Infrastructure NSW Report

 

Sponsored advertisement

  rrroLLa Chief Train Controller

Wollongong-Sydney 1 hour
Gosfird-Sydney 1 hour
Richmond-Sydney still 1 hour 25 minutes

But besides that looks better than the master plan
  unrailed Junior Train Controller

looks better than the master plan
"rrroLLa"


+1 just use the old 1970 time table and trains to fix the system. and hope for the best in 5 to 20 years time if the goverment can afford a fix. 
  bjwh86 Chief Train Controller

Interesting in table 8.1 how they want a rapid single deck system running from Strathfield and Bankstown to Chatswood on the existing lines.
And would have the Western, South and Northern lines run to the City Circle and connect with the Airport line.

That would take abit of reworking the lines around Redfern and Central.
  Blackadder Chief Commissioner

Location: Not the ECRL
Yawn another report to gather dust with the previous reports.
  abesty1 Chief Commissioner
  abesty1 Chief Commissioner
  abesty1 Chief Commissioner
  abesty1 Chief Commissioner
  bevans Site Admin

Location: Melbourne, Australia

Some extracts from the report:

10.3.2 Improving regional and interstate publictransport

Over the next 10 years, the XPT fleet used on long distance rail services will approach the end of its economic life. A decision will need to be taken on whether the substantial investment required for new rolling stock is justified given very low regional rail patronage, or whether alternative approaches should be a priority.

Alternatives could include greater use of coach services or service sharing on some routes with Great Southern Railway, a private sector operator of interstate passenger trains. These options may be more economically viable and could provide faster journey times.

The very limited role rail plays in regional transport leads Infrastructure NSW to conclude that the case for 
investment to reopen historic railways lines to passenger traffic will need careful assessment on a case by case 
basis and is unlikely to be viable in most cases.

Infrastructure NSW has not assessed any of these proposed projects due to the absence, at this stage, of 
sufficiently detailed business cases. Transport for NSW is currently assessing the proposed reopening of the 
Casino to Murwillumbah rail corridor.

and

10.3.4 Assessing the potential for high speed rail

The Commonwealth Government has been considering the potential to develop high speed rail services between 
Melbourne and Brisbane via Sydney. By definition, most of this infrastructure would be in NSW. 
Project proponents argue that high speed rail could transform connectivity along the east coast, open 
up regional areas for development and improve the productivity and competitiveness of Australias economy. 
The success of similar projects in Asia and Europe is often noted. This debate is not new. The Hawke 
Government considered the opportunities for a scheme in the 1980s.

The proposed scheme is expensive ($68 $108 billion). Operating costs (due to the long distances noted) would also be high, relative to air travel.

A commitment of this scale requires a high degree of certainty that it will achieve its identified objectives. To date, Infrastructure NSW believes the case has not been made as to why a rail option would provide such transformative benefits that it would compete with aviation, even with a heavy subsidy. High speed rail services are most competitive with short haul air travel where journey times are around three hours or below.

These journey times are challenging to achieve along the east coast using proven technology as the major capital cities are so far apart. By way of comparison, the distance from Paris to Lyon, one of the worlds most successful high speed services, is 465 kilometre, whereas the identified route from Sydney to Melbourne is 823 kilometre and that from Sydney to Brisbane 821 kilometre.

In addition, there is a trade off between offering faster end to end journey times, which implies fewer 
intermediate stops, and the achievement of the perceived regional economic benefits.

For these reasons, Infrastructure NSW does not see high speed rail as a priority for State investment over the 
next 20 years. Incremental improvements to the existing National Highway Network and intercity rail lines, reflecting 
our first things first approach, should take priority.

  bevans Site Admin

Location: Melbourne, Australia
They also recommend heavier vehicles for NSW roads.


10.6.3. Improving Road Freight Productivity

Road freight productivity is linked to vehicle size and the amount of weight that can be carried. Over the last 40
years, road freight productivity in Australia has more than doubled, although analysis by the Bureau of Infrastructure,
Transport and Regional Economics has shown that productivity growth has slowed in recent years.


Moving heavier, larger vehicles requires road networks that can support them. NSW has a number of gaps in its
High Mass Limits (HML) and High Productivity Vehicle (HPV) networks that can cause freight costs to be higher
in NSW than in some other States.While a significant proportion of the forward transport program is committed to major road upgrades, targeted minor projects need to be progressed also. In many cases, investments in ‘pinch point’ schemes can have very high returns because they can unlock constraints hindering HML and HPV movements along a whole corridor and the wider road network.

A network is only as strong as its weakest link. A constraint on one part of the NSW road network can reduce productivity across the whole network. A network-wide approach that takes account of the different types of freight movements and their transport requirements is therefore essential.

The traditional road hierarchy and boundaries between local government roads, state and federal roads appears
to have sometimes held up necessary investment by preventing any single entity adopting a network-wide view.
One option that has been suggested to reduce some of the most pressing physical constraints on the road
network is the Bridges to the Bush program. This project carries very high economic benefits at a relatively low cost.
Bridges to the Bush seeks to address constraints in the network by enabling the key corridors to take heavier
axle loads and longer vehicles by:

• implementing a programme to improve the mass limits of selected bridges throughout NSW to
increase the capacity of the road network to carry freight and HML vehicles on key freight corridors.
Currently 249 bridges have been assessed as unsuitable for HML B-double vehicles

• improving the condition, geometry and durability of regional road pavements.

The program aims to prioritise investment on the bridges and connecting infrastructure that will have greatest economic impact.

  abesty1 Chief Commissioner
  djf01 Chief Commissioner


Some extracts from the report:

10.3.2 Improving regional and interstate publictransport

Over the next 10 years, the XPT fleet used on long distance rail services will approach the end of its economic life....

and

10.3.4 Assessing the potential for high speed rail

... Infrastructure NSW does not see high speed rail as a priority for State investment over the next 20 years.
"bevans"


I know this is heresy - and not just because it shouldn't be in Sydney Suburban - but IMHO Greiner and his train hating cohorts have probably got it right on both these points.  

Regional rail is likely to go to RMs on mostly ARTC routes during the day.  NSW might get some new rail motors, it might not. 
  cootanee Chief Commissioner

Location: North of the border!

Some extracts from the report:

10.3.2 Improving regional and interstate publictransport

Over the next 10 years, the XPT fleet used on long distance rail services will approach the end of its economic life....

and

10.3.4 Assessing the potential for high speed rail

... Infrastructure NSW does not see high speed rail as a priority for State investment over the next 20 years.
"bevans"


I know this is heresy - and not just because it shouldn't be in Sydney Suburban - but IMHO Greiner and his train hating cohorts have probably got it right on both these points.

Regional rail is likely to go to RMs on mostly ARTC routes during the day. NSW might get some new rail motors, it might not.
"djf01"


That might kill off some Railpage freds too Wink
  abesty1 Chief Commissioner
  Watson374 Chief Commissioner

Location: Fully reclined at the pointy end.

Some extracts from the report:

10.3.2 Improving regional and interstate publictransport

Over the next 10 years, the XPT fleet used on long distance rail services will approach the end of its economic life....

and

10.3.4 Assessing the potential for high speed rail

... Infrastructure NSW does not see high speed rail as a priority for State investment over the next 20 years.
"bevans"


I know this is heresy - and not just because it shouldn't be in Sydney Suburban - but IMHO Greiner and his train hating cohorts have probably got it right on both these points.

Regional rail is likely to go to RMs on mostly ARTC routes during the day. NSW might get some new rail motors, it might not.
"djf01"


That might kill off some Railpage Australia freds too Wink
"cootanee"


I fully expect to see services culled in favour of more coaches. Suck on it.
  zoomwhoosh Station Master


Some extracts from the report:

10.3.2 Improving regional and interstate publictransport

Over the next 10 years, the XPT fleet used on long distance rail services will approach the end of its economic life....

and

10.3.4 Assessing the potential for high speed rail

... Infrastructure NSW does not see high speed rail as a priority for State investment over the next 20 years.
"bevans"


I know this is heresy - and not just because it shouldn't be in Sydney Suburban - but IMHO Greiner and his train hating cohorts have probably got it right on both these points.

Regional rail is likely to go to RMs on mostly ARTC routes during the day. NSW might get some new rail motors, it might not.
"djf01"


That might kill off some Railpage Australia freds too Wink
"cootanee"


I fully expect to see services culled in favour of more coaches. Suck on it.
"Watson374"


Greyhound, depart Sydney 7am, arrive Coffs Harbour 5:05pm
XPT, depart sydney 7:15am, arrive Coffs Harbour 4:05pm
  Watson374 Chief Commissioner

Location: Fully reclined at the pointy end.

Some extracts from the report:

10.3.2 Improving regional and interstate publictransport

Over the next 10 years, the XPT fleet used on long distance rail services will approach the end of its economic life....

and

10.3.4 Assessing the potential for high speed rail

... Infrastructure NSW does not see high speed rail as a priority for State investment over the next 20 years.
"bevans"


I know this is heresy - and not just because it shouldn't be in Sydney Suburban - but IMHO Greiner and his train hating cohorts have probably got it right on both these points.

Regional rail is likely to go to RMs on mostly ARTC routes during the day. NSW might get some new rail motors, it might not.
"djf01"


That might kill off some Railpage Australia freds too Wink
"cootanee"


I fully expect to see services culled in favour of more coaches. Suck on it.
"Watson374"


Greyhound, depart Sydney 7am, arrive Coffs Harbour 5:05pm
XPT, depart sydney 7:15am, arrive Coffs Harbour 4:05pm
"zoomwhoosh"


The North Coast may survive this round.

EDIT(APPEND): I'm a bit suss. They want to run 48 trains through the Circle during peak. That means running 24tph.
  zoomwhoosh Station Master


Some extracts from the report:

10.3.2 Improving regional and interstate publictransport

Over the next 10 years, the XPT fleet used on long distance rail services will approach the end of its economic life....

and

10.3.4 Assessing the potential for high speed rail

... Infrastructure NSW does not see high speed rail as a priority for State investment over the next 20 years.
"bevans"


I know this is heresy - and not just because it shouldn't be in Sydney Suburban - but IMHO Greiner and his train hating cohorts have probably got it right on both these points.

Regional rail is likely to go to RMs on mostly ARTC routes during the day. NSW might get some new rail motors, it might not.
"djf01"


That might kill off some Railpage Australia freds too Wink
"cootanee"


I fully expect to see services culled in favour of more coaches. Suck on it.
"Watson374"


Greyhound, depart Sydney 7am, arrive Coffs Harbour 5:05pm
XPT, depart sydney 7:15am, arrive Coffs Harbour 4:05pm
"zoomwhoosh"


The North Coast may survive this round.

EDIT(APPEND): I'm a bit suss. They want to run 48 trains through the Circle during peak. That means running 24tph.
"Watson374"


In all the arguments I've seen over how frequently you can run trains (or how close together) I've never seen a convincing, back to the laws of physics, proof of what the maximum number of trains per hour could be. It could easily be more than 30tph.
  Watson374 Chief Commissioner

Location: Fully reclined at the pointy end.
In all the arguments I've seen over how frequently you can run trains (or how close together) I've never seen a convincing, back to the laws of physics, proof of what the maximum number of trains per hour could be. It could easily be more than 30tph.
"zoomwhoosh"


It is perfectly possible to run as many as 36tph. The problems in Sydney include dwell time elevation due to sub-optimal entry/egress channels, apparently-sluggish rolling stock, etc. etc. My understanding is that the various limitations imposed by the unique Sydney system essentially limits us to 24tph.

I'll go dig up the 2010 SMH report - it has something about this.
  zoomwhoosh Station Master

In all the arguments I've seen over how frequently you can run trains (or how close together) I've never seen a convincing, back to the laws of physics, proof of what the maximum number of trains per hour could be. It could easily be more than 30tph.
"zoomwhoosh"


It is perfectly possible to run as many as 36tph. The problems in Sydney include dwell time elevation due to sub-optimal entry/egress channels, apparently-sluggish rolling stock, etc. etc. My understanding is that the various limitations imposed by the unique Sydney system essentially limits us to 24tph.

I'll go dig up the 2010 SMH report - it has something about this.
"Watson374"


The SMH Independent Transport Inquiry? I have a copy somewhere buried. The original web site seems to be gone. 

I do recall somewhere in that report there was a technical sidebar that went into the merits of "metro" versus other styles.. and talked about acceleration, dwell times etc. But frankly I didn't find its argument totally convincing - it seemed to take too much for granted parameters that are simply features of present train sets etc. 

I recently had the experience of spending a month in London and gee whiz (apart from it being too cosy and the aircon being all but useless) they do run a good train service. And one thing that really gets you is just how quickly the load/unload trains. That and how well those things accelerate. 
  Watson374 Chief Commissioner

Location: Fully reclined at the pointy end.
The SMH Independent Transport Inquiry? I have a copy somewhere buried. The original web site seems to be gone.
"zoomwhoosh"


The last time I checked it, the core site was there but the internal links were dead.

I do recall somewhere in that report there was a technical sidebar that went into the merits of "metro" versus other styles.. and talked about acceleration, dwell times etc. But frankly I didn't find its argument totally convincing - it seemed to take too much for granted parameters that are simply features of present train sets etc.
"zoomwhoosh"


Quite so. It was Appendix 3.

I did walk away from it slightly unconvinced, and I'm still edging towards the 7RER concept train (feel free to ask what it is) I've promoted so many time it's not funny anymore - they're right that we have the best seating capacity for size, but certain things have to be tweaked.

I recently had the experience of spending a month in London and gee whiz (apart from it being too cosy and the aircon being all but useless) they do run a good train service. And one thing that really gets you is just how quickly the load/unload trains. That and how well those things accelerate.
"zoomwhoosh"


There are good reasons for LU trains to have superior performance in those two parameters. They're smaller and lighter (hence superior acceleration) and have more doors for less floor area (hence faster passenger exchange). The downside is that they're not especially seat-dense or comfortable.
  zoomwhoosh Station Master

The SMH Independent Transport Inquiry? I have a copy somewhere buried. The original web site seems to be gone.
"zoomwhoosh"


The last time I checked it, the core site was there but the internal links were dead.

I do recall somewhere in that report there was a technical sidebar that went into the merits of "metro" versus other styles.. and talked about acceleration, dwell times etc. But frankly I didn't find its argument totally convincing - it seemed to take too much for granted parameters that are simply features of present train sets etc.
"zoomwhoosh"


Quite so. It was Appendix 3.

I did walk away from it slightly unconvinced, and I'm still edging towards the 7RER concept train (feel free to ask what it is) I've promoted so many time it's not funny anymore - they're right that we have the best seating capacity for size, but certain things have to be tweaked.

I recently had the experience of spending a month in London and gee whiz (apart from it being too cosy and the aircon being all but useless) they do run a good train service. And one thing that really gets you is just how quickly the load/unload trains. That and how well those things accelerate.
"zoomwhoosh"


There are good reasons for LU trains to have superior performance in those two parameters. They're smaller and lighter (hence superior acceleration) and have more doors for less floor area (hence faster passenger exchange). The downside is that they're not especially seat-dense or comfortable.
"Watson374"



Ok, I'll bite.. 7RER? 
  Watson374 Chief Commissioner

Location: Fully reclined at the pointy end.
Ok, I'll bite.. 7RER?
"zoomwhoosh"


You have a PM!
  djf01 Chief Commissioner


I do recall somewhere in that report there was a technical sidebar that went into the merits of "metro" versus other styles.. and talked about acceleration, dwell times etc. But frankly I didn't find its argument totally convincing - it seemed to take too much for granted parameters that are simply features of present train sets etc.
"zoomwhoosh"

In a two words, the analysis presented in the INSW report is: "complete bunk". 

You have to remember the authors of the report have a privatization agenda, and are looking to emulate the HK MTR on the presumption it's profitability and patronage is all down to the shape of the trains.   There is also a presumption (that is partly true, but only partly), that the inefficiencies of CityRail are all down to the unions, and if they get rid of the staff (by converting trains to fully automated operations) they will solve the cost effectiveness problems. 

IMHO, the proposed handling of HR in the INSW report is unworkable.  They are essentially proposing to converge the Richmond, Western & Northern Lines (already overloaded) with the main south into a single track pair to run through the western arm of the City Circle.  It's a variation of the Dick Day plan, without the Western Express relief line.



Sponsored advertisement

Subscribers: boxythingy, RTT_Rules

Display from:   

Quick Reply

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