And work that is probably no more necessary that altering the track gauge. From what I've read, and personal experience with travelling on the Sydney suburban, it seems like an excellent systems, that is either world class or could at least be made world class with some simple improvements to existing network, such as two additional tracks across the Harbour and higher capacity signalling.

The biggest issue I have with the smaller loading gauge is simply that it creates extra work to retro fit existing lines to metro standard in the future.

Its got nothing to do with the loading gauge, although there maybe minor changes to platform edge I don't know. Its the signally and platform door systems that time to remove, replace, test etc and of course the disconnection from from access route to another to the city.

The conversion will only ever be limited to a few practical locations. ECRL and Bankstown and maybe, maybe Hurtsville. Unlikely to go beyond this and few have proposed to do so. And the reasons those lines were nominated was to mange existing problems that are costly and complex to overcome.

And work that is probably no more necessary that altering the track gauge. From what I've read, and personal experience with travelling on the Sydney suburban, it seems like an excellent systems, that is either world class or could at least be made world class with some simple improvements to existing network, such as two additional tracks across the Harbour and higher capacity signalling.

And this is the problem, you don't understand the problem nor the costs involved in resolving it.

Sydney Trains is a good system, its not world class. When you travel on one then you will know. I spent 8 years commuting on Cityrail (and use it once every 18mths or so), a bit has changed since then, but not that much from a user point of view.
- Compared to other networks of similar technology it is costly to operate and has a very high subsidy
- Struggles to manage with high capacity timetabling unless other networks
- Still a bit tangled
- Mixes too much express and local traffic significantly depreciating line capacity and still has numerous bottle necks and not just the harbour
- Capacity in numerous sections of the network is near maxed out and fixing one problem doesn't quickly gain much in other areas without more spending.
- its also a legacy network mostly based on the surface and the future is underground

Yes the network has been starved of cash for too long, but cash alone won't resolve the problems as the problems are costly and complex and to try and do it with cash alone will cost billions more. Like many networks around the world in numerous industries, sometimes you need a clean slate. Boeing did it with the B787, Vancouver, Paris, Singapore, London the list goes have done it with suburban/commuter rail.

The current mob are about building a more cost effective solution to move people into the city and connecting existing lines than doing so with expanding the current technology.

The conversion will only ever be limited to a few practical locations. ECRL and Bankstown and maybe, maybe Hurtsville. Unlikely to go beyond this and few have proposed to do so. And the reasons those lines were nominated was to mange existing problems that are costly and complex to overcome.

And it would simply be unneccessary if the North West rail link were either not under construction, or being built according to the original plans.

Sydney Trains is a good system, its not world class. When you travel on one then you will know. I spent 8 years commuting on Cityrail (and use it once every 18mths or so), a bit has changed since then, but not that much from a user point of view.
- Compared to other networks of similar technology it is costly to operate and has a very high subsidy
- Struggles to manage with high capacity timetabling unless other networks
- Still a bit tangled
- Mixes too much express and local traffic significantly depreciating line capacity and still has numerous bottle necks and not just the harbour
- Capacity in numerous sections of the network is near maxed out and fixing one problem doesn't quickly gain much in other areas without more spending.
- its also a legacy network mostly based on the surface and the future is underground

I didn't say it was definitely world class, but there are some simple fixes that could make it world class without moving to a new technology, let alone a reversal of the actual trend in cities like London, Paris and Berlin.
- How much did it cost and how high was its subsidy when it used to turn a profit? If those costs have increased, what are the factors?
- Higher capacity signalling would help, fixing a few bottleneck and there would be less of that mixing.
- Indeed a bit tangled, take a look a solutions that rail planners who do live in Sydney might put forward.
- From my personal experience there, there is plenty of quadruple track and maybe some sections with more tracks.
- Dr. Bradfield did plan more lines than built so far, and maybe there is still room for some more, consider the Chatswoond to Paramatta rail link.
- And the metros in London, Paris and Berlin are also legacy networks, with smaller tunnel sizes. The newer suburban rail networks in these cities most certainly have either the same or bigger loading gauges. Yes Paris may have one new metro line that doesn't share tracks with any other, but it's still one more addition to an existing network, even with its own depot.
London underground has some stations on curves which requires minding the gap at those stations, and this list shows ten lines dating from before the first world war, and only one dating from as late as 1979, while the overground which began only in 2007 has seven routes.

Yes the network has been starved of cash for too long, but cash alone won't resolve the problems as the problems are costly and complex and to try and do it with cash alone will cost billions more. Like many networks around the world in numerous industries, sometimes you need a clean slate. Boeing did it with the B787, Vancouver, Paris, Singapore, London the list goes have done it with suburban/commuter rail.

Now you're mixing one example of an aircraft, I don't know about it and please explain it, with four examples of cities with either metro or metro and suburban/commuter rail. One has no suburban rail and something three metro lines not interoperable with one another, one has a single unelectrified non-metro railways, and the skytrain, with the Canada line being uninteroperable with the rest. The other two had the metro established well before suburban rail.

Aircraft are probably a bad analogy given that they aren't associated to fixed infrastructure and are, yes manually steered, not physically guided. The autopilot myth is debunked here.

The current mob are about building a more cost effective solution to move people into the city and connecting existing lines than doing so with expanding the current technology.

I can see more and more evidence the the decision to build a metro style Nortwest rail link is an attempt to encourage privatisation of the Sydney rail network. Sandy Thomas, a consultant who does seem to live in Sydney, says that infighting led to the NWRL, originally to be an extension of the existing network, being changed to a privatised metro style operation. The EcoTransit team, who also lives there, also critisises the decision.

I didn't say it was definitely world class, but there are some simple fixes that could make it world class without moving to a new technology, let alone a reversal of the actual trend in cities like London, Paris and Berlin. - How much did it cost and how high was its subsidy when it used to turn a profit? If those costs have increased, what are the factors

You just contradicted yourself, London and Paris have expanded new technology automated systems. Line 14, Line 1 conversion, Docklands.

As for Berlin, I don't have much experience with it, but
Berlin's chronic financial problems make any expansion not mandated by the Hauptstadtvertrag—the document that regulates the necessary changes to the city as the capital of Germany—unlikely. (source Wiki)
Nuff said

When was the last time Sydney Urban rail system ran at a profit, no idea. Maybe look back to WW2 and into the 50's at best however it will be hard to find if tangled up in NSWGR. Consider that the Melbourne tram system last made a profit (and define profit) in 1970, its unlikely the system would have been profitable after this time.

"how high was its subsidy when it used to turn a profit?"
I could be wrong and often am, but I believe this is a contradiction or maybe even Oxymoron. Waiting for the English language police to correct me.

- Higher capacity signalling would help, fixing a few bottleneck and there would be less of that mixing.
- Indeed a bit tangled, take a look a solutions that rail planners who do live in Sydney might put forward.
- From my personal experience there, there is plenty of quadruple track and maybe some sections with more tracks.
- Dr. Bradfield did plan more lines than built so far, and maybe there is still room for some more, consider the Chatswoond to Paramatta rail link.
- And the metros in London, Paris and Berlin are also legacy networks, with smaller tunnel sizes. The newer suburban rail networks in these cities most certainly have either the same or bigger loading gauges. Yes Paris may have one new metro line that doesn't share tracks with any other, but it's still one more addition to an existing network, even with its own depot.
London underground has some stations on curves which requires minding the gap at those stations, and [color=#0066cc][size=2][font=Roboto, wf_SegoeUI, 'Segoe UI', Segoe, 'Segoe WP', Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]this list[/font][/size][/color] shows ten lines dating from before the first world war, and only one dating from as late as 1979, while the overground which began only in 2007 has [color=#0066cc][size=2][font=Roboto, wf_SegoeUI, 'Segoe UI', Segoe, 'Segoe WP', Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]seven routes[/font][/size][/color].

Look up what those bottle necks are and you may actually start to understand. There are 6 tracks between Homebush and Redfern, but its still a bottle neck. Normally this should give you 60 trains per hour in one direction, but its barely 40, with most trains exceeding 120% loading capacity.

The Western Local has a capacity of 12 trains per hour due to mix of local and express. Meanwhile the Western Main is near/at capacity and crowded.

The bottle necks are easily identified if you start looking at the various timetables, understanding the existing infrastructure and looking at the loading factors. Bankstown is 8 trains per hour, but pushing 150% loading capacity in the hour before 9am at Central. Meanwhile the number of trains from South line slightly exceeds what is needed on the ESR and growth on the south line will exceed the ESR meaning in the future it could be worse unless the ESR is extended into new markets.

Dr Bradfield planned alot of things, some of which is still relevant, some not so. Its important not to just look at his plan as a plan forward. Its no longer about just building new lines, which he planed to all go through mostly the existing CBD system, but also the bottlenecks of the current system. Remember when he was building it the average line train frequency was less than today and many lines were still single track.

No, for the underground networks (pls remain focused on the context of that word) most of the new lines on those networks are the same. Only the London Tube with its painfully small tunnels have things really moved on. In these and other cities new lines have been built that are not compatible in other ways. And before you respond, NO with 13% of the route km in tunnels, the RER is not a underground network.

Basically, do you know how many $Billion it will take to upgrade Sydney trains and fix the bottle necks as well as expand to solve other issues of the growing city. The cheap patchwork fix ups are not working getting the longterm results anymore, its become like a road network, a patch here causes a problem elsewhere. The ECRL was mostly a patch to get some extra capacity on the western main which is now gone again.

The B787 analogy is like this.
The modern A330 is basically built on a A300 design from 30 years ago and as such carried many legacies of the A300 design from an era when planes were designed on paper.
In Boeing, they had similar issues. The B767 (which the B787 mostly replaced) had links planes designed by Boeing from 50's to 60's.
In both above cases, they use old plane technology with lots of patch up added along the way to improve fuel inefficiencies. My Uni lecturer used to refer to the Fighter F4 phatom as an example of a nice jet. but it was nice because it have every trick in the book to modernise it. Look at most of the planes at the airport, one thing in common, winglets! Saves fuel. Why doesn't the B787 or B777 have them, because the wings were designed in recent times, unlike B737, A320, A330 etc etc. ie patch jobs. The others have no legacy issues as been clean sheet designs.

Sometimes you need to just start from scratch and don't let hang-ups from the past hold you back. (we are doing something similar at work in aluminium production).

Negative Legacies in Sydney trains
- Limited to 2 doors
- Manual driven
- Signal system
- Numerous tightly curved platforms
- Limited to 20m cars
- 1500VDC overhead which with every new generation of train seems to cause problems
- Express line sharing local
- Train length of 160m
- Mostly Manual control network
- Guards compartments mid train
- Construction requirement to move 19% more material than Metro system
- Specialized custom built rollingstock
Remember the system was designed to enable freight trains and steam engines to run on almost anywhere and still contains these functionality although rarely if ever used.

The Metro will incur some of these legacies, such as train length and I believe 20m cars. However the lighter Metro trains will not have issue with the 1500VDC supply and the platforms that the new system takes from Sydney trains are straight, mostly straight or low fixable, thus enabling 3 doors.

Being Auto control by computer on a much similar system, the trains don't need drivers or guards. Thus you have just pulled out at least $150/hr in running costs per train and Trains are now more off the shelf technology.

.........................

As I said before, the people/hr track capacity of the Metro is not lower, the trains are more frequent, the construction cost is lower, the operating cost is lower, the system is expected to have a higher reliability and probably safer and to top it off, you can see out the front and back of the trains in Sydney for the first time ever. I do not see how this is bad!

Is it privatisation? Hardly. Privatisation won't work, the system is dependent on the taxpayer for 1/3 its budget. Private operation is hardly uncommon and shouldn't be seen as a big deal/roadblock.

Some money will have to be thrown at Sydney trains to overcome the ECRL loss. I'm not sure what the prediction is for the movement from the Western Main to the NWRL, maybe a little bit. The PERL should be built to help ASAP, this could be an easy branch off the NWRL, however some questionable people are leaning towards a slow Light rail which will do zip to provide faster access from Paramatta to Epping.

I also suspect that once the City Metro is done, the next leg will be an U/G Inner west to enable the locals to be reduced or eliminated and thus provide more capacity for more express services from the west. The Hurtsville Metro option would help Off-peak I suspect more than peak as peak services from south of Hurtsville all run express to city anyway. The southern line needs four tracks south of Hurtsville first to enable the expresses to pass and thus more than the current 16 (I think) trains per hour. After Hurtsville 2 tracks is ok as all trains would run the same stopping pattern. The other issue in building the Hurtsville Metro now is that it would leave the ESR with barely enough trains to service the line.

Don't argue with Myrtone, you can throw all of the fact that you like towards him, he just seems to be focussed on his own opinions and will never be proven wrong, despite all of the facts that contradict his argument

Dave

You just contradicted yourself, London and Paris have expanded new technology automated systems. Line 14, Line 1 conversion, Docklands.

I did not, the Docklands light railway, while segregated is not heavy rail. Paris added only one new metro line with a new technology and has so far converted one existing metro line to that new technology, only to signalling, not infrastructure, all in the same timeframe as five RER lines were built. And London built a seven route overground network more recently than even the DLR.

When was the last time Sydney Urban rail system ran at a profit, no idea. Maybe look back to WW2 and into the 50's at best however it will be hard to find if tangled up in NSWGR. Consider that the Melbourne tram system last made a profit (and define profit) in 1970, its unlikely the system would have been profitable after this time.

And population using trains declined alot from the 50s onwards.

"how high was its subsidy when it used to turn a profit?"
I could be wrong and often am, but I believe this is a contradiction or maybe even Oxymoron. Waiting for the English language police to correct me.

No it's not, surley service can both turn a profit and be subsidised, the meanings aren't opposite. Subisides are government funds the operator receives.

Look up what those bottle necks are and you may actually start to understand. There are 6 tracks between Homebush and Redfern, but its still a bottle neck. Normally this should give you 60 trains per hour in one direction, but its barely 40, with most trains exceeding 120% loading capacity.

The Western Local has a capacity of 12 trains per hour due to mix of local and express. Meanwhile the Western Main is near/at capacity and crowded.

The bottle necks are easily identified if you start looking at the various timetables, understanding the existing infrastructure and looking at the loading factors. Bankstown is 8 trains per hour, but pushing 150% loading capacity in the hour before 9am at Central. Meanwhile the number of trains from South line slightly exceeds what is needed on the ESR and growth on the south line will exceed the ESR meaning in the future it could be worse unless the ESR is extended into new markets.

I didn't realise there were more bottlenecks that across the Harbour bridge. So there is a six track section with less than 40 trains an hour.

Dr Bradfield planned alot of things, some of which is still relevant, some not so. Its important not to just look at his plan as a plan forward. Its no longer about just building new lines, which he planed to all go through mostly the existing CBD system, but also the bottlenecks of the current system. Remember when he was building it the average line train frequency was less than today and many lines were still single track.

But he was nevertheless a far sighted rail planner, which is why much of it is still relevant.

No, for the underground networks (pls remain focused on the context of that word) most of the new lines on those networks are the same. Only the London Tube with its painfully small tunnels have things really moved on. In these and other cities new lines have been built that are not compatible in other ways. And before you respond, NO with 13% of the route km in tunnels, the RER is not a underground network.

I know someone already said that the RER has plenty of surface track. And the small tunnels and curved platforms are among the negative legacies of the London tube, they also seem to have inadequate tunnel ventilation, I've heard of people getting black soot in their noses from travelling on it.

Basically, do you know how many $Billion it will take to upgrade Sydney trains and fix the bottle necks as well as expand to solve other issues of the growing city. The cheap patchwork fix ups are not working getting the longterm results anymore, its become like a road network, a patch here causes a problem elsewhere. The ECRL was mostly a patch to get some extra capacity on the western main which is now gone again.

I don't know, but I have heard that the price estimates have been greatly overinflated in New South Wales. Compare the price to that of the Alice springs to Darwin railway.

The B787 analogy is like this.
The modern A330 is basically built on a A300 design from 30 years ago and as such carried many legacies of the A300 design from an era when planes were designed on paper.
In Boeing, they had similar issues. The B767 (which the B787 mostly replaced) had links planes designed by Boeing from 50's to 60's.
In both above cases, they use old plane technology with lots of patch up added along the way to improve fuel inefficiencies. My Uni lecturer used to refer to the Fighter F4 phatom as an example of a nice jet. but it was nice because it have every trick in the book to modernise it. Look at most of the planes at the airport, one thing in common, winglets! Saves fuel. Why doesn't the B787 or B777 have them, because the wings were designed in recent times, unlike B737, A320, A330 etc etc. ie patch jobs. The others have no legacy issues as been clean sheet designs.

Again, you are talking plane design, not rail infrastructure.

Sometimes you need to just start from scratch and don't let hang-ups from the past hold you back. (we are doing something similar at work in aluminium production).

It's surely possible to do that with train design without changing the infrastructre.

Negative Legacies in Sydney trains
- Limited to 2 doors
- Manual driven
- Signal system
- Numerous tightly curved platforms
- Limited to 20m cars
- 1500VDC overhead which with every new generation of train seems to cause problems
- Express line sharing local
- Train length of 160m
- Mostly Manual control network
- Guards compartments mid train
- Construction requirement to move 19% more material than Metro system
- Specialized custom built rollingstock
Remember the system was designed to enable freight trains and steam engines to run on almost anywhere and still contains these functionality although rarely if ever used.

The Metro will incur some of these legacies, such as train length and I believe 20m cars. However the lighter Metro trains will not have issue with the 1500VDC supply and the platforms that the new system takes from Sydney trains are straight, mostly straight or low fixable, thus enabling 3 doors.

Being Auto control by computer on a much similar system, the trains don't need drivers or guards. Thus you have just pulled out at least $150/hr in running costs per train and Trains are now more off the shelf technology.

Well okay, two doors per side of each carriage is the norm for double decker trains, and even today, most rail vehicles in the world are manually driven, just like bicycles, this includes all the world's trams, and most heavy rail, including suburban rail, the RER only has partial automation. Yes there may be tightly curved platforms, but surely not as tightly curved as those on the Tube in London.

1500 volts DC is definitely a legacy issue, the highest DC voltage used in railway electrification so far is 3kv. Though both do load all phases evenly and deliver constant power.

The metro will indeed inheret many legacies, and this post has much to say. Basically the large loading gauge, allowing for double decker trains, is also shared with the Paris RER among others is a productivity feature which makes these systems better than metro.

As I said before, the people/hr track capacity of the Metro is not lower, the trains are more frequent, the construction cost is lower, the operating cost is lower, the system is expected to have a higher reliability and probably safer and to top it off, you can see out the front and back of the trains in Sydney for the first time ever. I do not see how this is bad!

I know what you said, but surely high capacity signalling would increase the people per hour track capacity of the existing suburban rail network.

Is it privatisation? Hardly. Privatisation won't work, the system is dependent on the taxpayer for 1/3 its budget. Private operation is hardly uncommon and shouldn't be seen as a big deal/roadblock.

But the only other private operator they've had before is for the airport line.

@thadocta:
Yes, that's right Dave, don't argue with me, try to mentor me, and things may turn out better.

Wollstonecraft station on lower North Shore Line has 200m curve. Not sure on details of others, but as a kid and young adult in late 80's I traveled mostly on North Shore Line and North Main and know a few locations the guards had to walk from the train up to the main station building to try and see and clear the train and still cannot see the whole train or what happens as they walk back. Waitara, my old school station the guard can barely see the whole train, however the tunnel entrance to the station stairs come up next to the leading doors. Separate Ticket office also blocks the view for people coming up the stairs. So once he/she walks back they cannot see the kids run up and try and jump on the train.

War story,
Back in 1984-5 after school one afternoon at Waitara a DD train with auto doors (remember still had red rattlers and DD's without working doors back then). Train was cleared, kid ran up stairs and bounced off doors as they closed and fell down between the large gap between train and platform. The train guard can no longer see and as the doors had closed so he must be on the train to close doors and bell the driver and it had started to move. The station was still manned back then in PM and fortunately the station guard saw it and blew his nut off the whistle and that with 100 kids yelling got either got the driver's attention (the station guard is normally placed half way down first carriage due to position of ticket box at top of stairs (also blocking train guards view) or guards attention and train stopped.

Now being a curved convex platform, as the first door pulls away the gap between the train and platform gets wider until half way down the carriage and then gets closer again until the end of the car where the gap is not survivable. For the kid, fortunately despite being dragged a metre or two initially the train moved away from him and then stopped.

......

Back to new UG lines.
Docklands, Line 14, Canada Line and soon Evergreen Line, NE Singapore Line.... Just goes to show you when expanding underground networks, the whole strategy is different to surface network expansion and as such when doing so compliance with previous technology is only a minor factor. What matters most is capital cost (which is already going to be high due to being UG) and operational cost (which needs to be kept low to make it viable). Typically track gauge may remain the same and in some cases potentially loading gauge for rail vehicle delivery access and maintenance, but that's it.  

Everything else is cleansheet. Go to the suppliers and ask what they have to offer. For NWRL, Track gauge is standard and loading gauge is not an issue because the depo is on the surface, so they don't need access via Sydney Trains network. power supply is to remain 1500VDC assumed because of the connection with ECRL and Bankstown, saves having to replace with ground based 3rd rail. From cost point of view, 3rd rail or O/H is not alot of difference in capital costs.
.....

I couldn't quickly find the long term historical data, but yes I think the 50's is when things started to change as suburbs were being expanded and in many cases away from existing rail lines.

Your context refereed profit of the system and subsidy, not a 3rd party operator arrangement which has not occurred for the bulk of the legacy network. So hence its still a contradiction. Even if Sydney trains is underbudget for a year, the surplus is still not a profit.
.............

Bottlenecks
No now you learn a bit that there is alot more to the reasoning for a Metro than just some dude trying to stick his finger up to the public and union. As I have been trying to tell you for how many pages now, this is the start of more things to come for Sydney. More UG will follow if the costs and usage can demonstrate that it works, and not just running a train works. But from a cost point of view, the Metro technology can be rolled our faster, cheaper and more reliable than historically occurred in Sydney. ESR project debacle is a bad reference point, but one that still is often raised by the older population of govt F'ups in building costly over-budget complex underground rail projects. Remember even ECRL had plenty of issues and cost over runs, some govt influenced.
...................

RER DD has 3 doors, but car length is 24m, so they have the space, but the seating capacity is roughly same as Sydney DD, yet their cars are 20% longer which means they have a lowers seated ratio than Sydney. They get away with the 3 doors on tight curves using an approach that would not be permitted in be built in Australia now, such as low height platforms.

.................

As I pointed out before, forget any comparative references to the RER. Remember 13% UG for what is basically a large scale urban/rural network. Sydney NWRL and Metro is probably 85% UG. Compare apples with apples ie other UG systems.

The RER could build tunnels 3 decks high for all I care as its only short runs UG on what is very high density sections of the network only. The NWRL and city Metro is a predominately UG network. The expansion and capacity easiing of additional sections of the Sydney trains network will only be predominately underground. ie parrelleling the inner west, and potentially southern line and potentially new lines such as Nth beaches and inner NW line.
..............................

And finally (I don't think you responded to this before), before opposing, again what is it that the user is loosing by building the Metro technology?
- Potentially Faster construction
- Lower capital costs
- Lower Operating costs
- Faster services
- More frequent services
- A view out the front and back
- Safer system
- Less congestion elsewhere
- Less Congestion on lower Nth Shore and Bankstown line (probably more likely to get a seat)
- Same/similar max line capacity

Downside,
- Lower seating ratio, offset, connected to the existing network at Central, Nth Sydney, Chatswood, Epping and eventually also Richmond line. ie travelling time of less than 20min in any direction from one DD line to another.

- Trains from upper Nth Main currently go via Chatwood to city, this will return to previous operations and hence add to the congested western main. While 8 trains per hour will be removed from the tunnels to make room for 4 trains from Nth main, they still need to get from Straithfield to the city. I'm not sure how this is to be managed and have not looked into the current timetable enough to try and find out. We may see more Central Coast services run via the Nth Shore line replacing the former ECRL once the City Metro is open and Nth main run into the terminal or somehow connect. I'm guessing there will be slight changes to the sectorisation putting Western trains or Nth main into the city circle tunnels.

- And yes two sections of the existing network need to be reclaimed and some money spent on them to convert from existing network. But where in the NSW State Legislation does it state that a Sydney Trains line must be for all time only be operated by DD services? Infrastructure gets converted from one mode of use to another all the time.

...................

People are willing to share their knowledge, but if you show laziness then few will bother. Learn to type an acronym in google/wiki before  typing a reply here saying you won't bother to look it up, but what does it mean? I'm still doing it especially for the guys who post who work in the industry. Also listen to what other say, especially those who either work in the industry or have at least traveled far a wide. For example one of the anti NWRL comments posted in media are claims that Auto trains are not safe. The comments are being made as if this is the first line ever built this way when in fact its almost industry standard for new stand alone lines and especially UG lines. Some of your replies are not alot different.

Back to new UG lines.
Docklands, Line 14, Canada Line and soon Evergreen Line, NE Singapore Line.... Just goes to show you when expanding underground networks, the whole strategy is different to surface network expansion and as such when doing so compliance with previous technology is only a minor factor. What matters most is capital cost (which is already going to be high due to being UG) and operational cost (which needs to be kept low to make it viable). Typically track gauge may remain the same and in some cases potentially loading gauge for rail vehicle delivery access and maintenance, but that's it.

I don't think I've heard of the Evergreen line, where's that? Vancouver again? Docklands is light rail, Canada line and NE Singapore line are heavy rail, like line 14.

No now you learn a bit that there is alot more to the reasoning for a Metro than just some dude trying to stick his finger up to the public and union. As I have been trying to tell you for how many pages now, this is the start of more things to come for Sydney. More UG will follow if the costs and usage can demonstrate that it works, and not just running a train works. But from a cost point of view, the Metro technology can be rolled our faster, cheaper and more reliable than historically occurred in Sydney. ESR project debacle is a bad reference point, but one that still is often raised by the older population of govt F'ups in building costly over-budget complex underground rail projects. Remember even ECRL had plenty of issues and cost over runs, some govt influenced.

There is no reason for a newbuild metro in city that already has a well established, extensive, electrified suburban railway network, as far as I can see, there may be a reason to have added heavy suburban rail to a city that previously only had metro, but I don't think it works the other way.
Although you may find the metro-suburban divide in cities with a high mass transit standard, it's still a product of the history behind urban rail in those cities and heavy development before the railways came, and likely just tolerated, much like the unusual track gauge is in Toronto.

As I pointed out before, forget any comparative references to the RER. Remember 13% UG for what is basically a large scale urban/rural network. Sydney NWRL and Metro is probably 85% UG. Compare apples with apples ie other UG systems.

But currently, each state capital only has suburban rail which, especially in Sydney, is more like the RER than metro. A true apples to apples comparison is metro to metro, whether mostly underground or mostly elevated, and non-metro heavy rail to non-metro heavy rail.

The RER could build tunnels 3 decks high for all I care as its only short runs UG on what is very high density sections of the network only. The NWRL and city Metro is a predominately UG network. The expansion and capacity easiing of additional sections of the Sydney trains network will only be predominately underground. ie parrelleling the inner west, and potentially southern line and potentially new lines such as Nth beaches and inner NW line.

You don't get trains that tall anymore than trams and buses also that tall, whatever the loading gauge, likely for stability reasons.

And finally (I don't think you responded to this before), before opposing, again what is it that the user is loosing by building the Metro technology?
- Potentially Faster construction
- Lower capital costs
- Lower Operating costs
- Faster services
- More frequent services
- A view out the front and back
- Safer system
- Less congestion elsewhere
- Less Congestion on lower Nth Shore and Bankstown line (probably more likely to get a seat)
- Same/similar max line capacity

Downside,
- Lower seating ratio, offset, connected to the existing network at Central, Nth Sydney, Chatswood, Epping and eventually also Richmond line. ie travelling time of less than 20min in any direction from one DD line to another.

Either I responded to it or didn't know what to say or having anything to say. Faster construction is not an ongoing benefit. I'm not that into a view out each end, unless I want a carbide, this is not street transit. Expanding the existing network, along with high capacity signalling would reduce congestion without starting an unnecessary second network.

People are willing to share their knowledge, but if you show laziness then few will bother. Learn to type an acronym in google/wiki before  typing a reply here saying you won't bother to look it up, but what does it mean?

I'm not requiring you to do anything here, but if I ask what it means, and remember that you, as far as I can recall, are using more acronyms than anyone else here, you should not stop others from answering my question, I said either explain it or don't respond to the question at all. You could choose not to use any more acronyms than anyone else here. That's why it seems so inconsiderate to dismiss a question like that. There may be at least one poster out of many who are willing to answer. I'm not lazy here, just frustrated, but sometimes other people seem lazy when they don't give responses as detailed as I expect.

Also, there is a standalone line in Toronto called the Scarborough RT, opened in 1985, let's see, it automated, using the same technology as Vancouver's skytrain. It was originally planned as a extension of their existing tramway network, and the plans were changed, much like the NWRL planning process. Now the TTC is thinking of abandoning that single line in favour of either a light rail or extension of a subway line. I can see that that same might happen to the Northwest metro.

By the way, I know that RT (with two letters) stands for rapid transit, and I knew that without searching it (lately).

...

Join us. Convert to our belief. I did. Life is much better than it was before.

And now to expand on @RTT_Rules proposal of the existing NSL netween Nth Syd and St Leonards since I'm back in Australia and have a radical idea to curb Sydney housing problem and promote sustainable self sufficient buildings. This is sort of like the Central to Redfern thing they are proposing but it won't fall down as there are no trains underneath

The train storage idea is great. Space for 8 trains should be enough for now and the future. Which means 4 500m long tracks should be enough. The rest of the place should ideally be medium to high density with solar and wind to power them (with connection to grid for backup) and have many energy efficient technologies in them. Water is still supplied by existing network. There should be a hypercapacitor bus service (its green and doesn't require overhead wires. Also cheaper than tram/light rail) on the corridor from Nth Syd station St Leonards station with stops every 250 to 500m away. Buildings will be beside and above the corridor (mix of residential, commercial and offices).

Cost is currently ???. If private investors (buildings) are willing to build this in collaboration with the state (roads, buses and rail) and federal (clean energy fund if that still exists in its labor form) govts then this should pay for itself.

I don't think I've heard of the Evergreen line, where's that? Vancouver again? Docklands is light rail, Canada line and NE Singapore line are heavy rail, like line 14.

There is no reason for a newbuild metro in city that already has a well established, extensive, electrified suburban railway network, as far as I can see, there may be a reason to have added heavy suburban rail to a city that previously only had metro, but I don't think it works the other way.
Although you may find the metro-suburban divide in cities with a high mass transit standard, it's still a product of the history behind urban rail in those cities and heavy development before the railways came, and likely just tolerated, much like the unusual track gauge is in Toronto.


But currently, each state capital only has suburban rail which, especially in Sydney, is more like the RER than metro. A true apples to apples comparison is metro to metro, whether mostly underground or mostly elevated, and non-metro heavy rail to non-metro heavy rail.

Either I responded to it or didn't know what to say or having anything to say. Faster construction is not an ongoing benefit. I'm not that into a view out each end, unless I want a carbide, this is not street transit. Expanding the existing network, along with high capacity signalling would reduced congestion without starting an unnecessary second network.

Also, there is a standalone line in Toronto called the Scarborough RT, opened in 1985, let's see, it automated, using the same technology as Vancouver's skytrain. It was originally planned as a extension of their existing tramway network, and the plans were changed, much like the NWRL planning process. Now the TTC is thinking of abandoning that single line in favour of either a light rail or extension of a subway line. I can see that that same might happen to the Northwest metro.

By the way, I know that RT (with two letters) stands for rapid transit, and I knew that without searching it (lately).

Everygreen is new line in Vancoyver, Line 4 not yet finished. It will take back part of Millennium line, truncating those trains at the new junction. Likely trains may not be interchangeable.

Again, you are looking at the Sydney DD's as an alternative to a large Underground network ignoring the simple and basic fact that no-one, I mean no-one has built a large scale mostly UG network using DD technology.

I have no idea what this so called divide is supposed to be. I really don't think most people give a crap about the type of train they ride to work. For years Sydney had Red Rattlers and U-boats intermixed with modern Air Cond rolling stock. 5min apart at Hornsby I had U-boat, no AC, noisey, sash windows or a late model V-set. No one ever said, lets get the V-set! If the rails, number of decks or even power supply is different, does it matter to the user? No.

Look at the surveys of what people want from their trains, clean, reliable, safe, affordable!

Faster expansion is a critical key criteria and if you knew anything about major capital projects you wouldn't ignore this. Faster means cheaper, as less over head. Cheaper means govt can do more with fixed amount of money.

But currently, each state capital only has suburban rail which, especially in Sydney, is more like the RER than metro. A true apples to apples comparison is metro to metro, whether mostly underground or mostly elevated, and non-metro heavy rail to non-metro heavy rail.
Yes Sydney is very much like RER and the NWRL-CityMetro line construction is very much like a Metro due to its mostly UG and part elevated construction, glad you finally acknowledged this.

Scarborough RT is 6.4km long and has 6 stations, and has two stations which are the lowest used in the entire network. Total ridership is 40,000 per week day, ie underused! The reason it will likely close is due to the line not servicing the public the way it should due to the route, nothing to do with technology. Expansion of another line over part of the route will resolve the issue. As mentioned above, Vancouver is transferring part of one line to another because this provides a better service.

EDIT: I looked some more detail on SRT, there are a number of major stuff ups as the line was built for trams and later converted to rail. Look at the original turn around loop at Kenendy station and the exit curve. What a joke.
https://www.google.ae/maps/place/Kennedy+Station/@43.7326829,-79.2638147,286m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0x8655a975c1f3ee82!6m1!1e1

Now look at the network map
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto_rapid_transit#/media/File:TTC_subway_map_2015.svg
Does it even make sense to have done this?

NWRL will not be changed, only expanded. Completely different to SRT.

Again, you are looking at the Sydney DD's as an alternative to a large Underground network ignoring the simple and basic fact that no-one, I mean no-one has built a large scale mostly UG network using DD technology.

I did acknowledge that if you look closely, but I also acknowledge that non-metro networks, suburban or regional, are not mostly underground, single or double decked. And mostly elevated metros are also single deck only.

I have no idea what this so called divide is supposed to be. I really don't think most people give a crap about the type of train they ride to work. For years Sydney had Red Rattlers and U-boats intermixed with modern Air Cond rolling stock. 5min apart at Hornsby I had U-boat, no AC, noisey, sash windows or a late model V-set. No one ever said, lets get the V-set! If the rails, number of decks or even power supply is different, does it matter to the user? No.

But you are talking about different types of rolling stock co-exisining on the same network. The divide is metro and suburban rail, and in most cases metro came first. I gave plenty of reasoning why this divide makes sense in a city that had metro first that don't apply to cities

Look at the surveys of what people want from their trains, clean, reliable, safe, affordable!

Faster expansion is a critical key criteria and if you knew anything about major capital projects you wouldn't ignore this. Faster means cheaper, as less over head. Cheaper means govt can do more with fixed amount of money.

But I believe there are people involved that would still prefer sticking to the original North West rail plan.

But currently, each state capital only has suburban rail which, especially in Sydney, is more like the RER than metro. A true apples to apples comparison is metro to metro, whether mostly underground or mostly elevated, and non-metro heavy rail to non-metro heavy rail.
Yes Sydney is very much like RER and the NWRL-CityMetro line construction is very much like a Metro due to its mostly UG and part elevated construction, glad you finally acknowledged this.

But the Sydney suburban is more like the RER in other ways, such as loading gauge and type of service. The Sydney suburban is also interoperable with regional railways, I don't know about the RER.

Scarborough RT is 6.4km long and has 6 stations, and has two stations which are the lowest used in the entire network. Total ridership is 40,000 per week day, ie underused! The reason it will likely close is due to the line not servicing the public the way it should due to the route, nothing to do with technology. Expansion of another line over part of the route will resolve the issue. As mentioned above, Vancouver is transferring part of one line to another because this provides a better service.

EDIT: I looked some more detail on SRT, there are a number of major stuff ups as the line was built for trams and later converted to rail. Look at the original turn around loop at Kenendy station and the exit curve. What a joke.
https://www.google.ae/maps/place/Kennedy+Station/@43.7326829,-79.2638147,286m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0x8655a975c1f3ee82!6m1!1e1

Now look at the network map
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto_rapid_transit#/media/File:TTC_subway_map_2015.svg
Does it even make sense to have done this?

The Scarborough RT, as I understand, does not run into their CBD, it is cross suburban, much like the North West rail link, which also won't service the public in the way that the originally planned, and it was originally planned as a extension of the existing suburban rail network. Rodd Staples, known for his metro vision, was put in charge or the project back in 2011, and changed the plan the year after, that is a similar stuff up to the Scarborough RT, except that the plan was changed before construction started, and that the Scarborough was originally planned as tram, not suburban rail.

NWRL will not be changed, only expanded. Completely different to SRT.

I don't see how our Dubai resident can conclude such a thing about a line that was originally planned as an extension of the existing suburban rail network, the plan later being changed by a bureaucrat whose first experience with rail planning, construction and operations was when he was hired as a network developer only in 2005.

a bureaucrat whose first experience with rail planning, construction and operations was when he was hired as a network developer only in 2005.

His linkedin profile will disagree. Whatever reasons we have for hating him, its mostly Gladys and Greiners fault we got a metro. That argument of rail vs road led to a compromise. A privately ran (suits the former premier) rail network (suits the minister) that is incompatible with the existing rail network (also suits the former premier) using a far cheaper (also suits the minister), faster and hopefully more reliable (ie superior) system. The only problem I have is that they used Bankstown instead of the Inner West. Although this can be fixed (with many $$$) by improving the western line corridor and running more trains through the CC (new Western express) as well as extra Inner West trains.

I've seen that profile and the earliest experience with rail planning I could find is being hired as General manager, network development back in 2005.

Also listen to what other say, especially those who either work in the industry or have at least traveled far a wide. For example one of the anti NWRL comments posted in media are claims that Auto trains are not safe. The comments are being made as if this is the first line ever built this way when in fact its almost industry standard for new stand alone lines and especially UG lines. Some of your replies are not alot different.

There are some who have plenty of experience with rail planning, construction and operations who would still have got the NWRL constructed as an extension of the existing suburban rail network.

Now a fact check:
*The mamximum capacity of DD trains is the greater than SD trains of the same length running at the same frequency, for example 20 double deckers carry as many as 25 single deckers.
*Differences in dwell time mean that signalling that allows 20 DD per hour allows 22 single deckers in the same timeframe, at least with typical suburban station spacing.
*Taller trains can run more frequently than longer trains if all else is equal.

I've seen that profile and the earliest experience with rail planning I could find is being hired as General manager, network development back in 2005.


There are some who have plenty of experience with rail planning, construction and operations who would still have got the NWRL constructed as an extension of the existing suburban rail network.

Now a fact check:
*The mamximum capacity of DD trains is the greater than SD trains of the same length running at the same frequency, for example 20 double deckers carry as many as 25 single deckers.
*Differences in dwell time mean that signalling that allows 20 DD per hour allows 22 single deckers in the same timeframe, at least with typical suburban station spacing.
*Taller trains can run more frequently than longer trains if all else is equal.

The other poster said check his LinkedIn page

Fact Check Revision
Sydney DD trains technlogy is limited to about 3min, 2.5min at a squeeze and I'd like to see the response by those in the know if you said you were going to run 2.5min from Chatswood to Straithfield a distance of something like 20-25km, reliably.
And how much would it cost to make it reliable?

Auto trains can run at 90sec and do over long distances

The cost difference to build the NWRL and City Metro connection to DD standard to match the capacity of the Auto Metro trains is excessive and unwarranted. Again, stick you thinking in the ground.

Again for the millionth time, no one, I mean no one builds large scale underground networks in DD standard due to cost.

I have already seen his linkin page and couldn't find earlier examples of experience with rail planning. I know that Sydney trains are limited tho 20 double decker trains per hour, and existing signalling allows 22 single deckers in the same timeframe.

Regardless of what frequencies some metro type trains can acheive, I still prefer DD at 120 second frequency to single decker at 90 second frequency. Okay, I don't live in Sydney, but still. Two minute frequency is still turn up and go.

I know that no one so far has built a large scale underground network with double decker trains, that doesn't mean it's due to the cost of tunneling given that:
*It's only a one off cost per tunnel.
*Most large scale overground networks, many suburban rail networks, and all mostly elevated metros, are single decked only. This is either due to loading gauge restriction and/or lower patronage than, say, the RER.

In fact, a standalone double decker railway line could potentially allow trains with doors on both levels, by designing stations with bi-level platforms, and so could run just as frequently as single decker trains of the same length if all else is equal. There might be no examples in existence, that doesn't mean it couldn't be done.

I did acknowledge that if you look closely, but I also acknowledge that non-metro networks, suburban or regional, are not mostly underground, single or double decked. And mostly elevated metros are also single deck only

Finally you acknowledge that when you build a large scale line/network mostly underground, Metro is the standard approach hence NWRL choice of technology makes sense.
.....
Who cares what came first or last or what ever.

Lets look at the typical underground network or line added in the last decade and proposed for the future and they are all SD and in most cases automated and this even in countries which are low cost labour markets. In most cases each line even in a larger network operates independently of others and in some cases are physically and/or technically incompatible for revenue services because there is little benefit in doing so. The NWRL-City Metro and future expansions are at least 75% UG, so again the choice of technology is the right choice.
........

But I believe there are people involved that would still prefer sticking to the original North West rail plan

I'm sure there is, lots! Drivers probably for one, auto phobes for another and those whos' preference is not aligned. The world is made up of all types.
And if you go back further, the original NW plan was actually a Metro, with proposed extensions to someday hit the NW.
........................

Yes, the existing network is like the RER is because its mostly a suburban/outer suburban surface network with an UG city hub. Tick!

..........................

The Scarborough RT, as I understand, does not run into their CBD, it is cross suburban, much like the North West rail link, which also won't service the public in the way that the originally planned, and it was originally planned as a extension of the existing suburban rail network. Rodd Staples, known for his metro vision, was put in charge or the project back in 2011, and changed the plan the year after, that is a similar stuff up to the Scarborough RT, except that the plan was changed before construction started, and that the Scarborough was originally planned as tram, not suburban rail.

I have no idea about Rod Staples history, experience or preferences nor do I care. The review of the DD option shows the many flaws and costs in doing so making the long-term project and ability to get trains to the city costly. In the short term the number of trains per hour would have been limited to 4 in peak, or more terminating at Chatswood. Once NWRL complete the NSL would have been at capacity from Chatswood to Straithfield with no major vision to take us beyond this capacity. By the time the line would have been finished the capacity for these extra 4 trains trains would have been mostly gone anyway. The only way to accommodate even the 4 trains per hour is to get the Lindfield/Gordon starters coming from NWRL.

Could have more trains run via Straithfield, maybe but when they get to the city, where do they go?

It was a plan for failure and no vision how to move forward.

SRT is unrelated and a stuff up in its own world. The line parrelleled an existing line and still does, its used infrastructure built for trams and included a stupid and ridiculously tight balloon loop at the end that has since been disconnected due to it being a failure. Who the hell builds a balloon loop for terminating Auto Metro trains? its also an extension of another major line in the outer suburbs. Its not a circle line it connects to no other line, its 6km long, grossly underused and only has a few useful stations. Note the subway line that will replace it runs trains that are also small. To continue to compare the NWRL to the SRT is questionable at best.

Either I responded to it or didn't know what to say or having anything to say. Faster construction is not an ongoing benefit. I'm not that into a view out each end, unless I want a carbide, this is not street transit. Expanding the existing network, along with high capacity signalling would reduced congestion without starting an unnecessary second network.

Faster construction is an ongoing benefit as the network is not finite and to continue to ignore or deny this shows you have no idea about large scale construction projects.

Do your self a favour, buy a plane ticket to Vancouver or Dubai. Catch the Metro, go to the leading or rear car and then look back along the train. Where is the most crowded part of the train? Hit there are two locations.

Now walk through a typical Sydney train and where is the least crowded part of the train? Hint there are two locations.

Double Hint, both of above is the same part of the train.

High capacity signally adds 20% capacity at the very most, then want? this capacity would be used up by the time the City-Metro connection is complete if not sooner. Now you are stick with a high cost tunnel and years behind the Metro project and billions of dollars more and incur a longterm higher operational cost.

I don't see how our Dubai resident can conclude such a thing about a line that was originally planned as an extension of the existing suburban rail network, the plan later being changed by a bureaucrat whose first experience with rail planning, construction and operations was when he was hired as a network developer only in 2005

This Dubai resident in a former longterm commuter in Sydney and travels on dozens of PT systems around the world.
Why don't you publish the profile from LinkedIn of the man so at least we all know you know what you are talking about.

Finally you acknowledge that when you build a large scale line/network mostly underground, Metro is the standard approach hence NWRL choice of technology makes sense.

.....
Who cares what came first or last or what ever.

No that's not quite what I'm saying, I said that all large scale underground and much mostly elevated urban rail is metro, but most cities that have them don't also have suburban rail. Much of it is in old, heavily developed cities that did not, at least at the time, have heavy suburban or regional rail running right into town centres.

The fact that the smaller loading gauge rail networks came before newer ones with larger loading gauge does seem to have plenty of significance and here's why. London's tube for example, dates from a time (in the days of steam) when even surface carriages were smaller.

There may be newer metros that have inhereted things like small bore tunnel, but the fact is that the number of legacy metros is large enough to have a market for off-the-shelf designs.

Lets look at the typical underground network or line added in the last decade and proposed for the future and they are all SD and in most cases automated and this even in countries which are low cost labour markets. In most cases each line even in a larger network operates independently of others and in some cases are physically and/or technically incompatible for revenue services because there is little benefit in doing so. The NWRL-City Metro and future expansions are at least 75% UG, so again the choice of technology is the right choice.

And nearly all recent underground networks don't co-exist with (older) suburban rail that is more extensive and electrified, such as those in all French cities other than Paris, and those of Singapore, Bankok and other Asian cities, Vancouver (one unelectrified reginonal railway), among others.

I'm sure there is, lots! Drivers probably for one, auto phobes for another and those whos' preference is not aligned. The world is made up of all types.
And if you go back further, the original NW plan was actually a Metro, with proposed extensions to someday hit the NW.

The original 1998 proposal is mentioned here, there seems to have been no mention of anything metro style until 2008.

Yes, the existing network is like the RER is because its mostly a suburban/outer suburban surface network with an UG city hub. Tick!

And it also interoperates with country and interstate services, what about the RER? As far as I know, most, and I really mean most, surface sections date back to the days of steam, the South West rail link is one of the few exceptions, is it similar with the RER. Let's review what I've actually acknowledged:

*Some mostly suburban and regional surface networks have double decker trains, most only single decked.
*Some metro style systems (not interoperable with regional or intercity rail) are mostly underground and others are mostly elevated, all with loading gauge which allows only single decker trains.

As far as I know, the Sydney suburban and Paris RER are the closest that anyone has come to building a large scale underground non-metro rail network. Closer than anyone ever got when the metros of London, Paris and Berlin, among others were built.

So that list and the paragraph above show that just because no one has yet build a large scale underground suburban rail network doesn't mean that it isn't practical.

I have no idea about Rod Staples history, experience or preferences nor do I care. The review of the DD option shows the many flaws and costs in doing so making the long-term project and ability to get trains to the city costly. In the short term the number of trains per hour would have been limited to 4 in peak, or more terminating at Chatswood. Once NWRL complete the NSL would have been at capacity from Chatswood to Straithfield with no major vision to take us beyond this capacity. By the time the line would have been finished the capacity for these extra 4 trains trains would have been mostly gone anyway. The only way to accommodate even the 4 trains per hour is to get the Lindfield/Gordon starters coming from NWRL.

Don't overlook this because there was, as far as I know, no talk of adding a metro to a city with one of the largest suburban railway networks in the world before Mr. Staples got involved in rail planning.

I don't see what flaws are in the fact check above. Every point in it is strictly correct if you read carefully.

SRT is unrelated and a stuff up in its own world. The line parrelleled an existing line and still does, its used infrastructure built for trams and included a stupid and ridiculously tight balloon loop at the end that has since been disconnected due to it being a failure. Who the hell builds a balloon loop for terminating Auto Metro trains? its also an extension of another major line in the outer suburbs. Its not a circle line it connects to no other line, its 6km long, grossly underused and only has a few useful stations. Note the subway line that will replace it runs trains that are also small. To continue to compare the NWRL to the SRT is questionable at best.

That balloon loop was constructed for unidirectional trams, which also have doors only on one side, and most seats facing forward. The metro trains that will replace it will also use existing parts of the network. Again, Toronto has no suburban rail, the GO transit is unelectrified and is regional.

Faster construction is an ongoing benefit as the network is not finite and to continue to ignore or deny this shows you have no idea about large scale construction projects.

It's not ongoing per line/extension. That's what I mean.

This Dubai resident in a former longterm commuter in Sydney and travels on dozens of PT systems around the world.
Why don't you publish the profile from LinkedIn of the man so at least we all know you know what you are talking about.

What do you mean by publishing the profile? I actually found it while looking up his name in a well known search engine, and I did so without prompting.
You might have been a longterm commuter commuter in Sydney, and you might travel on many mass transit systems around the world. Someone else who also lives in the Sydney area, and also has a lot of experience with rail in Europe, has described the NWRL as under construction as a white elephant.

The original Northwest metro plan lasted less than a year, with the original proposal resumed two years later.

Here is an artists impression of the North West rail link from 2011:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGOog2Lprss

The CBD metro was quite unpopular, as shown in this video:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oh1JbxRhskE

No that's not quite what I'm saying, I said that all large scale underground and much mostly elevated urban rail is metro, but most cities that have them don't also have suburban rail. Much of it is in old, heavily developed cities that did not, at least at the time, have heavy suburban or regional rail running right into town centres.

The fact that the smaller loading gauge rail networks came before newer ones with larger loading gauge does seem to have plenty of significance and here's why. London's tube for example, dates from a time (in the days of steam) when even surface carriages were smaller.

There may be newer metros that have inhereted things like small bore tunnel, but the fact is that the number of legacy metros is large enough to have a market for off-the-shelf designs.


And nearly all recent underground networks don't co-exist with (older) suburban rail that is more extensive and electrified, such as those in all French cities other than Paris, and those of Singapore, Bankok and other Asian cities, Vancouver (one unelectrified reginonal railway), among others.


The original 1998 proposal is mentioned here, there seems to have been no mention of anything metro style until 2008.


And it also interoperates with country and interstate services, what about the RER? As far as I know, most, and I really mean most, surface sections date back to the days of steam, the South West rail link is one of the few exceptions, is it similar with the RER. Let's review what I've actually acknowledged:

*Some mostly suburban and regional surface networks have double decker trains, most only single decked.
*Some metro style systems (not interoperable with regional or intercity rail) are mostly underground and others are mostly elevated, all with loading gauge which allows only single decker trains.

As far as I know, the Sydney suburban and Paris RER are the closest that anyone has come to building a large scale underground non-metro rail network. Closer than anyone ever got when the metros of London, Paris and Berlin, among others were built.

So that list and the paragraph above show that just because no one has yet build a large scale underground suburban rail network doesn't mean that it isn't practical.


Don't overlook this because there was, as far as I know, no talk of adding a metro to a city with one of the largest suburban railway networks in the world before Mr. Staples got involved in rail planning.

I don't see what flaws are in the fact check above. Every point in it is strictly correct if you read carefully.


That balloon loop was constructed for unidirectional trams, which also have doors only on one side, and most seats facing forward. The metro trains that will replace it will also use existing parts of the network. Again, Toronto has no suburban rail, the GO transit is unelectrified and is regional.


It's not ongoing per line/extension. That's what I mean.


What do you mean by publishing the profile? I actually found it while looking up his name in a well known search engine, and I did so without prompting.
You might have been a longterm commuter commuter in Sydney, and you might travel on many mass transit systems around the world. Someone else who also lives in the Sydney area, and also has a lot of experience with rail in Europe, has described the NWRL as under construction as a white elephant.

Every city is slightly to alot different to each other and have different histories.

There is more than just small and big loading guage. The NWRL loading guage is typical of most modern greenfield SD systems. London and Paris are tiny.

Numerous cities world wide operate at least two different rail technologies, how they are different varies but this is irrelevent as the tag. Most European Cities don't have the growth history of Sydney either.

There is no evidence to state new railways are getting bigger except when the original early 19th century ones were built painfully small.

Build something to standard from day one and you are more likely to get off the shelf. 60 years after Sydney started to build DD's, they are still no standard and each order is custom and comes with the usual screw ups.

And nearly all recent underground networks don't co-exist with (older) suburban rail that is more extensive and electrified, such as those in all French cities other than Paris, and those of Singapore, Bankok and other Asian cities, Vancouver (one unelectrified reginonal railway), among others.

Rubbish and so what if they do or don't. They are not paying for Sydney.

Look at your link a bit harder, in the first line is another link to the Inner NW Metro.

As far as I know, the Sydney suburban and Paris RER are the closest that anyone has come to building a large scale underground non-metro rail network.

Hardly
- Sydney 182 stations, how many are underground, 12 or so. The ECRL probably double the underground trackage.
- RER is not a large scale underground network. They simply joined the dots on a regional network, 75kmof UG track, 580km or surface.

I define an UG network that is built mostly UG, not a suburban/regional network ducting under the city CBD.

So that list and the paragraph above show that just because no one has yet build a large scale underground suburban rail network doesn't mean that it isn't practical.

How about this. You buy two TBM's 0.5m difference in diameter and dig two 20km long tunnels and tell me which is more practical to afford. As I posted 100 times in last few pages, its about cost, practical cost! So yes it isn't practical.

Don't overlook this because there was, as far as I know, no talk of adding a metro to a city with one of the largest suburban railway networks in the world before Mr. Staples got involved in rail planning.

I don't see what flaws are in the fact check above. Every point in it is strictly correct if you read carefully.

Yes there was no talk, because they couldn't see past the conceptual design phase of a project they no idea how to proceed. 10-15 years ago they also didn't have capacity issues on the lower north shore and if they did it was due to lack of trains. How many false stars where there? The current mob said we will build a Metro to Chatswood, then phase 2 we will extend to the city to handle the fast approaching capacity issues of the lower north shore.

So please don't critise the current longer term planning because the past showed a lack of it. Assuming Baird comes back for another term of govt, in 3 terms of govt they will have build more greenfield route km than NSW has done in decades combined and its mostly underground + SSELR.

Again, Toronto has no suburban rail, the GO transit is unelectrified and is regional.

Then what are a million people per day (more than Sydney) using to get to work then. 69 station, 69km of track, running on 600V?

The balloon loop was one of many screw ups on that line.

Someone else who also lives in the Sydney area, and also has a lot of experience with rail in Europe, has described the NWRL as under construction as a white elephant.

Who, I'll put $A1000 on the table that within 12mths it has achieved its target numbers, money goes to charity.

Every city is slightly to alot different to each other and have different histories.

Of course every city is different, but all European capitals, and even many Asian cities have one thing in common not shared with any Australasian city, they are old and were heavily developed when the railways came.

There is more than just small and big loading guage. The NWRL loading guage is typical of most modern greenfield SD systems. London and Paris are tiny.

Numerous cities world wide operate at least two different rail technologies, how they are different varies but this is irrelevent as the tag. Most European Cities don't have the growth history of Sydney either.

There is no evidence to state new railways are getting bigger except when the original early 19th century ones were built painfully small.

Most modern greenfield SD system may have a similar loading gauge to the NWRL but they almost never co-exist with suburban rail in the same city.

Some may operate two different heavy rail technologies, but the most common is two different metro technologies, or a suburban rail newer than the metro, I am not going to be made to reject these distinctions.

And nearly all recent underground networks don't co-exist with (older) suburban rail that is more extensive and electrified, such as those in all French cities other than Paris, and those of Singapore, Bankok and other Asian cities, Vancouver (one unelectrified reginonal railway), among others.

Rubbish and so what if they do or don't. They are not paying for Sydney.

Look at your link a bit harder, in the first line is another link to the Inner NW Metro.

I have told you over and over, and this is based on reading I've done, everything I wrote in that part you have quoted is strictly correct.
The vast majority of metros don't co-exist with extensive, electrified suburban rail, in France only the Paris metro does, and the RER is newer. The Singapore one doesn't, nor does the one in Vancouver, only a single unelectrified line.

What do you mean they are not paying for Sydney?!?

Name one city, apart from London, Paris, Berlin, Milan or Copenhagen that has both metro and suburban rail and tell me which came first. I'm not just asking you here, but any poster reading this.

As far as I know, the Sydney suburban and Paris RER are the closest that anyone has come to building a large scale underground non-metro rail network.

Hardly
- Sydney 182 stations, how many are underground, 12 or so. The ECRL probably double the underground trackage.
- RER is not a large scale underground network. They simply joined the dots on a regional network, 75kmof UG track, 580km or surface.

I define an UG network that is built mostly UG, not a suburban/regional network ducting under the city CBD.

If you read carefully, you will see I didn't say they were mostly underground, but just said that they were the closest anyone has got so far to a large scale underground network that is not a metro, as far as I know. Closer than every state capital in Australia other than Sydney.

I know of no other non-metro rail network that has nearly as much underground trackage, either in absoulte terms or relatively speaking, as the Sydney suburban and the Paris RER. Can you understand what non-metro means?

So that list and the paragraph above show that just because no one has yet build a large scale underground suburban rail network doesn't mean that it isn't practical.

How about this. You buy two TBM's 0.5m difference in diameter and dig two 20km long tunnels and tell me which is more practical to afford. As I posted 100 times in last few pages, its about cost, practical cost! So yes it isn't practical.

That a difference of less than a metre in diameter, so many readers will expect no significant difference.

Yes there was no talk, because they couldn't see past the conceptual design phase of a project they no idea how to proceed. 10-15 years ago they also didn't have capacity issues on the lower north shore and if they did it was due to lack of trains. How many false stars where there? The current mob said we will build a Metro to Chatswood, then phase 2 we will extend to the city to handle the fast approaching capacity issues of the lower north shore.

So please don't critise the current longer term planning because the past showed a lack of it. Assuming Baird comes back for another term of govt, in 3 terms of govt they will have build more greenfield route km than NSW has done in decades combined and its mostly underground + SSELR.

Sydney has a long history of far sighted rail planning, going back to Dr. Bradfield's time. It's not (just) me that is critising it, many others have critisised it earlier in this thread. It has be critisised by great rail experts such as Sandy Thomas and Colin Schroeder.

Who, I'll put $A1000 on the table that within 12mths it has achieved its target numbers, money goes to charity.

I have no idea what you are talking about here.

Don't overlook this because there was, as far as I know, no talk of adding a metro to a city with one of the largest suburban railway networks in the world before Mr. Staples got involved in rail planning.

The legendary Ron Christie. Google him. Its a 2002 or 2003 Cityrail fixing plan. I will admit now on the record that his metro (its actually a single deck metro probably not driverless but still a metro) is probably more suited to Sydney (served the right places). Also on the record, he wanted Cityrail to be fixed first, then expanded and finally Metro which is not a bad idea and one I approve of. But none the less I think building a new metro system for cheaper cost and providing a better service is the right way to go.

This is going around in circles.

So lets try this, and feel free to change my answers


What is the line built for? Move People

Is capital cost important? YEs, because the taxpayers fund it, more cost/km less viability/ability to build it or more.

Cost difference between surface and underground, nearly double to go underground, maybe more if the land for surface is preserved and easy grades.

Why are city's typically UG?, because land in the city for railways are not available.

Why are new railways in medium and above density and city UG?, because land is expensive and politcal pressure to common sense

Has the history of what came first got anything to do with above, rarely, but future is UG or viaduct where underground isn't practical

Is operating cost important? YEs Sydney's network has some of the lowest fare box % return. Poor fare box recovery means harder to justfy more lines as expansion just eats into taxpayers pocket.

Are DD networks off the shelf? No

Is Sydney's network DD stock off the shelf? No

Is Sydney's network SD DMU stock off the shelf? mostly, take from previous design and the design was then taken to another project

Do the users care about the technology? For the average commuter no

What have rail commuters always wanted in surveys? Affordable, reliable, frequent, efficient, clean and safe PT

When someone from the NW travels on their future Auto SD to the city, will they feel like 2nd class citizens compared to someone riding in double deck train. (The Great railway divide) No

Is there any operational benefit in making the NWRL-city Metro DD, No

Is it common for cities to have non compatible railway technology regardless of the reason, yes

Is NWRL-City Metro loading gauge considered small by modern standards, No its a standard size if there was one.

Is there any benefit in making the tunnel wider so DD can fit?, No as for the next 35-40 years it will have non-compatible rolling-stock in the tunnel and replacement rollingstock the same.

At max capacity can the NWRL move the same numbers as DD at max capacity?, yes.

At max capacity can the NWRL move the same seated numbers as DD at max capacity?, No,

Will NWRL-city Metro commuters be expected to stand for similar lengths of time as similar time length branches from the city?, No. It will faster alignment to Chatswood (at a guess 5-8min based on avoiding Waverton-Wollestoncraft alone). It also has a higher turnover as it travels along the route with forecast 35% of passengers to travel between NW and Chatswood. Part same reason Inner NW and future extension to NW was cancelled. Also connection with Epping and in future Richmond line.

Will Bankstown users be disadvantaged by future conversion?, No, trains currently at 150% capacity, every 8min or so. Post conversion frequency will be up to double.

Is increasing frequency from 3 to 2.5min on lower NSL/city and western main practical/attractive?, Unlikely why govt have avoided. Doable elsewhere such as RER with lower lower density, triple door DD stock and stations better suited than Town Hall for large numbers. Is it possible at 2.5min at Town Hall station may never clear of people and a back log occurs delaying trains?

Is this the start of a mass conversion of the existing network to SD Metro?, No, deemed minimal benefit. The Metro technology benefit is financially viable for mostly underground Greenfield projects. Bankstown was added purely because it does not form part of a freight route or interurban or regional traffic route, over crowded and 8 trains an hour needs to be removed from the south/western lines to enable growth of others.

The legendary Ron Christie. Google him. Its a 2002 or 2003 Cityrail fixing plan. I will admit now on the record that his metro (its actually a single deck metro probably not driverless but still a metro) is probably more suited to Sydney (served the right places). Also on the record, he wanted Cityrail to be fixed first, then expanded and finally Metro which is not a bad idea and one I approve of. But none the less I think building a new metro system for cheaper cost and providing a better service is the right way to go.

To get the frequency it would have been driver-less and these days the supplier would probably offer by default.

I have found the legends report
http://103.4.17.5/christie/christie.pdf

Basically the report is saying fix Cityrail by duplicating or quadruplicating tracks and create new heavy rail lines with dedicated pair of tracks. Then build Metros.

page 73 refers to metro proposals

To summarise he said
- separating new to meet new growth which is a practice done in many cities creates a better Cityrail (after all the stuff to Cityrail he proposed was also done) as by 2020 Cityrail will be full. (summarised)
- Underground railways with high capacity signalling served by fast, high frequency, high powered single deck "Metro" style trains (basically a metro with more seats than traditional metros like I assume London and HK) (mostly a direct quote)
- greater flexibility in choosing alignments to maximise patronage and the railway's accessibility and land use benefits and greatly reduced construction costs. (direct quote)
- Planned corridors (for metros) to cater for growth and stuff (summarised)

In Conclusion, I believe Mrytones arguments have been demolished by the legend himself