I can't believe that there's even a debate about accessibility 30 years after gazettal of the DDA. I have to do a double take of the topic heading to make sure weren't not on a Melbourne tram forum, now the last outpost of resistance as they try to justify Australia's worst transport example of non-compliance! It's really an end-of-discussion issue. You can't legally build a new non-compliant railway station, period. Existing stations have a legal period of grace during which they must be brought into compliance.

I can't believe that there's even a debate about accessibility 30 years after gazettal of the DDA. I have to do a double take of the topic heading to make sure weren't not on a Melbourne tram forum, now the last outpost of resistance as they try to justify Australia's worst transport example of non-compliance! It's really an end-of-discussion issue. You can't legally build a new non-compliant railway station, period. Existing stations have a legal period of grace during which they must be brought into compliance.

But I do have to wonder that the expensive (not just in construction but ongoing maintenance) in having to put at the minimum 2 lifts on EACH station means we get less stations and over all a worse service.

Even stations that had passive access (long ramps) have been rebuilt with expensive lifts that require expensive on going maintenance because some people (understandably) find the ramps difficult.

Far more thought needs to go into passive option to make stations easier to use. But it appears 'cost is no object' seems to be the thing to do.

And when the money gets tight and maintenance is the first thing the cut back on. What then ?. Stations closed because the lift is busted and there is no money to fix it ?. Every body forced to buy a car and drive not matter what their situation ?

And I do know the situation - I worked with a wheel chair bound college - and on an inspection of our new offices he got stuck in the driveway dish drain out the front. The project manager was aghast when they were told to dig out the days old concrete and do it again, but with less of a dish.
And said colleague had not been on train or bus in years. He had a specially modified van and a disabled parking permit. No reason to catch PT what so ever, he could drive every where and (usually) park.

Ramps have a maximum gradient with which they have to comply and this may make the ramp too long to reasonably fit in the available space. With lifts, obviously you have to have one lift for each platform (single platforms have an advantage here) and one for each street exit that's not at the same grade. It has to be done, no two ways about it.

No matthew you don't have to wonder. The cost of the lifts have nothing to do with how many stations are built or the distance between them. The distance of the metro stations is about the same as most outer suburban sydney stations with a few exceptions. Bella vista to Kellyville is only 100 metres longer then Cabramatta to Warwick Farm. It is shorter then Blacktown to Doonside by a kilometre. Only 200 metres longer then Parramatta to Westmead.

The Dombarton tunnel falls about 40 metres from west to east. The tunnel is somewhere between 4-5 km long from memory.

If the Dombarton tunnel is 4000m long with a fall of 40m, the the gradient in the tunnel is 1 in 100. not 1 in 30. This allows all/most/some water to drain away.

Ramps have a maximum gradient with which they have to comply and this may make the ramp too long to reasonably fit in the available space. With lifts, obviously you have to have one lift for each platform (single platforms have an advantage here) and one for each street exit that's not at the same grade. It has to be done, no two ways about it.

Ramps also have to have a level section every so often to allow pedestrians, especially those with prams, to rest away from the sloping sections.

Correct. If disabled persons can't access the new station it should never get built. To assume that most disabled persons are not work commuters is the sort of discrimination disabled people deal with all the time.

All buses in Sydney have wheelchair access and are no less or more mobility friendly then the Sydney train system. If anything they are better because the buses can kneel to make it easier to get on and off. This is not possible on Sydney trains which means there is still quite a steep ramp to get on to a train at platforms. Metro obviously doesn't suffer from this issue.

$5-10 million (not that the lifts actually cost that much) is not really that much when you consider how much those new stations cost to build overall. All stations are built to handle large numbers of users and it isn't just those who are fully disabled that benefit. Elderly, people with prams, temporarily disabled (broken leg or someone on crutches) all benefit from having the lifts in place.

We are not talking new stations which are obviously built in high density areas with all the bells and whistles, we are talking about the issues of upgrading older stations with very small patronage, say less than 100 per day and avoiding DAA compliance where economically it simply doesn't stack up.

The Dombarton tunnel falls about 40 metres from west to east. The tunnel is somewhere between 4-5 km long from memory.

If the Dombarton tunnel is 4000m long with a fall of 40m, the the gradient in the tunnel is 1 in 100. not 1 in 30. This allows all/most/some water to drain away.

Tunnel was never built, so not sure how accurate the data is. 1:100 would certainly make sense because even electric locos need to cool their traction motors unless you are going to use the door option, so reducing the energy input also works.

The Dombarton tunnel falls about 40 metres from west to east. The tunnel is somewhere between 4-5 km long from memory.

If the Dombarton tunnel is 4000m long with a fall of 40m, the the gradient in the tunnel is 1 in 100. not 1 in 30. This allows all/most/some water to drain away.

Tunnel was never built, so not sure how accurate the data is. 1:100 would certainly make sense because even electric locos need to cool their traction motors unless you are going to use the door option, so reducing the energy input also works.

No, it is designed to be 1:30. 4024m length dropping 132 metres.

More info...
http://railknowledgebank.com/Presto/content/GetDoc.axd?ctID=MTk4MTRjNDUtNWQ0My00OTBmLTllYWUtZWFjM2U2OTE0ZDY3&rID=NDUxNw==&pID=Nzkx&attchmnt=VHJ1ZQ==&uSesDM=False&rIdx=MzQ4Ng==&rCFU=

I think this discussion about the Maldon-Dombarton railway started on the point of an alternative passenger route to Sydney. It would take far too long, but there is a possible role for a connection to Macarthur/Campbelltown where it would ultimately connect with the western Sydney suburban and metro systems, providing more direct links to anywhere from Parramatta to Penrith and WSA. There is already a bus that maybe it could replace, although the bus has a very useful catchment that the train couldn't directly serve without interchange to buses, including suburbs around Campbelltown, Appin and UOW.

https://transportnsw.info/documents/timetables/35-887-Wollongong-to-Campbelltown-via-Appin-20200720.pdf

The question is whether the train could offer a faster alternative, at least between the end-points. This would require a significant increase in performance over the present ambling norm of the suburban and interurban systems. What sort of journey time could be achieved by a railcar set I wonder?

I think this discussion about the Maldon-Dombarton railway started on the point of an alternative passenger route to Sydney. It would take far too long, but there is a possible role for a connection to Macarthur/Campbelltown where it would ultimately connect with the western Sydney suburban and metro systems, providing more direct links to anywhere from Parramatta to Penrith and WSA. There is already a bus that maybe it could replace, although the bus has a very useful catchment that the train couldn't directly serve without interchange to buses, including suburbs around Campbelltown, Appin and UOW.

https://transportnsw.info/documents/timetables/35-887-Wollongong-to-Campbelltown-via-Appin-20200720.pdf

The question is whether the train could offer a faster alternative, at least between the end-points. This would require a significant increase in performance over the present ambling norm of the suburban and interurban systems. What sort of journey time could be achieved by a railcar set I wonder?

I cannot see how a Pax service on this line would ever be viable or wanted.

Fix the line to Waterfall, then change at Wolli Creek!

Send the coalies around the back door via Maldon.

I cannot see how a Pax service on this line would ever be viable or wanted.

Fix the line to Waterfall, then change at Wolli Creek!

Send the coalies around the back door via Maldon.

I agree.  I can't see a pressing need for a PAX rail service from the South Coast via Maldon.  In future planning, a metro line will be built from either Hurstville or Kogarah to Parramatta and SCO commuters heading for Western Sydney can interchange there. I'm not sure what you mean by changing at Wolli Creek, unless you're referring to access to Sydney Airport, although that's not a given unless they build additional platforms at Wolli Creek on the Illawarra Local.  The proposed operating pattern for the NIF SCO sets is on the Local direct to Sydney Terminal and not Bondi Junction on the Main.

The coalies via Maldon will be running downhill and be empty on the return journey.

I would prefer no station at all then a new station with no lift. There should be buses that fill in the gaps to the stations and so take a bus to the station instead of driving. The costs of the lifts is nothing at all to do with why stations are built further apart. The problem with modern station costs especially those new metro stations is nothing to do with lifts but the extravagance of the modern new station built by this current government.

Schofields in Sydney and Shell Harbour station on the south coast are the newest non metro stations built and look at them. The cost of the lifts is not why those stations are so expensive. Birrong is currently getting an upgrade although I'm not sure how much that will cost but I believe it will be significantly cheaper then those 2 stations.

Lifts would still add a significant cost compared to a station without no lifts, a station with no lifts has no moving parts, and only needs electricity to run the lights, opal readers, and PA system.

By all means run the buses and keep the same number of accessible stations as there is now, BUT also have some 'cheap' stations similar to the design of Lysaghts station (long enough platform, shelter, footbridge, but not much more) to fill in the gaps and allow for walk-up patronage and less park and ride.

Current station spacing on modern lines encourages urban sprawl and car dependency, which takes away foot traffic from small business and puts up the middle finger for those who don't/can't drive, and even those who do/can drive but work in a place with no parking.

Park & Ride is a flawed transport model because (1) a car is a pre-requisite for using public transport, half defeating the purpose, and (2) there is NEVER enough parking, looking at the size of the car parks at Holsworthy, and even that is not enough.

Lets look at the most recent lines built, where stations are (in bold) and where they should also be (in normal text) but with less extravagant stations i.e: no lifts):

EAST HILLS TO GLENFIELD: East Hills, Voyager Point, Holsworthy, Wattle Grove, Glenfield
SOUTH WEST RAIL LINE: Glenfield, Bardia, Edmondson Park, Edmondson Park West, Leppington East, Leppington
NORTH WEST METRO: Epping, West Pennant Hills, Castle Hill East, Castle Hill, Showground, Norwest, Bella Vista, Parklea, Kellyville, Beaumont Hills, Rouse Hill, Tallawong

Some of these stations might get less patronage than the existing ones, and the costs of lifts might discourage their construction, but their construction would reduce car depending and discourage urban sprawl.

I'm not saying these stations should NEVER have lifts, but rather they should be opened without lifts and have the lifts added when the demand and need is there.

What's the policy about pedestrian level crossings in NSW?  A pedestrian level crossing on the wharf side of Hawkesbury River station would give it wheel-chair access at minimal cost.

What's the policy about pedestrian level crossings in NSW?  A pedestrian level crossing on the wharf side of Hawkesbury River station would give it wheel-chair access at minimal cost.

They're used a lot in Perth on the legacy lines and they seem to work well (very well protected), but there seems to be a policy set against their use in NSW. Possibly covering their backs against any possible safety risk. Also, whereas in Perth the commuter lines are generally isolated from other services, in NSW the commuter lines are generally shared with mainline trains and there is a possibility of a train coming to a halt across and blocking a crossing.

I don't believe the discussion about lifts is dragging on. Which bit of "it's not allowed" don't people understand? It won't happen, finito, kaput. It's like building regulations. You're not allowed to put a toilet in a kitchen. Likewise you're not allowed to build a non-compliant station and put lifts in later. It's not even worth discussing. It also doesn't stop stations being built where they're needed. It's simply part of the development cost.

A good photo from the Telegraph this morning showing why it's almost impossible to tunnel a line above sea level that bypasses the curves:



The potentially unstable scree slopes come right to the water's edge, as do old coal workings that you can't tunnel above. This is why I made my metro tunnel suggestion that goes through solid rock below sea level (subject to geological survey), leaving the old line in place for freight.

An alternative scenario might be to bore such a tunnel larger for interurban trains and freight to replace the old line. That might work, but the bypassed towns between Thirroul and Waterfall would need to be served by bus and there would be a question of gradient to get freight up to Waterfall from below sea level. Then there's the long tunnel that would likely require electric-hauled freight. These are thoughts I'm throwing into the discussion pool to cover some of the issues, because some posts are not taking reality into account. Just like you can't build non DDA compliant stations, you can't just easily whack some dream straight-line tunnel through between Thirroul and Waterfall above sea level that serves the existing stations. Some designs have been done but they still don't cover all the geological issues. It's an almost impossible one to solve unless you go below sea level. The roads people got it easy - they were able to do it with a bridge, something that won't really work with rail.

Edit: An interesting relevant paper on the subject:

https://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=2614&context=eispapers1

The problem with that straightline tunnel shown is that it goes right through the extensive Coalcliff mineworkings.

The Maldon-Dombarton line was proposed as a means of transporting coal. Given that demand for coal is likely to reduce significantly in the next couple of decades, the chances of it ever being built are remote.

As for building a new underground alignment for the South Coast line, cloud cuckoo stuff. About as plausible as that long standing dream of the National Party to build a tunnel under the Blue Mountains.

I think this discussion about the Maldon-Dombarton railway started on the point of an alternative passenger route to Sydney. It would take far too long, but there is a possible role for a connection to Macarthur/Campbelltown where it would ultimately connect with the western Sydney suburban and metro systems, providing more direct links to anywhere from Parramatta to Penrith and WSA. There is already a bus that maybe it could replace, although the bus has a very useful catchment that the train couldn't directly serve without interchange to buses, including suburbs around Campbelltown, Appin and UOW.

https://transportnsw.info/documents/timetables/35-887-Wollongong-to-Campbelltown-via-Appin-20200720.pdf

The question is whether the train could offer a faster alternative, at least between the end-points. This would require a significant increase in performance over the present ambling norm of the suburban and interurban systems. What sort of journey time could be achieved by a railcar set I wonder?

In the diagram put up by another poster that shows the map of new/proposed lines in the Sydney area, it shows a link from Campbeltown to Wilton and continues past there, I would say it goes direct to the gong.

Would that proposal be an option to use the Maldon - Dombarton line and wire it, surely would would be cheaper, rather than going via Maldon, would linking closer to say Menangle, then to the Dombarton line be also a better option. Coming in via Dombarton and the Gong, the train could then do a connection to Sydney, with the same in the opposite direction, one set doing a circle type of run.

In the diagram put up by another poster that shows the map of new/proposed lines in the Sydney area, it shows a link from Campbeltown to Wilton and continues past there, I would say it goes direct to the gong.

Would that proposal be an option to use the Maldon - Dombarton line and wire it, surely would would be cheaper, rather than going via Maldon, would linking closer to say Menangle, then to the Dombarton line be also a better option. Coming in via Dombarton and the Gong, the train could then do a connection to Sydney, with the same in the opposite direction, one set doing a circle type of run.

The thin lines on that map of the future rail network are BRT - high-capacity bus routes on corridors that don't quite justify rail. You can see on that map the northern beaches B Line, the Liverpool-Bringelly BRT proposal and the third line you are referring to is the existing route 887 between Campbelltown and Wollongong, quite a busy route, not least because of UOW traffic. It also has the utility of scooping up a lot of Campbelltown-Macarthur suburbs and Appin along its route, something you won't achieve with rail. To consider an express train between Wollongong and Campbelltown via the Maldon-Dombarton line you'd have to establish that it offered a substantially faster journey than this bus to justify it. Given the 165 year-old record of leisurely ambling on NSW state rail services, with any attempts at quicker journeys (like the XPT) soon ending up compromised and slowed down, I somewhat doubt that. Rapid transit is the purpose and role of the metro system.

I agree.  I can't see a pressing need for a PAX rail service from the South Coast via Maldon.  In future planning, a metro line will be built from either Hurstville or Kogarah to Parramatta and SCO commuters heading for Western Sydney can interchange there. I'm not sure what you mean by changing at Wolli Creek, unless you're referring to access to Sydney Airport, although that's not a given unless they build additional platforms at Wolli Creek on the Illawarra Local.  The proposed operating pattern for the NIF SCO sets is on the Local direct to Sydney Terminal and not Bondi Junction on the Main.

The coalies via Maldon will be running downhill and be empty on the return journey.

Change at Wolli Creek to get to both Airport's and all points west, yes more plats at Wolli. Realistically few will commute from Wollongong to Parramatta.

Yes Coalies and if grains go that way will be empty, I can only think intermodal may be loaded on a facing grade.

They're used a lot in Perth on the legacy lines and they seem to work well (very well protected), but there seems to be a policy set against their use in NSW. Possibly covering their backs against any possible safety risk. Also, whereas in Perth the commuter lines are generally isolated from other services, in NSW the commuter lines are generally shared with mainline trains and there is a possibility of a train coming to a halt across and blocking a crossing.

I don't believe the discussion about lifts is dragging on. Which bit of "it's not allowed" don't people understand? It won't happen, finito, kaput. It's like building regulations. You're not allowed to put a toilet in a kitchen. Likewise you're not allowed to build a non-compliant station and put lifts in later. It's not even worth discussing. It also doesn't stop stations being built where they're needed. It's simply part of the development cost.

A good photo from the Telegraph this morning showing why it's almost impossible to tunnel a line above sea level that bypasses the curves:

The potentially unstable scree slopes come right to the water's edge, as do old coal workings that you can't tunnel above. This is why I made my metro tunnel suggestion that goes through solid rock below sea level (subject to geological survey), leaving the old line in place for freight.

An alternative scenario might be to bore such a tunnel larger for interurban trains and freight to replace the old line. That might work, but the bypassed towns between Thirroul and Waterfall would need to be served by bus and there would be a question of gradient to get freight up to Waterfall from below sea level. Then there's the long tunnel that would likely require electric-hauled freight. These are thoughts I'm throwing into the discussion pool to cover some of the issues, because some posts are not taking reality into account. Just like you can't build non DDA compliant stations, you can't just easily whack some dream straight-line tunnel through between Thirroul and Waterfall above sea level that serves the existing stations. Some designs have been done but they still don't cover all the geological issues. It's an almost impossible one to solve unless you go below sea level. The roads people got it easy - they were able to do it with a bridge, something that won't really work with rail.

Edit: An interesting relevant paper on the subject:

https://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=2614&context=eispapers1

The problem with that straightline tunnel shown is that it goes right through the extensive Coalcliff mineworkings.

There will be no new level pedestrian crossings.

All new stations will be built to code, its the upgrade of the old stations that came into question.

Tunnels were built along that coastal route along with older disused tunnels running more inland up hill to Waterfall, the proposal is to build new tunnels further inland within the topography, perhaps short sections may need to come out of the ground to cross deeper valleys. I don't think anyone is proposing to build a line below sea level which would defeat the purpose of reducing the grade.

We know there will not be electric freight on 1500VDC so it will remain diesel. If required the freights can be left on the existing corridor if not for down hill at least for uphill.

Underground coal workings absolutely honeycomb the escarpment and Maddens Plains in the vicinity of Coal Cliff all the way from the sea to several kms inland, way west of the Princes Highway. On top of that, the unstable scree slopes of the escarpment go right to the seafront here. Unless there's been some engineering advance that I'm not aware of, nobody is going to be building a railway tunnel over mine workings, particularly ones as dense as Coal Cliff. It's subsidence kingdom. The only way you can avoid them and the scree slopes is to go down below them and that is at the seafront (possibly - I don't know if the geology has been studied yet). The section of the line between Thirroul and Waterfall is a tough one to work out solutions for, so far prohibitively tough.

There is going to be growing demand for travel between Wollongong and western Sydney, particularly as the planned development (the two western cities and WSA) comes to fruition and population grows even further. There are already over two million people and tons of economic activity there. Wolli Ck isn't a suitable interchange to replace Central for western Sydney. As Transtopic mentioned, this will be either the future metro line from Rockdale to Parramatta and/or something via Macarthur/Campbelltown (the 887 with artics 15 minutes apart?!). Meanwhile people will drive. That's the problem with this whole south coast public transport situation - people do and will drive until some quicker solution comes along. The paper I linked above by Laird and Michell covers some of the issues. A half-way compromise isn't good enough.

Some more desirable background reading when discussing Thirroul-Waterfall section:

Cyril Singleton history - notably page 16-17 and 61:

https://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1010&context=ihspubs

RMS oral history including many observations by engineers and geologists. Worth reading from end to end, but note in relation to the railway page 45. Also the opinion by geologist Greg Kotze on page 65where you could also substitute the word "railway" for "road".

https://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/documents/about/environment/protecting-heritage/oral-history-program/lhd-part-1-summary-report.pdf

This report has a map at page 8 showing undermined areas:

https://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/-/media/Files/DPE/Reports/mining-impacts-at-dendrobium-coal-mine-area-3b-2015-12.pdf?la=en

As well as the area undermined by Coalcliff colliery, the Metropolitan colliery has also undermined both old and new alignments between Waterfall and Otford.

There's no easy answer on this one, except go down below imho. It's a miracle that there's a rail line between Sydney and Wollongong at all - one that has to be constantly propped up and monitored.

Some more desirable background reading when discussing Thirroul-Waterfall section:

Cyril Singleton history - notably page 16-17 and 61:

https://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1010&context=ihspubs

RMS oral history including many observations by engineers and geologists. Worth reading from end to end, but note in relation to the railway page 45. Also the opinion by geologist Greg Kotze on page 65where you could also substitute the word "railway" for "road".

https://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/documents/about/environment/protecting-heritage/oral-history-program/lhd-part-1-summary-report.pdf

This report has a map at page 8 showing undermined areas:

https://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/-/media/Files/DPE/Reports/mining-impacts-at-dendrobium-coal-mine-area-3b-2015-12.pdf?la=en

As well as the area undermined by Coalcliff colliery, the Metropolitan colliery has also undermined both old and new alignments between Waterfall and Otford.

There's no easy answer on this one, except go down below imho. It's a miracle that there's a rail line between Sydney and Wollongong at all - one that has to be constantly propped up and monitored.

Should be possible to pump concrete into these old mines. The coal mine companies should be forced to pay for any rectification but that would be too difficult now.

Should be possible to pump concrete into these old mines. The coal mine companies should be forced to pay for any rectification but that would be too difficult now.

Too much concrete and would be too dangerous to do now if the mines are no longer maintained.

You don't back fill coal mines, only hard rock mines as hard rock mines are mostly dirt with mineral contents in a few percent range. Good coal mines have only a few percent impurities that maybe washed out at the mine with fines. Underground coal mining is almost dead so not really a major issue going forward, mostly the relics of the past haunt us. Some of the closed mostly copper mines are far worse with acid mine drainage etc.

The roads people got it easy - they were able to do it with a bridge, something that won't really work with rail.

A bridge won't really work with rail????

Do you have engineering qualifications?
Or can you provide a web link to support this claim?

I think you statement claiming a rail bridge can't be done is simply garbage, until proven otherwise.

A sea bridge could be built for the railway. Of course it would cost huge amount of dollars, but I would think a 15km sea bridge / sky rail is cheaper than a 15km tunnel.
The sea bridge would start just south of the clifton tunnel / sea cliff road bridge. It would go past Stanwell Park Beach and go back over land near Bulgo Beach / Otford Lookout. The bridge would then have to continue to just south of Waterfall station. I measured it at approx 15km long. The bridge would save about 15-20 minutes travel time.

Some people will try and say a rail bridge over the sea can't be done. If there is evidence the geology of the seabed is unstable, then yes I agree it's not possible. If its possible to build Hong Kong-Zhuhai bridge then it is possible to build this bridge as well.