Yes and as most people would define a longer commute at 30 - 40min or more, then this not an issue for the Sydney Metro is it?

Cudgegong to Chatswood, let alone to Central is quite a long commute. There needs to be a demand for travel between the Northwest and the centre for passenger heavy rail to be viable out there in the first place. In spite of the faster and more frequent services, lower comfort level may well have driven away commuters who are thus car-borne or going by bus.
A more frequent and consistent stopping pattern is quite possible even with double decker trains. If running infrequent double deckers on an adhoc timetable is not as good, then running single decker trains (same length) like this could be worse.

Tallawong (they changed the name 3-4 years ago) commuters if they travel to central will all clearly get a seat as will the next few stations.

As stated many times and is in a govt documents the Metro line IS NOT your typical sweeper style commuter line where people mostly just board the train for most of the jounery to the city. Rather it has a number of signficant locations where there is a high turn over of passengers.

Spend some time looking at that bording and unboarding data you will see that Epping to Chatswood even before NWRL had for some stations more people getting off in AM peak than getting on and for Epping and Chatswood there is a large number changing trains. Having riden the train in both directions in peak I can assure you the station data is correct.

Your claims that it will discourage people are completely false as you havn't even bothered to refer to the published boarding numbers. The NWRL was prior to CV exceeding expectations with ECRL numbers higher than before after factoring in the extra passengers from NW stations.

Actually no it isn't considering how far away Tallawong and Chatswood are. I have done this trip many times since opening and it flys buy and there is no discomfort at all. Your argument against low numbers has already proven to be false with the pre covid numbers.

Yes but the problem is that fewer passengers will get a seat than on double decker trains run at the same frequency, that is if the technology that supports these frequencies were applied to double deckers. Maybe a lot of people, back in 2019, were using it for short trips or just checking out the new metro, riding for the experience.

Did you change your mind in 2012 about how it should be built when the plan changed?

As stated many times and is in a govt documents the Metro line IS NOT your typical sweeper style commuter line where people mostly just board the train for most of the jounery to the city. Rather it has a number of signficant locations where there is a high turn over of passengers.

Remember those buses on the M2 tollroad? Any idea what they are doing. Isn't the metro more popular with people going to and from closer places than all the way to and from Central?
When I say the trains are less comfortable, I don't mean the seats themselves are less comfortable, what I mean is that it has fewer seats for a given amount of floor space and so not as many people on board each train get a seat when full. The issue is some people having to either stand for the whole trip or finding other transport options. Here's a photo of what a metro train looks like onboard in the peak:

A spacious double decker train carrying just as many passengers is not this crowded. Being in such a crowd on a long commute is going to get pretty steamy. Has the Sydney metro looked like that yet?

• Individual double decker trains can carry more people than individual single deckers, working on the basis of the same number of passengers per square metre.
• Technologies, such as more advanced signaling, that support faster and more frequent services, could also be applied to double decker trains.

These are factors working in favour of double decker trains, at least when covering suburban distances or greater and with suburban station spacing or wider station spacing.

If I had to choose between a crowded Metro train and a crowded DD, I would choose the Metro every time. Why? Because getting on/off a crowded DD - especially if you’re seated - is an absolute bloody nightmare. Everyone crams illogically into the vestibules, and if you’re seated then you often have to climb over 2 or 3 people, and push your way up or down the stairs to get out. DDs are absolutely horrible during peak. Any advantage in “comfort” is completely eroded by their inherent design flaws: too few doors and too much floor space wasted on space-inefficient seating.

Seriously Myrtone will you stop. If the trip is 20 minutes shorter then it is more comfortable regardless of how many people are sitting or standing. The modern signalling won't do anything for our rail network because the issues lie elsewhere as I have mentioned many times before. We don't need to build the new system to DD spec since we are trying to separate the lines and once we can provide enough trains to a destination then we don't need the DD's. Lets not forget how much more comfortable the Metro is for the disabled, mother with prams and elderly who no longer have to climb mt everest to get on the train.

But a metro train cannot carry as many people as a double decker, same length and width, carries when crowded. So maybe a good comparison would be a double decker with a single decker set about 40% longer. I'd favour a 12 car single decker over a shorter double decker but Sydney suburban platforms aren't long enough for 12 car trains. Also "too much floor space wasted on space-inefficient seating" does not erode an advantage in comfort. The doors themselves are quite wide and more doors doesn't necessarily mean faster dwelling. There is not design flaw common to all double decker trains and they work quite well covering suburban distances with suburban station spacing.
Maybe the crowding you mention could be avoided by running trains of the same size more frequently by applying the technology that allows that.

EDIT: @simstrain I understand you are trying to separate lines but reducing the loading gauge does compromise. You can;t say you don't need to build the new system to the large loading gauge because of how frequently the trains run, think of the capacity that can be got from running double decker trains more frequently if it weren't for the gaps between the floors and platforms and it weren't for the track sharing like on the City Circle.

The metro has been opposed by rail experts who are very knowledgeable.

Myrtone, there are other things then seats that make a trip comfortable. We aren't talking london tube loading gauge and there is still plenty of room in these trains for 6'3" persons such as myself to get in and out of comfortably. The loading gauge wasn't designed for DD's in the first place and maybe if Bradfield hadn't insisted on such a large loading gauge for our original single deckers then maybe more of the sydney rail network he envisioned might have been built.

Metro was doing great before covid and it is only operating at 6 cars at the moment and 15 trains an hour. Aside from opening day where it was overwhelmed by an amount of people that is 3-4 times the amount of passengers that the adelaide metro rail moves in a day. In 2019/20 it still moved nearly 19 million people which is roughly what the adelaide metro rail does across all it's lines. Touch wood it has also proven to be more reliable since those early issues.

Myrtone, there are other things then seats that make a trip comfortable. We aren't talking london tube loading gauge and there is still plenty of room in these trains for 6'3" persons such as myself to get in and out of comfortably. The loading gauge wasn't designed for DD's in the first place and maybe if Bradfield hadn't insisted on such a large loading gauge for our original single deckers then maybe more of the sydney rail network he envisioned might have been built.

Yes but they have longitudal seating and a lot of standing room, which gives a capacity of at least 4 passengers for every square metre. This is probably the best arrangement for a short haul stop start service, like a lot of metros elsewhere in the world. Plenty of single decker trains elsewhere in Australia and other countries have more seats but don't have as much capacity for a given train length. This is a better seating arrangement for a long commute like on Sydney's express trains, which being double decked, can have such seats and greater overall capacity.
The loading gauge was designed for wide single deckers with 2+3 seating because Dr. Bradfield was a believer in high seating capacity. This was before the technology for double decker multiple units existed.

The metro is still new and in spite of all the people moved I wonder if most of them at not really travelling the length, let alone all the way to and from Central and if those commuting such distances might go by car or bus instead.

It would be interesting to know what has happened to the demand for car parking in North Sydney and the C.B.D since the Epping to Chatswood section was converted to metro, which did force more interchanges. That section of track was originally going to be part of the Chatswood to Paramatta rail link.

Yes but they have longitudal seating and a lot of standing room, which gives a capacity of at least 4 passengers for every square metre. This is probably the best arrangement for a short haul stop start service, like a lot of metros elsewhere in the world. Plenty of single decker trains elsewhere in Australia and other countries have more seats but don't have as much capacity for a given train length. This is a better seating arrangement for a long commute like on Sydney's express trains, which being double decked, can have such seats and greater overall capacity.
The loading gauge was designed for wide single deckers with 2+3 seating because Dr. Bradfield was a believer in high seating capacity. This was before the technology for double decker multiple units existed.

The metro is still new and in spite of all the people moved I wonder if most of them at not really travelling the length, let alone all the way to and from Central and if those commuting such distances might go by car or bus instead.

It would be interesting to know what has happened to the demand for car parking in North Sydney and the C.B.D since the Epping to Chatswood section was converted to metro, which did force more interchanges. That section of track was originally going to be part of the Chatswood to Paramatta rail link.

Mytone, once and for all. The Sydney Metro runs along a route that has both residentical and employmet hubs. It fills up to Epping then people change, then discharges more than it fils towards Chatswood.

City Metro will collect more people at Chatswood with people transferring from DD due to faster ride and easier way for those going to the new location stations and Martin place. Chatswood to city is what 15min?

Cross Nest will see people join the train, Victoria cross will see alot exit and then as it rus through the city it will discharge.

The numbers travelling the full length will be minimal. If they don't like it, they can change trains at Epping. I'm guessing very few will as it takes longer, especially if there are no seats there either. I did travel from the city in early peak on a Friday and tried to notice if many were doing the same, it wasn't many from what I could see but I wouldn't hold my breath on that and I don't know where they boarded the Hornsby train.

The train isn't express is it, so why state it over and over. There is no benefit to being express because it has only short distances between catchment and departure. Do you complain there are no seats in a lift?

You have been told before. The numbers on the ECRL INCREASED following the metro and they INCREASED beyond what the NW of Epping collected. ie there are in 2019 more people using ECRL section that travelled from the legacy network than every before.

As the people from the NW only had the buses before and most of the large station car parks at each station were full (you can see on Google earth), then your question of what happened to the city carparks should be obvious. If you could even measure it.

Sydey trains was design and built for a city of a few hundred thousand. Please don't be so stupid as to compare Sydney of 1920 to 2020 needs.


Now what I notice most Mytone is that you are asking questions, making statements. For which Sim's, myself and others provide comment. You then go and ask the same thing over and over again, more often than not completely ignoring whats being stated because you didn't like the answer. TBH this is rude and just results in people ignoring your posts, especially for someone who has never even riden this train or others like it.

But a metro train cannot carry as many people as a double decker, same length and width, carries when crowded. So maybe a good comparison would be a double decker with a single decker set about 40% longer. I'd favour a 12 car single decker over a shorter double decker but Sydney suburban platforms aren't long enough for 12 car trains. Also "too much floor space wasted on space-inefficient seating" does not erode an advantage in comfort. The doors themselves are quite wide and more doors doesn't necessarily mean faster dwelling. There is not design flaw common to all double decker trains and they work quite well covering suburban distances with suburban station spacing.
Maybe the crowding you mention could be avoided by running trains of the same size more frequently by applying the technology that allows that.

EDIT: @simstrain I understand you are trying to separate lines but reducing the loading gauge does compromise. You can;t say you don't need to build the new system to the large loading gauge because of how frequently the trains run, think of the capacity that can be got from running double decker trains more frequently if it weren't for the gaps between the floors and platforms and it weren't for the track sharing like on the City Circle.

The metro has been opposed by rail experts who are very knowledgeable.

The Metro can operate more frequently due to its faster dwell time. Hence its rated at 30 t/h and DD at best is 24 t/h. Its well known more doors = shorter dwell time on high usage systems. The design of the Sydney Metro has the highest capacity option for this Greenfield line.

Mixing carriage capacity types is the highway to disastor, we have been down this path.

You are not comfortable standing on stairs or tryinig to shoulder your way from the seat to the door. Its not surprising that people on short trips in crowded Sydey trains don't actually sit.

You cannot run more trains when the centre core is at capacity. This is why Sydney went with high capacity trains . Again we have discussed this a billion times before.

Your so called experts are mostly clueless people with a keyboard and a hiden agenda. Feel free to name them again so we can again discredit them. Starting with the guy who gave you complete rubbish info about the Dubai Metro...

Pre covid it was doing it's job as there were many thousands of fewer cars on the M2/M7 motorways. All your arguments are old and proven to be untrue.

Sydney is completely different to Melbourne in regards to how it works and so even if people aren't taking the whole trip the metro is still doing a great job in connecting many of the hubs in the North West of Sydney. Sydney has a lot of major hubs like Castle Hill, Macquarrie uni and Chatswood all over the city. Parramatta and Liverpool are connected by a rail line that doesn't even go in to the city. In between there are 2 other major hubs in Merrylands and Fairfield. There are many services that are popular because they connect suburbs.

Now what I notice most Mytone is that you are asking questions, making statements. For which Sim's, myself and others provide comment. You then go and ask the same thing over and over again, more often than not completely ignoring whats being stated because you didn't like the answer. TBH this is rude and just results in people ignoring your posts, especially for someone who has never even riden this train or others like it.

What do you mean "asking questions, making statements"? I have in fact asked questions before here and on other sites that have never been answered. One of this is; Did so many people posting here now on Rodd Staples' side of the debate change their minds back in 2012?

Not me. There was already talk beforehand of a metro by labor and if the NWRL was done in DD then I don't think any of the current and future projects would even be happening. As someone with a disabled father and 2 uncles the pain of trying to get them on and off trains over the years being replaced by a 100% DDA compliant metro network very much appeals to me. The fact that we wouldn't have to worry about needing a ramp to get on a train is most appealing to me.

This wouldn't be a problem for double deckers if it weren't for the gap between the platforms and the vestibule floors, which may well be avoidable at new stations because even the double deckers do have stepless entries.
There was indeed talk about a C.B.D metro under Morris Iemma (Labor) when he was premier, and this was Rodd Staples idea. This one, unlike the 40km metro line in the Northwest, would have been in the dense inner city, much like the metros in cities like London, New York, Paris, Rome, Berlin and many others, including newer metros in cities like Amsterdam and Munich. But even this was wildly unpopular, with Glady Berejiklian, then the opposition spokesperson, later the transport minister and now the premier, noted that the metro would not be running full even in the peak.
As for those who live out in suburbia and work in the C.B.D, making them stand for more than half an hour isn't going to get them out of their cars or maybe even express buses like those on the M2.

Just give it up Myrtone. All your points have been debunked.

The DD's can't ever be fully DDA compliant because how the heck do you get a wheelchair down stairs? Even on newer platforms you still have a horizontal gap and then there is also the track alignment on older platforms where it tilts the trains away and at an awkward angle to the platforms in addition to the vertical gap height issues. This is not going to be fixed.

The metro getting people out of there cars was already happening before covid. The numbers were there to support this as the metro had good numbers and the M2/M7's numbers dropped. In it's supposedly outer surburbia format it was moving more people then the entire adelaide metro rail system every day pre coivd. Unlike Melbourne the Sydney CBD isn't the destination of everybody working and the nw metro will move alot of those numbers along it's length rather then all in the Sydney CBD.

As for comfort, people are standing on buses and DD trains and given there are very few trains per hour to certain destinations they pack on to these limited trains like sradines. This really applies to the T1 richmond, T2, T3, T8 and T9 services. Even on the T1 and T4 where you have some all stoppers and express services you have stations that only get a handful of trains an hour which many people have to crush load to get home. Sitting on these trains isn't always comfortable either when you are pressed up against someone you don't know.

The DD's can't ever be fully DDA compliant because how the heck do you get a wheelchair down stairs? Even on newer platforms you still have a horizontal gap and then there is also the track alignment on older platforms where it tilts the trains away and at an awkward angle to the platforms in addition to the vertical gap height issues. This is not going to be fixed.

Of course they can be DDA compliant if the wheelchairs are accommodated in the vestibules. Of course there is still a horizontal gap between the platform and the floor, even with metro, but the issue is the width of the gap. The legislation doesn't require the whole train to be wheelchair accessible.

The metro getting people out of there cars was already happening before covid. The numbers were there to support this as the metro had good numbers and the M2/M7's numbers dropped. In it's supposedly outer surburbia format it was moving more people then the entire adelaide metro rail system every day pre coivd. Unlike Melbourne the Sydney CBD isn't the destination of everybody working and the nw metro will move alot of those numbers along it's length rather then all in the Sydney CBD.

But was it getting those commuting longer distances out of their cars? Having to stand all the way from the outer suburbs to Central is not acceptable.

As for comfort, people are standing on buses and DD trains and given there are very few trains per hour to certain destinations they pack on to these limited trains like sradines. This really applies to the T1 richmond, T2, T3, T8 and T9 services. Even on the T1 and T4 where you have some all stoppers and express services you have stations that only get a handful of trains an hour which many people have to crush load to get home. Sitting on these trains isn't always comfortable either when you are pressed up against someone you don't know.

But are they (usually) standing for an hour, let alone more or are the ones standing the ones making the shorter trips? It does may rail travel more degrading and less competitive and will encourage more cars on WestConnex.

1. To be DDA compliant you need to be able to access everywhere on the train. Hence they can never be DDA compliant since a disabled person in a wheelchair can't access either deck.

2. Again you show your Melbourne origins here. You don't understand how Sydney works but if the T2 and T7 sees a drop in patronage and the Metro shows the equivalent gain in numbers then what do you think is the result.

3. Normally at least half an hour standing on the DD's out of Central on the limited stop service T2. On T2 it can be until Fairfield station which is about 45 minutes in to the journey. The metro is usually only standing between Chatswood and Epping if there is any standing. The constant frequency to the same destination means you don't have people waiting to fill up a train. When the new section of Metro opens I suspect there will be standing between the CBD and Chatswood but considering how much quicker the journey will now be vs the DD that will probably only mean a 10-15 minute stand time.

As for the first point: If that were that case, then new double decker trains would not have been allowed since the DDA has been in effect and existing ones would only be allowed in service under grandfather rights.

As for the second point: Building a metro out into suburbia and converting parts of the existing network to metro has been and still is opposed by many others who live in Sydney, don't they understand how Sydney works?

Benefits and Negatives to both sides

If Sydney Metro was built as a DD Line
+ Fully Airconditioned
+ More Seats
+ 3-4 minute frequencies
+ No need for extension to Liverpool (trains can already run to Liverpool and Lidcombe stations)
+ T2 Line can run more services to Parramatta and Leppington via Granville
+ Boost to services west of Bankstown which currently has 30 minute frequencies
+ Platform screen doors (except Bankstown line section)
+ Minimal gaps between train and doors (except Bankstown line section)
+ New lifts + Concourses at Bankstown Line stations
+ Travel times would be similar to Sydney Metro with the upgraded signalling
+ No disruption to Bankstown Line services during construction
+ More comfortable trains (Waratahs, SCars - Suburban Cars)
+ Turn up and go services
+ Wheelchair spaces
+ Maintain connection to Hornsby (Ability for some services to go to Hornsby if required)
+ Can share maintenance vehicles  
- Higher construction costs (despite scaled down maintenance facilities + no need to redo Bankstown line)

Single deck Sydney Metro (Currently under construction)
+ Fully Airconditioned
+ More doors
+ Platform screen doors
+ Can pretend you are driving a train (Not sure if this is truly a benefit. Would be like saying you can get a nice view from the top deck of a DD train)
+ No gaps between train and platform
+ Easy to get off train
+ Cheaper to construct
+ Can advertise as “31 new stations” when in fact 11 of them already existed.
+ 2 minute frequencies
+ Upgraded stations
+ Slightly faster travel times than Sydney Trains
+ Driverless (Lower operating costs)
+ Turn up and go services
+ Wheelchair spaces
+ Better information displays (Sydney Trains could update theirs too)
- Causes need for Bankstown Line shuttles
- Requires a section of the Bankstown line to close for long periods
- Force T4 services to make additional stops at Erskineville and St Peters aka Longer journey times for T4
- Less Seats aka more people standing
- Less floor space

As for the first point: If that were that case, then new double decker trains would not have been allowed since the DDA has been in effect and existing ones would only be allowed in service under grandfather rights.

As for the second point: Building a metro out into suburbia and converting parts of the existing network to metro has been and still is opposed by many others who live in Sydney, don't they understand how Sydney works?

Hello they do come under the grandfather rule because the network is old. They are allowed because wheelchair users can access them in the vestibule as you say but that doesn't make them 100% DDA compliant. The metro is 100% DDA compliant and the DD's are just wheelchair accessible. There is a difference.

If the NWRL was built to DD standards then we most definitely would not be getting the new rail line from Chatswood to Sydenham. It just wasn't going to happen and so what you would have ended up with is a north west rail link only getting 4 trains per hour maybe.

Also Myrtone you don't live in Sydney and so you don't have any clue what the people of Sydney want. Most of the issues are to do with the metro taking over the Bankstown line and terminating at Bankstown cutting off those at station west of Bankstown. I personally think the metro should be extended around to either regents park or Sefton. The metro could extend to Birrong in the short term and the freight line moved on to the southern arm of the Sefton triangle while the metro is then extended to either of those stations I mentioned before.

Benefits and Negatives to both sides

If Sydney Metro was built as a DD Line
+ 3-4 minute frequencies
+ No need for extension to Liverpool (trains can already run to Liverpool and Lidcombe stations)
+ Boost to services west of Bankstown which currently has 15 minute frequencies
+ New lifts + Concourses at Bankstown Line stations
+ No disruption to Bankstown Line services during construction
+ Maintain connection to Hornsby (Ability for some services to go to Hornsby if required)
+ Can share maintenance vehicles  
- Higher construction costs (despite scaled down maintenance facilities + no need to redo Bankstown line)

Single deck Sydney Metro (Currently under construction)
+ More doors
+ Platform screen doors
+ Can pretend you are driving a train (Not sure if this is truly a benefit. Would be like saying you can get a nice view from the top deck of a DD train)
+ 100% DDA compliant
+ No gaps between train and platform
+ Easy to get off train
+ Cheaper to construct
+ Can advertise as “31 new stations” when in fact 11 of them already existed.
+ 100 second frequencies
+ new and Upgraded 100% DDA compliant stations
+ Significantly faster travel times than Sydney Trains
+ Driverless (Lower operating costs)
+ Turn up and go services
+ The whole train is accessible to Wheelchairs and not just a limited area
+ Better information displays (Sydney Trains could update theirs too)
- Causes need for Bankstown Line shuttles
- Requires a section of the Bankstown line to close for long periods
- Force T4 services to make additional stops at Erskineville and St Peters aka Longer journey times for T4

I've corrected your post C3765


I will add that the more seats claim is a misnomer because they will be roughly the same going on how many actual trains per hour will operate. Lidcombe can only handle so many trains an hour and trains that would go to Liverpool would also be limited by sharing track with Freight, T2 and T5 services. There is a reason there are only 8 x T3 services an hour and it isn't the signalling system causing that limiting factor. The metro will be 10 minutes faster then DD's to Bankstown from Central. This is not slightly faster.

Hello they do come under the grandfather rule because the network is old. They are allowed because wheelchair users can access them in the vestibule as you say but that doesn't make them 100% DDA compliant. The metro is 100% DDA compliant and the DD's are just wheelchair accessible. There is a difference.

What? New double decker trains are allowed on old networks but not new ones? How about the intercity commuter trains, are they also grandfathered? As single decker trains are capable of running on the old network, how could double decker trains be exempt?
I once started a thread about lifts inside double decker trains somewhere else in the world there wasn't a need for wheelchairs to access the whole vehicle because those who need wheelchairs only make up a small portion of users.
For starters, most low floor buses around the world are not 100% low floor. I haven't heard of any 100% low floor buses in Australia but nearly all of our low floor buses were placed in service after this legislation was passed. Since they are part high floor and were introduced after disability discrimination legislation was passed, we know the act in question does not require the whole vehicle to be wheelchair accessible.
Same goes for for the 70% low floor Flexity classic trams running in Adelaide.

If the NWRL was built to DD standards then we most definitely would not be getting the new rail line from Chatswood to Sydenham. It just wasn't going to happen and so what you would have ended up with is a north west rail link only getting 4 trains per hour maybe.

I'm not sure what you mean.

Also Myrtone you don't live in Sydney and so you don't have any clue what the people of Sydney want. Most of the issues are to do with the metro taking over the Bankstown line and terminating at Bankstown cutting off those at station west of Bankstown. I personally think the metro should be extended around to either regents park or Sefton. The metro could extend to Birrong in the short term and the freight line moved on to the southern arm of the Sefton triangle while the metro is then extended to either of those stations I mentioned before.

Why are you accusing me of this when the metro as being built has been opposed by people who do live in Sydney and do know what people of Sydney want?

Now what I notice most Mytone is that you are asking questions, making statements. For which Sim's, myself and others provide comment. You then go and ask the same thing over and over again, more often than not completely ignoring whats being stated because you didn't like the answer. TBH this is rude and just results in people ignoring your posts, especially for someone who has never even riden this train or others like it.

What do you mean "asking questions, making statements"? I have in fact asked questions before here and on other sites that have never been answered. One of this is; Did so many people posting here now on Rodd Staples' side of the debate change their minds back in 2012?

You keep asking the same questions or making the same statements even when corrected with refernces as if what has been said will never matter.

I've already answered that question for 2012, twice. So again.

Prior to 2012, I wanted the NWRL built with no pre-conditions of what type of train that used it. When advised it was to be Metro, I read the govt documents and by this itme I had sarted to trave a bit so over the following year I went from assume to be DD and why would you build anything else that isn't compatible?

To, ok I can see what they are doing. It makes sense when you look at the bigger picture, ie with the extension to the south side. And since new lines within the CBD to mid suburban fringe is mostly underground, then, 100% its the most cost effective thing to do.

Your ogoing references to London, Paris, early 20th century, RER, Rod staples is worn and increasingly irrelevent.

Your comments that people will be standing on the Metro from Tallawong and Bankstown, or anywhere near the ends is just make believe and desipite being advised a number of times this doesn't make sense, you keep at it and yet you ignore that people stand on DD's from further out on existing lines.

At the end of the day if you want a couch to the city, hire a limo. Its your money, go for it. But when its tax payers money, we need to apply a bit more common sense.

EDIT, as for lifts on commuter and interurban rolling stock, this is a big no in so many ways. Italy has DD on IU use and they have one carriage (lead/tail) where there is a ramp down to the lower floor at the expense of a number of seats.  

QR has one car in each 3 car set with Metro style seating except they have flip up seats to cater for wheel chairs, but the wheel chairs can still not have access to the whole train.

Prior to 2012, I wanted the NWRL built with no pre-conditions of what type of train that used it. When advised it was to be Metro, I read the govt documents and by this itme I had sarted to trave a bit so over the following year I went from assume to be DD and why would you build anything else that isn't compatible?

I don't recall you stating this. It seems you came to be pro-metro upon reading those documents and then no comment about the Northwest not being typical metro territory, metro trains having fewer seats, nor noting that the technology of the metro could also be applied to double deckers will change your mind, and even that really detailed document by Sandy Thomas won't change your mind.
These documents are by a government exploiting every possible arguments for building a privately operated metro out into suburbia and converting part of the existing network to private metro.

To, ok I can see what they are doing. It makes sense when you look at the bigger picture, ie with the extension to the south side. And since new lines within the CBD to mid suburban fringe is mostly underground, then, 100% its the most cost effective thing to do.

This assumes that the association between single decked and mostly underground is somehow causal, I certainly haven't seen sufficient evidence of that. All regional and suburban rail networks in the world are mostly surface rail, all of the mostly underground passenger

Your comments that people will be standing on the Metro from Tallawong and Bankstown, or anywhere near the ends is just make believe and desipite being advised a number of times this doesn't make sense, you keep at it and yet you ignore that people stand on DD's from further out on existing lines.

My comments are not that people will be standing all the way from suburbia to the C.B.D, but that making most passengers stand on services covering those distances is not going to encourage people travelling such distances (such as commuters who live in the Northwest and work in the C.B.D) out of buses or their cars.
I did note you claim that people may stand on double decker trains on existing lines but replacing them with smaller trains won't fix this, it may just make that worse. But finding way to run double decker trains more frequently would be a way to reduce crowding.

EDIT, as for lifts on commuter and interurban rolling stock, this is a big no in so many ways. Italy has DD on IU use and they have one carriage (lead/tail) where there is a ramp down to the lower floor at the expense of a number of seats.

I don't actually see why not, given that stair lifts could be fitted without reducing seating capacity.

QR has one car in each 3 car set with Metro style seating except they have flip up seats to cater for wheel chairs, but the wheel chairs can still not have access to the whole train.

If these trains are quite new, then this shows that wheelchairs don't need access to the whole train for the train to be compliant with current legislation.

Spend some time looking at that bording and unboarding data you will see that Epping to Chatswood even before NWRL had for some stations more people getting off in AM peak than getting on and for Epping and Chatswood there is a large number changing trains. Having riden the train in both directions in peak I can assure you the station data is correct.
                                                                                                                                                                                                             

I think you are confusing entry and exit statistics for the peak and contra-peak directions.  Prior to the metro, a far greater number of exits in the morning peak at the Macquarie Park stations, particularly Macquarie University, took place in the contra-peak direction coming from the city and vice versa, entries in the afternoon peak.  At the time, there were direct services to and from the CBD via the North Shore Line, without the need to change at Chatswood.  It got to the point where services in the contra-peak directions were increased to 6tph to and from Epping to meet the demand, while the peak flow was 4tph.  The ECRL was initially designed for 8tph in each direction, which could be upgraded when required.

I would be extremely surprised if there was any significant increase in patronage from the Upper Northern Line interchanging to and from the metro (ECRL) when they previously had a direct service all the way into the CBD.  The Upper Northern Line now has a direct semi-express service in the peak to and from Central via Strathfield and through the CBD to the North Shore in the off-peak.  The only passengers likely to interchange would be those heading for Macquarie Park and North Shore destinations, otherwise they would have to change twice to and from the CBD as things now stand.  From anecdotal evidence, there would also appear to be a large number of commuters interchanging from the north west to and from the Northern Line services towards Strathfield.  Depending on their destination, they have the alternative of catching a fast semi-express T9 service or an empty T9 all stations to Burwood and the CBD service starting from Epping.

I suspect that the bulk of patronage on the ECRL sector of the metro in the peak direction would be coming from the north west and not those interchanging from the Northern Line.  It's also worth noting that prior to the metro, most of the bus services from the north west went directly to the CBD via the M2, with only a few going to Macquarie Park destinations.  The CBD was and I suspect still is the primary destination.

Benefits and Negatives to both sides

If Sydney Metro was built as a DD Line
+ 3-4 minute frequencies
+ No need for extension to Liverpool (trains can already run to Liverpool and Lidcombe stations)
+ Boost to services west of Bankstown which currently has 15 minute frequencies
+ New lifts + Concourses at Bankstown Line stations
+ No disruption to Bankstown Line services during construction
+ Maintain connection to Hornsby (Ability for some services to go to Hornsby if required)
+ Can share maintenance vehicles  
- Higher construction costs (despite scaled down maintenance facilities + no need to redo Bankstown line)

Single deck Sydney Metro (Currently under construction)
+ More doors
+ Platform screen doors
+ Can pretend you are driving a train (Not sure if this is truly a benefit. Would be like saying you can get a nice view from the top deck of a DD train)
+ 100% DDA compliant
+ No gaps between train and platform
+ Easy to get off train
+ Cheaper to construct
+ Can advertise as “31 new stations” when in fact 11 of them already existed.
+ 100 second frequencies
+ new and Upgraded 100% DDA compliant stations
+ Significantly faster travel times than Sydney Trains
+ Driverless (Lower operating costs)
+ Turn up and go services
+ The whole train is accessible to Wheelchairs and not just a limited area
+ Better information displays (Sydney Trains could update theirs too)
- Causes need for Bankstown Line shuttles
- Requires a section of the Bankstown line to close for long periods
- Force T4 services to make additional stops at Erskineville and St Peters aka Longer journey times for T4

I've corrected your post C3765


I will add that the more seats claim is a misnomer because they will be roughly the same going on how many actual trains per hour will operate. Lidcombe can only handle so many trains an hour and trains that would go to Liverpool would also be limited by sharing track with Freight, T2 and T5 services. There is a reason there are only 8 x T3 services an hour and it isn't the signalling system causing that limiting factor. The metro will be 10 minutes faster then DD's to Bankstown from Central. This is not slightly faster.

You've got some gall sims in changing C3765's post to make it appear as though it's as he originally posted it.  At the very least, you could have highlighted where you've made the changes, not that I agree with your opinion anyway.  I thought 3765 gave a very objective analysis of the pro and cons of each mode of operation for the NWRL and its extension to Bankstown through the CBD.

The justification for building the NWRL and conversion of the ECRL and Bankstown Lines to metro has been flawed from the very start with questionable, if not deliberately false comparisons between operating it as part of the existing DD network or a separate SD metro service.  This is not a new greenfield line, as it impacts upon sectors of the existing network, adversely IMO.

For example, the practical capacity of DD trains has consistently been understated and that of the SD metro trains overstated.  The inflated train capacity and higher frequency (30tph) of the metro has been misleadingly compared with the understated DD train capacity on the existing network at 20tph, when a more honest comparison would be with a DD service on a similarly upgraded new line with enhanced signalling and modern station design at 24tph.  They're comparing apples with oranges.

You are continuing this deceit with your comparisons on the Bankstown Line. How many times do I have to tell you that there are currently 10xT3 service an hour, not 8?  It is capable of 12tph, even with the current signalling, as there are 2 spare slots on the City Circle via Museum and the signalling upgrade will increase capacity on the CC even further.  The demand on the Bankstown Line metro is never likely to exceed the proposed train capacity at 15tph, which equates to approximately 6,000 seats per hour, compared with a DD service @ 12tph of 10,800 seats.  Even at the current 10tph, DD is still in front with 9,000 seats.  As for journey time, it's again misleading to compare the metro with the existing DD service, as the proposed signalling upgrade and ATO would reduce current journey times for DD to be very close, if not equal to that proposed for the metro for an all stations service.  The Waratah rolling stock has a similar acceleration/deceleration performance to the Alstom metro stock as well as a higher maximum speed of 130km/h compared with the metro's 100km/h, which hasn't been fully utilised to date.  

A major problem with the current metro strategy is that it limits the number of paths through the CBD from the south and west across the harbour with only the converted Bankstown Line feeding into it, which frees up only 10 paths per hour in the peak for other services.  The inherent capacity of 30tph for the new CBD and cross harbour link from the Bankstown Line is wasted without further branching, be that as a metro or as an extension of the existing network as originally intended, although the latter is obviously no longer possible.  Not very smart.

The following factual objective analysis gives a more realistic assessment of the merits of the metro strategy and the alternative extension of the NWRL as part of existing network.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-11/barry-ofarrell-sydney-trains-claim-doubtful/5371446?nw=0&r=HtmlFragment