Improving the cost efficiency of Sydney Trains operations

 
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

I don't think it would be appropriate for Campbelltown express services to stop at these inner city stations.
Transtopic

Yet it is appropriate for Wollongong and Kiama "express" services to stop there - or at least transit through there in a time as if they have stopped?

There is another reason to have Campbelltown/East Hills via Sydenham services stop at St Peters and Erskinville:
to ensure they have the *same* transit time from Turella to Central, so they can occupy the same timetable slot.  

Alternatively, via Sydenham needs to be *exactly* 6 minutes faster (which can be achieved by tinkering with/adding stops between Revesby and Wolli Ck of Via Airport  services.

(NB even this 6min faster approach creates timetabling problems: it potentially leaves a hole in the timeable somewhere else with nothing to fill it).

Sponsored advertisement

  Transtopic Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney
I wasn't suggesting that South Coast Intercity trains should stop at St Peters and Erskineville, or even run on the Illawarra Main through to Bondi Junction, rather that these stations should be serviced by Illawarra Line trains from Hurstville/ Cronulla/Waterfall with an all stops operating pattern from Wolli Creek through to Bondi Junction.

I suggested that the Illawarra Local, freed from the Bankstown Line, could run as purely express tracks, catering for Campbelltown express services via the East Hills Line, South Coast Intercity, future Southern Highlands direct Intercity and Southern NSW Regional services.  A crossover would have to be installed between the Local and Main north of the junction with the ESR at Erskineville to allow access to the Illawarra Dive to Sydney Terminal for the Intercity and Regional services.  Campbelltown Suburban services would continue on the Local to the City Circle.
  Ethan1395 Train Controller

Location: An OSCar H Set
If any dive is going to happen in that area RTT it will have to be to the east of homebush and not the west with a tunnel from there to lidcombe for the suburban. Locals can stay above ground to service homebush and flemington. Why the heck would you waste time and effort just to move the inner west service to Olympic park for. That is a stupid idea that would drag the network even further into quagmire and the same would apply to transtopics carlingford line idea.
simstrain

Because Homebush is a highly inconveniently place to terminate trains, it only receives 2 trains per hour heading further west off peak, compared to other suburban stations which receive 4. And Olympic Park is a highly inefficient shuttle, thankfully the services were cut down to 4 carriages on weekdays, but on weekends, it receives 8 carriage DD trains (Waratahs) running on a 10 minute frequency, on a 5 minute services, between only two stations, on a late Sunday night.

Also, the Carlingford Line was my (Ethan1395), no one else, idea, not Transtopics. Should the Carlingford Line die, I would move my attention to the Olympic Park Line, which is now being discussed.
Hope that clears things up Smile

- Clyde is a waste of space, its proximity to Granville is such that its quicker to walk to Granville than wait for the next train (Google says 9min, but its possible to reduce by 2-3min if they wanted to very cheaply). Its prime function is junction station for Carlingford Line. Moving it is a waste of money and not practical as you cannot move it closer to Auburn.

- Eskinville and St Peters and potentially Redfern should not be on the southern Coast services, the route is already long and painful enough. Who from the South Coast is travelling to the Eskinville and St Peters? Basically no one. So if its a 3 seat journey, who cares.

- Tempe, I agree it would be better placed about 400-500m north, Wolli Creek is not the issue as there is no easy pedestrian access between the two across the river. Maybe closure of Tempe (If I recall the usage is actually low) outright is a more efficient solution with easy walking access provided to Wolli Creek, but this won't happen. Best way is to not have the same train service service both stations to save time.

- If I recall correctly, either Birrong or Yagoona gets very little usage. I think its Birrong. If the Metro was to be extended west to Liverpool directly, a new station could be build south of Yagoona to service this area and then the Bankstown to Junction line closed. The all Liverpool trains via Reagents park would need to run via Straithfield to the city. Currently no capacity to do so, you need a 4th pair of tracks or western Metro depopulate the Western services so much you open up slots.
RTT_Rules
- What is the distance between Granville and Auburn though? Wouldn't a station in between prove beneficial to serve the local area?

- South Coast Line services should most certainly NOT stop at Erskineville and St Peters or even Redfern, I am strongly against intercity services stopping at adjacent stations, you must have misread my post, I said that South Coast Line services should stop at Sydenham (instead of Redfern) so South Coast to Bankstown is not a 3 seat journey.

- If you go the Wikipedia article for any suburban or intercity station, it states the daily patronage in 2013-2014, if you don't trust Wikipedia, you can find the same information here, at the bottom of this post, I will list the 2013-14 patronage of all the stations currently being discussed. As for Tempe, it might get more patronage in a more useful location, closer to IKEA and other businesses in the area. I imagine most people living near Tempe station go to Wolli Creek to get more services.

- It's Birrong that gets little usage, but it only services a residential area so you can't expect too much patronage, so it's important nethertheless, and on top of that, the line from Lidcombe to Bankstown is important as it provides a north-south link that Sydney needs more of.

I'm puzzled by your reference to my "Carlingford Line idea". The only thing I've mentioned is the bleedingly obvious proposal to close the line altogether.
Transtopic
He got you mixed up with me, I suggested connecting the Carlingford Line to Homebush terminators, and if the Carlingford Line dies, I would turn my attention to connecting the Olympic Park Line to Homebush terminators, which is now being discussed.

2. They aren't and never will be. They might however be on the illawarra or t8 via sydenham line post bankstown metro.
3. Tempe already gets skipped by most illawarra services already.
simstrain
All stops T4 Illawarra Services should stop at Erskineville and St Peters (it will improve connectivity, no more short 3 seat journeys travelling from the East Hills Line to St Peters or Erskineville. Just as long as they receive 4 trains per hour as they currently do, currently Tempe, Arncliffe, and Banksia only receive 2 trains per hour, yet Carlton and Allawah receive 4, the other stations should receive 4 trains per hour also.

6. While the current government is in charge look for more metro lines rather then any new DD infrastructure.
simstrain
Opening of the Metro tram in Newcastle
RTT_Rules
Well now that it's been mentioned, maybe a good way to improve efficiency in Sydney is to not just focus on Sydney, by which I mean public transport elsewhere, and in this case, Newcastle, we talk about taking the strain off Town Hall and Wynyard, how about taking the strain off Sydney?
Why is the population staying in Sydney despite rising property prices? probably because of employment opportunities, and usable public transport, something not present Newcastle,
2.5km of light rail is not going to be enough, rebuidling the old suburban system with new intermediate stations would be a better start, but that's another topic.

I don't think it would be appropriate for Campbelltown express services to stop at these inner city stations.
Yet it is appropriate for Wollongong and Kiama "express" services to stop there - or at least transit through there in a time as if they have stopped?

There is another reason to have Campbelltown/East Hills via Sydenham services stop at St Peters and Erskinville: to ensure they have the *same* transit time from Turella to Central, so they can occupy the same timetable slot.

Alternatively, via Sydenham needs to be *exactly* 6 minutes faster (which can be achieved by tinkering with/adding stops between Revesby and Wolli Ck of Via Airport services.

(NB even this 6min faster approach creates timetabling problems: it potentially leaves a hole in the timeable somewhere else with nothing to fill it).
djf01
No one has been suggesting that South Coast Intercity Trains stop at St Peters and Erskineville!!!!
Clearly there has been a mix up, I (Ethan1395), no one else, suggested that South Coast Intercity Services stop at Sydenham so South Coast to Bankstown is not a 3 seat journey, and that all-stops Illawarra suburban services stop at St Peters and Erskineville with 4 trains per hour so East Hills Line to St Peters/Erskineville is not a 3 seat journey.
Hope that clears things up Smile

Now that's cleared up - if Campbelltown via Sydenham and Campbelltown via Airport take the exact same time, is there even any point of Campbelltown via Sydenham besides keeping airport passengers of peak hour Campbelltown services?

This goes back to the point of needing more CBD lines, with everything bottlenecking through the City Circle, things need to be exactly 6 minutes faster, or need to take the same time as the slow route, new CBD such as a new City Circle and new lines through the CBD for trains heading north.

I wasn't suggesting that South Coast Intercity trains should stop at St Peters and Erskineville, or even run on the Illawarra Main through to Bondi Junction, rather that these stations should be serviced by Illawarra Line trains from Hurstville/ Cronulla/Waterfall with an all stops operating pattern from Wolli Creek through to Bondi Junction.

I suggested that the Illawarra Local, freed from the Bankstown Line, could run as purely express tracks, catering for Campbelltown express services via the East Hills Line, South Coast Intercity, future Southern Highlands direct Intercity and Southern NSW Regional services. A crossover would have to be installed between the Local and Main north of the junction with the ESR at Erskineville to allow access to the Illawarra Dive to Sydney Terminal for the Intercity and Regional services. Campbelltown Suburban services would continue on the Local to the City Circle.
Transtopic
I very much lie what you have suggested, keeping South Coast services out of the ESR allows the services (combined with the new trains that won't even fit the ESR platforms when operating as 10 carriages) to be better marketed as intercity services, allows for more suburban trains on the ESR, and helps keep suburban passengers off overcrowded South Coast trains.


I wonder if more frequent South Coast services, Southern Highland services running to Central, more regional services, and more Macarthur/Campbelltown via Sydenham services could still justify sextuplication from Wolli Creek (with additional platforms) to Erskineville - Tempe station could be moved to a more useful location during construction of said sextuplication.


DAILY PATROANGE (2013-14) OF STATIONS BEING DISCUSSED:
  • Clyde - 710 (not including Carlingford Line interchanges)
  • Tempe - 1,190
  • Sydenham - 5,620 (not including interchanges between lines)
  • St Peters - 3,380
  • Erskineville - 1,960
  • Birrong - 980
  • Yagoona - 2,030
  • Homebush - 1,910
  • Olympic Park 2,600
  • Carlingford - 370
  • Arncliffe - 1,740
  • Banksia - 1,400
  • Carlon - 1,540
  • Allawah - 1,760
  Transtopic Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney
I doubt if the sextup will be needed once the Bankstown Line is removed from the Local, which will basically have the same effect.  There is the difficulty of the Bankstown Line platforms at Sydenham being taken over by the metro and even if the extra tracks ran underground through Sydenham, they would need a separate path into or through the CBD.  The metro line will provide this.  It would also complicate a crossover to the Illawarra Dive to gain access to Sydney Terminal.

Under my scenario, the Illawarra Main (eastern pair) would provide the all stations services from Hurstville to Bondi Junction up to 12tph in the peak with ATO.  The Illawarra Local (western pair) would provide 12tph semi-express services from Cronulla and Waterfall, overtaking the slower all stops services from Hurstville, and crossing over to merge with the Main at Wolli Creek and continuing at 24tph all stops to Bondi Junction.  The Local from Hurstville would also run the express South Coast Intercity trains, perhaps initially at 6tph with potential for additional services as patronage increases, through to Sydney Terminal via the crossover to the dive at Erskineville which I alluded to earlier.

The Campbelltown express services via the East Hills Line would also run on the Local from Wolli Creek at say up to 12tph to the City Circle, shared with the South Coast Intercity services, between Wolli Creek and Erskineville, where the latter branch off to Sydney Terminal via the dive.  Future Southern Highlands Intercity services after extension of electrification would also run through to Sydney Terminal.

The Airport Line would run all stations services from Revesby to the City Circle at 12tph, where they merge with the Campbelltown express services via Sydenham.  In the longer term, the Airport Line should be diverted from the City Circle to a more central CBD terminus.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
I doubt if the sextup will be needed once the Bankstown Line is removed from the Local, which will basically have the same effect.  There is the difficulty of the Bankstown Line platforms at Sydenham being taken over by the metro and even if the extra tracks ran underground through Sydenham, they would need a separate path into or through the CBD.  The metro line will provide this.  It would also complicate a crossover to the Illawarra Dive to gain access to Sydney Terminal.

Under my scenario, the Illawarra Main (eastern pair) would provide the all stations services from Hurstville to Bondi Junction up to 12tph in the peak with ATO.  The Illawarra Local (western pair) would provide 12tph semi-express services from Cronulla and Waterfall, overtaking the slower all stops services from Hurstville, and crossing over to merge with the Main at Wolli Creek and continuing at 24tph all stops to Bondi Junction.  The Local from Hurstville would also run the express South Coast Intercity trains, perhaps initially at 6tph with potential for additional services as patronage increases, through to Sydney Terminal via the crossover to the dive at Erskineville which I alluded to earlier.

The Campbelltown express services via the East Hills Line would also run on the Local from Wolli Creek at say up to 12tph to the City Circle, shared with the South Coast Intercity services, between Wolli Creek and Erskineville, where the latter branch off to Sydney Terminal via the dive.  Future Southern Highlands Intercity services after extension of electrification would also run through to Sydney Terminal.

The Airport Line would run all stations services from Revesby to the City Circle at 12tph, where they merge with the Campbelltown express services via Sydenham.  In the longer term, the Airport Line should be diverted from the City Circle to a more central CBD terminus.
Interesting

Adding a few other comments to above

- Extend the Quad from Revesby to East Hills, then via Central 26/27, new stop between Pitt street and Museam (take your pick), St James and terminate at Wynyard Tram station. Completely track separated from everything else and allows Campelltown to skip Panania and Revesby. One advantage of doing this is being able to run dedicated rolling stock for the airport trains and this includes dedicated platforms and staff for airport trains.

- For South Coast line services through the Quad from Hurtsville to Wolli Creek, express should run inner or outer tracks to save crossing paths.

- Illawarra needs to have a dive or something to enable to leave the ESR bound trains without crossing paths, not at 24t/h likewise dive under the Cambelltown trains.

EDIT,
I said above that Airport should use Central 26/27, however we mentioned before if these platforms are not suited to high volume use, then perhaps then convert to Illawarra trains. The volume of traffic will not be an issue for the older design narrow platforms. Its easier to break away from ESR line with a level cross over under ground. Don't even need a shunt neck, with only South Coast trains using these two platforms just an arrival pair of sissor cross overs or similar and buffer stop at end of the platform. Maybe a simple 250m extension for extra storage out of hours? Removes the need and complexity taking the South Coast trains into Central Terminus. Not hard to install water and waste water removal at the station, or simply take care of that down south.

Then this leaves Airport at current Central stations (not the best for new comers but can be upgraded) and then dive under the city to as described above. It would still be separate stand alone line.

Campbelltown Services then have an un-conflicted / uncomplicated run from Glenfield to Redfern.

Q would Campbelltown merge with other traffic going into the city tunnels or be just a feeder for Inner West and T2 coming out the other side which is very much aligned with Clearways.
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

I suggested that the Illawarra Local, freed from the Bankstown Line, could run as purely express tracks, catering for Campbelltown express services via the East Hills Line, South Coast Intercity, future Southern Highlands direct Intercity and Southern NSW Regional services.  A crossover would have to be installed between the Local and Main north of the junction with the ESR at Erskineville to allow access to the Illawarra Dive to Sydney Terminal for the Intercity and Regional services.  
Transtopic

My apologies, I (think I) understand it now.
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

Then this leaves Airport at current Central stations (not the best for new comers but can be upgraded) and then dive under the city to as described above. It would still be separate stand alone line.
RTT_Rules

Two points about the airport line:

  • It really should be in the same format as the first line to Badgery's Creek, so there can be direct connecting services.  (*Very* important for the western airport to be successful IMHO)
  • If Canberra-Sydney HSR/MSR is to be a success, it needs to stop at Sydney Airport.
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

I was giving a bit of thought - well, even more than usual - to this problem, and have taken it back to the OP's original question: how can we improve cost effectiveness?

I think the main methods are:
  • higher speeds
  • longer trains (read higher capacity trains)
  • higher densities (on average across the network ie a bias toward longer distance PAX vs shorter distance PAX)

My previous preferred option was designed as an alternative to Metro, but reviewing it also address many of the problems of cost efficiency.

In short, the alternate plan is:
  • Re-alignment of Malfunction Junction (https://imgur.com/ehmDdhT Mains -> W Suburbans, W Suburbans -> W Local, W Local -> Ill Local, Ill Local -> Ill Main east of Ill dive)
  • Inner West and Bankstown to operate as a separate sector into a new track pair (Central - St James - Bridge St) largely using existing unused tunnels.
  • Main Nth to Sector 2
  • Sector 3 upgraded between Parramatta and Chatswood to high speed, high density and ultimately 200m trains.
This table is a comparison of happens now, with what *could* reasonably happen with the appropriate engineering: (https://imgur.com/dE59TOu, https://imgur.com/50xPaGj)



The speed boards on the North Shore peak at 80kph, but apart from a couple of the island platforms, this limit could be increased without any major works.  It's only 80 because that's all it needs to be.  

The Woolstonecraft bends have a limit of 50 IIRC, but that could be raised to 70 if alignment alone was the only factor.  It just needs in-cab signalling.

The 40khp limit across the SHB and through the city is all about stopping distances on the descent into Wynyard Station with lots of very tightly spaced blocks.  Better signalling would allow this to be increased to 55 on the bridge and 60 in the tunnels.  Similarly, the 30kps limit beneath the Goulburn St car park could be increased by introducing adequate protection for the pylons.

West of Central trains have to use a pair of crossovers somewhere.  There are complex pointworks and junctions every few KM which for day to day operations arn't strictly necessary.  There are very few curves with a with a radius to short to allow 120kph operations, and only 1 related to alignment.

The main issues with achieving higher speeds and densities are signal spacing, visibility and pointwork.  *If* it were (re-)engineered  for the task, a running speed of predominantly 130 is clearly possible.

So here is my revised program of capital works for Sector 3:
  • Full ETCS Level 2 Hornsby -> Westmead (at least, this should happen network wide regardless, and should have started 20 years ago)
  • Triple Chatswood - Hornsby: new UP road (130kph spec) with side platforms, existing UP road Bi-directions and upgraded to 130kph
  • Turnback at one of: Chatswood, Artarmon, St Leonards
  • Re-engineer the route from Parramatta to Central to facilitate a 120kph transit, probably including:
  1. Re-alignment at Macdonaldtown (again: https://imgur.com/ehmDdhT), with high speed points for ST
  2. One set of high speed points at Strathfield Jtn
  3. One set of High Speed points for Flemington/Olympic  Park Access
  4. Removal of Western access to Flemington
  5. One Set of high speed points for access to Auburn Yard/Carlingford Branch
  6. Removal of all the crossovers (except perhaps bar those at Granville Jtn)
  • Lower Concourse for Nth Sydney Station, with dedicated footway to (the closed) Milsons Pt Station precinct
  • Program of Platform Lengthening: Nth Sydney, Chatswood, St Leonards, then Wynyard, Central (16/17), Town Hall (not trivial), then progressively all North Shore and Western Line

Notice, very little new track here.

For Sector 2:
  • Centre Platforms at St James, along with a turnback in the St James Lake stubs
  • If (and only if) Bankstown stays on HR, quad Central to St James, with the option of extending to Bridge St

(NB, these two are probably mutually exclusive)
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

Some operational notes on my above post:

Main north goes to sector 2.

Inner West (and Bankstown if it stays HR) goes to a Sector 4, which is semi-isolated from Sector 2.  
1/2 or 1/3rd of Inner West trains would also proceed along Sector 2 (Western Suburbans) to terminate at Parramatta.

Interburbans operate over the SHB, with overflow peak only 10 car services terminating at ST (Mountains) or Nth Sydney (Central Coast).

4-6 peak western line trains terminate at Nth Sydney, creating a timetable hole for a very limited Woolstonecraft/Waiverton stopping service, everything else skip stops.  

A single express road on the North Shore supports a 15 min frequency in both directions (just), but more in peak with reduced contra-flow frequency.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Then this leaves Airport at current Central stations (not the best for new comers but can be upgraded) and then dive under the city to as described above. It would still be separate stand alone line.

Two points about the airport line:

  • It really should be in the same format as the first line to Badgery's Creek, so there can be direct connecting services.  (*Very* important for the western airport to be successful IMHO)
  • If Canberra-Sydney HSR/MSR is to be a success, it needs to stop at Sydney Airport.
djf01
Yeah
- BC airport, yes agree the two should be connected, however it should be a problem for 12-15 years. But when it happens the arrangement would need to change.

- Can HSR, won't happen. MSR is more likely and to be honest I know what you are saying it should run past the airport and I don't disagree, but the airport line corridor is a primarily commuter line route, not a regional line corridor and if it works, great, but if not, how much money do we throw at it? I don't see an issue changing elsewhere provided the change is physically practical for people with bags.
  simstrain Chief Commissioner


One of the negative side effects of the Metro is that it was announced Illawarra  would stop at additional stops. The interurbans all have too many suburban stops now, they don't need to be stopping at such insignificant locations, Metro or not!
RTT_Rules

illawarra line as in hurstville, cronulla and waterfall services will be stopping at these stations and not the interurban wollongong services. Interurbans have very few stops in the city area and will not be stopping at st peters and erskineville.
  simstrain Chief Commissioner


Also, the Carlingford Line was my (Ethan1395), no one else, idea, not Transtopics. Should the Carlingford Line die, I would move my attention to the Olympic Park Line, which is now being discussed.
Hope that clears things up Smile
Ethan1395

This is stupid plain and simple and sorry to transtopic in apportioning blame for this crazy idea to him. Olympic park has a shuttle from Lidcombe and Homebush like ashfield is fine as a terminating point because they have a dedicated turnback platform that doesn't block the path of through traffic. 2 trains an hour is more then fine for homebush to connect to other stations to the west.

In any case the made up issue of not enough trains connecting homebush to the west is not the issue on the network. What is the most important issue is that there are limited stops services and all stops services sharing the same track on the locals. Efficiency will come from fixing this issue.
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

I doubt if the sextup will be needed once the Bankstown Line is removed from the Local, which will basically have the same effect.  There is the difficulty of the Bankstown Line platforms at Sydenham being taken over by the metro and even if the extra tracks ran underground through Sydenham, they would need a separate path into or through the CBD.  The metro line will provide this.  It would also complicate a crossover to the Illawarra Dive to gain access to Sydney Terminal.

Under my scenario, the Illawarra Main (eastern pair) would provide the all stations services from Hurstville to Bondi Junction up to 12tph in the peak with ATO.  The Illawarra Local (western pair) would provide 12tph semi-express services from Cronulla and Waterfall, overtaking the slower all stops services from Hurstville, and crossing over to merge with the Main at Wolli Creek and continuing at 24tph all stops to Bondi Junction.  The Local from Hurstville would also run the express South Coast Intercity trains, perhaps initially at 6tph with potential for additional services as patronage increases, through to Sydney Terminal via the crossover to the dive at Erskineville which I alluded to earlier.

The Campbelltown express services via the East Hills Line would also run on the Local from Wolli Creek at say up to 12tph to the City Circle, shared with the South Coast Intercity services, between Wolli Creek and Erskineville, where the latter branch off to Sydney Terminal via the dive.  Future Southern Highlands Intercity services after extension of electrification would also run through to Sydney Terminal.

The Airport Line would run all stations services from Revesby to the City Circle at 12tph, where they merge with the Campbelltown express services via Sydenham.  In the longer term, the Airport Line should be diverted from the City Circle to a more central CBD terminus.
Transtopic

This I can call you out on even if I understand what you are trying to achieve. Even with ATP it isn't possible to get 24tph if you are going to run multiple stopping patterns between erskineville and wolli creek. You will need to calculate 20 trains an hour at maximum but more likely 18. You would also need a flyover at wolli creek to achieve 24 trains an hour.

express campbelltown services will be using the extra track on the east hills line and there for will not stop at any stations until revesby. They therefore don't have to match travel time with the via airport services since they will just pass them.
  Transtopic Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney
I wasn't suggesting a multiple stopping pattern for Erskineville to Wolli Creek or vice versa, but a single all stops pattern from Wolli Creek to Bondi Junction to achieve the maximum line frequency.  It may not even  warrant that level of frequency.  With a lower frequency you could have a mixed stopping pattern, skipping some of the less patronised stations, with the all stops from Hurstville merging with the longer distance semi-express trains from Cronulla and Waterfall at Wolli Creek.  I agree that a flyover would be desirable at Wolli Creek.  This was in fact recommended in the original Christie Report.  I would even go a step further and in conjunction with a flyover/underpass, change direction on  the centre track pair to create adjoining tracks  running in the same direction, similar to the East Hills, Northern and Outer Western Lines.  The outer track pair would be for express trains (and freight) and the inner track pair for the all stations service from Hurstville.  It would simplify terminating operation at Hurstville as well as allowing cross platform transfer between the all stops and express services.

I agree with you re Campbelltown express services.
  SydneyCider Chief Train Controller

Just curious, but when they extended the quad to Revesby, was that part of a grander plan to eventually complete quad to the Main South line to Glenfield? Likewise, would it be possible to quad the line (given the Southern Freight Corridor - SFC) from say Glenfield to Macarthur to benefit any regional service such as the one to Canberra or a future Southern Highlands Intercity train, so these can bypass the suburbans? Further to that, would there be any benefit to quad any other parts of that main south line up towards Granville? The stretch to Cabramatta is now essentially triplicated with the SFC, although that line is not electrified.

As for the Southern Highlands Intercity, I guess we'll have to see if that happens, there have been quite a few calling out for it.
  Transtopic Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney
In response to SydneyCider (can't quote his message for some reason), I'm not aware of any official proposal to extend the quad beyond Revesby, but it would certainly be warranted in the longer term to separate all stations, potentially from say Glenfield, and express services from Campbelltown and the new airport at Badgerys Creek.  Not sure about extending the quad to the south to Macarthur as the SSFL would complicate this,  Similarly in extending the quad to Liverpool from Glenfield.  I can't see the need for quading the South Line from Liverpool to Granville as it will most likely remain as an all stops  service.  The SSFL was built exclusively for freight and I can't see that changing.  A direct Southern Highlands Intercity service to Central, in addition to the current Goulburn service, probably wouldn't be warranted until electrification is extended.
  Transtopic Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney
@djf01, I've been trying to get my head around some of your ideas, particularly regarding re-alignment of "Malfunction" Junction (Eveleigh).  I presume that in your scenario, that the Mains would continue to Sydney Terminal, with a junction to the re-aligned Suburban tracks, and re-alignment of the Inner West Local and Illawarra Local in parallel.  Are you suggesting that the Illawarra Main between the Illawarra Dive and the re-aligned Illawarra Local should be closed?  

What I don't understand is your suggestion that the Inner West AND Bankstown Lines should operate as a separate sector into a new track pair. Do you mean as a single line or a re-alignment into the City Circle with the Airport Line?  Presumably, the re-aligned Main to Suburban would run through to the North Shore Line and the Suburban to  Local to the City Circle Outer.  That would mean that the Local to Illawarra Local would run through to the City Circle Inner merging with the Airport Line if I follow your logic.  It appears from what you are suggesting that it is premised on the basis that the Bankstown Line remains as part of the existing Sydney Trains' network, which may or may not happen if there is change of government.
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

@djf01, I've been trying to get my head around some of your ideas, particularly regarding re-alignment of "Malfunction" Junction (Eveleigh).  I presume that in your scenario, that the Mains would continue to Sydney Terminal, with a junction to the re-aligned Suburban tracks, and re-alignment of the Inner West Local and Illawarra Local in parallel.  Are you suggesting that the Illawarra Main between the Illawarra Dive and the re-aligned Illawarra Local should be closed?  
Transtopic

Yes, Illawarra Main is closed.  

West to East:
Western Mains -> Suburbans (then to the Nth Shore)
Western Suburbans -> City Circle (Via TH)
Western Locals and Illawarra Local merge at the flying junctions -> St James Terminal
Airport -> City Circle (via St James)


What I don't understand is your suggestion that the Inner West AND Bankstown Lines should operate as a separate sector into a new track pair.
Transtopic

Because they are physically adjacent, and have a similar route profile - possibly suitable for SD.


Do you mean as a single line or a re-alignment into the City Circle with the Airport Line?  
Transtopic

*If* Bankstown is retained on HR, then as a new line from Central to St James.  9Though it;s not strictly essential)
If not, then shared trackage with the City Circle/Airport between Central and St James (meaning a very limited service at Museum)


Presumably, the re-aligned Main to Suburban would run through to the North Shore Line and the Suburban to  Local to the City Circle Outer.
Transtopic

Yes.  (But to western arm of City Circle, not Outer)


 That would mean that the Local to Illawarra Local would run through to the City Circle Inner merging with the Airport Line if I follow your logic.  It appears from what you are suggesting that it is premised on the basis that the Bankstown Line remains as part of the existing Sydney Trains' network, which may or may not happen if there is change of government.
Transtopic


I think this concept works either way.  

Basically, there are unused platforms and extra approach paths on the eastern arm of the City Circle, these could be the basis of an additional sector, as an alternative to building the Western Express to achieve more or less the same thing.
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

I wasn't suggesting a multiple stopping pattern for Erskineville to Wolli Creek or vice versa, but a single all stops pattern from Wolli Creek to Bondi Junction to achieve the maximum line frequency.  It may not even  warrant that level of frequency.  With a lower frequency you could have a mixed stopping pattern, skipping some of the less patronised stations, with the all stops from Hurstville merging with the longer distance semi-express trains from Cronulla and Waterfall at Wolli Creek.  I agree that a flyover would be desirable at Wolli Creek.  This was in fact recommended in the original Christie Report.  I would even go a step further and in conjunction with a flyover/underpass, change direction on  the centre track pair to create adjoining tracks  running in the same direction, similar to the East Hills, Northern and Outer Western Lines.  The outer track pair would be for express trains (and freight) and the inner track pair for the all stations service from Hurstville.  It would simplify terminating operation at Hurstville as well as allowing cross platform transfer between the all stops and express services.

I agree with you re Campbelltown express services.
Transtopic

There is going to be mixed stopping patterns because neither erskineville or tempe need 20 trains an hour. Wollongong services that start and end at bondi junction will also be in the mix. In any case you aren't going to get 24 trains an hour because DD trains don't allow that frequency period through the CBD especially at town hall station.
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

Just curious, but when they extended the quad to Revesby, was that part of a grander plan to eventually complete quad to the Main South line to Glenfield? Likewise, would it be possible to quad the line (given the Southern Freight Corridor - SFC) from say Glenfield to Macarthur to benefit any regional service such as the one to Canberra or a future Southern Highlands Intercity train, so these can bypass the suburbans? Further to that, would there be any benefit to quad any other parts of that main south line up towards Granville? The stretch to Cabramatta is now essentially triplicated with the SFC, although that line is not electrified.

As for the Southern Highlands Intercity, I guess we'll have to see if that happens, there have been quite a few calling out for it.
SydneyCider

There is no need to extend the quad further then revesby. A quad is needed between Glenfield and Campbelltown because you have the T2 and T8 adjoining there but no need to quad beyond revesby to glenfield. The southern highlands trains are not held up at all until they hit glenfield because they pass the all stops services on the east hills express tracks. They get held up between Glenfield and Campbelltown because of the stopping suburban services ahead.
  Transtopic Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney
@djf01, I've been trying to get my head around some of your ideas, particularly regarding re-alignment of "Malfunction" Junction (Eveleigh).  I presume that in your scenario, that the Mains would continue to Sydney Terminal, with a junction to the re-aligned Suburban tracks, and re-alignment of the Inner West Local and Illawarra Local in parallel.  Are you suggesting that the Illawarra Main between the Illawarra Dive and the re-aligned Illawarra Local should be closed?  

Yes, Illawarra Main is closed.  

West to East:
Western Mains -> Suburbans (then to the Nth Shore)
Western Suburbans -> City Circle (Via TH)
Western Locals and Illawarra Local merge at the flying junctions -> St James Terminal
Airport -> City Circle (via St James)


What I don't understand is your suggestion that the Inner West AND Bankstown Lines should operate as a separate sector into a new track pair.
Because they are physically adjacent, and have a similar route profile - possibly suitable for SD.


Do you mean as a single line or a re-alignment into the City Circle with the Airport Line?  
*If* Bankstown is retained on HR, then as a new line from Central to St James.  9Though it;s not strictly essential)
If not, then shared trackage with the City Circle/Airport between Central and St James (meaning a very limited service at Museum)


Presumably, the re-aligned Main to Suburban would run through to the North Shore Line and the Suburban to  Local to the City Circle Outer.
Yes.  (But to western arm of City Circle, not Outer)


 That would mean that the Local to Illawarra Local would run through to the City Circle Inner merging with the Airport Line if I follow your logic.  It appears from what you are suggesting that it is premised on the basis that the Bankstown Line remains as part of the existing Sydney Trains' network, which may or may not happen if there is change of government.

I think this concept works either way.  

Basically, there are unused platforms and extra approach paths on the eastern arm of the City Circle, these could be the basis of an additional sector, as an alternative to building the Western Express to achieve more or less the same thing.
djf01
Thanks for that. May I suggest that on the assumption that the Bankstown Line conversion to metro proceeds, that the existing junction arrangement at Eveleigh is maintained with the Mains continuing to ST, the Suburban continuing to the North Shore, the Inner West Local continuing to the City Circle Outer (West) via Town Hall and the Illawarra Local continuing to merge with the Airport Line to the City Circle Inner (East) via St James. The Illawarra Main from Erskineville Junction (with the ESR) is virtually redundant, although it could play a role in any future line into the CBD such as you suggested to terminate at St James at the unused centre platforms.  The only problem with that may be, that as I understand it, the underground platforms 26 and 27 at Central will be used for equipment servicing in support of the metro line.  That's a further compromise that the metro agenda has placed on the future expansion of the current rail network.

In a post Bankstown Line conversion to metro, I would envisage that in conjunction with completion of the sextup from the East Hills Line at Wolli Creek to a re-aligned Illawarra Local at Erskineville, the existing Local would be skewed to the Main beyond Erskineville Junction, with the Main being diverted from Redfern (platforms 9 & 10) to a new underground alignment to St James, assuming it would still be feasible to use platforms 26 & 27 at Central.  If not possible, then the previous longstanding arrangement of the Illawarra Mains and Local merging into the City Circle should be reinstated and the Airport Line diverted into a new CBD Terminus.  Regardless, I still believe that a City Relief Line, junctioning from the Mains at Eveleigh, exclusively for Western Line services, would still be warranted.
  Airvan99 Junior Train Controller

The platforms 26&27 at central can never be used as platforms as they were not built to the engineering standards required today.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
The platforms 26&27 at central can never be used as platforms as they were not built to the engineering standards required today.
Airvan99
Yet all the other platforms made for the ESR at the same time are in regular use apart from the Central 26/26 and Redfern 11 and 12 and only because of a change in plan.
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

In a post Bankstown Line conversion to metro, I would envisage that in conjunction with completion of the sextup from the East Hills Line at Wolli Creek to a re-aligned Illawarra Local at Erskineville, the existing Local would be skewed to the Main beyond Erskineville Junction, with the Main being diverted from Redfern (platforms 9 & 10) to a new underground alignment to St James, assuming it would still be feasible to use platforms 26 & 27 at Central.  If not possible, then the previous longstanding arrangement of the Illawarra Mains and Local merging into the City Circle should be reinstated and the Airport Line diverted into a new CBD Terminus.  Regardless, I still believe that a City Relief Line, junctioning from the Mains at Eveleigh, exclusively for Western Line services, would still be warranted.
Transtopic

There is one unambiguous way to improve the cost effectiveness of Sydney Trains:
Add another path into the city.

This will allow:
  • Increased densities
  • Reduce the number of stopping patterns on each route
  • Reduce the transit times on each route

Effectively, it would increase the productivity of what are currently Sectors 2 & 3 to that of Sector 1 (which achieves greater productivity even with the same rolling stock and work practices thanks to the ESR).

It doesn't really matter where it goes, the benefit is the same.

Whenever I read (or think) about sextups or other amplification I need to remind myself that the core problems is insufficient city paths, and extra tracks outside the city won't help (much) unless this fundamental issue is addressed first.  And if there are more city paths, then the "need" for a lot of the amplification disappears, because the routes aren't fighting each other as much for access.

These are the options I see (in increasing order of cost):
  • Build a St James Turnback and close/curtail services stopping at Museum (Paris RER Lines B & D IIRC share a strack pair in this way in the tunnels under the Sein between Gar du Nord and Châtelet - Les Halles)
  • A full quad between Central Surface and St James (ie widen Eddie Ave Viaduct, tunnel to the College St/Liverpool St Junction, then into the existing tunnels to St James (~ 400m Viaduct, 400m new tunnel)
  • A new underground line from the Airport Line near the portals to St James via Central 26/27 (~1750m of new tunnel, 2 existing station fitouts)
  • A new underground line from Redfern through Central 26/27 to Redfern (portals between Cleveland St and Lawson St) connecting to any of the track pairs (~2000m of new tunnels, 2 existing station fitouts).
  • A new underground line from the Darling Harbour railway tunnel portal (roughly) beneath George and then Kent St to a "West Wynard" terminal station (2000-2300m new tunnel, 2 or 3 new underground stations)
  • "Western Express"/City Relief (as proposed/official policy in 2010 IIRC): new underground railway form Eveleigh to Wynyard (4400m new tunnels, 3 new underground stations and new platforms at Wynyard)

Personally, I think the first option is just as effective as any of them, but as it adds capacity to the southern/eastern arm of the Ciry Circle, I think the track re-alignment I suggest would be required/appropriate to distribute this benefit to the NW and W of Sydney where it is most needed.
  Airvan99 Junior Train Controller

Yet all the other platforms made for the ESR at the same time are in regular use apart from the Central 26/26 and Redfern 11 and 12 and only because of a change in plan.
RTT_rules


They are “grandfarthered” Any new construction has to comply with the current standards. And there is the issue of closing the platforms below for anywhere  between 3 and 6 years while the construction proceeds.
The information was revealed when the question was asked “why doesn’t the metro use the platforms 26/27 instead of building new platforms under the country platforms.”
It would have been a lot simpler instead they had to come up with central walk to move people tram/train/metro.

Sponsored advertisement

Display from:   

Quick Reply

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