Sydney opens two more rail stations for $1.8 billion

 
Topic moved from News by dthead on 14 Mar 2015 21:48
  Transtopic Deputy Commissioner

Location: Sydney
Sydney has just opened an extravagently costly SW Rail Link which will never, ever, be able to accommodate the trains that will be run on its incomplete NW Rail Link after it opens in four years time.
Sydney opens two more rail stations for $1.8 billion
Because of the incompatibility with the Rapid Transit NWRL, the prospect of an integrated orbital rail network linking an extension of the NWRL to Badgerys Creek Airport is also seriously compromised.  It depends on whether you have an interchange between the two systems on the Western Line or at the Airport. It prevents through running, so still not ideal.

View the full story

Sponsored advertisement

  JoppaJunction Chief Train Controller

Location: Banned
Wonder what the patronage was like on the opening trains?
  M636C Minister for Railways

Sydney has just opened an extravagently costly SW Rail Link which will never, ever, be able to accommodate the trains that will be run on its incomplete NW Rail Link after it opens in four years time.

Talk about getting it backwards...

If the statement were true, the North West trains could "never ever" run from Epping to Chatswood.

The line could be cheaply converted to take NW link trains in the unlikely event that line is extended. The only change would be that the NW Link trains would terminate at Glenfield where passengers would change to more comfortable trains.

It doesn't say whether this came from Fairfax or Murdoch, but it is rubbish either way. Since it is specifically saying that it was a Labor project, as a criticism, I'd lean towards Murdoch....

How does the cost compare to the Victorian Regional Rail Link which has three new stations....?

M636C
  Transtopic Deputy Commissioner

Location: Sydney
The line could be cheaply converted to take NW link trains in the unlikely event that line is extended. The only change would be that the NW Link trains would terminate at Glenfield where passengers would change to more comfortable trains.
M636C
M636C
What utter nonsense.  The overwhelming bulk of patronage would come from the CBD and those transferring from Sydney Airport.  I don't think it would go down too well if they have to change at Glenfield to reach Badgerys Creek.  Just won't happen.
  bingley hall Minister for Railways

Location: Last train to Skaville
I asked this question in the Sydney metro forum, but thought I'd try my luck here as well.

Stupid question from an interstater - looking at the online timetable, it's just a $1.8bn shuttle service (about the same as the whole Mandurah line in WA cost).

I'm obviously missing something here, but is it safe to say there no through services to the CBD?

Thanks in advance.
  Transtopic Deputy Commissioner

Location: Sydney

I'm obviously missing something here, but is it safe to say there no through services to the CBD?
bingley hall
Not yet.  But there will be once the travel patterns are established.
  M636C Minister for Railways

What utter nonsense.  The overwhelming bulk of patronage would come from the CBD and those transferring from Sydney Airport.  I don't think it would go down too well if they have to change at Glenfield to reach Badgerys Creek.  Just won't happen.
"Transtopic"


Note that I said "in the unlikely event that the NW line was extended".

It would be more likely that the SW line could be extended to Badgery's Creek Airport (in the equally unlikely event that this airport is ever built) allowing through trains from Kingsford Smith.

I would expect that a connection to Badgery's Creek from the main Western line would be built first, giving a shorter and quicker connection.

My point was that the journalist saying that you couldn't convert a standard line to so-called "Metro" operation was wrong. I wasn't suggesting that it should be done, just that it could be done with little trouble, and the Journalist was failing in his beat up.

My understanding is that all trains terminating at Glenfield now will be extended to the SW line under normal service.

M636C
  normw Junior Train Controller

Hmmm... Most of this thread doesn't even talk to the topic description.

[Should have done more research - before talking off topic ;-( ]

As to the 'two stations for 1.8 billion' tag, that amount also includes a 12 track/20 train stabling yard and a very significant upgrage to Leppington and associated 330kv/1500v electrical system, so the two stations are a lot less than 1.8 billion. The quality of the overall line is very good to my mind, and if the two stations had not been aimed at some 'architectral prize' but limited to the average functionality one sees in the rest of the Sydney network, the stations themselves would have been a deal cheaper I suspect.
  bingley hall Minister for Railways

Location: Last train to Skaville
Hmmm... Most of this thread doesn't even talk to the topic description.

The primary advantage of a 'metro' is in the non-use of pantographs for power pickup, using a variant of 3rd rail instead, and significantly reducing the size/cost of tunnels to be bored
normw
That would be why all the artist impressions of the NWRL have pantos and overhead wiring.
  apw5910 Deputy Commissioner

Location: Location: Location.
That would be why all the artist impressions of the NWRL have pantos and overhead wiring.
bingley hall
Most of the artist's "impressions" for the proposed Canberra tram don't have catenary at all. And no, they're not going to be some sort of wireless type, we can't afford them, just your bog standard ones.
  arctic Deputy Commissioner

Location: Zurich
Plenty of metros with overhead wire pickup collection, lines in Tokyo, Beijing come to mind. Also mixed in with other lines on the network with 3rd rail, thus making inter operation impossible and one seat rides uncommon (the horror!). Cheers
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Hmmm... Most of this thread doesn't even talk to the topic description.

The primary advantage of a 'metro' is in the non-use of pantographs for power pickup, using a variant of 3rd rail instead, and significantly reducing the size/cost of tunnels to be bored - if its loading gauge can also be smaller, so much the better. If the NW loading gauge is smaller (?) , using this rolling stock on a conventional standard gauge line would result in even wider gaps at stations.

As to the 'two stations for 1.8 billion' tag, that amount also includes a 12 track/20 train stabling yard and a very significant upgrage to Leppington and associated 330kv/1500v electrical system, so the two stations are a lot less than 1.8 billion. The quality of the overall line is very good to my mind, and if the two stations had not been aimed at some 'architectral prize' but limited to the average functionality one sees in the rest of the Sydney network, the stations themselves would have been a deal cheaper I suspect.
normw
O/H pickup doesn't impact on tunnel size apart from old technology tunnels. These days we don't tend to build London tube type tunnels where you feel like you are in a pipe not a train. Have a look at some systems, fixed beam instead of a wire and the pano only raises slightly above the cabin.

NWRL was to use O/H because it existed on the ECRL and the costs of conversion to other was not deemed worth while. When you look at the infrastructure required for side rail pick up (no one builds a Greenfield track with a live exposed 3rd rail anymore), I think O/H must be similar costs. Being 1500VDC over 750VDC there would be some subs station advantages as well.

The last single station extension of the Gold Coast Line cost as much as the initial project, but thats because they had to move an old tip and other 2ndry actions for the area that opened up for more development. So yes $1.8B is more than just two more stations.  

I believe the plan is for DD technology to approach the airport from the east and the NWRL to be extended down with connection from Western line and then onto airport. Sort of similar to Munich which has a loop to the airport and two different lines arrive at the airport station, one each platform.


For the doubters, the airport will be built. Sydney Airport is heavily constrained by the curfew for international flights. Forcing large scale arrivals in a small window before peak. Also forcing cargo to arrive during the day. Thus making international aircraft scheduling more complex for the airlines and limiting the speed of air freight. International flights need to arrive at Sydney about 90min before the start of the evening curfew so they can get turned around and take off and avoid the cost of having a plane and crew land locked in Sydney for 8hr instead of making money flying.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Most of the artist's "impressions" for the proposed Canberra tram don't have catenary at all. And no, they're not going to be some sort of wireless type, we can't afford them, just your bog standard ones.
apw5910
I wonder if the govt does that just to make it more visually appealing.

Qld was going to build the GC LR light with wireless technology to make it more visually appealing but bailed late in the project due to costs and quietly dropped it.

Dubai's LR which was built of similar size to the Qld project and at same time continued with wireless and its been operating reliably now in this dusty sandy environment for 5mths. Ironically the sets still have a pano as the depo and yard has O/H, no ground pickup. Dubai was the first 100% wireless project and now that the door has been opened on this and the "risk" factor of the unknown has been killed off more will follow, even if it costs a bit more. Maybe not network wide, but certain areas where an O/H is not desired.

Sponsored advertisement

Subscribers: RTT_Rules, Transtopic

Display from:   

Quick Reply

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