DJF, I'm sure south coast passengers will be extremely happy with a tight seat pitch and somehow squeezing 400 passengers into 4 car single deck carriage. 200km/h is never going to happen on the Sydney network as most Sydney electric trains can only do 115km/h with some capable of 130km/h in service. The XPT doesn't do 160km/h anywhere in Sydney and so how are you going to run a 200km/h train just to get south coast passengers to Sydney 15 minutes faster.

I have just spent some time down the south coast this last week and a new alignment just isn't going to happen. Trains just can not make the steep climbs that cars can. I was driving up bulli pass and noticed how there is now a huge steel mesh fence to stop falling rocks. A bridge out in the tasman is a ridiculous idea and so unless the Illawarra line is duplicated to at least Sutherland then how are you going to be able overcome the capacity issues by running extra trains and run freight at the same time?

Where is the single deck trains coming into this?  The new order is for DD's, and the fixed seats are going to cause a lot of complaints, especially for those who have to travel more than 1 1/2 hours on them.

DJF, I'm sure south coast passengers will be extremely happy with a tight seat pitch and somehow squeezing 400 passengers into 4 car single deck carriage. 200km/h is never going to happen on the Sydney network as most Sydney electric trains can only do 115km/h with some capable of 130km/h in service. The XPT doesn't do 160km/h anywhere in Sydney and so how are you going to run a 200km/h train just to get south coast passengers to Sydney 15 minutes faster.

I have just spent some time down the south coast this last week and a new alignment just isn't going to happen. Trains just can not make the steep climbs that cars can. I was driving up bulli pass and noticed how there is now a huge steel mesh fence to stop falling rocks. A bridge out in the tasman is a ridiculous idea and so unless the Illawarra line is duplicated to at least Sutherland then how are you going to be able overcome the capacity issues by running extra trains and run freight at the same time?

Where is the single deck trains coming into this?  The new order is for DD's, and the fixed seats are going to cause a lot of complaints, especially for those who have to travel more than 1 1/2 hours on them.

When will they learn? Sounds like the influence of too many pommy management imports who aren't aware of the local commuter preferences.

DJF the OSCAR has 11 rows in a 20 metre carriage and so how are you getting 26 rows in a single deck 20 metre carriage? At best you are likely to only get 55-70 per carriage and not 105-125 that you have stated.

The hunter railcar would be similar to what you propose and it only handles 69-77 people per carriage in a 2+3 layout and a 25 metre carriage.

I don't have exact tech drawings of the OSCARS, but based on the NSWTrains fleet drawings the decks of the can OSCARs are 8.5m long, with 10 rows, and the motor units are 9.3m long for 11 rows.  It's a pitch of 850mm.  Most of the OSCAR & NIF car length is devoted to standing space, so they can operate through the City Railway and ESR.

The analogy I think is better are the Endeavours, but without the driver's cab, toilet or luggage.

The Pendolinos in Europe on regional/intercity services are typically fitted out for 350-550 PAX in a 7-9 car train.  But for short haul interurbans/outer-suburbans a 650-750 could be achieved with more generous spacing than and OSCAR or an NIF.

Those numbers I gave you are seating numbers. It ain't standing numbers. The control carriage has 10 rows but the motor carriage has 11 rows and all future intercity trains will be built like oscars and hunters because the wider doors and larger vestibules allows for a faster dwell time.

The endeavour is not better as an anaolgy because it has narrow doors and as the v sets have show that is not good enough any more for use on intercity services. The endeavour would be better suited to regional type services like the xplorer. You can forget about having lots lots of seats and small doors and vestibules on intercity services like the endeavour has.

I will agree the fixed seats are an issue but not so on capacity. The new intercity fleet will be capable of 10 and 12 car sets to overcome any supposed shortcoming in seating with the 2+2 layout.

The pendolino and single deck info is djf's theory and not official policy. thank goodness

Where is the single deck trains coming into this?

It came about because @sims asked the question/demanded an answer of my throwaway one liner about Pendolinos.

Taking this back to the original news item, it is my view, that a combination of:

• An improved alignment
• Overtaking facilities withing Sydney
• Vehicles with a higher top end speed
• Tilting vehicles (with perway upgrades to match)

... a South Coast service with a transit time of under 60 minutes is both practical and achievable within the budget suggested in the news article.


For this I've used the 1890 alignment, and the contemporary Pendolino series train specification as low bar reference for what is not only possible, but what has been reliably achieved here and elsewhere (despite @simstrain's endless claims that it's "not possible", "nothing can be done", "I know everything ... " etc)

There are several unknowns, for which the required information is either not public, or requires significant research by appropriately qualified experts, not the collective wisdom of an RTBU meeting, or Railpage for that matter.

These issues include:

• The feasibility of tunnelling in the area around the Metropolitan and defunct Coal Cliff collieries.
• The cost of level crossing removal at Woonona, Corrimal, Ununderra, Dapto and Albion Park
• The likely impact on patronage

The need to address the blatant shortcomings of this route is just so obvious, but the pushback from "experts" like @simstrain (who is unfortunately all too representative of the attitude of those charged with sustaining our railways) results in proposals like the ocean viaduct being made seriously in the NSW State Parliament.

Where is the single deck trains coming into this?

It came about because @sims asked the question/demanded an answer of my throwaway one liner about Pendolinos.

Taking this back to the original news item, it is my view, that a combination of:

• An improved alignment
• Overtaking facilities withing Sydney
• Vehicles with a higher top end speed
• Tilting vehicles (with perway upgrades to match)

... a South Coast service with a transit time of under 60 minutes is both practical and achievable within the budget suggested in the news article.


For this I've used the 1890 alignment, and the contemporary Pendolino series train specification as low bar reference for what is not only possible, but what has been reliably achieved here and elsewhere (despite @simstrain's endless claims that it's "not possible", "nothing can be done", "I know everything ... " etc)

There are several unknowns, for which the required information is either not public, or requires significant research by appropriately qualified experts, not the collective wisdom of an RTBU meeting, or Railpage for that matter.

These issues include:

• The feasibility of tunnelling in the area around the Metropolitan and defunct Coal Cliff collieries.
• The cost of level crossing removal at Woonona, Corrimal, Ununderra, Dapto and Albion Park
• The likely impact on patronage

The need to address the blatant shortcomings of this route is just so obvious, but the pushback from "experts" like @simstrain (who is unfortunately all too representative of the attitude of those charged with sustaining our railways) results in proposals like the ocean viaduct being made seriously in the NSW State Parliament.

Fair enough, thing is that these new youboot interurban type trains being ordered are single decks, in all honesty I cannot see any advantage in reverting back to single deck trains on commuter type services, such as we are looking at here.

If the wires are extended to Bomaderry its going to increase the numbers more but tunnel costs down there will be added to just the overhead prices.  The aspect of the brainless TM in going back to the Tangarra sets with their fixed seats is abject arrogant dumbness.

There are enough spots on the line between Otford and Waterfall where tunnels could be avoided but requiring some bridges (cheaper than tunnels) also a lot of rock removal for cuttings to make a fairly straight line all the way, even if it was at a constant 1:40 grade, the speed factor would be bettered owing to the ability of the modern trains to go up those grades at a faster speed.  Even goods trains, unless loaded off the coast with the modern power would not be as bad as the old days of slogging uphill at the wonderful speed of 8mph for branchliners and around 18 for mainliners.

If Metrop is still working as a mine, then that mine could be a branch line from the tunnel end is at the moment, with a straighter alignment that tunnel could be removed as well.

Certainly the removal of the level crossings would benefit the WGG services, thing is that how many of the Sydney trains would be stopping at those intermediate stations during the peak hours?  Those stations could be served by an early all stations service stopping through to Thirroul and Sydney passengers catch the following fast train, the slow one can go into the up yard area and follow the fast train.  That happens on the Central coast with all stations trains to and from Wyong preceding the faster City trains with passengers changing there.  On the down there are trains that terminate at Gosford and passengers catch a following service.

So what would a freight train traverse faster. A straighter line on 1 in 40 or a longer curved route on 1 in 80?

So what would a freight train traverse faster. A straighter line on 1 in 40 or a longer curved route on 1 in 80?

As I mentioned, fully loaded!  On that score a fully loaded train for the loco's on a 1:40 would be less than on a 1:80, the most modern diesels I worked on were the 81cl and while they had a greater capacity than the older diesels they also felt the pinch when hauling fully loaded trains for the grades, eg at Ardglen they needed bankers to assist over the range, on the down even empty wheat trains dragged them back on the curves.

Therein can be a problem for Illawarra up Trains if fully loaded and on curved track, they would be slower owing to the drag component of the longer train than on a straight 1:40 track

Could rack rail/cog wheels be a solution for getting trains up through a new steep tunnel pass to Bulli tops? The train can then run along the motorway to Waterfall.

The escarpment is a unique problem, why not apply Swiss ingenuity to solve the problem?

I haven't been smoking anything... Could Gladys cancel the Korean toy trains and order from the Swiss?

Could rack rail/cog wheels be a solution for getting trains up through a new steep tunnel pass to Bulli tops?

None of those systems is suitable for 'high speed' operation, I don't think any run over 20-30km/hr or so top speed.
Rack systems a niche only in extreme locations.

Just need a longer tunnel. One has already been designed - it was just so long that diesel operation wouldn't have been possible to run diesel locomotives through it and several upper Wollongong stations would lose their stations.

Labor has been repeating their $2.4b plan to pour funds into South Coast rail at the expense of the F6 extension this past week in Wollongong tv and print media without going into any detail.

Can anyone quantify what $2.4b can do in this specific corridor? Any armchair engineers and accountants here?

If it is going to cost $25b to tunnel a Metro line from Parramatta to Sydney, what is $2.4b going to do?

It could mean that pax do not need to bring their own fold out chairs into the four car Oscar trains any more.

Any armchair engineers and accountants here?

Sounds like me.  In (appropriately enough) Armchair Operators, but have been meaning to update it: https://www.railpage.com.au/f-p2071515.htm#2071515

I thought this pdf file link might be interesting to people on this thread.



To RTT in particular go to page 15 and read section 4.1 and particular this little bit of info "The original line was built to 1:40 gradients in this area but still at restrictive curvature, so there would be no benefit in reverting to it."

I thought this pdf file link might be interesting to people on this thread.

Yes, of great interest, thank you.

"The original line was built to 1:40 gradients in this area but still at restrictive curvature, so there would be no benefit in reverting to it."

other than it being 7km shorter (something they clearly didn't consider).

The new intercity fleet will be capable of 10 and 12 car sets to overcome any supposed shortcoming in seating with the 2+2 layout.

Not all platforms at Sydney Terminal fit 10 and 12 cars trains, especially 11-15.
Extending platforms at Intercity stops like Wolli Creek, Hurstville, Sutherland and Waterfall, etc., will also  be a problem.

At least the removal of the carriage sheds at Sydney allows P11-15 to be remodelled.

The new intercity fleet will be capable of 10 and 12 car sets to overcome any supposed shortcoming in seating with the 2+2 layout.

Not all platforms at Sydney Terminal fit 10 and 12 cars trains, especially 11-15.
Extending platforms at Intercity stops like Wolli Creek, Hurstville, Sutherland and Waterfall, etc., will also  be a problem.

At least the removal of the carriage sheds at Sydney allows P11-15 to be remodelled.

I don't think that there is any intention to run 12 car NIF sets, but certainly up to 10 cars, which are nominally the same length as 8 car V-sets.  All Central terminating platforms (1-15) can accommodate 8 car V-sets.  Of course platforms 13-15 are currently closed to allow construction of the metro platforms below and will be reinstated with only 2 platforms on the surface, presumably 13 and 14, which no doubt will still allow for 10 car NIFs.  I wonder if they will renumber the Central suburban platforms?

The new intercity fleet will be capable of 10 and 12 car sets to overcome any supposed shortcoming in seating with the 2+2 layout.

Not all platforms at Sydney Terminal fit 10 and 12 cars trains, especially 11-15.
Extending platforms at Intercity stops like Wolli Creek, Hurstville, Sutherland and Waterfall, etc., will also  be a problem.

At least the removal of the carriage sheds at Sydney allows P11-15 to be remodelled.

Platforms 13, 14 and 15 at Central are gone due to metro and central walk construction and if the platform can fit an 8 car V then it can pretty much handle a 10 car NIF (new intercity fleet).

The new intercity fleet will be capable of 10 and 12 car sets to overcome any supposed shortcoming in seating with the 2+2 layout.

I don't think that there is any intention to run 12 car NIF sets, but certainly up to 10 cars, which are nominally the same length as 8 car V-sets.  All Central terminating platforms (1-15) can accommodate 8 car V-sets.  Of course platforms 13-15 are currently closed to allow construction of the metro platforms below and will be reinstated with only 2 platforms on the surface, presumably 13 and 14, which no doubt will still allow for 10 car NIFs.  I wonder if they will renumber the Central suburban platforms?

We're still waiting for Wynyard platforms 1 and 2, which have been AWOL now for over 60 years.  So doubt whether they'll do a renumbering of Central platforms.