This is one of the greatest shams of all time.  It may well warrant consideration in the future, either as a metro or as an extension of the existing heavy rail network, but it's not the most immediate priority, which should be the extension of the existing heavy rail South West Rail Link from Leppington to the Airport Terminal itself and not cut short at the Aerotropolis. it would be over half the distance and likely half the cost, being mostly on the surface.

How can the Commonwealth Government justify approval to contribute towards half the estimated cost of $11billion for this project, when its own independent body, Infrastructure Australia, gave it such a scathing assessment and refused to place it on its Priority List?

The Feds have been conned by the State Government into contributing to this project because of the latter's metro agenda.  If there is a change of government at the forthcoming Federal Election, then hopefully this project will be re-assessed.

Final approval for Western Sydney Airport metro

Having watched the latest inside central station the other night. I have no issues with this what so ever. When you see someone fall down the stairs in the trains and nearly die and when you see kids literally fall down through the gap between train and platform you realise how good and safe the metro actually is vs our existing trains.

On top of this the metro is just plain faster. It averages 57km/h vs ST's 30km/h over similar stopping patterns.I just looked up my books of old sydney single deck rolling stock and the average times are slightly slower now then they were back then. The only trains that average the same or slightly higher speed are the intercity services which don't have anywhere near the stopping pattern of the metro.

Having watched the latest inside central station the other night. I have no issues with this what so ever. When you see someone fall down the stairs in the trains and nearly die and when you see kids literally fall down through the gap between train and platform you realise how good and safe the metro actually is vs our existing trains.

On top of this the metro is just plain faster. It averages 57km/h vs ST's 30km/h over similar stopping patterns.I just looked up my books of old sydney single deck rolling stock and the average times are slightly slower now then they were back then. The only trains that average the same or slightly higher speed are the intercity services which don't have anywhere near the stopping pattern of the metro.

It's not about whether it's metro or heavy rail, but the priority of the St Marys to the Airport and Aerotropolis link.  This is why Infrastructure Australia gave it such a scathing assessment, noting that it wasn't justified "at this time".  There is still the option of it being considered as a later stage.

It should be bleedingly obvious to everyone that the most immediate priority should be extension of the SWRL to the Airport, as it provides a more centrally located connection with the broader rail network, including a more direct and faster link with the CBD.  If it just happens to be an extension of the existing heavy rail network, then so be it.  A new line and stations would be built to allow level boarding the same as the metro together with PSDs.  They could even run compatible SD trains, connecting Sydney's two airports with the CBD, years before a direct metro connection is made. There's no edict that only DD trains can run on the Sydney Trains' network.  That could include a limited stops Airport Express style train.

[

It should be bleedingly obvious to everyone that the most immediate priority should be extension of the SWRL to the Airport, as it provides a more centrally located connection with the broader rail network, including a more direct and faster link with the CBD.  If it just happens to be an extension of the existing heavy rail network, then so be it.  A new line and stations would be built to allow level boarding the same as the metro together with PSDs.  They could even run compatible SD trains, connecting Sydney's two airports with the CBD, years before a direct metro connection is made. There's no edict that only DD trains can run on the Sydney Trains' network.  That could include a limited stops Airport Express style train.

answered you own post .. SWRL extension is not a priority ..  but the fed gov has to pay for a transport option to the fed gov's airport project with other funding options refusing to pay  ..  

nsw is not waiting or paying for a transport option after the the airport is open .. or having  another airport with bus / taxi option for an international airport..

[

It should be bleedingly obvious to everyone that the most immediate priority should be extension of the SWRL to the Airport, as it provides a more centrally located connection with the broader rail network, including a more direct and faster link with the CBD.  If it just happens to be an extension of the existing heavy rail network, then so be it.  A new line and stations would be built to allow level boarding the same as the metro together with PSDs.  They could even run compatible SD trains, connecting Sydney's two airports with the CBD, years before a direct metro connection is made. There's no edict that only DD trains can run on the Sydney Trains' network.  That could include a limited stops Airport Express style train.

answered you own post .. SWRL extension is not a priority ..  but the fed gov has to pay for a transport option to the fed gov's airport project with other funding options refusing to pay  ..  

nsw is not waiting or paying for a transport option after the the airport is open .. or having  another airport with bus / taxi option for an international airport..

What are you talking about?  You're not making any sense.  I explicitly said that the SWRL extension should be the priority, not only to the Aerotropolis as currently proposed, but to the Airport Terminal.  That would satisfy the commitment to provide a rail link from Leppington to the Airport, which is to be jointly funded by the Federal and State Governments.  Whether it's metro or heavy rail is immaterial. What happens to future rail links, metro or otherwise, after the Airport is open is up to the State Government, which can apply for part Federal funding at the time.

 I explicitly said that the SWRL extension should be the priority, not only to the Aerotropolis as currently proposed,  

it can wait .. as you post it as an extension NOT as a full project

https://www.wscd.sydney/

 I explicitly said that the SWRL extension should be the priority, not only to the Aerotropolis as currently proposed,  

it can wait .. as you post it as an extension NOT as a full project

https://www.wscd.sydney/

The brief is to connect the Western Sydney Airport with a rail link.  It's irrelevant whether it's an extension of an existing line or a new project.  There's also no stipulation that it has to be a metro.  The Western Sydney City Deal is a separate issue.

Let's be frank, it's the State Government pushing this agenda because of their metro bias and antagonism towards extending the existing network.  The Feds, as distinct from Infrastructure Australia, wouldn't have a clue and are just going along with what the State wants.  Infrastructure Australia does not consider the St Marys link to be an immediate priority, but has left the door open for it as a later stage.  The Federal Government is being derelict in its duty in jointly funding this particular project as a priority if its independent infrastructure body gives it such a scathing assessment.

With the possibility of changes of government for both the Commonwealth and State over the next 18 months or so, things could change.

Let's be frank,

there is not cost benefit for any rail line at the current time to the airport.. nsw is not like the other states which are still thinking about rail options for there major airports ..

ie the nsw government will be picking up the running losses when the line starts... not the fed gov

to be real the other rail projects are running late  .. if the st mary link start now it maybe ready for when the airport opens or moves to the next stage ..

and the funding for the metro is also linked to a road upgrade for the airport ..

Sydney Metro—Western Sydney Airport (infrastructure.gov.au)

Let's be frank,

there is not cost benefit for any rail line at the current time to the airport.. nsw is not like the other states which are still thinking about rail options for there major airports ..

ie the nsw government will be picking up the running losses when the line starts... not the fed gov

to be real the other rail projects are running late  .. if the st mary link start now it maybe ready for when the airport opens or moves to the next stage ..

and the funding for the metro is also linked to a road upgrade for the airport ..

Sydney Metro—Western Sydney Airport (infrastructure.gov.au)

What is more relevant is Infrastructure Australia's evaluation of the business case, which is clearly deficient.  The link to its Evaluation Summary is shown below.  I'd place a lot more credence in that than I would for anything coming out of the Infrastructure Department and its Minister.  After all, wasn't this the same department that paid 10 times the price for a block of land required for the future second runway?

Amongst other things, it refers to the finding in the Western Sydney Rail Needs Scoping Study, that alternative rail connections from the Western Parkland City were investigated, i.e. to the east to Parramatta (Metro West) and to the SWRL at Leppington, which could potentially perform better than the North-South Rail Link from an economic, social and environmental perspective.  It further stated that there as insufficient evidence in the study that a rail service for the north-south  corridor would be the most appropriate option at this time.

A Metro West extension from Parramatta is a longer term proposal and could not be provided by 2026 for the airport's opening, as detailed planning hasn't even begun.  That leaves the SWRL extension from Leppington to the airport as the only viable short term rail connection.  The other rail links can follow later.

https://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-03/SMWSA%20Evaluation%20Summary.pdf

A Metro West extension from Parramatta is a longer term proposal and could not be provided by 2026 for the airport's opening, as detailed planning hasn't even begun.  That leaves the SWRL extension from Leppington to the airport as the only viable short term rail connection.  

south western sydney joke or spending plan... alot of planning has not been done .. viable is not an option when your ripping up new homes or nimby issues ..  

The other rail links can follow later.

um .. still waiting on the other rail fixes to the rail network .. and the other newer issues with the metro ..

A Metro West extension from Parramatta is a longer term proposal and could not be provided by 2026 for the airport's opening, as detailed planning hasn't even begun.  That leaves the SWRL extension from Leppington to the airport as the only viable short term rail connection.  
south western sydney joke or spending plan... alot of planning has not been done .. viable is not an option when your ripping up new homes or nimby issues ..  


The other rail links can follow later.

um .. still waiting on the other rail fixes to the rail network .. and the other newer issues with the metro ..

Meaningless comments!  Instead of speaking in riddles, a little plain english would be helpful.

 Instead of speaking in riddles, a little plain english would be helpful.

no cash or a metro stabling yard for your option ..

If the Govt builds the full metro (Macarthur - Airport - St Marys - Schofields) it would be a very good thing. But should it be a priority? Not even slightly. The way the Govt has gone about implementing metro has been flawed.

Firstly, the Bankstown line is one of the lesser used lines in Sydney. The only reason that they're converting it is because many suburbs served by it are Labor suburbs - it's simply an attempt to convert Labor voters to voting Liberal. An attempt, by the way, that has completely failed after Berejiklian's Covid response. There is a lot of resentment in these areas after seeing the difference between how they were treated vs. the Eastern Suburbs. The main selling point the Govt gives for Bankstown Line conversion is that it removes the T3 from the city circle, except that's a lie because it doesn't because they're re-introducing Liverpool to City Circle via Regents Park services (thus making the bottlenecks on the main suburban line worse).

Secondly, why on earth do they insist on building entirely new stations in the city? Pitt St station will be one city block from Town Hall and two from Museum. Why not just connect them? Keeping metro and suburban separate in places like Town Hall/Pitt St or Wynyard/Hunter St just causes confusion and makes interchange movements less efficient.

The way they've gone about the airport line is even worse. Their strategy for the St Marys connection is expensive, and inconvenient - any airport passenger will have to change trains and mix with commuters on one of the busiest train lines in Australia.

If it were me, I would extend the SWRL as an interim. Three new stations, less than 10km of double track. Yes, airport passengers would have to mix with commuters, but it'd be a hell of a lot cheaper to build, and it'd be a one-train journey. The main connection would come later - an extension of the Parramatta metro to Blacktown, before heading down to the airport. This extension would be build alongside the rest of the Parramatta metro, for the same 2030 opening date.

The St Marys - Airport link is basically a metro version of the Cumberland line. A great idea, sure, but is this really what we want to prioritise? Not at all.

 Instead of speaking in riddles, a little plain english would be helpful.

no cash or a metro stabling yard for your option ..

If you mean that the Federal Government would not make any contribution towards a SWRL extension to the Airport, then that's wrong.  The commitment was to jointly fund a rail link to the Airport, irrespective of what form it took.  There was no pre-condition that it had to be a North-South Rail Link or a metro.  The Federal Government's contribution (and the State's) for the SWRL extension would be half of what will be required for the St Marys metro link to provide a more immediate rail connection.  No one, least of all me, is suggesting that the St Marys link shouldn't be built, but it doesn't warrant the priority it's been given compared with the SWRL extension.  Obviously a metro stabling yard wouldn't be required until a metro line is built.  

There's no reason why the State couldn't apply for further joint funding with the Feds when a St Marys link and further extensions would be warranted.

Why on earth do they insist on building entirely new stations in the city? Pitt St station will be one city block from Town Hall and two from Museum. Why not just connect them? Keeping metro and suburban separate in places like Town Hall/Pitt St or Wynyard/Hunter St just causes confusion and makes interchange movements less efficient.

Before the metro came along, there was a longstanding proposal to build a new heavy rail link through the CBD and across the harbour to relieve congestion on the existing network.  There were two alternative alignments, Metro Pitt and Metro West (not related to a metro style service).  The metro took over the Metro Pitt alignment with a diversion through Barangaroo to the new harbour tunnel.

It wouldn't be practicable to build new platforms adjacent to the existing Town Hall or Wynyard Stations on the Metro Pitt corridor.  With regard to Town Hall, the original intention was to construct connecting underground pedestrian links between it and the Pitt St Station via the proposed Town Hall Square, but that has apparently now been dropped.  However, if and when the Town Hall Square proposal becomes a reality, there's no reason why these links couldn't be reinstated as well as links to Museum Station.  Wynyard Station will have connecting pedestrian links with the Barangaroo Metro Station via the existing Wynyard Walk.

The Martin Place Metro Station will be more closely integrated with the existing station, where the most interchange is likely to take place.

However, the proposed Hunter Street Station on Metro West is not ideally located.  There should be at least two Metro West Stations in the CBD and it appears that the Hunter St location was chosen as a compromise to reduce costs.  They should have chosen a station under Margaret St adjacent to Wynyard, which was the location on the original North West Metro, and which is much closer to Barangaroo for Metro West commuters.  Another Station should be located on the eastern side of the CBD near Martin Place or St James, which were also proposed for the North West Metro.

The way they've gone about the airport line is even worse. Their strategy for the St Marys connection is expensive, and inconvenient - any airport passenger will have to change trains and mix with commuters on one of the busiest train lines in Australia.

If it were me, I would extend the SWRL as an interim. Three new stations, less than 10km of double track. Yes, airport passengers would have to mix with commuters, but it'd be a hell of a lot cheaper to build, and it'd be a one-train journey. The main connection would come later - an extension of the Parramatta metro to Blacktown, before heading down to the airport. This extension would be build alongside the rest of the Parramatta metro, for the same 2030 opening date.

The St Marys - Airport link is basically a metro version of the Cumberland line. A great idea, sure, but is this really what we want to prioritise? Not at all.

As I keep banging on, the SWRL extension to the new airport is the most obvious and cheaper interim measure for a rail connection, before the broader western rail connections are warranted.  That doesn't make it any less justifiable.

The Western Sydney Rail Needs Scoping Study Outcomes Report is a fraudulent document which seeks to justify the acceptance of the Outer Western metro option as a first stage compared with the cheaper and more appropriate SWRL extension.  Infrastructure Australia called them out, but to their discredit, the Feds ignored their advice.  Another rort, for which taxpayers are liable, when a cheaper option in the short term is available?

The longer term extension of Metro West to WSA is unlikely to go via Blacktown, which is on a north-westerly alignment, compared with a more direct route to the south-west.  I don't think there's any chance that it would be built at the same time as Metro West, which would now appear to be pushing into the early 2030s.

A significant omission in the Outcomes Report in their assessment of the SWRL extension, was that no mention was made of its superior and more centrally located connection with the broader rail network compared with St Marys, nor importantly, providing a more direct and faster connection to the CBD without the need to interchange.  It could also provide a more direct interim connection with Liverpool and Parramatta via the Cumberland Line as well as to Campbelltown/Macarthur with an interchange at Glenfield.  The current upgrades to the existing network with digital signalling and ATO will significantly reduce journey times which would be equivalent to a metro service.  As a side benefit, there's also the prospect of directly connecting Sydney's two airports with the CBD.  Introducing an airport passenger friendly compatible SD service is not out of the question.

A major problem with the St Marys - Airport link, and its further extensions, is that it is introducing yet another incompatible sector on Sydney's rail network. The proposed North-South metro link will not be compatible with the current metro lines, as it will operate wider rolling stock and will be limited to 4 car trains, as will the station infrastructure.  Only 3 car trains will operate initially.  There will be no through running from Metro Northwest and interchange will ultimately be required at Schofields.

Just to throw a cat amongst the pigeons, I would advocate that the metro connections with the new airport be scrapped altogether and that the previously proposed SWRL extensions to St Marys and Narellan (and beyond) be reinstated.  This was always the intended scheme until the metro usurper came onto the scene.  The existing Rossmore stabling yard would service this sector and there would be no need for a separate metro stabling yard.  A continuous Cumberland Line circuit could be instigated connecting the Airport and Aerotropolis with Liverpool, Parramatta, Blacktown and St Marys, as well as a direct link with the existing Sydney Airport and the CBD.  What does it take to knock some sense into these neanderthals?

The existing Metro Northwest could ultimately be extended from Tallawong to St Marys for through services without the need to interchange at Schofields.

Great to see this project get the final green light.

Secondly, why on earth do they insist on building entirely new stations in the city? Pitt St station will be one city block from Town Hall and two from Museum. Why not just connect them? Keeping metro and suburban separate in places like Town Hall/Pitt St or Wynyard/Hunter St just causes confusion and makes interchange movements less efficient.

There is no room at Town Hall is why the Metro isn't being built there and Pitt street being one block away is a really good idea as it is pretty much in exactly the same place as Town Hall without having to disturb Town Hall station.

Hunter street from a naming perspective I think could be called Wynyard Metro but it is where it is because it essentially connects Wynyard with the Martin place metro station.

Both of these metro stations are actually quite well place and there will be an extension somewhere east of Hunter Street to St James station I suspect before heading somewhere else along the eastern suburbs.

Also why is this in NSW thread instead of Sydney?

The way they've gone about the airport line is even worse. Their strategy for the St Marys connection is expensive, and inconvenient - any airport passenger will have to change trains and mix with commuters on one of the busiest train lines in Australia.

If it were me, I would extend the SWRL as an interim. Three new stations, less than 10km of double track. Yes, airport passengers would have to mix with commuters, but it'd be a hell of a lot cheaper to build, and it'd be a one-train journey. The main connection would come later - an extension of the Parramatta metro to Blacktown, before heading down to the airport. This extension would be build alongside the rest of the Parramatta metro, for the same 2030 opening date.

The St Marys - Airport link is basically a metro version of the Cumberland line. A great idea, sure, but is this really what we want to prioritise? Not at all.

As I keep banging on, the SWRL extension to the new airport is the most obvious and cheaper interim measure for a rail connection, before the broader western rail connections are warranted.  That doesn't make it any less justifiable.

The Western Sydney Rail Needs Scoping Study Outcomes Report is a fraudulent document which seeks to justify the acceptance of the Outer Western metro option as a first stage compared with the cheaper and more appropriate SWRL extension.  Infrastructure Australia called them out, but to their discredit, the Feds ignored their advice.  Another rort, for which taxpayers are liable, when a cheaper option in the short term is available?

The longer term extension of Metro West to WSA is unlikely to go via Blacktown, which is on a north-westerly alignment, compared with a more direct route to the south-west.  I don't think there's any chance that it would be built at the same time as Metro West, which would now appear to be pushing into the early 2030s.

A significant omission in the Outcomes Report in their assessment of the SWRL extension, was that no mention was made of its superior and more centrally located connection with the broader rail network compared with St Marys, nor importantly, providing a more direct and faster connection to the CBD without the need to interchange.  It could also provide a more direct interim connection with Liverpool and Parramatta via the Cumberland Line as well as to Campbelltown/Macarthur with an interchange at Glenfield.  The current upgrades to the existing network with digital signalling and ATO will significantly reduce journey times which would be equivalent to a metro service.  As a side benefit, there's also the prospect of directly connecting Sydney's two airports with the CBD.  Introducing an airport passenger friendly compatible SD service is not out of the question.

A major problem with the St Marys - Airport link, and its further extensions, is that it is introducing yet another incompatible sector on Sydney's rail network. The proposed North-South metro link will not be compatible with the current metro lines, as it will operate wider rolling stock and will be limited to 4 car trains, as will the station infrastructure.  Only 3 car trains will operate initially.  There will be no through running from Metro Northwest and interchange will ultimately be required at Schofields.

Just to throw a cat amongst the pigeons, I would advocate that the metro connections with the new airport be scrapped altogether and that the previously proposed SWRL extensions to St Marys and Narellan (and beyond) be reinstated.  This was always the intended scheme until the metro usurper came onto the scene.  The existing Rossmore stabling yard would service this sector and there would be no need for a separate metro stabling yard.  A continuous Cumberland Line circuit could be instigated connecting the Airport and Aerotropolis with Liverpool, Parramatta, Blacktown and St Marys, as well as a direct link with the existing Sydney Airport and the CBD.  What does it take to knock some sense into these neanderthals?

The existing Metro Northwest could ultimately be extended from Tallawong to St Marys for through services without the need to interchange at Schofields.

I didn't realise they're using wider rolling stock, I thought it would just be 3 or 4 car versions of the TS Sets used on the Metro Northwest. That just makes the execution of the St Marys - Airport link even worse.

Secondly, why on earth do they insist on building entirely new stations in the city? Pitt St station will be one city block from Town Hall and two from Museum. Why not just connect them? Keeping metro and suburban separate in places like Town Hall/Pitt St or Wynyard/Hunter St just causes confusion and makes interchange movements less efficient.

There is no room at Town Hall is why the Metro isn't being built there and Pitt street being one block away is a really good idea as it is pretty much in exactly the same place as Town Hall without having to disturb Town Hall station.

Hunter street from a naming perspective I think could be called Wynyard Metro but it is where it is because it essentially connects Wynyard with the Martin place metro station.

Both of these metro stations are actually quite well place and there will be an extension somewhere east of Hunter Street to St James station I suspect before heading somewhere else along the eastern suburbs.

I don't have any issue with the location of Pitt St station, I just think it's really dumb to call it Pitt St station and keep it separate from Town Hall. Having it under Pitt St is fine, but why not build a tunnel between the two stations? Why not just call it Town Hall platforms 7/8? Making people head to street level to change trains between the metro and Town Hall just makes interchanging harder, when a simple tunnel between the two can solve the problem. Even if they want the two stations to be separate, the name Pitt St is just bad. Pitt St is 2.5km long, it stretches from Circular Quay to Central. "Pitt St Station" is the most unspecific station name in the CBD.

I believe the plan for the Metro West is to extend from Hunter St through Green Square/Waterloo, Randwick, Maroubra, Malabar to La Perouse by 2041. Plans also show a ferry link between La Perouse and Kurnell. You may be right that the metro could head through St James. I don't think it'd be possible to finally use those unused platforms and tunnels, I think the ESR tunnels are in the way

I don't have any issue with the location of Pitt St station, I just think it's really dumb to call it Pitt St station and keep it separate from Town Hall. Having it under Pitt St is fine, but why not build a tunnel between the two stations? Why not just call it Town Hall platforms 7/8? Making people head to street level to change trains between the metro and Town Hall just makes interchanging harder, when a simple tunnel between the two can solve the problem. Even if they want the two stations to be separate, the name Pitt St is just bad. Pitt St is 2.5km long, it stretches from Circular Quay to Central. "Pitt St Station" is the most unspecific station name in the CBD.

I believe the plan for the Metro West is to extend from Hunter St through Green Square/Waterloo, Randwick, Maroubra, Malabar to La Perouse by 2041. Plans also show a ferry link between La Perouse and Kurnell. You may be right that the metro could head through St James. I don't think it'd be possible to finally use those unused platforms and tunnels, I think the ESR tunnels are in the way

Actually I forgot it isn't Pitt Street station any more. It got renamed recently to Gadigal railway station. Also there isn't going to be a need to change at Gadigal since that is why Central station is being upgraded. If your coming from the north you just get off at Gadigal and if you want to go to Wynyard you can get off at either Martin place or Barrangaroo.

I wasn't aware they had renamed it. If anything, Gadigal is a far worse name. I'm all for naming new infrastructure after Indigenous names, but it's got to make sense. Naming trains, for example, works. The Tangaras, the Mariyungs, etc. Railway stations, however, are named after the location they serve - Chatswood serves Chatswood, Hurstville serves Hurstville, Martin Place is directly underneath Martin Place, and so on. If you pulled out a picture of the station on a map, there isn't a single Sydneysider who'd point to it and say it serves Gadigal. As much as Pitt St is a bad name because of how unspecific it is, at least the station is actually on Pitt St. Why couldn't they have just called it Park St, or named it after some landmark nearby, or even better, just called it Town Hall, given that it's basically a de-facto Town Hall station. Naming it Gadigal is just another way of confusing anyone who don't already know where the station is. I know it's a minor issue but it irrationally annoys me.

As for the naming I think you are correct. Things are done for certain reasons without actually thinking about the results of such decisions. Hunter street really is close enough to Wynyard that it could be called Wynyard Metro.

The way they've gone about the airport line is even worse. Their strategy for the St Marys connection is expensive, and inconvenient - any airport passenger will have to change trains and mix with commuters on one of the busiest train lines in Australia.

If it were me, I would extend the SWRL as an interim. Three new stations, less than 10km of double track. Yes, airport passengers would have to mix with commuters, but it'd be a hell of a lot cheaper to build, and it'd be a one-train journey. The main connection would come later - an extension of the Parramatta metro to Blacktown, before heading down to the airport. This extension would be build alongside the rest of the Parramatta metro, for the same 2030 opening date.

The St Marys - Airport link is basically a metro version of the Cumberland line. A great idea, sure, but is this really what we want to prioritise? Not at all.

A major problem with the St Marys - Airport link, and its further extensions, is that it is introducing yet another incompatible sector on Sydney's rail network. The proposed North-South metro link will not be compatible with the current metro lines, as it will operate wider rolling stock and will be limited to 4 car trains, as will the station infrastructure.  Only 3 car trains will operate initially.  There will be no through running from Metro Northwest and interchange will ultimately be required at Schofields.

Is a source available for this information?