NSW Future Rail Plan - NWRL/Metro/Harbour Crossing

 
  Watson374 Chief Commissioner

Location: Fully reclined at the pointy end.
I was playing along with what another poster had posted. I meant it in a jokily manner which referred to the 'nimbistic' attitude which is associated with this are and what the poster had implies. No harm meant. And, really, I was referring to the more personal attack and negative tone in your response ala 'get over yourself'.
"Muxcomee"
Tread carefully. It's fine if you want to go to the beach, but to convey the message that you demand beach access by train, whether the local community consents or not, begins to push the boundaries of what is acceptable armchair; I dispute your complaint of "attacks" when, unprovoked, you called Northern Beaches residents in general "snooty bastards" who should go suck on some head.

Anyway, yeah i'll read more indepth next time. See, I missed the word bus, thus I didn't really get the concept. Yeah, I suppose that could work for now as our 'short term solution' but does the system have the capacity to support growth and development of this area? Will it relieve congestion on Military Road?
"Muxcomee"
It removes a significant portion of the traffic from areas past the Spit Bridge, as these passengers will now be conveyed by ferry to Circular Quay. This means that the number of buses being shoved down Military Rd and across the Harbour Bridge is lessened - at least for the short term, but I believe for long enough to provide breathing room to pursue the next stage of the solution.

This is, of course, only one of many ways to solve the problem. The possibility of T-ways (or just better bus lanes) is another, and so on and so forth.

And yes I am new to the concept of staged solutions. It's my first day. And I haven't the slightest bit of experience that I'm sure you have. Heck I haven't finished junior HS yet.
"Muxcomee"
Welcome to the world of trial by fire.

Sponsored advertisement

  Muxcomee Station Staff

Tread carefully. It's fine if you want to go to the beach, but to convey the message that you demand beach access by train, whether the local community consents or not, begins to push the boundaries of what is acceptable armchair; I dispute your complaint of "attacks" when, unprovoked, you called Northern Beaches residents in general "snooty bastards" who should go suck on some head.

It removes a significant portion of the traffic from areas past the Spit Bridge, as these passengers will now be conveyed by ferry to Circular Quay. This means that the number of buses being shoved down Military Rd and across the Harbour Bridge is lessened - at least for the short term, but I believe for long enough to provide breathing room to pursue the next stage of the solution.

This is, of course, only one of many ways to solve the problem. The possibility of T-ways (or just better bus lanes) is another, and so on and so forth.

Welcome to the world of trial by fire.
Watson374
I meant it as a joke, but I'll be more careful in the future.

Yeah ^^ I agree with everything that you have said there. Have they implemented the feeder buses yet? Is it working?
  fixitguy Chief Train Controller

Location: In Carriage 4 on a Tangara
I was playing along with what another poster had posted. I meant it in a jokily manner which referred to the 'nimbistic' attitude which is associated with this are and what the poster had implies. No harm meant. And, really, I was referring to the more personal attack and negative tone in your response ala 'get over yourself'.
Muxcomee
yes i did imply a 'nimbistic' attitude the locals have in that area. if you see in this document, a quick search of the word train would tell that not all locals is opposed to trains. i would like to point out 2 things. first the major opposition to trains is to keep the poor people out and secondly the main reason that people wanted trains is to relieve traffic conjection and the building of more roads.

PS. I dont live in that area (just thought you should know)
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
For a conversation that is meant to be friendly- that sure sounded harsh.

Yeah- your probably right though, they can and will upgrade the ferries to serve Manly. And Manly only. I'm not just talking about Manly but the whole of the North Beaches area.

And yeah, I and the rest of the region can just 'get over ourselves' and catch many trains and buses and ferries to get to the beach. Or they could get theirselves and support public transport. I mean seriously, no matter how many ships there are or how big it is, it is near impossible for a ferry system to match the efficieny, speed, frequency and moving people aboutness that metro systems have. The Manly ferry only serves JUST Manly. The rest is by slower and older ferries, which may be upgraded, and which don't have as good frequencies.

I mean, on days that the Parramatta river has ferries on it, why don't all commuters flock on to it rather than the train? Yeah a few do, quite a bit at most, but not at the same scale as a train system.

And eventually, the population of that area is going too big, even if it is in like 50 years time, both the bus, car and ferry system will not suffice.
Muxcomee
Going to have to agree, but of the justification for the 2nd harbour crossing won't be trying to run 2min to Chatswood of which every 2nd or 3rd train might venture to NWRL, but every 2nd train crossing the new tunnel will probably be headed to Nth Beaches but directly competing with Ferries, more targetting the existing road uses in both car and bus. The Ferry is fine if headed to the lower part of the city, but anywhere else???
  simonl Chief Commissioner

Location: Brisbane
Northern line will not become its own sector in the foreseeable future unless they decide to run them all to Sydney Terminal.  It will still share platforms 16 and 18 at Central with the Western Line.

Agree with the comments about the Manly Ferry.  It's too slow, too expensive and too infrequent on the current offering.
  abesty1 Chief Commissioner
  Watson374 Chief Commissioner

Location: Fully reclined at the pointy end.
Northern line will not become its own sector in the foreseeable future unless they decide to run them all to Sydney Terminal.  It will still share platforms 16 and 18 at Central with the Western Line.
"simonl"
Somehow, I don't think running it out of Sydney Terminal is that bad anymore; especially if they're given an island platform to use more or less exclusively (insofar as possible at Sydney Terminal!).

Agree with the comments about the Manly Ferry.  It's too slow, too expensive and too infrequent on the current offering.
"simonl"
I know, but it's a product that can be significantly enhanced.

The Ferry is fine if headed to the lower part of the city, but anywhere else???
"RTT_Rules"
Erm, what areas do you have in mind? Apart from the Neutral Bay, North Sydney and Chatswood areas, most crosstown traffic from the Manly and Warringah areas to other areas of Sydney need to pass through the City anyway; the corridors not served by the ferry will still be covered by the bus network, serving all three listed exception areas.

The final odd-one-out is traffic via Frenchs Forest, and that's another problem entirely.

The Ferry Express buses appear to be relatively recent and low-key. I'll keep tabs on how they go.
  simonl Chief Commissioner

Location: Brisbane
Somehow, I don't think running it out of Sydney Terminal is that bad anymore; especially if they're given an island platform to use more or less exclusively (insofar as possible at Sydney Terminal!).
Watson374
I'd say that the draft timetable is about the best you are likely to see.  If you run all the northern line into Sydney Terminal that only frees up paths from Parra into Town Hall either from the ones currently running from Parra into Sydney Terminal or by increased conflicts with sector 2 between Homebush and Granville.  Neither are good options.


I know, but it's a product that can be significantly enhanced.
Watson374
That's what I was trying to say.
  abesty1 Chief Commissioner
  Muxcomee Station Staff

I'd say that the draft timetable is about the best you are likely to see.  If you run all the northern line into Sydney Terminal that only frees up paths from Parra into Town Hall either from the ones currently running from Parra into Sydney Terminal or by increased conflicts with sector 2 between Homebush and Granville.  Neither are good options.


That's what I was trying to say
simonl
Well, I do think that I would like to see frequencies on the Northern Line improved, and either way, since it will no longer share tracks over the bridge, frequencies can still be improved, I assume. Does the line still share tracks between Strathfield and Central? Because, it clearly shares tracks with the Western Line between Central and Town Hall. Well, if there are problems between Strathfield and Central because the line needs to share tracks, then I think it would be easier to simply terminate the line at Strathfield. At least then, some other lines could have extra trains and commuters would have to travel to either Epping, Strathfield or Hornsby to connect with the city. The only problem with this is potential crowding at Strathfield, however with many lines to get the city, it shouldn't be too bad, and for the changing commuters, if the timetable and frequency is calculated well, then waiting times should be kept minimal.

And I still believe that all the Main West lines should be rerouted to go through the City Circle anti-clockwise (that is Central-Museum-St. James). At this way, there is more opportunity and people may be more inclined to alight at stations other than Wynyard and Town Hall.
  simonl Chief Commissioner

Location: Brisbane
Not good ideas.  Perhaps someone else will have the patience to explain why.
  Muxcomee Station Staff

Going to have to agree, but of the justification for the 2nd harbour crossing won't be trying to run 2min to Chatswood of which every 2nd or 3rd train might venture to NWRL, but every 2nd train crossing the new tunnel will probably be headed to Nth Beaches but directly competing with Ferries, more targetting the existing road uses in both car and bus. The Ferry is fine if headed to the lower part of the city, but anywhere else???
RTT_Rules
Wait- I don't understand what you mean

What I would like to see, is the construction of a Second Harbour Crossing reserved for a future metro holding a line from the City to Manly and another line from the City to Dee Why (thats in the future, not now). One line could go down the Metro West? Alignment, stopping at Walsh Bay Barangaroo, King Street, Darling Harbour and Central. The other would go down the MetroPitt alignment, stopping at Walsh Bay, the Rocks, Macquarie Place, Australia Square, Westfield, World Square, Central. From there, they would combine and go to Maroubra.

For now, as another poster has pointed out, a feeder system for the ferries is working well.

For the NWRL, I believe that constructing several tracks underneath the Bridge would work well. Allowing for:
20tph from the North Shore, 1
12tph from the NWRL,
12tph on the PERL
10tph on the Lower North Shore Line
Totalling 54tph. Which means a train from Chatswood to the City every 66 seconds via any of the above lines. Naturally both Wynyard and Town Hall will need upgrades to support the new trains - both of which are in the planning stage.

In terms of the ferry system, the actual ferry system is good and seems comparable to ferry systems world wide (unlike our train system). It just needs to be more connected to people. I actually really like the feeder idea and perhaps that can be implemented elsewhere. The only line that doesn't seem to be working is the Parramatta Line - it is not reliable and hardly ever comes. The Manly line is good though.
  Muxcomee Station Staff

Not good ideas.  Perhaps someone else will have the patience to explain why.
simonl
Ahaha. yes please
  mandonov Station Staff

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it was my understanding that the Bankstown Line is the only line that can go either way around the circle.
  Watson374 Chief Commissioner

Location: Fully reclined at the pointy end.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it was my understanding that the Bankstown Line is the only line that can go either way around the circle.
"mandonov"
All services except those coming in/out via Shore* and via Airport** can run either way around the City Circle, by means of the flying junctions. In current normal service, however, only the Bankstown Line is operated in a reverse direction, and then only in morning peak.

* cannot run into the Circle at all (duh)
** can only run in/out via Museum, cannot run in/out via Town Hall
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

Well, I do think that I would like to see frequencies on the Northern Line improved, and either way, since it will no longer share tracks over the bridge, frequencies can still be improved, I assume. Does the line still share tracks between Strathfield and Central? Because, it clearly shares tracks with the Western Line between Central and Town Hall. Well, if there are problems between Strathfield and Central because the line needs to share tracks, then I think it would be easier to simply terminate the line at Strathfield. At least then, some other lines could have extra trains and commuters would have to travel to either Epping, Strathfield or Hornsby to connect with the city. The only problem with this is potential crowding at Strathfield, however with many lines to get the city, it shouldn't be too bad, and for the changing commuters, if the timetable and frequency is calculated well, then waiting times should be kept minimal.

And I still believe that all the Main West lines should be rerouted to go through the City Circle anti-clockwise (that is Central-Museum-St. James). At this way, there is more opportunity and people may be more inclined to alight at stations other than Wynyard and Town Hall.
Muxcomee
As you may or may not know, there are 4 tracks approaching Strathfield from the West, and one from the North merging into 6 tracks east to Central.  At Central, 2 tracks (the northern most) head into Sydney Terminal, the middle pair runs through the city and across the harbour bridge and the southern most set around the City Circle clockwise.

Which trains are timetabled to use which tracks is a bit of a dogs breakfast ATM, but is cleaner than it was prior to the Clearways timetables of the mid 2000s and will be cleaner again after the 2013 timetable.  But roughly, long distance trains (plus two from Epping in the peak) will run on the northern set of tracks to Central Terminal.  (Most) Northern and Western suburban trains will run using the middle tracks and then across the bridge.

Terminating northern line suburban trains at Strathfield platform 1 is not completely out of the question, but the trailing points and associated signalling just north of Strathfield junction are currently booked out of use (and may no longer exist for all I know) which means it can't be done without crossing (in effect using the timetable slot of) western main line trains.

While the magic of the flying junctions means it is perfectly possible for main western trains to run anti-clockwise around the inner City Circle, the laws of temporal physics mean a train can only do this by taking the available paths of two other trains.  ie The Western Line train heading around the City Circle will physically obstruct any other train attempting to travel across the bridge or around the city circle anti-clockwise.

You are however correct in observing there are unused timetable slots on the inner city circle, IIRC 8 currently and IIRC 6 post October..
  simonl Chief Commissioner

Location: Brisbane
In addition to what djf01 said, they could fix the connection between Strathfield #1 and North Strathfield, but why would you want to?  If you've gone that far you might as well go to Central (i) where a number of people do actually leave the rail system.  Hardly anyone leaves the rail system at Strathfield so people getting off northern line trains terminating there would need to jam on already crowded trains.  And you also lack the option of waiting on Central 16/17 where both sides of the platform go to Wynyard.  I'm assuming current infrastructure and no WEX here, of course.
  franfran Assistant Commissioner

Location: in a Castle in the Hills
Are you serious.
"RTT_Rules"


Yes.
  simonl Chief Commissioner

Location: Brisbane
And I still believe that all the Main West lines should be rerouted to go through the City Circle anti-clockwise (that is Central-Museum-St. James). At this way, there is more opportunity and people may be more inclined to alight at stations other than Wynyard and Town Hall.
Muxcomee
This would require using the flying junctions which would mask paths on the via Town Hall leg of the city circle.
  abesty1 Chief Commissioner
  abesty1 Chief Commissioner
  Rails Chief Commissioner

Misquoting yourself?  Actually you said over.



Fixing your codes for you above, that graphic (taken from the final masterplan) clearly shows that the 210 buses per 2 hour peak is coming from the Pacific Highway corridor, with 250 from Military Rd and 160 from the Gore Hill Freeway.  Something isn't quite right because the draft plan had 180 via Pac Hwy, 190 via Gore Hill Freeway and 220 via Military Rd.  Perhaps its based on observations rather than schedules or the peak time differs.  Or perhaps they've reclassified 272s etc.

Anyway the point remains clear, even if the NWRL gets 100% market share conversion from buses (which it won't) it will only make relatively small change to bus numbers entering the CBD.
simonl

Please stop trying to correct me when your corrections are wrong, read my post again, I said there are over 200 buses coming from that corridor (as shown in that image) but said you could change up to 200 bus services. I also said interchange buses from that whole corridor, not just NW buses. As I stated no one knows the numbers, would depend on how many services where required for the other corridors and how bad the congestion further in towards the CBD gets and what infrastructure they were willing to build to combat this. I have seen some interesting ideas to allow for such bus to rail interchanges along this corridor.

I also did not take that from the Masterplan even though it may have appeared there, I took it from a presentation made by TNSW regarding Bus congestion in the CBD and light rail. Either way I am happy to take the numbers from a TNSW document rather than you.
  Rails Chief Commissioner

http://www.gcc.nsw.gov.au/north+west-21.html
I think this website shows you clearly where the 200,000 extra population is meant to be. A large proportion is within the catchment of Richmond Line.
stupid_girl
Well not exactly, there are no exact numbers for the locations within each precinct and that link only covers the NW growth centre not the whole region, but either way both lines take a part of that growth centre catchment, especially when you consider where the extended NWRL will run through when it gets past Cugegong Rd (where they reserved the corridor to Marsden Park recently) and I am certainly not saying the Richmond line will not play its part, however again I ask how much of that population is walk up to the Richmond line? What kind of density will actually surround the catchment of the stations? Will it be taller towers like planned for the NWRL stations or will it be low density sprawl? I would suggest in that location it would be low density sprawl, so how will the residents be getting to the stations? Park and ride or bus feeders which can utilise either line. Will these people be all working in the CBD? Or will they be working in Rouse Hill, Norwest, Castle Hill, Macquarie Park, North Ryde, Chatswood, St Leonards, North Sydney? Which line would they use then?
  stupid_girl Assistant Commissioner

Well not exactly, there are no exact numbers for the locations within each precinct and that link only covers the NW growth centre not the whole region, but either way both lines take a part of that growth centre catchment, especially when you consider where the extended NWRL will run through when it gets past Cugegong Rd (where they reserved the corridor to Marsden Park recently) and I am certainly not saying the Richmond line will not play its part, however again I ask how much of that population is walk up to the Richmond line? What kind of density will actually surround the catchment of the stations? Will it be taller towers like planned for the NWRL stations or will it be low density sprawl? I would suggest in that location it would be low density sprawl, so how will the residents be getting to the stations? Park and ride or bus feeders which can utilise either line. Will these people be all working in the CBD? Or will they be working in Rouse Hill, Norwest, Castle Hill, Macquarie Park, North Ryde, Chatswood, St Leonards, North Sydney? Which line would they use then?
Rails
The area surrounding NWRL are low density sprawl as well...unless you demolish the existing buildings along the NWRL corridor.

If density can be increased along NWRL, I don't see any reason why that can't be increased along Richmond Line. Also, there are more greenfield along Richmond Line, which are easier to develop than established settlement.

It's not too difficult to build high rise near the Richmond Line stations. However, you probably can't demolish the Rouse Hill Town Centre and rebuild it into high rise.
  simonl Chief Commissioner

Location: Brisbane
Please stop trying to correct me when your corrections are wrong, read my post again, I said there are over 200 buses coming from that corridor (as shown in that image) but said you could change up to 200 bus services. I also said interchange buses from that whole corridor, not just NW buses. As I stated no one knows the numbers, would depend on how many services where required for the other corridors and how bad the congestion further in towards the CBD gets and what infrastructure they were willing to build to combat this. I have seen some interesting ideas to allow for such bus to rail interchanges along this corridor.

I also did not take that from the Masterplan even though it may have appeared there, I took it from a presentation made by TNSW regarding Bus congestion in the CBD and light rail. Either way I am happy to take the numbers from a TNSW document rather than you.
Rails
Get a grip.  What I have posted is a fact.

Sponsored advertisement

Display from:   

Quick Reply

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