Yes, it does seem that on-time running has made cutting travel times difficult, but by all measures, the Bankstown Line has even more padding than the other lines which could have been cut down at least slightly given there's no longer the need to complete an entire loop and make the total travel time a multiple of 15 minutes.

For example, Central to Revesby and Central to Bankstown both involve a train travelling 14 stops to the destination and both under the new timetable are a journey time of 36 minutes.

That seems all equal and fine but then you take a look and Central to Revesby is actually 23.07 km (via Airport), nearly 25% longer in distance than Central to Bankstown at 18.71 km.

More marshals at city stations: http://www.news.com.au/national-news/nsw-act/marshals-to-help-sydney-trains-run-on-time-as-new-timetable-comes-into-effect/story-fnii5s3x-1226739205679

I thought there were supposed to be more services, why will crowding be worse so that marshals are required?

More marshals at city stations: http://www.news.com.au/national-news/nsw-act/marshals-to-help-sydney-trains-run-on-time-as-new-timetable-comes-into-effect/story-fnii5s3x-1226739205679

I thought there were supposed to be more services, why will crowding be worse so that marshals are required?

So they can further cut dwell time and cram in more trains on a system at or near capacity.

Not exactly a benchmark of clarity, the new combined lines...

More marshals at city stations: http://www.news.com.au/national-news/nsw-act/marshals-to-help-sydney-trains-run-on-time-as-new-timetable-comes-into-effect/story-fnii5s3x-1226739205679

I thought there were supposed to be more services, why will crowding be worse so that marshals are required?

I think the Marshal's job is more about stopping blowouts on particularly crowded services rather than an effort to cut dwell times across the board.  Without unused paths there isn't much scope for the timetable to recover from a single dwell time blowout.

Not exactly a benchmark of clarity, the new combined lines...

Ugh, Chatswood shows it at its worst.  Trains heading 5 different ways, with altogether close to a dozen different combinations of stopping patterns and destinations, all called T1!

At least part of it's only temporary.  Once the Epping-Chatswood section is removed to become part of the North West Metro, T1 will be simplified a little, becoming Berowra - Chatswood - City then three branches to Hornsby, Richmond and Emu Plains.

If the fires in NSW keep burning the media will only give 8 secs to the new timetable.

I quite like how Sydney Trains use 24 hour time, rather than am and pm. Everyone that thinks only those in the army use 24 hour time will probably whinge they can't read it though

At least part of it's only temporary.  Once the Epping-Chatswood section is removed to become part of the North West Metro, T1 will be simplified a little, becoming Berowra - Chatswood - City then three branches to Hornsby, Richmond and Emu Plains.

On current Sydney's Rail Future plans T1 will become just Berowa - Chatswood - City - Blacktown/Penrith/Emu Plains.  Hornsby trains will terminate at Sydney Terminal and Richmond will work to the South like the Cumberland line.  This leaves T1 to operate as turn up and go at 24 TPH to single destinations.  Northern and Richmond line passengers to the CBD will need to change trains.

On current Sydney's Rail Future plans T1 will become just Berowa - Chatswood - City - Blacktown/Penrith/Emu Plains.  Hornsby trains will terminate at Sydney Terminal and Richmond will work to the South like the Cumberland line.  This leaves T1 to operate as turn up and go at 24 TPH to single destinations.  Northern and Richmond line passengers to the CBD will need to change trains.

Umm, where does the Sydney's Rail Future document actually say that?

I think you're getting confused with other published plans.

Umm, where does the Sydney's Rail Future document actually say that?

I think you're getting confused with other published plans.

My thoughts too.  There have been many, many plans for Sydney tranport published over the last couple of decades, most by the Government, some by other organisations. The Richmond-Campbelltown and Hornsby-Syd Terminal idea has been mentioned on RP before, but I don't recall seeing it in anything official. It may have been an idea that was tossed about internally at one stage, but I think it would be a very courageous (in the Yes Minister sense of the term) transport minister that announced the Richmond line would only be served by Cumberland line trains.

I've noticed on the Illawarra Line in the morning, when they are running three types of stopping patterns between Wolli Creek and Redfern (one without stops in between, one with a stop at Sydenham, one at a stop at both Sydenham and Tempe), the times vary slightly but tend to always be approximately 9 or 10 minutes long regardless of the stopping pattern.

Does this mean that basically the trains are predicted to have become so close together and congested at that point in the line that there's no real time gain to be had by skipping stations? But if so, it's rather puzzling why you would skip stops if all that's going to happen is you're going to either have to travel very slowly or wait at a red signal.

The Richmond-Campbelltown and Hornsby-Syd Terminal idea has been mentioned on RP before, but I don't recall seeing it in anything official. It may have been an idea that was tossed about internally at one stage, but I think it would be a very courageous (in the Yes Minister sense of the term) transport minister that announced the Richmond line would only be served by Cumberland line trains.

You are right - it has been 'tossed about internally,' as reported in the Herald June 15, 2012, and is not in SRF. But SRF has no detail and  nor do most other publications from Transport for NSW. However I would suggest that growth on the Western/Northern/Richmond group will require turn up and go, and in turn it will not be possible to have people waiting for 'their' train at Town Hall.  And yes, it would be courageous to announce it - and indeed the Minister has avoided responding to direct questions about it.

I've noticed on the Illawarra Line in the morning, when they are running three types of stopping patterns between Wolli Creek and Redfern (one without stops in between, one with a stop at Sydenham, one at a stop at both Sydenham and Tempe), the times vary slightly but tend to always be approximately 9 or 10 minutes long regardless of the stopping pattern.

Does this mean that basically the trains are predicted to have become so close together and congested at that point in the line that there's no real time gain to be had by skipping stations? But if so, it's rather puzzling why you would skip stops if all that's going to happen is you're going to either have to travel very slowly or wait at a red signal.

Yes, you're right.
The fact that there is now an "All Stations" Local Service from Hurstville every 10 minutes is somewhat dictating how other services are slotted in. Also, you need to look at the Platform working at Bondi Junction and the turning of services on only two available Platforms. It is a little difficult to have a series of trains all running 3 minutes behind each other.  

Yes, I agree about the skipping of stations doesn't achieve any saving of time.
I would say this is more to do with the Loading on the train.
If they have the statistics, the trains which have come from further up the Line, say Cronulla, are probably already more reasonably crowded than a train which has only commenced from Hurstville.
The stopping pattern directs Passengers to certain services.  


- Scott.

Stopping at Sydenham and Tempe doesn't take long anyway (compared to the City and ESR), and the old timetable already had sections where expresses were three minutes behind stoppers, which required them to crawl to Wolli and then sprint to Rockdale/Kogarah/Hurstville. Great fun during PM peak to do this in a rainstorm, what with roaring H sets, groaning S sets and absolutely shrieking T sets. Anyway.

The Illawarra can cope with this. The idea of skip-stop between Wolli and Refern is simple: patronage at Tempe is not very high, and nor is Illawarra patronage at Sydenham. The government wants to emphasise Wolli as the internal (as well as Airport/East Hills) interchange for the Illawarra (allowing local-express connections at Wolli and Hurstville), rather than Sydenham.

After all, what's there at Sydenham? Only connects to the Bankstown... /dies laughing

Skipping stops means in the morning, I have to leave home 5-8 mins early and in the evening and at night, I will be arriving home at least 15 mins late. I'm not happy at all. I'm in the Illawarra line.

Looks like the new timetable is only targeted towards people going to and coming from the City. Does that mean people like me who travel between inner suburbs need to suffer? My work and time is equally important as that of people working in the City.

Now when is the fare increase scheduled for so that I can pay more for the worsening service?

Skipping stops means in the morning, I have to leave home 5-8 mins early and in the evening and at night, I will be arriving home at least 15 mins late. I'm not happy at all. I'm in the Illawarra line.

Looks like the new timetable is only targeted towards people going to and coming from the City. Does that mean people like me who travel between inner suburbs need to suffer? My work and time is equally important as that of people working in the City.

Now when is the fare increase scheduled for so that I can pay more for the worsening service?

Maybe because there is a significantly larger proportion of people travelling to and from the city than inner suburbs. Why should they have a slower train to convenience the smaller proportion of commuters like you? Have you ever thought there could be other reasons why there is skip stops? Such as making the express trains less crowded and putting more passengers onto slower trains to even out the passenger loading?

If you still want to have a sulk then drink a cup of concrete or let out your anger here.

Maybe because there is a significantly larger proportion of people travelling to and from the city than inner suburbs. Why should they have a slower train to convenience the smaller proportion of commuters like you? Have you ever thought there could be other reasons why there is skip stops? Such as making the express trains less crowded and putting more passengers onto slower trains to even out the passenger loading?

If you still want to have a sulk then drink a cup of concrete or let out your anger here.

Perhaps they should have frequent all-stations that cover only the inner suburbs (between Sydenham and Waterfall/Cronulla) rather than skipping stops so that everyone can benefit. Then people who wish to travel to City can change at Sydenham or Hurstville or Sutherland for more frequent services. It's not just me, there will still be plenty of people who have to travel between inner suburbs.

If they can skip stations, they should also consider reducing fare for travelling between inner suburbs. But no, when it comes to money, they squeeze every penny out of you. It's not our fault we live in the inner suburbs. A better plan is all that is expected. That's all.

I'm not entirely sure what you're advocating, because what they're already doing is having frequent all-stations service that cover the inner suburbs and the city (between Bondi Junction and Hurstville). The intention is one changes at Hurstville if they need to travel between north and south of Hurstville but not to/from the city.

If what you're advocating is a service that only travels between Sydenham and Waterfall/Cronulla, there are multiple problems with that. Firstly, the people that travel within that area are probably a minority so it will be very lightly loaded compared to trains that actually go to the city. Secondly, such a service isn't made of air. It is occupying a space in the corridor that could actually be taken by a train that does go to the city. Third, I don't know how you expect a terminating service to be run to Sydenham considering all six platforms are used up by trains that aren't terminating in peak hours.

The fact of the matter is that the entire network is based around an idea that people who live further away from the city should have services that skip stations closer to the city because these people have to travel longer distances and generally have longer travel times. It's a pretty fair principle, isn't it?

If you're suggesting a reduced fare because you're travelling between inner suburbs, why not a reduced fare if you have to catch more than one train to work? Why not a reduced fare because you live on the South Line which has fewer trains than the Illawarra Line? What about if you live on the Richmond branch of the Western Line? Or the Carlingford line?

Also consider for example the stations of St Peters and Erskineville which actually do have platforms facing the Illawarra Line but no services. Taking your theory, why doesn't the Illawarra Line also stop at those stations? What if a person who lived at St Peters travelled to/from Tempe for work and has to therefore change trains at Sydenham?

Should all the trains on the Illawarra Line also stop at St Peters or Erskineville as well? Should they get a discount because they need to change trains at Sydenham to get to Tempe?

Skipping stops means in the morning, I have to leave home 5-8 mins early and in the evening and at night, I will be arriving home at least 15 mins late. I'm not happy at all. I'm in the Illawarra line.

Looks like the new timetable is only targeted towards people going to and coming from the City. Does that mean people like me who travel between inner suburbs need to suffer? My work and time is equally important as that of people working in the City.

Now when is the fare increase scheduled for so that I can pay more for the worsening service?

There is very little I don't support about the new timetable, and by and large I think it delivers a better service to more people than the current timetable does.  That doesn't mean there are no losers, but there are more winners.  The reason the system focuses more on travellers to the City is:
a) This is by a very large margin the vast majority of users.
b) The City is the primary hub, so even for most people doing cross town trips from one line to another, *they* also need good city services.

AFAIK, the major group of PAX disadvantaged  by the new Illawarra timetable are the 2000 or so peak hour passengers who board south of Hurstville and alight *at* Kogarah.  But this was clearly a load balancing decision to justify increasing the frequency of Hurstville Locals.

The fact is there are ~200 stations in the SydneyTrains zone, and another 100 or so interurban stations and all of these feed into just 5 City Railway tracks and one into Sydney Terminal.  It's a mathematical impossibility to provide both a frequent and fast service simultaneously, which is why we end up with the compromises we have.

Yeah, the city is the main destination but it's a much more captive market than Kogarah.  There's also a reduction in frequency and speed counter peak to Kogarah.  The other point the inconvenience of not serving Kogarah for those workers is many times the amount that those working in the city are convenienced by bypassing it.

Hmm.

Yeah, the city is the main destination but it's a much more captive market than Kogarah.  There's also a reduction in frequency and speed counter peak to Kogarah.  The other point the inconvenience of not serving Kogarah for those workers is many times the amount that those working in the city are convenienced by bypassing it.

Hmm.

I honestly wouldn't be all that surprised if later revisions introduce stops at Kogarah, but it does dilute the pure express/local model they're trying to move to. It's not perfect, but the only real alternative is the overlapping-semi-fast model used up till this rewrite. I've managed to make that model work with 20tph all into the ESR, but this is a lot simpler and easier to follow.

We shall see how the Kogarah issue goes. Citybound, everyone wins. Shire to Kogarah, we shall see.

I don't expect stops at Kogarah to be added.  I say what they're really trying to do is get people ready for the Metrification of the all stops service to Hurstville.

Has the new timetable held up well?

I believe since Monday, there hasn't been a single day without an incident that lead to a recognised delay (I mean recognised as in on the Sydney Trains website). However, most of those were related to mechanical issues and it seems overall the new timetable has held up well.

Been great out Campbelltown way for congestion. Both morning and evening peaks are noticeably less squishy. Certainly the trip feels faster, even if it really isn't. The big long haul from Holsworthy to Wolli Creek or Revesby to Sydenham makes the perception of a much shorter trip - particularly when you don't have both upper and lower decks crammed with people. Even on the way home at 6pm there's even free seats now at Central where the old timetable you were still packed to the rafters because of the less frequent trains.