Slowness of Sydney trains

 
  mejhammers1 Chief Commissioner

In finalising I would like to state that Perth's frequencies are significantly down on Sydney's and the Sydney system is significantly more complex vs the dedicated lines that Perth offers. Sure those systems are faster but Sydney's system has always been about frequency and capacity over speed. Please remember that Sydney's train system moves Adelaide's population every day on a legacy system that first serviced passengers in 1855.
simstrain
The Melbourne system is nowhere near as complex as Sydney's nerver mind Perth's Miniscule system!!

Michael

Sponsored advertisement

  simstrain Chief Commissioner

In finalising I would like to state that Perth's frequencies are significantly down on Sydney's and the Sydney system is significantly more complex vs the dedicated lines that Perth offers. Sure those systems are faster but Sydney's system has always been about frequency and capacity over speed. Please remember that Sydney's train system moves Adelaide's population every day on a legacy system that first serviced passengers in 1855.
The Melbourne system is nowhere near as complex as Sydney's never mind Perth's Miniscule system!!

Michael
mejhammers1

Melbourne is more complex then Perth for sure and has all of those level crossings to deal with as well. There is no comparing Sydney and Melbourne with Perth. Sydney's system is significantly larger in scale and has always been about moving massive amounts of people and not how fast they move them. It would be great to catch a train in Liverpool and be in the Sydney CBD in 15 minutes but I know that is never going to be possible in my life time.
  tonyp Chief Commissioner

Location: Shoalhaven

http://nnimgt-a.akamaihd.net/transform/v1/crop/frm/4FavSveeQdYEHssZq5umRQ/011a80aa-33a8-4e89-8a32-ccd9861d8bf8.jpg/r0_11_858_721_w1200_h678_fmax.jpg

As the next stop indicator shows, these people have been standing for 1 1/4 hours in a train averaging about 55 km/h. This is really unsustainable transportation in city planning terms, worsened by the consequence that motorways have to be built because most people will drive rather than tolerate this. It's something that HAS to be solved in any of our lifetimes, in fact, considering the rate of population growth, within the next 20 years.
  mejhammers1 Chief Commissioner

@simstrain. My statement was a bir misleading. I was trying  to  say that there is no point comparing any other system in Australia to Sydney's. Melbourne system is totally radial and its configuration is the same as Perth's just on a much larger scale.

Michael
  tazzer96 Deputy Commissioner

The Melbourne system is nowhere near as complex as Sydney's never mind Perth's Miniscule system!!

Michael
mejhammers1
The melbourne system is complex but in a different way to sydney.   The city loop nonsense is just the start.   While lines generally only have conflicts near the cbd, they still have to deal with single track, LX's (including tram crossings).

Perth only a has a good modern network because for nearly 100 years it had a complete joke of a rail network.  They started out recently and made use of all the current knowledge and designed a system for the people of today, not the people of 1940.

Brisbane is probably on par with melbourne for complexity, mainly due to the government incompetence.  Only having triple track instead of quad, lots of single track, the whole corinda-darra debacle, lack of terminating platforms, many LX's which should be grade seperated, freight blocking the entire network when passing roma st.
  tonyp Chief Commissioner

Location: Shoalhaven
Perth only a has a good modern network because for nearly 100 years it had a complete joke of a rail network.  They started out recently and made use of all the current knowledge and designed a system for the people of today, not the people of 1940.
tazzer96
Three of Perth's lines were built in the 1880s. Electrification was the catalyst for change as it was in the other cities. Above I posted a video of a 6.7 km section of Perth line built in 2007 and compared it with a pretty identical fast 6.3 km section of Sydney line built in 1987 (thus also designed for the people of today). The train in the Perth example takes 3 minutes stop to stop, the one in the Sydney example 5 minutes.
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

Is that on a 4 car or 8 car train?

I don't disagree with you that standing for a long time is not good. The current Sydney system is way over capacity and the only way to fix it is with more lines. Obviously a straighter alignment south of waterfall is necessary but some grade seperation with freight traffic near unanderra is also necessary along with either more passing lanes or duplication much further south.

While all these problems are for this current government to fix. They should not be blamed for inaction from previous governments. The only solution for most of our problems is to dig many brand new rail tunnels which is going to cost a lot of money. I have no problem with the new metros as they will provide brand new passenger rail services that are much needed in this city. They are also modern, accessible and safe systems for a 21st century city.

There is no easy solution to these problems in Sydney because if there was it would already have been done. It is going to cost a lot of money and manpower to build all of these new rail and road systems which should have been built since the trams were torn down in the 50's and 60's.
  tazzer96 Deputy Commissioner

Is that on a 4 car or 8 car train?
simstrain
Only just realised this is a very valid point.  From memory perth still uses 2 car trains on all three of the older lines.   With 4 cars being the norm.  Carlingford and cumberland line are the only sydney trains lines to still use 4 cars regulary.  

The length of a train has a very significant effect on the total speed especially with constant changes in speed restrictions.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
So RTT here are my feelings to you point work.

1. No getting rid of the W's. The new Metro will more then solve the problems you talk about and the W's actually keep 4,000 people a day off the roads because of their handy closeness to locals. The locals don't even notice the noise since the stations are surrounded by greenery. I think that laverton bay could be built over (not apartments) without removing the trains as well.

2. a) Newtown station isn't anywhere near Parramatta road so I am not sure what you are getting at there.
b)Why are you demolishing all of the inner west stations for? They provide a great local service and if you demolish them it will only make road traffic worse. If inner west trains were all stations services and express trains actually used the suburbans instead of the locals then along with the tunnel from Strathfield to Lidcombe a fair chunk of additional capacity could be added.
c) What are you trying to achieve running a metro branch line to the main north line? I do not understand the purpose of this.

3. absolutely 160km/h running on the line from wolli creek all the way glenfield.

4. a) yes. b) Yes along with a whole new connection into central terminal to allow speedier ins and outs for nsw trainlink services to the main south.

5,6 and 7. yes

8. Quad to epping is a yes but the other part is not advisable because central coast services terminate at Sydney terminal and northern line services cross the bridge. Hence why there is a flyover at Strathfield for suburban services. This is one of the reasons of the slow travel time

9. Already occurs but the suburban services have to switch across at either homebush or macdonaldtown.

10. Those crossovers are of extreme importance because the western line is also used for freight outside of peak hours. A freight train breakdown is why those points are needed and why you can't have a 160km/h train on a line where a freight train could be doing only 80km/h.

11. Already happening

12. I'm not sure about that one.
simstrain
1).
St Leonards and Nth Sydney are 2.3km apart with the rail distance about 3.6km but made a painfully slow trip due to the tight bends adding at least 5min to the trip (I've broken it down once before, not doing again, I think the time saving is more). The two W's on a peninsula ridge for a small population, the bulk of the 2500 users per AM peak would be from east side. A new station in or near the inner eastern curve between the wo W's would serve the bulk of the users with similar walk up time, only a minority who probably don't use it anyway would be disadvantaged. However nearly 20,000 people an hour would benefit from a reduced trip time, Sydney trains would be able to release at least 1 set due to faster turn around time on the return trip and significantly lower track maintenance and train wear and tear costs.

Noise is a train wheel squeal significant, station platform announcements and train horns are a ongoing issue in the area, just google it and don't give me the locals don't notice it rubbish.

The former ROW could be converted to a green corridor rail trial from St Leonards to Lavender Bay with the former station locations partly developed for residential use to help cover the cost.

I would use either the old tunnels nth Nth Sydney station and/or build a new storage facility at St Leonards. Both easier to use over the current Lanvender Bay.

2) Move Newtown closer to the Parramatta Road, not cross it. Stanmore would also need to be moved north. Currently there are three lightly used stations within 500m of each other, MacdonaldTown, Eskinville and Newtown, meanwhile there is a campus with 40,000 students, major hospital and a large area closer to central than Newtown station on other side of Paramatta Road.

Read my post again, demolish the surface and replace with underground local Metro. Enabes the western corridor to be used for longer haul suburbans running at higher speed express. Enables the south pair of tracks to be increased from 4/hr for SW services to 12t/hr based on capacity in the city tunnels.

The western and Inner West Metro would be one common line to Uni/hospital/Newtown area, then seperate with inner west on southern part of corridor and Parramatta Metro running further north where the new to rail catchment resides.

3. Between Glenfiled and East Hills I'm not sure you need 4 tracks, I think i mistakenly indicated as such. Just 160km/hr

8. Yes, a bit of a mix, maybe not right solution. At some point they need to cross over.
  tonyp Chief Commissioner

Location: Shoalhaven
On an EMU train the length shouldn't be an issue as extra power (motors) is added as length increases to maintain the same power:weight ratio. Perth trains are 4 cars on legacy lines (A series) and 6 cars (B series) on the north-south line. In quiet times the trains can be reduced to 2 and 3 car respectively if necessary. Maximum speeds are 110 (A series) and 130 (B series).

The quickness of train journeys is one of the major - if not THE major - factors in winning patronage in what is said to be the fourth most car-dependent city in the world (car ownership ratio). Rail patronage has increased about 700% since 1990, vastly greater than in any other Australian city. I doubt that this could have been achieved without high average speeds as it would be faster and more convenient to drive. There is a motorway paralleling much of the north-south line and also plenty of parking available around Perth CBD, which was already the majority established commuter habit pre-electrification. So this achievement by rail is in the face of some very adverse factors. Average speeds were also raised substantially on the old lines.

Frankly I don't think this is something you can achieve unless you significantly ramp up average speeds. Look at the way so many people drive up the south coast to park between Waterfall and Sutherland to bypass the slowest section of the rail. Frankly, I don't think any public transport administrations outside WA acknowledge the significance of journey time to commuters (and to winning over people from their cars), least of all in NSW. Even worse in NSW, they actively encourage car use by building more motorways while not improving rail, including complete apathy about raising average speeds - indeed letting them slip over the years.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Perth only a has a good modern network because for nearly 100 years it had a complete joke of a rail network.  They started out recently and made use of all the current knowledge and designed a system for the people of today, not the people of 1940.
Three of Perth's lines were built in the 1880s. Electrification was the catalyst for change as it was in the other cities. Above I posted a video of a 6.7 km section of Perth line built in 2007 and compared it with a pretty identical fast 6.3 km section of Sydney line built in 1987 (thus also designed for the people of today). The train in the Perth example takes 3 minutes stop to stop, the one in the Sydney example 5 minutes.
tonyp
...and the Fremantle Line closure debacle in the 1980's. Closed one decade, electrified and reopened the next, what was that all about?
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Is that on a 4 car or 8 car train?
Only just realised this is a very valid point.  From memory perth still uses 2 car trains on all three of the older lines.   With 4 cars being the norm.  Carlingford and cumberland line are the only sydney trains lines to still use 4 cars regulary.  

The length of a train has a very significant effect on the total speed especially with constant changes in speed restrictions.
tazzer96
Don't just go by train length.

Perth's carriages are 4m longer but their 4 car train capacity is probably only slightly bigger than a Sydney 2 or 3 cars.

But yes the longer Sydney trains would spend more time in speed reduced areas.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
On an EMU train the length shouldn't be an issue as extra power (motors) is added as length increases to maintain the same power:weight ratio. Perth trains are 4 cars on legacy lines (A series) and 6 cars (B series) on the north-south line. In quiet times the trains can be reduced to 2 and 3 car respectively if necessary. Maximum speeds are 110 (A series) and 130 (B series).

The quickness of train journeys is one of the major - if not THE major - factors in winning patronage in what is said to be the fourth most car-dependent city in the world (car ownership ratio). Rail patronage has increased about 700% since 1990, vastly greater than in any other Australian city. I doubt that this could have been achieved without high average speeds as it would be faster and more convenient to drive. There is a motorway paralleling much of the north-south line and also plenty of parking available around Perth CBD, which was already the majority established commuter habit pre-electrification. So this achievement by rail is in the face of some very adverse factors. Average speeds were also raised substantially on the old lines.

Frankly I don't think this is something you can achieve unless you significantly ramp up average speeds. Look at the way so many people drive up the south coast to park between Waterfall and Sutherland to bypass the slowest section of the rail. Frankly, I don't think any public transport administrations outside WA acknowledge the significance of journey time to commuters (and to winning over people from their cars), least of all in NSW. Even worse in NSW, they actively encourage car use by building more motorways while not improving rail, including complete apathy about raising average speeds - indeed letting them slip over the years.
tonyp
700% growth from a Network that only had 4 shortish lines open under the DMU operation. It was a really low base line.
  tonyp Chief Commissioner

Location: Shoalhaven
1. Fremantle line closure was a conservative anti-rail government (Court) wanting to convert it all to motorways. Public agitation saw it reopened later.

2. Yes patronage rise was from a very low base but has to be seen as an achievement in face of one of world's highest car-usage rates and very easy to drive and park. It took a hell of a lot for rail to achieve that. I think it's nothing short of remarkable and average speed played a significant role in that, as well as trains typically 5 to 15 minutes apart. A quite intense, fast service.

3. A 6 car B series has an practical maximum load of 1,200 people, almost the same as the practical maximum load of a Sydney 8 car decker. I say practical because the double deckers have severe passenger handling issues whereas the single deckers are more metro-like in their passenger processing. Railcorp tested all this. Yes you can fit up to 1,800 on board an event special double decker only because they all get on at one end and all get off at the other and dwell isn't much of an issue. Once you have people getting on and off along the route that capacity is not possible. Also people being what they are, nobody will move too far from the doors towards the centre of the car and will congest the vestibules. Same problem on typical Australian buses with only 2 doors and front door loading. TfNSW rates Sydney trains and buses at about 2.5 persons per square metre, trams and metro trains which have far more doors at 4 ppsm.
  The Vinelander Minister for Railways

Location: Ballan, Victoria on the Ballarat RFR Line
Perth only a has a good modern network because for nearly 100 years it had a complete joke of a rail network.  They started out recently and made use of all the current knowledge and designed a system for the people of today, not the people of 1940.
Three of Perth's lines were built in the 1880s. Electrification was the catalyst for change as it was in the other cities. Above I posted a video of a 6.7 km section of Perth line built in 2007 and compared it with a pretty identical fast 6.3 km section of Sydney line built in 1987 (thus also designed for the people of today). The train in the Perth example takes 3 minutes stop to stop, the one in the Sydney example 5 minutes.
...and the Fremantle Line closure debacle in the 1980's. Closed one decade, electrified and reopened the next, what was that all about?
RTT_Rules

As I recall without deferring to Wikipedia...

Closed by the Libs and after a very strong campaign by the people of Freo about losing their train and the Libs voted out of office. The incoming Burke administration (remember WA Inc) won a few Freo seats in that neck of the woods and the right to govern on the promise of reinstating the line for passenger trains...the rest as they say is history.

Mike.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
1. Fremantle line closure was a conservative anti-rail government (Court) wanting to convert it all to motorways. Public agitation saw it reopened later.

2. Yes patronage rise was from a very low base but has to be seen as an achievement in face of one of world's highest car-usage rates and very easy to drive and park. It took a hell of a lot for rail to achieve that. I think it's nothing short of remarkable and average speed played a significant role in that, as well as trains typically 5 to 15 minutes apart. A quite intense, fast service.

3. A 6 car B series has an practical maximum load of 1,200 people, almost the same as the practical maximum load of a Sydney 8 car decker. I say practical because the double deckers have severe passenger handling issues whereas the single deckers are more metro-like in their passenger processing. Railcorp tested all this. Yes you can fit up to 1,800 on board an event special double decker only because they all get on at one end and all get off at the other and dwell isn't much of an issue. Once you have people getting on and off along the route that capacity is not possible. Also people being what they are, nobody will move too far from the doors towards the centre of the car and will congest the vestibules. Same problem on typical Australian buses with only 2 doors and front door loading. TfNSW rates Sydney trains and buses at about 2.5 persons per square metre, trams and metro trains which have far more doors at 4 ppsm.
tonyp
1. Interesting and thanks. Considering it was the 70's, that was the flavor of the month and saw stagnation in Sydney rail usage and the truncation of the Eastern Suburbs Railway project, Qld truncated the Cleveland line happened previously but reopened at roughly same time as Freo, closure of Suburban rail in Hobart etc etc

3. 1200 people is packed (150m long train), less than 550 seated. An 8 car Sydney DD (160m) is 900 seated.
Agree, movement for standees into the DD section is reluctant and for me I refuse as I'm too tall and be buggered if I going to lean over.
  tonyp Chief Commissioner

Location: Shoalhaven
3. 1200 people is packed (150m long train), less than 550 seated. An 8 car Sydney DD (160m) is 900 seated.
Agree, movement for standees into the DD section is reluctant and for me I refuse as I'm too tall and be buggered if I going to lean over.
RTT_Rules
Yes but we're talking about total capacity not seating capacity. But even if people had to stand all the way 70 kms to Mandurah (doesn't happen yet I don't think), because of the high average speed they would only be standing for 50 minutes. When they have to stand all the way 70 kms to Thirroul, which they do quite regularly (daily?) now, they're standing for  about 75 minutes. All those extra seats are a fat lot of use then, but the pain would be much less if it was only 50 minutes.

http://nnimgt-a.akamaihd.net/transform/v1/crop/frm/4FavSveeQdYEHssZq5umRQ/011a80aa-33a8-4e89-8a32-ccd9861d8bf8.jpg/r0_11_858_721_w1200_h678_fmax.jpg

(Not sure whether that's a smile on the lady's face or a grimace! Note the standees in the intercar connection, I've even seen them standing in the toilets. Like some scene on Indian Railways.)
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
3. 1200 people is packed (150m long train), less than 550 seated. An 8 car Sydney DD (160m) is 900 seated.
Agree, movement for standees into the DD section is reluctant and for me I refuse as I'm too tall and be buggered if I going to lean over.
Yes but we're talking about total capacity not seating capacity. But even if people had to stand all the way 70 kms to Mandurah (doesn't happen yet I don't think), because of the high average speed they would only be standing for 50 minutes. When they have to stand all the way 70 kms to Thirroul, which they do quite regularly (daily?) now, they're standing for  about 75 minutes. All those extra seats are a fat lot of use then, but the pain would be much less if it was only 50 minutes.

http://nnimgt-a.akamaihd.net/transform/v1/crop/frm/4FavSveeQdYEHssZq5umRQ/011a80aa-33a8-4e89-8a32-ccd9861d8bf8.jpg/r0_11_858_721_w1200_h678_fmax.jpg

(Not sure whether that's a smile on the lady's face or a grimace! Note the standees in the intercar connection, I've even seen them standing in the toilets. Like some scene on Indian Railways.)
tonyp
the point I was making is that the packed capacity of the two trains may have a slightly similar number, but for longer journey's the DD is more efficient and should provide a more comfortable ride as more a seated than standing unlike the B-set. Sydney's trains are designed to move numbers that the other networks cannot comprehend. The new Metro even though its seating and standing is similar to B-set or likely lower seated ratio, is designed to move people quickly, minimal waiting time and few stops  up to 50min from the city.


Agree

The Mandurah line was the first suburban branch line built in the 21st century in Australia, it was long planned and was able to use the low cost freeway ROW for much of the corridor, the rest being flat sandy soil.

The Sydney South Coast line was built with a pick and shovel through a very difficult terrain with significant change in elevation and later made even longer to suit early 20th steam engine technology. I totally agree it should be better and improved decades ago and you may have seen in the past the myself and Sim's argue on how this should or should not be done, but the line is over 100 years older than the Mandurah line so we need to give it a break. The  South Coast line is also probably the worst Suburban line to compare to as well.
  tonyp Chief Commissioner

Location: Shoalhaven
The  South Coast line is also probably the worst Suburban line to compare to as well.
RTT_Rules
It is indeed and I annoted three of the interurban lines to this effect in my original list. The closest in profile to Mandurah over a 70 km stretch would be the southern highlands to Douglas Park:

Perth-Mandurah: 51 mins, 10 stops
Sydney Central-Douglas Park (diesel): IC 63-66 mins, 6 stops
(it's ironic that the Mandurah train is only capable of 130 km/h vs 145 km/h for the southern highlands train!)

But the point I was making, choosing Thirroul as an extreme example of a long-distance standee scenario, is that it's not entirely the distance that's the issue with seat numbers, it's the journey time (back to the average speed issue again!). The slower the journey, the more the importance of seating numbers, the faster the journey, the less the importance of seating numbers.

The Sydney metro, though superficially low on seats on a train by train comparison, builds up its whole-system seating capacity by being able to throughput more trains per hour and reduces its standee discomfort factor by its faster journey time. Because of these factors, it's actually not as unsuitable for a longer suburban run as its critics make out. The Mandurah line, in its last outer 20 kms or so, is in interurban territory by the standards of other states, yet its moderate seating capacity in a suburban-type train is not an issue because it's there in 50 minutes.

Sydney/NSW Trains are stuck in a vicious cycle because their journeys are slow, so they need those lumbering double deckers to provide seating capacity to compensate, yet the double deckers are inefficient and slow and so they're seemingly unable to break themselves out of the cycle.
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

1. RTT you are too focussed on time saving. The metro will fix that issue and there is no need to change the alignment of the Sydney trains line.

2. Newtown station is about 2km's from parramatta road and it is right in the middle of Newtown. Instead why not build the metro under parramatta road instead or better yet extend the light rail along parramatta road to Leichardt and king street to newtown. Macdonaldtown is lightly used but Newtown hosts over 12,000 passenger movements a day and erskineville moves over 4,000. These areas have high density and close railway stations are necessary. The main problem on the inner west is with express services sharing with the all stoppers limiting how many trains can operate along the locals.

8. The overpass at strathfield actually provides a nice interchange from northern line to west bound western line services. It also removes the conflicting moves between suburban northern and western line trains.
  tazzer96 Deputy Commissioner

The Mandurah line was the first suburban branch line built in the 21st century in Australia, it was long planned and was able to use the low cost freeway ROW for much of the corridor, the rest being flat sandy soil.
RTT_Rules
Forgetting about the Brisbane Airport line are we, which ironically is almost the complete opposite by being elevated, away from the road, single track and surprisingly low operating speed.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
The  South Coast line is also probably the worst Suburban line to compare to as well.
It is indeed and I annoted three of the interurban lines to this effect in my original list. The closest in profile to Mandurah over a 70 km stretch would be the southern highlands to Douglas Park:

Perth-Mandurah: 51 mins, 10 stops
Sydney Central-Douglas Park (diesel): IC 63-66 mins, 6 stops
(it's ironic that the Mandurah train is only capable of 130 km/h vs 145 km/h for the southern highlands train!)

But the point I was making, choosing Thirroul as an extreme example of a long-distance standee scenario, is that it's not entirely the distance that's the issue with seat numbers, it's the journey time (back to the average speed issue again!). The slower the journey, the more the importance of seating numbers, the faster the journey, the less the importance of seating numbers.

The Sydney metro, though superficially low on seats on a train by train comparison, builds up its whole-system seating capacity by being able to throughput more trains per hour and reduces its standee discomfort factor by its faster journey time. Because of these factors, it's actually not as unsuitable for a longer suburban run as its critics make out. The Mandurah line, in its last outer 20 kms or so, is in interurban territory by the standards of other states, yet its moderate seating capacity in a suburban-type train is not an issue because it's there in 50 minutes.

Sydney/NSW Trains are stuck in a vicious cycle because their journeys are slow, so they need those lumbering double deckers to provide seating capacity to compensate, yet the double deckers are inefficient and slow and so they're seemingly unable to break themselves out of the cycle.
tonyp
With regard to Metro yep!!!

Also the loading and unloading of the NW to City Metro is entirely different to many suburban lines. The AM collection area is west of Epping, but from Epping to Chatswood there are more off's than on's, by a long shot. So the likely hood of someone standing  west of Epping to City is unlikely.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
1. RTT you are too focussed on time saving. The metro will fix that issue and there is no need to change the alignment of the Sydney trains line.

2. Newtown station is about 2km's from parramatta road and it is right in the middle of Newtown. Instead why not build the metro under parramatta road instead or better yet extend the light rail along parramatta road to Leichardt and king street to newtown. Macdonaldtown is lightly used but Newtown hosts over 12,000 passenger movements a day and erskineville moves over 4,000. These areas have high density and close railway stations are necessary. The main problem on the inner west is with express services sharing with the all stoppers limiting how many trains can operate along the locals.

8. The overpass at strathfield actually provides a nice interchange from northern line to west bound western line services. It also removes the conflicting moves between suburban northern and western line trains.
simstrain
1. Metro solves the Issue for the Metro, it does not solve alignment or travel time issues for existing network.

2. LR on Parramatta Road, you plan to cause traffic chaos at a cost per km not dissimilar to Metro tunnel.

The common core of the Inner West and Western Metro would run under the Uni with a station at Camperdown Hospital where there is a potential catchment of +40,000 users per day, plus major hospital plus locals up to the highway and maybe slightly beyond, after there they are too far north and if city bound would use other means such as bus and LR.

At Camperdown the line would spilt,
Western Metro running under the highway in a WNW alignment to get to Five Dock

Inner West Metro would head WSW alignment following Sailsbury Road. Stanmore station would need to be moved a 100-200m north. As the distance from Camperdown to Stanmore is 1.8km, I would plonk another station in the middle near O'Dea Reserve. Eskinville is 700m away, O'Dea is 800m away from current Newtown Station. Question for those roughly 2000 that use Newtown in AM peak, where are they coming from or too?

8. agree on the Straithfield overpass, I was thinking that as part of Clearways the North line and CC services should in theory share the same tracks as far as possible.
  Myrtone Chief Commissioner

Location: North Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria
I've heard there are still some flat junctions on the Sydney suburban. How about in Brisbane and Perth? There are only two tracks accross the Harbour and the North Shore line has stations very close together. Two tracks leave here leaves no room for express services.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
I've heard there are still some flat junctions on the Sydney suburban. How about in Brisbane and Perth? There are only two tracks accross the Harbour and the North Shore line has stations very close together. Two tracks leave here leaves no room for express services.
Myrtone
Perth is along way off having major conflicting move issues.

Flat junctions are not always the issue, its the speed of which trains cross them and thus time in occupation.

Brisbane has a number
- Park Road, junction for Cleveland line, slow as its on a tight curve
- Doomben Line junction, also slow for same reason and would be a major issue if not for low frequency of services
- Airport line junction, modern and trains progressive reasonably quickly and traffic density is not that great
- Roma street, where freighters go across directly to the bridge
- Express GC trains and south bound XPT crossing onto the 3rd track at St Brisbane station.
There are others but not such an issue for suburban services.

Sponsored advertisement

Subscribers: Myrtone, RTT_Rules

Display from:   

Quick Reply

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