T4 and SCO post NIF and T3 Metro conversion

 
  Transtopic Deputy Commissioner

Location: Sydney
The Hurstville crossover project is just a Turnback option for platform 4. What it isn't going to do is allow an increase of services on the T4 or move SCO trains in to Central terminal post D set introduction. The governments intention is to separate the T4 / SCO from the rest of the network which is what it currently achieves. Your solution completely goes against this policy by re introducing connections with the T3 and T8. Your solution also adds passengers on to the already full T4 where as using the T8 services post metro conversion helps relieve the T4.
simstrain
You're still in denial sims in spite of all the official evidence so far.  It's time you got off the merry-go-round and took notice.  We've been over this innumerable times previously and I can't be bothered regurgitating it all now.

However, just to refresh your memory, here's a quote from the REF for the Hurstville Crossover project confirming the need for it -

2.1.4 Objectives of the Proposal
The specific objectives of the Proposal are to:
 allow for local services to terminate and commence at platform 4 instead of platform 2
 minimise cost and maximise benefits of the project requirements
 minimise impacts to current rail operations during implementation
 ensure that safety is maintained throughout the delivery of the Proposal
 ensure that project works are delivered to TfNSW high standards of safety, quality,
stakeholder engagement and environmental management.

2.2 Design development
The concept design for the proposal has been developed with consideration of the following
objectives:
 separation of intercity services from suburban traffic allowing a higher number of all stops
services without impeding through trains
 allowing suburban services to operate on the Illawarra Main line between the City and
Hurstville
 providing high frequency operations, with the ability to turn back trains (i.e. where a train
terminates and then departs in the opposite direction) at Hurstville on platforms 3 and 4
 maintain signal locations and minimise extent of signalling works.

If the SCO services are separated from T4 and continue to Sydney Terminal on a yet to be confirmed crossover at Eveleigh to the dive (apart from the shared single pattern express corridor on the Illawarra Local from Hurstville to Wolli Creek), then that frees up paths on the ESR to Bondi Junction to significantly increase the frequency of T4 services.  

T4 (excluding SCO) currently has a frequency of 14tph between Wolli Creek and Bondi Junction (6tph Hurstville + 6tph Cronulla + 2tph Waterfall).  With SCO removed from the Main and ESR, enabling it to operate at its potential maximum line frequency of 20tph in a single all stops pattern from Wolli Creek, that's an additional 6tph for T4 with the current signalling or at least another 10tph with ATO, which is the intention.  That's a massive increase in anyone's language.  The mix of increased services for T4 Hurstville, Cronulla and Waterfall still has to be determined.

I don't know why you still keep banging on about T3 and the T8 corridor on the Local after the metro conversion.  T3 won't exist.  I assume you mean that the former T3 will become part of T8.  

I can't see the problem if up to 6tph SCO services (no T4) are diverted on the Local from Wolli Creek to the Illawarra Dive via a new crossover, sharing the track with increased T8 via Sydenham services and Southern Regional services.  With a single express pattern between Wolli Creek and the Illawarra Dive to Sydney Terminal, stopping only at Sydenham if warranted, that can potentially provide up to 24tph with the ATO upgrading, which again is a massive increase in capacity for the remaining Sydney Trains' services after the metro conversion.  It would also allow for future Southern Highlands Intercity services to be extended directly to the CBD.  Bear in mind that the upgrading of the Airport Line from 10 to 15tph also adds even further capacity for T8 services.

Sponsored advertisement

  djf01 Chief Commissioner

If you somehow managed to move the tunnel closer to central it still doesn't overcome that eveleigh is full of trains in peak hour either coming in or going out and not just in that tunnel. Rebuilding the dive so it comes out where suggested is the option you need but will this government do that.
simstrain

They don't need to rebuild the dive, they need to resume between 3 and 5 properties next to the alignment, which may or may not be heritage listed.

And yes, loss of capability at Eveleigh would be an issue.
  Transtopic Deputy Commissioner

Location: Sydney
If you somehow managed to move the tunnel closer to central it still doesn't overcome that eveleigh is full of trains in peak hour either coming in or going out and not just in that tunnel. Rebuilding the dive so it comes out where suggested is the option you need but will this government do that.

They don't need to rebuild the dive, they need to resume between 3 and 5 properties next to the alignment, which may or may not be heritage listed.

And yes, loss of capability at Eveleigh would be an issue.
djf01
To be honest, I don't think it's even worth thinking about.  A single track and at greatly reduced speed for starters just doesn't cut it and there would still have to be a crossover from the Local at Eveleigh.  What's the point when you can already access the Illawarra Dive to Sydney Terminal from the Illawarra Main and potentially from the Illawarra Local with a new crossover?  It's a lot simpler and at minimal cost, so why ignore the bleeding obvious instead of coming up with more complicated solutions?
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

To be honest, I don't think it's even worth thinking about.  A single track and at greatly reduced speed for starters just doesn't cut it and there would still have to be a crossover from the Local at Eveleigh.  What's the point when you can already access the Illawarra Dive to Sydney Terminal from the Illawarra Main and potentially from the Illawarra Local with a new crossover?  It's a lot simpler and at minimal cost, so why ignore the bleeding obvious instead of coming up with more complicated solutions?
Transtopic

The reason to do it - and it's independent of your crossovers - is so 20tph can run off the Mains through Redfern Platforms 1&2 unhindered into Sydney terminal.

Single track, yes, but the speed limits would obviously be lifted to something like the 40 allowed through the Illawarra Dive.  It'd have a capacity of 4tph easily, and probably 8tph reasonably.  

It's a possible way of boosting the capacity of Sydney Terminal as a location to turn back SCO (and highlands) trains.
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

2.2 Design development
The concept design for the proposal has been developed with consideration of the following
objectives:
 separation of intercity services from suburban traffic allowing a higher number of all stops
services without impeding through trains
 allowing suburban services to operate on the Illawarra Main line between the City and
Hurstville
 providing high frequency operations, with the ability to turn back trains (i.e. where a train
terminates and then departs in the opposite direction) at Hurstville on platforms 3 and 4

Transtopic

Here is where you are getting confused.

You think the first point means total separation of suburban and intercity services between Erskineville and Hurstville because of the second point. It doesn't and you are just reading way to much in to this.

All that this project is doing is moving the turnback from platform 2 to platform 4. This allows trains from Cronulla, Waterfall and the SCO to come straight in to Hurstville on platforms 1 and 2 instead of having slow and cross points to get to platform 3 and 4. That is the only benefit to this scheme as if they were going to do what you say is going to happen then they would have put the crossover at eveleigh in this project since the D sets are in testing and won't be too far away from going in to service.
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

To be honest, I don't think it's even worth thinking about.  A single track and at greatly reduced speed for starters just doesn't cut it and there would still have to be a crossover from the Local at Eveleigh.  What's the point when you can already access the Illawarra Dive to Sydney Terminal from the Illawarra Main and potentially from the Illawarra Local with a new crossover?  It's a lot simpler and at minimal cost, so why ignore the bleeding obvious instead of coming up with more complicated solutions?

The reason to do it - and it's independent of your crossovers - is so 20tph can run off the Mains through Redfern Platforms 1&2 unhindered into Sydney terminal.

Single track, yes, but the speed limits would obviously be lifted to something like the 40 allowed through the Illawarra Dive.  It'd have a capacity of 4tph easily, and probably 8tph reasonably.  

It's a possible way of boosting the capacity of Sydney Terminal as a location to turn back SCO (and highlands) trains.
djf01

You ain't going to get 20 trains per hour using a single track in to central especially while crossing over several track pairs to access a work yard which is limited to 5km/h.
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

To be honest, I don't think it's even worth thinking about.  A single track and at greatly reduced speed for starters just doesn't cut it and there would still have to be a crossover from the Local at Eveleigh.  What's the point when you can already access the Illawarra Dive to Sydney Terminal from the Illawarra Main and potentially from the Illawarra Local with a new crossover?  It's a lot simpler and at minimal cost, so why ignore the bleeding obvious instead of coming up with more complicated solutions?

The reason to do it - and it's independent of your crossovers - is so 20tph can run off the Mains through Redfern Platforms 1&2 unhindered into Sydney terminal.

Single track, yes, but the speed limits would obviously be lifted to something like the 40 allowed through the Illawarra Dive.  It'd have a capacity of 4tph easily, and probably 8tph reasonably.  

It's a possible way of boosting the capacity of Sydney Terminal as a location to turn back SCO (and highlands) trains.

You ain't going to get 20 trains per hour using a single track in to central especially while crossing over several track pairs to access a work yard which is limited to 5km/h.
simstrain

I know.  The concept is you get 20tph running through the Mains then into the Suburban (plats 5-8) & Bankstown section (plats 9-15) of Sydney Terminal.  An additional 4 or even 6 tph enter the main section (plats 1-4) or even Regent St/Mortuary station via the re-built Eveleigh Dive.

One of the potential issues with @trans' scheme is all those crossed over trains need to squeeze through platforms 1&2 at Redfern, possibly taking away slots from the western line mains running into Sydney Terminal.  TBH I don't think that is a showstopper for @trans' scheme, but adding the engine dive as a second access to ST would address this. yes, it would have limited capacity, but the Illawarra Dives would still be there should it ever prove insufficient.
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

I see your problem transtopic. Your problem is that you are working with idealised numbers and not realistic ones. 20tph total for T4 / SCO trains is all you are going to get regardless of where the train terminates. You think that by moving the SCO off the ESR and getting ATO that you are magically going to get an extra 10 trains and hour. I'm here to tell you that is not possible and at most with ATO you will get 20 total trains for T4 / SCO.

Your only seeing the numbers idealogically and not realistically. I used to think like you until someone was kind enough to teach me why it isn't so in regards to train operations. You are not seeing things that reduce capacity and only seeing a number you are told each line should be able to do.

The T4/SCO gets 18 trains an hour because aside from the cross at Wolli Creek there is nothing else interfering with these trains and there destination at Bondi Junction. When you start interlinking it with The T3 and the T8 or using the dive and interacting with T9, CCN and BM services you start dropping how many services you can run per hour. So you start dropping 2tph here and then 2tph there until you end up with maybe only 12 or 14tph.
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

I see your problem transtopic. Your problem is that you are working with idealised numbers and not realistic ones. 20tph total for T4 / SCO trains is all you are going to get regardless of where the train terminates. You think that by moving the SCO off the ESR and getting ATO that you are magically going to get an extra 10 trains and hour. I'm here to tell you that is not possible and at most with ATO you will get 20 total trains for T4 / SCO.
simstrain

I'm going to defend @trans' scheme here.  He achieves 24+tph on Sector 1 by using 2 track pairs.  SCO on the Illawarra Locals, everything else (eventually) on the Illawarra mains.  You're (@sims) trying to argue it's impossible in the same way it's impossible to get any more than 20tph between Strathfield and Redfern.  (NB, that's a counter-example Smile).
  Transtopic Deputy Commissioner

Location: Sydney
2.2 Design development
The concept design for the proposal has been developed with consideration of the following
objectives:
 separation of intercity services from suburban traffic allowing a higher number of all stops
services without impeding through trains
 allowing suburban services to operate on the Illawarra Main line between the City and
Hurstville
 providing high frequency operations, with the ability to turn back trains (i.e. where a train
terminates and then departs in the opposite direction) at Hurstville on platforms 3 and 4

Here is where you are getting confused.

You think the first point means total separation of suburban and intercity services between Erskineville and Hurstville because of the second point. It doesn't and you are just reading way to much in to this.

All that this project is doing is moving the turnback from platform 2 to platform 4. This allows trains from Cronulla, Waterfall and the SCO to come straight in to Hurstville on platforms 1 and 2 instead of having slow and cross points to get to platform 3 and 4. That is the only benefit to this scheme as if they were going to do what you say is going to happen then they would have put the crossover at eveleigh in this project since the D sets are in testing and won't be too far away from going in to service.
simstrain
I'm not in the slightest way confused.  It's all the most logical outcome from the Hurstville Crossover project, otherwise why would they bother with it?  If there's any confusion, it's on your part.

For the umpteenth time, the stated objective is to separate Intercity services from Suburban services and at the same time, increase services for both.  That can't be done if they leave things as they are, with T4 express and SCO services currently running on the Main from Hurstville directly to Bondi Junction and the T4 all stops running on the Local from Hurstville to Wolli Creek, where it crosses to the Main to merge with the T4 express and SCO to Bondi Junction.  The frequency between Wolli Creek and Redfern on the ESR is limited to 18tph by the mixed stopping pattern for the Suburban and Intercity services, when it's capable of operating at 20tph with a single all stops pattern.  That's unlikely to happen if the SCO services continue to operate to Bondi Junction or even to the existing connection to the Illawarra Dive from the Main.

That's why the Hurstville Crossover reverses the operation between Hurstville and Wolli Creek, so that the SCO services can continue on the Local and all T4 services continue on the Main from Wolli Creek to Bondi Junction.  That separates SCO from T4 after Wolli Creek and frees up more paths for T4.

The problem is, that TfNSW hasn't explicitly spelt out how the Suburban and Intercity services will operate as a result of the Hurstville project, other than giving a generalised overview of separating them and increasing services for both.  For example, it would help to make it clearer if they had mentioned that the SCO and T4 express Cronulla/Waterfall services would continue to operate together in a single express pattern between Hurstville and Wolli Creek, but switched from the Main to the Local at Hurstville.  

The T4 express services would cross from the Local to the Main at Wolli Creek, merging with the T4 Hurstville all stops to Bondi Junction.  That's the reverse of what currently happens, where the all stops crosses over from the Local to the Main.  The new arrangement would allow the SCO services to continue on the Local, most likely to Sydney Terminal, separated from the T4 services.  

They could also have avoided any confusion, by explicitly stating that the objective was to separate SCO from the T4 all stops pattern on the Main from Hurstville to Erskineville, while acknowledging that they would continue to share the Local with the T4 express services between Hurstville and Wolli Creek in a single non-stop pattern, where they won't be impeded.  

They also haven't elaborated on how SCO services will continue past Wolli Creek on the Local and it's final destination.  I think it's reasonable to assume that it would have to be to Sydney Terminal and there's no way that can be done without the long mooted crossover from the Local to the Main and Illawarra Dive.  There's nowhere else for SCO to go.  It just hasn't been brought up yet, but I expect it will be in the not too distant future.  SCO definitely won't continue to go to Bondi Junction.
  Transtopic Deputy Commissioner

Location: Sydney
I see your problem transtopic. Your problem is that you are working with idealised numbers and not realistic ones. 20tph total for T4 / SCO trains is all you are going to get regardless of where the train terminates. You think that by moving the SCO off the ESR and getting ATO that you are magically going to get an extra 10 trains and hour. I'm here to tell you that is not possible and at most with ATO you will get 20 total trains for T4 / SCO.
simstrain
Rubbish!  The ESR already has a capacity of 20tph with the current signalling and turnback at Bondi Junction.  You haven't taken any notice of what I said previously.

If SCO is moved off the Illawarra Main and ESR, that frees up another 6 paths to add to the current 14tph T4 services, assuming an all stations pattern from Wolli Creek to Bondi Junction.  With ATO introduced, that's going to provide al least another 4tph, which adds up to an increase of 10tph if my maths serves me correctly.  So let's put that argument to bed.
  Transtopic Deputy Commissioner

Location: Sydney
I see your problem transtopic. Your problem is that you are working with idealised numbers and not realistic ones. 20tph total for T4 / SCO trains is all you are going to get regardless of where the train terminates. You think that by moving the SCO off the ESR and getting ATO that you are magically going to get an extra 10 trains and hour. I'm here to tell you that is not possible and at most with ATO you will get 20 total trains for T4 / SCO.

I'm going to defend @trans' scheme here.  He achieves 24+tph on Sector 1 by using 2 track pairs.  SCO on the Illawarra Locals, everything else (eventually) on the Illawarra mains.  You're (@sims) trying to argue it's impossible in the same way it's impossible to get any more than 20tph between Strathfield and Redfern.  (NB, that's a counter-example Smile).
djf01
Thanks for your defence of my forecast scenario djf.  I assume you mean that achieving 24+tph on Sector 1 (T4 excluding SCO) by using 2 track pairs implies that it's a combination of T4 Cronulla/Waterfall express services on the Local, merging with the T4 Hurstville all stops at Wolli Creek on the Main to Bondi Junction, which is correct.  SCO would share the Local with the T4 expresses in a non-stop pattern from Hurstville to the Wolli Creek crossover before proceeding on the Local to the CBD, Sydney Terminal I suggest.  Admittedly, it's still to be confirmed, but I think it's a pretty safe bet, as I cannot see any other option, in the short term at least.

Although the Hurstville Crossover is expected to be completed in 12 months or thereabouts, it's probably unlikely that the new operating pattern would be implemented immediately, as the existing T3 operation would inhibit the ability to divert SCO on the Local, even if the new aforementioned crossover was installed at Eveleigh, until the T3 metro conversion is operational.   Although I could be wrong.  It may be possible to operate with the reconfigured pattern, with all T4 and SCO services continuing to Bondi Junction as an interim measure, but it would restrict the ability to significantly increase services, even with ATO.

A more likely scenario is to delay the T4/SCO reconfigured operating pattern until T3 ceases operation in 2024 to free up the additional paths on the Local to the CBD.  That still gives plenty of time to plan (which has probably already been done) and construct the new crossover from the Local to the Main and Illawarra Dive at Eveleigh.  I'm sure all will be revealed in due course.
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

I see your problem transtopic. Your problem is that you are working with idealised numbers and not realistic ones. 20tph total for T4 / SCO trains is all you are going to get regardless of where the train terminates. You think that by moving the SCO off the ESR and getting ATO that you are magically going to get an extra 10 trains and hour. I'm here to tell you that is not possible and at most with ATO you will get 20 total trains for T4 / SCO.

I'm going to defend @trans' scheme here.  He achieves 24+tph on Sector 1 by using 2 track pairs.  SCO on the Illawarra Locals, everything else (eventually) on the Illawarra mains.  You're (@sims) trying to argue it's impossible in the same way it's impossible to get any more than 20tph between Strathfield and Redfern.  (NB, that's a counter-example Smile).
djf01

Again your mistake here is that you might be able to use 2 track pairs but it doesn't mean you get 2 track pairs of capacity. In the case of the T4 and SCO you get 1 track pair of capacity which = 20 trains per hour and no more. The express T4's will not be sharing the same track pair as your all stations Hurstville trains.

Sutherland to Hurstville has 12 trains an hour which should give you a train every 5 minutes but these comprise trip times of 12, 14 and 16 minutes. These are timed to meet at either sutherland or hurstville within 3 minutes of each other but at the other end of there trip they are up to 7 minutes apart from each other. This means that the SCO service takes over 2 train paths in this location which means you lose 5 trains per hour immediately in this section of track.

If you run SCO trains as Transtopic suggested along the locals all the way to central then those SCO services run in to the 8 T3 and 4 T8 trains which also have multiple stopping patterns. So you see your 24 trains an hour just isn't possible and ATO isn't going to make it possible.
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

I see your problem transtopic. Your problem is that you are working with idealised numbers and not realistic ones. 20tph total for T4 / SCO trains is all you are going to get regardless of where the train terminates. You think that by moving the SCO off the ESR and getting ATO that you are magically going to get an extra 10 trains and hour. I'm here to tell you that is not possible and at most with ATO you will get 20 total trains for T4 / SCO.

I'm going to defend @trans' scheme here.  He achieves 24+tph on Sector 1 by using 2 track pairs.  SCO on the Illawarra Locals, everything else (eventually) on the Illawarra mains.  You're (@sims) trying to argue it's impossible in the same way it's impossible to get any more than 20tph between Strathfield and Redfern.  (NB, that's a counter-example Smile).

Again your mistake here is that you might be able to use 2 track pairs but it doesn't mean you get 2 track pairs of capacity. In the case of the T4 and SCO you get 1 track pair of capacity which = 20 trains per hour and no more. The express T4's will not be sharing the same track pair as your all stations Hurstville trains.
simstrain

There is no mistake.  If I understand @trans' plan correctly (nuances aside) this is probably like:

Sector 2:

Highlands - Campbelltown  4 tph
Campbelltown - Revesby   16 tph (12 locals, + 4 ex highlands)
Revesby - Wolli Creek   24tph (16 + 8 ex Revesby) 16 on the outer express tracks, 8 stoppers on the inner tracks

Wolli Creek - Airport - City   16   (8 ex Revesby, 8/12 ex Campbelltown)
Wolli Creek - Sydenham - Illawarra Dive Crossovers  8, 4 ex Highlands to Sydney Terminal)


Sector 1:

SCO-Sutherland  8tph  (4 ex SCO, 4 ex Waterfall)
Sutherland - Hurstville 16tph  (+8 ex Cronulla)
Hurtville - Wolli Creek 24tph (+8 ex Hursville) - 16tph express on Locals, 8 stoppers on

Wolli Creek - Redfern  20tph  (@Trans has not committed to this, but seems necessary to me) on the Illwarra Main.
Wolli Creek - Sydenham - Illawarra Dive Crossovers  4tph  (*)

The Illawarra Locals between the East Hills Jtn at Wolli Ck and the Illawarra Dive crossovers:  12tph  4 express/overflow T8s, 4 Highlands and 4 SCOs.

4tph run through Redfern Platforms 7&8

There is scope to add up to 4 more Highlands or 4 more SCO services with this plan (though increasing transit time in the process).

Is that about right @trans?

The downside of the plan (all plans have a downside) is Sector 2 is hosting (at least) Sector 1 interurbans.

If you run SCO trains as Transtopic suggested along the locals all the way to central then those SCO services run in to the 8 T3 and 4 T8 trains which also have multiple stopping patterns. So you see your 24 trains an hour just isn't possible and ATO isn't going to make it possible.
simstrain
That is why it is a *post* T3 metro conversion project !!!
  simstrain Chief Commissioner


There is no mistake.  If I understand @trans' plan correctly (nuances aside) this is probably like:

Sector 2:

Highlands - Campbelltown  4 tph
Campbelltown - Revesby   16 tph (12 locals, + 4 ex highlands)
Revesby - Wolli Creek   24tph (16 + 8 ex Revesby) 16 on the outer express tracks, 8 stoppers on the inner tracks

Wolli Creek - Airport - City   16   (8 ex Revesby, 8/12 ex Campbelltown)
Wolli Creek - Sydenham - Illawarra Dive Crossovers  8, 4 ex Highlands to Sydney Terminal)


Sector 1:

SCO-Sutherland  8tph  (4 ex SCO, 4 ex Waterfall)
Sutherland - Hurstville 16tph  (+8 ex Cronulla)
Hurtville - Wolli Creek 24tph (+8 ex Hursville) - 16tph express on Locals, 8 stoppers on

Wolli Creek - Redfern  20tph  (@Trans has not committed to this, but seems necessary to me) on the Illwarra Main.
Wolli Creek - Sydenham - Illawarra Dive Crossovers  4tph  (*)

The Illawarra Locals between the East Hills Jtn at Wolli Ck and the Illawarra Dive crossovers:  12tph  4 express/overflow T8s, 4 Highlands and 4 SCOs.

4tph run through Redfern Platforms 7&8

There is scope to add up to 4 more Highlands or 4 more SCO services with this plan (though increasing transit time in the process).

Is that about right @trans?

The downside of the plan (all plans have a downside) is Sector 2 is hosting (at least) Sector 1 interurbans.

If you run SCO trains as Transtopic suggested along the locals all the way to central then those SCO services run in to the 8 T3 and 4 T8 trains which also have multiple stopping patterns. So you see your 24 trains an hour just isn't possible and ATO isn't going to make it possible.
That is why it is a *post* T3 metro conversion project !!!
djf01

Still not getting it are you DJF. none of your numbers are seated in reality.

4 highlands services an hour just isn't happening because beyond macarthur is the ARTC network and they don't like passenger services as it is and I can tell you that they are most certainly not going to allow 4 SH trains an hour on there network that will slow down freight trains.

All the numbers you wrote are just fantasy and aren't based anywhere on reality. You can only get 12 trains an hour between sutherland and hurstville unless every train stops all stops between these 2 stops. You have 3 stopping patterns which limits you to 12 trains an hour and not 16.

Lets not forget that your solutions re integrate sector 1 and 2 trains which clearways aimed to remove.
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

unless you build new track you aren't going to be able to get more trains. ATO may help you get those extra 2 T4 services but sector one isn't getting any more services and will not be interconnecting with sector 2.
  djf01 Chief Commissioner


There is no mistake.  If I understand @trans' plan correctly (nuances aside) this is probably like:

Sector 2:

Highlands - Campbelltown  4 tph
Campbelltown - Revesby   16 tph (12 locals, + 4 ex highlands)
Revesby - Wolli Creek   24tph (16 + 8 ex Revesby) 16 on the outer express tracks, 8 stoppers on the inner tracks

Wolli Creek - Airport - City   16   (8 ex Revesby, 8/12 ex Campbelltown)
Wolli Creek - Sydenham - Illawarra Dive Crossovers  8, 4 ex Highlands to Sydney Terminal)


Sector 1:

SCO-Sutherland  8tph  (4 ex SCO, 4 ex Waterfall)
Sutherland - Hurstville 16tph  (+8 ex Cronulla)
Hurtville - Wolli Creek 24tph (+8 ex Hursville) - 16tph express on Locals, 8 stoppers on

Wolli Creek - Redfern  20tph  (@Trans has not committed to this, but seems necessary to me) on the Illwarra Main.
Wolli Creek - Sydenham - Illawarra Dive Crossovers  4tph  (*)

The Illawarra Locals between the East Hills Jtn at Wolli Ck and the Illawarra Dive crossovers:  12tph  4 express/overflow T8s, 4 Highlands and 4 SCOs.

4tph run through Redfern Platforms 7&8

There is scope to add up to 4 more Highlands or 4 more SCO services with this plan (though increasing transit time in the process).

Is that about right @trans?

The downside of the plan (all plans have a downside) is Sector 2 is hosting (at least) Sector 1 interurbans.

If you run SCO trains as Transtopic suggested along the locals all the way to central then those SCO services run in to the 8 T3 and 4 T8 trains which also have multiple stopping patterns. So you see your 24 trains an hour just isn't possible and ATO isn't going to make it possible.
That is why it is a *post* T3 metro conversion project !!!
Still not getting it are you DJF. none of your numbers are seated in reality.

4 highlands services an hour just isn't happening because beyond macarthur is the ARTC network and they don't like passenger services as it is and I can tell you that they are most certainly not going to allow 4 SH trains an hour on there network that will slow down freight trains.

All the numbers you wrote are just fantasy and aren't based anywhere on reality. You can only get 12 trains an hour between sutherland and hurstville unless every train stops all stops between these 2 stops. You have 3 stopping patterns which limits you to 12 trains an hour and not 16.

Lets not forget that your solutions re integrate sector 1 and 2 trains which clearways aimed to remove.
simstrain

You're the one who doesn't get it @sims.  You're a f***ing broken record: "they can't do it, they won't do it, can't be done, won't happen, everyone is dreaming" - except you of course.  Never any evidence mind you, just (presumably deliberate) mis-interpretation of the facts presented.  So I'm calling BS on your entire attitude.

That said, to disprove the substance of your claims ....

Subject to signalling (that's a caveat as the entire network is not signalled to handle 20tph) which can be addressed reasonably easily with more signals (I suppose that can't or won't be done either) and power consumption (new substations can't or won't happen, they are impossible), we are all agreed 20tph is the current limit within current operating practices.

The number of stopping patterns across a segment has nothing to do with the capacity. You can have 20tph with multiple stopping patterns.  What you can't have are trains with a shorter transit time than an all stations service.  

If you have 16tph across a segment, the most any one service can advance is one slot, or 3 min.  If you have 12 tph, the most a train can advance is 2 slots, or 6 min.

Mathematically, there are certain things that can be done, and certain things that can't.  @Sims, just because you don't understand how something might be done, doesn't mean it's impossible - or even impractical.  

Lets not forget that your solutions re integrate sector 1 and 2 trains which clearways aimed to remove.
simstrain

On this point @Sims I completely agree with you.  I think TfNSW's priorities are sectorisation and stopping pattern simplification (minimisation) ahead of passenger utility and transit times.  

I think it's far more likely they'll implement ATO to cut headways so they can run 24tph between Wolli Creek and Erskinville on the Illawarra Mains.  SCO trains won't stop at St Peters and Erskinville, but they'll take 4min longer to transit than currently.  It's TfNSW's MO after all.

But even you (@simstrain) must concede - as you have been advocating it for Liverpool trains - "crossing the streams" might be very bad, but it's certainly not impossible.
  Transtopic Deputy Commissioner

Location: Sydney

Again your mistake here is that you might be able to use 2 track pairs but it doesn't mean you get 2 track pairs of capacity. In the case of the T4 and SCO you get 1 track pair of capacity which = 20 trains per hour and no more. The express T4's will not be sharing the same track pair as your all stations Hurstville trains.

There is no mistake.  If I understand @trans' plan correctly (nuances aside) this is probably like:

Sector 2:

Highlands - Campbelltown  4 tph
Campbelltown - Revesby   16 tph (12 locals, + 4 ex highlands)
Revesby - Wolli Creek   24tph (16 + 8 ex Revesby) 16 on the outer express tracks, 8 stoppers on the inner tracks

Wolli Creek - Airport - City   16   (8 ex Revesby, 8/12 ex Campbelltown)
Wolli Creek - Sydenham - Illawarra Dive Crossovers  8, 4 ex Highlands to Sydney Terminal)


Sector 1:

SCO-Sutherland  8tph  (4 ex SCO, 4 ex Waterfall)
Sutherland - Hurstville 16tph  (+8 ex Cronulla)
Hurtville - Wolli Creek 24tph (+8 ex Hursville) - 16tph express on Locals, 8 stoppers on

Wolli Creek - Redfern  20tph  (@Trans has not committed to this, but seems necessary to me) on the Illwarra Main.
Wolli Creek - Sydenham - Illawarra Dive Crossovers  4tph  (*)

The Illawarra Locals between the East Hills Jtn at Wolli Ck and the Illawarra Dive crossovers:  12tph  4 express/overflow T8s, 4 Highlands and 4 SCOs.

4tph run through Redfern Platforms 7&8

There is scope to add up to 4 more Highlands or 4 more SCO services with this plan (though increasing transit time in the process).

Is that about right @trans?

The downside of the plan (all plans have a downside) is Sector 2 is hosting (at least) Sector 1 interurbans.

If you run SCO trains as Transtopic suggested along the locals all the way to central then those SCO services run in to the 8 T3 and 4 T8 trains which also have multiple stopping patterns. So you see your 24 trains an hour just isn't possible and ATO isn't going to make it possible.
That is why it is a *post* T3 metro conversion project !!!
djf01
First of all, to avoid any confusion, AFAIK the "Sector" classification no longer applies and has been superseded by the "T" classification (T1, T2 etc). Correct me if I'm wrong.

Putting that aside, it's getting late and I haven't had time to fully absorb your suggested service patterns for T4, T8, SCO and SHL, and respond in detail.  I certainly will in due course give it the consideration it deserves.

All I will say at this stage, is that in respect of T4 it's ultimate frequency for Cronulla, Waterfall and SCO services will be limited by the constraint on the Sutherland to Hurstville sector with the single track pair.  However, I disagree with sims' assessment that it would be limited to 12tph, which is the current pattern.  I can see no reason why it couldn't be increased to 14-16tph with the current signalling, which would equate with the current mixed pattern on the T2 Inner West Line.  When ATO is introduced, it could possibly be as high as 20tph.  Obviously the full quadruplication of that sector will be necessary to allow all services to operate at their optimum frequencies, with express services being able to overtake the slower all stops.

In respect of the Hurstville to Bondi Junction sector, that doesn't change it's latent maximum frequency with the Hurstville Crossover project and ultimately the ATO upgrade.  It would still be 24tph on the Main from Wolli Creek to Bondi Junction after the ATO upgrade.  

I agree that the frequency of services on the various lines which you and I have canvassed is in the context of a post T3 metro conversion and ATO upgrade.
  Totoro Station Master

Regarding ATO, is there a priority list of which lines are to be receiving this, and in which order? I gather that this will be applied to all lines by 2030?
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

First of all, to avoid any confusion, AFAIK the "Sector" classification no longer applies and has been superseded by the "T" classification (T1, T2 etc). Correct me if I'm wrong.
Transtopic

I prefer to use sectors, not as a curmudgeon, but as the sectors give an indication of physical topology and separation.  The T designations are operating patterns and - falsely - give an impression of physical distancing - to coin a modern phrase.  The Liverpool line(s) and the Inner West are both T2, when in fact the Liverpool line(s) physically connect to the suburbans and head over the SHB.  T3 is physically a branch off sector 2, and gets it's own T designation.  Does the Richmond Line get one?  For me, the Ts are too inconsistent, ambiguous and misleading.  As we are discussing changes to operating patterns I find it "unhelpful".
  Transtopic Deputy Commissioner

Location: Sydney
Regarding ATO, is there a priority list of which lines are to be receiving this, and in which order? I gather that this will be applied to all lines by 2030?
Totoro
Not that's been publicly released AFAIK.  I think you're right about all lines being upgraded to ATO standard by 2030, as I seem to recall it was a decade long project from now.  The Hurstville Crossover project is an integral part of this ATO upgrade on T4, which is the first line to receive this upgrade.
  Transtopic Deputy Commissioner

Location: Sydney
First of all, to avoid any confusion, AFAIK the "Sector" classification no longer applies and has been superseded by the "T" classification (T1, T2 etc). Correct me if I'm wrong.

I prefer to use sectors, not as a curmudgeon, but as the sectors give an indication of physical topology and separation.  The T designations are operating patterns and - falsely - give an impression of physical distancing - to coin a modern phrase.  The Liverpool line(s) and the Inner West are both T2, when in fact the Liverpool line(s) physically connect to the suburbans and head over the SHB.  T3 is physically a branch off sector 2, and gets it's own T designation.  Does the Richmond Line get one?  For me, the Ts are too inconsistent, ambiguous and misleading.  As we are discussing changes to operating patterns I find it "unhelpful".
djf01
Point taken djf.

In that light, I respond to your previous post with regard to suggested operating patterns on Sectors 1 and 2.  You're pretty close to what I would have suggested, with a few exceptions, mainly because of an anticipated increase in frequencies through the City Circle with the ATO upgrade, which will be the ultimate determining factor.  The City Circle can potentially be upgraded to handle 24tph on the Inner and Outer arms, increasing its overall capacity from 40 to 48tph.  My suggested potential frequencies for Sectors 1 and 2 are as follows -

Sector 1

6tph SCO
8tph T4 Cronulla
4tph T4 Waterfall
8tph T4 Hurstville

  • There would be a total of 18tph on the Sutherland-Hurstville single track pair after the ATO upgrade with a mixed pattern
  • T4 Cronulla services could be increased to 12tph after quadruplication of this sector
  • The Local from Hurstville to Wolli Creek would cater for the non-stop express SCO, Cronulla and Waterfall services
  • The T4 services would cross from the Local to the Main at Wolli Creek, merging with the all stops Hurstville services
  • SCO services would continue on the Local, merging with T8 and future SHL, to a new crossover to the Illawarra Dive
  • T4 would continue in an all stops pattern to Bondi Junction on the Main, including Tempe, St Peters and Erskineville
  • Initially, T4 on the ESR would be limited to 20tph, although with a capacity of 24tph, allowing for future Cronulla services

Sector 2

4tph SHL
16tph T8 Campbelltown/Macarthur
8tph T8 Revesby
6tph T8 Badgerys Creek

  • SHL through services to Sydney Terminal via new crossover to Illawarra Dive deferred until electrification to Moss Vale
  • T8 Campbelltown/Macarthur and Badgerys Creek services operate in express pattern between Revesby and Turrella
  • 8tph T8 Revesby operate via Airport Line to Central and City Circle Inner
  • 8tph T8 Campbelltown/Macarthur operate via Airport Line to Central and City Circle Inner
  • 8tph T8 Campbelltown/Macarthur operate via Sydenham to Central and City Circle Inner
  • 6tph T8 Badgerys Creek operate via Sydenham to Central and City Circle Outer
  • The 6tph T8 BC merge with 18tph T2 Inner West at Central p16 via the flyovers
  • The T8 Campbelltown & Macarthur services increase from 10 to 16tph
  • T8, SCO and future SHL via Sydenham on the Local share a single express pattern stopping only at Sydenham
  • Illawarra Local between Hurstville and Redfern becomes express tracks for all services
  • Illawarra Local between Wolli Creek Junction and Illawarra Dive @24tph (single pattern) - 8 C/M+6 BC+6 SCO+4 SHL
  • T8 no longer services St Peters and Erskineville, now transferred to T4 all stops on Main to Bondi Junction

I don't quite understand your suggestion that 20tph would continue on the Main to Redfern.  Do you mean to platforms 9/10 at Redfern, or the Redfern ESR platforms?  My proposal is for all T4 services on the Main, potentially 24tph, would continue on the ESR to Bondi Junction.  Platforms 9/10 at Redfern would not be used and all T8 via Sydenham services would use platforms 7/8 at Redfern.  The SCO and future direct SHL Intercity services would cross to the dive to Sydney Terminal.

Sectorisation of all suburban services would be maintained, with the only exception being that SCO services would share the express tracks from Wolli Creek Junction to the Illawarra Dive on the Local with T8 and eventually SHL.  I don't see that as a major issue.
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

Sectorisation still exists and the T# monikers are just the retail name of lines.

ATO is not going to magically make 24 trains an hour possible on the ST network. Still too many issues with dwell times, multiple stopping patterns and multiple crossings on the network. ATO will make 20 trains an hour possible but your not getting 24tph.

If your willing to break sectorisation post metro then I suppose some of those T3 paths could be taken up by 2-4 T4 services around the city circle but to achieve any of the goals you want is going to require new infrastructure in to the CBD or Central.
  Transtopic Deputy Commissioner

Location: Sydney
Sectorisation still exists and the T# monikers are just the retail name of lines.

ATO is not going to magically make 24 trains an hour possible on the ST network. Still too many issues with dwell times, multiple stopping patterns and multiple crossings on the network. ATO will make 20 trains an hour possible but your not getting 24tph.

If your willing to break sectorisation post metro then I suppose some of those T3 paths could be taken up by 2-4 T4 services around the city circle but to achieve any of the goals you want is going to require new infrastructure in to the CBD or Central.
simstrain
The current signalling in the CBD already allows 20tph, so it's nonsense to suggest that ATO couldn't increase it further.  24tph seems to be the generally accepted benchmark with ATO and it could even possibly be more.  

What I have proposed is to simplify operations by eliminating crossing conflicts and as far as possible move towards single operating patterns allowing maximum frequencies.  With regard to dwell times, this isn't going to be a major issue when the metro is operational, as it will take a lot of pressure off interchanging on the existing network, particularly at Central, Town Hall and Wynyard.

I haven't suggested that sectorisation should be broken for the suburban services, nor do a see any need for new infrastructure in the short term to realise the outcome which I have proposed.  On the other hand, it's a different matter when addressing capacity constraints on Sector 3 (Western and Northern Lines), notwithstanding Metro West.
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

The current signalling in the CBD already allows 20tph, so it's nonsense to suggest that ATO couldn't increase it further.  24tph seems to be the generally accepted benchmark with ATO and it could even possibly be more.  

What I have proposed is to simplify operations by eliminating crossing conflicts and as far as possible move towards single operating patterns allowing maximum frequencies.  With regard to dwell times, this isn't going to be a major issue when the metro is operational, as it will take a lot of pressure off interchanging on the existing network, particularly at Central, Town Hall and Wynyard.

I haven't suggested that sectorisation should be broken for the suburban services, nor do a see any need for new infrastructure in the short term to realise the outcome which I have proposed.  On the other hand, it's a different matter when addressing capacity constraints on Sector 3 (Western and Northern Lines), notwithstanding Metro West.
Transtopic

The signalling is not what is stopping the network going past 20 trains an hour. 26 trains an hour was done in the past and could be done if Central and Town Hall weren't such an issue. The dwell times especially around the city circle is what locks you to 20 trains an hour. Multiple stopping patterns and train destinations also don't help.

You also aren't simplifying things and have actually complicated it more. With your solution instead of the one cross south of Wolli creek station you will have 2 with the T8 express cross at Wolli Creek and your new cross at eveleigh. You still have the cross south of Wolli Creek for T4 express services except it will be worse because you now have a double cross instead of only a single and so therefore you now have 4 crosses instead of only 1.

Metro isn't going to change anything and to think it will is showing your naivety. Even though the T3 will no longer be using it the T8 will be using it with increased services and nothing you can do can fix the issues that Central, Town Hall and Wynyard have with platform crowding.

Your proposal by it's very nature means breaking sectorisation and so you have suggested it. These little things won't help because we have been down that path with clearways and all that is really being achieved is a fudging of the numbers with no real major improvements. To fix ST means to build major new infrastructure and we know this is not going to happen with this government. We are going to get a metro to somewhere on the T4 in the future and I would suggest it will probably as part of metro west somehow.

Sponsored advertisement

Subscribers: Transtopic, WimbledonW

Display from: