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.

....and more to the point, dual very wide platforms per track which prevent departing and boarding passengers from mixing and thus causing a back log into the train of departing passengers.

Single deckers,
- No automated doors delay
- No "stand clear, doors closing" delay
- People started departing the train before its stopped
- People still boarding as it departed, guards would let trains leave knowing there were a few guys running to the train and would board while the train is moving.
- Overall less people to get off per car

Moral of the story, the dwell time is a probably 2/3 to half of what it is today.

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.

I don't think that's the point @sims is making at all.  He is arguing that dwells are a "limiting factor", when they are not. Dwells are one term in the capacity equation, separation the other.  Dwells have blown out over the SD era, but modern technology means separations can be safely reduced.

The point you raise is not to be dismissed lightly though, but it's not a basis for dismissing 24tph entirely.  But it's a double edge sword, as increased frequency means faster clearance of platforms as well as more people using them.  What the limitations of the City Railway platforms mean is OTR performance will begin to degrade at a lower (in percentage rather than absolute).  24tph does not mean a full 20% increase in capacity is achievable.  

There was a consultant's report published 5 or 6 years ago that used queueing theory to try and model this, but IIRC the results were rather qualitative, like my little analysis above.

The narrowness of the TH platforms in particular, means PSDs will be of huge benefit there in this regard, if we can ever have two rolling stock orders with the same door paramaters.  (Hence my rant)

Continuing OT with the D Sets, IMHO if they were never going to run through TH, WTF didn't they just use a simple SD design?  We endured all the cost to make them 98.75% compatible with the city railway, then made them incompati9ble anyway .  /rant

Personally, I think installing more stairs (leading to an expanded concourse) at each end of the Sector 3 platforms at TH is close to the lowest hanging capacity improvement fruit on the Sydney Train's network.

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.

That's not strictly correct.  There had been long term plans to build a new cross harbour rail link from Eveleigh to St Leonards as an extension of the existing network, in part to relieve congestion on existing CBD stations, particularly Central, Town Hall and Wynyard.  The metro idea came later after the decision to build the NWRL as a metro and in the process confiscate the former ECRL and the new rail corridor through the CBD reserved for future heavy rail expansion.  The new line, whether built as an extension of the existing network or the metro that is now under construction, would have had similar benefits in relieving congestion on the existing stations.  It didn't have to be a metro to achieve this outcome.

There was an earlier option considered as part of the CBD Rail Capacity Program to reintroduce compatible SD trains across the Harbour Bridge on the existing North Shore Line to run at 28tph as an alternative to a new harbour rail crossing. However, it would require major upgrades to Central, Town Hall, Wynyard and North Sydney Stations to handle the additional passenger flow in the absence of an additional CBD line.  The flying junctions would also have to be modified to connect it with a proposed route to the south west.  The cost of the station upgrades and disruption caused by lengthy shutdowns on the busiest part of the network made it unviable, particularly compared with the benefits of a new line.

The proposed ATP/ATO upgrade in combination with the reduced crowding on the existing CBD stations because of the new CBD  rail link (whether or not it's metro) will enable the higher frequency of 24tph and 30tph to recover from disruptions.  That's come straight from the horse's mouth.

The narrowness of the TH platforms in particular, means PSDs will be of huge benefit there in this regard, if we can ever have two rolling stock orders with the same door paramaters.  (Hence my rant)

Continuing OT with the D Sets, IMHO if they were never going to run through TH, WTF didn't they just use a simple SD design?  We endured all the cost to make them 98.75% compatible with the city railway, then made them incompati9ble anyway .  /rant

Regarding the door position of the D sets, I've checked out some videos of the trains and the 4 car sets have doors in the same position as a 4 car H set. As we know, when 2 x 4 car H sets are coupled the doors are in the same position as an 8 car A or B set. Therefore, if the D sets are configured as 2 x 4 car sets, the doors are in the same position as the A and B sets.

Obviously with a 10 car set, things are different, but I'm not sure that is a problem.

The narrowness of the TH platforms in particular, means PSDs will be of huge benefit there in this regard, if we can ever have two rolling stock orders with the same door paramaters.  (Hence my rant)

Continuing OT with the D Sets, IMHO if they were never going to run through TH, WTF didn't they just use a simple SD design?  We endured all the cost to make them 98.75% compatible with the city railway, then made them incompati9ble anyway .  /rant

Regarding the door position of the D sets, I've checked out some videos of the trains and the 4 car sets have doors in the same position as a 4 car H set. As we know, when 2 x 4 car H sets are coupled the doors are in the same position as an 8 car A or B set. Therefore, if the D sets are configured as 2 x 4 car sets, the doors are in the same position as the A and B sets.

Obviously with a 10 car set, things are different, but I'm not sure that is a problem.

Thanks for that.  I just looked at some videos of the D sets too, and I was completely wrong on this point.  I don't know why, but I was under the impression the MT units had the same lengths decks - and presumably door spacing, as the (shorter) cab units, but clearly they don't.

I was also under the impression a difference interpretation/definition of vehicle length meant the A/Bs were slightly longer, and thus had an overall slightly wider door spacing than the H sets (and by inference the Ds).

I'm actually quite heartened by the sight of that.  It means, should we chose to, a 4+4 "short" D set could probably service a platform protected by PSDs designed for an A/B set.

In earlier posts it was said that ten car D sets could not use the underground stations.

Why would they not be able to use these stations?

Clearly they will be able to stop at Wondabyne where any more than one car is not in the platform.

I understand that 10 car D sets will stop with the leading car in the platform.

There is a video showing a 10 car D set stopping at Mt Colah and opening the doors
Only the doors on the first eight cars opened, although the leading door on the ninth car was in the platform.
The D sets have "automatic selective door operation" so only doors next to a platform open.

But there are many stations where not all ten cars will be in the platform.
This is the case with V sets and H sets on the North and the passenger information system indicates which cars will be in the platform. Presumably the same will apply to D sets.

So if it is OK to have two cars not in a platform on a surface station, why is it not acceptable on an underground station?
The passenger information system will indicate what station the train is in, and will indicate what cars will be in the platform before the train stops. Nobody will be endangered by two cars being in the tunnel.

On the ESR a train terminating at Bondi Junction would have to have the last two cars checked by the guard to avoid passengers who have ignored the announcements and indications, but this is pretty standard for trains terminating at many surface stations.

If the train was not moving to a turnback at Bondi Junction, the train may have to stop with the leading two cars in the tunnel so the driver can be in the lead car in the platform after reversal.

The ten car trains fit at Sydney Terminal, Hornsby, Gosford, Broadmeadow and Newcastle Interchange on the North, Katoomba, Mt Victoria and Lithgow on the West. I don't know about the Illawarra....

But at most other stations, the last two cars will not be in the platform. This should not be a problem once passengers are aware of the practice since it will be indicated on the passenger information displays.

Peter

I don't think that's the point @sims is making at all.  He is arguing that dwells are a "limiting factor", when they are not. Dwells are one term in the capacity equation, separation the other.  Dwells have blown out over the SD era, but modern technology means separations can be safely reduced.

The point you raise is not to be dismissed lightly though, but it's not a basis for dismissing 24tph entirely.  But it's a double edge sword, as increased frequency means faster clearance of platforms as well as more people using them.  What the limitations of the City Railway platforms mean is OTR performance will begin to degrade at a lower (in percentage rather than absolute).  24tph does not mean a full 20% increase in capacity is achievable.  

There was a consultant's report published 5 or 6 years ago that used queueing theory to try and model this, but IIRC the results were rather qualitative, like my little analysis above.

The narrowness of the TH platforms in particular, means PSDs will be of huge benefit there in this regard, if we can ever have two rolling stock orders with the same door paramaters.  (Hence my rant)

Continuing OT with the D Sets, IMHO if they were never going to run through TH, WTF didn't they just use a simple SD design?  We endured all the cost to make them 98.75% compatible with the city railway, then made them incompati9ble anyway .  /rant

Personally, I think installing more stairs (leading to an expanded concourse) at each end of the Sector 3 platforms at TH is close to the lowest hanging capacity improvement fruit on the Sydney Train's network.

Sim's is mostly on point. Its not about the ability to close the gap between trains, its about the time trains spend at the station and will increasing frequency just push the problem onto the platform dwell time.

The issue is turnover of people in a confined space. After each train there is a period of time it takes to clear the platform. If the counter flow people movements in a small area are too great, then at some point you simply won't have time between trains to empty the platform, therefore creating a backlog that people existing the following service walk straight into.

The post saying all trains through TH should have a consistent stopping pattern is one way to achieve this as it pushes the waiting time on the platform for your particular service to another location. Likely more practical for T1 and than City circle services.

PSD's has to come to the city tunnels like TH.

D -sets were ordered DD as because this is where DD technology is in its element. High capacity trains, both in length and capacity per car on congested tracks, travelling a long distance with few high capacity stops enabling a lower frequency service and thus moving more people per hour.

However, you also don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater and should the need ever arise, the DD's can travel into the city via the tunnels, such as track work.

No idea on the ability to install more stairs at the station.

Long term I think there simply needs acceptance that these 100 year old stations are at their limit and growth needs to be via other means, ie building more platforms, which the Metro is doing and its call Pitt Street, Pitt street I hope was designed with this in mind and capable of digging down to add up to a further 4 more platforms.

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.

That's not strictly correct.  There had been long term plans to build a new cross harbour rail link from Eveleigh to St Leonards as an extension of the existing network, in part to relieve congestion on existing CBD stations, particularly Central, Town Hall and Wynyard.  The metro idea came later after the decision to build the NWRL as a metro and in the process confiscate the former ECRL and the new rail corridor through the CBD reserved for future heavy rail expansion.  The new line, whether built as an extension of the existing network or the metro that is now under construction, would have had similar benefits in relieving congestion on the existing stations.  It didn't have to be a metro to achieve this outcome.

There was an earlier option considered as part of the CBD Rail Capacity Program to reintroduce compatible SD trains across the Harbour Bridge on the existing North Shore Line to run at 28tph as an alternative to a new harbour rail crossing. However, it would require major upgrades to Central, Town Hall, Wynyard and North Sydney Stations to handle the additional passenger flow in the absence of an additional CBD line.  The flying junctions would also have to be modified to connect it with a proposed route to the south west.  The cost of the station upgrades and disruption caused by lengthy shutdowns on the busiest part of the network made it unviable, particularly compared with the benefits of a new line.

The proposed ATP/ATO upgrade in combination with the reduced crowding on the existing CBD stations because of the new CBD  rail link (whether or not it's metro) will enable the higher frequency of 24tph and 30tph to recover from disruptions.  That's come straight from the horse's mouth.

Yes, it didn't have to be a Metro style technology, but it is now and is the right approach. the alternative plan you mention above is from a different technological era and if we look globally, increasingly geofencing existing networks and building new stand alone lines using the latest technology is the trend. Even such that each new line is geofenced from the previous for the same reasons, as happens in Paris and other cities where most Metro lines are there own individual network. No more catering for backward compatibility.

The 1990's proposal to convert part of Sydney to SD was clearly a warning sign that the DD approach is outgrown its capability. The technology was great for increasing capacity for a small section of the network while most lines operated at less than 10 t/h, but this approach no longer works as some lines have demand to exceed 10t/h, some closer to 20t/h.

The Metro being completely stand alone from the DD network enables huge advantages in construction cost and long-term operational costs. The cost and disruption to convert to that proposal would have been a nightmare and a bottomless pit of money as few companies would offer fixed price contracts on such old infrastructure.

I still favor the City by-pass or what ever the name terminating at Wynyard or St James for expanding DD capacity, but that's pretty much it, the Metro technology expansion is better suited to cross the harbor in a tunnel and taking Sydney through the 21st century. DD network will remain mostly static in size and focus on longer suburban route travel.

I don't know about the Illawarra....

Peter

https://yoursay.transport.nsw.gov.au/mtms-southcoast

Many stations are, and will remain, SP6.

Yes, it didn't have to be a Metro style technology, but it is now and is the right approach. the alternative plan you mention above is from a different technological era and if we look globally, increasingly geofencing existing networks and building new stand alone lines using the latest technology is the trend. Even such that each new line is geofenced from the previous for the same reasons, as happens in Paris and other cities where most Metro lines are there own individual network. No more catering for backward compatibility.

The 1990's proposal to convert part of Sydney to SD was clearly a warning sign that the DD approach is outgrown its capability. The technology was great for increasing capacity for a small section of the network while most lines operated at less than 10 t/h, but this approach no longer works as some lines have demand to exceed 10t/h, some closer to 20t/h.

The Metro being completely stand alone from the DD network enables huge advantages in construction cost and long-term operational costs. The cost and disruption to convert to that proposal would have been a nightmare and a bottomless pit of money as few companies would offer fixed price contracts on such old infrastructure.

I still favor the City by-pass or what ever the name terminating at Wynyard or St James for expanding DD capacity, but that's pretty much it, the Metro technology expansion is better suited to cross the harbor in a tunnel and taking Sydney through the 21st century. DD network will remain mostly static in size and focus on longer suburban route travel.

I don't disagree with what you're saying, but I was just making the point that a new CBD cross harbour rail link as part of the existing network had been on the agenda long before the current metro project.  Forgive me for being so pedantic.  

I agree that new metro lines should be completely segregated from the DD network and hence why I don't support any further conversions.

The City Relief Line as it was called, branching from the Main at Eveleigh to Wynyard, doesn't appear to be on the agenda under the current government, but it would still be possible to build it once terminating capacity at ST is reached.  It should ultimately be linked with a possible Homebush - Granville sextup via a new express tunnel.

It should be remembered that after extensive travel overseas, Bradfield's original plan for the City Underground was to bring the electrified suburban lines into and through the CBD, rather than forcing interchange at Central to the trams at the time, which had created significant congestion.  We now appear to have come the full circle with the strategy of terminating more suburban services at Central to interchange to the new metro.

Most expansion of the DD network will be in amplifications and limited extensions of existing lines where necessary to create express paths for longer distance services without being impeded by slower all stops services in the inner city.  However, I also expect that existing inner city services will continue, with higher frequencies as a result of infrastructure and signalling upgrades.

I don't disagree with what you're saying, but I was just making the point that a new CBD cross harbour rail link as part of the existing network had been on the agenda long before the current metro project.  Forgive me for being so pedantic.  

I agree that new metro lines should be completely segregated from the DD network and hence why I don't support any further conversions.

The City Relief Line as it was called, branching from the Main at Eveleigh to Wynyard, doesn't appear to be on the agenda under the current government, but it would still be possible to build it once terminating capacity at ST is reached.  It should ultimately be linked with a possible Homebush - Granville sextup via a new express tunnel.

It should be remembered that after extensive travel overseas, Bradfield's original plan for the City Underground was to bring the electrified suburban lines into and through the CBD, rather than forcing interchange at Central to the trams at the time, which had created significant congestion.  We now appear to have come the full circle with the strategy of terminating more suburban services at Central to interchange to the new metro.

Most expansion of the DD network will be in amplifications and limited extensions of existing lines where necessary to create express paths for longer distance services without being impeded by slower all stops services in the inner city.  However, I also expect that existing inner city services will continue, with higher frequencies as a result of infrastructure and signalling upgrades.

Ok,

Unfortunately I don't see the City Relief line ever being built. I think the infrastructure is rated as simply too old, too many unknowns and construction companies will never quote fixed price so no govt will have the balls to touch it either. Although I would love to see an extra two tracks at both St James and Wynyard.

In earlier posts it was said that ten car D sets could not use the underground stations.

Why would they not be able to use these stations?

Clearly they will be able to stop at Wondabyne where any more than one car is not in the platform.

I understand that 10 car D sets will stop with the leading car in the platform.

I don't think there's any suggestion that the 10 car D sets can't traverse the City Underground.  It's just unlikely that they will be rostered for normal operations and will all run into Sydney Terminal.  It will still potentially be possible for 4, 6 or 8 car D sets to use the underground stations as the H sets currently do from Gosford and Thirroul.  It remains to be seen if they continue in the longer term.

There's a difference between the longer sets, including V sets, stopping at outer suburban and interurban short platforms and the major CBD stations, excluding the underground.  To the best of my knowledge, all of the main suburban stations which are serviced by Intercity trains have longer platforms. That includes Strathfield, Eastwood (formerly), Epping and Berowra on the Northern Line and Parramatta, Blacktown and Penrith on the Western Line.  Waterfall and Wollongong platforms are also being extended to accommodate the 10 car D sets.  Not sure about Hurstville or Sydenham.

Unfortunately I don't see the City Relief line ever being built. I think the infrastructure is rated as simply too old, too many unknowns and construction companies will never quote fixed price so no govt will have the balls to touch it either. Although I would love to see an extra two tracks at both St James and Wynyard.

The City Relief Line may well never be built, but nonetheless it still remains an option for future governments if the need arose.  I believe that the rail corridor (Metro West - not to be confused with the proposed metro line) is still protected.

It would be a completely new line with new stations separate from existing infrastructure, so the question of age doesn't come into it.

I gather that the original scheme had proposed new platforms at Wynyard to be constructed in a cavern below the existing concourse alongside platforms 5 & 6, rather than using the former tram platforms 1 & 2.

I could still visualize the Airport Line being diverted from the City Circle at Central to the unused St James platforms, either as an inner CBD terminus or connecting with the City Circle.

The City Relief Line may well never be built, but nonetheless it still remains an option for future governments if the need arose.  I believe that the rail corridor (Metro West - not to be confused with the proposed metro line) is still protected.

It would be a completely new line with new stations separate from existing infrastructure, so the question of age doesn't come into it.

I gather that the original scheme had proposed new platforms at Wynyard to be constructed in a cavern below the existing concourse alongside platforms 5 & 6, rather than using the former tram platforms 1 & 2.

I could still visualize the Airport Line being diverted from the City Circle at Central to the unused St James platforms, either as an inner CBD terminus or connecting with the City Circle.

So city relief line would have built new platforms, not used 1&2 Wynyard. Going below would be pretty deep, would these now conflict with the Metro, or would the new platforms be built to the side?


The Airport line makes a natural fit to end at St James.

- Its already in a tunnel and would have been easy to connect to the incomplete Platforms 26 and 27 in Central, only a 200m or so of tunnel required, but would be disruptive for the airport line and likely require a 3mth closure, assuming everything else is complete and ready to run when the cut in commences.

- Connection to St James is via around 900m of new tunnel to connect with the unfinished stubs East of Museum

- Terminating at St James and rebuilding the former shunt-neck north of the station to enable a cross platform change at St James in direction of travel. Better suited for those with suit cases. Potential to store empty sets as well.

- Platforms 26 and 27 are 1000 x easier to access with baggage than Platform 22 and 23.

- Services could have come from an extension of the quad to East Hills (East Hills to St James via Airport), thus saving one maybe two stops for SW services. Currently 15min, increased to 5-6min due to loss of SW services.

- East Hills station rebuilt into a dock / bi-platform to enable cross platform change.

- All SW services would run direct to the city Stopping East Hills, Revesby, Sydenham all to City = timetable simplification and platform stopping pattern easy for users and saves 2min in travel time.

-  The line from East Hills to St James would have been basically isolated from most if not all the rest of the network for regular operations of the network supporting segregation.

- Any concerns about platform width for Platform 26 and 27 would have been mitigated by limiting services to say 15 trains per hour with a simple turn back shunt neck beyond St James (which used to be there) to enable cross platform change in direction of travel.

- As trains are dedicated airport trains, you could get ones with luggage storage space.

In earlier posts it was said that ten car D sets could not use the underground stations.

Why would they not be able to use these stations?

Clearly they will be able to stop at Wondabyne where any more than one car is not in the platform.

I understand that 10 car D sets will stop with the leading car in the platform.

I don't think there's any suggestion that the 10 car D sets can't traverse the City Underground.  It's just unlikely that they will be rostered for normal operations and will all run into Sydney Terminal.  It will still potentially be possible for 4, 6 or 8 car D sets to use the underground stations as the H sets currently do from Gosford and Thirroul.  It remains to be seen if they continue in the longer term.

There's a difference between the longer sets, including V sets, stopping at outer suburban and interurban short platforms and the major CBD stations, excluding the underground.  To the best of my knowledge, all of the main suburban stations which are serviced by Intercity trains have longer platforms. That includes Strathfield, Eastwood (formerly), Epping and Berowra on the Northern Line and Parramatta, Blacktown and Penrith on the Western Line.  Waterfall and Wollongong platforms are also being extended to accommodate the 10 car D sets.  Not sure about Hurstville or Sydenham.

But presently, many Illawarra services terminate at Bondi Junction. Diverting these to "Sydney Terminal" would require additional services on the Eastern Suburbs line which would have nowhere to go to beyond Redfern.

The problem is not in the suburbs but beyond the suburban area. Since these trains are replacing all services they will have to stop at all stations in the Intercity are, although this is already the case with V and H sets.

However, there are North Shore line peak hour services currently worked by H sets, to and from Gosford and Wyong (up in the morning, down in the afternoon) that stop at most of the stations (but not the same ones). As far as I know there is no plan to lengthen the platforms on the North Shore and it would not be easy in many cases. And, of course, these trains stop in both directions at the city underground stations, North Sydney and St Leonards. As peak hour trains, these would need to be ten car D set trains.

Peter

In earlier posts it was said that ten car D sets could not use the underground stations.

Why would they not be able to use these stations?

Clearly they will be able to stop at Wondabyne where any more than one car is not in the platform.

I understand that 10 car D sets will stop with the leading car in the platform.

I don't think there's any suggestion that the 10 car D sets can't traverse the City Underground.  It's just unlikely that they will be rostered for normal operations and will all run into Sydney Terminal.  It will still potentially be possible for 4, 6 or 8 car D sets to use the underground stations as the H sets currently do from Gosford and Thirroul.  It remains to be seen if they continue in the longer term.

There's a difference between the longer sets, including V sets, stopping at outer suburban and interurban short platforms and the major CBD stations, excluding the underground.  To the best of my knowledge, all of the main suburban stations which are serviced by Intercity trains have longer platforms. That includes Strathfield, Eastwood (formerly), Epping and Berowra on the Northern Line and Parramatta, Blacktown and Penrith on the Western Line.  Waterfall and Wollongong platforms are also being extended to accommodate the 10 car D sets.  Not sure about Hurstville or Sydenham.

But presently, many Illawarra services terminate at Bondi Junction. Diverting these to "Sydney Terminal" would require additional services on the Eastern Suburbs line which would have nowhere to go to beyond Redfern.

The problem is not in the suburbs but beyond the suburban area. Since these trains are replacing all services they will have to stop at all stations in the Intercity are, although this is already the case with V and H sets.

However, there are North Shore line peak hour services currently worked by H sets, to and from Gosford and Wyong (up in the morning, down in the afternoon) that stop at most of the stations (but not the same ones). As far as I know there is no plan to lengthen the platforms on the North Shore and it would not be easy in many cases. And, of course, these trains stop in both directions at the city underground stations, North Sydney and St Leonards. As peak hour trains, these would need to be ten car D set trains.

Peter

I thought Bondi is over serviced for the demand and simply used as somewhere to send the South Coast services that is easier than currently using Sydney Terminal.

Its a bit old but shows the ESR with sub 100% peak loading factor.
https://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/media/documents/2017/Train%20Statistics%202014.pdf

Have to wonder if Central Coast via NSL will continue.

yes that is old because numbers were well up on that just prior to covid.

yes that is old because numbers were well up on that just prior to covid.

Can you show me where you get this data because this is pretty useless beyond monthly data for a line. Which BTW shows only 10% over 3 years.

yes that is old because numbers were well up on that just prior to covid.

Can you show me where you get this data because this is pretty useless beyond monthly data for a line. Which BTW shows only 10% over 3 years.

https://opendata.transport.nsw.gov.au/

yes that is old because numbers were well up on that just prior to covid.

Can you show me where you get this data because this is pretty useless beyond monthly data for a line. Which BTW shows only 10% over 3 years.

https://opendata.transport.nsw.gov.au/

I went in and had a look at the data here, finally found the right link and looked at BJ and Edge cliff station numbers and the increase is still around 10-12% over 3-4 years. So my original comment still stands, the ESR has opportunity to see loss of the South Coast services, however its likely the loss of South Coast may simply mean addition of Hurtsville?

The City Relief Line may well never be built, but nonetheless it still remains an option for future governments if the need arose.  I believe that the rail corridor (Metro West - not to be confused with the proposed metro line) is still protected.

It would be a completely new line with new stations separate from existing infrastructure, so the question of age doesn't come into it.

I gather that the original scheme had proposed new platforms at Wynyard to be constructed in a cavern below the existing concourse alongside platforms 5 & 6, rather than using the former tram platforms 1 & 2.

I could still visualize the Airport Line being diverted from the City Circle at Central to the unused St James platforms, either as an inner CBD terminus or connecting with the City Circle.

So city relief line would have built new platforms, not used 1&2 Wynyard. Going below would be pretty deep, would these now conflict with the Metro, or would the new platforms be built to the side?

Yes, I understand that the new Wynyard platforms for the City Relief Line were proposed to be on the lower level directly under platforms 1 & 2 (to and from the Harbour Bridge) and the mid-level concourse alongside platforms 5 & 6, rather than connecting with the unused platforms 1 & 2 on the upper level.  Although I've never been able to definitely confirm this, it would seem to be the most logical location because of the difficulty in crossing the existing lines between Town Hall and Wynyard from the western side of the CBD to the upper level at Wynyard.  The Up City Circle Inner from the lower level platform 5 at Wynyard crosses over the Down Outer to the upper level platform 1 at Town Hall.  

I attach below an image of a cross section of the Wynyard platforms taken from the original North West Metro Draft EIS.

https://imgur.com/s1eivRh

You will note that platforms 3 & 4 run directly below York St and platforms 1 & 2 and 5 & 6, separated by the mid-level concourse, under Wynyard Park.  There is potentially space below the concourse alongside platforms 5 & 6 on the lower level for new platforms for a City Relief Line.  Whether it is feasible from an engineering perspective, I'm not sure.  It depends on whether this area was also excavated when the station was originally built by cut and cover.

This line wouldn't conflict with the proposed metro lines.

The City Relief Line as it was called, branching from the Main at Eveleigh to Wynyard, doesn't appear to be on the agenda under the current government, but it would still be possible to build it once terminating capacity at ST is reached.  It should ultimately be linked with a possible Homebush - Granville sextup via a new express tunnel.

It should be remembered that after extensive travel overseas, Bradfield's original plan for the City Underground was to bring the electrified suburban lines into and through the CBD, rather than forcing interchange at Central to the trams at the time, which had created significant congestion.  We now appear to have come the full circle with the strategy of terminating more suburban services at Central to interchange to the new metro.

Given the current bureaucracy (Staples & pro-metro crowd) and the Collins lead rail administration of Pommies  (lets do it like London), no-one should be surprised at this.

It's unlikely to be a major problem IMHO.  The metro looks like it will have a decent interchange at Central, and Central to the CBD will probably have plenty of capacity, unless people from Liverpool start transferring to the metro, heaven forbid!

Most expansion of the DD network will be in amplifications and limited extensions of existing lines where necessary to create express paths for longer distance services without being impeded by slower all stops services in the inner city.  However, I also expect that existing inner city services will continue, with higher frequencies as a result of infrastructure and signalling upgrades.

The trend over the past 3 decades has been to increasingly isolate the operations by sector, not traffic class.  The V Sets - which  TBH only survived as long as they have because of the loading gauge issues in the Blue Mountains - have been the last vestages of separate classes of traffic, with "short" Short North and South Coast services OSCARed, but also operating (for the most part) more like extended suburban services.

Up until 2+2 seating and then 10 car trains with the D sets, that trend was set to continue.

The City Relief Line may well never be built, but nonetheless it still remains an option for future governments if the need arose.  I believe that the rail corridor (Metro West - not to be confused with the proposed metro line) is still protected.

It would be a completely new line with new stations separate from existing infrastructure, so the question of age doesn't come into it.

I gather that the original scheme had proposed new platforms at Wynyard to be constructed in a cavern below the existing concourse alongside platforms 5 & 6, rather than using the former tram platforms 1 & 2.

I could still visualize the Airport Line being diverted from the City Circle at Central to the unused St James platforms, either as an inner CBD terminus or connecting with the City Circle.

The Airport line makes a natural fit to end at St James.

- Its already in a tunnel and would have been easy to connect to the incomplete Platforms 26 and 27 in Central, only a 200m or so of tunnel required, but would be disruptive for the airport line and likely require a 3mth closure, assuming everything else is complete and ready to run when the cut in commences.

- Connection to St James is via around 900m of new tunnel to connect with the unfinished stubs East of Museum

- Terminating at St James and rebuilding the former shunt-neck north of the station to enable a cross platform change at St James in direction of travel. Better suited for those with suit cases. Potential to store empty sets as well.

- Platforms 26 and 27 are 1000 x easier to access with baggage than Platform 22 and 23.

- Services could have come from an extension of the quad to East Hills (East Hills to St James via Airport), thus saving one maybe two stops for SW services. Currently 15min, increased to 5-6min due to loss of SW services.

- East Hills station rebuilt into a dock / bi-platform to enable cross platform change.

- All SW services would run direct to the city Stopping East Hills, Revesby, Sydenham all to City = timetable simplification and platform stopping pattern easy for users and saves 2min in travel time.

-  The line from East Hills to St James would have been basically isolated from most if not all the rest of the network for regular operations of the network supporting segregation.

- Any concerns about platform width for Platform 26 and 27 would have been mitigated by limiting services to say 15 trains per hour with a simple turn back shunt neck beyond St James (which used to be there) to enable cross platform change in direction of travel.

- As trains are dedicated airport trains, you could get ones with luggage storage space.

I agree that St James is a natural fit for a mid-city Airport Line terminus.  It would provide a seamless cross platform interchange with the City Circle and there would also be the option of continuing through the CC in the off-peak when more paths would be available.

Regrettably, the unused underground platforms 26 & 27 at Central are unlikely to be available, as part of the platform space will be used for equipment to service the new metro platforms via a tunnel link, which is short sighted IMO.

I have previously suggested an alternative link to St James from the surface platforms 22 & 23 at Central via a new viaduct on a steeper alignment between the existing viaduct and Elizabeth St, where there appears to be enough space.  However, it would have to be much steeper to pass under Hay St because of the encroachment by the Goulburn St carpark beyond the Campbell St overpass.  It would avoid any disruption to existing Airport Line services with only a weekend shutdown to connect the new link with the the existing line. The existing gradient from Eddy Ave to the Hay St overpass is 1 in 75, so a new line would have to be at least 1 in 30 to pass under Hay St and the existing CC line.  I don't know whether or not it's feasible, but it's worth further investigation.

Extension of the quad from Revesby to East Hills and preferably Glenfield would allow for compatible SD trains to operate an all stations service via the Airport Line in tandem with SD express trains from Badgerys Creek, merging at Wolli Creek.  Increased T8 Campbelltown/Macarthur DD services could then run express from Glenfield via Sydenham to the City Circle.  There would be no need for the T8 services to stop between Wolli Creek Junction and Central, other than Sydenham and Redfern, as T4 will service the intermediate stations with an increased all stations pattern.

I don't think there's any suggestion that the 10 car D sets can't traverse the City Underground.  It's just unlikely that they will be rostered for normal operations and will all run into Sydney Terminal.  It will still potentially be possible for 4, 6 or 8 car D sets to use the underground stations as the H sets currently do from Gosford and Thirroul.  It remains to be seen if they continue in the longer term.

There's a difference between the longer sets, including V sets, stopping at outer suburban and interurban short platforms and the major CBD stations, excluding the underground.  To the best of my knowledge, all of the main suburban stations which are serviced by Intercity trains have longer platforms. That includes Strathfield, Eastwood (formerly), Epping and Berowra on the Northern Line and Parramatta, Blacktown and Penrith on the Western Line.  Waterfall and Wollongong platforms are also being extended to accommodate the 10 car D sets.  Not sure about Hurstville or Sydenham.

But presently, many Illawarra services terminate at Bondi Junction. Diverting these to "Sydney Terminal" would require additional services on the Eastern Suburbs line which would have nowhere to go to beyond Redfern.

The problem is not in the suburbs but beyond the suburban area. Since these trains are replacing all services they will have to stop at all stations in the Intercity are, although this is already the case with V and H sets.

However, there are North Shore line peak hour services currently worked by H sets, to and from Gosford and Wyong (up in the morning, down in the afternoon) that stop at most of the stations (but not the same ones). As far as I know there is no plan to lengthen the platforms on the North Shore and it would not be easy in many cases. And, of course, these trains stop in both directions at the city underground stations, North Sydney and St Leonards. As peak hour trains, these would need to be ten car D set trains.

Peter

At present, all T4 Illawarra Line (Suburban) and South Coast (Intercity) services terminate at Bondi Junction.  There are 14tph T4 services from Hurstville, Cronulla and Waterfall and 4tph South Coast (Intercity).  

Following the ATP/ATO upgrade, the overall frequency will be increased from 18 to 24tph.  3 of the current 4 SCO Intercity services, plus an additional service, will be diverted to Sydney Terminal.  The other SCO service from Thirroul to Bondi Junction will be retained.  That frees up an additional 9 paths for T4 services from Hurstville, Cronulla and Waterfall, the apportionment of which is still to be revealed.

As I said before, I doubt if 10 car D sets will operate via the North Shore Line or to Bondi Junction.  They are likely to be operated by the shorter 6 or 8 car sets.  There are no plans to extend platforms on the Suburban network that I'm aware of other than Waterfall.

At present, all T4 Illawarra Line (Suburban) and South Coast (Intercity) services terminate at Bondi Junction.  There are 14tph T4 services from Hurstville, Cronulla and Waterfall and 4tph South Coast (Intercity).  

Following the ATP/ATO upgrade, the overall frequency will be increased from 18 to 24tph.  3 of the current 4 SCO Intercity services, plus an additional service, will be diverted to Sydney Terminal.  The other SCO service from Thirroul to Bondi Junction will be retained.  That frees up an additional 9 paths for T4 services from Hurstville, Cronulla and Waterfall, the apportionment of which is still to be revealed.

As I said before, I doubt if 10 car D sets will operate via the North Shore Line or to Bondi Junction.  They are likely to be operated by the shorter 6 or 8 car sets.  There are no plans to extend platforms on the Suburban network that I'm aware of other than Waterfall.


My understanding is that there will be no eight car D sets.
At present, only 4, 6 and 10 car trains are authorised to operate.
The present contract delivers 55 ten car sets and one four car set.

Marshalling four car sets into eight car rakes means that there will be twice as many sets limited to six cars which will have relatively few seats for peak hour traffic compared to a six car V set or eight car H set.

As I've said, there is no good reason not to use ten car sets on the underground or at short suburban platforms. The train will detect from a balise on the track which doors on which side should be opened. It might be necessary to improve passenger information as to which cars will be in the platform in advance of the stop but this is no different to H sets on the North now.

The last two cars could display which stations they will be able to unload passengers. However, those cars provide seats for other passengers as long as they are aware that they have to move forward at many intermediate stations.

Peter