T4 and SCO post NIF and T3 Metro conversion

 
  Transtopic Deputy Commissioner

Location: Sydney
I'm not denying any factual information. Yourself and DJF haven't provided any factual information whatsoever to back up any of your claims. All I'm hearing is that "ATO will make it so" with nothing factual to show this to be the case. Where is you factual information to prove yourselves correct. Don't give me that Sydney - Wollongong link as that is not factual information but just a submission and only one item as actually

The D sets are set for 115km/h and not 160km/h as wikipedia incorrectly states. The white boards are for the XPT, Xplorer, Endeavour and the new regional trains and not for V sets, D sets or any suburban electric double deck rolling stock. The new regional train is the only new train that is designated to hit 160km in NSW and that won't be anywhere in Sydney. If you want 160km/h the network needs a complete realignment and expansion. It can't be done on the network as it is even if you add ATO and especially it isn't going to be done with double deck electric rolling stock on anything other then a dedicated high speed rail line.

The metro trains operate around 100km/h but they do get up to 115km/h. Wikipedia is also wrong on the max speed of 100km/h for the Sydney Metro. I mentioned 130km/h because trains like the metro on dedicated tracks can normally get to. The Metro max speed might not be 130 but it is definitely more then 100. If you keep an eye on Anytrip you can see the speed of the metro trains and I just noticed one at 106.4 km/h.
simstrain
Try this -

https://issuu.com/primecreativemedia-2016/docs/rex0520_lr/31


And this -

https://www.railway-technology.com/projects/alstom-metropolis-trains/


With regard to the D sets, I can't find any current reference to its maximum speed other than on Wikipedia which states its maximum speed is 160km/h, but I do distinctly recall its maximum speed of being 160km/h when the NIF was initially announced by Andrew Constance.  It's also been mentioned innumerable times in the media and railway journals, so I have no reason to doubt it.  I know Wikipedia isn't infallible and I'm not relying on that alone, but if you doubt their accuracy, then why don't you for once produce some evidence to suggest otherwise instead of just refuting everything?

I've never said that the D sets would operate at 160km/h on the Sydney Trains network.  Both djf and I have suggested sections of track on the Northern, Western and East Hills Lines, where existing maximum speed board limits could potentially be lifted up to 160km/h where the track geometry allows it, particularly after ATO is implemented.

If the D sets were specified with a maximum speed of 160km/h which I believe is the case, then it was done for a reason, otherwise they would have specified a lower limit of 130km/h, which is similar to the Waratahs, Millenniums and Oscars.  They must plan to utilise it some time in the future, just as they would for the specified speed limits for the suburban stock.

Sponsored advertisement

  Transtopic Deputy Commissioner

Location: Sydney
The D sets actually have a max operational speed of 130km/h, same as the OSCARs. They test them up to 143km/h (10% above max).
sunnyyan
It depends on what you mean by "maximum operational speed".  When they are introduced to the network as it stands, they may well only operate up to 130km/h initially, but their maximum design speed is 160km/h which may be utilised in the future as the track and signalling infrastructure is upgraded and I stand by that.
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

It depends on what you mean by "maximum operational speed".  When they are introduced to the network as it stands, they may well only operate up to 130km/h initially, but their maximum design speed is 160km/h which may be utilised in the future as the track and signalling infrastructure is upgraded and I stand by that.
Transtopic
Where do you get this maximum design speed of 160km/h for the D sets from. You still haven't provided any proof to this and there is nothing about this anywhere official. The only place I can see this mentioned is on wikipedia. There are too many trains, too many curves and too much shared track for any trains to operate at 160km/h anywhere in Sydney.

Signalling isn't the issue on the Sydney network. It is everything else holding the network back. The lack of track capacity, DD dwell times, multiple stopping patterns, crossing trains, the curvy alignment of track and platforms. DJF mentioned the great western line in the UK as similar to Sydney but that couldn't be further from the truth. Single deck trains with fewer passengers per train, lines that are arrow straight with straight platforms and separated express and local services. They couldn't possibly more different.
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

I think you are mistaking the NIF for the NRF. The new regional trains can hit 160km/h and this was mentioned. Nothing was ever mentioned about the NIFS hitting 160km/h.
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

I have studied the speed limits as indicated on the Sydney Trains' Drivers' Route Knowledge diagrams for the main lines in the metropolitan area and as far as I can see, the current maximum speed limit on the white boards is 125km/h. That's on the short length of track on the outer Main lines on the East Hills Line between Salt Pan Creek and Revesby.  Otherwise the maximum speed limit on all lines is 115km/h. I couldn't see any white boards posted at 160km/h.  That doesn't mean that there isn't the potential to increase the speed boards substantially higher where track conditions allow it, particularly when ATO is fully implemented.

There is a short stretch between Dapto and Albion Park white boarded at 140, at least in my aged DRKD.  My memory was it was 160.

There are many places the track geometry would allow white boards of 160, but there are other reasons they might not be in use.

For example, Waterfall to Sutherland is almost all a blanket 115 (Loftus curve a 720m is 90, Heathcote Curve is 800m boarded at 100).

I remember immediately post electrification Wollongong to Woonona was boarded at 110, the V Set's top speed, but it's not now.

The geometry of the Illawarra Down Main and Up Local between Wolli Creek and Hurstville would allow 200kph boarding, with the exception of the curves into the platform at Allawah.

Away from T4, but the western line west of Paramatta is only boarded at 115, but it clearly could be higher if track geometry were the only factor.

I rode on a T set (IIRC) on that section of T1 a year or two ago, and it was a rather lively ride.  I was rather glad once we got to the slower bits of the network.
djf01

Dapto and Albion park are not in Sydney for a start and is more regional with single track running in some spots. 140km/h there is also only achieved by the Endeavour.

Waterfall to Sutherland is fast enough at 115km/h and you aren't going to get to 160km/h if you have to slow down to 90 or 100 for a curve.

200km/h between Wolli Creek and Hurstville is surely a joke DJF. If not then what are you smoking?

The T1 isn't straight until you get west of Blacktown and even then you have some curves at Doonside and Rooty hill to get through. T set rides are always lively because they have the worst suspension on the network. I constantly feel sorry for the people on the T4 who have to endure this.
  Transtopic Deputy Commissioner

Location: Sydney
I think you are mistaking the NIF for the NRF. The new regional trains can hit 160km/h and this was mentioned. Nothing was ever mentioned about the NIFS hitting 160km/h.
simstrain
If this doesn't convince you, then you're in total denial.  I note that you haven't responded to the article I posted earlier with regard to the digitalisation of the Sydney Trains network.

https://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/news-and-events/media-releases/new-intercity-trains-ramp-up-testing
  Transtopic Deputy Commissioner

Location: Sydney

Waterfall to Sutherland is fast enough at 115km/h and you aren't going to get to 160km/h if you have to slow down to 90 or 100 for a curve.

The T1 isn't straight until you get west of Blacktown and even then you have some curves at Doonside and Rooty hill to get through.
simstrain
The speed boards in Sydney are very conservative IMO.  Even on the East Hills Line, I seem to recall that not so long ago, they were higher for the white boards at least, between East Hills and Glenfield.

The maximum speed depends primarily on the curve radius and there may also be other operational factors involved which djf pointed out.  ATO will help in mitigating these factors.  It doesn't need to be completely straight track to achieve 160km/h.  Even HSR operates at over 200km/h on wide radius curves.
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

200km/h between Wolli Creek and Hurstville is surely a joke DJF. If not then what are you smoking?
simstrain

The same stuff as Richard Branson
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

I really would love to know how ATO will help mitigate issues with the curves on the network. It may not need to be completely straight to achieve 160km/h but it needs to be a lot straighter then anything we have in Sydney. Tracks and platforms are curved significantly in Sydney.

HSR is a completely different level of track to achieve 200km/h. On the great western line in England they have dedicated tracks with no hindrance from slower trains in front and those nice low radius curves you mentioned. Between East Hills and Glenfield you have Holsworthy station and DD trains are never going to get up to anywhere near 160km/h between Holsworthy and Glenfield. 130-145 for the Xplorer and XPT maybe but at that speed the only thing that speed will achieve is to run it right in to the back of a DD train and stopping at signals.
  Transtopic Deputy Commissioner

Location: Sydney
I really would love to know how ATO will help mitigate issues with the curves on the network. It may not need to be completely straight to achieve 160km/h but it needs to be a lot straighter then anything we have in Sydney. Tracks and platforms are curved significantly in Sydney.

HSR is a completely different level of track to achieve 200km/h. On the great western line in England they have dedicated tracks with no hindrance from slower trains in front and those nice low radius curves you mentioned. Between East Hills and Glenfield you have Holsworthy station and DD trains are never going to get up to anywhere near 160km/h between Holsworthy and Glenfield. 130-145 for the Xplorer and XPT maybe but at that speed the only thing that speed will achieve is to run it right in to the back of a DD train and stopping at signals.
simstrain
Ask Andrew Constance.  He's the one proposing it.
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

I really would love to know how ATO will help mitigate issues with the curves on the network. It may not need to be completely straight to achieve 160km/h but it needs to be a lot straighter then anything we have in Sydney. Tracks and platforms are curved significantly in Sydney.

HSR is a completely different level of track to achieve 200km/h. On the great western line in England they have dedicated tracks with no hindrance from slower trains in front and those nice low radius curves you mentioned. Between East Hills and Glenfield you have Holsworthy station and DD trains are never going to get up to anywhere near 160km/h between Holsworthy and Glenfield. 130-145 for the Xplorer and XPT maybe but at that speed the only thing that speed will achieve is to run it right in to the back of a DD train and stopping at signals.
simstrain




From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cant_deficiency

The column on the right is for tilting trains.

There are other issues with track geometry than just curve radius.

The two curves between Sutherland and Waterfall which are boarded below 115 are within tolerances to allow that speed.  But there are other things to consider.  Signal visibility is one.  

The stopping distance on the flat from 100kph is 380m.  At 115kph is 500m (on the flat).  At 160kph it's 1000m.  If track curvature a signal at stop doesn't become visible for at least 500m, then 115kph is too fast.  This is where ATO comes in.  In cab signalling means signals can be more optimally placed for capacity, and speed boards (for ATO equipped trains) don't need to allow for their visibility.

I don't know, but my first impression was the speed limits on the Lotfus curve might be a legacy from the RNP branch pointwork (which contributed to non-optimal location of signals for visibility), but it could be either signal visibility or allowing for the descent off the Heathcote bank.  I'm not sure.

This is off topic, but my view is the Western Line should be upgraded to 160kph standard - top be operated at 130kph with the current fleet, and be able to operate at 160kph with the next generation of fleet.  There are only a handful of places where the track curvature doesn't allow it, notably the curve at Lewisham, and the (unused) platforms at Flemington.  There are lots of other issues relating to pointwork, platforms and signalling.  An infinitely better and cheaper solution than the Western Metro (oops, sorry I brought it up).

But it can't be "just" done with the stroke of a pen.  It requires a holistic approach to properly re-engineer it from the perspective of "what do we have to do to safely achieve this?"  It would require multiple measures, and any sensible engineering study would identify these, and propose appropriate solutions.  But all too often when anyone suggests it "it can't be done" comes from a lot more people than just @simstrans.  

In my view, upgrading the Perway rating to up to 160kph for all of T4 [Edit: where curve radius allows], including/especially the south coast, would yield significant savings in terms of travel times for users, but also operating cost for TfNSWRailTrainsWTHisMyNameCorp.
  C3765 Train Controller


“Over the next few months you’ll see more of these trains on the network as we progressively test all train systems including Automatic Train Protection, passenger door systems, passenger information, CCTV, ride comfort as well as the maximum speed of 160kph. We’ll also be using this time to familiarise the train crew with the new operating systems and technology on board.”
Andrew Constance
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

Ask Andrew Constance.  He's the one proposing it.
Transtopic
And that is why you can't believe it. The thing is testing empty at 140ish and so how do you expect it to get to 160km/h with a full load where the fastest current white board speed is a short section of 125km/h in the Sydney (Berowra, Emu Plains, Macarthur and Waterfall) area. There are sections north of Gosford where there is a 160km/h speed limit and the XPT is the only thing we have even remotely capable of doing that. Certainly no medium wide double decker will be capable of such. The D set is just an Oscar with different seats and USB charging after all.
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

The two curves between Sutherland and Waterfall which are boarded below 115 are within tolerances to allow that speed.  But there are other things to consider.  Signal visibility is one.  

The stopping distance on the flat from 100kph is 380m.  At 115kph is 500m (on the flat).  At 160kph it's 1000m.  If track curvature a signal at stop doesn't become visible for at least 500m, then 115kph is too fast.  This is where ATO comes in.  In cab signalling means signals can be more optimally placed for capacity, and speed boards (for ATO equipped trains) don't need to allow for their visibility.

I don't know, but my first impression was the speed limits on the Lotfus curve might be a legacy from the RNP branch pointwork (which contributed to non-optimal location of signals for visibility), but it could be either signal visibility or allowing for the descent off the Heathcote bank.  I'm not sure.
djf01

Is there a difference in the signalling in this area vs the rest of the network. Don't we have dual signalling in Sydney where the lights show the current and next signal status?

1km is actually quite a lot of distance and will trains actually have that distance to stop with the high frequency on the Sydney network?
  Transtopic Deputy Commissioner

Location: Sydney
Ask Andrew Constance.  He's the one proposing it.
And that is why you can't believe it. The thing is testing empty at 140ish and so how do you expect it to get to 160km/h with a full load where the fastest current white board speed is a short section of 125km/h in the Sydney (Berowra, Emu Plains, Macarthur and Waterfall) area. There are sections north of Gosford where there is a 160km/h speed limit and the XPT is the only thing we have even remotely capable of doing that. Certainly no medium wide double decker will be capable of such. The D set is just an Oscar with different seats and USB charging after all.
simstrain
Why do you still insist that everyone is wrong in the face of all the evidence?  It's an official government press release and it would have been vetted before being publcly released.  Are you suggesting that you know more than they do?

The press release states that the NIF will be tested on other parts of the network, including its maximum speed of 160kph.  It will actually be tested up to 176kph, which is 10 percent above its specified maximum speed, just as the Waratahs were tested up to 143kph - 10 percent above their maximum speed of 130kph.  It hasn't yet been indicated where this testing will take place, but it will obviously have to be on the electrified network under controlled conditions with exclusive track possession and where track geometry allows it.  The existing maximum speed boards won't be applicable during this testing.

You continue to live in denial of the facts and you're sounding more and more like a flat-earther every day.  What's your agenda with your continual negative comments about anything to do with upgrading the existing Sydney Trains network?
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

Still not going to believe it. It is still a wide medium bodied double deck train the same as a waratah and OSCAR. What makes it so special to be able to reach 160 kilometres and hour when these previous trains can't run at that speed.
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

Still not going to believe it. It is still a wide medium bodied double deck train the same as a waratah and OSCAR. What makes it so special to be able to reach 160 kilometres and hour when these previous trains can't run at that speed.
simstrain

(Caveat: Not really my area of expertise, my knowledge of the exact spec of this train is from these forums)

Gruntier motors.  AFAIK the power distribution systems were already beefed up to deal with the higher power requirements of the A Sets.

I'd like to point out that 160kph as a top speed for a conventional train is not all that fast by world standards.  It's under 100mph, and may places in the world did better than that as a top end speed in the steam era.

IMHO, the design target should be 200kph with the SydneyTrains zone, and 250km outside of it.  These are speeds achieved on traditional/legacy railways in many parts of the world.  We don't do this so those speeds can be achieved immediately - or even boarded immediately - just so that as we naturally replace components of our system with age, higher speeds and lower transit times become not just possible but also practical and viable.  The idea is we *don't* deliberately do things to prevent it in the future.
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

The two curves between Sutherland and Waterfall which are boarded below 115 are within tolerances to allow that speed.  But there are other things to consider.  Signal visibility is one.  

The stopping distance on the flat from 100kph is 380m.  At 115kph is 500m (on the flat).  At 160kph it's 1000m.  If track curvature a signal at stop doesn't become visible for at least 500m, then 115kph is too fast.  This is where ATO comes in.  In cab signalling means signals can be more optimally placed for capacity, and speed boards (for ATO equipped trains) don't need to allow for their visibility.

I don't know, but my first impression was the speed limits on the Lotfus curve might be a legacy from the RNP branch pointwork (which contributed to non-optimal location of signals for visibility), but it could be either signal visibility or allowing for the descent off the Heathcote bank.  I'm not sure.

Is there a difference in the signalling in this area vs the rest of the network. Don't we have dual signalling in Sydney where the lights show the current and next signal status?

1km is actually quite a lot of distance and will trains actually have that distance to stop with the high frequency on the Sydney network?
simstrain

This is another armchair expert's comment (not all of mine are, but this one is), it seems to me 115kph is the top speed engineered into our signalling system as that was - for a long time - the highest speed any members of the electric fleet could achieve.  Why spend more, or compromise signal location and line capacity, to board higher speeds when no train could possibly reach them?  

Until recently, the top speed of the slowest trains in the fleet were still 115kph.  No timetable could be written to take advantage of a higher top speed.  But as of today, we could have a top speed of 130kph, and signalling (and probably a few other as yet unidentified issues) prevents it.

ATO has benefits justifying it's implementation even if there are no speed improvements.  But ATO potentially removes one of the impediments to higher running speeds.  Higher running speeds - in addition to higher densities in the network's core - are one of the potential productivity benefits of it's introduction.

You've asked for possible locations better signalling might allow improve running time, and keeping this thread on topic I think between Sutherland and Waterfall is an ideal candidate.  I make the current timetabled transit time for non-stoppers as 10 minutes.  It could be 7, if the system were operated to it's potential.  But it's not, because "it can't be done".
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

Which rail system has 1500 vdc trains running faster then 160km/h and more specifically which system with double deckers runs at 160km/h?
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

What is the point in doing waterfall to Sutherland in 7 minutes when it will just get caught behind the stopping services between Sutherland and Hurstville. Until the line is quaded all the way to Sutherland then all you are doing is putting a train at a stop signal faster.
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

Which rail system has 1500 vdc trains running faster then 160km/h and more specifically which system with double deckers runs at 160km/h?
simstrain


I haven't been able to find the answer this definitively, but I believe NJT can operate it's DD fleet at up to 100mph between Trenton and Newark.

1500VDC?  As electricity only travels at 150kph at this voltage, I guess it can't be done.
  simstrain Chief Commissioner



I haven't been able to find the answer this definitively, but I believe NJT can operate it's DD fleet at up to 100mph between Trenton and Newark.

1500VDC?  As electricity only travels at 150kph at this voltage, I guess it can't be done.
djf01
That system is 12.5kv AC.
  djf01 Chief Commissioner



I haven't been able to find the answer this definitively, but I believe NJT can operate it's DD fleet at up to 100mph between Trenton and Newark.

1500VDC?  As electricity only travels at 150kph at this voltage, I guess it can't be done.That system is 12.5kv AC.
simstrain

No, it was 12.5kv AC.  They had to double the voltage 25kv AC to allow double deckers.  /s
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

No, it was 12.5kv AC.  They had to double the voltage 25kv AC to allow double deckers.  /s
djf01

I think there is a mixture but it certainly isn't 1500 vdc.
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

I haven't been able to find the answer this definitively, but I believe NJT can operate it's DD fleet at up to 100mph between Trenton and Newark.

1500VDC?  As electricity only travels at 150kph at this voltage, I guess it can't be done.
djf01
I meant to have said what 1500vdc double deck travels at 160km/h but in any case the lines of that NJT and the great western are much straighter then Sydney.

Sponsored advertisement

Subscribers: PeeJay, Transtopic, WimbledonW

Display from: