company-could-run-new-rail-link-20130501-2it9w.html#ixzz2S4ucLLyI
abesty1
Oh well, there you go, the sort of private operators we will see spread throughout the entire network.
  mandonov Station Staff

So is the NWRL a sure thing yet? If not when does it become one?
  Watson374 Chief Commissioner

Location: Fully reclined at the pointy end.
So is the NWRL a sure thing yet? If not when does it become one?
"mandonov"



It's already had its second EIS approved. It's still in planning and preliminary stages - the tunnel boring machines haven't been sunk yet - but the Liberal government is railroading it through. As a project with its groundwork well underway, it's as sure a thing as you'll get.
  dw54 Assistant Commissioner

Location: Devonport, Tas
It's been my impression since the whole business with SD trains first reared its ugly head, that the purpose is to establish a physical operational boundary between the NW Rail Shuttle and the Sydney Trains main network.

The purpose of this physical operational boundary is to allow a level of automation on the NWRS otherwise not readily achievable in the NSW industrial climate. If it was purely to be a test bed line for ATO, it would have been built to the conventional loading gauge. The saving in tunnelling cost these days is so small as to be immaterial. That's why Crossrail 2 in London shows 6.5m dia tunnels for the regional option in the consultation papers. Crossrail (1) uses 6.0m. So, to use a tunnel diameter that precludes existing DD trains is clearly a politically inspired strategem aimed at achieving an industrial outcome.

However, I have submitted designs to the "Radical Train" rail innovation competition in Britain - included were designs for DD cars with short dwell time (45s) and short platform occupation time (90s for 250m platform and 245m train) to suit high frequency services (24tph timetabled, 32tph including recovery) that could fit within Britain's highly constrained network.

Without any doubt, a DD design to suit the "shuttle route" could be produced - and this design would also have the benefit of providing increased capacity, better performance, shorter stops, better recovery capability, less mass, lower energy consumption, better accommodation for disabled passengers, etc than current Sudney DD designs.

Projecting from there - if a crossharbour tunnel was to be built, whether it was with 6.0m diameter tunnels (which would preclude existing DD cars) or 6.5m (which should be large enough for them), a future high performance DD design would be able to fit and service all connected routes. Whether built as 6.0m dia or 6.5m dia wouldn't make a substantial difference to the final cost. The major challenge would be the extra "spoil" that requires disposal. That extra cost is linear with the volume/mass of spoil.

But let me put a cat among the pigeons. Let me ask again, but enlarge the proposition: why not make use of the former tramway tracks across the bridge and takes steps to then link these with the spare platforms at Wynyard, St James and Central 26/27. This provides a quick and ready solution for a harbour crossing, and could be retained in the public sector.

Meanwhile, there is need for extra capacity across the Harbour, so why not let the private sector build two more road tunnels to make extra strategic connections  - but include provision for dedicated Transit capacity which could be used for buses and/or trams or light rail/metro.
  mandonov Station Staff

If the eastern lanes of the bridge were reclaimed for rail use, would slinging the Cahill under the bridge shut annoyed motorists up? Or is it easier to just sling the rail under?
  dw54 Assistant Commissioner

Location: Devonport, Tas
If the eastern lanes of the bridge were reclaimed for rail use, would slinging the Cahill under the bridge shut annoyed motorists up? Or is it easier to just sling the rail under?
mandonov
I understood there were plans to dismantle the Cahill. But if it is retained, under this plan a slip road passing over the railway would be needed. I think a bit of an engineering challenge, but not insurmountable.
  simonl Chief Commissioner

Location: Brisbane
I understood there were plans to dismantle the Cahill. But if it is retained, under this plan a slip road passing over the railway would be needed. I think a bit of an engineering challenge, but not insurmountable.
dw54
That was talked about way back when the Harbour Tunnel went through.  They decided not to.
  abesty1 Chief Commissioner

Location: The CityRail Network
The North-West rail link will now have driverless trains and platform safety doors for the underground stations:
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/driverless-trains-plan-as-berejiklian-does-a-uturn-20130606-2ns4h.html#ixzz2VPOBJkJU


Driverless trains plan as Berejiklian does a U-turn

Driverless trains will be introduced on the North West Rail Link, while “screen doors” will operate on platforms under a state government plan announced on Thursday.

It contradicts a previous government statement that the trains would have drivers, and is likely to fuel tensions with unions over potential job losses.

   Fully automated train technology has been in use around the world for 30 years.

Transport Minister Gladys Berejiklian said the rail line would be a “fully-automated rapid transit system” – the first of its kind in Australia.

Driverless trains will be monitored by controllers at a new train control centre. The government says such systems help ensure trains run on time, allow more trains to operate closer together and reduce the time needed for trains to slow down at stations, load and unload, and depart.
Advertisement

“Fully automated train technology has been in use around the world for 30 years, keeping customers safe and ensuring rapid transit systems like the one we are building operate fast and efficiently, while catering for future growth,” Ms Berejiklian said.

She said automated systems operate in London, Barcelona, Paris, Singapore and Dubai.

Underground stations will be cooled and heated and screen doors will operate on all platforms to make loading and unloading faster.

The plan is contained in tender documents for the operations contract.

In June last year, Fairfax Media reported that draft initial requirements for the rail link included the “potential for automatic train operations”.

But asked if the government would rule out using driverless trains, Ms Berejiklian said: “We are planning for the trains on this important rail link to have drivers.”

The Rail, Tram and Bus Union has previously said the public would not support driverless trains.
  dw54 Assistant Commissioner

Location: Devonport, Tas
The North-West rail link will now have driverless trains and platform safety doors for the underground stations:
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/driverless-trains-plan-as-berejiklian-does-a-uturn-20130606-2ns4h.html#ixzz2VPOBJkJU
abesty1
I think this confirms what I posted 2 days back. The SD part of it is a SHAM. The automated trains referred to for London all carry what was called a "train captain" until yet another reorganisation and change of terminology (deckchairs, Titanic, anyone?). They max out at 90m, a lot shorter than the big suburban trains on the NSRL.

Platform doors have no beneficial impact on performance - which proves the Gladgirl doesn't know what she's talking about, and her scriptwriters are beyond stupidity as befits Australian politics.

What they do achieve is a high standard of safety, but add one more element of complexity - one more thing to go wrong. They are usually linked to door closing and train stop systems, and tend to increase dwell times and platform occupation times.

Good luck, Sydney.
  Airvan99 Junior Train Controller

I think this confirms what I posted 2 days back. The SD part of it is a SHAM. The automated trains referred to for London all carry what was called a "train captain" until yet another reorganisation and change of terminology (deckchairs, Titanic, anyone?). They max out at 90m, a lot shorter than the big suburban trains on the NSRL.

Platform doors have no beneficial impact on performance - which proves the Gladgirl doesn't know what she's talking about, and her scriptwriters are beyond stupidity as befits Australian politics.

What they do achieve is a high standard of safety, but add one more element of complexity - one more thing to go wrong. They are usually linked to door closing and train stop systems, and tend to increase dwell times and platform occupation times.

Good luck, Sydney.
dw54
You are using the wrong example.
The London automated trains have a "train captain" because they do not have platform edge doors. Have a look at Singapore, and Paris (lines 14 and 1 which is currently being converted)  to see full length trains operating in a high density environment.
Dwell times are much shorter in both places compared to Sydney.

Expect to see a lot of media hysteria over this, same as when they took the lift driver out of the David Jones lift and we had to push the buttons ourselves.
  Rails Chief Commissioner

Driverless trains to be used on new Sydney rail link  

  • From:  AAP
  • June 06, 2013 3:28PM

SYDNEY is to get driverless trains, as part of Australia's first "fully automated rapid transit system".

The new trains will run on Sydney's planned North West Rail Link - a 23km rail link connecting western suburbs at Rouse Hill to Chatswood in the north, the NSW government announced.
It will be run by a private operator paid by the NSW government.
Two consortia, Northwest Rapid Transit and TransForm, have until the end of this year to finalise their proposals, which must include driverless trains.
The contract will be awarded in the second half of next year.
Transport Minister Gladys Berejiklian said Sydney would join cities like London, Barcelona, Paris, Singapore and Dubai in having its own automated rail system.
“Fully-automated train technology has been in use around the world for 30 years ... ensuring rapid transit systems like the one we are building operate fast and efficiently, while catering for future growth,” she said.
“There's no point building a 21st century system with 20th century technology in it.”
The Sydney Business Chamber said the project represented a revolution.
“The North West Rail Link is shaping up to be more than just an extension of Sydney's rail network,” said Sydney Business Chamber executive director Patricia Forsythe.
“It will be a revolution in the way trains operate with the introduction of Australia's first driverless carriages and the best customer service.”
The move was welcomed by Infrastructure Partnerships Australia as a massive leap forward for Australian rail services.
“It makes no sense to allow a 21st century project to be polluted by 19th century practices,” said IPA chief executive Brendan Lyon.
“Driverless trains are the base standard for new railways in other countries, because they offer more efficient, higher capacity and safer transit systems, and a better customer experience.”
AAP
  dw54 Assistant Commissioner

Location: Devonport, Tas
You are using the wrong example.
The London automated trains have a "train captain" because they do not have platform edge doors. Have a look at Singapore, and Paris (lines 14 and 1 which is currently being converted)  to see full length trains operating in a high density environment.
Dwell times are much shorter in both places compared to Sydney.

Expect to see a lot of media hysteria over this, same as when they took the lift driver out of the David Jones lift and we had to push the buttons ourselves.
Airvan99
Yes I know the DLR doesn't have PEDs. But the Gladgirl was briefed to cite London. Sydney's current dwell time and platform occupation time performance is woeful, agreed. That's because of three linked factors:

1) train design - cars are too long, and doors too narrow; internal staircases on older stock too narrow. These latter may be close to being phased out.

2) platform capacity: not able to clear fast enough - needs a full review of potential for double-sided platforms, extra escalators. lifts and inclined lifts; and at Wynyard for bifurcation by using existing but unconnected Platforms 1 and 2.

3) guards operating doors

I am adamant a better DD design (more shorter cars, wider doors, wide staircases) with driver/auto-controlled doors would be beneficial for all Sydney Rail operations, NWRL included; and would meet the dwell and platform occupation time criteria for 24tph timetabled (32tph recovery capability) operation comfortably.
  abesty1 Chief Commissioner

Location: The CityRail Network
Ten News:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JXVf9WFQ8k&feature=youtu.be

Sponsored advertisement

Display from:   

Quick Reply

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