Parramatta-Epping rail link & Carlingford line options

 
  mboi84 Junior Train Controller

Location: Sydney
I have tried to find anything about this, but can't seem to (if there is a thread already in existence then I apologise and feel free to delete) but I wanted to know if the signed Parramatta-Epping-Chatwood link would be built or has it been *officially* mothballed purely for the reason of the NWRL?

If it has been mothballed, I have wondered what the options would have been for the Carlingford Line in the future, given it is mainly all a single track??

One suggestion I have had is for the Carlingford Line to be converted to a light rail system that would go to Parramatta and on to Olympic Park (instead of terminating at Clyde currently) but I think there could be an option for the Carlingford line to be extended to Olympic Park and back via Lidcombe.

But what are you thoughts

Sponsored advertisement

  s3_gunzel Not a gunzel developer

Location: Western Sydney, AU
Ideally, I would like to see a direct link between Olympic Park and Carlingford. It is doable, but it will be difficult to achieve with pathing etc.
  mboi84 Junior Train Controller

Location: Sydney
Ideally, I would like to see a direct link between Olympic Park and Carlingford. It is doable, but it will be difficult to achieve with pathing etc.
s3_gunzel
I think Pathing wouldn't be hard, maybe a tunnel or two but I think it can be done. Would give greater access to Olympic Park and hopefully double the Carlingford line services
  Watson374 Chief Commissioner

Location: Fully reclined at the pointy end.
I think Pathing wouldn't be hard, maybe a tunnel or two but I think it can be done. Would give greater access to Olympic Park and hopefully double the Carlingford line services
"mboi84"
I believe s3_gunzel was referring to pathing issues assuming no additional infrastructure.

'Path' (or 'slot', as I prefer) isn't the same thing as 'corridor'.
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

I have tried to find anything about this, but can't seem to (if there is a thread already in existence then I apologise and feel free to delete) but I wanted to know if the signed Parramatta-Epping-Chatwood link would be built or has it been *officially* mothballed purely for the reason of the NWRL?

If it has been mothballed, I have wondered what the options would have been for the Carlingford Line in the future, given it is mainly all a single track??

One suggestion I have had is for the Carlingford Line to be converted to a light rail system that would go to Parramatta and on to Olympic Park (instead of terminating at Clyde currently) but I think there could be an option for the Carlingford line to be extended to Olympic Park and back via Lidcombe.

But what are you thoughts
mboi84

At the time Costa canned phase 2 of the project there was a paper put out which canvassed alternatives the options including LRT, busway and terminating at Granville.  Can't find it now, but I'll see what I can do.

It's touched on here: http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/assessingdev/pdf/consents02/pr1_prl.pdf but not in any great depth.
  mboi84 Junior Train Controller

Location: Sydney
I believe s3_gunzel was referring to pathing issues assuming no additional infrastructure.

'Path' (or 'slot', as I prefer) isn't the same thing as 'corridor'.
Watson374
Sorry my bad. Just hard to get the analogies right half the time.
  mboi84 Junior Train Controller

Location: Sydney
At the time Costa canned phase 2 of the project there was a paper put out which canvassed alternatives the options including LRT, busway and terminating at Granville.  Can't find it now, but I'll see what I can do.

It's touched on here: http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/assessingdev/pdf/consents02/pr1_prl.pdf but not in any great depth.
djf01
Yeah but Costa canned it because he wanted the treasury job at the time and wanted to appease and appeal to the minions and premier at the time.

Still given the present day, the Carlingford line is not accessible to all, being Clyde is considered partially but accessible as per the CityRail website here - http://www.cityrail.info/stations/station_details.htm

It does have stair/chair lift but they are quite dangerous (in fact I know staff have advised me they rather not operate them purely on the fact they continually breakdown and really need to be replaced but it all comes down to $$$$$) and the chair lift can only be operated when a staff member is manning the station. Guards are not permitted to operate the chairlift so basically your stuffed.

Really I think they need to look at maybe even considering making the Carlingford line a loop between carlingford-clyde-lidcombe-olympic park-carlingford. Would make some sense at least.
  Raichase Captain Rant!

Location: Sydney, NSW
I recall reading on these forums that the PERL would not be built until after the NWRL. That's assuming it will ever be built at all, which I doubt.
  viaprojects Chief Train Controller

I recall reading on these forums that the PERL would not be built until after the NWRL. That's assuming it will ever be built at all, which I doubt.
Raichase
+1

but a new race is on the cards. http://www.parracity.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/122278/Western_Sydney_Light_Rail_Overview.pdf
  victorwilson Junior Train Controller

Location: Temporarily stuck in the ACT
From what I recall, the PRL was originally dumped in 2003 because of NSW Labor's patronage estimates. Patronage estimates are estimates, and they can also be grossly incorrect. If you travel to Carlingford today (and similarly Telopea), you will see cranes, scaffolding and construction sites all around the block bordered by Cumberland Hwy, Moseley St and Jenkins Rd (pretty much around the station). In a few months' (or years?) time, hundreds of people will move into the new apartments, but if nothing is done to the rail line, the transport options in the suburb would hardly improve. With the hourly 546 service to Epping/Parramatta and the 15min frequency of the M54 to Parramatta/Macquarie during the peaks, it would barely be enough to service the rapidly growing suburb.

Furthermore, I would have to agree that the service is currently sufficient for those who choose to use it. However, I notice that neighbouring suburbs such as Eastwood, Epping and Beecroft are straining to cope with the increasing patronage from customers who drive from areas such as Carlingford, Telopea and Dundas to catch the Northern Line train. The lack of a carpark at the M2 busway at Oakes Rd, Carlingford North, also deters commuters from using CDC bus services from the Hills.

A possible option (I'm not an expert or anything) would be to run the Carlingford train through to Central (i) hourly, and to Olympic Park every hour in a staggered time format, on the main lines between Clyde, Lidcombe and Central. This can be done with no requirement for any new infrastructure, as a half hourly service on the Carlingford Line is currently achieved in the morning peak. However, it would possibly be difficult to find enough "slots" to fit these additional services in, but with the October timetable apparently "rewritten from scratch", it would hopefully be possible.
  mandonov Station Staff

I think Parramatta Councils choice not to use the Carlingford Line in its light rail proposal is smart. It allows for future expansion of the line complemented by light rail.
  Watson374 Chief Commissioner

Location: Fully reclined at the pointy end.
I'm thinking that a car park for M2 express bus connections as well as improved local bus services are a more cost-effective option.

Hopefully, the new timetable will see frequency on the lower Northern increased significantly; if so, local buses and car parks feeding existing stations should be a viable short-term solution.
  arctic Deputy Commissioner

Location: Zurich
At the time Costa canned phase 2 of the project there was a paper put out which canvassed alternatives the options including LRT, busway and terminating at Granville.  Can't find it now, but I'll see what I can do.

It's touched on here: http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/assessingdev/pdf/consents02/pr1_prl.pdf but not in any great depth.
djf01
http://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/file/prl/PRL-West-Report.pdf
  Rails Chief Commissioner

I know there is a general dislike of Single Deck trains (SD) on here but I think the North West Rail Link (NWRL) as SD line actually makes the Parramatta to Epping Rail Link (PERL) a more usable link. While I dont believe it to be a higher priority than the NWRL (either does the NSW Government, Infrastructure NSW or Infrastructure Australia) I think depending on how the network is configured and the growth in Macquarie Park it may be needed eventually.

The PERL as proposed by the previous Labor state Government and current Federal Labor Government differed to the original 2003 link by starting at under ground platforms at Parramatta that faced North South and had trains start and terminate on these platforms rather than join the main western line. It would run through a duplicated Carlingford line then on to the Epping to Chatswood Rail Link (ECRL) and a new quad line from Chatswood to St Leonards where it terminated. There was to be a 15 minute service (4 tph) using standard Double Deck (DD) Cityrail rolling stock leaving 10 tph for the DD NWRL and 4 tph DD for the upper Northern line. I believe the idea was that the Parramatta platforms would eventually be extended further south with the idea of giving Northern suburbs employment centre access to the the SW catchment without them having to travel through the CBD. All good long term planning really.

The downside of this was that western line passengers would have to change trains at Parramatta to use this line, not great with a 15 minute service and not worth it for accessing the lower North Shore, especially when you need to change again at St Leonards for North Sydney. You would be much better off staying on your original train as it too heads to the same North Shore centres of North Sydney, St Leonards and Chatswood. The Carlingford line is not a fast alignment, especially for big DD trains and I think from memory the Main western line was much faster to North Sydney, about the same to St Leonards but the PERL was quicker to Chatswood. All assuming clean connections. However access to Macquarie Uni, Macquarie Park and North Ryde would be much improved with the PERL.

Now with the planned SD NWRL, you can still run the same infrastructure but you can run 10 tph in SD form along with 20 tph for the NWRL to make the much promoted 30 tph (which is too low IMO - should be 35 to 40 tph). So a train every few minutes. Much better for when you want people to change trains and the SD trains should be quicker through the twisty Carlingford alignment. Post Second Harbour Rail Crossing (SHRC) whether you have these 10 tph on the PERL terminate at St Leonards or continue on to the CBD and the lines on the southern end of the harbour is a different question. I would be tempted to still have them terminate at St Leonards and use the capacity at North Sydney for a future line to Mosman but that is fantasy on my end. Still, a good solution and may be enough to tempt passengers from the main Western line.

Its worth mentioning that it seems the current Government have planned for the tunnels to support the PERL as part of the NWRL project and one can only assume that they are in SD format like the NWRL tunnels as it makes no sense otherwise! I have also read that when completing the ECRL the then Labor NSW Government were given a cheap option to complete the tunnels to Carlingford as the equipment was already there but (Costa I think?) said no, anyone aware if this is true?
  viaprojects Chief Train Controller


Its worth mentioning that it seems the current Government have planned for the tunnels to support the PERL as part of the NWRL project and one can only assume that they are in SD format like the NWRL tunnels as it makes no sense otherwise! I have also read that when completing the ECRL the then Labor NSW Government were given a cheap option to complete the tunnels to Carlingford as the equipment was already there but (Costa I think?) said no, anyone aware if this is true?
Rails
the PERL's  porthole's are DD format. and the tunnel's stoped due to no support service's/planning ready to do the tunnels to Carlingford. or the goverment pulled the plug.
  Rails Chief Commissioner

the PERL's  porthole's are DD format. and the tunnel's stoped due to no support service's/planning ready to do the tunnels to Carlingford. or the goverment pulled the plug.
viaprojects
I may be misunderstanding your post but arent they taking the existing stubs at Epping for the NWRL and building new stubs for the PERL?
  arctic Deputy Commissioner

Location: Zurich
the PERL's  porthole's are DD format. and the tunnel's stoped due to no support service's/planning ready to do the tunnels to Carlingford. or the goverment pulled the plug.
viaprojects
Latest reading I have done:
- The current stub tunnels originally for PERL will be used for the NWRL and while the existing tunnel stubs are DD loading gauge the new NWRL tunnel from there will be SD.
- Apparently new Stub tunnels will be built for the PERL. Unknown loading gauge but since they are connecting to (presumably) the new NWRL SD tunnel, they will be SD as well..
- The PRL was stopped by the government as already noted up thread.

cheers
  KymN Assistant Commissioner

Location: Sydney
I may be misunderstanding your post but arent they taking the existing stubs at Epping for the NWRL and building new stubs for the PERL?
"Rails"


At a local community meeting in Cheltenham regarding the NWRL last week it was claimed that the stubs for the PERL were no longer part of the plan.
  Rails Chief Commissioner

At a local community meeting in Cheltenham regarding the NWRL last week it was claimed that the stubs for the PERL were no longer part of the plan.
KymN
Interesting, I assume they did not elaborate on what they were doing instead? I assume "they" are TNSW?
  KymN Assistant Commissioner

Location: Sydney
Interesting, I assume they did not elaborate on what they were doing instead? I assume "they" are TNSW?
Rails
'They' was a concerned member of the public who claimed he had been told by a certain Mr Staples. The meeting was very angry about the prospect of a disconnected NWRL, small bore tunnels and all that goes with it.  Joe public is not silly - they can see that there are major problems with 'Sydney's Rail Future' and were vocal about the government's 'lies'.  But that is for another thread.
  Rails Chief Commissioner

'They' was a concerned member of the public who claimed he had been told by a certain Mr Staples. The meeting was very angry about the prospect of a disconnected NWRL, small bore tunnels and all that goes with it.  Joe public is not silly - they can see that there are major problems with 'Sydney's Rail Future' and were vocal about the government's 'lies'.  But that is for another thread.
KymN

Fair enough, although you would have to take that with a grain of salt I guess, I believe the current documentation still has them using the PERL stubs at this point but that may change, makes no big difference in the end. I have to laugh at the irony of the Cheltenham/ Beecroft locals being irate over this considering the part they played in the NWRL saga. In the end they are protecting their own patch (with the chance that they will no longer get direct connections to the CBD) but they are good at that. Still, everyone has the right to be heard.

I know you are knowledgeable on the subject and I am sure your thoughts would make interesting reading (maybe in the NWRL thread?). You would most likely have noticed my thoughts on the subject already Wink You will have a lot of support on this forum. Not that I think the Rail future plan is perfect, there are things I would do differently if it was up to me and I believe they would produce a much better result but I am just an "armchair expert".
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

'They' was a concerned member of the public who claimed he had been told by a certain Mr Staples. The meeting was very angry about the prospect of a disconnected NWRL, small bore tunnels and all that goes with it.  Joe public is not silly - they can see that there are major problems with 'Sydney's Rail Future' and were vocal about the government's 'lies'.  But that is for another thread.
KymN
... Please start one mr Concerned Citizen!
  awsgc24 Minister for Railways

Location: Sydney

If it has been mothballed, I have wondered what the options would have been for the Carlingford Line in the future, given it is mainly all a single track??

One suggestion I have had is for the Carlingford Line to be converted to a light rail system that would go to Parramatta and on to Olympic Park (instead of terminating at Clyde currently) but I think there could be an option for the Carlingford line to be extended to Olympic Park and back via Lidcombe.
mboi84

Conversion to Light rail would make a lot of sense, as it would allow street running through Parramatta and perhaps to Westmead (Hospital).

A few short crossing loops could divide the single line.

Clyde station, which is very close to Granville, and which has a much worse service, could then be closed.

A light rail connect to Rosehill racecourse could be retained for race days.

Is there any freight left on the Sandown line?
  jcouch Assistant Commissioner

Location: Asleep on a commuter train
We now have another 5 years to bash this thread around (not that we didn't expect it anyway given BoF's statements on the ERCL)

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/missing-link-pm-axes-2b-parramatta-plan-20130528-2n9nr.html

Interesting little things noted in there that North West Rail Link is now being termed North West Shuttle Line. Don't know if that's the journo or government speak there.
  awsgc24 Minister for Railways

Location: Sydney

Today's SMH says that Gillard has deferred/cancelled the the Parr-Epping link.

Sponsored advertisement

Display from:   

Quick Reply

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