I was interested in what people thought of new train lines to an airport at Badgerys Creek . It appears as if an extension of the South West Rail Link will be a sure thing. This article suggests linking it to the North West Rail Link as well.

I think linking it to the South West Rail Link is a good idea as it will offer direct links to both Sydney Airport and the CBD, however linking it to the North West Rail via St Marys or Mt Druitt doesn't seem right. Firstly because the North West will be single-deck trains, but the South West Rail link will be double-deck trains. Bu mostly because I think it is more sensible for the airport to be linked directly with Parramatta.

A better idea to me would be a metro line starting at the airport and travelling via West Hoxton to Green Valley and then underground to Parramatta via the route originally proposed to the NSW Government by Ron Christie in the 2001 Long Term Strategic Plan for Rail. In the future it could be extended along the Carlinford line to Epping, or via a completely new line to link up the North West Rail Link at Castle Hill.

What do others think?

Also take a look at these discussions: http://www.railpage.com.au/f-t11377416.htm

Being a resident of the Mt Druitt St Marys area I think the propose route shown in recent newspaper articles makes sense. Generally, residents in my area have to travel East (towards Sydney CBD) for work, as there is not a lot on offer way out west. With the creation of an airport, the 100,000 (whatever the figure is) proposed homes in the south west of Sydney, the Super Giant industrial area which is currently being built at Eastern creek, will all be built in a North-South direction meaning quiet a few people from say Parramatta to Penrith in the North, Warragamba to Campbelltown in the South will seek jobs created by the urban sprawl and ease congestion on the eastern side of Sydney's roads and trains.

I see it as why should we build it directly to a over populated congested area, when we can spread the people out.

With the wests population booming rapidly, why pack more people onto trains going east west that dont even have standing room, and the lines dont have the capacity for more trains.

It makes sense.

The current proposed version of the NWRL is the Coalition's Metro

I think linking it to the South West Rail Link is a good idea as it will offer direct links to both Sydney Airport and the CBD, however linking it to the North West Rail via St Marys or Mt Druitt doesn't seem right. Firstly because the North West will be single-deck trains, but the South West Rail link will be double-deck trains. Bu mostly because I think it is more sensible for the airport to be linked directly with Parramatta.



What do others think?

Parramatta has has track to the south and west all that's needed is a time table and trains to do the routes.

you can do an express train from parramatta to the airport via mt druitt or st Mary's with the current track if the option is built.

Even if you do link the airport with Western and South -Western Sydney, what about Eastern, Southern, Inner Western, Northern Sydney and the CBD. There needs to be an express link to and from Sydney CBD when the airport is built. I've noticed that much of the Southern side of the Bankstown Line (when facing north) has enough space to build 2 tracks parallel to the line. My take for the new line would be Badgery's Creek Airport-Leppington-Liverpool-Bankstown-Sydenham-Redfern-CBD. The section between Liverpool and Bankstown may include a new corridor travelling through Chipping Norton and Condell Park to create faster travel times and then the express services would run parallel to the Bankstown Line stopping at major hubs/interchanges. The line could be linked to the Western Fast-Rail underground through the CBD and create express services to Western and South-Western Regions relieving congestion on the East Hills, Bankstown and Western/Northern/North Shore Lines.  

I support the option of extending the SWRL and the NWRL to the new Airport which will provide better transport access between major Western Sydney Centres in the future.

Even if you do link the airport with Western and South -Western Sydney, what about Eastern, Southern, Inner Western, Northern Sydney and the CBD. There needs to be an express link to and from Sydney CBD when the airport is built.

Why?

Please tell me you're not serious when questioning why there should be a direct service to the Sydney CBD........

Dave

Please tell me you're not serious when questioning why there should be a direct service to the Sydney CBD........

Dave

I absolutely am serious.  Note the use of the word "needs".

The current airport doesn't have an express rail link to the CBD.  Admittedly the distance isn't that far in that case, but note it also doesn't have an express rail link to anywhere else in the Sydney basin.  That current airport has survived ok - it clearly hasn't "needed" to have an express link.

If you want to go to the Sydney CBD, why would you choose to fly to an airport that is quite some way away from the CBD?

In the long term, perhaps it will make sense to have lots of rail links everywhere.  No harm in allowing for that in planning.  But to pretend that they are "needed" when the airport is built is very questionable.  At this stage we don't even know what will be built as an airport - those proposed express rail links will come in real handy for a freight only airport.

So... "Why?"

Agree with the above. The new airport is for western sydney. It is not a replacement airport. If anything it needs transport links to parramatta. People from the CBD and eastern suburbs will probably never visit.

(to both posts prior)

The Airport would be a Sydney Airport. The airlines may choose this airport over Kingsford Smith due to cost/gate access/curfew/etc. Not because they're tapping into Western Sydney.

Just as Luton, Gatwick & Stanstead are all "London" (even if Luton is well outside London's metro area), just as Newark & Teterboro are effectively New York airports despite being in New Jersey.

It's fanciful (at present, at least) to assume that International tourists arrive in Sydney & will then want to proceed directly to Parramatta & not Sydney CBD. I don't say that with any disrespect to Parramatta of course; but until Parramatta has a world famous Opera House etc, it's just not in the running.

People from the CBD/North/East will definitely visit this airport. If (say) Cathay Pacific only fly out of Badgery's Creek & not Mascot, I can't imagine someone from Chatswood electing to fly Qantas at $200 more per person (for arguments sake) purely because of Airport. If Aerolineas are the only route from Sydney to Buenos Aires, you bet someone from Randwick would trek to Badgery's Creek rather than fly United & have to transit in LAX just to depart Mascot.

I can't imagine any planner (not even the bean counters in NSW treasury) would create a link to this airport that doesn't provide a direct link to Sydney CBD.

Yes it will be a sydney airport and you have used a good analogy. How many flights from Australia go to Luton, stansted, or gatwick?
For me gatwick is closer to my relatives home and I was able to travel on Lauda to gatwick from sydney. You can now do it on qantas and emirates.
Qantas and virgin have said they will be staying at mascot.
Expect flights from western sydney to Bali and Thailand. AirAsiaX and the like will fly from there and plenty of freight flights.
The airlines that cater for business will not move because of the convience of Mascot. Price sensitive airlines and travelers will move.

(to both posts prior)

The Airport would be a Sydney Airport. The airlines may choose this airport over Kingsford Smith due to cost/gate access/curfew/etc. Not because they're tapping into Western Sydney.

Just as Luton, Gatwick & Stanstead are all "London" (even if Luton is well outside London's metro area), just as Newark & Teterboro are effectively New York airports despite being in New Jersey.

It's fanciful (at present, at least) to assume that International tourists arrive in Sydney & will then want to proceed directly to Parramatta & not Sydney CBD. I don't say that with any disrespect to Parramatta of course; but until Parramatta has a world famous Opera House etc, it's just not in the running.

People from the CBD/North/East will definitely visit this airport. If (say) Cathay Pacific only fly out of Badgery's Creek & not Mascot, I can't imagine someone from Chatswood electing to fly Qantas at $200 more per person (for arguments sake) purely because of Airport. If Aerolineas are the only route from Sydney to Buenos Aires, you bet someone from Randwick would trek to Badgery's Creek rather than fly United & have to transit in LAX just to depart Mascot.

I can't imagine any planner (not even the bean counters in NSW treasury) would create a link to this airport that doesn't provide a direct link to Sydney CBD.

Some airlines may initially choose the new airport, assuming passenger facilities (and international passenger facilities, if you are talking international flights) are provided.

But the level of demand that you need to make any rail link worthwhile, let alone an express link to Central, is huge.  You are not going to achieve that huge level of demand in the medium term.

Airlines that choose to fly to that airport because of airport charges are not likely to be targeting premium traffic.  But it is premium traffic, and lots of it, that you need to be pay for any express CBD link.

Planning for it is fine.  Building it upfront is not.

(It will need to be an impressively lengthy train trip from the Sydney CBD to catch an Aerolineas flight to Buenos Aires, as of next week.  I'd suggest Qantas (direct) or LAN (via Auckland), with connection in Santiago, are perhaps more practical options.  From personal experience QF is better on the way there, LAN on the way back.  The QF flight is premium heavy the whole way (LAN only east of Auckland) - it won't be moving from Mascot anytime soon.)

I used Aerolineas only as an example.

By the way, I would assume that any rail link would incorporate nearby suburbs (unlike the isolated link to Brisbane Airport), given that the airport will be ringed by residential suburbs. I would also hope that Airport design would leave room for a rail link (if not incorporate it from the outset).

To me the key is international passenger traffic. If we're talking budget domestic passengers (I assume you're talking domestic donttellmywife) only, it would be analogous to Avalon. But given the size of the site & the chance to start afresh, I can't imagine the airport being set up for domestic only. Unless it
Quebec who manage to do infrastructure worse than pretty much everyone else.

No - I was talking international. Domestic services may choose the airport because of the direct area that it serves (i.e. you want to fly from the west of Sydney to Melbourne), in parallel to low cost carriers.

If an international service chooses to fly to Badgerys over Mascot, it will be either due to cost or curfew, because the connections offered at Sydney otherwise make it a more attractive destination. A curfew influenced flight is less likely to be relevant to train travel anyway (would the rail service even be running in curfew times?). For a cost influenced airline - as per my post.

I obviously don't know what they will initially build at Badgerys, but I think one of the mistakes of Mirabel was actually building big (versus just planning big) from day one. Give it a few decades and who knows what the site will look like, if the site grows, then transport to the site can grow with it.

Virgin Aust. & Qantas may not move there domestic operations from Mascot, but don't be surprised they move there low-cost subsidies Tiger & JetStar to Badgerys Crk if the access, landing & gate fees are cheaper & curfew isn't a problem! (as well as freeing up valuable slots at Mascot for more VA & QF Flights)

Will be interesting to see if REX & QantasLink followed suit, mix of flights betwn the two airports...

I suspect first, business and premium economy passengers are more likely to get a taxi or service car to an airport. by contrast, I reckon ordinary cattle class passengers are more likely to take the train. Since the great majority of seats are in cattle class and the new airport will mainly appeal to discount airlines, I think a fairly high proportion of passengers would take the train when compared to Mascot.

And yes, there is definitely a market for a second airport in Sydney. After all, Melbourne is only 95% the size of Sydney and it has two full size airports capable of taking any aeroplane (Tullamarine and Avalon) and a third airport is being planned in the south eastern suburbs (just past Cranbourne).

Mascot is chockers most of the time AND it has a curfew, so there would be a decent demand for a well located second Sydney airport without restricted operating hours that would serve the western and southern suburbs.

I think it is funny people still think after almost 40 years that a new airport will be built at Badgery's Creek. They were closer to building it 20 years ago when the plans were done and the bulldozers moved in.

Seriously, the whole area needs a rail corridor anyway as in the article would be good. It is expected 300,000 people will be the increased population of this Sydney's outer south western area over the next 10 years.

Then 'if' a airport is built in Sydney's West, rail infrastructure will already be in place.

The thing is that if there is a second airport in Sydney, nobody (passengers or airlines) would be willing to use that unless they were forced to by the government (see Montreal and Washington for example). Unless some sort of reliable train connection is established that directly links the second Sydney Airport with the CBD/key transport hubs, it will end up being a white elephant, remaining unpopular with most travelers. Even look at Avalon, touted as the low-cost alternative to Melbourne, it has seen systematic reductions in service wrt flights to/from Sydney, and rumoured international flights have yet to materialise. No doubt this is because of a lack of reliable and speedy connection to downtown.

^^ The difference is that Sydney ( KSA) is reaching capacity.  Melbourne airport is not in that situation and has plenty of room to expand.

True, though either way a secondary airport in western Sydney must have convenient rail connections directly linking the city and other convenient hubs (Parramatta etc). Virtually all cities with distant airports do so reliably and frequently, and those that didn't like Montreal didn't end up succeeding. This is doubly true if the current Sydney Airport will continue to operate with the same volume as it does now.

If you want to go to the Sydney CBD, why would you choose to fly to an airport that is quite some way away from the CBD?

You wouldn't. Sydney Airport will always be the hub for CBD business travel.

A Western Sydney Airport would have some interstate domestic flights (probably Jetstar and Tiger), but their mainstream would be low cost carriers to holiday destinations, freight, charter and business jets.

It's distance from the CBD is counter-balanced by closer proximity to the centre of population, faster access (for ground and air traffic), cheaper parking, less surrounding traffic, lack of curfew, simpler approach profiles and fewer delays.

Having to catch a train into the city is a small price to pay for a tourist who's paying half the fare they would for a major carrier in and out of Sydney Airport. Don't be fooled by the 'air travelers are all from the north shore' baloney. Business flyers, maybe (but not always). Westies usually have less assets, but often have more liquidity. Offer them a cheap deal and they'll be off to Bali, Broome or Bangkok in a flash.

Would a western Sydney airport be of use for long haul domestic flights especially holiday makers who may want to rest after a long haul flight?

You wouldn't. Sydney Airport will always be the hub for CBD business travel.

I completely agree.  To be clear - that was basically my point, in response to those saying "I'm never going to use Badgerys Creek  - it is too far away from the Sydney CBD."  Those people might just as well have written "I'm never going to use Williamtown - it is too far away from the Sydney CBD."  Sure - that's obvious, but the statement is not particularly relevant.

A Western Sydney Airport would have some interstate domestic flights (probably Jetstar and Tiger), but their mainstream would be low cost carriers to holiday destinations, freight, charter and business jets.

It's distance from the CBD is counter-balanced by closer proximity to the centre of population, faster access (for ground and air traffic), cheaper parking, less surrounding traffic, lack of curfew, simpler approach profiles and fewer delays.

Having to catch a train into the city is a small price to pay for a tourist who's paying half the fare they would for a major carrier in and out of Sydney Airport. Don't be fooled by the 'air travelers are all from the north shore' baloney. Business flyers, maybe (but not always). Westies usually have less assets, but often have more liquidity. Offer them a cheap deal and they'll be off to Bali, Broome or Bangkok in a flash.

I'm not fooled.  

On the other hand, I think the arguments that there must be a "fast" rail link in place when the airport opens are absurd.  

I even think requiring an ordinary connection to the suburban network is a little absurd - depending on the number of flights you will probably be better off just setting a skybus type arrangement - the tourist looking for the cheap deal won't care.

(However, if I was a state government, I would absolutely be making lots of noise about rail links being "an absolutely necessary and non-negotiable pre-condition for airport construction" or whatever on the off chance that I could look tough and (more importantly) get some money out of the feds.  But note that when I say "absolutely necessary and non-negotiable", I don't actually mean "absolutely necessary", and I'm also quite happy to negotiate.)

At least the land should be reserved.