Some say the metro argument is pointless now because the Northwest metro is under construction, so the pro-automated-metro people are already getting their way, so it's said.
While the line from Chatswood to Cudgegeng road is becoming a reality, being under construction, can we still put a stop to any extensions of this line or further metro lines being built?
Those extensions aren't yet a reality. Might the Northwest metro go the way of the Scarborough Rapid transit in Toronto, over in Canada?

Leaving the line an orphan would be a disaster, it needs to run to the city and the govt has chosen the Bankstown line. Not even a change of govt would stop the City Metro project now as it ticks far too many boxes.

The new Sydney Metro network has a natural foot print to achieve the maximum benefit for the technology and the max out the use of the corridor and hence efficient use of the costly long tunnels. To me this is from the Richmond line (now Marsden Industrial area) to Liverpool or maybe a short spur further west into a few suburbs. I also think the city tunnel section could also support a 2nd line from Nth Beaches to Straithfield.

The new route will be faster to the city from Chatswood (my est 10min) and cover additional location distant from the existing NSL, the removal of Bankstown trains from the city tunnels opens up the option for 8 additional slots from elsewhere, however there are issues in actually achieving those slots and additional work is needed. The time from Liverpool is roughly the same, but with higher frequency and capacity should pull people away from other SW and Western services, thus giving more capacity on those corridors. For example people nth of Liverpool would currently catch the train to the city via Granville, they may now catch a train the other way to Liverpool and then Metro.

So stop it, no, lets move forward not backwards. However further conversion of existing lines to Metro will be very limited.

and as we have discussed before, there are some very good reasons Scarborough is being replaced, nothing to do with automation.

Leaving the line an orphan would be a disaster, it needs to run to the city and the govt has chosen the Bankstown line. Not even a change of govt would stop the City Metro project now as it ticks far too many boxes.

Building the line as a metro separate from the existing suburban network, with a smaller loading gauge is already on track for such a disaster.

The new Sydney Metro network has a natural foot print to achieve the maximum benefit for the technology and the max out the use of the corridor and hence efficient use of the costly long tunnels. To me this is from the Richmond line (now Marsden Industrial area) to Liverpool or maybe a short spur further west into a few suburbs. I also think the city tunnel section could also support a 2nd line from Nth Beaches to Straithfield.

I don't quite understand this.

So stop it, no, lets move forward not backwards. However further conversion of existing lines to Metro will be very limited.

Right, in that case, let's not recreate the metro-suburban divide of other cities that have it for historical reasons.

and as we have discussed before, there are some very good reasons Scarborough is being replaced, nothing to do with automation.

Basically, that rapid transit line is a stand-alone line not interoperable with any other urban rail in Toronto.

In case of the Northwest rail link, it will have stations at typical suburban spacings but with short haul metro rolling stock meant for short haul stop-start runs. Dubai may have it too, but I'm told that it's mostly vacant land in the long gaps between stations, the stations spacings being shorter in the underground section under the old part of the city.

Line 14 in Paris might be like that too, but it's a filler line for drawing load off other lines, a sort of metro express line.

At the risk of trending over old ground

Scarborough is short at 6.5km, however moves over 40,000 per day (6200pax per route km, probably more than most parts in Sydney). So is it successful, very much so.
Why is it being replaced? because it parallels part another route and simply using the infrastructure to extend that service.

Sydney NW's line to the city and existing around Tempe is mostly UG and very long hence costly to construct and hence absolutely nothing like Scarborough and hence absolutely pointless exercise to continue to argue the point.

Sydney's NW to City Metro's will be full integrated into the network so as a passenger the impact is zero. You want to change lines, you change at the station and use your existing ticket just like now.

The Metro rollingtstock will benefit from having 3 doors and hence enable faster dwel times, Sydney's DD stock cannot operate with 3 doors and don't waste your time making references to RER as we have been there and discussed why it won't work and long dismissed.

There is obviously a loss of some seating, the METRO is more in name only, it will still have a higher capacity seating than most METRO's but the operation of the line is not a typical sweeper branch line arrangement. As the NW line is more a cross suburban line with high mid route load/unloading points at Epping and Chatswood with a forecast 30% if I remember, might be higher will not commute as far as Chatswood. Remember this is the reason its running this way and not via Gladsville.

Additionally the higher frequency capacity of the service will off-set the loss of seats.

And DD or SD, people start to stand from Chatswood-St Leonards now.

Building what is a major transport corridor which is stand alone technology wise is not unique or even rare. Again we have discussed this before. In that as new lines are added because most high density lines operate effectively standard alone anyway they use the latest technology available as compatible rolling stock is less important than cost and what more modern technology can offer.

So the justification for the technology is justified, its been proven, its the right thing to do.

Scarborough is short at 6.5km, however moves over 40,000 per day (6200pax per route km, probably more than most parts in Sydney). So is it successful, very much so.
Why is it being replaced? because it parallels part another route and simply using the infrastructure to extend that service.

I don't know that much about it, but the fact is that it is stand-alone, and that has been given as a reason to replace it.

Sydney NW's line to the city and existing around Tempe is mostly UG and very long hence costly to construct and hence absolutely nothing like Scarborough and hence absolutely pointless exercise to continue to argue the point.

As long as it may be, it is still stand-alone, and that itself has to potential to make it an orphan. And there is no way around the fact that a smaller tunnel size does lower capacity as long as all else is equal.

Sydney's NW to City Metro's will be full integrated into the network so as a passenger the impact is zero. You want to change lines, you change at the station and use your existing ticket just like now.

The impact will be having to change trains at Chatswood to get between the Northwest and the city, yes extending it would address that, but that wouldn't have been the case under the original plans for a Northwest rail link

The Metro rollingtstock will benefit from having 3 doors and hence enable faster dwel times, Sydney's DD stock cannot operate with 3 doors and don't waste your time making references to RER as we have been there and discussed why it won't work and long dismissed.

How about actually comparing door spacing on the R.E.R and Sydney double deckers? Because the R.E.R train carriages are longer.

And actually, it would work with a stand-alone line run by double decker trains.

There is obviously a loss of some seating, the METRO is more in name only, it will still have a higher capacity seating than most METRO's but the operation of the line is not a typical sweeper branch line arrangement. As the NW line is more a cross suburban line with high mid route load/unloading points at Epping and Chatswood with a forecast 30% if I remember, might be higher will not commute as far as Chatswood. Remember this is the reason its running this way and not via Gladsville.

But the rolling stock is still designed for short haul runs with lots of stopping and starting.

Building what is a major transport corridor which is stand alone technology wise is not unique or even rare. Again we have discussed this before. In that as new lines are added because most high density lines operate effectively standard alone anyway they use the latest technology available as compatible rolling stock is less important than cost and what more modern technology can offer.

Yes, it is common, but in none of the other cases is loading gauge reduced, ever. It is kept the same or increased. In case of Pairs, the did adopt the latest technology available with metro line 14 but with the intention of converting other metro lines to that technology, as they did with line 1.

The reason that some metro lines within the same city are incompatible with others is historical.

Leaving the line an orphan would be a disaster, it needs to run to the city and the govt has chosen the Bankstown line. Not even a change of govt would stop the City Metro project now as it ticks far too many boxes.

That will require an interest rate rise and a sudden end to the current property/stamp duty boom.

Scarborough

I don't know that much about it, but the fact is that it is stand-alone, and that has been given as a reason to replace it

Enough said, you don't know anything about it, What is happening to Scarborough is not related to the NWRL and completely separate issue.

As long as it may be, it is still stand-alone, and that itself has to potential to make it an orphan. And there is no way around the fact that a smaller tunnel size does lower capacity as long as all else is equal.

The ESR-Cronulla line operates as an independent service, to the best of my knowledge Red Rattlers never operated on the line to ESR.  And even if the NWRL-City Metro is an Orphan which is nearly 10x the length of Scarborough does it matter for the passenger, no. We have previously proven the smaller tunnel size is off-set by the 50% greater frequency capacity of the line and delivers users to their destination at significantly lower cost the Sydney Trains.

The need for changing of trains at Chatswood only applies to about 50% of the total users of the line. The NWRL is alot different to many other branch lines in Australia in that it is projected to have a high turn over along the route and the reason it was built this way rather than take the shorter route following Victoria Road. The govts plan always included extension to the city because it was needed by the mid 2020's at the latest if not before. This is not the only location in Sydney where CBD bound users have to change trains so hardly an orphan in this regard. FYI there are four locations where users need to change trains to get to the CBD.

The original plans for the NWRL were dropped on longterm cost reasons by both sides of politics.

Sydney Trains rolling stock is also designed for short haul having stations frequently at spacing s of less than 1000m and in some areas 800m and subject to much debate if there should be some station rationalisation to speed trains up and reduce operating costs. The NWRL is not design for short haul so to speak and fit for purpose.

The RER trains are 4m longer, something that cannot be done in Sydney or they would have. Remember V-sets are also 4m longer and narrower as a result reducing the seating to 2+2. Unlike RER you cannot have centre doors on Syd rolling stock DD or SD and the Paris RER 3rd doors and stairs on a DD car chews up so much space they seat just less than a Sydney DD.  Again we discussed this before so why bring up false data again.

There are numerous cities with non-compatible lines due to history and choosing the latest technology with each new line. The rolling stock on these high density corridors is dedicated and fixed to that line even on systems where there is some compatibility and is similar case in Sydney. On such systems there is little benefit in retains backwards compatibility, typically targeting cost and safety as the basic reasons.

There is fundamental differences to running a light to medium used suburban network and a high capacity network. Sydney is progressively moving to the later on many corridors with little or no flexibility for anything but min 3min spacing same stopping pattern. Trains rarely can use other routes in case of problems as there is no track capacity in peak and all the lines have been segregated in some cases physically to prevent them doing so.

The Metro will have its own storage yard and had it been built DD it would also have needed the yard due to the large number of trains needed and limited capacity at existing yards. If I recall the most recent extra storage capacity is Leppington. I'm guessing should the Metro be extended to Liverpool as indicated by the govt it will actually go further and/or have a storage yard in the area.

Your reference to the Dubai metro was again incorrect like it was previously, start with Google Maps and wiki. 75km of track over two lines (53 and 22km), all but 13km of UG on Viaduct with relatively short but frequent trains move about 500,000 per day and in the midst of the mining boom still cost just $130m/km. A further 25km worth of extensions to a major Mall, Academic City, new airport and site of EXPO 2020 is expected to add >25% more users by 2020. Not bad for two lines, 5 car trains with 650 seated/standing capacity and 100km of track, but you say this won't work for Sydney?

What is wrong with the nwrl/metro being an orphan. It will have it's own rolling stock and it will run 15 trains per hour with a possibility to move to 30 if needed compared to only 8 trains an hour in peak hour to Bankstown at the moment. Segregating the lines helps increase frequency across the network. If the main south and western lines were separated past Strathfield then more services for the main south could be provided.

Are we back this again. Going to list all the pros of Sydney Metro (i can think of) and try and end the argument. (Never expected this post to be my 1st post since a while. Anyways)

1. Expands the a growing north west area
2. Extra paths through the city.
3. Increased capacity on other lines due to extra capacity through the CC with Bankstown services being gone. (The ESR did this when it opened as it removed Illawara trains from the CC.)
4. Faster service to the city from major locations along its route. Eg Chatswood
5. Relieves capacity at Townhall and Wynard. Dumps them at Martin Place and and Pitt St instead.
6. Cheaper,newer and better technology. Lovers both capital and operating costs and long term capital costs (fu ture expansion of the network is bound to happen)

Are we back this again. Going to list all the pros of Sydney Metro (i can think of) and try and end the argument. (Never expected this post to be my 1st post since a while. Anyways)

1. Expands the a growing north west area
2. Extra paths through the city.
3. Increased capacity on other lines due to extra capacity through the CC with Bankstown services being gone. (The ESR did this when it opened as it removed Illawara trains from the CC.)
4. Faster service to the city from major locations along its route. Eg Chatswood
5. Relieves capacity at Townhall and Wynard. Dumps them at Martin Place and and Pitt St instead.
6. Cheaper,newer and better technology. Lovers both capital and operating costs and long term capital costs (fu ture expansion of the network is bound to happen)

I will add and we have all discussed at some point and often to great length various ideas about the main downside in that the Bermuda Triangle so to speak between Bankstwon, Liverpool and Lidcombe appears to have been left in no mans land, with only a recent PR on extension to Liverpool but nothing on the existing triangle of stations. I feel that the govt should come clean on its plans in this area and a timeline.

Are we back this again. Going to list all the pros of Sydney Metro (i can think of) and try and end the argument. (Never expected this post to be my 1st post since a while. Anyways)

1. Expands the a growing north west area
2. Extra paths through the city.
3. Increased capacity on other lines due to extra capacity through the CC with Bankstown services being gone. (The ESR did this when it opened as it removed Illawara trains from the CC.)
4. Faster service to the city from major locations along its route. Eg Chatswood
5. Relieves capacity at Townhall and Wynard. Dumps them at Martin Place and and Pitt St instead.
6. Cheaper,newer and better technology. Lovers both capital and operating costs and long term capital costs (fu ture expansion of the network is bound to happen)

I will add and we have all discussed at some point and often to great length various ideas about the main downside in that the Bermuda Triangle so to speak between Bankstwon, Liverpool and Lidcombe appears to have been left in no mans land, with only a recent PR on extension to Liverpool but nothing on the existing triangle of stations. I feel that the govt should come clean on its plans in this area and a timeline.

The Metro extension to Liverpool will not be finishing at Liverpool train station. It will be somewhere underground in the middle of the CBD and so the bermuda triangle can still have trains via regent's park if a 3rd track pair is built between Strathfield and Granville. The current triangle has extremely low numbers and it is possible that a shuttle service in the bermuda triangle could be possible.

Are we back this again. Going to list all the pros of Sydney Metro (i can think of) and try and end the argument. (Never expected this post to be my 1st post since a while. Anyways)

1. Expands the a growing north west area
2. Extra paths through the city.
3. Increased capacity on other lines due to extra capacity through the CC with Bankstown services being gone. (The ESR did this when it opened as it removed Illawara trains from the CC.)
4. Faster service to the city from major locations along its route. Eg Chatswood
5. Relieves capacity at Townhall and Wynard. Dumps them at Martin Place and and Pitt St instead.
6. Cheaper,newer and better technology. Lovers both capital and operating costs and long term capital costs (fu ture expansion of the network is bound to happen)

I will add and we have all discussed at some point and often to great length various ideas about the main downside in that the Bermuda Triangle so to speak between Bankstwon, Liverpool and Lidcombe appears to have been left in no mans land, with only a recent PR on extension to Liverpool but nothing on the existing triangle of stations. I feel that the govt should come clean on its plans in this area and a timeline.

The Metro extension to Liverpool will not be finishing at Liverpool train station. It will be somewhere underground in the middle of the CBD and so the bermuda triangle can still have trains via regent's park if a 3rd track pair is built between Strathfield and Granville. The current triangle has extremely low numbers and it is possible that a shuttle service in the bermuda triangle could be possible.

I have a feeling that the govt not not going to give a damn thing about the triangle and try to bus everything or at the very best a 4 car train every 1/2 hour from Bankstown to Liverpool and a bus from Lidcombe to Birrong.

And also why not Liverpool Station? why somewhere else? Is it forcing people to take the Metro (ie. giving money to MTR and whoever else is running the thing) instead of heavy rail.

I have a feeling that the govt not not going to give a damn thing about the triangle and try to bus everything or at the very best a 4 car train every 1/2 hour from Bankstown to Liverpool and a bus from Lidcombe to Birrong.

And also why not Liverpool Station? why somewhere else? Is it forcing people to take the Metro (ie. giving money to MTR and whoever else is running the thing) instead of heavy rail.

Mr Fixit, you are indicating that that both HR and Metro are profitable operations and that the Metro operator gets a share of the revenue, which is unlikely considering the subsidy exceed 65%.

As Simstrain has indicated the corridor from Redfern to Gradville is congested and needs extensive investment to untangle some of this mess. This won't happen within the next 10 years. SOme of this congestion is from the Liverpool services via Granville. The current operation of running Lidcombe via Bankstown is designed to take those people in the triangle via Bankstown to the city as well as the Liverpool via Bankstown.

However the Bankstown route is at saturation due to the congestion of the city tunnels and limited to 8 trains per hour and hence these trains are recorded at 150% capacity 5 years ago.  

The Metro to Liverpool concept will provide dedicated track pair to teh city with no congestion constraints from other corridors. Thus it will be a natural target for commuters from Bankstown to Glenfield and up to say Yennora, thus expanding capacity on the East Hills line and the Western corridor from Redfern to Paramatta/Epping. Potentially the 8 trains per hour currently running to Liverpool via Grandville maybe able to be reduced from 8 to 6 or 4 trains and these slots handed over to others.

As for the triangle, I guess we will see.

Are we back this again. Going to list all the pros of Sydney Metro (i can think of) and try and end the argument. (Never expected this post to be my 1st post since a while. Anyways)

1. Expands the a growing north west area
2. Extra paths through the city.
3. Increased capacity on other lines due to extra capacity through the CC with Bankstown services being gone. (The ESR did this when it opened as it removed Illawara trains from the CC.)
4. Faster service to the city from major locations along its route. Eg Chatswood
5. Relieves capacity at Townhall and Wynard. Dumps them at Martin Place and and Pitt St instead.
6. Cheaper,newer and better technology. Lovers both capital and operating costs and long term capital costs (fu ture expansion of the network is bound to happen)

I will add and we have all discussed at some point and often to great length various ideas about the main downside in that the Bermuda Triangle so to speak between Bankstwon, Liverpool and Lidcombe appears to have been left in no mans land, with only a recent PR on extension to Liverpool but nothing on the existing triangle of stations. I feel that the govt should come clean on its plans in this area and a timeline.

The Metro extension to Liverpool will not be finishing at Liverpool train station. It will be somewhere underground in the middle of the CBD and so the bermuda triangle can still have trains via regent's park if a 3rd track pair is built between Strathfield and Granville. The current triangle has extremely low numbers and it is possible that a shuttle service in the bermuda triangle could be possible.

I have a feeling that the govt not not going to give a damn thing about the triangle and try to bus everything or at the very best a 4 car train every 1/2 hour from Bankstown to Liverpool and a bus from Lidcombe to Birrong.

And also why not Liverpool Station? why somewhere else? Is it forcing people to take the Metro (ie. giving money to MTR and whoever else is running the thing) instead of heavy rail.

Because the Metro can extend beyond Liverpool is why it won't be at Liverpool station.

Enough said, you don't know anything about it, What is happening to Scarborough is not related to the NWRL and completely separate issue.

I do know enough about it to know that it can show what can happen to a standalone line not interoperable with an already established rail transit network in the same urban area, in this case the tramways and subway of Toronto.

The ESR-Cronulla line operates as an independent service, to the best of my knowledge Red Rattlers never operated on the line to ESR.  And even if the NWRL-City Metro is an Orphan which is nearly 10x the length of Scarborough does it matter for the passenger, no. We have previously proven the smaller tunnel size is off-set by the 50% greater frequency capacity of the line and delivers users to their destination at significantly lower cost the Sydney Trains.

That line is most certainly part of the Sydney suburban and does use rolling stock that can run on the rest of the network. A smaller tunnel size may be offset by running trains more frequently and making more peak period passengers stand, but that doesn't mean that a smaller tunnel size has the same or higher capacity. If you are looking at increasing capacity, you either add more tracks and/or increase signalling capacity, keeping the loading gauge the same or increasing it, or you simply increase the loading gauge and run larger trains.

The need for changing of trains at Chatswood only applies to about 50% of the total users of the line. The NWRL is alot different to many other branch lines in Australia in that it is projected to have a high turn over along the route and the reason it was built this way rather than take the shorter route following Victoria Road. The govts plan always included extension to the city because it was needed by the mid 2020's at the latest if not before. This is not the only location in Sydney where CBD bound users have to change trains so hardly an orphan in this regard. FYI there are four locations where users need to change trains to get to the CBD.

50% is still thousands of commuters, and a large portion of them too. What are those buses on the M2 doing running express? Isn't it the traffic between the Northwest and the C.B.D that makes the line viable?

The original plans for the NWRL were dropped on longterm cost reasons by both sides of politics.

Once again, they were dropped after Rod Staples was put in charge, and the change has been opposed by the following rail experts and many others too:

*Colin Schroeder, of EcoTransit Sydney
*Sandy Thomas, who wrote 1855 revisted, I wonder what his experience with rail planning, construction and/or operations is.
*Matthew Geier

While the track might be going in, and the trains might be on their way, these rail experts, all who live within the area served by the Sydney suburban, all think it's a mistake, but surely we can still prevent new extension or further metro lines built.

Sydney Trains rolling stock is also designed for short haul having stations frequently at spacing s of less than 1000m and in some areas 800m and subject to much debate if there should be some station rationalisation to speed trains up and reduce operating costs. The NWRL is not design for short haul so to speak and fit for purpose.

No, Sydney rolling stock is designed for long haul (semi) express runs. That on the Northwest metro (not a proper rail link) will be similar to other metro rolling stock used on short haul stop start runs.

The RER trains are 4m longer, something that cannot be done in Sydney or they would have. Remember V-sets are also 4m longer and narrower as a result reducing the seating to 2+2. Unlike RER you cannot have centre doors on Syd rolling stock DD or SD and the Paris RER 3rd doors and stairs on a DD car chews up so much space they seat just less than a Sydney DD.  Again we discussed this before so why bring up false data again.

Strictly speaking you could use such trains if they don't serve stations with curved platforms. Fact is that more doors doesn't always mean short dwell times, older single decker R.E.R trains have four doors per side of each carriage and take longer to dwell than the newer double deckers.

There are numerous cities with non-compatible lines due to history and choosing the latest technology with each new line. The rolling stock on these high density corridors is dedicated and fixed to that line even on systems where there is some compatibility and is similar case in Sydney. On such systems there is little benefit in retains backwards compatibility, typically targeting cost and safety as the basic reasons.

And sometimes older lines get converted to use the new technology, as Paris has done with metro line 1.

Your reference to the Dubai metro was again incorrect like it was previously, start with Google Maps and wiki. 75km of track over two lines (53 and 22km), all but 13km of UG on Viaduct with relatively short but frequent trains move about 500,000 per day and in the midst of the mining boom still cost just $130m/km. A further 25km worth of extensions to a major Mall, Academic City, new airport and site of EXPO 2020 is expected to add >25% more users by 2020. Not bad for two lines, 5 car trains with 650 seated/standing capacity and 100km of track, but you say this won't work for Sydney?

I didn't say anything about the length of the lines, or anything more specific about the portion of underground running other than those sections are short.
I also said that there is vacant land in the gaps between stations on the elevated sections.

Sorry but the Northwest metro is 40km long, entirely within a suburban area. If you want to get people out or the buses and cars, you need more seats, surely.

Let's say that 5 years after the metro is opened, the metro trains get interior refits to fit more seats, and service levels are reduced as the running costs increase and use that argument that they are supplying a similar number of seats to before.

Mytone said
I do know enough about it to know that it can show what can happen to a standalone line not interoperable with an already established rail transit network in the same urban area, in this case the tramways and subway of Toronto.

You have used selective data on one small application ignoring large scale practices to try and copy and paste to a completely different situation.

Mytone said
That line is most certainly part of the Sydney suburban and does use rolling stock that can run on the rest of the network. A smaller tunnel size may be offset by running trains more frequently and making more peak period passengers stand, but that doesn't mean that a smaller tunnel size has the same or higher capacity. If you are looking at increasing capacity, you either add more tracks and/or increase signalling capacity, keeping the loading gauge the same or increasing it, or you simply increase the loading gauge and run larger trains

There are a number of ways to increase train capacity. 1) train length (Max is 8hr cars), 2) Frequency, Sydney is at 3min and at best might squeeze out 2.5min unreliably, 3) train density, standing, DD combination of both, 4) extra tracks.

The Metro does Number 4 and number 2 as it can go down to 90sec, at least 1min more than DD and more realistically 1.5min more of twice as frequent. Brisbane has identified that 24t/hr is max frequency due to numerous constraints. Sydney has looked at 24t/hr, but Town Hall station keeps coming to teh top of reasons why not along with the fact it must be 24t/hr for over 30km, this is even rare in Europe.

Mytone said
50% is still thousands of commuters, and a large portion of them too. What are those buses on the M2 doing running express? Isn't it the traffic between the Northwest and the C.B.D that makes the line viable?

The NWRL will take on some of those buses but the prime reason it runs via Chatswood and not Ryde is because of the volumes headed to the Epping - Chatswood corridor. Read the report!

Mytone said
Once again, they were dropped after Rod Staples was put in charge, and the change has been opposed by the following rail experts and many others too:

Rod Staples I believe was demonstrated to have a suitable CV for making the decision he made.

*Colin Schroeder, of EcoTransit Sydney
*Sandy Thomas, who wrote 1855 revisted, I wonder what his experience with rail planning, construction and/or operations is.
*Matthew Geier

The above are advocacy groups or similar, you or I could start an advocacy group but doesn't make us an expert.

Mytone said
While the track might be going in, and the trains might be on their way, these rail experts, all who live within the area served by the Sydney suburban, all think it's a mistake, but surely we can still prevent new extension or further metro lines built.

We won't because it would be stupid to do so. The line must achieve its full potential and benefit to Sydney by getting to Liverpool.

Mytone said
No, Sydney rolling stock is designed for long haul (semi) express runs. That on the Northwest metro (not a proper rail link) will be similar to other metro rolling stock used on short haul stop start runs.

It does all types, some good, some badly. its a compromise

Sydney Metro rolling stock is also a compromise, but one that can achieve the task required and do it cheaper. I loved V-sets as most pax do, but on a cost basis they are a luxury the state decided it could do without.

To claim the NWRL is not a proper Rail Link is a sign of immaturity, when it links with two lines, soon to be four lines, the city and two large satellite cities and numerous industrial parks..

Mytone said
Strictly speaking you could use such trains if they don't serve stations with curved platforms. Fact is that more doors doesn't always mean short dwell times, older single decker R.E.R trains have four doors per side of each carriage and take longer to dwell than the newer double deckers.

The first sentence is illogical considering the network is full of these stations. Bankstown has some and these will be straightened to enable the Metro.

The SD Red Rattlers have the roughly the same length of door way per carriage as the DD's, expect its worse being SD doors which where mostly single person entry, the double doors widths are 3-4 people at a time. This was a very poor comparison and I'm being nice.

Mytone said

And sometimes older lines get converted to use the new technology, as Paris has done with metro line 1.

Yep and when they do they get segregated from the old and this is exactly what is happening in Sydney ECRL

Mytone said
I didn't say anything about the length of the lines, or anything more specific about the portion of underground running other than those sections are short.
I also said that there is vacant land in the gaps between stations on the elevated sections.

Which shows you know nothing about the Dubai Metro or Dubai. Remember I live here and grew up and commuted in Sydney.  

Mytone said
Sorry but the Northwest metro is 40km long, entirely within a suburban area. If you want to get people out or the buses and cars, you need more seats, surely.

The line might be 40km long, but the standing passengers will not be travelling for 40km, unlikely to exceed 20km when you look at the expected loading/unloading pattern in the project study. In comparison to the existing lines, the standing time is likely to be less than others. Typically many commuters are standing for 30-45min. The Metro from the city to the terminus will complete the route in less time than 50-55min when its extended to Marsden Park. As I've said before, it is not a typical sweeper branch line. Sydney Trains has no issues in getting people out of cars and buses onto crowded trains in peak, this line is however unlikely to reason such levels of crowded for decades to come.

Let's say that 5 years after the metro is opened, the metro trains get interior refits to fit more seats, and service levels are reduced as the running costs increase and use that argument that they are supplying a similar number of seats to before.

This is an illogical comment, has Sydney trains, Brisbane Rail or Melbourne Metro running costs/subsidy increased have they reduced reduced service frequency? No. Has the seating density increased? No, apart from conversion from V-sets. The Metro's will I think be 2+2 seating and increases in demand will be matched with increases in train frequency and train length as the initial trains will be shorter than maximum.

The data for the triangle is as follows. Over 8000 in AM peak, 40% actually getting off. If the route from Liverpool to city via Regents Park (ignore other issues), most of this would be taken care of leaving just Birrong, minor numbers but Yagoona is not small change.

Issue is these stations are closer to 1.5km from the nearest station and even a potential Condell Park on the Metro route. Hence the only and likely fix should the above reopening of Liverpool via Regents Park and bus connection from Reagents Park to Bankstown. The local road route doesn't look too bad, but would depend on intersections with the Hume Hwy.

Boardings	On	off	Total
Berala	1430	130
Regents Park	780	760
Total	2210	890	3100
Caramar	290	40
Villawood	260	130
Leightonfield	30	100
Chester Hill	780	320
Sefton	500	410
Total	1860	1000	2860
Birrong	480	220
Yagoona	1170	160
Total	1650	380	2030

There are a number of ways to increase train capacity. 1) train length (Max is 8hr cars), 2) Frequency, Sydney is at 3min and at best might squeeze out 2.5min unreliably, 3) train density, standing, DD combination of both, 4) extra tracks.

One way to increase train capacity is to increase the width of the train the number of decks or both, increasing the loading gauge if necessary. Other ways to increase capacity while keeping the loading gauge or increasing it are:

*Higher frequency, maybe with higher capacity signalling.
*Extra tracks.

The Metro does Number 4 and number 2 as it can go down to 90sec, at least 1min more than DD and more realistically 1.5min more of twice as frequent. Brisbane has identified that 24t/hr is max frequency due to numerous constraints. Sydney has looked at 24t/hr, but Town Hall station keeps coming to teh top of reasons why not along with the fact it must be 24t/hr for over 30km, this is even rare in Europe.

The metro does do 2 and 4, but with a reduced loading gauge incompatible with double decked rolling stock. An analogy later on.

To claim the NWRL is not a proper Rail Link is a sign of immaturity, when it links with two lines, soon to be four lines, the city and two large satellite cities and numerous industrial parks.

It's not a proper rail link because there can be no (useable) physical connection with other lines in that area, like the North Shore and Richmond lines.

Bankstown has some and these will be straightened to enable the Metro.

Maybe they could be straightened without conversion to metro.

Yep and when they do they get segregated from the old and this is exactly what is happening in Sydney ECRL

I'm not sure what you mean.

Which shows you know nothing about the Dubai Metro or Dubai. Remember I live here and grew up and commuted in Sydney.

I'm told this by someone who has ridden one of the lines end-to-end.

The line might be 40km long, but the standing passengers will not be travelling for 40km, unlikely to exceed 20km when you look at the expected loading/unloading pattern in the project study. In comparison to the existing lines, the standing time is likely to be less than others.

But it's in suburban territory, surely you need a considerable amount of Northwest to C.B.D patronage to justify it.

...has Sydney trains, Brisbane Rail or Melbourne Metro running costs/subsidy increased have they reduced reduced service frequency? No. Has the seating density increased? No, apart from conversion from V-sets. The Metro's will I think be 2+2 seating and increases in demand will be matched with increases in train frequency and train length as the initial trains will be shorter than maximum.

But these networks are large and long established.

The point here is this, if the number of seats on each train is increased, can supplying the same number of seats as before (with more trains and fewer seats each) be an excuse to reduce service levels?

The data for the triangle is as follows. Over 8000 in AM peak, 40% actually getting off. If the route from Liverpool to city via Regents Park (ignore other issues), most of this would be taken care of leaving just Birrong, minor numbers but Yagoona is not small change.

Issue is these stations are closer to 1.5km from the nearest station and even a potential Condell Park on the Metro route. Hence the only and likely fix should the above reopening of Liverpool via Regents Park and bus connection from Reagents Park to Bankstown. The local road route doesn't look too bad, but would depend on intersections with the Hume Hwy.

                                 

Boardings	On	off	Total
Berala	1430	130
Regents Park	780	760
Total	2210	890	3100
Caramar	290	40
Villawood	260	130
Leightonfield	30	100
Chester Hill	780	320
Sefton	500	410
Total	1860	1000	2860
Birrong	480	220
Yagoona	1170	160
Total	1650	380	2030

The Metro can not use the sefton section because freight still uses that line. That is why the current plan has the metro stopping at Bankstown. I agree with bring back liverpool and bankstown via regents park services post conversion but that can't happen unless 2 extra tracks are built between Strathfield and Granville.

To those who think that Sydney suburban requires specialised custom rolling stock, remember this:

In fact the only specialised custom part of Sydney suburban trains is car-bodies. Most parts of these trains are in fact off-the-shelf, wheel-sets, bogies, propulsion equipment, door mechanisms, auxiliary power converters and much more. And you know what, plenty of single decker trains have custom car-body designs too.

Leaving the line an orphan would be a disaster, it needs to run to the city and the govt has chosen the Bankstown line. Not even a change of govt would stop the City Metro project now as it ticks far too many boxes.

The new Sydney Metro network has a natural foot print to achieve the maximum benefit for the technology and the max out the use of the corridor and hence efficient use of the costly long tunnels. To me this is from the Richmond line (now Marsden Industrial area) to Liverpool or maybe a short spur further west into a few suburbs. I also think the city tunnel section could also support a 2nd line from Nth Beaches to Straithfield.

The new route will be faster to the city from Chatswood (my est 10min) and cover additional location distant from the existing NSL, the removal of Bankstown trains from the city tunnels opens up the option for 8 additional slots from elsewhere, however there are issues in actually achieving those slots and additional work is needed. The time from Liverpool is roughly the same, but with higher frequency and capacity should pull people away from other SW and Western services, thus giving more capacity on those corridors. For example people nth of Liverpool would currently catch the train to the city via Granville, they may now catch a train the other way to Liverpool and then Metro.

So stop it, no, lets move forward not backwards. However further conversion of existing lines to Metro will be very limited.

and as we have discussed before, there are some very good reasons Scarborough is being replaced, nothing to do with automation.

The only error is the time from Liverpool with a new direct line on the metro to Sydney will bring travel time down from 55-60 minutes to about 40 minutes.

To those who think that Sydney suburban requires specialised custom rolling stock, remember this:

In fact the only specialised custom part of Sydney suburban trains is car-bodies. Most parts of these trains are in fact off-the-shelf, wheel-sets, bogies, propulsion equipment, door mechanisms, auxiliary power converters and much more. And you know what, plenty of single decker trains have custom car-body designs too.

Mytrone -  it would be lovely if this were the case, but unfortunately it is not. As an example I have direct engineering experience with, the Sydney M set design was originally supposed to be a modified Alstom DD design, licenced to EDI Rail, eventually binned and start from scratch due to problems to make it work in a Sydney setting.

From memory the actual M set design had a modified Alstom Traction system, and then virtually everything else was custom, including train management systems, power supply aux and main, wiring, electronics, couplers, HVAC, doors, intercar connectors, bogies, even wheelsets and even the wheel lathe were special adaptations. This complication of making all these systems work together as a special every time a new train is contracted to meet a specification as thick as three phone books is why delay and cost overuns were common.

I know this as I was part of the engineering management on the project. I left before the A sets became a reality but the early designs were the same way, except the traction supplier, body supplier, train management supplier etc were all changed. Again.

Contrast this with a true off the shelf metro set, the reason for having a position such as mine completely disappears because the above complexity disappears. What is bought will work out of the box. Did not happen on any Sydney set since the Tangara.

Cheers

Mytrone -  it would be lovely if this were the case, but unfortunately it is not. As an example I have direct engineering experience with, the Sydney M set design was originally supposed to be a modified Alstom DD design, licenced to EDI Rail, eventually binned and start from scratch due to problems to make it work in a Sydney setting.

But it was built by Goninan, do they have a connection with Alstom?

From memory the actual M set design had a modified Alstom Traction system, and then virtually everything else was custom, including train management systems, power supply aux and main, wiring, electronics, couplers, HVAC, doors, intercar connectors, bogies, even wheelsets and even the wheel lathe were special adaptations. This complication of making all these systems work together as a special every time a new train is contracted to meet a specification as thick as three phone books is why delay and cost overuns were common.

Why would the traction system need to be modified?!? Why would virtually everything else be custom. Why, in particular, would the bogies, let alone the wheelsets, be special adaptions, it's a standard gauge system. Any other peculiar track geometry issues?

Surely off-the-shelf bogies and propulsion equipment are compatible with the (standard gauge) Sydney suburban and New South Wales train link, even if the train bodies need to be customised.

Contrast this with a true off the shelf metro set, the reason for having a position such as mine completely disappears because the above complexity disappears. What is bought will work out of the box. Did not happen on any Sydney set since the Tangara.

There are no true off the shelf metro sets. But most do have plenty off-the-shelf components. Those ordering metro rolling stock, even for a newbuild system, still customise, there are differences in body widths and train control systems, some with under-running third rail, some with over-running third rail, others with overhead wires. But bogies and propulsion equipment are rarely customised, I doubt that door mechanisms are either. And the Tangara bogies, I'm told, are an off-the-shelf Japanese design.
As for what being brought working out of the box, why would this work with the Tangaras but not any later sets?

Mytrone -  it would be lovely if this were the case, but unfortunately it is not. As an example I have direct engineering experience with, the Sydney M set design was originally supposed to be a modified Alstom DD design, licenced to EDI Rail, eventually binned and start from scratch due to problems to make it work in a Sydney setting.

But it was built by Gonian, do they have a connection with Alstom?

First of all - it is "Goninan", not "Gonian", second of all "Goninan" had nothing to do with the M sets. The M sets are an EDI Rail design, a completely different company. EDI Rail bought the customized traction equipment from Alstom.

There are answers to the rest of your questions, but as experience has shown it only ends in a never ending spiral of "why, why why" with no conclusion. Borderline trolling. I simply present the facts with direct experience which is in contradiction of your first statement that the Sydney's sets are somehow "off the shelf" which they are not.

If a railway network is built to an uncommon gauge, such as the Toronto subway and tramway network, then the need for a customised bogie (including the wheel-sets) is understandable. But the Sydney suburban is standard gauge, so how could there be a need to customise the bogie design, let alone the wheel sets?
No, I'm not saying that Sydney's sets, or any other trains in the world, are truly off-the-shelf, but I'm told, by one of the rail experts mentioned above, that many components are off-the-shelf, such as wheels, motors, bogies, door mechanisms, traction converters, auxillery power converters. Surely that's at least the case with Tangaras.

If you think that there are true off-the-shelf metro sets, what would happen if someone tried to run a Dubai metro set in Singapore or Vancouver? Sorry, not all metro rolling stock, even among those on newbuild systems, is compatible with all other metro systems newbuild or legacy.