NSW Gov funding for services post-Bankstown Metro Opening

 
  Transtopic Chief Commissioner

Sponsored advertisement

  simstrain Chief Commissioner

No you fail to understand Transtopic. None of this is going to be possible in reality. It isn't a metro and the limiting factor isn't the signalling it is everything else. It is the trains, the platforms, the passengers, the multiple stopping patterns and destinations with conflicting moves. 24 trains an hour is not going to be possible with our DD trains and drivers. ST is not the RER and any comparison is futile.

24 trains an hour means a train every 150 seconds. This equates to a dwell time of about 90 seconds which a metro train can achieve but a ST double decker has no hope of ever doing so especially in the current situation at Central or Town Hall in peak hour. Trains can dwell at stations like Town Hall and Central for atleast 150 seconds in peak hour and this can be longer if there is a disabled person to embark or alight. If you have more then one disabled person then there goes your timetable.

Platform screen doors might help at Central, Town Hall, Wynyard and Circular Quay but this would require rebuilding all of the platforms to make them level boarding as well so disabled persons don't need ramps to get on and off the trains.Even with platform screen doors Town Hall and Central are still extremely tight on platform space.

At Strathfield you have double curved platforms and the trains tilt away from the platforms making it difficult for passengers to get on and off the trains in any reasonable amount of time if they wish to do so without being injured or stuck between the train and the platform. There are so many other factors to consider when trying to achieve these so called numbers.
  grog Train Controller

Let's simplify things and say that headway is determined by 2 things - dwell at stations and gap between trains.

Improving either of those things will improve headway. Train and station design can improve the dwell, and signalling can reduce the gap between trains.

Sure, you get the best improvement if you improve both, but just improving 1 will still get you something.
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

It isn't a metro and the limiting factor isn't the signalling it is everything else. It is the trains, the platforms, the passengers, the multiple stopping patterns and destinations with conflicting moves. 24 trains an hour is not going to be possible with our DD trains and drivers. ST is not the RER and any comparison is futile.

24 trains an hour means a train every 150 seconds. This equates to a dwell time of about 90 seconds which a metro train can achieve but a ST double decker has no hope of ever doing so especially in the current situation at Central or Town Hall in peak hour. Trains can dwell at stations like Town Hall and Central for atleast 150 seconds in peak hour and this can be longer if there is a disabled person to embark or alight. If you have more then one disabled person then there goes your timetable.
simstrain

I'm sorry @sims, but you are quite wrong on this.  Yes, "everything else" is crap and obsolete in many ways (I don't disagree), but the DD format compensates for, rather than creates those problems.

Consider 2 systems with a 90sec separation and trains with either 600(A) or 900(B) PAX capacity.

At 30tph for A and 20toh for B they have the same line capacity.  With a 90sec separation, A needs dwells to be less than 30 seconds, so a boarding rate of 20 PAX /sec.  B needs a dwell time of less than 90 seconds.  It needs a boarding rate of only 10 PAX/sec.

This is why increasing train capacity is more effective than increasing the number of trains.  This is why Sydney went with DDs in the first place: to squeeze more blood out of the Bradfield era infrastructure, and why the city stations carry 150% of the PAX than Bradfield designed for.

As best I can tell, the signalling separation on the CC and SHB line is around 70seconds, and the critical path are the platform blocks, which in Bradfield's era were dealt with using the temporal train stops and special working orders that allowed trains to enter platforms before the previous train had cleared it.

There was a report a few years ago IIRC (I've never been able to find official data on this) that showed the mean dwells at TH in the AM peak between 60 and 70 seconds (trains are tabled for 60 second dwells, but don't always achieve it in the peak), and there was an unsuccessful experiment with train marshalls (Japanese pushers) to try and get that reliably below 60 seconds.

I contend that the minimum safe separation of SRA trains is between 140 and and 150 seconds.  The DD format is responsible for at most 20-30 seconds of that.  It's more than 2 minutes, but less than 3.  I expect 24tph is possible right now, but it clearly would have implications for reliability as you drop the 30sec of padding.  I also suspect the reason we have the 20tph limit is timetables are all expressed in whole minutes, and it would require a complete re-engineering of work practices and commensurate renegotiation of the EBA.  Many in Gvt would rather spend $20bil of public money than negotiate with, much less make concessions to, the unions.

Moving block signalling has the potential to reduce the safe separation from 70s to 50s, perhaps even 45 seconds without disruption or changes to safety.

The other advantage a 2.5min separation offers is more clockface timetabling.  4 patterns repeating ever 10 minutes, rather than 5 every 15.
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

Let's simplify things and say that headway is determined by 2 things - dwell at stations and gap between trains.

Improving either of those things will improve headway. Train and station design can improve the dwell, and signalling can reduce the gap between trains.

Sure, you get the best improvement if you improve both, but just improving 1 will still get you something.
grog

One thing that bugs me so much is the design of the NIFs.  For an interurban train, so many design compromises were made to ensure they were compatible with the suburban network they have to traverse, they ended up building a new OSCAR.  

But 2+3 seating was just one compromise too far, and that lead to 10 car trains, and that lead to the NIFS not compatible with the UG system anyway.  But worse, 10 car trains means the 10m/11m decks of the TM pairs had to be sacrifices (and annoyingly they standardised on the 10m ones), so now the door spaceing on the Ds is different to that of the As and Bs, so we can't implement platform screens, which would improve not just safety, but capacity and throughput of the (undersized) UG platforms.  F**k.
  grog Train Controller

But the stations that need it (Town Hall, Wynyard in particular) will never see the D sets (presumably).
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

But the stations that need it (Town Hall, Wynyard in particular) will never see the D sets (presumably).
grog

Especially if they get platform screens Smile.  But yes, fair point.
  viaprojects Chief Train Controller

But the stations that need it (Town Hall, Wynyard in particular) will never see the D sets (presumably).

Especially if they get platform screens Smile.  But yes, fair point.
djf01

city stations are not getting screens - there getting gap buffers to fix the gap issue ..

Gap buffers to be installed at station platforms on the Sydney Trains network to prevent falls 7NEWS.com.au
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
The track diagrams which I previously posted show how impractical it is to reinstate any future rail connections between the Metro and Northern Lines as you suggested, nor is it even warranted.  

Although from your anecdotal evidence there were a greater number of commuters on the metro south of Epping (to Chatswood), this could be explained in part because the metro line has a frequency of 15tph in the peak compared with the Northern Line north of Epping having an all day frequency of 4tph.  Obviously, there are going to be less commuters per train to and from the North West which can skew the perceived respective patronage levels.  Because of the need for the Northern Line to cater for Suburban, Intercity and Freight services there is no way that one track pair could ever be dedicated to a segregated metro line.

I think you will find that the current Sydney Terminal Area Reconfiguration project (STAR) will address the issues you have raised between Redfern and Sydney Terminal.
Transtopic
Both the drawings you provided, the drawings I've found and shared and my own recognition as well as Sim's show there is a double connection off the Metro that connects with a single line up the old Portal to the Down (Hornsby bound).

We can only assume that the connection has been retained for the purposed of track machines or other track maintenance vehicles that are not available within the Metro fleet. For example for the extension this may be the way the rail and sleeper trains access the Metro to feed the City extension.  

While that track naturally has a stop block to prevent the two systems from accidentally interacting and it clearly states that in your drawing that the two systems are separate for the purposes of access permits , the point was right from the start is that this trackwork exists today and could likely easily be modified to be a working turnback if so needed and that assumes its not already capable now even if not in use.

The portal to the UP or south bound mainline track I could see when there 18mth apart and if required I'm sure it wouldn't be a drama to re-instate if the need was ever required in the future. Based on all of the above, of all the things that have that Metro project has been accused of for lack of foreword planning, ie connection to the Richmond line, Liverpool and even leaving portal open for potential connection to Paramatta etc. The one thing that has been left open for the future is a potential extension to Hornsby as it appears that have not undertaken any irreversible changes to the former mainline connections. Regardless I would expect any upgrades from DD to Metro on the Nth Main to Hornsby to occur this side of 2030 and maybe later, so its all mute.

The govt data prior to the CV-19 impact shows there was around 75,000 / d on the ECRL and around 25,000 on the NW branch, my own one day once off in each direction observations don't disagree with this. Yes I agree, once the Metro to the city is open, I'd expect the numbers on the Nth Main to decline marginally.

Good to see the Terminal getting its much needed TLC, its been a disaster for too long.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Sorry, but you're still not making any sense.  What relevance has a NSL Metro got?  A new metro line is already being extended from Chatswood to the CBD, which will effectively double the existing capacity.

If, like simstrain, you are suggesting that the signalling upgrade is to merely increase it's capability to 22-24tph, while limiting the timetabling to 20tph, then you're way off the mark.  I suggest you have another read of my earlier posts.  The upgrade is clearly intended to increase services as well as reduce journey times, not maintain them at existing levels.

While Metro West will certainly add capacity between Parramatta and the CBD via a new rail corridor, it won't do a lot in increasing services on T1 west of Parramatta/Westmead or on T2 from Liverpool/Leppington, because of the limited number of paths available to them to continue into the CBD without further track amplification on the existing network.  The government so far hasn't committed to this, but it may well be part of future stages of the More Trains, More Services Program.

Transport for NSW has already acknowledged that even with the completion of the current metro projects, the Sydney Trains network will continue to provide 80% of rail journeys in Sydney for the foreseeable future.  An extensive network like that can't be replaced overnight by metro lines, whether new or converted.  With the current new DD rolling stock in service and on order, that makes the latter option unlikely for many years, if ever.
Transtopic
NSL Metro reference was to show that adding a few extra slots in a fast growing city is a short term solution at best. Need longer term approach, although I'll agree this isn't always possible.

We didn't suggest that's what's happening, we indicated that's what should happen, otherwise we risk facing the same screw up as Paris.

Metro West will likely see less T1 services or certainly no more.

The DD network will do what it does until if in the future any section is converted to Metro or LR just like what has occurred in the last 5 years. I think the next section to be axed will ultimately be the Olympic Park service, rather replaced with LR on the current ROW. For me the only likely other sections to be reclaimed is Bankstown to Regents Park which I think will more than likely be closed at some point and I have no idea what will replace it. LR is likely than Metro.

Epping to Hornsby in the long distance future is a natural potential as discussed previously. I cannot see any other section being viable or practical. The rolling stock will have no bearing on conversion. The network is big enough and growing fast enough to simply relocate sets displaced from in particular section.
  Transtopic Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney
No you fail to understand Transtopic. None of this is going to be possible in reality. It isn't a metro and the limiting factor isn't the signalling it is everything else. It is the trains, the platforms, the passengers, the multiple stopping patterns and destinations with conflicting moves. 24 trains an hour is not going to be possible with our DD trains and drivers. ST is not the RER and any comparison is futile.

24 trains an hour means a train every 150 seconds. This equates to a dwell time of about 90 seconds which a metro train can achieve but a ST double decker has no hope of ever doing so especially in the current situation at Central or Town Hall in peak hour. Trains can dwell at stations like Town Hall and Central for atleast 150 seconds in peak hour and this can be longer if there is a disabled person to embark or alight. If you have more then one disabled person then there goes your timetable.

Platform screen doors might help at Central, Town Hall, Wynyard and Circular Quay but this would require rebuilding all of the platforms to make them level boarding as well so disabled persons don't need ramps to get on and off the trains.Even with platform screen doors Town Hall and Central are still extremely tight on platform space.

At Strathfield you have double curved platforms and the trains tilt away from the platforms making it difficult for passengers to get on and off the trains in any reasonable amount of time if they wish to do so without being injured or stuck between the train and the platform. There are so many other factors to consider when trying to achieve these so called numbers.
simstrain
Geez, what does it take to convince you sims?  Did you read the news item I referred to in my previous post?

It explicitly states that the upgraded signalling contract to Siemens will allow 24tph to operate in the peak, and not only that, it will be capable of operating at up to 30tph to recover from disruptions.  Do you think it's all just fiction?  They have obviously taken all other factors into account.
  Transtopic Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney
Let's simplify things and say that headway is determined by 2 things - dwell at stations and gap between trains.

Improving either of those things will improve headway. Train and station design can improve the dwell, and signalling can reduce the gap between trains.

Sure, you get the best improvement if you improve both, but just improving 1 will still get you something.

One thing that bugs me so much is the design of the NIFs.  For an interurban train, so many design compromises were made to ensure they were compatible with the suburban network they have to traverse, they ended up building a new OSCAR.  

But 2+3 seating was just one compromise too far, and that lead to 10 car trains, and that lead to the NIFS not compatible with the UG system anyway.  But worse, 10 car trains means the 10m/11m decks of the TM pairs had to be sacrifices (and annoyingly they standardised on the 10m ones), so now the door spaceing on the Ds is different to that of the As and Bs, so we can't implement platform screens, which would improve not just safety, but capacity and throughput of the (undersized) UG platforms.  F**k.
djf01
I assume you mean that the 2+3 seating on the Oscars being converted to 2+2 seating on the NIFs has lead to the 10 car sets.  The NIF is essentially a hybrid of the Oscars and V sets.  Don't forget that they can also potentially be operated in 4, 6, 8 or 10 car sets.  10 car sets are intended for services terminating at ST, but there's no reason why the shorter configurations couldn't continue to be used on the North Shore Line through the City Underground.  Likewise the lone SCO Thirroul service to Bondi Junction which appears will be continued.  The suburban stations which currently cater for the 8 car V sets will also be able to accommodate the 10 car NIFs, which are nominally of a similar length.  I don't see any problem.

I don't know what the actual door spacing is on the NIFs compared with the Oscars, Waratahs, Millenniums or Tangaras, but it must be pretty similar, if not exactly the same.  As the 10 car NIFs won't be operating on the City Underground for obvious reasons, it doesn't preclude PSDs being installed with wider door spacing to allow for any variations in door spacing of the respective train types.  ATO will allow for precise stopping points.
  Transtopic Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney
But the stations that need it (Town Hall, Wynyard in particular) will never see the D sets (presumably).

Especially if they get platform screens Smile.  But yes, fair point.

city stations are not getting screens - there getting gap buffers to fix the gap issue ..

Gap buffers to be installed at station platforms on the Sydney Trains network to prevent falls 7NEWS.com.au
viaprojects
I suggest that the gap buffers are a prelude to installing PSDs.  It's the same as they're doing on the Bankstown Line metro conversion, because of the impracticability of straightening the platforms within the restricted rail corridors.  It's a reasonable compromise.  I'd expect that only the busiest stations will get PSDs.
  Transtopic Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney
The track diagrams which I previously posted show how impractical it is to reinstate any future rail connections between the Metro and Northern Lines as you suggested, nor is it even warranted.  

Although from your anecdotal evidence there were a greater number of commuters on the metro south of Epping (to Chatswood), this could be explained in part because the metro line has a frequency of 15tph in the peak compared with the Northern Line north of Epping having an all day frequency of 4tph.  Obviously, there are going to be less commuters per train to and from the North West which can skew the perceived respective patronage levels.  Because of the need for the Northern Line to cater for Suburban, Intercity and Freight services there is no way that one track pair could ever be dedicated to a segregated metro line.

I think you will find that the current Sydney Terminal Area Reconfiguration project (STAR) will address the issues you have raised between Redfern and Sydney Terminal.
Both the drawings you provided, the drawings I've found and shared and my own recognition as well as Sim's show there is a double connection off the Metro that connects with a single line up the old Portal to the Down (Hornsby bound).

We can only assume that the connection has been retained for the purposed of track machines or other track maintenance vehicles that are not available within the Metro fleet. For example for the extension this may be the way the rail and sleeper trains access the Metro to feed the City extension.  

While that track naturally has a stop block to prevent the two systems from accidentally interacting and it clearly states that in your drawing that the two systems are separate for the purposes of access permits , the point was right from the start is that this trackwork exists today and could likely easily be modified to be a working turnback if so needed and that assumes its not already capable now even if not in use.

The portal to the UP or south bound mainline track I could see when there 18mth apart and if required I'm sure it wouldn't be a drama to re-instate if the need was ever required in the future. Based on all of the above, of all the things that have that Metro project has been accused of for lack of foreword planning, ie connection to the Richmond line, Liverpool and even leaving portal open for potential connection to Paramatta etc. The one thing that has been left open for the future is a potential extension to Hornsby as it appears that have not undertaken any irreversible changes to the former mainline connections. Regardless I would expect any upgrades from DD to Metro on the Nth Main to Hornsby to occur this side of 2030 and maybe later, so its all mute.

The govt data prior to the CV-19 impact shows there was around 75,000 / d on the ECRL and around 25,000 on the NW branch, my own one day once off in each direction observations don't disagree with this. Yes I agree, once the Metro to the city is open, I'd expect the numbers on the Nth Main to decline marginally.

Good to see the Terminal getting its much needed TLC, its been a disaster for too long.
RTT_Rules
There is no direct connection between the Up and Down dives at Epping which are in separate tunnels diverging to the outside of the Up and Down Northern Line Main tracks, as shown in the original Drivers Route Knowledge Diagram I previously posted.  The diagram shown in Wikipedia is a stylised version of the actual connections.  It may be possible to connect them if the Up dive was reinstated and a tunnel bored between them.  But is it really needed?

The existing facing crossover between the Down and Up lines just to the south of the Epping u/g station which was retained,  allows for trains to terminate and start from Platform 5 (Up) as they did in peak hours when it was part of the Sydney Trains network.  With the design capacity of a 20tph frequency for the metro, that would give a 3 minute window for the Down train to terminate and restart in the Up direction before the following scheduled train from further north west, which shouldn't be an issue with the driverless system.  However, if the system was upgraded to allow 30tph, that could be problematic. I repeat - there is next to no chance that the metro will ever be extended on the Northern Line to Hornsby.  If a future government decided to branch the metro lines, then a link to the Northern Beaches would have greater priority, assuming it's feasible to cut into the existing metro line.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
There is no direct connection between the Up and Down dives at Epping which are in separate tunnels diverging to the outside of the Up and Down Northern Line Main tracks, as shown in the original Drivers Route Knowledge Diagram I previously posted.  The diagram shown in Wikipedia is a stylised version of the actual connections.  It may be possible to connect them if the Up dive was reinstated and a tunnel bored between them.  But is it really needed?

The existing facing crossover between the Down and Up lines just to the south of the Epping u/g station which was retained,  allows for trains to terminate and start from Platform 5 (Up) as they did in peak hours when it was part of the Sydney Trains network.  With the design capacity of a 20tph frequency for the metro, that would give a 3 minute window for the Down train to terminate and restart in the Up direction before the following scheduled train from further north west, which shouldn't be an issue with the driverless system.  However, if the system was upgraded to allow 30tph, that could be problematic. I repeat - there is next to no chance that the metro will ever be extended on the Northern Line to Hornsby.  If a future government decided to branch the metro lines, then a link to the Northern Beaches would have greater priority, assuming it's feasible to cut into the existing metro line.
Transtopic
Trainstopic, my last attempt to explain  

The diagram in the wiki page is as I recall during our trip there in August 2019 with both tracks having a physical connection to the north bound track on the surface without crossing paths. By Physical connection there are tracks, available for use after the relevant permissions and safety systems have been signed off and track blocks removed. I assume we agree on this part.

The route knowledge diagrams for the Sydney Trains drivers would not include routes into and connecting to the Metro that they will never be allowed to use and your diagram states pretty much that.

This track to the portal is something crudely like this {Metro after verging off both mains) ==>---l------ (Sydney trains stub siding) could potentially be upgraded to a turnback if needed as it provides a shunt neck option at Epping Metro stations for Metro trains to terminate off the line without a crossing path. Such an upgrade would require potential moving of the block to prevent a stray Metro from breeching the Sydney trains stub siding and VV.

I believe Sim's has also confirmed that Epping is the only location where there is a track connection between the Metro and the Sydney trains network and based on the various diagrams shared here and vague past observation, I think we know its there.

Is this connection in regular use? Not at all. Its retained in its current status as a as needed basis for works trains as your diagram indicated.


I never said the former city bound portal was still available as tracks have been removed and you can see this in the satellite picture taken during the Metro modification. However the portal is still there and not irreversibly impeded for potential future use.
  Transtopic Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney
There is no direct connection between the Up and Down dives at Epping which are in separate tunnels diverging to the outside of the Up and Down Northern Line Main tracks, as shown in the original Drivers Route Knowledge Diagram I previously posted.  The diagram shown in Wikipedia is a stylised version of the actual connections.  It may be possible to connect them if the Up dive was reinstated and a tunnel bored between them.  But is it really needed?

The existing facing crossover between the Down and Up lines just to the south of the Epping u/g station which was retained,  allows for trains to terminate and start from Platform 5 (Up) as they did in peak hours when it was part of the Sydney Trains network.  With the design capacity of a 20tph frequency for the metro, that would give a 3 minute window for the Down train to terminate and restart in the Up direction before the following scheduled train from further north west, which shouldn't be an issue with the driverless system.  However, if the system was upgraded to allow 30tph, that could be problematic. I repeat - there is next to no chance that the metro will ever be extended on the Northern Line to Hornsby.  If a future government decided to branch the metro lines, then a link to the Northern Beaches would have greater priority, assuming it's feasible to cut into the existing metro line.
Trainstopic, my last attempt to explain  

The diagram in the wiki page is as I recall during our trip there in August 2019 with both tracks having a physical connection to the north bound track on the surface without crossing paths. By Physical connection there are tracks, available for use after the relevant permissions and safety systems have been signed off and track blocks removed. I assume we agree on this part.

The route knowledge diagrams for the Sydney Trains drivers would not include routes into and connecting to the Metro that they will never be allowed to use and your diagram states pretty much that.

This track to the portal is something crudely like this {Metro after verging off both mains) ==>---l------ (Sydney trains stub siding) could potentially be upgraded to a turnback if needed as it provides a shunt neck option at Epping Metro stations for Metro trains to terminate off the line without a crossing path. Such an upgrade would require potential moving of the block to prevent a stray Metro from breeching the Sydney trains stub siding and VV.

I believe Sim's has also confirmed that Epping is the only location where there is a track connection between the Metro and the Sydney trains network and based on the various diagrams shared here and vague past observation, I think we know its there.

Is this connection in regular use? Not at all. Its retained in its current status as a as needed basis for works trains as your diagram indicated.


I never said the former city bound portal was still available as tracks have been removed and you can see this in the satellite picture taken during the Metro modification. However the portal is still there and not irreversibly impeded for potential future use.
RTT_Rules
Thanks. I understand what you're getting at now.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Trainstopic, my last attempt to explain  

The diagram in the wiki page is as I recall during our trip there in August 2019 with both tracks having a physical connection to the north bound track on the surface without crossing paths. By Physical connection there are tracks, available for use after the relevant permissions and safety systems have been signed off and track blocks removed. I assume we agree on this part.

The route knowledge diagrams for the Sydney Trains drivers would not include routes into and connecting to the Metro that they will never be allowed to use and your diagram states pretty much that.

This track to the portal is something crudely like this {Metro after verging off both mains) ==>---l------ (Sydney trains stub siding) could potentially be upgraded to a turnback if needed as it provides a shunt neck option at Epping Metro stations for Metro trains to terminate off the line without a crossing path. Such an upgrade would require potential moving of the block to prevent a stray Metro from breeching the Sydney trains stub siding and VV.

I believe Sim's has also confirmed that Epping is the only location where there is a track connection between the Metro and the Sydney trains network and based on the various diagrams shared here and vague past observation, I think we know its there.

Is this connection in regular use? Not at all. Its retained in its current status as a as needed basis for works trains as your diagram indicated.


I never said the former city bound portal was still available as tracks have been removed and you can see this in the satellite picture taken during the Metro modification. However the portal is still there and not irreversibly impeded for potential future use.
Thanks. I understand what you're getting at now.
Transtopic
Great, sorry I wasn't sure why, I felt we were going around in circles.

TI was thinking the big block on the Sydney trains connection at Epping might because its a down hill run from Beecroft into the Metro line and they don't want any "whoops" causing a collision.

I remember seeing a connection on the L1 to the former freight line prior to the 3rd extension. If I recall a sleeper was bolted to the rails, but there was clearly an intent to keep the physical connection. The Phase 3 extension removed the connection, so I'm not sure what they do now?
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

Let's simplify things and say that headway is determined by 2 things - dwell at stations and gap between trains.

Improving either of those things will improve headway. Train and station design can improve the dwell, and signalling can reduce the gap between trains.

Sure, you get the best improvement if you improve both, but just improving 1 will still get you something.
grog

How exactly are you going to improve Town Hall and Central? In this case the signalling is not the problem as I have said many times before it is the mess on the platforms in peak hour at these stations that cause the limitation to 18-20 trains an hour.

Transtopic they can say whatever they want in regards to the signalling system and what it may theoretically be capable of. It doesn't mean it is going to achieve it because the signalling system isn't what is causing the current 18-20 trains an hour. It ain't a metro and the dwells are not going to be fixed because they are double deck trains at platforms that often have zero platform space left, huge 30cm steps down on to the platform and people waiting on the stair cases for their train. 2 completely new platforms at Town hall would be needed for there to be any chance of 24 trains an hour and who knows how to fix Central without completly demolishing the platforms and rebuilding them.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Let's simplify things and say that headway is determined by 2 things - dwell at stations and gap between trains.

Improving either of those things will improve headway. Train and station design can improve the dwell, and signalling can reduce the gap between trains.

Sure, you get the best improvement if you improve both, but just improving 1 will still get you something.

How exactly are you going to improve Town Hall and Central? In this case the signalling is not the problem as I have said many times before it is the mess on the platforms in peak hour at these stations that cause the limitation to 18-20 trains an hour.

Transtopic they can say whatever they want in regards to the signalling system and what it may theoretically be capable of. It doesn't mean it is going to achieve it because the signalling system isn't what is causing the current 18-20 trains an hour. It ain't a metro and the dwells are not going to be fixed because they are double deck trains at platforms that often have zero platform space left, huge 30cm steps down on to the platform and people waiting on the stair cases for their train. 2 completely new platforms at Town hall would be needed for there to be any chance of 24 trains an hour and who knows how to fix Central without completly demolishing the platforms and rebuilding them.
simstrain
Yeah, they may be able to do it, but it will have very poor reliability and you can guarantee in the future it will be used as the argument to build, another Metro.
  Transtopic Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney
Let's simplify things and say that headway is determined by 2 things - dwell at stations and gap between trains.

Improving either of those things will improve headway. Train and station design can improve the dwell, and signalling can reduce the gap between trains.

Sure, you get the best improvement if you improve both, but just improving 1 will still get you something.

How exactly are you going to improve Town Hall and Central? In this case the signalling is not the problem as I have said many times before it is the mess on the platforms in peak hour at these stations that cause the limitation to 18-20 trains an hour.

Transtopic they can say whatever they want in regards to the signalling system and what it may theoretically be capable of. It doesn't mean it is going to achieve it because the signalling system isn't what is causing the current 18-20 trains an hour. It ain't a metro and the dwells are not going to be fixed because they are double deck trains at platforms that often have zero platform space left, huge 30cm steps down on to the platform and people waiting on the stair cases for their train. 2 completely new platforms at Town hall would be needed for there to be any chance of 24 trains an hour and who knows how to fix Central without completly demolishing the platforms and rebuilding them.
simstrain
I give up!  Why are they going to waste their money then?  You obviously know more than they do.
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

Let's simplify things and say that headway is determined by 2 things - dwell at stations and gap between trains.

Improving either of those things will improve headway. Train and station design can improve the dwell, and signalling can reduce the gap between trains.

Sure, you get the best improvement if you improve both, but just improving 1 will still get you something.

How exactly are you going to improve Town Hall and Central? In this case the signalling is not the problem as I have said many times before it is the mess on the platforms in peak hour at these stations that cause the limitation to 18-20 trains an hour.
simstrain

You can say it as many times as you like, it's no more true after the third time.

The *exact* method is not to change the dwell timers at all.  They are going to recover 10 minutes and hour for more trains by safely cutting 30 seconds from the train separation, not how long they rest at platforms.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Let's simplify things and say that headway is determined by 2 things - dwell at stations and gap between trains.

Improving either of those things will improve headway. Train and station design can improve the dwell, and signalling can reduce the gap between trains.

Sure, you get the best improvement if you improve both, but just improving 1 will still get you something.

How exactly are you going to improve Town Hall and Central? In this case the signalling is not the problem as I have said many times before it is the mess on the platforms in peak hour at these stations that cause the limitation to 18-20 trains an hour.

You can say it as many times as you like, it's no more true after the third time.

The *exact* method is not to change the dwell timers at all.  They are going to recover 10 minutes and hour for more trains by safely cutting 30 seconds from the train separation, not how long they rest at platforms.
The point Sim's is trying to make is that if the platforms do not clear between trains at the higher frequency then the gap between the trains is pointless and this is part of the main reason this project wasn't done as an alternative to the NSL Metro.

For example, if it takes nearly 3min for the platform to clear the passengers after the train, then if the next train arrives at 2 min 45 you are just causing a backlog on the platform. People cannot get off the train as the platform is full. Then people trying to get on the train are now trying to push through the crush.

Sydney's legacy platforms are generally narrow and this includes the stair access. Where as RER Line C has very wide platforms and easy unrestrictive access. So its not just about moving the trains its also about moving the people off the trains and what happens in the case of an emergency such as a fire or terror attack?

I don't know the answer to the crush issue and if its real or not, but it was real enough for T1 to plan the Metro.

EDIT
Issue raised in 2018
https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/town-hall-station-overcrowding-to-force-staff-to-slow-access-at-peak-20180921-p5056j.html

Platform is at times around a metre from the wall to the Yellow Line, Wondabyne has a wider platform

As a kid I always thought the middle platforms were added later and I do remember seeing the unused ESR centre platform, but didn't know the Plat 4 was also un used. The route my mum always took to go from our place at Manly to Miranda through TH via Platform 6, although occasionally Platform 22/23 at Central.


https://railgallery.wongm.com/sydney-underground/E115_6460.jpg.html


This is the more lightly used ESR platforms and it still looks busy

  grog Train Controller

Clearance of platforms from incoming crowds isn’t as much a problem as crowding on the platforms caused by people waiting for their specific service. This can be resolved by creating 1 or 2 stopping patterns for each line so people don’t wait for multiple services to pass.

On platform 2 at Town Hall for instance, all T1 trains could go to Penrith/Emu Plains, T9 could move to Sydney Terminal and Richmond could transfer to the T5. Suddenly everyone can get on the first train that comes through (or maybe the second train if you had a mix of expresses and stoppers west of Blacktown).

Your platform crowding problem is dramatically reduced and you might even encourage more people to get Metro West and change to T9 or T5 at North Strathfield or Westmead.

On platform 1, the removal of T3 and increase in T2 services will reduce the instances of people waiting 15 minutes in the platform.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Clearance of platforms from incoming crowds isn’t as much a problem as crowding on the platforms caused by people waiting for their specific service. This can be resolved by creating 1 or 2 stopping patterns for each line so people don’t wait for multiple services to pass.

On platform 2 at Town Hall for instance, all T1 trains could go to Penrith/Emu Plains, T9 could move to Sydney Terminal and Richmond could transfer to the T5. Suddenly everyone can get on the first train that comes through (or maybe the second train if you had a mix of expresses and stoppers west of Blacktown).

Your platform crowding problem is dramatically reduced and you might even encourage more people to get Metro West and change to T9 or T5 at North Strathfield or Westmead.

On platform 1, the removal of T3 and increase in T2 services will reduce the instances of people waiting 15 minutes in the platform.
grog
Good idea.

Main line feeders into branch line shuttles.
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

The metro will help because it can get passengers from the T3 and the T1 upper shore out of town hall and not because it created a bottleneck around the circle. There used to be 24 train an hour back in the single decker days and so the signalling system is clearly not the reason for the current 20tph limit. It is the trains, the platforms and the passengers that cause this limit. Olympic park can see more then 30 trains an hour during the busy parts of the easter show or other big events with the current signalling.

Sponsored advertisement

Display from: