Improving the cost efficiency of Sydney Trains operations

 
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

If the Bankstown Line metro conversion doesn't proceed under a Labor Government, then a complementary project should be to reinstate the Liverpool via Regents Park service with sextuplication between Homebush and Lidcombe, which can potentially provide a faster service from Liverpool to the CBD than via Bankstown.  This would also allow reinstatement of the continuous loop from the City Circle to and from Bankstown via Strathfield and Lidcombe.

This needs to happen regardless of what happens with the Bankstown metro. Along with a cdb relief line or any other new rail line through the cbd. These are the 2 options that could make Sydney trains more cost effective.
And this is the problem with the Western Metro.

The Western Metro basically needs to remove nearly all of the traffic on the middle pair of tracks apart from North Main so the services via Lidcombe and Granville and Inner West can all expand. If the bulk of the Western line trains don't disappear, then you need a 5th pair of tracks.
RTT_Rules
The metro west does none of those things since it will be built on a new alignment. It removes not a single western line service from the main trunk routes.

Sponsored advertisement

  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
If the Bankstown Line metro conversion doesn't proceed under a Labor Government, then a complementary project should be to reinstate the Liverpool via Regents Park service with sextuplication between Homebush and Lidcombe, which can potentially provide a faster service from Liverpool to the CBD than via Bankstown.  This would also allow reinstatement of the continuous loop from the City Circle to and from Bankstown via Strathfield and Lidcombe.

This needs to happen regardless of what happens with the Bankstown metro. Along with a cdb relief line or any other new rail line through the cbd. These are the 2 options that could make Sydney trains more cost effective.
And this is the problem with the Western Metro.

The Western Metro basically needs to remove nearly all of the traffic on the middle pair of tracks apart from North Main so the services via Lidcombe and Granville and Inner West can all expand. If the bulk of the Western line trains don't disappear, then you need a 5th pair of tracks.
The metro west does none of those things since it will be built on a new alignment. It removes not a single western line service from the main trunk routes.
simstrain
Yes and No, the start and finish is in the same location + Straithfield, so its basically duplicating the Western express services plus adding additional stops away from current rail.

Anyway, this there lies the issue with Western Metro (wouldn't matter if it was Western DD technology line in same location as Western Metro). All this money and no improvement to existing corridor, well I expect there to be less Western Express services.
  Transtopic Deputy Commissioner

Location: Sydney
In an ideal world, services from Liverpool via Regents Park, Liverpool via Granville, Penrith/Richmond and Hornsby should all have express paths from at least Burwood to Redfern, as they used to in a bygone era when services weren't as frequent.  However, with only the Western Main and Suburban available for express running (leaving aside the Local for all stops), there's insufficient capacity to handle that load, without further amplification. There's also the issue of the lack of additional lines through the CBD.  It just demonstrates how governments of both persuasions have been negligent in adding capacity to the rail network over decades.  

The easy option is to run more suburban services into Sydney Terminal, but that just inconveniences commuters by forcing them to change to reach northern CBD destinations and at the same time creates more congestion on the interchange platforms.  The Metro West alone isn't going to resolve this, as it will basically be servicing a new rail corridor.  Expecting commuters on the Western Line to interchange to Metro West at Westmead or Parramatta is a flawed strategy.
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

metro west is not stopping anywhere near strathfield RTT. It will be stopping to the north at concord west most likely. Unless it goes further west then westmead it does nothing to relieve congestion on the western line since most western line trains are full before they reach parramatta during morning peak hour. What metro west will do is provide passengers at parramatta with a new service that isn't full. Interchanging isn't going to happen since metro west is likely to only be a few minutes quicker then the express trains.

https://www.sydneymetro.info/files/west-map
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

I took the kids for a train and ferry ride this past school holidays, on the Rivercat up to Olympic Park and back by train.  I haven't been up the river for more than a decade, and it was something of an eye opener for me.

In particular, the mass of 10 story high density housing at Wentworth Point, largely either unfinished or only partially occupied - so far.

The Bays precinct, and the still undeveloped land near Homebush Bay is clearly planned to be of such high density that it will need substantial infrastructure to support it.  The roads they are built near certainly aren't going to be enough.  No surface transport (bar ferry) corridors have been preserved for these sites.  

I can't help but get the feeling the Western Metro is *entirely* about boosting the value of these developments.

The problem is, with just a few exceptions, much of the rest of the proposed Western Metro is through legacy low density housing, often heritage housing, with only limited opportunity for redevelopment.  

So I think the business case (for what is by any standard a long metro) will need to include a substantial rapid transit patronage.  Without it, the Western Metro just won't pass through enough greenfields redevelopment sites, at least one people will want to re-develop (ie not next to Silverwater prison).

And for this to happen, they need to ensure the problems with the existing heavy rail western corridor, and there are many, are *not* fixed.

The irony is The Bays is being built on top of legacy rail infrastructure, and is already served by a rail line (Dulwhich Hill Light rail).

I'm starting to "see the light" with this extend the Inner West line to Olympic Park idea.  It's 2000m of new track with a flyunder, to serve Olympic Park.  A 1500m branch extension of the DH LRT system.  Two modest projects in stead of a 26km metro that needs to cannibalise existing rail traffic to be viable.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
I took the kids for a train and ferry ride this past school holidays, on the Rivercat up to Olympic Park and back by train.  I haven't been up the river for more than a decade, and it was something of an eye opener for me.

In particular, the mass of 10 story high density housing at Wentworth Point, largely either unfinished or only partially occupied - so far.

The Bays precinct, and the still undeveloped land near Homebush Bay is clearly planned to be of such high density that it will need substantial infrastructure to support it.  The roads they are built near certainly aren't going to be enough.  No surface transport (bar ferry) corridors have been preserved for these sites.  

I can't help but get the feeling the Western Metro is *entirely* about boosting the value of these developments.

The problem is, with just a few exceptions, much of the rest of the proposed Western Metro is through legacy low density housing, often heritage housing, with only limited opportunity for redevelopment.  

So I think the business case (for what is by any standard a long metro) will need to include a substantial rapid transit patronage.  Without it, the Western Metro just won't pass through enough greenfields redevelopment sites, at least one people will want to re-develop (ie not next to Silverwater prison).

And for this to happen, they need to ensure the problems with the existing heavy rail western corridor, and there are many, are *not* fixed.

The irony is The Bays is being built on top of legacy rail infrastructure, and is already served by a rail line (Dulwhich Hill Light rail).

I'm starting to "see the light" with this extend the Inner West line to Olympic Park idea.  It's 2000m of new track with a flyunder, to serve Olympic Park.  A 1500m branch extension of the DH LRT system.  Two modest projects in stead of a 26km metro that needs to cannibalise existing rail traffic to be viable.
djf01
Yes, the sole reason for the Western Metro's corridor to to support these new housing projects and fill in a few gaps in the bays district, which while small catchment, won't be insignificant either.

Its also designed to support the connection from city to Parramatta and support the existing corridor which I suspect will be slowed to support more trains from Lidcombe and Granville and further south. My view, on opening of the Western Metro, expect to see the number of express services from Paramatta reduced.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
metro west is not stopping anywhere near strathfield RTT. It will be stopping to the north at concord west most likely. Unless it goes further west then westmead it does nothing to relieve congestion on the western line since most western line trains are full before they reach parramatta during morning peak hour. What metro west will do is provide passengers at parramatta with a new service that isn't full. Interchanging isn't going to happen since metro west is likely to only be a few minutes quicker then the express trains.

https://www.sydneymetro.info/files/west-map
simstrain
Straithfield or Concord West or what ever, point is the same.

Expect to see the Western Express DD services reduced to accommodate others from Lidcombe and Granville.

(thanks for link)
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

I took the kids for a train and ferry ride this past school holidays, on the Rivercat up to Olympic Park and back by train.  I haven't been up the river for more than a decade, and it was something of an eye opener for me.

In particular, the mass of 10 story high density housing at Wentworth Point, largely either unfinished or only partially occupied - so far.

The Bays precinct, and the still undeveloped land near Homebush Bay is clearly planned to be of such high density that it will need substantial infrastructure to support it.  The roads they are built near certainly aren't going to be enough.  No surface transport (bar ferry) corridors have been preserved for these sites.  

I can't help but get the feeling the Western Metro is *entirely* about boosting the value of these developments.

The problem is, with just a few exceptions, much of the rest of the proposed Western Metro is through legacy low density housing, often heritage housing, with only limited opportunity for redevelopment.  

So I think the business case (for what is by any standard a long metro) will need to include a substantial rapid transit patronage.  Without it, the Western Metro just won't pass through enough greenfields redevelopment sites, at least one people will want to re-develop (ie not next to Silverwater prison).

And for this to happen, they need to ensure the problems with the existing heavy rail western corridor, and there are many, are *not* fixed.

The irony is The Bays is being built on top of legacy rail infrastructure, and is already served by a rail line (Dulwhich Hill Light rail).

I'm starting to "see the light" with this extend the Inner West line to Olympic Park idea.  It's 2000m of new track with a flyunder, to serve Olympic Park.  A 1500m branch extension of the DH LRT system.  Two modest projects in stead of a 26km metro that needs to cannibalise existing rail traffic to be viable.
djf01

I agree with everything except your last paragraph. metro west isn't going to cannibalise anything on the main west. It will might remove patronage from concord west or north strathfield area if there is a station there but people in the bay area don't take the train or light rail in to the cbd. They catch the bus in the form of the 370, 440, 438, 439, 470 etc. the metro will cannibalise this bus traffic but it won't do anything to the western line and for certain there will be no option to reduce western line services unless you put the metro all stops to Blacktown.
  tazzer96 Deputy Commissioner

Western metro might remove some passengers from western services, but not enough to make much of a difference.  For me the western metro shouldn't touch the current DD corridor, maybe have an interchange but it should be seperate.
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

What I meant with the metro west past westmead is in a new tunnel and not taking over the sydney trains network.
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

... instead of a 26km metro that needs to cannibalise existing rail traffic to be viable.

I agree with everything except your last paragraph. metro west isn't going to cannibalise anything on the main west. ...
simstrain

I think you need to re-read my last sentence.  Once the Western Metro is in, and generating insufficient traffic compared with the prospectus, they'll have to do things like route Richmond line trains to Liverpool (&visa versa) to force PAX to change at Parramatta.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
... instead of a 26km metro that needs to cannibalise existing rail traffic to be viable.

I agree with everything except your last paragraph. metro west isn't going to cannibalise anything on the main west. ...

I think you need to re-read my last sentence.  Once the Western Metro is in, and generating insufficient traffic compared with the prospectus, they'll have to do things like route Richmond line trains to Liverpool (&visa versa) to force PAX to change at Parramatta.
djf01
I have no doubt what so ever that they will do that and they won't wait. It will be commissioned, then official opening and on that day the number of western DD trains from Paramatta to Central will be reduced to make room for more trains from Liverpool likely via both Granville and Lidcombe. As the 5 station Bankstown to Lidcombe shuttle is going to be a financial disaster and the locals in that area have been asking for years to return to Liverpool, Regents Park Lidcombe via Straithfield to the city.

3 slots per hour will be opened up for these trains, thus enabling the triangle shuttles to Bankstown to be discontinued or at least reduced to one branch of the triangle only, likely Liverpool. Perhaps another train or 2 per hour for services via Granville. so to do this these trains from Paramatta need to be deleted. The number of services via the Y link will likely increase thus those at Harris Park will not miss out.

It will happen and in many ways it also makes sense, you have built the new infrastructure, maximise it!
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

I laugh at your suggestion that the libs care about those people on the T3 and more specifically that they would cut the western line services even after metro west is operational. Metro west is there to give the people of parramatta a train service in to the cbd that they can actually get on.

Sydney isn't going to solve it's capacity issues if all you are doing is moving people from one train service on to another train service. replacing capacity isn't the solution. Sydney needs a whole stack of new capacity.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
I laugh at your suggestion that the libs care about those people on the T3 and more specifically that they would cut the western line services even after metro west is operational. Metro west is there to give the people of parramatta a train service in to the cbd that they can actually get on.

Sydney isn't going to solve it's capacity issues if all you are doing is moving people from one train service on to another train service. replacing capacity isn't the solution. Sydney needs a whole stack of new capacity.
simstrain
As you and others have said, the trains capacity is more loaded west of Paramatta and more from SW will be going to Paramatta for work in future as the Western CBD grows.

So Richmond plus Schofields trains to Leppington only. These slows get replaced with trains from SW via Granville and Lidcombe/Reagents Park to city.

Job Done!
  Transtopic Deputy Commissioner

Location: Sydney
It should be fairly obvious by now that new metro lines alone aren’t going to resolve the capacity issues with the Sydney Trains’ network.  There has to be a greater priority for investment in upgrading and extending the existing network than has been the case to date, especially under the Coalition government.  Having said that, Labor are equally to blame for the wasted opportunities they had during their extended period of administration.

The major constraints are the lack of additional track capacity through the inner suburbs and the CBD itself to allow for increased services to and from the growing outer suburban regions.  Building new metro lines, such as Metro West, expecting commuters to be forced to interchange to complete a journey into the CBD just isn’t going to cut it and is a flawed strategy in my view.  The government is being naïve when they think they’ll just cop it when alternative solutions are available.  By all means, build Metro West as a useful additional to the city’s overall rail network, servicing a new rail corridor into the CBD, but don’t try and hoodwink the public by trying to pretend that it adds additional capacity to the T1 Western Line servicing the outer suburbs.  It doesn’t.  I’m not even sure if it warrants the priority it’s been given, when other less spectacular projects to upgrade the existing network should have greater priority.

Ignoring the metro proposals and assuming the Bankstown Metro proceeds, from my observation, Sydney has nine major trunk routes feeding into the CBD, but only seven routes, including to Sydney Terminal, into or through the CBD itself.  The major trunk routes are:-

-          North Shore Line

-          Eastern Suburbs Line

-          Illawarra Line

-          Airport Line

-          Campbelltown/Macarthur Line (via East Hills)

-          Inner West Line (Bankstown via Lidcombe)

-          South Line (via Granville and Regents Park)

-          Western Line (Penrith/Richmond)

-          Northern Line  

Each of these trunk routes feeds into the respective CBD lines as follows:-

-          North Shore Line – North Shore

-          Eastern Suburbs Line – Eastern Suburbs

-          Illawarra Main (Eastern Suburbs Line) – Illawarra Line and South Coast Intercity (Erskineville to Central redundant)

-          Illawarra Local (City Circle East) – Campbelltown/Macarthur Line via East Hills and Airport Line

-          Inner West Local (City Circle West) – Parramatta and South Line via Granville

-          Western Suburban (via Harbour Bridge) – Western Line and Northern Line  

-          Western Main (Sydney Terminal) – Western and Northern Intercity

To allow all trunk routes to have continuous separate paths into or through the CBD without merging, we need two more CBD paths as well as an additional Western Line path from Parramatta feeding into one of them.


The two new CBD lines should be as follows:-

-        Diversion of the Airport Line from the City Circle by extending the pair of tracks from platforms 22 & 23 at Central alongside            the viaduct to the City Underground (as suggested by djf01), but on a steeper alignment to pass under Hay St (avoiding the            Goulburn St carpark) and continuing under the City Circle lines to a new station at the corner of Elizabeth and Park Streets              (Hyde Park) and terminating at Martin Place to interchange with the ESR and the CBD metro line.  It could potentially be                  extended further north or link with an extension of the Sydney Trains’ network from Parramatta along the Metro West                    alignment (heresy you say, but stay with me).

-         Resurrection of the City Relief Line, initially from the Western Main lines at Eveleigh, along the CBD western corridor on a               slightly different alignment to the original proposal, to terminate at and  interchange with the Barangaroo metro station.                 Intermediate underground stations would be at Redfern, Railway Square, Town Hall West and Wynyard.  This line would be           used exclusively by Western Line services, instead of proceeding across the Harbour Bridge to the North Shore Line.

The amplification of the Western Line from Parramatta to the CBD which I propose, linking with the City Relief line at Eveleigh as a new trunk route, would be a variation of the Homebush to Parramatta Sextuplication which I previously posted.  Instead of the southern track pair between Harris Park and Granville being disconnected from the South Line and slewed to the northern track pair, they should be slewed under the latter to the surface alignment on the northern side of the rail corridor with new platforms at Granville (if feasible).  From Granville, the new track pair should continue as proposed into a tunnel portal between Clyde (ultimately closed) and Auburn.  A further variation is to continue in tunnel (rather than surfacing between Lidcombe and Flemington to link with the Suburban track pair) on a more direct alignment to link with the City Relief Line at Eveleigh.  An intermediate underground station could be built at Strathfield to interchange with other lines.

This new line would then cater for all stations services from Penrith/Emu Plains, Richmond and Blacktown (in lieu of St Marys) to Granville, then Strathfield, linking with the City Relief Line to terminate at Barangaroo.  The Cumberland Line would continue as it currently does to terminate at either Blacktown or Schofields.  The northern track pair through Parramatta, which emerges from the centre track pair from the west via the Westmead underpass, continues as the fast express Main Line into Sydney Terminal.  My reasoning for this is that it also has to cater for diesel regional services, including the Indian Pacific, which wouldn’t be feasible in a long tunnel.  In addition to main line regional services, this line would be for the exclusive use of Western and Northern Line Intercity services terminating at Central and a premium limited stop Western Express service from Penrith using the new Intercity rolling stock.  No suburban train fleet.  It would literally become a sector in the Blue Mountains Intercity service.

The other proposal for the sextuplication project to extend the Inner West Local from Homebush to the east of Lidcombe should be pursued to allow for a reinstatement of the all stations service to Bankstown via Lidcombe (interchanging with the Bankstown metro).  With all Western Line services being diverted from the Suburban tracks to a new trunk line into the CBD, it opens up the opportunity to redirect South Line services, as well as reinstate Liverpool via Regents Park services, to the Suburban tracks, merging with Northern Line services at Strathfield and continuing through the CBD across the Harbour Bridge.  The South Line, Liverpool via Regents Park and Bankstown services would share the short section of the Suburban tracks between Lidcombe and the junction with the Inner West Local, which should be achievable.  The Suburban tracks would be disconnected with the Western Line at Granville continuing to the South Line.

The resultant Sydney Trains’ CBD network would then look like this:-

-          North Shore Line – North Shore

-          Eastern Suburbs Line – Eastern Suburbs

-          Illawarra Main (Eastern Suburbs Line) – Illawarra (Cronulla/Waterfall)

-          Illawarra Local (City Circle East) – Campbelltown/Macarthur via East Hills and South Coast and future Southern Highlands                 Intercity (to Sydney Terminal via Illawarra Dive)

-          Eastern CBD extension – Airport Line (Kingsgrove/Glenfield)

-          Inner West Local (City Circle West) – Bankstown via Lidcombe

-          Western Suburban (via Harbour Bridge) – Liverpool via Granville and Regents Park and Northern Line

-          Western Main (Sydney Terminal) – Western Express and Western and Northern Intercity

-          City Relief Line – Penrith, Blacktown and Richmond via new link from Parramatta

Now just to throw a cat amongst the pigeons, an alternative link to the express tunnel from Parramatta to the CBD as part of the Sydney Trains’ network as I suggested could be for that link to follow the alignment and replace Metro West.  It could potentially link up with the Airport Line extension at Martin Place which I alluded to.
I would be interested in your thoughts.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Hi
Interesting and probably well thought out.

Will take some time to digest though
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

Now just to throw a cat amongst the pigeons, an alternative link to the express tunnel from Parramatta to the CBD as part of the Sydney Trains’ network as I suggested could be for that link to follow the alignment and replace Metro West.  It could potentially link up with the Airport Line extension at Martin Place which I alluded to.
I would be interested in your thoughts.
Transtopic

Unfortunately for my Blood Pressure, building the Western Metro in heavy rail makes a huge amount of sense.

  1. The extra HR capacity is needed.
  2. The Western Metro is really only "needed" for 2 new stations very widely spaced, wider than S-Bahn.
  3. The scope for tightly spaced metro stations on the Western Metro corridor is actually quite limited.

A UG HR new line could be:

Tunnel Portals east of Westmead, west of Parramatta, then

  • Parramatta UG Station
  • [Future] Rosehill Station (for when the industrial site west of Duck Creek is redeveloped and/or the racecourse relocated to the airspace over Parramatta Station)
  • [Future] Silverwater Station (for when the industrial site east of Duck Creek is redeveloped and the prisoners are sent to Narru)
  • Newington/Wentworth Point/Olympic Park (A well sited station could cover all these and have a catchment of >80k residents)
  • [Optional] Concord
  • Drumoyne/FiveDock
  • Balmain/Bays (Dawn Fraser Station, a good name overcomes controversy over it's location Smile)
  • CBD
  • Central

Reconnect with the HR network between Central and Redfern.

Given the Northern Line already interchanges with the West at Strathfield, I think the utility of a second interchange is rather limited - unless of course you stop Northern Line trains running into the CBD to drive patronage into the CBD on the new line Smile.

It'll be ~$6bil just for the tunnelling (all through mud, but with TBMs not as big a deal as it once was), and another $3-4bil for 6 new major underground stations and sites for 3 more.

I think it could be done for less than a stand alone metro because there would be a less new stations, no need for stabling and maintenance facility "on-site", and reduced fleet requirements.

The downside is fewer (possible) stations.  But, as I've argued already, the scope for tightly packed stations serving new high density residential areas is limited by the topography.
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

Now just to throw a cat amongst the pigeons, an alternative link to the express tunnel from Parramatta to the CBD as part of the Sydney Trains’ network
Transtopic

You know what?  I think I'm sold on this concept.

Just as the NWRL Metro recovers 4 "new" slots for HR from the Bankstown Line, and the PRL/ECL was going to add 10 under-used slots from the North Shore line, the Western Metro in HR effectively adds two new track pairs to the network, or 40 slots.

That's so much extra capacity we could spend some of it to do away with DD trains.  

But instead of building it in HR, why not just convert the feeder lines to Metro?  We could even convert the entire Airport, Revesby, Cambelltown, Richmond, Western and Blue Mountains lines all to Metro!
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

I think that canning the western metro and building DD is a better option. Heck it could head in to the city as per the western metro and loop back around to connect with the mains at macdonaldtown.
  Transtopic Deputy Commissioner

Location: Sydney
I think that canning the western metro and building DD is a better option. Heck it could head in to the city as per the western metro and loop back around to connect with the mains at macdonaldtown.
simstrain
If such an option were to be considered (unlikely under the present government), then my preference would be for it to loop across the CBD to link with an eastern CBD extension of the Airport Line at Martin Place.  I would like to keep the Mains strictly for Intercity, Western Express and Regional services terminating at Central.

It could literally be built as a single project and in one fell swoop resolve all of the capacity issues with the existing network with minimal disruption to existing services.  It could even have ATO through the central core and manual operation on the outer sectors, similar to Crossrail.  Would have to be DD though as it would be servicing the outer suburbs where seating is a priority.
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

Sydney has nine major trunk routes feeding into the CBD, but only seven routes, including to Sydney Terminal, into or through the CBD itself.  The major trunk routes are:-

-          North Shore Line
-          Eastern Suburbs Line
-          Illawarra Line
-          Airport Line
-          Campbelltown/Macarthur Line (via East Hills)
-          Inner West Line (Bankstown via Lidcombe)
-          South Line (via Granville and Regents Park)
-          Western Line (Penrith/Richmond)
-          Northern Line  

Each of these trunk routes feeds into the respective CBD lines as follows:-

-          North Shore Line – North Shore
-          Eastern Suburbs Line – Eastern Suburbs
-          Illawarra Main (Eastern Suburbs Line) – Illawarra Line and South Coast Intercity (Erskineville to Central redundant)
-          Illawarra Local (City Circle East) – Campbelltown/Macarthur Line via East Hills and Airport Line
-          Inner West Local (City Circle West) – Parramatta and South Line via Granville
-          Western Suburban (via Harbour Bridge) – Western Line and Northern Line  
-          Western Main (Sydney Terminal) – Western and Northern Intercity

...
I would be interested in your thoughts.
Transtopic

I've similarly summarised the problem, but I think it goes further than that.  

Once a trunk route has more than 20 stations, traffic needs to be segregated by class (short haul, long haul, possible "middle" haul) otherwise you end up with absurd stopping patterns, like Kiama trains stopping at Erskinville Smile.

*A* solution to this issue - and has been fully implemented on Sector 1 - is to standardise the class of traffic into a common vehicle.  Sydney long ago merged U-Bahn and S-Bahn into our hybrid double deckers, and with the G/O Sets and the impending retirement of the V sets, we are about to completely incorporate interurban traffic into the common class as well.

*If* you treat all your traffic classes as more or less the same, then you only need to worry about the trunk route geographic directions, and the problem is reduced to 9 into 7.

Similarly, if you treat all your traffic classes the same, it doesn't really matter which routes terminate at Central, just so long as 2 of the 9 do.  So on that basis, I'll suggest another solution:

The Revesby-Airport line can operate independently by design - with a short single track segment on the already B-Di signalled road into Central Platform 23. (and a facing crossover just inside the airport line tunnels).  Revesby-Airport-Central now an independant system.  Peak frequency probably only 10min atm, but could be boosted reasonably easily, mostly just with operating practicies.  1 out of 2 excess routes removed

Other than the location of crossovers prohibits this, a similar thing could be done with the Inner West.  It could terminate at Central Platform 20.  This needs some actual physical work to implement, but :
  • Crossover(s) from Inner West to Illawarra Locals *west* of Macdonaltown Jtn.  (Through the stabling yard throat)
  • Double Crossovers from Illawarra Local to Illawarra Mains between Erskinville and crossover/above (as @Transtopic has suggested)
  • Restore old alignment of Illawarra Main Up into Platform 22 (ie Merge with the Airport Up, which will no longer be used)
  • Bi-Di Signal The Illawarra Local Up (road into Central Platform 20)
  • Trailing crossover on Illawarra Locals at Cleveland St

2 out of 2 excess routes removed

The resulting HR System is very simple, and no line has more than one junction at each end, with no flat junctions (bar Sutherland)

  • Sector 1 (Unchanged)
  • Sector 2: Campbelltown/Leppington - Glenfield (Jtn) - Sydenham - City Circle - Strathfield (Jtn) - Hornsby(via Epping)/Glenfield (via Liverpool)
  • Sector 3: Penrith(+BM)/Richmond - Westmead (Jtn) - SHB - Nth Sydney - Hornsby(+CC)

I don't pretend that for one second that this makes a great deal of sense.  But I'd suggest it makes no *less* sense than almost every other proposal around, and can be implemented with only a few new crossovers.
  tazzer96 Deputy Commissioner

My issue with terminating trains at central on the suburban platforms is the severe crowding that would occur on these fairly narrow platforms.  It would probably become a safety issue.  At the moment platforms 20-23 aren't too crowded due having 2 platforms for only 1 running line.  Similar to brisbane central platform 1-4.   But platforms 16-19 are already pretty bad.

If you made the revseby - central line run frequently enough such as every 4 minutes (rough estimate limit for the short single track section into central along with turnaround) , along with extra platforms on the outer tracks at somehwere like kingsgrove for interchange then it wouldn't be too bad.  However, if you went along this path, I would argue it would be better to convert this section to metro and have it terminate in a tunnel under central, or maybe 1 stop further.
  Transtopic Deputy Commissioner

Location: Sydney
Sydney has nine major trunk routes feeding into the CBD, but only seven routes, including to Sydney Terminal, into or through the CBD itself.  The major trunk routes are:-

-          North Shore Line
-          Eastern Suburbs Line
-          Illawarra Line
-          Airport Line
-          Campbelltown/Macarthur Line (via East Hills)
-          Inner West Line (Bankstown via Lidcombe)
-          South Line (via Granville and Regents Park)
-          Western Line (Penrith/Richmond)
-          Northern Line  

Each of these trunk routes feeds into the respective CBD lines as follows:-

-          North Shore Line – North Shore
-          Eastern Suburbs Line – Eastern Suburbs
-          Illawarra Main (Eastern Suburbs Line) – Illawarra Line and South Coast Intercity (Erskineville to Central redundant)
-          Illawarra Local (City Circle East) – Campbelltown/Macarthur Line via East Hills and Airport Line
-          Inner West Local (City Circle West) – Parramatta and South Line via Granville
-          Western Suburban (via Harbour Bridge) – Western Line and Northern Line  
-          Western Main (Sydney Terminal) – Western and Northern Intercity

...
I would be interested in your thoughts.

I've similarly summarised the problem, but I think it goes further than that.  

Once a trunk route has more than 20 stations, traffic needs to be segregated by class (short haul, long haul, possible "middle" haul) otherwise you end up with absurd stopping patterns, like Kiama trains stopping at Erskinville Smile.

*A* solution to this issue - and has been fully implemented on Sector 1 - is to standardise the class of traffic into a common vehicle.  Sydney long ago merged U-Bahn and S-Bahn into our hybrid double deckers, and with the G/O Sets and the impending retirement of the V sets, we are about to completely incorporate interurban traffic into the common class as well.

*If* you treat all your traffic classes as more or less the same, then you only need to worry about the trunk route geographic directions, and the problem is reduced to 9 into 7.

Similarly, if you treat all your traffic classes the same, it doesn't really matter which routes terminate at Central, just so long as 2 of the 9 do.  So on that basis, I'll suggest another solution:

The Revesby-Airport line can operate independently by design - with a short single track segment on the already B-Di signalled road into Central Platform 23. (and a facing crossover just inside the airport line tunnels).  Revesby-Airport-Central now an independant system.  Peak frequency probably only 10min atm, but could be boosted reasonably easily, mostly just with operating practicies.  1 out of 2 excess routes removed

Other than the location of crossovers prohibits this, a similar thing could be done with the Inner West.  It could terminate at Central Platform 20.  This needs some actual physical work to implement, but :
  • Crossover(s) from Inner West to Illawarra Locals *west* of Macdonaltown Jtn.  (Through the stabling yard throat)
  • Double Crossovers from Illawarra Local to Illawarra Mains between Erskinville and crossover/above (as @Transtopic has suggested)
  • Restore old alignment of Illawarra Main Up into Platform 22 (ie Merge with the Airport Up, which will no longer be used)
  • Bi-Di Signal The Illawarra Local Up (road into Central Platform 20)
  • Trailing crossover on Illawarra Locals at Cleveland St

2 out of 2 excess routes removed

The resulting HR System is very simple, and no line has more than one junction at each end, with no flat junctions (bar Sutherland)

  • Sector 1 (Unchanged)
  • Sector 2: Campbelltown/Leppington - Glenfield (Jtn) - Sydenham - City Circle - Strathfield (Jtn) - Hornsby(via Epping)/Glenfield (via Liverpool)
  • Sector 3: Penrith(+BM)/Richmond - Westmead (Jtn) - SHB - Nth Sydney - Hornsby(+CC)

I don't pretend that for one second that this makes a great deal of sense.  But I'd suggest it makes no *less* sense than almost every other proposal around, and can be implemented with only a few new crossovers.
djf01
I understand what you're getting at, but I don't think it's practicable (I assume you meant restoring the old alignment of the Illawarra Main Up into Central Platform 21 replacing the Airport Up, not Platform 22 which is a Down road).  The problem is that having single track terminating roads at Platforms 20 and 23 for the Inner West Local and Airport Lines respectively, would severely restrict the frequency of services on those lines as there would be insufficient time to turn trains around with higher frequencies.

My approach is for all suburban trunk routes to have separate paths into or through the CBD, ie not terminating at Central. This was after all Bradfield's original intent in proposing the City Underground to overcome the interchange congestion to trams at the time.  That's why I propose that Sydney Terminal should be reserved for Intercity and Regional trains as well as a new Western Express service from Penrith using the NIF, effectively becoming a sector of the Blue Mountains Intercity service.  As an aside, the Blue Mountains Intercity sectors would be trains to and from Penrith, Lawson, Mt Victoria, Lithgow and possibly Bathurst in the longer term (Bathurst is roughly the same distance from Sydney as Goulburn and Maitland where future electrification is proposed).

Just BTW, I erred in my assessment of the number of suburban CBD lines into the CBD.  It's actually six not seven, as I had mistakenly included Sydney Terminal via the Mains as a "suburban" line.  That doesn't change my opinion that there needs to be two more suburban trunk route lines into the northern CBD.

Upon reflection, I'd prefer my initial proposal for diversion of the Airport Line from the City Circle to Martin Place and a new express tunnel from Parramatta to link with a City Relief Line to Barangaroo, rather than having the latter follow the Metro West alignment.  An express tunnel linking with a City Relief Line would provide a much faster service to the CBD for outer Western Line commuters than an all stations service via the Metro West alignment, whether it be a metro service or an extension of the existing Sydney Trains network.  

The metro option is probably unlikely to change regardless of which party wins the next election, so a separate fast express link will ultimately be needed for outer western commuters.  That doesn't preclude building a second City Circle Loop in the longer term from a City Relief Line terminus at Barangaroo to a Martin Place terminus for the extended Airport Line which I proposed.  It would have to go under the harbour at Circular Quay for a short distance, but it could also potentially allow for another station in The Rocks.
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

I understand what you're getting at, but I don't think it's practicable (I assume you meant restoring the old alignment of the Illawarra Main Up into Central Platform 21 replacing the Airport Up, not Platform 22 which is a Down road).  The problem is that having single track terminating roads at Platforms 20 and 23 for the Inner West Local and Airport Lines respectively, would severely restrict the frequency of services on those lines as there would be insufficient time to turn trains around with higher frequencies.
Transtopic


You are absolutely right, I meant Illawarra Main to Airport Up/Platform 21, not Platform 22.  FWIW I "corrected" a first draft blunder of terminating the IW at Platform 21 when I meant 20.

Also, I'm not for one second suggesting the idea is really practical.  Just that it makes many of the same compromises users of other areas of the network are expected to make to accommodate the network's shortcommings.

As for frequency on a single track turnback, IMHO 10min is perfectly possible now.  2 min transit of the single track, 4-5 min to turn the train (which is pushing it, but not impossible).  3min is possible with a double track turnback (ie ESR).  IMHO a 7.5min headway is possible and practical, but would require changes to operating practices to implement.  If the train turning process were fully automated, a headway as low as 5 min would be achievable.

This begs the question: what frequency does Revesby-Airport-Central & the Inner West have now?  What does it need (as distinct from is desirable)?


My approach is for all suburban trunk routes to have separate paths into or through the CBD, ie not terminating at Central.
Transtopic

As you've outlined, I think your concept does a lot more than just provide the trunk route suburban paths, your scheme also retains some degree of regional/interurban segregation.  IMHO much of the amplification you propose is about achieving/retaining that capability rather than addressing the "trunk route" problem.  

FWIW, I agree with the goal.  IMHO NSW should be servicing the Southern Highlands+Canberra, Illawarra, Central Coast+Newcastle & probably Blue Mountains routes with a fleet of Pendolinos supported by some re-alignements.  I think that approach presents the opportunity to improve the cost effectiveness of NSWTrains far more than a few new CBD paths for SydneyTrains.  It's just a bit beyond the scope of this thread Smile.
  Transtopic Deputy Commissioner

Location: Sydney
I understand what you're getting at, but I don't think it's practicable (I assume you meant restoring the old alignment of the Illawarra Main Up into Central Platform 21 replacing the Airport Up, not Platform 22 which is a Down road).  The problem is that having single track terminating roads at Platforms 20 and 23 for the Inner West Local and Airport Lines respectively, would severely restrict the frequency of services on those lines as there would be insufficient time to turn trains around with higher frequencies.


You are absolutely right, I meant Illawarra Main to Airport Up/Platform 21, not Platform 22.  FWIW I "corrected" a first draft blunder of terminating the IW at Platform 21 when I meant 20.

Also, I'm not for one second suggesting the idea is really practical.  Just that it makes many of the same compromises users of other areas of the network are expected to make to accommodate the network's shortcommings.

As for frequency on a single track turnback, IMHO 10min is perfectly possible now.  2 min transit of the single track, 4-5 min to turn the train (which is pushing it, but not impossible).  3min is possible with a double track turnback (ie ESR).  IMHO a 7.5min headway is possible and practical, but would require changes to operating practices to implement.  If the train turning process were fully automated, a headway as low as 5 min would be achievable.

This begs the question: what frequency does Revesby-Airport-Central & the Inner West have now?  What does it need (as distinct from is desirable)?


My approach is for all suburban trunk routes to have separate paths into or through the CBD, ie not terminating at Central.

As you've outlined, I think your concept does a lot more than just provide the trunk route suburban paths, your scheme also retains some degree of regional/interurban segregation.  IMHO much of the amplification you propose is about achieving/retaining that capability rather than addressing the "trunk route" problem.  

FWIW, I agree with the goal.  IMHO NSW should be servicing the Southern Highlands+Canberra, Illawarra, Central Coast+Newcastle & probably Blue Mountains routes with a fleet of Pendolinos supported by some re-alignements.  I think that approach presents the opportunity to improve the cost effectiveness of NSWTrains far more than a few new CBD paths for SydneyTrains.  It's just a bit beyond the scope of this thread Smile.
djf01
The Airport Line frequency in the morning peak is currently 10tph, although I understand it is capable of 12tph and could potentially be increased with further upgrading.  I'd suggest that a frequency of 15 to 20tph should be the goal, particularly in servicing the airport stations, with an all stations stopping pattern starting from and terminating at Kingsgrove, East Hills (following quadruplication) and ultimately Glenfield (with construction of a separate turnback road).  That wouldn't be possible with a single terminating track at Central.

I disagree that my proposal doesn't address the "trunk route" problem.  It does, as well as segregating the regional/interurban services by using the Western Main and Illawarra Dive tracks exclusively to Sydney Terminal.  All of the main suburban trunk routes, which includes their outer branches, have their own separate paths into or through the CBD without having to merge as some do currently.  It avoids crossing conflicts between track pairs, especially at Homebush and Eveleigh.  It also allows South Line services from Leppington/Liverpool via both Granville and Regents Park to have a faster express run via the Suburban tracks, shared with the Northern Line from Strathfield, through to the North Shore.  This in turn allows the Inner West Local tracks to have a single all stations operating pattern, reinstating the route from Bankstown via Lidcombe.  I don't get your point.

With regard to Intercity services, the NIF won't be the same standard as the regular suburban fleet.  Although they may look similar to the Oscars, they will in fact offer a much higher level of comfort with 2+2 seating and other upgraded facilities.  You can't, as you suggested in an earlier post, say that there will be a common class of fleet for both suburban and interurban rolling stock.  There will be a clear differentiation, even more so than now, once all of the Oscars are cascaded into the suburban fleet.  The NIF will be around for at least 20 to 30 years, so I don't think there's much scope for introducing Pendolinos for some time to come, if ever.  The cost effectiveness of new CBD paths for Sydney Trains would have to trump any improvements to the NSW Trains network by a country mile (excuse the pun).

Sponsored advertisement

Display from:   

Quick Reply

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