The tunnels size has nothing to do with speed of construction, they wanted to go away from the DD platform pure and simple to introduce the first "Metro" type operation into Australia with its lower capital and operating costs. This is both current and past govt. Once the other cities reach the capacity on their systems such as Cityrail, they will follow the same path because its cheaper, esepcially if the bulk of the line is underground.

Building a greenfield commuter line/system today, 95% chance it would be driverless fully auto, no station staff or traun crew. Thats the technology!

i do support metros but not this one as djf01 said all those odd-ball cityrail features are there. if they wanted a real metro (and get it right) than they should have just looked at places like Singapore and Hong Kong where there are longer platfomrs, more doors per train then currently proposed, longitudinal seating, etc.

There was a media report last year that stated that TNSW have completed the design for the Single Deck extension from Chatswood to St Leonards so it seems it is on the cards.

A win!

The NWRL EIS lists the crush load of the SD NWRL trains as 1300 passengers. I believe this consists of 600 seated and the rest standing. The issue with the NWRL is that there will be up to 60% of passengers moving on and off the train at 8 major destination points before Chatswood (10 before the CBD) and a lot of bus routes connecting with the stations, to me SD trains are more suitable for this line unlike most other lines which are CBD focussed. So while I agree the DD form is a great thing for Sydney it doesnt mean that all lines have to be DD, there is a place for the SD form IMO.

IIRC the SD incarnation of this project was never put through theEIS process.  Crushload 1300 PAX per train is presumably based on an A set, which is about right.  AFAIK no real decision has been made yet on door width and spacing, but there will probably be 12 rows of 2+3 seats => 60 seats per car.  (That's blocks of 2 + 4 + 4 + 2 seat rows).  Other formats are possible of course, but not without unevenly loading the doors or compromising door width in a 20m car.  So that's 480 seats per train.  3+6+6+3 gives 7 cars or 18 seat rows and 630 per train in a more typical 23m SD car.  But I suspect these issues have not been thought through at all yet.  In it's initial incarnation it's not really going to matter, but it will have big implications for the efficiency of the 2nd crossing if it's built as proposed.

A win!

Yes, but for who?

i do support metros but not this one as djf01 said all those odd-ball cityrail features are there. if they wanted a real metro (and get it right) than they should have just looked at places like Singapore and Hong Kong where there are longer platfomrs, more doors per train then currently proposed, longitudinal seating, etc.

There is no such things as "real Metro" and even if there is who decides what it is? Singapore has 3-4million on an island 45km across, Hong Kong is more dense. Both have large population of lower paid workers and both especially Singapore have very high costs to owning a car. Therefore the people traffic density is much higher per station. What they need and what Sydney needs is not the same.

Dubai has a Metro with trains that have 5 cars and those 5 cars are shorter than 5 cars in Sydney. It has one car on that train with only 2 doors. 1 set of doors for Gold Class and 1 set for womens section.

Vancouver has also relatively short trains on their Skyrail (things may have changed since 2003).

Singapore's and Hong Kong's larger trains is purely based on shorter trip length and larger number of bodies.

Sydney should not have its NWRL which will eventually run into the inner SW services with low density seating, ie less than 505 because of the trip length that most will endure. I think the current 8 car DD is about 160-180m, so as the NWRL will use the ECRL platforms, thats your limit and really its a waste to have more. If you want a 5-8min frequency its a waste if the trains are 200m long. Assuming this line had it been built with 8 car DD standard would only jusrtify 15min to Chatswood in peak. Thats 8 x Dubai's trains.

I cannot comment on the number of doors, because I don't know and unless you know how many people per car and width of doors the actual number is irrelevent.

IIRC the SD incarnation of this project was never put through theEIS process.  Crushload 1300 PAX per train is presumably based on an A set, which is about right.  AFAIK no real decision has been made yet on door width and spacing, but there will probably be 12 rows of 2+3 seats => 60 seats per car.  (That's blocks of 2 + 4 + 4 + 2 seat rows).  Other formats are possible of course, but not without unevenly loading the doors or compromising door width in a 20m car.  So that's 480 seats per train.  3+6+6+3 gives 7 cars or 18 seat rows and 630 per train in a more typical 23m SD car.  But I suspect issues have been thought through at all yet.  In it's initial incarnation it's not really going to matter, but it will have big implications for the efficiency of the 2nd crossing if it's built as proposed.

I would have to read up again, I think it was detailed in the second EIS released recently (I got that figure from a summary of that second EIS on another page).

Yes, but for who?

For the NWRL users as the line now runs to St Lds it should have a cross platform interchange with the NSL in both directions, ie copy and paste of the orginal two MRT lines in Singapore and I'm also assuming there will be a few users from the NW section of the line who commuter to St Lds.

Commonsense really

I would have to read up again, I think it was detailed in the second EIS released recently (I got that figure from a summary of that second EIS on another page).

Yeah, me too.  I must say though I think it's probably better for my BP if I avoid it! .

I cannot comment on the number of doors, because I don't know and unless you know how many people per car and width of doors the actual number is irrelevent.

What is a waste is going to all the expense of a Sydney second crossing and then grossly under-specing it purely to allow a higher service frequency during the initial years of operation of the NWRL.  If we head down this path by 2040 or 2050 we'll be in the same boat we are in now: people will asking - probably quite rightly - for a 3rd harbour crossing.

Don't disagree for a second Rails.  But ... I think your plan highlights the fact the PERL and the WEX combined largely deliver the benefits of a second crossing for a fraction of the price.

To get at RRT_Rules comment about capital productivity, my view is the NWRL format a proposed is going to severely compromise that capital productivity of the second crossing, regardless of it's route.  They are retaining the CityRail Short platforms, 1500V DC power supply, short vehicle length, non-standard platform height and every other odd-ball feature of CityRail bar the double deckers and the 2 man crews.  For mine, the new harbour crossing should have longer and larger platforms.  And if it is a greenfield operation that is to be largely underground then the "right" format is 25m with 4 (or perhaps even 5) door cars with train lengths 200 to 250m.  If it's to remain compatible with the current form factor it should be built with 240m platforms with current DD door spacing.

Overhead pickup, how is this a hang up? half the line of the proposed stage 1 and 2 is already built this way. 1500VDC is better than 750VDC as its cheaper to distribute and being O/H means you can have a higher voltage as its safer for track workers. They tend to not build overhead on some systems because its visual clutter. Dubai is building a track based Light rail power pickup for this reason and the Vancouver trolley bus in a wealthy area has fancy poles for same reason. and who says they will even use 1500VDC, they may reduce to 750VDC, why I don't know.

Cityrail platforms are not that short by standards for which they are built for. Where do you need a 250m platform on the NWRL?

Vehicle length, have they even picked a train yet? As far as I know that actual technology supplier has yet to be choosen.Including the number of doors and seating arrangement.

Non-standard platform height, is there even a standard?


Using the existing ECRL tunnel and stations does bring some history into the design, so its not 100% off the shelf, but I would have thought there wasn't too much that would need to be changed for the off the shelf vendors. Remove the side pick up and install a pano, big deal. Platform height above the rails, big deal you can even change this to some degree. Train width, big deal make the platform a big wider, unlikely they will be wider trains. 1500VDc over 750VDC, 1500VDC is hardly unknown, again big deal. Platform length, longer than most of most Metro systems I have ever used and perfectly fine for low to medium density city. Yes a few stations in the city would be betterlonger, but then you spend how many billion to repeat the same on the rest of the network and drag around half full trains. That would be copy and paste Cityrail. You can run 2min through the city on the new line and then reduce as you head out, alot cheaper.

I think you are grasping at straws to find fault.

djf01,

I have to agree with RTT_Rules last post. You are clutching some straws there. Remember that the NWRL is incorporating some existing stations and line, so it is not completely greenfield, therefore rather than completely build to new standards they rightly have to retain some Cityrail ones, like most of the structure gauge and power supply, to allow relatively seamless changeover. That way they can run the existing stock and services right up to that changeover.

Plus forget about a second harbour crossing in the context of the NWRL, because the NWRL will never cross the harbour. If the NWRL is the way of the future, then Sydney Trains in their current form will never cross the harbour on new route either. But a series of short metro lines from known higher density city destination points and suburbs no doubt will, completely from left field, say Mosman Junction, Cremorne, Neutral Bay - Martin Place, Town Hall, Central, Sydney Uni, RPA, Petersham, Dulwich Hill.

Cheers,
Hendo

I think you are grasping at straws to find fault.

Doesn't mean I'm wrong though.

The spec of the NWRL would appear to have been deliberately chosen to ensure maximum backward compatibility with the existing network for the new format, yet zero forward compatibility for the older form factor.  The core of my argument is there is this means the new metro format inherits all the legacy inefficiencies of the old format, while ditching the one good thing about it.

What is a waste is going to all the expense of a Sydney second crossing and then grossly under-specing it purely to allow a higher service frequency during the initial years of operation of the NWRL.  If we head down this path by 2040 or 2050 we'll be in the same boat we are in now: people will asking - probably quite rightly - for a 3rd harbour crossing.

Agree, the 2nd crossing is to be built when its needed when the current NSL/Harbour is tweaked to the max and if that includes takig a lane from bridge road traffic so be it. In mean time, people change trains, as they do in many many many parts of the world including Australia.

Any ideas on any spot 10min period traffic flow from City Circle to NSL line and vice versa at Wynyard is?

Likewise Eastern Suburbs at Town Hall?

Central station changes everywhere?

If these stations can handle this, I'm sure a cross platform change at one station on NSL is not a big deal, better even if St Ld's is added to the frow.

Someone mentioned loss of 3-6min to change trains. If there is a 3min headway on trains, it cannot exceed 3min.

The core of my argument is there is this means the new metro format inherits all the legacy inefficiencies of the old format, while ditching the one good thing about it.

Agreed.

But a series of short metro lines from known higher density city destination points and suburbs no doubt will, completely from left field, say Mosman Junction, Cremorne, Neutral Bay - Martin Place, Town Hall, Central, Sydney Uni, RPA, Petersham, Dulwich Hill.

Oh, so we're now back to the metro fetish during the glory days of post-Carr Labor.

Putting aside my belief that the NWRL in its entirety is a giant political stunt that is completely off the mark as a solution for the Hills, the obsession with metros borders on silly. It is simplistic and naive to believe that Sydney's problems will be magically solved by slapping metro around and cutting the ribbon. It's easy to draw lines on a map, and people get excited at the idea of "metro" trains because they're "better" than what we currently have.

I don't agree with the idea for metros as the immediate solution. Certainly, they have their place in the long run, but the harsh reality is that they cannot be used as the immediate finger-snap solution because they cost too much to be built quickly, resulting in a drawn-out process where it's always getting worse before it finally gets better when the great-great-great-great-great-great-grandchildren die of old age.

No, I'm going to reiterate one of my most infamous assertions, and state once again that immediate attention for areas like Mosman and Leichardt should be on the bus network, because that's where a number of current issues lie. These problems can be fixed in a much shorter time frame than the decade or five it takes to build a railway in New South Wales nowadays.

Here's the problem. More often than not, we are picking a solution we want and then shoehorning it into Sydney. Metros are a very good example. Everyone thinks they're hot, and wants them in their 'hood, but is it really the best solution for Sydney? We're not nearly as dense as Singapore or Hong Kong, so we can't go down the route of their models, even though they work brilliantly in their settings. (I should know.)

In short, I believe we're tripping over the present in pursuit of a magical future. Fix what we can fix now - I'm sure that quick but real results carry immense political weight. The current government is squandering its immense political capital on stupid pet projects and half-baked programs, and the NWRL is the centrepiece in this lumbering catastrophe.

Watson374, sometimes your high-horse, know-it-all arrogance absolutely astounds me. However, despite the usual helpings of smugness, egotism and pomposity (any chance you could tone these down a bit someday?), your above post does make plenty of sense.

I have long held the view that metros aren't the immediate solution, so I agree with you wholeheartedly on this - even more so given the innate reluctance of most Sydneysiders to, god-forbid, have to change from one train to another on their morning and evening commutes. Hence in the short-term I feel there is plenty more to be gained from an improved bus network in inner-city areas, as you correctly identified.

Longer term, are you still an advocate of double deck Paris RER-style trains as a potential solution for Sydney? It's an idea you've touted previously I believe.

Watson374, sometimes your high-horse, know-it-all arrogance absolutely astounds me. However, despite the usual helpings of smugness, egotism and pomposity (any chance you could tone these down a bit someday?), your above post does make plenty of sense.

Thank you very much, Dungog Diesel - and yes, that's very me. I don't think I'm being egotistic, as I'm not exactly being overly self-centred or attention-seeking; I'm just stating my views, which are often regarded as bizarre on a good day. I certainly, however, have a tendency to write in a smug, pompous way.

I suppose I could be called an insufferable know-it-all, complying with most of the standards set by the Granger Model.

I have long held the view that metros aren't the immediate solution, so I agree with you wholeheartedly on this - even more so given the innate reluctance of most Sydneysiders to, god-forbid, have to change from one train to another on their morning and evening commutes. Hence in the short-term I feel there is plenty more to be gained from an improved bus network in inner-city areas, as you correctly identified.

Indeed! Unfortunately, I'm inclined to believe that the inner-city bus network needs to be rationalised to embrace connections, but as a whole it is a network that has changed little since the motorbus service replaced the electric tramways, and Sydney on its next sunrise will be a very different city to what it was in 1962.

Sadly, the bus network does not reflect that. I'll go draw up my latest edition of my Jarrett Walker-inspired Frequent Network after my exams.

Longer term, are you still an advocate of double deck Paris RER-style trains as a potential solution for Sydney? It's an idea you've touted previously I believe.

Yes. That is another of my solutions I keep on a shelf, and I use it for a scenario where the core concept of CityRail is retained. It works very well, I believe, with solutions that involve high-capacity long-haul service, such as a Western Express.

Thank you very much, Dungog Diesel - and yes, that's very me. I don't think I'm being egotistic, as I'm not exactly being overly self-centred or attention-seeking; I'm just stating my views, which are often regarded as bizarre on a good day. I certainly, however, have a tendency to write in a smug, pompous way.

Awesome response, I love it! I certainly don't regard your views as bizarre, in fact I have plenty of respect for them given your significant knowledge base and obvious interest in the subjects you write about here. You've certainly taught me a thing or two since I've been on Railpage. And yes I'll concede that perhaps including egotism was one word too many - apologies.

Unfortunately, I'm inclined to believe that the inner-city bus network needs to be rationalised to embrace connections, but as a whole it is a network that has changed little since the motorbus service replaced the electric tramways, and Sydney on its next sunrise will be a very different city to what it was in 1962.

Yes this is true. The Metrobuses have been a positive step and a clear point of difference since 1962, but beyond that not much else has changed. Now I'll stop discussing buses for a moment before we both get kicked off Railpage

Longer term, are you still an advocate of double deck Paris RER-style trains as a potential solution for Sydney? It's an idea you've touted previously I believe.

Yes. That is another of my solutions I keep on a shelf, and I use it for a scenario where the core concept of CityRail is retained. It works very well, I believe, with solutions that involve high-capacity long-haul service, such as a Western Express.

I agree - are you specifically talking about trains like those used on RER-E (I think)? Double-deck with three doors on each carriage? Three entry/exit points per carriage is a model that would work quite well for Sydney and its dwell times, I believe.

Someone mentioned loss of 3-6min to change trains. If there is a 3min headway on trains, it cannot exceed 3min.

It can take 6 minutes if all the passengers cant fit on the first train.

RER -E uses the Z 22596, which would be an interesting design for sydney.
The design has been around for a long time. It would be interesting to know why it was not selected when city rail was buying the Waratah. Maybe it is considered as more of V set replacement as it travels over a long distance (European standards)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SNCF_Z_22596.JPG

I believe the MI09 is being considered ahead of that train.

There was a media report last year that stated that TNSW have completed the design for the Single Deck extension from Chatswood to St Leonards so it seems it is on the cards.

Is this the report you are referring to? The relevant bit is near the end:

"And Transport for NSW has also drawn up plans for extra tracks to St Leonards."

Is this the report you are referring to? The relevant bit is near the end:

"And Transport for NSW has also drawn up plans for extra tracks to St Leonards."

That was the article I recalled, yes.

Awesome response, I love it! I certainly don't regard your views as bizarre, in fact I have plenty of respect for them given your significant knowledge base and obvious interest in the subjects you write about here. You've certainly taught me a thing or two since I've been on Railpage. And yes I'll concede that perhaps including egotism was one word too many - apologies.

I'll rebrand myself as "often controversial", but I'm inclined to think it's related to my background and schooling - I was raised to think for myself, and in school I learned to defend my arguments. I tend to support unusual viewpoints, though, some of which are very unpopular, like my previous assertion(s) that the NWRL should consist of a large bus interchange atop Epping, and possibly more Growth Buses for CDC.

But I must thank you for your kinds words about my layman's knowledge - it's all part of the learning process, and I was once a kiddie foamer myself. I wouldn't be in this position were it not for those before me who put out such a wealth of material to learn from, though I do admit that that knowledge can come across as coal shovelled into the firebox of locomotive #374 Insufferable Know-It-All

Yes this is true. The Metrobuses have been a positive step and a clear point of difference since 1962, but beyond that not much else has changed. Now I'll stop discussing buses for a moment before we both get kicked off Railpage

I know what you mean! That said, the original Metrobus concept is sound, but its implementation on top of the existing 1962-derived system severely limited its positive impact. I will say, though, that PrePay-only was one of the best things ever rolled out by Labor.

I agree - are you specifically talking about trains like those used on RER-E (I think)? Double-deck with three doors on each carriage? Three entry/exit points per carriage is a model that would work quite well for Sydney and its dwell times, I believe.

Specifically, I was messing around with the MI09 concept, which I sink is used on zee RER A. But yes, it's a long-car double-deck design with three doors per side.

It can take 6 minutes if all the passengers cant fit on the first train.

Which is why you have a lower capacity NWRL train arriving at the platform 2min ahead of the higher capacity Suburban set which jus departed from the Lindfield turnback and/or a new Chatswood turnback. Next problem!

Having commuted many years to Gosford and watched how at Hornsby when a CC train was up to 1hr late and seen a platform full of people cram into a already full V-set via its low capacity entrance within a few minutes. I don't think its really that big a deal for a near empty suburban set with its wide doors and easy access, esepcialy the new stock which will be the bulk of the network by the time the NWRL is complete.

I honestly think that there is no harm boring the tunnels a little bit larger to accommodate a double deck train even if they think to buy single deck trains. What is the harm of a Waratah for example to serve that line? Anyway, my thought of the metro trains is stupid single deck trains with no seats, just a few at the side for the disabled or elderly.
I hate the idea of single deck metro style trains.