Is anyone here still opposed to expansion of a network with smaller trains typically running underground? Metro originated in older cities that were heavily developed by that time.
Are smaller trains, along with making most peak period passenger stand, really right for a late developer able to avoid the problem metro-style rail was designed to solve?

Sydney is an older highly developed city.

Smaller Trains are fine, the high Frequency compensates for it.

I'm All for it. Frees up space on exisiting lines, creates new high capacity lines to compensate.

Take your nostalgia for the current network (that will still exist when metro is all done) elsewhere.

Sydney is an older highly developed city.

Smaller Trains are fine, the high Frequency compensates for it.

I'm All for it. Frees up space on existing lines, creates new high capacity lines to compensate.

Take your nostalgia for the current network (that will still exist when metro is all done) elsewhere.

There was a lot of opposition to the smaller loading gauge trains because of the "break of gauge" incompatibility problem.

But now there are to be more small loading gauge lines, sharing the same small loading gauge. Presumably rolling stock on these lines can be shared.

These single deck trains are completely walk through from one end to the other, spreading the passenger load mmore evenly than what double deck trains cannot do.

And being driverless, the small loading gauge trains can provide a more frequent service especially outside the peak hours.

There are now enough lines in Sydney to support two loading gauges. I think that introducing a second loading gauge is proving to be wise and successful.

Sydney is an older highly developed city.

Smaller Trains are fine, the high Frequency compensates for it.

I'm All for it. Frees up space on exisiting lines, creates new high capacity lines to compensate.

Take your nostalgia for the current network (that will still exist when metro is all done) elsewhere.

1. No it isn't, it was able to bring its heavy suburban rail right into and through the central business district. Older cities were heavily developed much earlier and so mainline style rail had to terminate on what was then the edges of those cities. Metro was a way to get people from the edges of those cities into the historic cores. London is an example, more on that later.
   Sydney was able to bring suburban rail right into and later though the central part. Outer suburban communters could get between home and work without changing trains. If you look at London, their tube is largely confined to the older part of the city which was heavily developed before the railways, while the south, which developed later, has more suburban rail instead.
2. Indeed metro trains do run very frequently in the cities that have metro but most peak period passengers stand and trips tend to be less than 10km.
3. Space could also be freed up with extensions to the existing network.
4. It's not about nostalgia, double decker trains have about 40% more floor space and about twice as many seats. More space and comfort is important where commuters have to travel much further.
5. However many lines there are in Sydney, new lines should be the existing loading gauge or larger, building smaller is a step downs.

There was a lot of opposition to the smaller loading gauge trains because of the "break of gauge" incompatibility problem.

No, it's because larger trains won't fit, but smaller trains can run through larger tunnels

But now there are to be more small loading gauge lines, sharing the same small loading gauge. Presumably rolling stock on these lines can be shared.

This makes no sense as smaller trains can run on lines built to the larger loading gauge.

These single deck trains are completely walk through from one end to the other, spreading the passenger load mmore evenly than what double deck trains cannot do.

Yeah right and how important is that if the stations are quite far apart and especially if trains to and from the outer suburbs often run express through the inner suburbs.

There are now enough lines in Sydney to support two loading gauges. I think that introducing a second loading gauge is proving to be wise and successful.

No way, smaller trains can run through larger tunnels!