Tunnelling starts on North-West Rail Link

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

Location: Katoomba
Shane, myrtone has indicated here - and elsewhere - that s/he is affected by Aspergers Sydneydrone, which according to wikiepedia is "Asperger syndrome (AS), also known as Asperger's syndrome, Asperger disorder (AD) or simply Asperger's, is an autism spectrum disorder (ASD) that is characterized by significant difficulties in social interaction and nonverbal communication, alongside restricted and repetitive patterns of behavior and interests"


Note the last part, "repetitive patterns of behaviour and interests.


I rest my case.


Dave

Sponsored advertisement

  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE
It doesn’t necessarily mean that all inner city lines need to be converted to or supplemented by new metro lines.  It’s horses for courses.

The Illawarra Line is a case in point.  With the existing quad to Hurstville, it can adequately provide all stations, Cronulla/Waterfall and South Coast Intercity express services for the foreseeable future.  A separate UG metro line to Hurstville  may be warranted in the longer term.

Conversely, the Inner West Local route would benefit from a new UG metro link by allowing the existing surface tracks to be exclusively utilised for express running increasing the capacity for outer suburban services between Strathfield and Redfern.  These tracks would allow for express services from the South Line via Granville as well as the reintroduction of the Liverpool via Regents Park service diverted from the Bankstown Line, without the limitation in frequency imposed by mixed running.

I’m not quite sure what you mean by closing the surface stations between Redfern and Strathfield, “but not including them and excluding Burwood and Ashfield”.  Do you mean permanently closing all stations on the current Inner West Local and not replacing them on the new metro line, except Burwood and Ashfield?  You could argue that it would be cheaper to construct a new tunnel for existing express Sydney Trains services without intermediate stations and convert the surface line to metro, which it would, but because of the potential difficulty of connecting such a tunnel with the existing network at either end, I think on balance, a more expensive UG metro link would be a better option.



In response to your suggested future network options, I comment as follows:-

Bankstown Metro to extend to Liverpool and Lidcombe.

I can’t see the need to convert the Bankstown Line to Metro, particularly as it is going to compromise through running of Liverpool and Lidcombe services without additional capacity being provided on the congested Strathfield to Redfern corridor.  A better option is to connect to and convert the Airport Line to metro and in the longer term construct a new UG metro link along the Inner West corridor.  

Run SW Liverpool services from Glenfield to city via Granville.

Again, there is limited additional capacity along the Inner West corridor.

Remove Clyde Station and convert the Carlingford Line to metro.

I agree that Clyde Station could be closed, particularly as it is so close to Granville and with the possibility of the Carlingford Line being closed between Clyde and Camellia.  The Carlingford Line is more likely to be converted to light rail rather than metro with a proposed link from Parramatta to Macquarie Park as one option.  Whether this route is via Carlingford and Epping or Parramatta City Council’s  feasibility study preferred more direct route via Eastwood remains to be seen.  The option of a metro connection has now been effectively cut off since the previously proposed stub tunnels to connect with the NWRL at Epping have been eliminated.

Metro connecting Ashfield to Epping.

I don’t see a need for this link as it would only be duplicating the existing Northern Line north of Strathfield to Epping.

Western Express to Parramatta forming part of a great circle line connecting airports.

As its name implies, the Western Express would be more useful servicing the outer Western and Richmond Lines.

Extend the Quad on East Hills to Glenfield.

Agree, with an Airport Line conversion to metro also being extended from Revesby on the centre track pair.

Extend the south (Illawarra) quad to Sutherland.

Agree



Metro to Nth Beaches.

Agree, but junction station would be better at Victoria Cross, particularly as there may not even be a Crows Nest Station.

Extend the NWRL Metro to Marsden Industrial Park.

Agree, but it should also be extended further to the Western Line at St Marys interchanging with the proposed extension of the SWRL via Badgerys Creek Airport.

Extend ESR in Y format.

Agree.  There should be 2 branches from Bondi Junction to North Bondi via Bondi Rd and Bondi Beach and to Maroubra Junction via Randwick, interchanging with the light rail line.

Quad Strathfield to Hornsby.

Agree.  The most immediate action should be to complete the relatively short section of missing quad between Rhodes and West Ryde across the Parramatta River (bridgeworks are mostly completed except for installation of spans between piers for the extra track pair).  Quadruplication of the line between Epping and Hornsby is a longer term project.  Being part of the Northern Sydney Freight Corridor program, it could attract Federal funding.
Sextup west of Homebush to Parramatta.

While this is a worthy goal, I don’t think it needs to go as far as Parramatta.  Extension to Granville Junction connecting to the South Line may suffice.  In the medium term, extension to Lidcombe connecting to the Regents Park line may be all that is necessary.  It would most likely have to be in tunnel.

Quad or triple track to Penrith/Emu Plains.

I can see the value in extending the quad from St Marys to Penrith, as the widened track corridor is already in place.  However, extending it further to Emu Plains is problematic, as a new bridge would be required across the Nepean River and I can’t see that it would be warranted.
Transtopic

Th govt is going to do Bankstown anyway, but I mostly see why the chose it so do it all. Even with a 4min timetable which is initially proposed, some trains can still run limited express. Also the trains will be more frequent thus saving some time and make the whole banks town line more friendly with more frequent and less crowded services. On that 2012 report it lists trains as loaded to 150% capacity, even if as other suggests this is Liverpool users, then more services and more capacity from Liverpool will help reduce the load via East Hills and Granville (I assume).

I like my idea of Metro Carlingford line over LR. HR is faster than LR. I know what they are doing and I wonder if they will leave stub tunnels to Manly? Certainly stub tunnels helps later on, but its not exclusive if you still want to do it.

Ashfield to Epping goes via Five Dock, Gladsville and Top Ryde, so its doesn't duplicate the Nth Main. The route is currently a well used bus route following Victoria Road. Previous govt proposed same as Inner NW Metro but parrelleled the LR line. Going from Ashefield is a less direct route, but slightly shorter and goes through a different market in the south and similar market to north. Potentially this line at Epping could swing around to make the route to Paramatta.

NWRL to Mardens Park, not a big fan of extending to Airport. Maybe to Western line but airport?

What I propose is to create a Western Express from city stopping at Straithfiled and maybe 1-2 other stations, then Paramatta, Westmead then Blacktown, then somewhere around there (Rooty Hill?) head south to Badery's Creek stopping at local stations. Assume a station every 3-4km to Airport.
Then from Airport continue on loop south to Glenfield, again local stations to Glenfield, then East Hills, Revesby, Wollie Creek and airport line back to city and loop. A train could run each direction clockwise/counterclockwise every 15min or so. Kils multiple birds in one stone.

Richmond/Penrith and Paramatta region users can change to the Express if they prefer as the local major station.

ESR
- Nth Y, Bondi Road, Bondi Beach and Nth Bondi
- Sth Y, Terminus not at Maroubra, as the LR is headed out that way cut back to a station to service the Uni, Hospital and Race track. This makes the terminus station a major station and probably as far as costs justify building the line.

Western Line expansion to Emu Plains
- Yes no need for extra tracks across the river, but a turn back is needed.
- Should be 3-4 tracks from St MAry;s to Penrith

6 tracks to Lidcombe is not too hard,, needs only a short 1-2km tunnel me thinks. Ideally should continue to Granville and not too hard and for Western Express and Interurban use.

Tunnel along inner west. You can go either way I suppose what runs in the tunnel,. and I read the other post about number of users and why not use BRT etc. Comments
- If the Nth beaches Metro is built, you need an offset on south side. Bankstown won't need the extra traffic.
- There is a known problem on inner west with all stoppers congesting the line
- Western express/airport and interurban will not be sufficent volumes for dedicated tunnel, but I suppose CC interurban will help and probably justify and push total above 12-15 trains per hour.
- Interurban and WEX/airport DD's however can make use of the existing interurban corridor/tracks as well.
- So what is cheaper, separate Metro line in tunnel with stations or DD tunnel which is larger and cost more per km.
- Also Metro in tunnel was enabler for Ashfield to Epping Metro, and potentially but not listed before, a Metro through the proposed redevelopment along river and on to Paramatta also via olypmic park.
- The Inner West Meto could also vary if required away from the current corridor to be more attractive.
- Yes if the Inner West Metro tunnel was built, I'd demolish the bulk of the inner west station platforms to enable straight track alignment.
  Myrtone Chief Commissioner

Location: North Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria
The bulk of the expansion of the Sydney network in the city, inner and medium suburbs outside existing corridors and in many cases even following existing corridor's including the Main Western Corridor for the often touted Western Express will be in tunnels. Its more than likely that by 2050, there could be over 100km of railway tunnels added to the network.
RTT_Rules

Will there really be more rail tunnels then the total length of each metro style network (on average) in old heavily developed cities?

Former Brisbane and Perth suburban Rolling stock went to Auckland suburban network. As you would know, Perth and Brisbane suburban stock while a tad narrow is still more standard format than Sydney DD.
RTT_Rules

Yes, these are narrow track gauge rolling stock, and New Zealand (inculdig Auckland) is still within Australasia. When is the last time that standard track gauge trains have ever left the country.

I did say no DD stock has or will ever leave the country because its zero compatibility.
RTT_Rules

I'm not sure about zero compadibility, as the track gauge in New South Wales is still standard, so there may be other standard gauge networks elsewhere in the world that could have them. If all else is equal, a short wheelbase train is still useable on a network that can also take long wheelbase trains.

The double decker trains on Sydney suburban and New South Wales train-link network are still the only ones in Australasia, even though Sydney pioneered the DD-EMU.

Sydney will not be in the market for off-the shelf DD stock because it doesn't exist. Sydney is shorter than RER and only 2 door and I think there are also issues with German. Sydney will be in the market for DD stock custom designed for Sydney using as much as possible common components in traction and other systems. Pretty much the same for last 40 years.
RTT_Rules

As far as I know, most overseas double decker rolling stock (in North America as well as Europe) is also long wheelbase. Some RER rolling stock, as I've read, is two door, and the rest is three door. There may be a lot of European two door double deckers with the same wheelbase as the RER.

Going UG will also cost more per km than the surface expect were realestate prices make surface prohibitive. The Longterm implications will not change and I would not expect a platform change in tunneling technology costs for the next 50 years. Yes it may get cheaper per km as with most things, but it won't be life changing.
RTT_Rules

Who needs such a great length of underground rail in a metropolitian area with an established surface rail network? Do note that most large scale underground networks are in older cities that never had surface options. For example, the only large scale underground network in the British Isles is in London, and it's mostly north of the Thames, surface rail being mainly on the south side. Even within London, surface rail south of the Thames has long remained sufficient.

The situation in these cities is as if country services from southern New South Wales (such as Wollongong and Goulbern) and interstate services from Victoria all terminated at Redfern with third rail electric underground trains running between places like Redfern and the CBD.

The Sydney Metro seating arrangement following typical international standards. However placement of seats within a car are purely up to the operator, like planes. Its the platform the seats are bolted to that costs the money. If anything its likely the seating density will be higher if they don't use longitudinal seating, so according to use the Metro is ok. Not Qld uses longitudal seating in the centre of every 3rd car on newer sets for DDA compliance.
RTT_Rules

And Queenland trains are also narrower, so there is less room for seating.
  fixitguy Chief Train Controller

Location: In Carriage 4 on a Tangara
Yes, these are narrow track gauge rolling stock, and New Zealand (inculdig Auckland) is still within Australasia. When is the last time that standard track gauge trains have ever left the country.
Myrtone
I believe the Flying Scotsman left Australia.Laughing

Who needs such a great length of underground rail in a metropolitian area with an established surface rail network
Mrytone
The NIMBYs. We either have to build underground or proceed to buy the expensive properties. An underground network is very much needed East of Olympic Park due to the fact we actually need better rail transportation, NIMBYs and the soaring housing prices.

Tunnels are the way modern developed cities build their railways due to no surface space (unless the citizens don't mind elevated which in Sydney we do). If we save money by building smaller tunnels (short sighted now yes, but in the future no) who knows where that money will go to. Schools and Hospitals that Tony isn't willing to fund, new urban railways that Tony isn't willing to fund, Wind Turbines that Tony isn't willing to fund.

note: I enjoy taking digs at Tony and his 1950s ideology.
  Myrtone Chief Commissioner

Location: North Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria
I believe the Flying Scotsman left Australia.Laughing
fixitguy

I did't know that the Flying Scotsman originated here. And that was in the days of steam, train carriages were all single decked. But I doubt that a single standard or broad gauge multiple unit has ever left this country, let alone Australasia.

We either have to build underground or proceed to buy the expensive properties. An underground network is very much needed East of Olympic Park due to the fact we actually need better rail transportation, NIMBYs and the soaring housing prices.
fixitguy

Do you mean between Olympic park and the CBD? Have properties actually been built on alignments where surface railways were proposed?

Tunnels are the way modern developed cities build their railways due to no surface space (unless the citizens don't mind elevated which in Sydney we do). If we save money by building smaller tunnels (short sighted now yes, but in the future no) who knows where that money will go to. Schools and Hospitals that Tony isn't willing to fund, new urban railways that Tony isn't willing to fund, Wind Turbines that Tony isn't willing to fund.
fixitguy

But they are most common and extensive in cities that never had surface space in their oldest parts (like in London north of the Thames). Places where surface rail is more common, such as south London and all Australian state capitals, don't have nearly as much tunnel length and no large scale underground networks.
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE
The bulk of the expansion of the Sydney network in the city, inner and medium suburbs outside existing corridors and in many cases even following existing corridor's including the Main Western Corridor for the often touted Western Express will be in tunnels. Its more than likely that by 2050, there could be over 100km of railway tunnels added to the network.

Will there really be more rail tunnels then the total length of each metro style network (on average) in old heavily developed cities?

Former Brisbane and Perth suburban Rolling stock went to Auckland suburban network. As you would know, Perth and Brisbane suburban stock while a tad narrow is still more standard format than Sydney DD.

Yes, these are narrow track gauge rolling stock, and New Zealand (inculdig Auckland) is still within Australasia. When is the last time that standard track gauge trains have ever left the country.

I did say no DD stock has or will ever leave the country because its zero compatibility.

I'm not sure about zero compadibility, as the track gauge in New South Wales is still standard, so there may be other standard gauge networks elsewhere in the world that could have them. If all else is equal, a short wheelbase train is still useable on a network that can also take long wheelbase trains.

The double decker trains on Sydney suburban and New South Wales train-link network are still the only ones in Australasia, even though Sydney pioneered the DD-EMU.

Sydney will not be in the market for off-the shelf DD stock because it doesn't exist. Sydney is shorter than RER and only 2 door and I think there are also issues with German. Sydney will be in the market for DD stock custom designed for Sydney using as much as possible common components in traction and other systems. Pretty much the same for last 40 years.

As far as I know, most overseas double decker rolling stock (in North America as well as Europe) is also long wheelbase. Some RER rolling stock, as I've read, is two door, and the rest is three door. There may be a lot of European two door double deckers with the same wheelbase as the RER.

Going UG will also cost more per km than the surface expect were realestate prices make surface prohibitive. The Longterm implications will not change and I would not expect a platform change in tunneling technology costs for the next 50 years. Yes it may get cheaper per km as with most things, but it won't be life changing.

Who needs such a great length of underground rail in a metropolitian area with an established surface rail network? Do note that most large scale underground networks are in older cities that never had surface options. For example, the only large scale underground network in the British Isles is in London, and it's mostly north of the Thames, surface rail being mainly on the south side. Even within London, surface rail south of the Thames has long remained sufficient.

The situation in these cities is as if country services from southern New South Wales (such as Wollongong and Goulbern) and interstate services from Victoria all terminated at Redfern with third rail electric underground trains running between places like Redfern and the CBD.

The Sydney Metro seating arrangement following typical international standards. However placement of seats within a car are purely up to the operator, like planes. Its the platform the seats are bolted to that costs the money. If anything its likely the seating density will be higher if they don't use longitudinal seating, so according to use the Metro is ok. Not Qld uses longitudal seating in the centre of every 3rd car on newer sets for DDA compliance.

And Queenland trains are also narrower, so there is less room for seating.
Myrtone

Old and New cities are both expanding their UG networks for same reason and same reason as Sydney. 100km of tunnels for a city as spread out as Sydney is not huge and less than many cities now. Older cities are expanding more slowly as they already have lines in place and their old streets were not designed for traffic, newer cities are trying solve transport issues such as congestion.

Don't know if any SG or BG stock left the country. NSW had a nasty habit of running things into the ground. The Red Rattlers were pushing 70 years at retirement. Issue for the DD stock buying off others and selling is compatibility, I think if you check the NSW size is pretty much unique. There will be issues at least one of the following with length, width, profile, design/crash standards, weight number of doors, location of doors, not compatible for low platform heights, platform heights the list goes on. As most of the DD networks are limited to a handful and each different to Sydney, they will never interchange. If you run 24m stock, why buy aging Sydney stock at 20m and have doors in wrong places, lower capacity etc etc. the track gauge is really irrelevant factor in the equation and probably the easiest to fix hence my comment, zero compatibility.

Who needs such a great length of underground rail in a metropolitian area with an established surface rail network? Do note that most large scale underground networks are in older cities that never had surface options. For example, the only large scale underground network in the British Isles is in London, and it's mostly north of the Thames, surface rail being mainly on the south side. Even within London, surface rail south of the Thames has long remained sufficient.

Again you are focused on the past of a few data points and trying to focus on irrelevancy.
Do this exercise before again looking at London or Paris and saying what they did in 1900 is different to today.

Draw a circle 25km radius around the city CBD of Sydney, now tell me how you propose to build new lines to Nth Beaches, Inner NW etc etc. ie to follow Bradfields plan as you have pointed out previously. When Bradfield drew up their plans, 25km from Sydney was farm land and Paramatta was another town.

Your answer will be 95% underground for all the reasons you know or have been told and explained again by Fixitguy above. So if you are going to build new underground lines that can operate independently of not just the surface but even each other what do you don't need to do? Copy whats on the surface and designed for surface operation and construction costs and and deal with preexisting technology constraints. What you do do is look at what others have experience in and building enmass. Remember there is more subways than just a few in Western Europe we talk about, Nth America, China, Asia, Middle East, Eastern Europe and Russia.
  fixitguy Chief Train Controller

Location: In Carriage 4 on a Tangara
I did't know that the Flying Scotsman originated here. And that was in the days of steam, train carriages were all single decked. But I doubt that a single standard or broad gauge multiple unit has ever left this country, let alone Australasia.
Myrtone
You asked "When is the last time that standard track gauge trains have ever left the country" so I seeing an obvious loophole decided to make a joke

Do you mean between Olympic park and the CBD? Have properties actually been built on alignments where surface railways were proposed?
Mrytone
see the link below
http://sydney-harbour-bridge.bos.nsw.edu.au/building-the-bridge/bradfield-vision.php

Bradfield proposed all these railways which I believe would have mostly been surface corridors. and also 160tph in the CC (wow)

But they are most common and extensive in cities that never had surface space in their oldest parts (like in London north of the Thames). Places where surface rail is more common, such as south London and all Australian state capitals, don't have nearly as much tunnel length and no large scale underground networks.
Mrtyone
This is the modern times. If a govt want to get elected then they must fund schools, hospitals, roads and public transport all without increasing taxes and demolishing peoples homes and shops.
  Myrtone Chief Commissioner

Location: North Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria
Old and New cities are both expanding their UG networks for same reason and same reason as Sydney. 100km of tunnels for a city as spread out as Sydney is not huge and less than many cities now. Older cities are expanding more slowly as they already have lines in place and their old streets were not designed for traffic, newer cities are trying solve transport issues such as congestion.
RTT_Rules

And remember that Sydney already has many lines in place too, mostly in cuttings or on embankments. The large scale underground networks I know of are mosty in older cities. Name one city that has a large scale underground network co-existing with extensive surface rail.

Don't know if any SG or BG stock left the country. NSW had a nasty habit of running things into the ground. The Red Rattlers were pushing 70 years at retirement. Issue for the DD stock buying off others and selling is compatibility, I think if you check the NSW size is pretty much unique. There will be issues at least one of the following with length, width, profile, design/crash standards, weight number of doors, location of doors, not compatible for low platform heights, platform heights the list goes on. As most of the DD networks are limited to a handful and each different to Sydney, they will never interchange. If you run 24m stock, why buy aging Sydney stock at 20m and have doors in wrong places, lower capacity etc etc. the track gauge is really irrelevant factor in the equation and probably the easiest to fix hence my comment, zero compatibility.
RTT_Rules


But length and crash standard issues and number of doors also apply to single decker trains. All of the networks with double decker trains started with single deckers and added double deckers later on, and I don't think any of countries where they exist (in Europe or North America) have ever imported any rolling stock from Australasia, single or double decked.

Track gauge makes a massive difference because a different track gauge means that differences in rolling stock must extend to the bogey design. And it can make more of a difference than that, for example a standard gauge motor doesn't fit in a narrow gauge bogey, so other traction equipment may also be different. And a broad gauge bogey wouldn't fit between the body panels of a NSW Tangara.

If Sydney orders double decked rolling stock from an overseas supplier, the bogey design and traction equipment will likely be the same as standard gauge rolling stock overseas from the same supplier.

Again you are focused on the past of a few data points and trying to focus on irrelevancy.
Do this exercise before again looking at London or Paris and saying what they did in 1900 is different to today.
RTT_Rules

If anyone here can post a map here or link to one.

Draw a circle 25km radius around the city CBD of Sydney, now tell me how you propose to build new lines to Nth Beaches, Inner NW etc etc. ie to follow Bradfields plan as you have pointed out previously. When Bradfield drew up their plans, 25km from Sydney was farm land and Paramatta was another town.
RTT_Rules

Are you saying there are actually buildings on the proposed alignments of the railways? Another short sighted action.

Your answer will be 95% underground for all the reasons you know or have been told and explained again by Fixitguy above. So if you are going to build new underground lines that can operate independently of not just the surface but even each other what do you don't need to do? Copy whats on the surface and designed for surface operation and construction costs and and deal with preexisting technology constraints. What you do do is look at what others have experience in and building enmass. Remember there is more subways than just a few in Western Europe we talk about, Nth America, China, Asia, Middle East, Eastern Europe and Russia.
RTT_Rules

The surface lines are electrified and don't operate independently of each other, why should the underground lines have to operate independently of surface lines, let alone each other? Underground railways are always dedicated to electric trains only, and when elder global cities like London and Paris built their first underground railways, the surface railways hadn't yet been electrified, and except for the original section of London's underground (the only section to ever use steam trains), these had to be separate from surface rail.

I would imagine that networks like the Sydney suburban acutally have fewer technology constraints than legacy metros, these not only have smaller tunnels, but also tigher curves and closer station spacing.

When you expand rail, you either inherent existing technology constraints or you don't deal with any such constraints. You don't, for example, build a new line with tigher curves or steeper gradients than elsewhere on the existing network. It just doesn't make sense to add a constraint not shared with existing lines.
And others who have experience building enmass don't, for example, reduce minimum curve radius or even loading gauge. New metro lines will have the same loading gauge as older metro lines (on the same network) or bigger, even if still smaller than mainline railways serving these cities.
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE

And remember that Sydney already has many lines in place too, mostly in cuttings or on embankments. The large scale underground networks I know of are mosty in older cities. Name one city that has a large scale underground network co-existing with extensive surface rail.



But length and crash standard issues and number of doors also apply to single decker trains. All of the networks with double decker trains started with single deckers and added double deckers later on, and I don't think any of countries where they exist (in Europe or North America) have ever imported any rolling stock from Australasia, single or double decked.

Track gauge makes a massive difference because a different track gauge means that differences in rolling stock must extend to the bogey design. And it can make more of a difference than that, for example a standard gauge motor doesn't fit in a narrow gauge bogey, so other traction equipment may also be different. And a broad gauge bogey wouldn't fit between the body panels of a NSW Tangara.

If Sydney orders double decked rolling stock from an overseas supplier, the bogey design and traction equipment will likely be the same as standard gauge rolling stock overseas from the same supplier.


If anyone here can post a map here or link to one.

Are you saying there are actually buildings on the proposed alignments of the railways? Another short sighted action.

The surface lines are electrified and don't operate independently of each other, why should the underground lines have to operate independently of surface lines, let alone each other? Underground railways are always dedicated to electric trains only, and when elder global cities like London and Paris built their first underground railways, the surface railways hadn't yet been electrified, and except for the original section of London's underground (the only section to ever use steam trains), these had to be separate from surface rail.

I would imagine that networks like the Sydney suburban acutally have fewer technology constraints than legacy metros, these not only have smaller tunnels, but also tigher curves and closer station spacing.

When you expand rail, you either inherent existing technology constraints or you don't deal with any such constraints. You don't, for example, build a new line with tigher curves or steeper gradients than elsewhere on the existing network. It just doesn't make sense to add a constraint not shared with existing lines.
And others who have experience building enmass don't, for example, reduce minimum curve radius or even loading gauge. New metro lines will have the same loading gauge as older metro lines (on the same network) or bigger, even if still smaller than mainline railways serving these cities.
Myrtone
Half a dozen cities in Germany starting with Munich.

There are far more single decker train platforms and hence the chances of having comparable are more likely.
ie
- Velocity is related to I think Hunter which is related to the Prospector cars
- XPL's are based on Australind (different gauges too)
- Older Adelaide and Melbourne stock have common back ground
- Perth and Brisbane use common stock built to near identical spec
- Mel X'trap is same platform as a number of others in different parts of the world.
- The list is endless once you go OS

Track gauge is less of an issue than you think and often BG and SG trains, especially BG are built to be either. Remember the World series ALCO's that were designed for just about any gauge from 1m up. A Sydney Tangara is built for Sydney and Sydney only so there would be zero consideration to operate anywhere else. Velocities I believe can be gauge converted to SG fairly straightforward. Perth Rollingstock was delivered on SG bogies.

Yes, I said bogies and traction related systems would be off the shelf. So are the lights, but the issue is far more complicated than this.

You will find a map of Sydney under Google Maps.

To the best of my knowledge there are no more reserved alignments left inner half of Sydney. Neville Wran sold off many of the proposed expressway corridor's in the 70's. Perhaps he sold off rail as well, I have no idea if there were any even preserved from day 1.

Problem older cities like inner Sydney is that even with the best foresight, you cannot preserve everything and the cost temptation to sell something off in order to build Project "insert name here" for the glory of the day rather than worry about PT needs after your dead is very strong. Remember in the 50's to early 70's, PT was being considered last century technology, trams lines/systems being closed down enmass including some heavy railway networks and lines not well used. Bus would be the cheap flexible alternative for those who couldn't afford a car.

When you go underground you need the people numbers to justify the huge cost. Unless you can move +10,000/hr in main peak in the near future you are building the line too soon. Hence their operation in recent decades is very much focused line based rolling stock. In some cases there maybe junctions for branches, but more often than not these are being converted to shuttle style operation, or as in Paris, a small branch will be incorporated to a extension of another line.

On the surface, more and more congested surface networks are moving to the same.  ie dedicated route for that line only or at most sharing with a 2nd line at the core.

160 trains per hour, not sure if Bradfield means one way or both, but it wasn't one one track or even two. Right now in peak you have nearly
- 20t/hr on NSL in each direction (40)
- 20t/hr in city circle in each direction (40)
- 15t/hr on ESR (30)

So 110 in total. Only difference to tunnels between now and back then was Nth Beaches would have own tracks into Wynard and then use the ESR from Town Hall to Central. Nth Beaches has never been built and ESR used the line from Central to TH and then on new route to the east.

Also remember in Bradfield's era, SD, lower capacity, no door automation, no door closing announcements, lower safety standards.

I like the way on Bradfields map he never added any detail to the Carlingford line, clearly was a dog then as well.
  Myrtone Chief Commissioner

Location: North Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria
Half a dozen cities in Germany starting with Munich.
RTT_Rules

And these too are old cities that were likely heavily developed before the railways came, have any of them been able to bring (electrified) surface rail into a through town centres?

There are far more single decker train platforms and hence the chances of having comparable are more likely.
ie
- Velocity is related to I think Hunter which is related to the Prospector cars
- XPL's are based on Australind (different gauges too)
- Older Adelaide and Melbourne stock have common back ground
- Perth and Brisbane use common stock built to near identical spec
- Mel X'trap is same platform as a number of others in different parts of the world.
- The list is endless once you go OS
RTT_Rules

Yes, these are example was relations between single decker rolling stock within this country, being also a continent.

Track gauge is less of an issue than you think and often BG and SG trains, especially BG are built to be either. Remember the World series ALCO's that were designed for just about any gauge from 1m up. A Sydney Tangara is built for Sydney and Sydney only so there would be zero consideration to operate anywhere else. Velocities I believe can be gauge converted to SG fairly straightforward. Perth Rollingstock was delivered on SG bogies.
RTT_Rules

So why would hardly anyone build a new standalone line to an uncommon track gauge then?

There could be no consideration to operate a Sydney Tangara elsewhere because no one else in Australasia uses double-decker trains. Other railway networks here and in New Zealand, for example, are less busy and often have smaller loading gauges.

And you don't need to tell me where to find a map, I know about Google maps, that question wasn't for you specifically, but any poster reading this page.

To the best of my knowledge there are no more reserved alignments left inner half of Sydney. Neville Wran sold off many of the proposed expressway corridor's in the 70's. Perhaps he sold off rail as well, I have no idea if there were any even preserved from day 1.
RTT_Rules

That's right, but aren't new extensions more likely to be needed elsewhere? In Melbourne, our most recent inner city extension was the City loop, all other post-electrification extensions (as far as I know) being in the outer suburbs.
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE

And these too are old cities that were likely heavilyl developed before the railways came, have any of them been able to bring (electrified) surface rail into a through town centres?




So why would hardly anyone build a new standalone line to an uncommon track gauge then?

There could be no consideration to operate a Sydney Tangara elsewhere because no one else in Australaisa uses double decker trains. Other railway network here and in New Zealand for example are less busy and often have smaller loading gauges.

And you don't need to tell me where to find a map, I know about Google maps, that question wasn't for you specifically, but any poster reading this page.


That's right, but aren't new extensions more likely to be needed elsewhere? In Melbourne, our most recent inner city extension was the City loop, all other post-electrification extensions (as far as I know) being in the outer suburbs.
Myrtone

In answer to your first paragraph, I think you are looking for a chicken or the egg, which came first. You will also simply have to go through dozens of cities in new and old world countries to work this out. Something I don't have time or care for.

Cities old and new world typically develop, then build heavy rail as funds became available. Newer parts of most cities have left spaces for freeways and in some cases railways, but these are outside the inner city. Typically in the inner suburban and CBD part of most continuously growing cities will most likely have used any available corridors by now.

Got to Europe and you often see corridors for heavy rail to town centres on the surface, but these were usually claimed and expanded on decades ago. Paris simple didn't join its main stations at all apart from going UG.

its rare for anyone to build a new line on a different gauge, but things like signally, power supply etc are far less of an issues and there are many of cities that have expanded their city networks with non-compatible revenue earning rollingstock, whether this be profile, safe working, power supply, platform alignment, platform doors etc. In the end it doesn't matter. Build the line for a train say every 90sec on a dedicated A-B-A route, buy enough trains to do so. In 35 years, replace the lot. If in the meantime there is growth, increase the frequency by buying more trains. No point in interacting with a 2nd or more line, you only decrease the capacity of doing so in the process, simple. Its an extremely inefficient and costly was to build underground lines and hence very very very few do so. Look at Sydney. City tunnels near capacity, feeder branch lines not so but running packed trains.

There are smaller profile Metro lines around the world that haul more people than Sydney Trains on half its network per day, so gauge profile has little to do with capacity.

In some inner city/CBD projects, it hasn't been uncommon for the new line to reach capacity within 10years. by capacity I'm refering to rolling stock/signally and additional equipment and upgrades need to be purchased.

Outer suburban extensions in Melbourne have a strong history of being built on former railway corridors. Outer like Sydney SWRL, Brisbane Springfield and Redcliff line's which were built with mimimal major resumptions because land was preserved in the previous 10 years or so as the area was being developed.

The Melbourne cross city faces same issue of any railway being built across the inner city and CBD, no land. Hence the costly tunnel and hence why it takes so long to get approved, because they want to make sure the cheaper options are done and there is no last minute alternatives and also upon opening the line will be well used.

I short these have nothing to do with the issues facing Sydney. We are talking large scale network expansion in the inner half of the city (again refer to a map) for which there are no corridors and is some of the more expensive realestate in the world. Very little even a station entrance way will be built on existing private property due to cost. The only spare corridor space left is on the south line from where work was previously partly done to build 6 tracks. Erickville to just before Sydenam. And the Proposed Sydney Metro to Bankstown won't even use it because it doesn't suit.

The corridor space that is mostly needed is on the western trunk and this is not going happen, even 6 tracks to Lidcombe from straithfield will need probably a partial tunnel or take back houses and a road for 1km (still probably cheaper than a tunnel)
  Myrtone Chief Commissioner

Location: North Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria
Cities old and new world typically develop, then build heavy rail as funds became available. Newer parts of most cities have left spaces for freeways and in some cases railways, but these are outside the inner city. Typically in the inner suburban and CBD part of most continuously growing cities will most likely have used any available corridors by now.
RTT_Rules
But there is a difference between the older cities and later developers, heavy development before the railways came simply meant no room to bring surface rail into town.

Got to Europe and you often see corridors for heavy rail to town centres on the surface, but these were usually claimed and expanded on decades ago. Paris simple didn't join its main stations at all apart from going UG.
RTT_Rules
How would they do such a thing if they were heavily developed before the railways came? Paris had no room even when the railways came.

its rare for anyone to build a new line on a different gauge, but things like signally, power supply etc are far less of an issues and there are many of cities that have expanded their city networks with non-compatible revenue earning rollingstock, whether this be profile, safe working, power supply, platform alignment, platform doors etc. In the end it doesn't matter.
RTT_Rules
But still, you don't add new technical constraints, you don't increase the ruling gradient for example.

There are smaller profile Metro lines around the world that haul more people than Sydney Trains on half its network per day, so gauge profile has little to do with capacity.
RTT_Rules
It has everything to do with capacity if all else is equal, you can't pretend there is any excuse for reducing the loading gauge, just as you don't reduce minimum curve radius or platform length, or increase ruling gradient. Double decker trains can run at 5-minute frequencies and do carry more people than single-decker trains of the same length at that same frequency.

Outer suburban extensions in Melbourne have a strong history of being built on former railway corridors. Outer like Sydney SWRL, Brisbane Springfield and Redcliff line's which were built with mimimal major resumptions because land was preserved in the previous 10 years or so as the area was being developed.

The Melbourne cross city faces same issue of any railway being built across the inner city and CBD, no land. Hence the costly tunnel and hence why it takes so long to get approved, because they want to make sure the cheaper options are done and there is no last minute alternatives and also upon opening the line will be well used.
RTT_Rules
My point is that the surface rail in the inner city has been sufficient since electrification, we have not needed new extensions within the inner city.

I short these have nothing to do with the issues facing Sydney. We are talking large scale network expansion in the inner half of the city (again refer to a map) for which there are no corridors and is some of the more expensive realestate in the world. Very little even a station entrance way will be built on existing private property due to cost. The only spare corridor space left is on the south line from where work was previously partly done to build 6 tracks. Erickville to just before Sydenam. And the Proposed Sydney Metro to Bankstown won't even use it because it doesn't suit.
RTT_Rules
Do you know any examples of proposed new underground lines in the inner city?
  Transtopic Assistant Commissioner


Th govt is going to do Bankstown anyway, but I mostly see why the chose it so do it all. Even with a 4min timetable which is initially proposed, some trains can still run limited express. Also the trains will be more frequent thus saving some time and make the whole banks town line more friendly with more frequent and less crowded services. On that 2012 report it lists trains as loaded to 150% capacity, even if as other suggests this is Liverpool users, then more services and more capacity from Liverpool will help reduce the load via East Hills and Granville (I assume).

I like my idea of Metro Carlingford line over LR. HR is faster than LR. I know what they are doing and I wonder if they will leave stub tunnels to Manly? Certainly stub tunnels helps later on, but its not exclusive if you still want to do it.

Ashfield to Epping goes via Five Dock, Gladsville and Top Ryde, so its doesn't duplicate the Nth Main. The route is currently a well used bus route following Victoria Road. Previous govt proposed same as Inner NW Metro but parrelleled the LR line. Going from Ashefield is a less direct route, but slightly shorter and goes through a different market in the south and similar market to north. Potentially this line at Epping could swing around to make the route to Paramatta.

NWRL to Mardens Park, not a big fan of extending to Airport. Maybe to Western line but airport?

What I propose is to create a Western Express from city stopping at Straithfiled and maybe 1-2 other stations, then Paramatta, Westmead then Blacktown, then somewhere around there (Rooty Hill?) head south to Badery's Creek stopping at local stations. Assume a station every 3-4km to Airport.
Then from Airport continue on loop south to Glenfield, again local stations to Glenfield, then East Hills, Revesby, Wollie Creek and airport line back to city and loop. A train could run each direction clockwise/counterclockwise every 15min or so. Kils multiple birds in one stone.

Richmond/Penrith and Paramatta region users can change to the Express if they prefer as the local major station.

ESR
- Nth Y, Bondi Road, Bondi Beach and Nth Bondi
- Sth Y, Terminus not at Maroubra, as the LR is headed out that way cut back to a station to service the Uni, Hospital and Race track. This makes the terminus station a major station and probably as far as costs justify building the line.

Western Line expansion to Emu Plains
- Yes no need for extra tracks across the river, but a turn back is needed.
- Should be 3-4 tracks from St MAry;s to Penrith

6 tracks to Lidcombe is not too hard,, needs only a short 1-2km tunnel me thinks. Ideally should continue to Granville and not too hard and for Western Express and Interurban use.

Tunnel along inner west. You can go either way I suppose what runs in the tunnel,. and I read the other post about number of users and why not use BRT etc. Comments
- If the Nth beaches Metro is built, you need an offset on south side. Bankstown won't need the extra traffic.
- There is a known problem on inner west with all stoppers congesting the line
- Western express/airport and interurban will not be sufficent volumes for dedicated tunnel, but I suppose CC interurban will help and probably justify and push total above 12-15 trains per hour.
- Interurban and WEX/airport DD's however can make use of the existing interurban corridor/tracks as well.
- So what is cheaper, separate Metro line in tunnel with stations or DD tunnel which is larger and cost more per km.
- Also Metro in tunnel was enabler for Ashfield to Epping Metro, and potentially but not listed before, a Metro through the proposed redevelopment along river and on to Paramatta also via olypmic park.
- The Inner West Meto could also vary if required away from the current corridor to be more attractive.
- Yes if the Inner West Metro tunnel was built, I'd demolish the bulk of the inner west station platforms to enable straight track alignment.
RTT_Rules
The government may well convert the Bankstown Line to metro, but I don't agree with it.  Short of constructing completely new links, conversion of the Airport Line would be a better option for reasons I have already expressed. Although the current Bankstown Line service is one of the most overcrowded on the Sydney Trains network, it is also one of the most underutilised in terms of frequency and it still has ample spare capacity for more frequent services to ease the overcrowding.  The problem is accommodating this additional frequency on the City Circle.  Converting the Airport Line to metro would free up this capacity on the City Circle (12tph) allowing more Bankstown Line and East Hills Line services.  Even without conversion of the Airport Line, this outcome could still be achieved by redirecting it via Central platforms 26 & 27 to terminate at the St James unused centre platforms where a turnback already exists.  It would also facilitate cross platform transfers to the City Circle.  It doesn't have to be a metro line to increase frequency and capacity.  Horses for courses.

Forget about a Carlingford Line metro as it's just not going to happen.  It's now off the agenda.  It will be light rail. When you mention stub tunnels to Manly (Northern Beaches) I presume you're referring to a junction with the NWRL extension at say Victoria Cross.  I expect that they will be allowed for.

With regard to an Ashfield to Epping metro route from a possible Inner West UG metro, I had overlooked the route via Five Dock and Gladesville, which I concede is worthwhile, basically following the Victoria Rd corridor as proposed in the former North West Metro alignment.  It should include stations at Monash Park, Top Ryde and Eastwood, rather than diverting to Macquarie Park and bypassing Top Ryde.

I wasn't suggesting extending the NWRL to Badgerys Creek, but only to St Marys on the Western Line where it would interchange with an extension of the SWRL from Badgerys Creek.

The Western Express should primarily service the Penrith/Emu Plains and Richmond regions, including Blacktown and Parramatta.  I don't see a need to divert to Badgerys Creek.

I disagree that a southern branch extension of the ESR from Bondi Junction to Maroubra Junction isn't warranted.  It was recommended by Infrastructure NSW to increase the catchment area of the ESR.  It would interchange with the light rail at Randwick and a possible extension from Kingsford to Maroubra Junction.  They would be complimentary to each other.  Maroubra Junction is a major centre.

I agree with you that the southern extension of the metro system needs 2 branches to complement the likely NWRL and Northern Beaches on the north side.  No single branch would justify running 30tph, which would only be applicable to the CBD spine (an X format if you like).
  fixitguy Chief Train Controller

Location: In Carriage 4 on a Tangara
My point is that the surface rail in the inner city has been mostly sufficient since electrification, we have not needed new extensions within the inner city.

Do you know any examples of proposed new underground lines in the inner city?
Myrtone
1st point. Answer is no. (if your referring to Sydney. Melbourne I don't know but I'm assuming no due to the big Cross City rail project thing they have going on). To be able to support more trains from the outer suburbs into the City there needs to be more rail lines in the city. Bradfield saw this planned accordingly. The war, great depression, and the rise of motor cars saw that plan basically die.

If we assume Sydney upgrades to 24tph signalling (the current best practice) we have a theoretical max of 72 tph (assuming 24 on the ESR, 24 on CC and 24 on bridge) or 96 (if we assume 48 tph on CC due to its loop layout). At best this gives us another 12 or 16 slots if we assume all slots are filled up prior to the upgrade. If we assume current sectorisation / clearways we would give the extra 4 ESR slots to Sector 1 (which they will need), 4 or 8 slots on the CC for Sector 2 and 4 slots for sector 3. This will not be enough for future needs. We already have a sector 4 being built (the Sydney Metro) which should free up slots in the CC and with some clever timetabling and track building there we could reroute some western trains to the CC. There will (probably) eventually be a sector 5 with a east west cross city tunnel for metros to the eastern suburbs and East of Olympic Park (as proposed by Christie).

To answer your second question, the CBD metro which was a failed concept. It was a good idea but a terrible concept. This could be the start of Sector 5.
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

If we assume Sydney upgrades to 24tph signalling (the current best practice) we have a theoretical max of 72 tph (assuming 24 on the ESR, 24 on CC and 24 on bridge) or 96 (if we assume 48 tph on CC due to its loop layout).
fixitguy

In my view, the signalling system - at least not through the city - doesn't really need to be upgraded to support 24tph.  I did this a few weeks ago in response to something RTT_RULES posted, but lost interest and never published it.  But .. based on the driver's route knowledge diagrams I have, I calculated the maximum minimum (if you know what I mean) signal headways at critical points on the network.

Essentially this is the minimum time between which a train can leave Wynyard plat 3 and another train can come to a stop in it's place without ever passing a signal at "caution", or "caution ahead" (ie as fast as it can).  



The system was designed for - and achieved - much tighter signal headways that this.  Originally trains were allowed to pass through a signal at stop (after stopping), allowing trains the run right up behind a the preceding train at a platform, then enter the platform block as it departed with temporal protection provided by train stops.  If this practice is still allowed (doubt it, it would be in breach of current safety guidelines), it's no longer practiced.  In any case it doesn't achieve much, as the time gained by crimping into the preceding train's safety envelope is lost by taking longer to enter the platform.

For Wynyard 3 it's 68 seconds.  For Strathfield 5 it's 74 seconds.  For Parramatta 2 it's 112 seconds.

You could reasonably expect the dwell at Strathfield to be 6 seconds less than that at Wynyard, so for all intents and purposed, the line capacity here is the same.  West of Paramatta would need 2 extra blocks to achieve the same thing with traditional signalling.

In the Bradfield era 30tph was clearly possible (and indeed regularly achieved AFAIK) without service compromise.  But this is with a 40-50sec dwell and 70 sec signal headway. ie 50s+70s=120sec => 30tph comfortably.

Currently we have 60-70sec dwells (AFAIK dwells are currently timetabled for 60 seconds - so the mean will by necessity be greater than this)this includes a fair chunk of timetable buffering).  70+70=140  24tph comfortably.

So why doesn't this happen now?

Because timetables are expressed in whole minutes.  I understand there are crew procedural requirements to report reasons for late running trains, and elements of this are woven into the operating procedures and even the EBA.  Because they can't do 30tph, they therefore only run 20.

Moving Block:

Moving block is effectively a temporal system and requires near real time comms between the train and the signal controller.  It's relatively new, even most fully automated systems typically run fixed block signalling.  

As speed increases, so too does stopping time and hence the required signal headway for safe operations.  At 60kph it's 50 seconds.  So with a 60-70sec dwell, that's 30tph.

What becomes more of an issue are these train numbers at higher speeds.  Once you get over 100kph (as the NWRL is supposedly going to do), you don't get much time left for a dwell at 30tph.  For me this is yet another issue with the NWRL.  It can have either capacity or speed, just not both at the same time.

I have absolutely no doubt that 30tph with the current format is not just possible, but perfectly practical.  The issue is that it won't translate into 50% more passenger capacity.  The stations were not designed for the passenger numbers they carry now.  For the same loadings, you end up with more people queueing on the platform, which in turn adversely impacts boarding rates.  (The relationship is not linear, but it exists none the less).
  Myrtone Chief Commissioner

Location: North Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria
1st point. Answer is no. (if your referring to Sydney. Melbourne I don't know but I'm assuming no due to the big Cross City rail project thing they have going on). To be able to support more trains from the outer suburbs into the City there needs to be more rail lines in the city. Bradfield saw this planned accordingly. The war, great depression, and the rise of motor cars saw that plan basically die.
fixitguy
I was refering to Melbourne, and the London's Cross Rail project (can anyone here provide a link to a page explaining it?) is pretty recent, and appears to be part of the overground, not their underground network.

To answer your second question, the CBD metro which was a failed concept. It was a good idea but a terrible concept. This could be the start of Sector 5.
fixitguy
And wildly unpopular it was, it was to be completely separate and even have at least one techncal constraint (smaller loading gauge) not shared with the existing suburban network.
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE

I wasn't suggesting extending the NWRL to Badgerys Creek, but only to St Marys on the Western Line where it would interchange with an extension of the SWRL from Badgerys Creek.

The Western Express should primarily service the Penrith/Emu Plains and Richmond regions, including Blacktown and Parramatta.  I don't see a need to divert to Badgerys Creek.

I disagree that a southern branch extension of the ESR from Bondi Junction to Maroubra Junction isn't warranted.  It was recommended by Infrastructure NSW to increase the catchment area of the ESR.  It would interchange with the light rail at Randwick and a possible extension from Kingsford to Maroubra Junction.  They would be complimentary to each other.  Maroubra Junction is a major centre.




Transtopic

The Western Express makes an ideal train to the Airport.

The new airport is along way out, you need an express for the travel time to the city by train to be realistic for travellers. At the same time the Paramatta and points west also need and deserve faster access to the city and VV.
Its roughly 25km from Leppington to Badgery's Creek and up to the Rooty Hill which is where a loop line might run. As this is past Blacktown this makes it perfect for a Western Express,
ie
- City Circle / Redfern
- Straithfield
- Paramatta
- Westmead
- Blacktown
- Badger's Creek Airport Loop Line to Glenfield Stations
- East Hills
- Wolli Creek and Airport line stations to City Cirlce

Penrith and Richmond Line users are catered for as they can catch their respective local services from Blacktown.  

ESR, sth Branch is now Randwick only. The SSLR kills part of the demand in the more southern lower density suburbs for costly UG railway. I staying with a 4.5km curved extension terminating under the south edge of Randwick near the uni and hospital.
Station at Queens Park, Coogee and Randwick. Spaced about 1.2 to 1.5km apart and similar distance to the beaches.
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE

To answer your second question, the CBD metro which was a failed concept. It was a good idea but a terrible concept. This could be the start of Sector 5.

And wildly unpopular it was, it was to be completely separate and even have at least one techncal constraint (smaller loading gauge) not shared with the existing suburban network.
Myrtone
And absolutely nothing to do with the reason the project failed.

- incompetent govt with a history of announcements that lead to nothing
- Project was started as a very short line competing directly with the SLR
- Didn't go far enough to be really useful, ie it needed to cross the river at least, although proposed to do so, by the stage the govt announced this project few in the public believed they would do it.
- Additionally one of the biggest issues was that it was known then that 30-35% of NWRL want to travel to Chatswood region, more to the lower Nth Shore. Those who want a more direct access to the city and southern parts of the harbor can go via existing railway.


On the other hand, like it or not. The current govt kicked off the NWRL within 12mth of the election and now done same for Sydney city Metro.
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE

I have absolutely no doubt that 30tph with the current format is not just possible, but perfectly practical.  The issue is that it won't translate into 50% more passenger capacity.  The stations were not designed for the passenger numbers they carry now.  For the same loadings, you end up with more people queueing on the platform, which in turn adversely impacts boarding rates.  (The relationship is not linear, but it exists none the less).
djf01
Thanks for this insight.

Personally I am not against pushing for more trains per hour, however I do not believe this is the be all it is proposed to be and ultimately only a stop gap and as you say is likely to be ineffective at achieving more than 22-24 trains per hour and it must be noted the distance for which this has to occur reliably is nearly 40km from Chatswood to Straithfield.

Town Hall Station is far from a well designed station. I used to believe the middle tracks were a poorly thought out add on for the ESR, not part of the original project. The Platforms are narrow and ability to move is very limited. having a few hundred people delivered every 2.5min is going to be tight considering the problems they have at 3min, at 2min????? As you say the dwell time is over 1min, which means you have 45sec or so to clear the platform for the next batch and its not happening now!

The 2nd harbour crossing is needed for a long term solution, nothing short and finally we have a govt that has the ability to fund and deliverer. The new line will be a show piece for which the public will demand more, just like they have done nearly everywhere else similar technology has been delivered.
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE
My point is that the surface rail in the inner city has been mostly sufficient since electrification, we have not needed new extensions within the inner city.

Do you know any examples of proposed new underground lines in the inner city?
1st point. Answer is no. (if your referring to Sydney. Melbourne I don't know but I'm assuming no due to the big Cross City rail project thing they have going on). To be able to support more trains from the outer suburbs into the City there needs to be more rail lines in the city. Bradfield saw this planned accordingly. The war, great depression, and the rise of motor cars saw that plan basically die.

If we assume Sydney upgrades to 24tph signalling (the current best practice) we have a theoretical max of 72 tph (assuming 24 on the ESR, 24 on CC and 24 on bridge) or 96 (if we assume 48 tph on CC due to its loop layout). At best this gives us another 12 or 16 slots if we assume all slots are filled up prior to the upgrade. If we assume current sectorisation / clearways we would give the extra 4 ESR slots to Sector 1 (which they will need), 4 or 8 slots on the CC for Sector 2 and 4 slots for sector 3. This will not be enough for future needs. We already have a sector 4 being built (the Sydney Metro) which should free up slots in the CC and with some clever timetabling and track building there we could reroute some western trains to the CC. There will (probably) eventually be a sector 5 with a east west cross city tunnel for metros to the eastern suburbs and East of Olympic Park (as proposed by Christie).

To answer your second question, the CBD metro which was a failed concept. It was a good idea but a terrible concept. This could be the start of Sector 5.
fixitguy

Problem with ESR going to 20 or more trains per hour is that its a waste of resources. The line is well served now at 15t/hr and doesn't need more and it makes a very long turn back loop for the southern line.

I know this goes against the grain of sectiorisation, but there needs to be another line connected to the ESR on the southern/western side to all for more trains to city from other locations and a turn back shunt neck installed at Martin Place to save wasting time and cost of sending every train to BJ while demand doesn't justify it. Extend the line and maybe things might change.

Mytone,
your comments that we have not needed new lines since electrification shows you are not in touch with Sydney's needs. The fact that so many buses run into the city demonstrates that there both insufficient train/track capacity and/or corridors. We have govt buses crossing the harbor bridge, why? Sydney needed more corridors to service the inner areas isolated by rail 30 years ago. Inner NW, Manly/Nth beaches and South Sydney just to name a few.
  fixitguy Chief Train Controller

Location: In Carriage 4 on a Tangara
all that info about train signalling and stuff
djf01

That is some nice information you got there. I didn't know our signalling was so advance (the thought of it is just lol). As Rtt_Rules said and I believe everyone will agree, Townhall is poorly built. Even the slightest problem will cause it into chaos like yesterday when the stairs and escalators were out of order due to poor station "refresh" works. I would like a complete rebuild of Towbhall but its defiantly too hard and destructive. Therefore my second solution involves the govt making sure the new Pitt St Station has room for future lines and is adequate enough to cater for the capacity of much more than the Townhall

things about why the CBD metro failed
Rtt_Rules
Yup your absolutely right. When it was first proposed I was literally like WTF.

stuff on the ESR
Rtt_Rules
Why I agree with you that the current ESR doesn't need all those trains the Illawarra line does (As a daily user I can tell you how packed it is). Those trains should ideally go to the ESR for sectorisation issues. Martin place already has a turnback like Bondi except for the diamond crossovers. If we build the crossovers (probably too expensive) then maybe we could turn more trains around there.
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE
If you had the ability and money to rebuild Town Hall, it would be 3 levels.

Each level would have bi-platforms pretty much like Olympic Park, ie

Platform - Train - Platform -Train - Platform

The Middle Platform would be arrivals or departures, not sure which is best combination.
The outer platforms would be the opposite.


OR 2 levels and three tracks and four platforms, same thing each platform is one way ped traffic only.

Platform - Train - Platform - Train - Platform - Train - Platform

I'd have Sth Bound CC and NSL with East Bound ESR and 2nd level oppsite

But I think trying to do this would paralyze Sydney trains for 2-3 years.
  fixitguy Chief Train Controller

Location: In Carriage 4 on a Tangara
If you had the ability and money to rebuild Town Hall, it would be 3 levels.

Each level would have bi-platforms pretty much like Olympic Park, ie

Platform - Train - Platform -Train - Platform

The Middle Platform would be arrivals or departures, not sure which is best combination.
The outer platforms would be the opposite.


OR 2 levels and three tracks and four platforms, same thing each platform is one way ped traffic only.

Platform - Train - Platform - Train - Platform - Train - Platform

I'd have Sth Bound CC and NSL with East Bound ESR and 2nd level oppsite

But I think trying to do this would paralyze Sydney trains for 2-3 years.
RTT_Rules
I been digging through my old computer in an attempt to find my Townhall redesign(I did it about a year ago) here it is. I did lose my cityrail expansion map so Sad

https://flic.kr/p/xAnNgo

Its basically a rough sketch of Townhall I did about a year ago. Basically We have two concourses with 3 levels of platforms sandwiched between them. There are links on the upper concourse to the surface as well as Pitt Street Station and Darling Harbour. The lower concourse is a transfer concourse. Basically signage will force transferring people to the lower concourse even though it may be faster in some cases to use the upper concourse. This creates separation of transferring passengers from the ones entering and exiting the station.

As you said this will paralyse the system for as you say 2 - 3 years. So the alternative solution is a bigger Pitt St Station for new lines and potentially diverting existing lines (less disruption) to said station at Pitt St.
  Transtopic Assistant Commissioner

The Western Express makes an ideal train to the Airport.

The new airport is along way out, you need an express for the travel time to the city by train to be realistic for travellers. At the same time the Paramatta and points west also need and deserve faster access to the city and VV.
Its roughly 25km from Leppington to Badgery's Creek and up to the Rooty Hill which is where a loop line might run. As this is past Blacktown this makes it perfect for a Western Express,
ie
- City Circle / Redfern
- Straithfield
- Paramatta
- Westmead
- Blacktown
- Badger's Creek Airport Loop Line to Glenfield Stations
- East Hills
- Wolli Creek and Airport line stations to City Cirlce

Penrith and Richmond Line users are catered for as they can catch their respective local services from Blacktown.  

ESR, sth Branch is now Randwick only. The SSLR kills part of the demand in the more southern lower density suburbs for costly UG railway. I staying with a 4.5km curved extension terminating under the south edge of Randwick near the uni and hospital.
Station at Queens Park, Coogee and Randwick. Spaced about 1.2 to 1.5km apart and similar distance to the beaches.
RTT_Rules
Sorry, still don't agree with you.  It's much more direct from Badgerys Creek to the CBD via the SWRL and East Hills Line.  An express service should run to the City Circle via Sydenham, not Sydney Airport.  I can't see the point of a loop from the Western Express.  The whole purpose of the Western Express is to provide faster journey times for outer suburban services from Penrith and Richmond.  If, as you're suggesting, that these commuters would have to change at Blacktown to reach the CBD, what's the benefit for them?  

As for the ESR, Maroubra Junction is a high density centre with significant residential redevelopment in recent years.  A railway extension would provide a faster service to the CBD than the light rail.  If the light rail was extended from Kingsford to Maroubra Junction it would provide a complimentary service along a different route.
  djf01 Chief Commissioner


Town Hall Station is far from a well designed station. I used to believe the middle tracks were a poorly thought out add on for the ESR, not part of the original project. The Platforms are narrow and ability to move is very limited. having a few hundred people delivered every 2.5min is going to be tight considering the problems they have at 3min, at 2min????? As you say the dwell time is over 1min, which means you have 45sec or so to clear the platform for the next batch and its not happening now!
RTT_Rules

Town Hall is built as originally designed.  The platforms that now have the ESR were actually planned to have the ESR.  John Oak's "Sydney's Forgotten Sydney Railways" has a really good diagram of what the plan was by 1925, but I haven't found a copy online (yet).  

By 1925 the ESR was to run under Oxford St & Taylor square into the centre platforms at St James (the tunnels for the roads built almost as far as Taylor Square), then form an inner city circle with stations at O'Connel St & an interchange at Martin Place, then into the lower platforms as Town Hall as they do now.  After that it was to head under George St and be the western suburbs railway (not depicted in the diagram from 1916 I posted earlier).  By that stage Bradfield had abandoned the idea of a bridge across Darling Harbour to Balmain.

The Northern Beaches line was to use the second track pair across the bridge, Wynyard 1&2, then to the interchange at Martin Place, then on Central then Redfern using roughly the alignment of the current ESR then forming the "Southern Suburbs railway".  The ESR Redfern platforms were built in the reservation for the Southern Suburbs platforms.

I don't think it's fair to say the station was poorly designed.  It was designed as an interchange station (all UP & Down platforms accessible from each other), and it was well over-engineered for the time.  The station's capacity is well above the theoretical train capacity of the era, which is why it's been able to cope with the shift to larger capacity trains.  You have to remember, at the time a typical train was 4 cars long, and a high capacity train of 8 cars was the exception rather than the norm.  This is why (one of the reasons anyway) the stairs are concentrated toward the middle of the platforms: the extremities were overflow rather than mainstream capacity.

Sponsored advertisement

Display from:   

Quick Reply

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