Wolli Creek 'deficiency'

 
  CMYK Banned

Location: Banned
According to the Wikipedia article on Wolli Creek station:

A perceived deficiency of the station is that there is only one island platform on the four track section of the Illawarra line, meaning that peak hour services using the 'Illawarra local' tracks have no means to stop at Wolli Creek. Also, trains from the East Hills line travelling on to Tempe and Sydenham have no platforms at which to stop at Wolli Creek. This deficiency has been identified by Railcorp, and there are long term plans to construct additional platforms at Wolli Creek to enable better interchange of services.


By way of reference, the wikipedia page provides a dead link to a TIDC document which I cannot find on the TIDC website.

Can anyone provide any more details? Does anyone know if there are any plans to upgrade Wolli Creek station to enable trains on all lines that pass through to stop there?

Thanks.

Sponsored advertisement

  aamslfc Deputy Commissioner

I've looked and I don't think there are any plans to change Wolli Creek, and rightly so.

Trains can already access the Wolli Creek platforms from the Locals (thanks to crossovers a few hundred metres to both the north and south), and the majority of services already use these.

The majority of Illawarra services (even in the peak periods) stop at Wolli Creek, regardless of whether they use the Mains (Expresses to/from Sutho/Waterfall/Cronulla) or the Locals (All-stoppers to/from Hurstville).

Furthermore, most Illawarra services end up switching onto the Mains north of Wolli Creek anyway, given that much of the capacity on the Locals north of WC is required for East Hills and Bankstown/Liverpool/Lidcombe services.

As for East Hills services requiring a stop at Wolli Creek, all East Hills services (with the expection of a few peak hour runs) stop at Wolli Creek anyway, and to be honest, it seems pointless to spend money and time and effort building extra infrastructure just for the convenience of a handful of peak hour services (6 in the morning, 8 in the evening).

Also, it'd be almost impossible extending the station concourse and creating the extra space required for the new infrastructure (not to mention disruptive as well).

If there were plans, then they've most probably been (sensibly) scrapped Smile
  Crazy-D Chief Train Controller

Umm, what about the future then?

What is going to happen then when the Campbelltown express is implemented and the services instead go via Sydenham? The future needs to be thought of, not the present...

Wasn't that also a factor in the defficiency?
  aamslfc Deputy Commissioner

Umm, what about the future then?

What is going to happen then when the Campbelltown express is implemented and the services instead go via Sydenham? The future needs to be thought of, not the present...

Wasn't that also a factor in the defficiency?
"Crazy-D"


The Campbelltown express? Some already go express via Sydenham (unless you mean all services will go express, which doesn't seem likely with the Airport Line contract the way it is)

The problem is, if you want to modify Wolli Creek in the future, it is going to be extremely difficult, disruptive and costly. You'd have to move the Local tracks, throw in an extra island platform, extend the concourse (to god knows where), shift the Up/Down East Hills Mains, and maybe strengthen the bits over the NSR portal.

But if they were considering doing this, that leads to the question of why they didn't do this when they were making the thing in the first place (but that's another issue altogether).

It would probably be better having the deficiency - it's not asking much of people to change trains at either Sydenham or East Hills or any other station anyway, and if they can do it now then they can do it in the future (mind you, isn't Wolli Creek completely residential anyway?)
  Crazy-D Chief Train Controller

The Campbelltown express? Some already go express via Sydenham (unless you mean all services will go express, which doesn't seem likely with the Airport Line contract the way it is)
"aamslfc"

I mean just that, when most or all(?) will go via Sydenham as part of the Clearways project when the Revesby turnback and the Kingsgrove - Revesby quadruplication is complete.
  Damien Assistant Commissioner

Location: Penrith South, NSW
The extra two platforms at Wolli Creek could very well be justified, for several reasons.

If there is an emergency somewhere on the Illawarra current Wolli Creek station is currently the only station that must be avoided this has happened on a number of occasions with fatalities and other issues at Tempe.

The increasing growth may someday mean that Wolli Creek will be required as a stop on the Campbelltown Express route, if the platforms need to be built at a later date it would be very disruptive where as at the current time there are minimal services that actually go this way and therefore minimal disruption would occur.

It would allow the intercity trains that currently stop at Wolli Creek to get around the all stations at an earlier point provided that there is a path that doesn't disaggree with the Campbelltown express route which at this time quite frequent. It would make a more flexible network in time of large delays.

If the entire line through Sydenham were shut in an emergency it would provide additional termination points and places to hold trains, allow more Illawarra trains to be emptied out at Wolli Creek faster so passengers may board airport trains into the city, this of course is provided that the point work allows this.

On Weekends it would be possible to shut the Illawarra Line from Hurstville to Erskineville with next to no affect on services.

There's probably plenty of other reasons for them to put in two additional platforms, but in a time where the network continues to become over simplified to the point where in an emergency the whole line just has to shut down, it's good to see that they may be putting in new ways of getting around problems.
  Oldfart Chief Commissioner

Location: Right base for BK 11R
The Campbelltown express? Some already go express via Sydenham (unless you mean all services will go express, which doesn't seem likely with the Airport Line contract the way it is)
"aamslfc"

I mean just that, when most or all(?) will go via Sydenham as part of the Clearways project when the Revesby turnback and the Kingsgrove - Revesby quadruplication is complete.
"Crazy-D"


I have a hard copy of a TIDC industry briefing that has additional platforms slated for Wolli Ck in 2012. Check a copy of the State Plan; it might also be in there. It's not part of Clearways and doubt it's been specifically funded as yet, but it is on the books for about the same time as the grade separation at cabra, SW Link, and extra tracks St Marys to Penrith and Hurstville to Sutherland.

As indicated by some above, it is in connection with the much greater use of the Campbelltown Express lines proposed once the quading to Revesby turnback is done.
  CMYK Banned

Location: Banned
I have a hard copy of a TIDC industry briefing that has additional platforms slated for Wolli Ck in 2012. Check a copy of the State Plan; it might also be in there. It's not part of Clearways and doubt it's been specifically funded as yet, but it is on the books for about the same time as the grade separation at cabra, SW Link, and extra tracks St Marys to Penrith and Hurstville to Sutherland.

As indicated by some above, it is in connection with the much greater use of the Campbelltown Express lines proposed once the quading to Revesby turnback is done.
"Oldfart"

So it's not just in the imagination of a Wikipedia contributor that the government is planning to improve Wolli Creek.

It seems to me that once all of the Campbelltown express related works are completed (including the extra tracks from Sydenham to Erskineville) then an expanded Wolli creek could become a pretty important interchange station. The following services could stop there:
- Express to/from Cambelltown via Redfern
- All stations to/from Revesby via Airport
- All Illawarra services
- Some south coast services.

Apparently Green Square will be an employment hub for 20,000+ workers, presumably it makes sense for people traveling to Green Square from the south and south-west to change at Wolli Creek rather than backtrack from Central.

The trade-off I guess will be that Sydenham will lose its status as a major interchange, and as a consequence lose some of the services that currently stop there. With Wolli Creek a fully fledged interchange, there wouldn't be much point in the fast services to Cambelltown and Sutherland stopping there. I would imagine that a "downgraded" Sydenham would only get Bankstown and the slow services to Hurstville. For passengers joining the network from Sydenham this is no great loss - it's still 11 trains in the morning peak. The only passengers this would suck for are Bankstown line commuters who change at Sydenham in order to travel to destinations on the Illawarra line (and vice versa for Illawarra to Bankstown line transfers. Due to the geography of the Bankstown & East Hills lines, I'm assuming that it doesn't make sense for too many Bankstown line passengers to change at Sydenham for an East Hills bound service.

Despite the high density development, I seriously doubt that the point of an expanded Wolli Creek station is to provide extra capacity for locals. But the expansion certainly makes sense from the point of view of creating a major interchange station in the inner south.

Is there any chance that the plans to upgrade Wolli Creek are linked with the second harbour crossing that has now been scrapped? I remember seeing an animation of services from Rouse Hill, through Epping, North Ryde, Chatswood, Crows Nest, (new harbour crossing), (new southern railway), Wolli Creek, Cambelltown. Might the expansion of Wolli Creek made more sense had this expansion gone ahead and not be worthwhile anymore?
  FieldShunt74 Chief Commissioner

I think the elephant in the room here is Tempe. I you were to add a platform at Wolli on the Illa locals, accessible to the East Hills line, it would currently seem to want to have it's southern end in the vicinity of the northern end of the Illa main platform. I don't see that as much of a problem in itself, staggered platforms are not unheard of. This would, however, put the Illa local platform over the Cooks R. bridge and butt it up to the existing platform at Tempe.

Why keep Tempe at all? It's only a couple of hundred metres from Wolli. The river to the south forms at natural barrier to it's passenger catchment. It's level of service is much lower than Wolli's. Providing pedestrian access between Wolli and Tempe would improve the transport options for everyone in the area. Those game for a three minute stroll over the river get access to more services and different lines. Prior to the eventual building of a Wolli Illa local platform, platforms 1 & 2 at Tempe could provide virtually the same amenity. Once that new Wolli platform is in, you could shut Tempe all together.

All you need is a nice, broad, covered walkway over the river, linking the two stations.
  Simes_mk2 Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney
From what I recall, there is or was a plan to build platforms either side of the airport line's dive, I guess this hinges on the 2 extra tracks between Sydneham and Redfern (plus the new CBD rail line) since if that were to happen, all the Macarthur services would use the East Hills mainline and all the Revesby services use the local tracks in the centre, whereas, as it stands now the Macarthur services use both main and local tracks....
If they don't follow through on the clearways projects, then these extra platforms may not happen.

As a side, don't all the Illawarra services use the tracks served by the present platform at Wolli Creek ? Again wouldn't this continue to be the case if the Campbelltown via Sydneham option was a full time arrangement?
  FieldShunt74 Chief Commissioner

As a side, don't all the Illawarra services use the tracks served by the present platform at Wolli Creek ? Again wouldn't this continue to be the case if the Campbelltown via Sydneham option was a full time arrangement?
"Simes_mk2"


Generally speaking, yes they do. They have to squeeze back onto the Illawarra mains at some point anyway and stopping at Wolli is as good a reason as any to do it there. The headaches only really start when the Illa mains through Wolli and Tempe are unavailable. Trains can still run on the locals and cross over before or after Sydenham, but Wolli is going to get missed. If they had my pedestrian bridge, they could use Tempe instead of running buses from Sydenham as they do now.
  CMYK Banned

Location: Banned
I think the elephant in the room here is Tempe. I you were to add a platform at Wolli on the Illa locals, accessible to the East Hills line, it would currently seem to want to have it's southern end in the vicinity of the northern end of the Illa main platform. I don't see that as much of a problem in itself, staggered platforms are not unheard of. This would, however, put the Illa local platform over the Cooks R. bridge and butt it up to the existing platform at Tempe.

Why keep Tempe at all? It's only a couple of hundred metres from Wolli. The river to the south forms at natural barrier to it's passenger catchment. It's level of service is much lower than Wolli's. Providing pedestrian access between Wolli and Tempe would improve the transport options for everyone in the area. Those game for a three minute stroll over the river get access to more services and different lines. Prior to the eventual building of a Wolli Illa local platform, platforms 1 & 2 at Tempe could provide virtually the same amenity. Once that new Wolli platform is in, you could shut Tempe all together.

All you need is a nice, broad, covered walkway over the river, linking the two stations.
"FieldShunt74"

I agree. If Wolli Creek were extended in this manner, it would be hard to argue to keep Tempe open. Locals could probably lobby for the car parking spaces at Tempe station to be retained and potentially expanded, and perhaps also better access from Undercliffe.

Having said that, I can imagine an expansion to Wolli Creek that involves 4 new platforms rather than 2 - a pair of platforms for the Cambelltown express services and a pair for the Illawarra services that currently cannot stop at Wolli Creek. This would increase capacity, would it not? If a Cambelltown service is following an Illawarra service on the easternmost pair of tracks, the latter service could crawl alongside the platform while the former dwells at the station. Under the platform-near-Tempe suggestion, this would not be possible. Just a thought.
  TE2815 Minister for Railways

Location: Mission control Minto or Thirlmere
Just to put another option into the equation. If two additional platforms were constructed at Wolli Creek on the East Hills Line then the Southern Highands services (the few that there are) running to Sydney could stop there to provide an Airport Line connection. Rather than passengers changing at Macarthur/Campbelltown or Sydney the travelling back.


I'll come back to reality now Wink
  CMYK Banned

Location: Banned
Just to put another option into the equation. If two additional platforms were constructed at Wolli Creek on the East Hills Line then the Southern Highands services (the few that there are) running to Sydney could stop there to provide an Airport Line connection. Rather than passengers changing at Macarthur/Campbelltown or Sydney the travelling back.


I'll come back to reality now Wink
"TE2815"

This is an excellent point actually.

Which reminds me - presumably the bulk of services to Leppington will go via the Campbelltown express line. I have heard talk in the past (on here perhaps) that the NSW government has in the past acknowledged the possibility of electrification as far south as Picton (although I wouldn't hold my breath for that one anytime soon).
  TE2815 Minister for Railways

Location: Mission control Minto or Thirlmere
>>>SNIP>>>>I have heard talk in the past (on here perhaps) that the NSW government has in the past acknowledged the possibility of electrification as far south as Picton (although I wouldn't hold my breath for that one anytime soon).
"CMYK"
Electrification was mooted several times to Tahmoor Colliery for Coal Traffic. This would have permitted Electric Passenger Running to Picton. The main problem has always been the tunnels, then when the Coal started running out of Inner Harbour via Moss Vale instead of from Rozelle or Enfield the idea died a natural death.
  Oldfart Chief Commissioner

Location: Right base for BK 11R

Which reminds me - presumably the bulk of services to Leppington will go via the Campbelltown express line.
"CMYK"


Depends what you believe.

If you take the Clearways concept at face value, then the separate Clearways lines would operate separately from each other. That suggests Leppington would supply services for the South Line, Macarthur the services for the Campbelltown express line (with cross-platform passenger changing at Glenfield), and Airport services would start at Revesby.

However, The SW Link promo bumpf says it will provide services to both the South Line and the East Hills line (old speak), but is vague about whether the latter is via Airport or Sydenham or both. If so, that would mean a mix of via East Hills and South line services would probably also originate from Mac/C'town. So much for "keeping operations on the various Clearways separate so that a delay on one does not cause a delay on another".
  CMYK Banned

Location: Banned

Which reminds me - presumably the bulk of services to Leppington will go via the Campbelltown express line.
"CMYK"


Depends what you believe.

If you take the Clearways concept at face value, then the separate Clearways lines would operate separately from each other. That suggests Leppington would supply services for the South Line, Macarthur the services for the Campbelltown express line (with cross-platform passenger changing at Glenfield), and Airport services would start at Revesby.

However, The SW Link promo bumpf says it will provide services to both the South Line and the East Hills line (old speak), but is vague about whether the latter is via Airport or Sydenham or both. If so, that would mean a mix of via East Hills and South line services would probably also originate from Mac/C'town. So much for "keeping operations on the various Clearways separate so that a delay on one does not cause a delay on another".
"Oldfart"

I wouldn't bother too much with the Clearways marketing hype. A more honest slogan would probably be: "doing what we would've done in 1997 if Sydney hadn't hosted the Olympics".

In any case, I'm assuming that the primary function of the line to Leppington is to carry passengers to the CBD, and a secondary role would be to transport passengers to smaller employment hubs such as Liverpool, Bankstown, and Parramatta. A cursory glance of the timetables tells me that it takes 40 minutes for a fast service from Glenfield to reach Central via Sydenham, 59 minutes via Granville, and 66 minutes via Regent's Park. I don't know about you, but if I were a Leppington commuter, I wouldn't be all that happy about going any way other than via Sydnenham. And I probably wouldn't be too happy about having to change at Glenfield either for a more direct service. So one would hope that the plan is to run the majority of the services via Sydenham. It certainly feels like there are enough capacity enhancement projects occurring on the East Hills line for this to be a possibility. Did I hear correctly that the decision on the extra tracks between Erskineville and Sydenham has been deferred for further study?

Another thought occurred to me however - how many cars are the peak hour southern highlands services? How well respected is the 'd' stop at Cambelltown? I mean you can just imagine a few hundred passengers trying to cram aboard a three car endeavour via the narrow doors - must do wonders for on-time running.
  Oldfart Chief Commissioner

Location: Right base for BK 11R

I wouldn't bother too much with the Clearways marketing hype. A more honest slogan would probably be: "doing what we would've done in 1997 if Sydney hadn't hosted the Olympics".
"CMYK"


Too true. LOL.

I expect Leppington will provide a mix of services, because of the expectations you mention. Personally I'd prefer to get the community used to single line operations with station transfers, as it makes it easier for the system to be more robust and reliable. Ultimately the big limitation is the City Circle. All C'town, Airport, SW Link, South and Bankstown services need to go through it, so it sets the upper limit for the overall combination (20 tph each way) unless you construct a CBD Link (or at least a new stub into the CBD) or send supplementary services to Sydney Terminal (wouldn't that be popular!) if there's platforms and paths available.

I've never actually seen a Central bound DMU stop at Campbelltown, so I don't know if people attempt to board it, or whether it's a 2 or 4 car set (maybe 2 from Goulburn, with another 2 attached at MV - TE 2815 will be the expert on that stuff). The only morning Highlands DMU service that goes into Central, rather than terminating at Campbelltown, is the 7.24 out of Goulburn. It doesn't get to Campbelltown until about 9.30, so the peak is over by then.

I have caught one at Glenfield in the afternoon to go to Bowral, but I noticed they didn't display it on the board, probably to discourage people catching it to Campbelltown. Plus, it ran just behind an all-stopper EMU, so no real advantage in journey time.
  Crazy-D Chief Train Controller

I have caught one at Glenfield in the afternoon to go to Bowral, but I noticed they didn't display it on the board, probably to discourage people catching it to Campbelltown. Plus, it ran just behind an all-stopper EMU, so no real advantage in journey time.
"Oldfart"

Recently when I was there the announcer didn't even mention a stop at Campbelltown, instead it was first stop Macarthur, then all to Moss Vale.

I guess that keeps the Campbelltown people off.
  drwaddles In need of a breath mint

Location: Newcastle
if I were a Leppington commuter, I wouldn't be all that happy about going any way other than via Sydnenham. And I probably wouldn't be too happy about having to change at Glenfield either for a more direct service.
"CMYK"


Trying to provide single seat journeys is extremely wasteful and limits what you an achieve with any given network.

If the services are frequent there should be no reason for complaining about changing trains at Glenfield, given there is no cost penalty and the interchange is relatively effortless.
  TE2815 Minister for Railways

Location: Mission control Minto or Thirlmere
I have caught one at Glenfield in the afternoon to go to Bowral, but I noticed they didn't display it on the board, probably to discourage people catching it to Campbelltown. Plus, it ran just behind an all-stopper EMU, so no real advantage in journey time.
"Oldfart"

Recently when I was there the announcer didn't even mention a stop at Campbelltown, instead it was first stop Macarthur, then all to Moss Vale.

I guess that keeps the Campbelltown people off.
"Crazy-D"
That is correct. The Southern Highlands services from Sydney (limited that they are Mad ) are for Southern Highlands passengers. As the first set down location is Macarthur (I think it should be Menangle Park myself) that is the first station indicated or announced.

And for Oldfart, the 4 car of which you speak is 4 cars from Goulburn. They do stop at Campbelltown, announced as "This train does not pick up", yet people do still try to board. At least that was the early morning one that now terminates at Campbelltown they used to try and board.
  drwaddles In need of a breath mint

Location: Newcastle
The reason they stop at Macarthur is to allow people to change from suburban services to the Highlands services instead of backtracking to Central.

So eliminating all stops in the electrified network is a stupid idea.
  TE2815 Minister for Railways

Location: Mission control Minto or Thirlmere
You misunderstood my post doc.

As the first set down location is Macarthur (I think it should be Menangle Park myself) that is the first station indicated or announced.
"I"
I was referring to the setting down off South Bound Endeavours at Macarthur. Pick ups at Campbelltown and Macarthur are no problem.

At Sydney Terminal, for example, even though the service stops at Glenfield and Campbelltown to pick up passengers it is shown as First stop Macarthur. If it were first stop Menangle Park then there would be no suburban setdowns off this Intercity service even though it would stop at Glenfield, Campbelltown and Macarthur to pick up.
  drwaddles In need of a breath mint

Location: Newcastle
Sorry TE2815 Embarassed

And I agree. Smile
  Ashjayeen13 Station Master

Location: Brisbane, Australia
Just adding on to the conversation and posing a question - if a new island platform is built, what will the platform numbers be? If they are 5 and 6, then the platforms will be numbered (west to east) 5, 6, 3, 4, 1, 2, which is crazy.

TL;DR - There is no way to number the platforms "normally" without renumbering the platforms.

I know that they don't change platform numbers when new platforms in odd places are built (e.g. Lidcombe has platforms 0 - 5 rather than 1 - 6, and Homebush has platforms 2 - 7 instead of platforms 1 - 6), so they usually go backwards.

But here what will they do? There is no choice but to renumber everything (unless they're fine with 5, 6, 3, 4, 1, 2). This wouldn't have been so weird if the T4 platforms were platforms 1 and 2, in which case (though, this is still really weird anyway, but at least organised) the platforms would be arranged (again, from west to east) as -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4.

This part is a joke, but what if they numbered the new platforms 2.33 and 2.67 as they were between platforms 2 and 3. Or how about just rage-quitting and switching to platforms A, B, C, D, E, and F (obviously, no).

But seriously, I think the station would be renumbered, with the new T2 East Hills Line platforms and the T2 Airport Line platforms switching numbers (1 and 2  5 and 6)

And yes, I definitely think Tempe station is completely unnecessary. If it is "too expensive" (haha sure...) to demolish the station, then those platforms could be numbered 7, 8, 9 and 10 instead of 1, 2, 3 and 4. [Or, maybe this: -2, -3, -4, -5]

Sponsored advertisement

Subscribers: Ashjayeen13, RTT_Rules, TomBTR

Display from:   

Quick Reply

We've disabled Quick Reply for this thread as it was last updated more than six months ago.