Tunnelling starts on North-West Rail Link

 
Topic moved from News by dthead on 16 Mar 2015 22:01
  Myrtone Chief Commissioner

Location: North Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria
Try again!

Cost difference between surface and underground, the initial cost might be double, but I'm sure the added ongoing costs, if any, are less than double.

Has the history of what came first got anything to do with above, quite a lot as we'll see.

What was the inspiration for metro? Providing a rail link between the centres and outskirts of old, heavily developed cities. There was no room to bring surface rail into town centres, and regional rail at the time was steam hauled and couldn't run underground.

Were all our state capitals able to avoid the problem metro was designed to solve? Definitely, all were later developers and were able to bring regional rail right into town centres.

Is it common for cities to have non interoperable railway technology? Not regardless of reason, most common is two or more different metro technologies, otherwise it's metro that predates suburban rail, these patterns and the history behind it cannot simply be ignored, claiming that it's irrelevant is slinding in the direction of properganda.
In cities that have both metro and suburban rail, which came first and why is it important? Except for Copenhagen, it was metro first. And suburban rail in these cities has also been extended more than the metro since suburban rail began. For example, Paris has seen more extensions to the RER than the metro in the second half of the twentieth century and beyond.

Is it possible to turn a profit with a crew of two? Likely, both Melbourne and Sydney still had guards when we turned a profit.

Are there off the shelf double decker trains? Quite a few, such as Bombardier's Twindexx and Stadler's KISS.

Can I see any reason why those double decker trains couldn't run in Sydney? No

What form of rail was orginally planned for the North West? Suburban rail, as an extension of the existing network.

Is the average loading gauge for newer railways larger than with older railways? It is actually, for example the British Isles had railways before the rest of the world, and both broad and standard gauge non-metro railways beyond the British Isles have larger loading gauges.

Can we determine what future goverments will do about the NWRL? No, some future goverment might decide to enlarge the tunnel and run double decker trains on it.

Can double decker trains carry more people than single deckers of the same length if run at the same frequency? Certainly, see ABC's fact check.

Is there really any point recreating the metro-suburban divide city that already has an extensive, electrified suburban rail network than already surves the CBD? It seems not, that divide in cities that have it is a product of their history which is just tollerated, even if they have a high transit standard.

Sponsored advertisement

  djf01 Chief Commissioner

I have found the legends report
http://103.4.17.5/christie/christie.pdf

Basically the report is saying fix Cityrail by duplicating or quadruplicating tracks and create new heavy rail lines with dedicated pair of tracks. Then build Metros.

page 73 refers to metro proposals

To summarise he said
- separating new to meet new growth which is a practice done in many cities creates a better Cityrail (after all the stuff to Cityrail he proposed was also done) as by 2020 Cityrail will be full. (summarised)
- Underground railways with high capacity signalling served by fast, high frequency, high powered single deck "Metro" style trains (basically a metro with more seats than traditional metros like I assume London and HK) (mostly a direct quote)
- greater flexibility in choosing alignments to maximise patronage and the railway's accessibility and land use benefits and greatly reduced construction costs. (direct quote)
- Planned corridors (for metros) to cater for growth and stuff (summarised)
In Conclusion, I believe Mrytones arguments have been demolished by the legend himself
fixitguy

Or to summarise further: we should turn Sydney into London Smile.
  fixitguy Chief Train Controller

Location: In Carriage 4 on a Tangara
Or to summarise further: we should turn Sydney into London Smile.
djf01
I wouldn't mind. They have much better transportation than us. Smile

Now to address @Myrtone massive comment. The Legend speaks for himself. I can find multiple quotes of him criticising Cityrail and now Sydney Trains/NSW Trains about the inefficiencies and lack of investment in heavy rail and metro technologies to disprove Mrytones arguments. I'm not bothered to. Maybe you should look him up.
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

Cost difference between surface and underground, the initial cost might be double, but I'm sure the added ongoing costs, if any, are less than double.
Surface more expensive than underground?  Total BS - unless you want to knock down Westfield shopping centres to build it.  Most parts of Sydney with suitable densities to need rail already have a surface corridor.  And guess what, that corridor usually has a rail line on it!

Is it common for cities to have non interoperable railway technology? Not regardless of reason, most common is two or more different metro technologies, otherwise it's metro that predates suburban rail, these patterns and the history behind it cannot simply be ignored, claiming that it's irrelevant is slinding in the direction of properganda.
Yes, it's common.  Is it a good idea?  Rarely.  Sometimes it's usually done for either a strong contemporary engineering reason, but often it's done for a short term financial benefit which invariably kicks the added cost can down the road, sometimes for centuries.

Can double decker trains carry more people than single deckers of the same length if run at the same frequency? Certainly, see ABC's fact check.
The reason (or at least the chronology strongly suggests this) Sydney adopted the 2nd crossing as Metro as policy is they painted themselves into a corner.  They committed to operating the NWRL as a metro, presumably with the intention of converting the North Shore, Inner West, Bankstown and Hurstville lines to the same format, primarily as a means to *avoid* building the 2nd crossing white elephant.  I'll post a copy of the Douglas Report a bit later when I've got time.

But in a nutshell, that report said " --  err  --- umm ---  err --- if we look at these 17 complex (as in just complex enough for the casual reader not to properly understand) mathematical models - and apply them to Sydney, then if you want the answer you're looking for at the very least you'll need a new mathematical model.  And some "new" data too.  BTW, that's why we haven't done you a new model even though that was our brief, thank us quietly later."

The killer was a subsequent report (which I don't have unfortunately) suggesting both Sector 2 and Sector 3 would need to be shut down (but only between Central and Nth Sydney for 2 years.

The Sydney format is unusual and designed (originally by the French IIRC) to solve a specific problem in Sydney.

Are there off the shelf double decker trains? Quite a few, such as Bombardier's Twindexx and Stadler's KISS.
Sydney's format is unusual (very high platforms, short wheel base requirement) and needs a custom design.  No less true for SD than it is for DD.  "Off the Shelf" is a good idea.  Does the number of decks make that any more or less possible?  Not really.

Is it possible to turn a profit with a crew of two?Likely, both Melbourne and Sydney still had guards when we turned a profit.
This argument gets up my nose.  Sydney has ridiculous crewing arrangements.  But that is not because of the shape of the trains.  Rather than fix that problem, insist the new line be completely crewless, and adopt a whole lot of other inefficiencies in the process.

I simply don't buy the line "metro is cheaper".  90% of the legacy in-efficiencies have been retained by the NWRL format.  Whatever benefits there are to the new format, they are more than offset by the deliberate inclusion of these legacy problems.  And if you look at the project as a whole, the costs and inefficiencies it's shifted to the public purse are horrendous.

But the thing that gets me the most is there was (unconfirmed and I can't find my links to it, but I'm sure it's buried in the Railpage forums somewhere) a report that the NWRL tunnelling contractor offered to build the tunnels with a larger diameter at no extra cost.
  georges Train Controller

"But the thing that gets me the most is there was (unconfirmed and I can't find my links to it, but I'm sure it's buried in the Railpage forums somewhere) a report that the NWRL tunnelling contractor offered to build the tunnels with a larger diameter at no extra cost."
Difficult to assess truth of this. The allegation was made in https://transportsydney.wordpress.com/2013/06/25/why-are-the-nwrl-tunnels-too-small/, the first quotation under the diagram.











  djf01 Chief Commissioner

"But the thing that gets me the most is there was (unconfirmed and I can't find my links to it, but I'm sure it's buried in the Railpage forums somewhere) a report that the NWRL tunnelling contractor offered to build the tunnels with a larger diameter at no extra cost."
Difficult to assess truth of this. The allegation was made in https://transportsydney.wordpress.com/2013/06/25/why-are-the-nwrl-tunnels-too-small/, the first quotation under the diagram.

georges

Thanks for that.  An anecdotal "I heard" by an anonymous poster to a blog site.  No wonder I remembered this report as "unconfirmed" Smile.
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

OK, here it is: https://mega.nz/#!ON1kAI7S!0jB6-YA5Pd_oAw9ad7J0QJ3MTqfpNjBErzkAZT-SA3Q

Quite a lot of interesting stuff in there, and it certainly changed my vies on what "should" happen, and what the real problems are.
  Myrtone Chief Commissioner

Location: North Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria
Did I say that surface rail is more expensive that underground? No I meant quite the oppostie, unless maybe the former requries property aquisition.

Is there anything wrong with adding a new rail technology that is not interopeable with an existing one? Not necessarily, but even if the benefits of being interoperable or even physically compatible with existing lines in the same metropolis are minimal, the benefits of building to the same or a larger loading gauge still remain.


Sydney's format is unusual (very high platforms, short wheel base requirement) and needs a custom design.  No less true for SD than it is for DD.  "Off the Shelf" is a good idea.  Does the number of decks make that any more or less possible?  Not really.
djf01

The RER also has high platforms as I've seen in photos and footage. Trains here in Melbourne have an even shorter wheelbase than those in Sydney, I know about this because the 4D had an even shorter wheelbase than the Tangara.

I simply don't buy the line "metro is cheaper".  90% of the legacy in-efficiencies have been retained by the NWRL format.  Whatever benefits there are to the new format, they are more than offset by the deliberate inclusion of these legacy problems.  And if you look at the project as a whole, the costs and inefficiencies it's shifted to the public purse are horrendous.
djf01

Let's say we started a second network that retained every productivity feature of the existing suburban rail network but removed at least some of the legacy inefficencies. Would that be more popular?
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

The RER also has high platforms as I've seen in photos and footage. Trains here in Melbourne have an even shorter wheelbase than those in Sydney, I know about this because the 4D had an even shorter wheelbase than the Tangara.
Myrtone

The RER does have high platforms - (usually) higher than the 700mm European standard.  IIRC it's still slightly lower than Sydney.  In that sense the RER is a custom build, and not really "off-the-shelf" compatible either.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE

Gare St Michael Notra Dame is the RER station we used to get to our apartment in Paris in Chirstmas in 2013. The photo shows the exact entrance/exit we used.


How high do you think the platforms are?  I very much doubt 700mm

This is the compromise you do when you have a 3 door train with 24m car bodies on a tight curved platform.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE

Sydney's format is unusual (very high platforms, short wheel base requirement) and needs a custom design.  No less true for SD than it is for DD.  "Off the Shelf" is a good idea.  Does the number of decks make that any more or less possible?  Not really.

Is it possible to turn a profit with a crew of two?Likely, both Melbourne and Sydney still had guards when we turned a profit.
This argument gets up my nose.  Sydney has ridiculous crewing arrangements.  But that is not because of the shape of the trains.  Rather than fix that problem, insist the new line be completely crewless, and adopt a whole lot of other inefficiencies in the process.

I simply don't buy the line "metro is cheaper".  90% of the legacy in-efficiencies have been retained by the NWRL format.  Whatever benefits there are to the new format, they are more than offset by the deliberate inclusion of these legacy problems.  And if you look at the project as a whole, the costs and inefficiencies it's shifted to the public purse are horrendous.

But the thing that gets me the most is there was (unconfirmed and I can't find my links to it, but I'm sure it's buried in the Railpage forums somewhere) a report that the NWRL tunnelling contractor offered to build the tunnels with a larger diameter at no extra cost.

The platform height is not uncommon for other suburban/metro  technologies that don't have to deal with platforms on tight corners or just used a low platform height from the beginning.

Agree, train shape not related to crew size. But the future is operator/guard less and pretty standard for new and greenfield and growing. look at the list in wiki under construction, proposed and those planned to be converted. Its a high cost, Sydney's rail network is high cost, it will be a factor in reducing the cost of operations.

What are the "90% legacy in-efficiencies" in the NWRL that will add to operating and/or construction costs? Very little from what I have seen that is been carried across is not unusal or uncommon.

I highly doubt there was a proposal by a contractor to remove 19% more earth and use more concrete for the same price to satisfy a sector of the community. The links didn't seem to indicate that either, just rumours and "he said, she said" Chinese whispers.
  djf01 Chief Commissioner




And the counter example.  High platforms like these are very rare in continental Europe.  There are at least 900mm (the UK standard IIRC)  - basically floor height.

Most "off the shelf" DD stock in Europe have lower doors.
  stupid_girl Assistant Commissioner

By the way, what will be the level of disruption to convert ECRL for metro operation?

In Seoul,  Line 1, Gyeongui-Jungang Line and Gyeongchun Line were all converted to metro with limited disruption to the service.
In Hong Kong, when East Rail Line was transformed to a metro line, train service was maintained during the conversion.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
I have found the legends report
http://103.4.17.5/christie/christie.pdf

Basically the report is saying fix Cityrail by duplicating or quadruplicating tracks and create new heavy rail lines with dedicated pair of tracks. Then build Metros.

page 73 refers to metro proposals

To summarise he said
- separating new to meet new growth which is a practice done in many cities creates a better Cityrail (after all the stuff to Cityrail he proposed was also done) as by 2020 Cityrail will be full. (summarised)
- Underground railways with high capacity signalling served by fast, high frequency, high powered single deck "Metro" style trains (basically a metro with more seats than traditional metros like I assume London and HK) (mostly a direct quote)
- greater flexibility in choosing alignments to maximise patronage and the railway's accessibility and land use benefits and greatly reduced construction costs. (direct quote)
- Planned corridors (for metros) to cater for growth and stuff (summarised)
In Conclusion, I believe Mrytones arguments have been demolished by the legend himself
fixitguy
Would tend to agree there is some significant bottle necks that need more track amplification to allow step increase in services with most of the corridors now at or near capacity. Part 2 of the problem is where do the trains run to, the city is maxed out and while improved signally will get a few extra trains, you don't build extra tracks exceeding $200m/km for 2-3 trains per hour extra. We need a step change.

You can run four tracks at some not huge cost from Nth Sydney to Chatswood, but would you want to? Wollestoncraft bends is very time consuming and slow. After the money has been spent you have just replicated an existing problem and not increased rail penetration into the 'burbs.

Western corridor needs another pair of tracks, but this will be costly as no way in hell it would be on the surface. While the Western express was proposed to be UG, this is expensive for the small market, building a UG line for locals to Ashfield or maybe Straithfield would create 12 slots on the surface, but they need someone where to go in the city. I'm thinking Ashfield more now than Straithfield as then the line would head north. A branch to straithfield maybe a longer term option as this would eliminate Croydon and maybe Burwood.

Southern Corridore has four tracks from Hurtsville, but its a bit of a mess with Bankstown merging with Hurtsville services and that the two tracks beyond Hurtsville are at capacity and no more room for anything, yet the traffic is just 12 trains per hour. And running more South Line trains means more trains to ESR, yet they don't need more trains for the numbers using the ESR.

All up the mixing of express and inner suburban local is killing the network as is the near maxed out city tunnels. Surface amplification options are limited.

It would seem the need is to get the inner suburban traffic off the rails so more trains can run from medium to outer suburbia.

The question/argument is the how?
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE



And the counter example.  High platforms like these are very rare in continental Europe.  There are at least 900mm (the UK standard IIRC)  - basically floor height.

Most "off the shelf" DD stock in Europe have lower doors.
djf01

Where is this?

3 door DD train. Looking at the deck lengths, seems short like RER?
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Try again!

Cost difference between surface and underground, the initial cost might be double, but I'm sure the added ongoing costs, if any, are less than double.

Has the history of what came first got anything to do with above, quite a lot as we'll see.

What was the inspiration for metro? Providing a rail link between the centres and outskirts of old, heavily developed cities. There was no room to bring surface rail into town centres, and regional rail at the time was steam hauled and couldn't run underground.

Were all our state capitals able to avoid the problem metro was designed to solve? Definitely, all were later developers and were able to bring regional rail right into town centres.
Is it common for cities to have non interoperable railway technology? Not regardless of reason, most common is two or more different metro technologies, otherwise it's metro that predates suburban rail, these patterns and the history behind it cannot simply be ignored, claiming that it's irrelevant is slinding in the direction of properganda.In cities that have both metro and suburban rail, which came first and why is it important? Except for Copenhagen, it was metro first. And suburban rail in these cities has also been extended more than the metro since suburban rail began. For example, Paris has seen more extensions to the RER than the metro in the second half of the twentieth century and beyond.

Is it possible to turn a profit with a crew of two? Likely, both Melbourne and Sydney still had guards when we turned a profit.

Are there off the shelf double decker trains? Quite a few, such as Bombardier's Twindexx and Stadler's KISS.

Can I see any reason why those double decker trains couldn't run in Sydney? No

What form of rail was orginally planned for the North West? Suburban rail, as an extension of the existing network.

Is the average loading gauge for newer railways larger than with older railways? It is actually, for example the British Isles had railways before the rest of the world, and both broad and standard gauge non-metro railways beyond the British Isles have larger loading gauges.

Can we determine what future goverments will do about the NWRL? No, some future goverment might decide to enlarge the tunnel and run double decker trains on it.

Can double decker trains carry more people than single deckers of the same length if run at the same frequency? Certainly, see ABC's fact check.

Is there really any point recreating the metro-suburban divide city that already has an extensive, electrified suburban rail network than already surves the CBD? It seems not, that divide in cities that have it is a product of their history which is just tollerated, even if they have a high transit standard.
Myrtone

You lost me on the cost comment.

Were all our state capitals able to avoid the problem metro was designed to solve? Definitely, all were later developers and were able to bring regional rail right into town centres.

Hardly and No. Metro's are nothing more than a train running underground which over time have progressed to a higher standing ratio owing to the short to moderate travel times and manage growing demand. They were built in existing cities because surface options were no longer available at reasonable cost or practical. The Inner suburban band of Sydney is closely matching this profile. Existing, high land cost, growing density to justify the higher cost underground construction costs and provide demand for high frequency services.


Is it common for cities to have non interoperable railway technology? Not regardless of reason, most common is two or more different metro technologies, otherwise it's metro that predates suburban rail, these patterns and the history behind it cannot simply be ignored, claiming that it's irrelevant is slinding in the direction of properganda.

The most common reason for being non-interoperable is because they take advantage of the latest technology. There is no need or no benefit or most commonly simply no capacity to mix trains from one line to another without causing the problems Sydney has. If the trains are manually driven, the drivers don't need to be trained for every piece of track in the city, just A-B-A and maybe one or two other lines. Sydney has progressed down this path over last 10 years and now I see now comments that Mel Metro operator is looking at following a similar path.


In cities that have both metro and suburban rail, which came first and why is it important? Except for Copenhagen, it was metro first. And suburban rail in these cities has also been extended more than the metro since suburban rail began. For example, Paris has seen more extensions to the RER than the metro in the second half of the twentieth century and beyond.

Again relevance of who came first in most circumstances? Paris has seen more extension of RER because the city is growing out. There are height limits on buildings in inner Paris so the population growth is limited. And as someone pointed out, Line 14 was to ease congestion on a RER line.


Is it possible to turn a profit with a crew of two? Likely, both Melbourne and Sydney still had guards when we turned a profit.

Do you understand what 65% subsidy is? If not I'll explain. The total fare revenue collected for Sydney trains is only 35% of its operating cost. Therefore being 35%, with the inner network at near capacity on all lines means the ability to ever run at a profit and I'm talking real profit, not profit for 3rd party operator or in other words positive cash flow to the taxpayer is NEVER going to happen. The network as such built in high costs that it will never be profitable unless fares rise by 3 x and the daily usage remains the same, OR the decision is made to severely cut services that are lightly used.

No one including me is pretending the Metro-NWRL will be profitable. World wide bench marking would state this is not practical. But the same data shows Commuter rail costs can be lower for the taxpayer, alot lower.


Are there off the shelf double decker trains? Quite a few, such as Bombardier's Twindexx and Stadler's KISS.

Can I see any reason why those double decker trains couldn't run in Sydney? No

About as off the shelf as an A set. And no they cannot operate in Sydney.


What form of rail was orginally planned for the North West? Suburban rail, as an extension of the existing network.

And proven to cause more problems long term than it solved and very much short sighted leaving the problem for others to solve in the future, again!

Is the average loading gauge for newer railways larger than with older railways? It is actually, for example the British Isles had railways before the rest of the world, and both broad and standard gauge non-metro railways beyond the British Isles have larger loading gauges.

No, the train cross sectional area is aligned with similar systems built around the world today.


an we determine what future goverments will do about the NWRL? No, some future goverment might decide to enlarge the tunnel and run double decker trains on it.

Only a moronic govt would attempt to do this. It would probably be cheaper, quicker and far less intrusive to build a new line parrellel.


Can double decker trains carry more people than single deckers of the same length if run at the same frequency? Certainly, see ABC's fact check.

Link doesn't work and your words were "same frequency", again you need to take your thinking out of the DD box. I said technology frequency. ie DD at 2.5min and SD at 1.5min.


Is there really any point recreating the metro-suburban divide city that already has an extensive, electrified suburban rail network than already surves the CBD? It seems not, that divide in cities that have it is a product of their history which is just tollerated, even if they have a high transit standard.

Tolerated? So you telling me if I went to Paris or German cities and asked how do you feel that you are in this SD car verus those in the DD cars, you are not getting your monies worth? I wonder back when Sydney was running mixed trains of SD/DD red rattlers if those in the DD trailer cars felt more superior to those in the SD cars. Do those sitting up the top feel superior to those in the lower decks?
  Myrtone Chief Commissioner

Location: North Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria
You lost me on the cost comment.
RTT_Rules

I didn't have anything to say on that.

Metro's are nothing more than a train running underground which over time have progressed to a higher standing ratio owing to the short to moderate travel times and manage growing demand. They were built in existing cities because surface options were no longer available at reasonable cost or practical. The Inner suburban band of Sydney is closely matching this profile. Existing, high land cost, growing density to justify the higher cost underground construction costs and provide demand for high frequency services.
RTT_Rules


Classic metro, from what I know, is quite different from other heavy rail, loading gauge is always smaller than, say, the Bern gauge. And many older metros have closer station spacing then has ever been typical of any other heavy rail including suburban rail.
In older global cities, options for surface rail into the town centre were never available, having been developed before the railways came, and regional trains, being steam hauled, could not run underground, and all trains at that time were single decked. Also, I don't believe that modern tunnel boring machines existed yet.
All our state capitals, being late developers, all have surface rail running right into the CBD. This was impossible in older cities for reasons mentioned above, so metro was seen as a way to get people between town centres and rail stations on the outskirts.
Both Melbourne and Sydney later electrified their surface rail, which, first in Sydney and later in Melbourne, to a lesser extent, allowed suburban services to be extended underground.
For all I know, regional rail in Europe was still (largely) unelectrified when now legacy metros were first opened.

The most common reason for being non-interoperable is because they take advantage of the latest technology. There is no need or no benefit or most commonly simply no capacity to mix trains from one line to another without causing the problems Sydney has. If the trains are manually driven, the drivers don't need to be trained for every piece of track in the city, just A-B-A and maybe one or two other lines. Sydney has progressed down this path over last 10 years and now I see now comments that Mel Metro operator is looking at following a similar path.
RTT_Rules

Whatever it is, I doubt there would be a reason to remove any productivity features on the new line.

Again relevance of who came first in most circumstances? Paris has seen more extension of RER because the city is growing out. There are height limits on buildings in inner Paris so the population growth is limited. And as someone pointed out, Line 14 was to ease congestion on a RER line.
RTT_Rules

Remember, it isn't just Paris, someone else pointed out that London has also seen more extensions to the overground than recent extensions to the underground.

And proven to cause more problems long term than it solved and very much short sighted leaving the problem for others to solve in the future, again!
RTT_Rules

I haven't heard that as a reason for changing plans.

No, the train cross sectional area is aligned with similar systems built around the world today.
RTT_Rules

Far from it, there are a variety of loading gauges around the world, mainland Europe and North America and larger than the British Isles, and here in Australia there are a number of variations, including differeces between Melbourne and Sydney suburban.

Link doesn't work and your words were "same frequency", again you need to take your thinking out of the DD box. I said technology frequency. ie DD at 2.5min and SD at 1.5min.
RTT_Rules

I clicked on the link and it does work. Accrding to Douglas Economics, existing signalling allows 20 double decker or 22 single deckers an hour, while enhanced signalling will allow 26 single deckers or 24 double deckers in the same amount of time.

My point is that there is no way around the fact that a larger loading gauge such that double decker trains will fit is a productivity feature.

Tolerated? So you telling me if I went to Paris or German cities and asked how do you feel that you are in this SD car verus those in the DD cars, you are not getting your monies worth? I wonder back when Sydney was running mixed trains of SD/DD red rattlers if those in the DD trailer cars felt more superior to those in the SD cars. Do those sitting up the top feel superior to those in the lower decks?
RTT_Rules

I don't understand the first part of the first sentence, but Sydney ran those mixed trains on the same network, and I've read that the RER still has both, though progressively phasing out single deckers.

So let's consider here:
London - underground and overground, both with single deck trains only.
Paris - metro, with small bore tunnel and single deck trains only, and RER, originally with only single deck trains, but now, newer trains are double decked.

Both these cities already had extensive metros with the small bore tunnels in place, such that it would be too expensive and inconvenient to enlarge the tunnels and consolidate stations. It simply wouldn't be worth undertaking such expenditure and inconvenience for the benefits obtained.
It would be a bit like giving someone a foot transplant and go into the trouble of getting them walking again just because the shoes that fit their new feet are more comfortable.
That's what I mean by tollerating the metro-suburban divide. It's no more than a product of having a metro in place when suburban rail began, and the infeasibily of integrating it into the suburban rail network.
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

Where is this?

3 door DD train. Looking at the deck lengths, seems short like RER?
RTT_Rules
Cercy Saint-Christophe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gare_de_Cergy_%E2%80%93_Saint-Christophe) RER Line A.

I googled for pics of the MI09 and posted the first one that clearly showed the platform heights.
  fixitguy Chief Train Controller

Location: In Carriage 4 on a Tangara
The question/argument is the how?
RTT_Rules
Do as the legend says. How else. Also moniesssss from China:)
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
I didn't have anything to say on that.



Classic metro, from what I know, is quite different from other heavy rail, loading gauge is always smaller than, say, the Bern gauge. And many older metros have closer station spacing then has ever been typical of any other heavy rail including suburban rail.
In older global cities, options for surface rail into the town centre were never available, having been developed before the railways came, and regional trains, being steam hauled, could not run underground, and all trains at that time were single decked. Also, I don't believe that modern tunnel boring machines existed yet.
All our state capitals, being late developers, all have surface rail running right into the CBD. This was impossible in older cities for reasons mentioned above, so metro was seen as a way to get people between town centres and rail stations on the outskirts.
Both Melbourne and Sydney later electrified their surface rail, which, first in Sydney and later in Melbourne, to a lesser extent, allowed suburban services to be extended underground.
For all I know, regional rail in Europe was still (largely) unelectrified when now legacy metros were first opened.


Whatever it is, I doubt there would be a reason to remove any productivity features on the new line.


Remember, it isn't just Paris, someone else pointed out that London has also seen more extensions to the overground than recent extensions to the underground.


I haven't heard that as a reason for changing plans.


Far from it, there are a variety of loading gauges around the world, mainland Europe and North America and larger than the British Isles, and here in Australia there are a number of variations, including differeces between Melbourne and Sydney suburban.


I clicked on the link and it does work. Accrding to Douglas Economics, existing signalling allows 20 double decker or 22 single deckers an hour, while enhanced signalling will allow 26 single deckers or 24 double deckers in the same amount of time.

My point is that there is no way around the fact that a larger loading gauge such that double decker trains will fit is a productivity.


I don't understand the first part of the first sentence, but Sydney ran those mixed trains on the same network, and I've read that the RER still has both, though progressively phasing out single deckers.

So let's consider here:
London - underground and overground, both with single deck trains only.
Paris - metro, with small bore tunnel and single deck trains only, and RER, originally with only single deck trains, but now, newer trains are double decked.

Both these cities already had extensive metros with the small bore tunnels in place, such that it would be too expensive and inconvenient to enlarge the tunnels and consolidate stations. It simply wouldn't be worth undertaking such expenditure and inconvenience for the benefits obtained.
It would be a bit like giving someone a foot transplant and go into the trouble of getting them walking again just because the shoes that fit their new feet are more comfortable.
That's what I mean by tollerating the metro-suburban divide. It's no more than a product of having a metro in place when suburban rail began, and the infeasibily of integrating it into the suburban rail network.
Myrtone

I have used my fair share of underground, surface and other Metro's and a train 4 seats across is pretty common. Remember Brisbane and Perth are 4 across. Best use comparisons for systems built Greenfield in last 30 years.

The railways that extend into the cities in the 3 east coast states is reach capacity on most lines in each state. For Sydney the situation is more complex and more widespread. BRisbane needs the CRR and four tracks extended to the south to resolve most of its issues. But the Western line connection to an East-West Metro has been floated for the future as the Western line has reached 20 trains per hour.

Why do you keep quoting me apples and oranges capacity comparisons.
- Automated Metro is 30 trains per hour
- Sydney DD is 20, arguably up gradable to 22-24 trains per hour. However as this capacity is needed for something like 30km or 50min rail time, its arguable it is sustainable/practical for extended periods.

But even at 24 trains per hour, as long as the SD can carry 80% of the DD, you are good to go.


My point on new lines being built non-compatible. If you look at some of the bench mark cities as they have expanded their networks, they don't allow themselves to be held back by old technology where they can avoid it. High capacity lines run as an island so they do. Sydney's basic design feature is that it must be suitable to run a steam engine and freight train. Perhaps the ECRL is the first line that cannot? or maybe ESR. Regardless do we need these encumbrances? Even when opened the ECRL had issues with some older stock if operating as a shuttle.  A modern Metro can runs steeper all day and not cook its traction motors.

Surface lines get extended at faster rates for I thought blatantly obvious reasons. They are cheaper and urbran sprawl. CBD populations change much more slowly and in the case of places like Paris, where is there a gap? A city UG line has a catach up to 500m from a station. So how many inner city areas are big enough to take more than a few lines. Once they are in, only growth and capacity issues need to be addressed, not increasing the foot print.

The only integration that PT operators seem most focused on these days is ticketting and scheduling, because thats what the voter wants. Look at Sydney, they have worked bloody hard spending a bucket of cash to move away from intergration into sectors. Not sure if the drivers in one sector can drive in others or there is a big focus for this, but to make the system simply and easier to operate and far more reliable they are all moving to operating line based islands as is Melbourne by the sounds of it.

I suspect one day there will be a stack of cash through at the PAris Metro to streamline things. Line 6 if I recall with its 400m spaced stations, seriously? Problem is these lines cannot be simply switched off for upgrades, work must be done at same time of operation. Long weekend shutdown at best.
  Myrtone Chief Commissioner

Location: North Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria
I have used my fair share of underground, surface and other Metro's and a train 4 seats across is pretty common. Remember Brisbane and Perth are 4 across. Best use comparisons for systems built Greenfield in last 30 years.
RTT_Rules

I've been on trains in Brisbane and Perth and I recall them being narrower than the Melbourne ones.

The railways that extend into the cities in the 3 east coast states is reach capacity on most lines in each state. For Sydney the situation is more complex and more widespread. BRisbane needs the CRR and four tracks extended to the south to resolve most of its issues. But the Western line connection to an East-West Metro has been floated for the future as the Western line has reached 20 trains per hour.
RTT_Rules

Can anyone here either explain CRR, or link to a discussion mentioning it?

Why do you keep quoting me apples and oranges capacity comparisons.
- Automated Metro is 30 trains per hour
- Sydney DD is 20, arguably up gradable to 22-24 trains per hour. However as this capacity is needed for something like 30km or 50min rail time, its arguable it is sustainable/practical for extended periods.
RTT_Rules

All it is, is a comparion between line capacity with double and single decker trains whenever all else is equal.

My point on new lines being built non-compatible. If you look at some of the bench mark cities as they have expanded their networks, they don't allow themselves to be held back by old technology where they can avoid it. High capacity lines run as an island so they do. Sydney's basic design feature is that it must be suitable to run a steam engine and freight train. Perhaps the ECRL is the first line that cannot? or maybe ESR. Regardless do we need these encumbrances? Even when opened the ECRL had issues with some older stock if operating as a shuttle.  A modern Metro can runs steeper all day and not cook its traction motors.
RTT_Rules

And these cities also either build new lines to the same loading gauge (such as Jubilee line in London and later line 14 in Paris) or bigger (such as Paris RER). In a strict sense, even newbuild lines do inherent legacies of many existing systems such as standard gauge track.

Much of the Sydney suburban would be unsuitable for steam trains because of underground running. I haven't heard of freight trains, diesel or electric, running through tunnels either.

Problem is these lines cannot be simply switched off for upgrades, work must be done at same time of operation. Long weekend shutdown at best.
RTT_Rules

This is probably the main obstacle to integrating metro lines into the suburban network, which is the basic reason why the metro-suburban divide remains in those cities.
  thadocta Chief Commissioner

Location: Katoomba
FFS, Myrtone, do some basic research before you come on here pontificating with your ideas.

Your big problem is that you come on here with your own preconceived ideas, and when those who know what they are talking about shoot you down, you come back with really simple questions like "Are AC trains air conditioned trains" when really basic research will answer your question fully, so stop expecting all of us to do your research for you.

In short, you come on here, express a POV (which is your right) and then when that POV is shot down in flames, you expect others to provide proof for their opinions, without in any way providing any sort of proof or evidence of the validity of your own opinions.

There have been multiple threads, both here and in the Melbourne forums, where you have expressed an opinion, a valid opinion at that, and your opinion has been shown, repeatedly, to be incorrect in fact, with countless examples shown to you as to why your idea/opinion is wrong/unworkable/incorrect.

Yet you still keep on arguing your point, despite it being constantly proven to be wrong, and your only defence is to ask "What is xxxxxxx (when basic research will tell you what xxxxx actually is!)

In short, as I have said before, you seem intent on arguing for the sake of arguing, even when your arguments have been well and truly shot down in flames.

Dave
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
I've been on trains in Brisbane and Perth and I recall them being narrower than the Melbourne ones.


Can anyone here either explain CRR, or link to a discussion mentioning it?


All it is, is a comparion between line capacity with double and single decker trains whenever all else is equal.


And these cities also either build new lines to the same loading gauge (such as Jubilee line in London and later line 14 in Paris) or bigger (such as Paris RER). In a strict sense, even newbuild lines do inherent legacies of many existing systems such as standard gauge track.

Much of the Sydney suburban would be unsuitable for steam trains because of underground running. I haven't heard of freight trains, diesel or electric, running through tunnels either.


This is probably the main obstacle to integrating metro lines into the suburban network, which is the basic reason why the metro-suburban divide remains in those cities.
Myrtone
Brisbane's loading gauge is roughly typical for most Metro's that I have used, surface and underground.

CRR - Cross River Railway, you can manage the rest

So, you agree that when comparing trains at max capacity you need to compare apples with apples and hence for Sydney's case the difference is not much if anything.

Unless you are building completely new like Dubai or Vancouver at one stage yes. Even Line 14 was constrained by the need to get the trains in.

Freight trains in the past with diesel traction including the XPT and XPL have previously travel via the North Shore Line bridge and city tunnels when the other option was closed. I don't believe this would ever happen again (maybe XPT/XPL, but not freight), but it has happened. Steam engines infrequently travel Sydney, but yes avoid the city tunnels. The point was the bulk of the network is designed to cater for freight and steam travel and evolved from that and rarely let go as I explained before.

No, different purpose and why would you inflict the painfully slow Paris Metro on someone sitting in a RER train. There are a number of interchange stations and they can switch from there where its most suitable. Likewise the Sydney-NWRL has mutli interchange points for those concerned about seating, otherwise the service will travel faster than the NSL,
  Myrtone Chief Commissioner

Location: North Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria
Brisbane's loading gauge is roughly typical for most Metro's that I have used, surface and underground.
RTT_Rules

But it's still different from a metro, apart from being mostly either surface or elevated, it does interoperate with country and interstate trains. And the track gauge is narrower than most metros.
Where this all started is that you stated that a large scale underground network with double decker trains would be too expensive and impractical, asking why they didn't exist if that weren't the case, but the fact is that there are some non-metro railways, mostly ground level, which still have metro type loading gauge. British railways appears to be another example.

CRR - Cross River Railway, you can manage the rest
RTT_Rules

Thanks for helping me, I can't recall whether I've heard of it before, I thought it might stand for Cross River rail, I know they built a bridge in 1978 to join to two semi-isolated parts of the network, is that what you mean?
Could I manage the rest? Yes, but so could anyone else, is there a thread about it anywhere on this site? I'll see if any of our Brisbane posters could say anything about it, and I found this thread.

So, you agree that when comparing trains at max capacity you need to compare apples with apples and hence for Sydney's case the difference is not much if anything.
RTT_Rules

I'm not sure what you mean.

Unless you are building completely new like Dubai or Vancouver at one stage yes. Even Line 14 was constrained by the need to get the trains in.
RTT_Rules

I'm not sure what part of my post to which you are replying. Dubai only has two urban rail systems segregated from road traffic, the metro and the monorail.

Freight trains in the past with diesel traction including the XPT and XPL have previously travel via the North Shore Line bridge and city tunnels when the other option was closed. I don't believe this would ever happen again (maybe XPT/XPL, but not freight), but it has happened. Steam engines infrequently travel Sydney, but yes avoid the city tunnels. The point was the bulk of the network is designed to cater for freight and steam travel and evolved from that and rarely let go as I explained before.
RTT_Rules

Wouldn't diesel exhaust have filled the tunnels? They don't seem to be like car tunnels.

No, different purpose and why would you inflict the painfully slow Paris Metro on someone sitting in a RER train. There are a number of interchange stations and they can switch from there where its most suitable. Likewise the Sydney-NWRL has mutli interchange points for those concerned about seating, otherwise the service will travel faster than the NSL,
RTT_Rules

Of course you wouldn't extend the metro to serve surrounds that way the RER does. Why did they start a suburban rail separate from a metro. Probably because the metro could not interoperate with regional rail, and also a separated network not needing to use existing metro tunnels could have larger trains. Also, the stations on the metro are just too close for a regional service.
As Sandy Thomas pointed out, there is a trend towards the same kind of rail for all heavy rail transit, rather than two or more kinds, and away from interchanges. You might find this hard to believe, but I could only find one example of a recent metro (in Copenhagen, began in 2000) co-existing with an older suburban rail network, and multiple examples where metro came first, in London, Paris, Madrid, Milan and Berlin.
One example of a recently formed suburban rail network in a city that didn't already have a metro is the Zürich S-bahn, which dates only from 1990. There is no metro in Zürich, or anywhere else in Switzerland.
And in both Germany and especially Austria, there is a lot more regional rail than metro.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
But it's still different from a metro, apart from being mostly either surface or elevated, it does interoperate with country and interstate trains. And the track gauge is narrower than most metros.
Where this all started is that you stated that a large scale underground network with double decker trains would be too expensive and impractical, asking why they didn't exist if that weren't the case, but the fact is that there are some non-metro railways, mostly ground level, which still have metro type loading gauge. British railways appears to be another example.


Thanks for helping me, I can't recall whether I've heard of it before, I thought it might stand for Cross River rail, I know they built a bridge in 1978 to join to two semi-isolated parts of the network, is that what you mean?
Could I manage the rest? Yes, but so could anyone else, is there a thread about it anywhere on this site? I'll see if any of our Brisbane posters could say anything about it, and I found this thread.


I'm not sure what you mean.


I'm not sure what part of my post to which you are replying. Dubai only has two urban rail systems segregated from road traffic, the metro and the monorail.


Wouldn't diesel exhaust have filled the tunnels? They don't seem to be like car tunnels.


Of course you wouldn't extend the metro to serve surrounds that way the RER does. Why did they start a suburban rail separate from a metro. Probably because the metro could not interoperate with regional rail, and also a separated network not needing to use existing metro tunnels could have larger trains. Also, the stations on the metro are just too close for a regional service.
As Sandy Thomas pointed out, there is a trend towards the same kind of rail for all heavy rail transit, rather than two or more kinds, and away from interchanges. You might find this hard to believe, but I could only find one example of a recent metro (in Copenhagen, began in 2000) co-existing with an older suburban rail network, and multiple examples where metro came first, in London, Paris, Madrid, Milan and Berlin.
One example of a recently formed suburban rail network in a city that didn't already have a metro is the Zürich S-bahn, which dates only from 1990. There is no metro in Zürich, or anywhere else in Switzerland.
And in both Germany and especially Austria, there is a lot more regional rail than metro.
Myrtone

The Paris Metro is too slow to be extended great distances. Built in an era where tunnel construction wasn't done with a TBM, the wider the porthole the slower the construction rate.

Paris Metro is the source of the name "Metro", but few systems deserve this tag as they are a fair bit different. The Paris Metro has very close station spacing making longer distance travel slow. Average speeds are around 20-25km/hr.

Most of the more Modern "Metros", such as Dubai, Vancouver and Singapore and Line 14 in Paris have station spacing that exceeds the average for the Sydney North Shore. Their typical four across seating is not alot different from Non-Metro type networks such as Brisbane so if Brisbane is not a Metro, in reality neither is Dubai, Vancouver and most of Singapore and indeed many others that often wear the tag because they are underground. The main difference between Brisbane and the above is the frequency of services which doesn't exceed 3min and is double staffed per train.

The reference to Brisbane compared to Sydney is that I believe Brisbane trains will be slightly smaller than NWRL.

Diesel trains operate in tunnels in many locations, why not the city. Yes there are people on the station, but this I'm sure was managed and would have been low horse power trains compared to now. No you would do it regularly and its best avoided these days.

Cross River Railway, Google is your friend.

Sponsored advertisement

Display from:   

Quick Reply

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