T4 and SCO post NIF and T3 Metro conversion

 
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

So continuing a discussion that is taking over a T3 thread between myself and Transtopic. I have taken out the T3 component from our last posts.

Yes platforms on the SCO are being extended however all SCO peak hour services will be going to Bondi Junction and unless the ESR stations can already handle 10 car D sets you are likely only going to be getting 8 car services. All of these suggestions you make Transtopic can only happen if Wolli Creek gets 2 extra platforms on the locals and the Illawarra dive is diverted in to platform 26/27 at Central or closer to Central terminal somewhere near Cleveland street.

On google maps I noticed there is already a crossover at Hurstville before the station to allow terminating trains in to platform 1 and 3 if need be but is rarely done. For operation purposes quadrupling the line between Hurstville and Sutherland will help significantly.

For Nichole the Otter the 2 T4 Tempe services an hour could remain for connection to Wolli Creek. Tempe will then also gain the new T8 services for more frequent connection in to the CBD relieving the T4. They could however be removed for peak hour to allow more services an hour to operate on the T4. I'm not saying this will be the case just that it could be the case to increase capacity on the T4.


How can you be so sure that SCO Intercity services will continue to be going to Bondi Junction?  You have no evidence for that.  The ESR stations certainly can't accommodate 10 car trains, as they couldn't the longer 8-car V-sets, and as I stated previously, it's my understanding that the NIF D-sets will only operate in 4, 6 and 10 car sets, initially anyway.

There is no necessity for SCO services to stop at Wolli Creek, although the option is still there to construct additional platforms on the Local if deemed to be warranted.  Those who wish to interchange to the Airport Line at Wolli Creek will be able to change to the T4 express services at Hurstville, most likely on the same platform.  It's also unnecessary to divert the Illawarra Dive to the unused underground platforms 26/27 at Central, when there is still enough spare capacity at Sydney Terminal to accommodate them.  In fact they would be better utilised in diverting the Airport Line from the City Circle, assuming that's still feasible.  The new underground metro station at Central is using part of platforms 26/27 for equipment infrastructure and further use of those platforms for future rail services may be cut off for good.

You obviously haven't taken much notice of what I've previously posted or bothered to read the link to the Hurstville Crossover project.  It clearly states that the intention is to separate T4 all stations suburban services from the SCO Intercity services to allow an increase in services for both by better utilisation of the Main and Local.

After further investigation, I've realised that I mistakenly said that SCO and T4 express services from Cronulla and Waterfall cross over from the Local to the Main at Wolli Creek to Bondi Junction and the all stops from Hurstville use the Main direct.  In fact, it's the reverse.  The express services from Hurstville use the Main direct to Bondi Junction and the all stops from Hurstville use the Local, crossing over at Wolli Creek to the Main.

Terminating trains currently use platform 2 on the Down Local at Hurstville and then reverse back to Bondi Junction on the Up Local.  There is no crossover from the Down Local to enable them to terminate at platform 3 (Up Main).  Neither do they terminate at platform 1.  There are some all stops services which start from platform 1, but they originate from the car sidings at Hurstville or the Mortdale Depot.  All platforms at Hurstville are bi-directional.  Quadruplicating the line between Hurstville and Sutherland is irrelevant in this context, but I agree that it should be considered in the longer term to separate SCO express, as well as freight for the foreseeable future, and T4 Cronulla and Waterfall services.

The Hurstville Crossover project proposes to reverse the current pattern, with the all stops from Hurstville to Bondi Junction being transferred from the Local to the Main and the express SCO and Cronulla/Waterfall services being transferred to the Local. This will allow the SCO express services to continue on the Local to Sydney Terminal via a new crossover to the Illawarra Dive at Eveleigh, while Cronulla/Waterfall T4 services merge with the all stops at Wolli Creek on the Main.  This new pattern will allow for T4 and SCO services to be increased, with a consistent and separated stopping pattern.
Transtopic

Sponsored advertisement

  simstrain Chief Commissioner

The evidence is in front of you Transtopic. There is no room for them at Central Terminal now in peak hour especially with 3 platforms down and more and more T1/T9 services likely to be terminating at Central in the future there is nowhere for SCO services to go but to the ESR as is currently the case.
  Transtopic Deputy Commissioner

Location: Sydney
The evidence is in front of you Transtopic. There is no room for them at Central Terminal now in peak hour especially with 3 platforms down and more and more T1/T9 services likely to be terminating at Central in the future there is nowhere for SCO services to go but to the ESR as is currently the case.
simstrain
I still disagree.  What evidence do you have that there is no room for SCO services to terminate at Central via a new crossover to the Illawarra Dive from the Illawarra Local?  As I said previously, there are only 12tph in the peak period terminating at Central.  

Even with the current 12 terminating platforms at Central, which will ultimately be increased to 14 platforms when the metro underground platforms are completed, I find it hard to believe that Sydney Terminal couldn't cope with an increased number of terminating trains.  Terminating trains which are not programmed to form an outbound service could shunt to new sidings in Central Yard, where there is ample room on the site of the former carriage sheds, now being used for the metro construction.  It's not beyond the realms of computerised signalling to manage incoming and outgoing movements through the yard.

You're still ignoring the basic premise of the Hurstville Crossover project, which is to increase T4 and SCO services through better utilisation of the Illawarra Main and Local tracks.  With only 2 spare paths currently on the ESR, that doesn't offer much scope for increasing both T4 and SCO services if they all continue to Bondi Junction.  Although it hasn't yet been spelt out, it's logical to assume that SCO services will be diverted from the ESR to allow an increased number of T4 services to continue to Bondi Junction.  It's also logical to assume that the T4 will become an all stations service from Hurstville to Bondi Junction on the Main, including Tempe, St Peters and Erskineville, to maximise its frequency without a mixed stopping pattern which currently exists.  The T4 Cronulla and Waterfall services would run express between Hurstville and Wolli Creek Junction on the Local in tandem with the SCO services, before crossing over to Wolli Creek Station on the Main and merging with the all stoppers from Hurstville to Bondi Junction on a single all stops pattern.

If SCO services are diverted from the ESR, there's nowhere else for them to go but to Sydney Terminal via a new crossover to the Illawarra Dive.  The new crossover at Eveleigh to the Dive would also benefit South Line Regional services which now use the East Hills Line, without conflicting with T4 services between Sydenham and Erskineville on the Main.

With SCO services continuing on the Local to Sydney Terminal and merging with T8 express services between Wolli Creek and the Illawarra Dive, it's also logical that it would be a single express pattern, along with South Regional trains.  There's no need for T8 to stop at Tempe, St Peters or Erskineville, when those stations can be serviced by the increased suburban services on T4 to Bondi Junction.  It all seems perfectly logical to me, or am I missing something?
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

Maybe someone can explain to Transtopic why 12 tph in to Central Terminal is pretty much capacity between there and the Dive. In this regard it is very similar to the T2 inner west line which only gets 12 trains an hour. The difference being conflicting moves instead of multiple stopping patterns coming in and out of Central and terminating trains parked at Central during peak which sit until after peak hour.

SCO trains need to stop at Wolli Creek as it is a major interchange station and Hurstville is not. Making people change with luggage to an extra train just because you don't want to run SCO to Wolli creek is not a good idea and potentially politically difficult especially for areas that are more blue leaning but have been Red in the past.

SCO trains will continue to stop at Wolli Creek and so unless those extra platforms are built the crossover will continue to occur at Wolli creek. The T4 is the most efficient line even with those SCO services going to the ESR and so there really isn't any more room to increase services on the T4 unless new lines are built in to the Central and /or the CBD to handle the SCO services.
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

There are only a handlful of Southern Highlands trains that run to and from Central each day and they do so out of peak hour. When the new regional fleet arrives it is possible for them to run around the city circle instead of in to Central as they will have overhead.
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

Maybe someone can explain to Transtopic why 12 tph in to Central Terminal is pretty much capacity between there and the Dive. In this regard it is very similar to the T2 inner west line which only gets 12 trains an hour. The difference being conflicting moves instead of multiple stopping patterns coming in and out of Central and terminating trains parked at Central during peak which sit until after peak hour.
simstrain

Several points:
I don't think it's a given the platforms removed for Metro Construction will ever be brought back into service.

The yard throat has a limit of 40kph (11m/s), plus 15kph (4m/s) on some crossovers, UP into platform 10 for example.  The throat is about 450m long, spanning 2 signal blocks.  

The traverse time for the yard for a 200m train is at best 650m/(11m/s) or 59 seconds, but more likely 80 seconds (at an average of 30kph).  As there are no need for dwells, 30tph, possibly even 40, is feasible.

The issue is every second train is an opposing movement.  For opposing movements, the absolute minimum separation is 3 minutes (well, 160 seconds), and then only if the UP and DOWN timetables are perfectly synchronised.  If they are completely out of phase, then the separation is 4 to 4.5 minutes (80s x 3).

IMHO the absolute best case is 20tph each way.  That's 2 over 4.5 minutes opposing, and 2 over 1.5 min not opposing.  So 4 (each way) over 6 minutes.

I think the likely peak pattern post metro will be:
  • 4tph SCO (though I suspect South Coast might be redefined to be south of Wollongong reducing this to 2tph, so Pt Kembla - BJcan be run with T sets).
  • 4tph Blue Mountains (but again, it might just be 2tph with Springwood/Lawson serviced by A/B sets)
  • 4tph Central Coast
  • 8tph T9 services.

@Trans, I know the crossover is your baby, but I think I'm with @Sims in that I don't see any evidence they plant to use the Illawarra Locals for anything other than Sector 2.
  M636C Minister for Railways

In 1939, London Transport started running nine car trains, although the platforms could only accommodate seven cars.

As well as modified "standard" stock, which used two guards to open the leading or trailing two cars' doors selectively, new stock similar to the 1938 stock with selective door control (1939 stock) was delivered, but owing to WWII the trains were assembled as seven car sets and the additional cars remained unused until 1949.

To even up the loading the first two cars and the last two cars were stopped outside some platforms.

Ten car trains could run to Bondi Junction, with the doors on two cars (first and last or last two) not being operated. This would be no different to the present operation at short platforms on the Short North.

The Passenger information displays could indicate which stations were shorter than ten cars just as they do now on Oscar trains.

I assume it would be easier to leave the two trailing cars in the tunnel. Otherwise it might be necessary to move some signals one car length forward. Stopping with the first and last cars in the tunnel would allow passengers who have ignored or not understood the announcements and displays to only have to move one car forward or back.

Peter
  Transtopic Deputy Commissioner

Location: Sydney
Now for all you naysayers out there, let's get some facts straight - again!

The justification by TfNSW in the Review of Environmental factors for the Hurstville Crossover project clearly states in black and white, that the objective of the proposal is to separate Intercity services from Suburban traffic allowing a higher number of all stops services without impeding through trains.  It further states that the 'do-nothing' option was not considered a feasible alternative and would not assist in facilitating the increased numbers of Intercity and Suburban services on the T4 and South Coast lines.  Without the crossover, the amount of through train services would be limited by the operation of the all stops and other Suburban services.  That's a pretty clear statement.

With the ESR currently operating at it's maximum capacity of 18tph with the mixed stopping pattern between Wolli Creek and Erskineville, that doesn't leave much room for any significant increase in both Intercity and Suburban services, even with the ATO upgrading, if they all continue to run to Bondi Junction.  Something has to change, otherwise why would they bother with the new Hurstville crossover?

In switching operation of the all stops T4 on the Local at Hurstville to the Main and the express T4 and SCO services to the Local, then one or the other in the case of the latter will need to divert from the crossover at Wolli Creek and continue to the CBD on the Local, to allow more Suburban all stops services from Wolli Creek to Bondi Junction.  I doubt whether the express T4 services will return to the City Circle, so it's perfectly reasonable to assume that the SCO services will be those that continue to Sydney Terminal via a new crossover to Sydney Terminal via the Illawarra Dive at Eveleigh.  It would also allow for an increase in SCO services, without impeding the T4 all stops from Wolli Creek to Bondi Junction, which would logically operate in a single pattern to maximise its frequency.  The SCO services would share the express paths from Tempe to the Illawarra Dive with express T8 via Sydenham services on the Local, which in turn means that T8 won't stop at Tempe, St Peters or Erskineville.  Those stations will instead be serviced by the more frequent and enhanced services on T4.  Some of you can't see the wood for the trees.
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

Now for all you naysayers out there, let's get some facts straight - again!

The justification by TfNSW in the Review of Environmental factors for the Hurstville Crossover project clearly states in black and white, that the objective of the proposal is to separate Intercity services from Suburban traffic allowing a higher number of all stops services without impeding through trains.  It further states that the 'do-nothing' option was not considered a feasible alternative and would not assist in facilitating the increased numbers of Intercity and Suburban services on the T4 and South Coast lines.  Without the crossover, the amount of through train services would be limited by the operation of the all stops and other Suburban services.  That's a pretty clear statement.
Transtopic

To me, this raises several points.  I don't want to be critical of your plan, because I (think I) understand the logic and it's reasonably sound.  

I also agree, this crossover (or something similar west of Hurstville) is necessary to reasonably terminate local trains on the Illawarra mains.

But I *don't* see how it is evidence they intend to implement your scheme for the Illawarra Locals.

The new crossover makes it reasonable to terminate services on the main line (it's all but impossible now) as well as the locals.  

I think an equally valid interpretation is they intended to switch the locals to the main, and the main to the local, so they can convert the main to Metro without the issues of HR freight access.  All T8 via the airport, all T4 on the locals then use the crossovers south of Sydenham to switch them back to the mains.

TBH I think this crossover project is of limited/no value, unless there is another agenda.  But the main benefit @Transtopic's scheme is faster running times from South Coast and
possibly some T4 services - and the disadvantages are reductions in effective segregation. TfNSW has shown no regard at all - in fact complete disdain - for journey times as a metric (an LRT system that's slower than walking FFS?)

Whatever the real reason behind the Hurstville crossover project, I don't believe for one second it's to provide a *faster* service.
  Transtopic Deputy Commissioner

Location: Sydney
In 1939, London Transport started running nine car trains, although the platforms could only accommodate seven cars.

As well as modified "standard" stock, which used two guards to open the leading or trailing two cars' doors selectively, new stock similar to the 1938 stock with selective door control (1939 stock) was delivered, but owing to WWII the trains were assembled as seven car sets and the additional cars remained unused until 1949.

To even up the loading the first two cars and the last two cars were stopped outside some platforms.

Ten car trains could run to Bondi Junction, with the doors on two cars (first and last or last two) not being operated. This would be no different to the present operation at short platforms on the Short North.

The Passenger information displays could indicate which stations were shorter than ten cars just as they do now on Oscar trains.

I assume it would be easier to leave the two trailing cars in the tunnel. Otherwise it might be necessary to move some signals one car length forward. Stopping with the first and last cars in the tunnel would allow passengers who have ignored or not understood the announcements and displays to only have to move one car forward or back.

Peter
M636C
I don't think that's a viable operational procedure in the case of the NIFs on the ESR, or the City Circle for that matter.

The difference in comparison with the Northern Line is that the short platforms on that line are on the outer fringes of the line.  In the case of 10 car NIF sets operating on the inner city network, the short platforms are effectively the underground stations on the City Circle and ESR.  Sydney Terminal can easily accommodate them on virtually every platform.

By way of example with regard to SCO Intercity, the major stations like Wollongong are being lengthened to accommodate the longer trains and will no doubt run as limited stops services to Sydney.  The may also pick up at some stations which can only accommodate 8 car sets.  The problem is that if commuters board all cars at the longer platforms, which is likely, then they may not be able to access the 'shorter' platforms on the underground stations. It would be a nightmare in trying to manage this.
  Transtopic Deputy Commissioner

Location: Sydney
Now for all you naysayers out there, let's get some facts straight - again!

The justification by TfNSW in the Review of Environmental factors for the Hurstville Crossover project clearly states in black and white, that the objective of the proposal is to separate Intercity services from Suburban traffic allowing a higher number of all stops services without impeding through trains.  It further states that the 'do-nothing' option was not considered a feasible alternative and would not assist in facilitating the increased numbers of Intercity and Suburban services on the T4 and South Coast lines.  Without the crossover, the amount of through train services would be limited by the operation of the all stops and other Suburban services.  That's a pretty clear statement.

To me, this raises several points.  I don't want to be critical of your plan, because I (think I) understand the logic and it's reasonably sound.  

I also agree, this crossover (or something similar west of Hurstville) is necessary to reasonably terminate local trains on the Illawarra mains.

But I *don't* see how it is evidence they intend to implement your scheme for the Illawarra Locals.

The new crossover makes it reasonable to terminate services on the main line (it's all but impossible now) as well as the locals.  

I think an equally valid interpretation is they intended to switch the locals to the main, and the main to the local, so they can convert the main to Metro without the issues of HR freight access.  All T8 via the airport, all T4 on the locals then use the crossovers south of Sydenham to switch them back to the mains.

TBH I think this crossover project is of limited/no value, unless there is another agenda.  But the main benefit @Transtopic's scheme is faster running times from South Coast and
possibly some T4 services - and the disadvantages are reductions in effective segregation. TfNSW has shown no regard at all - in fact complete disdain - for journey times as a metric (an LRT system that's slower than walking FFS?)

Whatever the real reason behind the Hurstville crossover project, I don't believe for one second it's to provide a *faster* service.
I think it's a bit of a stretch to suggest that there is some hidden agenda with the Hurstville Crossover project to convert the Illawarra Main from Hurstville to Bondi Junction to metro.  For starters, what happens with the T4 Cronulla and Waterfall express services, which will still need to cross over from the Local to the Main to Bondi Junction at Wolli Creek?  The only way that could happen is if both the Local and the Main were converted to metro, which is clearly not practicable with Intercity and freight also thrown into the mix on the Local.  Any prospect of metro conversion to Hurstville is dead and buried, so forget about your conspiracy theories.

The Hurstville Crossover project is not primarily about providing faster services, although I still expect that to happen when ATO is introduced, but about providing more frequent services and increased capacity for both Intercity and Suburban on T4 and SCO.  I don't agree that it will disadvantage effective segregation and in fact it will be the opposite.  Why would they bother with this proposal when there is a clear advantage in increasing overall capacity for both Intercity and Suburban services through the segregation of services?

Getting back to your earlier post about the capacity of Sydney Terminal, I haven't been able to find an official definitive analysis of what the maximum terminating capacity actually is.  You've suggested 20tph which seems reasonable, which would still allow for SCO services to terminate.  Perhaps someone out there can enlighten us.

However, I disagree that all T9 Northern Line services will terminate at Central.  It just emphasises the reality that sooner or later it will dawn on the planners that Sydney Terminal won't be able to accommodate increased Intercity services as well as more terminating Suburban services from T9 and possibly T1.  The only option is to belatedly acknowledge that the City Relief Line from the Main at Eveleigh, exclusively for increased T1 Western and Richmond Line services, will have to be considered and brought forward.  It will free up capacity on the Suburbans for increased T9 and T2 Liverpool via Granville and Regents Park services.  It may not happen under the current LNP government, but it certainly will if a Labor government is elected at the next election.  This was a major policy change in their dying days before they were tossed out of office at the 2011 State election, but it was all too late at that stage.

I'm often critical of the government's lack of investment in upgrading the existing Sydney Trains network when favouring their metro expansion agenda.  TfNSW now acknowledges that even with completion of the current metro proposals, the Sydney Trains network will continue to provide 80 per cent of all suburban rail services, so it can hardly be ignored.  I'm completely on board with this proposal as it shows that they have belatedly recognised that their metro strategy alone won't adequately address the increasing congestion on the rail network and greatly enhanced investment will be needed on the existing network to bring it up to its optimum level of operation.
  Airvan99 Junior Train Controller

Trans, as far as I can tell, your whole scenario requires the hurstville crossover and a new one for the locals to access the Illawarra dive. Why didn’t they announce this new one at the same time as the hurstville one.
  djf01 Chief Commissioner


...

The justification by TfNSW in the Review of Environmental factors for the Hurstville Crossover project clearly states in black and white, that the objective of the proposal is to separate Intercity services from Suburban traffic allowing a higher number of all stops services without impeding through trains.  ...

...

I also agree, this crossover (or something similar west of Hurstville) is necessary to reasonably terminate local trains on the Illawarra mains.

But I *don't* see how it is evidence they intend to implement your scheme for the Illawarra Locals.

...
Transtopic


I think it's a bit of a stretch to suggest that there is some hidden agenda with the Hurstville Crossover project to convert the Illawarra Main from Hurstville to Bondi Junction to metro.  For starters, what happens with the T4 Cronulla and Waterfall express services, which will still need to cross over from the Local to the Main to Bondi Junction at Wolli Creek?
Transtopic

It's no more of a stretch the idea they would install a crossover to access the Illawarra Dive to speed up a few south coast services while breaking sectorisation.  NB, I'm not saying it's a bad idea, just that TfNSW are keener on implementing Sectorisation than they are on speeding up services.

The only way that could happen is if both the Local and the Main were converted to metro, which is clearly not practicable with Intercity and freight also thrown into the mix on the Local.
Transtopic


No.  The idea is a dive into the CBD Metro constructed on the Illawarra Main next to the XPT service centre.  During construction T4 switches to the Illawarra Locals at Tempe (via crossovers 750/749), then back to the Mains at 744/745.

The Illawarra Mains from between Tempe and Hurstville then run as Metro.

The alternative is they convert Revesby to Central via the Airport to a stand alone Metro.  Hurstville to BJ as a stand alone metro.  Campbelltown and Cronulla "long distance" routes merge at Wolli Creek on the locals, without an interchange.

Is this rational? Of course not.  But ... there is plenty of evidence implementing this - or something like it - has been considered.  (I'll see if I can dig up some pics from Sydney's rail future.  IIRC there is a post earlier in this thread's parent showing Revesby-Central as a stand alone system.


The Hurstville Crossover project is not primarily ....  Why would they bother with this proposal when there is a clear advantage in increasing overall capacity for both Intercity and Suburban services through the segregation of services?
Transtopic

IMHO it's so they can shut down the Illawarra locals between Wolli Creek and operate the weekend timetable on the Mains.  It's easy enough to shut down the Mains ATM, but not so easy for the locals because the Hurstville Mains lack reasonable turnback facilities.
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

I understand what Transtopic is getting at but it ain't going to happen because SCO trains need to stop at Wolli Creek. For Transtopics solution to happen you need more then just the turnback at Hurstville. You need the extra platforms at Wolli Creek and you need to find a different way in to central terminal that essentially keeps the SCO services separate from the BM, CCN and T9 terminators. Which is where Platform 26/27 can come in.
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

I understand what Transtopic is getting at but it ain't going to happen because SCO trains need to stop at Wolli Creek.
simstrain

South Coast trains do not need to stop at Wolli Creek.
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

I understand what Transtopic is getting at but it ain't going to happen because SCO trains need to stop at Wolli Creek.

South Coast trains do not need to stop at Wolli Creek.
djf01
Yes they do. What they don't need to do is stop at Hurstville. Wolli creek and Sutherland are the interchange stations. Hurstville is not.
  james.au Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney, NSW
I understand what Transtopic is getting at but it ain't going to happen because SCO trains need to stop at Wolli Creek.

South Coast trains do not need to stop at Wolli Creek.
djf01
Wolli Ck is the connection to the airport.
  Transtopic Deputy Commissioner

Location: Sydney
Trans, as far as I can tell, your whole scenario requires the hurstville crossover and a new one for the locals to access the Illawarra dive. Why didn’t they announce this new one at the same time as the hurstville one.
Airvan99
Yes, I've wondered about that myself.  It would seem the logical thing to do it at the same time.  Perhaps it's still in the pipeline.  I can't see how their scheme to separate T4 Suburban and SCO Intercity and increase services could be done without it.

The one indisputable fact is, that to provide any meaningful increase in services for both T4 and SCO, they can't all run to Bondi Junction as the line is already operating at its maximum frequency with the current mixed stopping pattern.  Something has to give.
  Transtopic Deputy Commissioner

Location: Sydney
The only way that could happen is if both the Local and the Main were converted to metro, which is clearly not practicable with Intercity and freight also thrown into the mix on the Local.


No.  The idea is a dive into the CBD Metro constructed on the Illawarra Main next to the XPT service centre.  During construction T4 switches to the Illawarra Locals at Tempe (via crossovers 750/749), then back to the Mains at 744/745.

The Illawarra Mains from between Tempe and Hurstville then run as Metro.

The alternative is they convert Revesby to Central via the Airport to a stand alone Metro.  Hurstville to BJ as a stand alone metro.  Campbelltown and Cronulla "long distance" routes merge at Wolli Creek on the locals, without an interchange.

Is this rational? Of course not.  But ... there is plenty of evidence implementing this - or something like it - has been considered.  (I'll see if I can dig up some pics from Sydney's rail future.  IIRC there is a post earlier in this thread's parent showing Revesby-Central as a stand alone system.
djf01
You should forget about your metro conspiracy theories djf.  Although such schemes may have been considered in the past, there's no evidence to suggest that a Hurstville metro is still on the agenda.  The idea was abandoned long ago, just as the metro extension from Bankstown to Cabramatta and Lidcombe also was.   It's dead, buried and cremated.  Kogarah now seems to be the focus with a completely new segregated metro line.

Assuming the Bankstown Line metro conversion proceeds and considering the compromises which have to be made in the final design, I'm willing to bet that there won't be much stomach for any further metro conversions of existing lines.  I've always been opposed to this project from the start, as I would prefer to see new metro lines being fully segregated from the existing network.  The conversion of the Epping to Chatswood Rail Link was a walk in the park, as it was a new rail line with straight platforms and only minimal upgrading for increased metro services was required.  Even that simple conversion took some 6 months with the line out of action.
  Transtopic Deputy Commissioner

Location: Sydney
I understand what Transtopic is getting at but it ain't going to happen because SCO trains need to stop at Wolli Creek. For Transtopics solution to happen you need more then just the turnback at Hurstville. You need the extra platforms at Wolli Creek and you need to find a different way in to central terminal that essentially keeps the SCO services separate from the BM, CCN and T9 terminators. Which is where Platform 26/27 can come in.
simstrain
As I mentioned earlier, there's some doubt whether Platforms 26/27 at Central would still be functional, now that part of that area is to be used for equipment to support the new Central metro platforms.  If they can still be used for future rail services, then it would be better to divert the Airport Line there from the City Circle.  It would be over a relatively short distance from the Airport Line tunnel portal to the underground platforms, which are on the higher level.

Constructing a new link for SCO services from Eveleigh to Platforms 26/27 would be a major undertaking and take some years in planning and construction.  On the other hand, a simple crossover from the Local to the Main to gain access to the Dive to Sydney Terminal could be done at a modest cost and in a fraction of the time.  It's not rocket science.
  Transtopic Deputy Commissioner

Location: Sydney
I understand what Transtopic is getting at but it ain't going to happen because SCO trains need to stop at Wolli Creek.

South Coast trains do not need to stop at Wolli Creek.
Yes they do. What they don't need to do is stop at Hurstville. Wolli creek and Sutherland are the interchange stations. Hurstville is not.
simstrain
No they don't!  They certainly do need to stop at Hurstville, as that is the terminating station for the all stops service to Bondi Junction.  There will be SCO commuters who wish to go to and from Kogarah for example where there is a major hospital and other health services and the only way they can do that is to change at Hurstville.  They can't do that at Sutherland, as Cronulla and Waterfall services don't stop there and also run express between Hurstville and Wolli Creek.

In the scenario which I have previously outlined, SCO commuters bound for the Airport Line could change at Hurstville to the T4 express services on the same platform 1 and again at Wolli Creek to the Airport Line.  I know it's not ideal, but that's a necessary compromise to allow for greater frequency and capacity on both T4 and SCO.  If it's feasible and the demand warrants it, then there's no reason why the additional platforms on the Local at Wolli Creek for SCO services couldn't be constructed.

If the intent is to separate SCO Intercity services from the T4 all stops Suburban services, then why would the former continue to cross over at Wolli Creek to Bondi Junction?  All that does is restrict running increased all stops services with a single pattern.  There's no doubt in my mind that SCO services will no longer run to Bondi Junction and the only viable alternative is to run to Sydney Terminal via a new crossover to the Illawarra Dive.  The government still has to spell out the detail of future operating patterns, so let's wait and see what they propose.
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

Running to Central Terminal you can forget about unless another way is found in to Central terminal. The airport line is not going to be connected to 26/27 but running the llawarra local in to 26/27 can be started way back near redfern where the old dives for the 2 other redfern underground platforms were started and unused. The eastern most track pair isn't used anymore at Redfern for anything other then train movements from eveleigh and so this is the prime place to start building a tunnel to 26/27.

Wolli Creek is way more important for SCO services then Hurstville is. Regardless of how many services terminate at Hurstville it just isn't important for the SCO to stop there compared to Wolli Creek which is the interchange station for the airport. Your solution will not work until Wolli Creek gets it extra platforms and or another connection in to Central can be found.
  Transtopic Deputy Commissioner

Location: Sydney
Running to Central Terminal you can forget about unless another way is found in to Central terminal. The airport line is not going to be connected to 26/27 but running the llawarra local in to 26/27 can be started way back near redfern where the old dives for the 2 other redfern underground platforms were started and unused. The eastern most track pair isn't used anymore at Redfern for anything other then train movements from eveleigh and so this is the prime place to start building a tunnel to 26/27.

Wolli Creek is way more important for SCO services then Hurstville is. Regardless of how many services terminate at Hurstville it just isn't important for the SCO to stop there compared to Wolli Creek which is the interchange station for the airport. Your solution will not work until Wolli Creek gets it extra platforms and or another connection in to Central can be found.
simstrain
You haven't taken a shred of notice of what I've previously said on these issues.  For your benefit, I re-iterate as follows -

  • If the intention is to separate SCO Intercity and all stations T4 Suburban services and at the same time increase services  for both, there isn't enough capacity on the ESR to continue running them all to Bondi Junction.

  • The only other option is to divert the SCO services to Sydney Terminal with the most logical solution being to construct a new crossover from the Illawarra Local to the Dive at Eveleigh avoiding the need to cross over at Wolli Creek, otherwise where else do they go?

  • There is some doubt whether the unused underground platforms 26/27 at Central would be functional for future rail services, because part of that platform space is to be used for the installation of equipment to service the new metro platforms.

  • Any other option to divert SCO services to Sydney Terminal would be a major undertaking, taking years to plan and implement and delay the provision of increased services for SCO and T4.

  • Wolli Creek is not more important than Hurstville.  Hurstville is the major regional strategic centre on the Illawarra Line and a destination in itself for employment and retail/commercial services.  It is also the terminus for the all stations service to Bondi Junction allowing interchange to those major locations in between such as Kogarah and Rockdale.

  • It still may be feasible to construct the additional platforms at Wolli Creek on the Illawarra Local to allow SCO commuters to interchange to the Airport Line, if in fact the level of demand warrants it.  Otherwise, they can interchange at Hurstville on the same platform to the T4 express services which will continue to stop at the existing Wolli Creek platforms.  
  Transtopic Deputy Commissioner

Location: Sydney
In order to try and encourage some further comment on rail matters other than corona virus, which I'm tiring of, I want to add further to the earlier discussion on this thread with regard to improvements on the T4 and SCO lines.

There is no doubt in my mind that to achieve separation and increased services for T4 and SCO, that the latter will no longer run through to Bondi Junction, with the only alternative being to divert them to Sydney Terminal via a new crossover to the dive.  This is also tied in with the current program to upgrade T4 to ATO operation - the first of the progressive rollout across the network - allowing increased frequencies and capacity.

The current maximum frequency on the ESR to Bondi Junction is 18tph because of the mixed skip/stop pattern between Wolli Creek and Redfern, including SCO services.  In order to achieve its current maximum potential frequency of 20tph, it would need to be a single all stops pattern, including Tempe, St Peters and Erskineville.  This is unlikely if SCO services continued to cross from the Local to the Main at Wolli Creek, rather than via a new crossover at Eveleigh to the dive to Sydney Terminal.

Assuming the SCO services are diverted to Sydney Terminal, then that currently leaves 14tph to Bondi Junction for T4 services from Hurstville, Cronulla and Waterfall (6tph + 6tph + 2tph).  With an all stops pattern and excluding the SCO services, that allows for an additional 6tph with the current signalling for T4, or potentially 10tph with the ATO upgrade (@ 24tph).  That's a 43% increase in frequency and capacity with the current signalling or 71% with the ATO upgrade, which should be more than enough to cater for T4 capacity for well into the future.  

The ultimate mix of frequencies on T4 for its respective sectors is open to debate, but my suggestion for what it's worth, would be 8tph ex Cronulla, 4tph ex Waterfall and 12tph ex Hurstville.  There are obviously other options.  The Cronulla and Waterfall services would be limited by the single track pair between Sutherland and Hurstville with a mixed stopping pattern, which also would have to cater for increased SCO services.  With ATO also introduced on that sector, it could accommodate 6tph SCO express services in a mixed pattern with the T4 all stops.  

Ideally, the line should be quadruplicated between Hurstville and Sutherland, allowing the express trains to overtake the slower all stoppers and increase frequency and capacity in the process, similar to what now happens on the Western, Northern and East Hills Lines.  However, that could be a long way off, unless their is a change in direction by the government to allocate greatly increased funding towards upgrading the existing network at the expense of further metro expansion, not that the latter wouldn't be warranted in the longer term.  It boils down to a question of priorities, not one being favoured over the other.

With regard to SCO services being diverted to Sydney Terminal and the illusory maximum terminating capacity, I tend to agree with djf's assessment that it is probably around 20tph with the current track configuration leading into Sydney Yard.  The Main single track pair with the current signalling would be limited to 20tph.  Whether ATO could increase this frequency considering the complexity of movements in the yard is open to debate.  

The current frequency into Sydney Terminal in the morning peak is 12tph, with 4tph each from BM, CCN and T9 Hornsby semi-express.  It should be able to accommodate the existing and additional SCO services.

There is another option to significantly increase terminating capacity at Sydney Terminal, which has previously been suggested by either djf or a6et. Apologies if I haven't correctly attributed your input.

As the Illawarra Main through platforms 9/10 at Redfern is now virtually redundant since the Airport Line took over their paths to the City Circle, the suggestion is that all track pairs between Eveleigh and Redfern should be shifted further east to the next pair.  That means that the Illawarra Dive would be exclusively through Redfern platforms 1/2, the Western Main switched to the Suburbans at Eveleigh through platforms 3/4, the Suburbans to the Inner West Local through platforms 5/6, the Inner West Local to the Illawarra Local through platforms 7/8 and the Illawarra Local to the unused Illawarra Main platforms 9/10.

The outcome of this is that there would then be two separate track pairs, the Illawarra Dive and the former Suburban diverted from the Main feeding into Sydney Yard and the Terminal platforms.  This would significantly increase its terminating capacity, with 14 platforms available after the metro construction is completed.

While it seems to be a perfectly logical solution, it would result in major disruption to existing services in closing down sections of the busiest part of the network between Redfern and Central to achieve this outcome. If it can be done progressively through partial shutdowns, minimising disruption to the continuation of existing services, then I'm all in favour of it.  Whether it's feasible is another matter.
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

In order to try and encourage some further comment on rail matters other than corona virus, which I'm tiring of, I want to add further to the earlier discussion on this thread with regard to improvements on the T4 and SCO lines.
Transtopic

I know how you feel.  This is normally a great escape for me, but unfortunately one of the many implications of this disaster is I don't think Public Transport, but rail especially, will recover it's patronage for many decades (if ever), T3 won't be converted to Metro and even completing the CBD metro will be delays for who knows how long, years or decades maybe.  There, got it all into one sentence, so we'll leave it there.

I think your idea for the Illawarra dive crossovers is sound, but there is a philosophical difference between how your segregate traffic that I think is opposed to current TfNSW thinking.  It's a result in TfNSW not giving a stuff about journey times and system usability, just a desire to "simplify" stopping patterns to the point there is no timetable, and thus no-one can complain if a train is "late".  They have no issue adding stops at St Peters and Erskinville to the journey time for SCO users.

I guess the conspiracy theory agenda in segregating traffic by geographic route is it allows franchising.  But that is how TfNSW is heading, all trains from one destination go to X, no distinction on class (short, medium or long haul).

Your plan @Transtopic  segregates by class: longer distance SCO and Southern Trains segregated from locals, much as the Strathfield and Redfern Mains used to do many moons ago.  I've seen photos of that corridor when only the suburbans and the locals had overhead.

I don't have a problem with that philosophy. But I think the success of any Sydney to Canberra system will be contingent on the route stopping at the airport - Sydney Airport, not Canberra's and the Via Sydenham route used for medium distance suburban trains to free up space for Canberra/Highlands services.

Further, I don't think it's necessary for T4 services to stop at Sydenham (the private owners of the metro might disagree), and the whole Wolli-Creek to Erskinville Jtn could be non-stop for all T4 services, which boosts overall capacity as no service needs to dwell anywhere.


There is no doubt in my mind that to achieve separation and increased services for T4 and SCO, that the latter will no longer run through to Bondi Junction, with the only alternative being to divert them to Sydney Terminal via a new crossover to the dive.  This is also tied in with the current program to upgrade T4 to ATO operation - the first of the progressive rollout across the network - allowing increased frequencies and capacity.
Transtopic

IMHO the ATO between Wolli Creek and Erskinville Jtn was a recognition there would be a need for 24tph there, with 20 ESR/hr and 4 Sydney Terminal SCO services sharing the corridor.

The current maximum frequency on the ESR to Bondi Junction is 18tph because of the mixed skip/stop pattern between Wolli Creek and Redfern, including SCO services.  In order to achieve its current maximum potential frequency of 20tph, it would need to be a single all stops pattern, including Tempe, St Peters and Erskineville.  This is unlikely if SCO services continued to cross from the Local to the Main at Wolli Creek, rather than via a new crossover at Eveleigh to the dive to Sydney Terminal.

Assuming the SCO services are diverted to Sydney Terminal, then that currently leaves 14tph to Bondi Junction for T4 services from Hurstville, Cronulla and Waterfall (6tph + 6tph + 2tph).  With an all stops pattern and excluding the SCO services, that allows for an additional 6tph with the current signalling for T4, or potentially 10tph with the ATO upgrade (@ 24tph).  That's a 43% increase in frequency and capacity with the current signalling or 71% with the ATO upgrade, which should be more than enough to cater for T4 capacity for well into the future.  The ultimate mix of frequencies on T4 for its respective sectors is open to debate, but my suggestion for what it's worth, would be 8tph ex Cronulla, 4tph ex Waterfall and 12tph ex Hurstville.  The Cronulla and Waterfall services would be limited by the single track pair between Sutherland and Hurstville with a mixed stopping pattern, which also would have to cater for increased SCO services.  With ATO also introduced on that sector, it could accommodate 6tph SCO express services in a mixed pattern with the T4 all stops.  Ideally, the line should be quadruplicated between Hurstville and Sutherland, allowing the express trains to overtake the slower all stoppers and increase frequency and capacity in the process, similar to what now happens on the Western, Northern and East Hills Lines.  However, that could be a long way off, unless their is a change in direction by the government to allocate greatly increased funding towards upgrading the existing network at the expense of further metro expansion.
Transtopic

Since we're all off in fantasy land, I'll post here what I was tinkering with down in Armchair Operators, *my* grand scheme for the one prosperous populous future Sydney.



Funded by cancelling the Western Metro, there are three main elements:
  • Western Express - with 240m platforms
  • Eastern Express - with 200m platforms
  • Inner West Extension to Olympic Park and (optionally) to Rhodes

There are two Outer Suburban systems, operated by NIFs or something similar (Orange and Green).  There is an S-Bahn type system over the SHB in the current format (yellow), and a short haul system via the airport (aqua) as well as the Metro (pink), which is a mix of all three.  T4 ignored for simplicity.

Orange Line: Penrith and Richmond to Parramatta, then all trains express non-stop to Central in 15 min, then Wyngaroo Hall (about 18 min).

Green Line: Campbelltown & Sydney Airport 2 to Revesby, then express (also about 15 minutes non stop) to Central, St James and maybe Bridge St.

Yellow Line: Glenfield via Granvile and Hornsby via Eastwood feed into the SHB line.  One of those two terminates at Nth Sydney, or maybe a new turnback at St Leonards.

Aqua Line: Olympic Park (Half Pattern, other half terminate at Homebush or proceed over new flyover to Rhodes on a segregated mostly single track sector) - City Circle - Airport - all to Reveseby.

Pink Line: The bloody metro.

HR Support routes:
Glenfield to Parramatta.  A much reduced Cumberland line, a feeder for the Orange Line
Liverpool to Bankstown express.  A metro feeder route
Lidcombe to Bankstown Shuttle.  Another Metro feeder route
Cabramatta to Bankstown milk run.
Parramatta to Bankstown shuttle (1/4 pattern)
Hornsby to Strathfield.  It's intended as a feeder for the metro at Epping, as Hornsby via Eastwood only gets a half yellow pattern.

These routes serviced by 4 car trains, or something smaller and cheaper anyway.

Sponsored advertisement

Subscribers: Transtopic, WimbledonW

Display from: