NSW Gov funding for services post-Bankstown Metro Opening

 
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

Which Triangle?

The very short section of common track shared with freight under Auburn Road, three options.
1) Restrict freight movements to periods when Metro not in service, undesirable for freight.

2) Reduce Metro to single, southern track for 200m or so, cheap and easy.

3) Rebuild Auburn Road bridge and allow three tracks. Most expensive

The Cabramatta junction is the big ticket item, there is no room for a surface terminus station.

Originally I thought not a bad idea, however no, Bankstown direct to Liverpool which is a destination in itself and why trains terminate there now is I think the better option. The ground options may not be simple, but no worse than many other Metro's, Dubai's for example is a 90% viaduct on sand with tunnels in sand.
RTT_Rules

Grade separation will be needed so there is no shared track. The freight line can take the existing above ground ST connection while the metro can be run underground from Birrong to Sefton which will cost less then building a whole new line from Bankstown to Liverpool. The metro can then come back above ground at Sefton all the way to Cabramatta. The stations can be rebuilt and realigned allowing the freight line to be duplicated nearly all the way to Cabramatta. There is plenty of room at Cabramatta to build up and over or under the existing track.

Sponsored advertisement

  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Which Triangle?

The very short section of common track shared with freight under Auburn Road, three options.
1) Restrict freight movements to periods when Metro not in service, undesirable for freight.

2) Reduce Metro to single, southern track for 200m or so, cheap and easy.

3) Rebuild Auburn Road bridge and allow three tracks. Most expensive

The Cabramatta junction is the big ticket item, there is no room for a surface terminus station.

Originally I thought not a bad idea, however no, Bankstown direct to Liverpool which is a destination in itself and why trains terminate there now is I think the better option. The ground options may not be simple, but no worse than many other Metro's, Dubai's for example is a 90% viaduct on sand with tunnels in sand.

Grade separation will be needed so there is no shared track.

The freight line can take the existing above ground ST connection while the metro can be run underground from Birrong to Sefton which will cost less then building a whole new line from Bankstown to Liverpool. The metro can then come back above ground at Sefton all the way to Cabramatta. The stations can be rebuilt and realigned allowing the freight line to be duplicated nearly all the way to Cabramatta. There is plenty of room at Cabramatta to build up and over or under the existing track.
simstrain
Grade separation at that junction via tunnel will be high cost. You have only 450m from the end of Birrong platform to drop down below the sunked freight line and I doubt its physically practical. Plus you have a rail underpass east of Sefton to content with.

More likely you would move the freight line to the suburban, none of which is cheap and involves a fly over someone where else.

All this for what is a light to moderately used section of railway.

Alternatively
Build the Metro to Liverpool, it provides a much faster and more direct route to the city for those not just at Liverpool, but that whole Glenfield to Fairfield area. Will take alot of traffic of the current T2 route into the city.

Revised T2/T3 would then be changed so it starts further out from Liverpool, say at least Glenfield (pick your own starting point), then runs 6 trains an hour to Liverpool, 4 via Granville and 4 via Regents Park and 8 from Homebush. The 8 outer T2/T3 from Liverpool and beyond would be able to skip a few stops on the Inner West gaining 1-2 min in on the all stopper service.

I'm assuming there will be likely no need for T3 from Paramatta after Western Metro. Paramatta doesn't have a terminating platform off the main so best to have only run through services.

EDIT: In the height of peak if needed to push to 20t/h, terminate 4 t/h at Ashville.

EDIT2: I would also keep the track Bankstown to Sefton open for Metro trains running 4 -6  / h with a dedicated southern track from Junction, to the western part of the Y then had a 4th track to Sefton with a 3rd platform, all 100% Metro only.  It would single track for the 1.5km into Sefton with a shunt beyond the station to hold a full set. Sefton platform is very wide and the corridor is healthy as well so City bound track would be moved slightly north and straightened with platform build on nth side. Then a 3rd track added in the middle for the western track and the current island platform narrowed and straightened.
The passing lane for freight would be to the west of Sefton.
  Transtopic Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney
None of that is going to happen Transtopic. Basic math will tell you that if you have 18-20 trains an hour that you have a 3-3.3 minute path and any limited stop services will get stuck behind the all stops and what you will end up with is pretty much an all stopper that doesn't stop at all stops.

As for what services to get rid of it is the Parramatta services that should go and it should be a 4 to ashfield, 4 to Regents Park and 8 to via Granville. If the government wants us on the T2 to change trains to get on a faster service then the T1 should be forced to change to get on a slower T2 service instead of giving Parramatta it's own T2 service.

The T8 we know can handle the extra 8 trains but the T2 can only really do so if every service becomes an all stop service.

24TPH is not going to happen with ATP/ATO because again your problem is the platform issues at Central and Town Hall, the dwell times at the stations and the speed of the double deck trains. It isn't a metro with multiple doors and platform screen doors to assist alighting and boarding. As soon as you have a disabled person there goes your on time running and any chance of any more then 20 trains an hour.

This is why I think the metro should be extended along the existing T3 to Cabramatta. The all stops metro is 10 minutes faster to Bankstown then the equivalent ST service. It will require a little bit of work at the triangle but I think it will be cheaper to do this then to build a completly new alignment to Liverpool on suspect ground.
simstrain
I agree with what you're saying sims, but the press release said that there would be 4 additional services on T2 for "key" stations, which suggests that they won't be stopping at all stations.  In the absence of any adjustments to other T2 services, the statement taken on face value means that there will be 18tph (14+4). How that could be achieved with the mixed pattern is yet to be confirmed, but it does nonetheless fit in neatly with the 18tph on T8 via the Airport Line.

It's always been my understanding that the T2 Inner West Local had a practical maximum frequency of 16tph with the mixed pattern.  It could probably be increased to 20tph with the digital signalling upgrade, but that's not what is being proposed initially.  That will come later.

It's unlikely that the T2 Parramatta services will be dispensed with in the short term, as that is the only way that stations from Homebush to Harris Park could have direct access to Parramatta, as T1 doesn't stop at any of them to maintain its maximum frequency of 20tph in a single express pattern on the Western Main.  This highlights the need for the sextup between Homebush and Granville, which we have previously discussed on another thread.  

The new Western Main would then cater for Penrith and Richmond express services, BM and CCN Intercity and Western and Northern Regional services direct to Sydney Terminal.  The new centre Suburban track pair would be for Western and Richmond Line medium distance all stations services (express from Burwood to Redfern) and T9 Northern Line services across the Harbour Bridge to the North Shore Line.  The existing Suburban tracks between Homebush and Granville would become an extension of the Inner West Local, catering exclusively for all T2 services.  Each track pair would be completely segregated without any crossing conflicts.  Metro West isn't going to resolve this, as it serves a completely different rail corridor.

24tph in each direction is quite feasible on the City Circle with the digital upgrade.  The metro will relieve a lot of the interchange congestion at the existing CBD stations.  Bankstown Line commuters will have a direct link on the metro to North Shore destinations, including Macquarie Park, and Eastern Suburbs commuters bound for the North Shore will be able to interchange at Martin Place instead of Town Hall.  It is also anticipated that platform screen doors will be introduced on the CBD stations and some of the busier suburban stations, which will be possible with ATO.  Dwell times won't be such an issue as it is currently and the frequency with the ATP/ATO upgrade is likely to be limited to a maximum of 24tph taking dwell times into account, and not 30tph, which it would inherently be capable of.  The upgrade will not only allow closer headways, but also higher average speeds.

You will recall that the original metro concept was to extend from Bankstown to Cabramatta and Lidcombe, as well as a branch to Hurstville.  These extensions were discarded early in the piece and are unlikely to be revived.  Alternative plans are now being put in place to upgrade existing services.  The only likely metro extension from Bankstown, if feasible, would be directly to Liverpool.  However, there don't appear to be any contingency plans in the proposed station layout at Bankstown to allow this to happen.
  Transtopic Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney

...
As grog pointed out, the purported 18tph on the City Circle for T2 via Town Hall, assuming it's feasible, will balance the same frequency on T8 via Museum, which on the face of it makes complete sense.  However, I would suggest that this could be an interim measure until the ATP/ATO digital upgrade is completed, which would enable an increase from 40 up to 48tph on the City Circle, allowing for a redistribution of increased services via the flying junctions across the City Circle, including T8 via Sydenham.
The issue is the future of the flying junctions and the interleave during peak.  ATM T4 services alternate which way around the CC they go.  I had anticipated T8/Campbelltown services could do this post metro.  But it seems they are going to abandon it altogether.  The advantage is simplicity and timetable reliability.  The disadvantage is longer runs times Strathfield to Redfern, to service all those tightly spaced stations.  Given the SRA's (what are they called now?) historical preference no-one should be surprised they are going for slower but more reliable.
djf01
The flying junctions at Central perform a valuable function, as Bradfield intended.  They are in effect a major grade separation, allowing merging of lines without crossing conflicts.  I can't envisage that they would not be used in the future to spread services around the City Circle as they currently do with T3 (I think you meant T3 rather than T4).  When Constance disingenuously referred to the "bottleneck" caused by T3 on the City Circle, I think it was more likely that he was referring to the paths that will be freed up with its removal, rather than any congestion issues on the flying junctions.

I agree with you that it would make sense to utilise the released T3 paths for increased T8 services via both the Airport and Sydenham, with the latter using the flying junctions.  With the apparent continuing mixed pattern on T2, it can't achieve its potential maximum frequency with either the existing signalling or the upgraded digital signalling.  Similarly, on the Airport Line, there's no guarantee that it could achieve 24tph with the upgraded signalling, because of other factors.  That leaves open the potential for increased T8 services via Sydenham and the flying junctions, feeding into both arms of the City Circle as T3 currently does.  As it stands, after the Bankstown Line metro conversion, the Illawarra Local from Wolli Creek Junction to Central will only be used in part by South Coast Intercity and South Line Regional services and off-peak freight.  I'd regard this as an interim measure until the full digital signalling upgrade is completed, which could then allow for increased T8 services via Sydenham to the City Circle.

With regard to any potential congestion issues in using the flying junctions, I can't see how it wouldn't be beyond the realm of modern computer train management to allow out of order running around the City Circle if some services are running late.  

I don't think historical preference will be relevant in the context you suggest, as the whole point of the ATP/ATO upgrade is to increase frequencies and reduce journey times.
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

With regard to any potential congestion issues in using the flying junctions, I can't see how it wouldn't be beyond the realm of modern computer train management to allow out of order running around the City Circle if some services are running late.  

I don't think historical preference will be relevant in the context you suggest, as the whole point of the ATP/ATO upgrade is to increase frequencies and reduce journey times.
Transtopic

I thought ATP was about not needing to lay more track Smile.

Scrapping Via-Sydenham is also about not mixing Sector 1 and Sector 2, if Sector 1 is going to use the Illawarra locals.  South Coast sharing with Cambo expresses means the two timetables need to be synchonised.

The problem created by simply not using the flying junctions at all is not capacity on T2, but transit time.  No train can go faster than the slowest service.  At 12 TPH limited stops can go 6 minutes faster than the slowest, 16tph it's only 3min.  As I argued before, trading of slowness for timetable reliability has been the trend over recent decades.

Of course, people living at Liverpool will have the options of getting the shuttle to Bankstown and getting the metro Smile.
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

Grade separation at that junction via tunnel will be high cost. You have only 450m from the end of Birrong platform to drop down below the sunked freight line and I doubt its physically practical. Plus you have a rail underpass east of Sefton to content with.
RTT_Rules

The tunneling might have to go to the west of Chester Hill but this will still be significantly cheaper then trying to attempt to build a rail line directly from Bankstown to Liverpool. There is a reason the current rail line takes the route it takes. The georges river is extremely flood prone in this area near bankstown airport and with all the sand mining that has taken place tunneling is highly impractical.

As for Birrong station if the freight line can go down and under in a similar amount of distance then the metro can easily dive in such a short amount of distance but also the station at birrong could be rebuilt lower to alleviate this issue as it is on a bit of a rise from Yagoona.

At moorebank leading in to Liverpool the rail line will have to be elevated well above the georges river just as the old army rail line was to avoid flood waters. This little section of track is going to be extremely difficult since the metro would have to go under liverpool station while also staying above the flood level.

Anybody living at Liverpool who has to commute in to the city has made the wrong choice to live in Liverpool. There is a good reason why I don't do any work in the city and that is because it is too hard to commute there from Liverpool. I don't see the metro extension to Liverpool happening because it is an even larger engineering challenge then under the Harbour. It will cost atleast $10 billion whereas fixing the sefton traingle for metro would only cost $1 billion.
  Transtopic Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney
With regard to any potential congestion issues in using the flying junctions, I can't see how it wouldn't be beyond the realm of modern computer train management to allow out of order running around the City Circle if some services are running late.  

I don't think historical preference will be relevant in the context you suggest, as the whole point of the ATP/ATO upgrade is to increase frequencies and reduce journey times.

I thought ATP was about not needing to lay more track Smile.

Scrapping Via-Sydenham is also about not mixing Sector 1 and Sector 2, if Sector 1 is going to use the Illawarra locals.  South Coast sharing with Cambo expresses means the two timetables need to be synchonised.

The problem created by simply not using the flying junctions at all is not capacity on T2, but transit time.  No train can go faster than the slowest service.  At 12 TPH limited stops can go 6 minutes faster than the slowest, 16tph it's only 3min.  As I argued before, trading of slowness for timetable reliability has been the trend over recent decades.

Of course, people living at Liverpool will have the options of getting the shuttle to Bankstown and getting the metro Smile.
djf01
ATP/ATO can bring existing tracks up to their optimal frequency and hence capacity, but it's not much help when the actual travel demand exceeds that capacity.  That's when further track amplification is needed.  The government has acknowledged as much under its More Trains, More Services program.

The Western Line sector between Homebush and Granville is a case in point.  The existing 2 track pairs constrain the potential capacity for T1 and T2, like a kink in a hose.  Amplifying this sector with an additional track pair will take the pressure off allowing more services, as well as segregating the lines and avoiding crossing conflicts in the process.  Metro West is irrelevant in this regard.

T2 Parramatta services would no longer be needed as they will be shifted across to T1 on the "new" Suburban track with increased frequencies, merging at Strathfield with T9.  That frees up additional paths for T2 via both Granville and Regents Park.  It is clear that the intention is to make greater use of the Main line to Sydney Terminal, which could be used by Outer Western express services as well as Intercity and Regional services.  In a perfect world, there should also be further track amplification between Strathfield and the CBD with an additional underground express track pair, without intermediate stations, which could be used by T2 via Granville and Regents Park services, or alternatively by T1 and T9, but that's probably a stretch too far.

I don't see any issue with South Coast Intercity services potentially sharing the Illawarra Local with T8 via Sydenham, if in fact the latter will be restored in the future.  Suburban sectorisation will be maintained, with T4 running on the Illawarra Main to Bondi Junction.  The likely scenario if T8 via Sydenham continues would be sharing SCO Intercity between Wolli Creek Junction and the Illawarra Dive at Erskineville in a single express pattern stopping only at Sydenham.  There's no need for timetable synchronisation.  A further advantage for T8 via Sydenham is that it would enable interchange to the metro sooner, rather than at Central if via the Airport Line.  If T8 via Sydenham isn't restored, then that effectively means that the Illawarra Main and Local between Erskineville and Central will become redundant.

The only way I can see the flying junctions not being utilised to maximise the potential frequency of 24tph in both directions on the City Circle with ATP/ATO, except for emergency operations and maintenance shutdowns, is if T2 on the Inner West Local becomes an all stations service and it is feasible to further upgrade the Airport Line to the higher frequency from the currently proposed 18tph.  With the limited time savings for T2 semi-express services, it would make more sense to maximise its frequency with a single all stops pattern.  The signalling upgrade will allow faster all round journey times anyway, even with an all stops pattern.

There had previously been issues with increasing frequencies on the Airport Line because of the need to upgrade power and signalling, which is now being addressed, but also Fire and Safety upgrades and bidirectional tunnel ventilation, without which there would be a limitation on the number of trains allowed within a ventilated section.  I haven't seen any evidence so far that these latter issues are being addressed.  Perhaps they are being dealt with, but time will tell.

There will be no shuttle from Liverpool to Bankstown to interchange to the metro, but there will be one from Lidcombe to Bankstown.  For those from Liverpool who want to use the metro, they can interchange to the Lidcombe shuttle at Regents Park and interchange again at Bankstown.  Following community consultation, the overwhelming response was to reinstate the Liverpool via Regents Park service on the Inner West Local, rather than being forced to interchange to the metro at Bankstown.  That says it all.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Grade separation at that junction via tunnel will be high cost. You have only 450m from the end of Birrong platform to drop down below the sunked freight line and I doubt its physically practical. Plus you have a rail underpass east of Sefton to content with.

The tunneling might have to go to the west of Chester Hill but this will still be significantly cheaper then trying to attempt to build a rail line directly from Bankstown to Liverpool. There is a reason the current rail line takes the route it takes. The georges river is extremely flood prone in this area near bankstown airport and with all the sand mining that has taken place tunneling is highly impractical.

As for Birrong station if the freight line can go down and under in a similar amount of distance then the metro can easily dive in such a short amount of distance but also the station at birrong could be rebuilt lower to alleviate this issue as it is on a bit of a rise from Yagoona.

At moorebank leading in to Liverpool the rail line will have to be elevated well above the georges river just as the old army rail line was to avoid flood waters. This little section of track is going to be extremely difficult since the metro would have to go under liverpool station while also staying above the flood level.

Anybody living at Liverpool who has to commute in to the city has made the wrong choice to live in Liverpool. There is a good reason why I don't do any work in the city and that is because it is too hard to commute there from Liverpool. I don't see the metro extension to Liverpool happening because it is an even larger engineering challenge then under the Harbour. It will cost atleast $10 billion whereas fixing the sefton traingle for metro would only cost $1 billion.
simstrain
We have had this discussion, before, telling people where to live and where to work isn't the role of the govt.

The issue is this, if you run the Metro via Seftn, spending $1B, what have you achieved and who is your target audience? Slow, curvy line to Cabaramtta that isn't attractive to anyone more than the current line. May as well leave it DD and spend the money elsewhere.

Who says you cannot tunnel in sand? There is also cut and fill potential option. Flooding is irrelevant if you are in a tunnel, there is plenty of scope to go deep under any dredging which would have occured anyway and plenty of ground suited to build large structures on so suitable to tunnel through to get to Liverpool station?

Who says you need to stay above the flood level? Might be worth looking at Metro systems built in cities that actually flood.

The sole purpose of going direct to Liverpool is to save time and make the corridor attractive to pull riders away from mainly T2 and lessor degree via T8. Direct from Bankstown would likely incur just one, maybe two intermediate stops, the rest would be at 90-100km/h.

Cannot see how it would cost anywhere near $10B. 11km with three stations. is about $4-5B. The issue is that $4-5B on its own also doesn't justify the outcome for the number of passengers involved and the reason the project was curtailed back to Bankstown. Hence Liverpool via Regents Park to the city is the future option and that $4-5B is now part of the Western Metro budget.
  Transtopic Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney
Grade separation at that junction via tunnel will be high cost. You have only 450m from the end of Birrong platform to drop down below the sunked freight line and I doubt its physically practical. Plus you have a rail underpass east of Sefton to content with.

The tunneling might have to go to the west of Chester Hill but this will still be significantly cheaper then trying to attempt to build a rail line directly from Bankstown to Liverpool. There is a reason the current rail line takes the route it takes. The georges river is extremely flood prone in this area near bankstown airport and with all the sand mining that has taken place tunneling is highly impractical.

As for Birrong station if the freight line can go down and under in a similar amount of distance then the metro can easily dive in such a short amount of distance but also the station at birrong could be rebuilt lower to alleviate this issue as it is on a bit of a rise from Yagoona.

At moorebank leading in to Liverpool the rail line will have to be elevated well above the georges river just as the old army rail line was to avoid flood waters. This little section of track is going to be extremely difficult since the metro would have to go under liverpool station while also staying above the flood level.

Anybody living at Liverpool who has to commute in to the city has made the wrong choice to live in Liverpool. There is a good reason why I don't do any work in the city and that is because it is too hard to commute there from Liverpool. I don't see the metro extension to Liverpool happening because it is an even larger engineering challenge then under the Harbour. It will cost atleast $10 billion whereas fixing the sefton traingle for metro would only cost $1 billion.
We have had this discussion, before, telling people where to live and where to work isn't the role of the govt.

The issue is this, if you run the Metro via Seftn, spending $1B, what have you achieved and who is your target audience? Slow, curvy line to Cabaramtta that isn't attractive to anyone more than the current line. May as well leave it DD and spend the money elsewhere.

Who says you cannot tunnel in sand? There is also cut and fill potential option. Flooding is irrelevant if you are in a tunnel, there is plenty of scope to go deep under any dredging which would have occured anyway and plenty of ground suited to build large structures on so suitable to tunnel through to get to Liverpool station?

Who says you need to stay above the flood level? Might be worth looking at Metro systems built in cities that actually flood.

The sole purpose of going direct to Liverpool is to save time and make the corridor attractive to pull riders away from mainly T2 and lessor degree via T8. Direct from Bankstown would likely incur just one, maybe two intermediate stops, the rest would be at 90-100km/h.

Cannot see how it would cost anywhere near $10B. 11km with three stations. is about $4-5B. The issue is that $4-5B on its own also doesn't justify the outcome for the number of passengers involved and the reason the project was curtailed back to Bankstown. Hence Liverpool via Regents Park to the city is the future option and that $4-5B is now part of the Western Metro budget.
RTT_Rules
Agree.  The metro extension from Bankstown to Cabramatta and also Lidcombe was cancelled long ago.  It's dead, buried and cremated with little chance of it being resurrected, so there's not much point in discussing it.  Extension of the metro from Bankstown to Liverpool on a more direct alignment could still be problematic as you say.  Alternative plans have now been instigated for T3 west of Bankstown.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE

......

The only way I can see the flying junctions not being utilised to maximise the potential frequency of 24tph in both directions on the City Circle with ATP/ATO, except for emergency operations and maintenance shutdowns, is if T2 on the Inner West Local becomes an all stations service and it is feasible to further upgrade the Airport Line to the higher frequency from the currently proposed 18tph.  With the limited time savings for T2 semi-express services, it would make more sense to maximise its frequency with a single all stops pattern.  The signalling upgrade will allow faster all round journey times anyway, even with an all stops pattern.

......

There will be no shuttle from Liverpool to Bankstown to interchange to the metro, but there will be one from Lidcombe to Bankstown.  For those from Liverpool who want to use the metro, they can interchange to the Lidcombe shuttle at Regents Park and interchange again at Bankstown.  Following community consultation, the overwhelming response was to reinstate the Liverpool via Regents Park service on the Inner West Local, rather than being forced to interchange to the metro at Bankstown.  That says it all.
Transtopic
This is why I think we will see in the not too distant future the Inner West Metro, perhaps it may head north from Ashfield then following Victoria Road to Top Ryde and West Ryde Station and then west to Paramatta. Eliminates the 6 inner inner west stations, potentially even Croydon.

Given the choice to the self loading cattle, yes they will choose direct connection every time and considering the route to getting to Bankstown I cannot blame them.

The Lidcombe to Bankstown Shuttle proposal needs to be dumped as its another Olympic Park style shuttle chewing up multiple train sets and crews to provide a regular enough service to be attractive to a small number of users. Would be much better to extend the Metro and some of its services to Sefton on a ~10min frequency.

Regents Park would be better as terminating station as its currently getting twice as much users as Sefton, an down and under for the metro line to cross the freight line in the south to north leg of the triangle then push a 3rd track through to the station by rebuilding the bridges on east side and 3rd platform, all do able with a cost.
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

An inner west metro is a nice idea and it would be nice to get rid of the mixed stopping patterns but I'm not sure if this government is interested in doing this.

Extending the metro around to Regents Park is a good option and then not only could you run ST via regents park services but you could run Lidcombe to Liverpool shuttles to increase frequency to the metro at Regents Park.

Adding that third track between lidcombe and Homebush would be nice and with that new set of crossovers at eveleigh / erskineville you could run the inner west T2 locals onto the old Bankstown line platforms at Redfern and the IW T2 and T9 suburbans on to the current T2 platforms at Redfern and use the flyovers to bring them all back to the correct platforms.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
An inner west metro is a nice idea and it would be nice to get rid of the mixed stopping patterns but I'm not sure if this government is interested in doing this.
simstrain
...yet

Given time I can see the DD services removed from most inner stations on most routes. The technology and design is better suited to longer hauled, fill up between outer and middle urban then run express to the city.
  viaprojects Chief Train Controller



Extending the metro around to Regents Park is a good option and then not only could you run ST via regents park services but you could run Lidcombe to Liverpool shuttles to increase frequency to the metro at Regents Park.

simstrain
high cost option as you still have freight services in the area .. the government does not have the cash for flyovers or another tunnel project .. still have issues with other transport projects ..
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

high cost option as you still have freight services in the area .. the government does not have the cash for flyovers or another tunnel project .. still have issues with other transport projects ..
viaprojects

Freight doesn't run in the peak hour. The NSW Government most certainly does have the money and this option is still cheaper then the proposed extension along a new route to Liverpool.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
high cost option as you still have freight services in the area .. the government does not have the cash for flyovers or another tunnel project .. still have issues with other transport projects ..

Freight doesn't run in the peak hour. The NSW Government most certainly does have the money and this option is still cheaper then the proposed extension along a new route to Liverpool.
simstrain
Flyover is cheap, the widening under the two bridges would cost more +3rd platform.

Benefit is long-term, the govt eliminates the operation of a high labor low patronage rail service between 4 stations and Metro has a proper tie in to the western part of the network. If there was room and possible demand I'd say extend to Lidcombe, but this is going to cost too much.
  viaprojects Chief Train Controller


The NSW Government most certainly does have the money
simstrain


it's gone very quiet on the other metro lines and the 2nd stage Parramatta light rail ...
  Transtopic Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney
An inner west metro is a nice idea and it would be nice to get rid of the mixed stopping patterns but I'm not sure if this government is interested in doing this.

Extending the metro around to Regents Park is a good option and then not only could you run ST via regents park services but you could run Lidcombe to Liverpool shuttles to increase frequency to the metro at Regents Park.

Adding that third track between lidcombe and Homebush would be nice and with that new set of crossovers at eveleigh / erskineville you could run the inner west T2 locals onto the old Bankstown line platforms at Redfern and the IW T2 and T9 suburbans on to the current T2 platforms at Redfern and use the flyovers to bring them all back to the correct platforms.
simstrain
For reasons expressed earlier, we should forget about extending the metro from Bankstown along the existing line, whether it be to Sefton, Regents Park or Lidcombe.  It would be better to maximize its use by ST after the proposed signalling upgrades and any future track amplifications on the Western Line.

As a local, you have previously stated that from anecdotal evidence, Liverpool commuters prefer to travel to the CBD via Granville rather than the existing ST route via Bankstown.  It is therefore even less likely that they would want to travel to Bankstown and interchange to the metro.  This has already been borne out by the outcome of the community consultation, where they were overwhelmingly in favour of TfNSW preferred option of reinstating the Liverpool via Regents Park service direct to the CBD via the Inner West Local.  The previously proposed shuttle from Liverpool to Bankstown to feed into the metro was dropped altogether, so extending the metro to Sefton or Regents Park would be pointless.  The limited number of commuters from Liverpool to the Bankstown metro could change at Regents Park to the ST Lidcombe to Bankstown shuttle.

It's not feasible to extend the Local from Homebush through Lidcombe because of the restricted rail corridor on the surface at Lidcombe Station.  The better option is to extend the Main Line with a new partly underground track pair on the northern side of the rail corridor for Western Express and Intercity services from Homebush to Granville without any intermediate stations.

It has previously been suggested on another forum that the Sydney Terminal Area Reconfiguration project (STAR), which includes the new Erskineville crossovers, will effectively realign the tracks through Redfern Station as you alluded to. Although it hasn't yet been officially confirmed, it was suggested that the Western Main and Illawarra Dive tracks will run into Platforms 1 & 2 at Redfern, as they currently do, and a flat junction crossover from the Main to the Suburban before the dive will run into Platforms 3 & 4 and link with the second track pair into Sydney Terminal near the Cleveland St overbridge.  All other tracks from the Suburban to the Illawarra Local will shift across in parallel to Platforms 9 & 10 and back again to their original paths before the flying junctions.  This makes a lot of sense as Platforms 9 & 10 on the Illawarra Main are no longer in use for normal operations.  Whether Platforms 9 & 10 on the realigned Illawarra Local continue to be used if all T8 services are diverted to the Airport Line remains to be seen.
  Transtopic Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney
Benefit is long-term, the govt eliminates the operation of a high labor low patronage rail service between 4 stations and Metro has a proper tie in to the western part of the network. If there was room and possible demand I'd say extend to Lidcombe, but this is going to cost too much.
RTT_Rules
I think you have to look at the Lidcombe to Bankstown shuttle as an interim arrangement until the digital signalling upgrade and possible Western Line sextuplication between Homebush and Granville are completed.

As I mentioned previously, it's hardly worth maintaining the mixed stopping pattern on T2 if only a few minutes are saved for the semi-express services.  The higher the frequency, the less travel time savings there will be.  It would be more advantageous to have a single all stops pattern allowing the maximum frequency to be realised, which will be faster with the signalling upgrade.

The digital signalling upgrade and Western Line sextuplication will allow up to 24tph on the Inner West Line in a single pattern, which will run into the western arm of the City Circle.  That could potentially allow the Lidcombe to Bankstown shuttle to take over the paths of the T2 Parramatta service to the CBD, which would be shifted to T1 as a semi-express service on the Suburban because of the extra track pair.

A possible pattern for T2 could be 12tph Glenfield and/or Liverpool via Granville; 6tph Glenfield and/or Liverpool via Regents Park and 6tph Bankstown via Regents Park (Total 24tph).  IMO, T2 Leppington and any extension will eventually be shifted to the T8 sector via the East Hills Line. T5 Cumberland Line to be maintained, but from Campbelltown to Blacktown or St Marys at 6tph all day frequency.
  nswtrains Chief Commissioner

Benefit is long-term, the govt eliminates the operation of a high labor low patronage rail service between 4 stations and Metro has a proper tie in to the western part of the network. If there was room and possible demand I'd say extend to Lidcombe, but this is going to cost too much.
I think you have to look at the Lidcombe to Bankstown shuttle as an interim arrangement until the digital signalling upgrade and possible Western Line sextuplication between Homebush and Granville are completed.

As I mentioned previously, it's hardly worth maintaining the mixed stopping pattern on T2 if only a few minutes are saved for the semi-express services.  The higher the frequency, the less travel time savings there will be.  It would be more advantageous to have a single all stops pattern allowing the maximum frequency to be realised, which will be faster with the signalling upgrade.

The digital signalling upgrade and Western Line sextuplication will allow up to 24tph on the Inner West Line in a single pattern, which will run into the western arm of the City Circle.  That could potentially allow the Lidcombe to Bankstown shuttle to take over the paths of the T2 Parramatta service to the CBD, which would be shifted to T1 as a semi-express service on the Suburban because of the extra track pair.

A possible pattern for T2 could be 12tph Glenfield and/or Liverpool via Granville; 6tph Glenfield and/or Liverpool via Regents Park and 6tph Bankstown via Regents Park (Total 24tph).  IMO, T2 Leppington and any extension will eventually be shifted to the T8 sector via the East Hills Line. T5 Cumberland Line to be maintained, but from Campbelltown to Blacktown or St Marys at 6tph all day frequency.
Transtopic
If you think any time soon, or ever, that there will be any sextuplication of the western, then you are dreaming. The government is not interested in expanding the current heavy rail network.
  Transtopic Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney
If you think any time soon, or ever, that there will be any sextuplication of the western, then you are dreaming. The government is not interested in expanding the current heavy rail network.
nswtrains
The recently released Project Business Case Evaluation Summary by Infrastructure Australia for the More Trains, More Services - Stage 2 program, acknowledges the benefits for future stages to "leverage the digital systems tested and rolled out on previous stages, with additional track infrastructure creating 'fast lanes' on key rail corridors to the Illawarra, West and North".  TfNSW press releases have also indicated an intention to upgrade track infrastructure to create 'express lanes'.  I interpret that to mean further track amplifications.

The most obvious candidates would be the Hurstville to Sutherland quadruplication on the Illawarra Line; the Homebush to Granville sextuplication on the Western Line and the completion of quadruplication between Rhodes and West Ryde and triplication from Thornleigh to Hornsby on the Northern Line.  The latter case is already in the pipeline as a component of the Northern Sydney Freight Corridor Program, which will be jointly funded by the Federal and State Governments.  The business case for this project is currently being prepared with funding from Infrastructure Australia as a Nationally significant project.  I would consider that the Western Line sextuplication should be next on the list of priorities, regardless of the planning for Metro West. I regard them as being complementary projects, rather than one replacing the other.  Both are needed.
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

If you think any time soon, or ever, that there will be any sextuplication of the western, then you are dreaming. The government is not interested in expanding the current heavy rail network.
The recently released Project Business Case Evaluation Summary by Infrastructure Australia for the More Trains, More Services - Stage 2 program, acknowledges the benefits for future stages to "leverage the digital systems tested and rolled out on previous stages, with additional track infrastructure creating 'fast lanes' on key rail corridors to the Illawarra, West and North".  TfNSW press releases have also indicated an intention to upgrade track infrastructure to create 'express lanes'.  I interpret that to mean further track amplifications.

The most obvious candidates would be the Hurstville to Sutherland quadruplication on the Illawarra Line; the Homebush to Granville sextuplication on the Western Line and the completion of quadruplication between Rhodes and West Ryde and triplication from Thornleigh to Hornsby on the Northern Line.  The latter case is already in the pipeline as a component of the Northern Sydney Freight Corridor Program, which will be jointly funded by the Federal and State Governments.  The business case for this project is currently being prepared with funding from Infrastructure Australia as a Nationally significant project.  I would consider that the Western Line sextuplication should be next on the list of priorities, regardless of the planning for Metro West. I regard them as being complementary projects, rather than one replacing the other.  Both are needed.
Transtopic
I agree with your assessment, but I don't see much value in the "mid"-western sextup, nor even the amplification from Hurstville to Sutherland.  These projects are about traffic class delineation rather than capacity, and the transit time saving of each are marginal at best.  Quadding Hurstville to Mortdale makes a tiny bit of sense, if Cronulla becomes an interuban route Smile.

Where the real problem with the network is - and always has been, is Strathfield to Redfern.  ATM, the "solution" is to sacrifice transit time for Liverpool to achieve sectorisation and operational simplicity.

IMHO, station rationalisation on the corridor would help a lot.  Rationalise Lewisham, Pewtersham and Stanmore to just Petersham (with a decent connecting walkway).  Close Macdonaldtown and replace it with an Eastern Concourse at Newtown Station.

Have Burwood, Ashfield and Newtown as "major" stops (all Secetor 2 trains stop there).  Croydon, Summer Hill and Pewishmore served by 1 of the 4 patterns on the route, so all (well 3/4) trains make 4 stops between Strathfield and Redfern (limiting the transit penalty to 8 minutes).

I also think a Western Express with 2 CBD stations  (but perhaps only 1 at either Wynygaroo or Townyard), and 240m platforms to allow 10 and 12 car trains on the Western and Richmond lines.
  Transtopic Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney
I agree with your assessment, but I don't see much value in the "mid"-western sextup, nor even the amplification from Hurstville to Sutherland.  These projects are about traffic class delineation rather than capacity, and the transit time saving of each are marginal at best.  Quadding Hurstville to Mortdale makes a tiny bit of sense, if Cronulla becomes an interuban route Smile.

Where the real problem with the network is - and always has been, is Strathfield to Redfern.  ATM, the "solution" is to sacrifice transit time for Liverpool to achieve sectorisation and operational simplicity.

IMHO, station rationalisation on the corridor would help a lot.  Rationalise Lewisham, Pewtersham and Stanmore to just Petersham (with a decent connecting walkway).  Close Macdonaldtown and replace it with an Eastern Concourse at Newtown Station.

Have Burwood, Ashfield and Newtown as "major" stops (all Secetor 2 trains stop there).  Croydon, Summer Hill and Pewishmore served by 1 of the 4 patterns on the route, so all (well 3/4) trains make 4 stops between Strathfield and Redfern (limiting the transit penalty to 8 minutes).

I also think a Western Express with 2 CBD stations  (but perhaps only 1 at either Wynygaroo or Townyard), and 240m platforms to allow 10 and 12 car trains on the Western and Richmond lines.
djf01
With respect djf, I totally disagree with your analysis, particularly with regard to your statement that you don't see much value in the "mid"- western sextup.  I'd regard this as being the most critical factor in improving the performance on this section of the Western Line corridor.  It's a myth that Metro West will resolve the constricted capacity on this sector.

For starters, you have 3 track pairs merging into 2 at Granville and another from the proposed reinstatement of the Liverpool via Regents Park services.  It already restricts the full utilisation of Platforms 3 & 4 at Parramatta, which only have 6tph in the peak, when they could potentially be quadruple that with further track amplification and the signalling upgrade, as well as completely segregating T1 and T2.  Platforms 1 & 2 at Parramatta are maxed out at 20tph, including BM Intercity.  It beggars belief how you can be so dismissive of this fact.

Similarly, while the quad extension from Hurstville to Sutherland doesn't have the same priority, it will eventually be needed.  It is anticipated that the maximum frequency between Hurstville and Sutherland on the existing single track pair will be 18tph with a mixed stopping pattern.  That restricts the number of trains, both suburban and intercity, which could run on the quad track from the CBD to Hurstville.  The quad track extension will enable all stations and express services to be separated as they currently are on sections of the Northern, Western and East Hills Lines, increasing overall capacity.

The Main Line tracks on the Strathfield to Redfern sector are currently underutilised, with only 12tph in the peak, when they could be double that with the signalling upgrade and diversion of more suburban services into Sydney Terminal. The Sydney Terminal Area Reconfiguration Project implies that this is the intention, although admittedly not ideal, forcing interchange to reach other CBD destinations.

As I alluded to earlier, any sextuplication of the Western Line corridor should extend into the CBD via a new express tunnel, which would be relatively inexpensive without any intermediate stations.  That would allow all Western Line services to be diverted to the new link and also allow the longer distance T2 services via Granville and Regents Park to share the express Suburban tracks with T9 through the CBD across the Harbour Bridge. It may not strictly conform with sectorisation, but so what if it separates express and all stations services through the Inner West.

Good luck with eliminating stations on the Inner West Line.  It's totally unrealistic, when it could be upgraded to a high frequency 'turn up and go' service at 24tph, whether SD or DD, if there was the will to amplify the Strathfield to CBD corridor.

A Western Express service into the CBD still warrants consideration.  It could initially branch from the Main at Eveleigh as originally proposed, with new underground stations at Redfern, Central, Town Hall West and Wynyard (under Platforms 3 & 4 and the intermediate station concourse}.  In the longer term, the suggested express tunnel from Strathfield could link with it.

With the current Waratah fleet limited to indivisable 8 car sets, it's not practicable to increase suburban services to 10 or 12 car sets, so there is no point in increasing platform lengths to 240m.  The 10 car NIF sets will all run into Sydney Terminal.
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

I agree with your assessment, but I don't see much value in the "mid"-western sextup, nor even the amplification from Hurstville to Sutherland.  These projects are about traffic class delineation rather than capacity, and the transit time saving of each are marginal at best.  Quadding Hurstville to Mortdale makes a tiny bit of sense, if Cronulla becomes an interuban route Smile
....
With respect djf, I totally disagree with your analysis, particularly with regard to your statement that you don't see much value in the "mid"- western sextup.  I'd regard this as being the most critical factor in improving the performance on this section of the Western Line corridor.  It's a myth that Metro West will resolve the constricted capacity on this sector.

For starters, you have 3 track pairs merging into 2 at Granville and another from the proposed reinstatement of the Liverpool via Regents Park services.  ...
Transtopic

My argument against the Granville-Strathfield sextup is:

1) It won't add significant extra capacity, due to restrictions elsewhere on the network, and won't add any at all unless sectorisation is broken (somewhere else).  There are 4 (arguably 5) track pairs merging to 3 at Strathfield.

2) The transit time benefits are marginal, at best, skipping 5 stops for only some services.

At the moment only some Northern Line suburbans and then only during peak terminate at Sydney Terminal.  But I think it is clear the intention is to have the entire northern line run into ST.  IMHO, the Western Line is a better candidate, simply to allow capacity increases through longer (rather than more) trains.

Personally, I think a Strathfield to Redfern amplification would do more good (and removing stations in a sense is "amplification", shifting traffic onto a 4th track pair with a different gauge operated by rubber tyred rolling stock /s).
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

It has previously been suggested on another forum that the Sydney Terminal Area Reconfiguration project (STAR), which includes the new Erskineville crossovers, will effectively realign the tracks through Redfern Station as you alluded to. Although it hasn't yet been officially confirmed, it was suggested that the Western Main and Illawarra Dive tracks will run into Platforms 1 & 2 at Redfern, as they currently do, and a flat junction crossover from the Main to the Suburban before the dive will run into Platforms 3 & 4 and link with the second track pair into Sydney Terminal near the Cleveland St overbridge.  All other tracks from the Suburban to the Illawarra Local will shift across in parallel to Platforms 9 & 10 and back again to their original paths before the flying junctions.  This makes a lot of sense as Platforms 9 & 10 on the Illawarra Main are no longer in use for normal operations.  Whether Platforms 9 & 10 on the realigned Illawarra Local continue to be used if all T8 services are diverted to the Airport Line remains to be seen.
Transtopic

This project would make the most sense and would provide the most capacity boost.
  Transtopic Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney
My argument against the Granville-Strathfield sextup is:

1) It won't add significant extra capacity, due to restrictions elsewhere on the network, and won't add any at all unless sectorisation is broken (somewhere else).  There are 4 (arguably 5) track pairs merging to 3 at Strathfield.

2) The transit time benefits are marginal, at best, skipping 5 stops for only some services.

At the moment only some Northern Line suburbans and then only during peak terminate at Sydney Terminal.  But I think it is clear the intention is to have the entire northern line run into ST.  IMHO, the Western Line is a better candidate, simply to allow capacity increases through longer (rather than more) trains.

Personally, I think a Strathfield to Redfern amplification would do more good (and removing stations in a sense is "amplification", shifting traffic onto a 4th track pair with a different gauge operated by rubber tyred rolling stock /s).
djf01
Quite to the contrary, the sextup will add significant extra capacity and sectorisation will be maintained and improved by transferring the T2 Parramatta services to T1 with an extended all stations service to/from say Blacktown.  It could also allow for an improved T5 Cumberland Line service.

At the moment, the 2 track pairs between Granville and Strathfield have 32tph in the peak including 4 BM Intercity services.  This will increase to 36tph when the Liverpool via Regents Park services are reinstated.  The potential maximum capacity of 40tph with the current signalling could be achievable if T2 became an all stops pattern. That still falls well short of the potential 60tph on the 3 track pairs from Strathfield to Central, allowing for a further 12tph T9 services including Intercity.

With the Granville - Strathfield sextup, that adds another 20tph on that sector with current signalling, also bringing it up to 60tph, the same as the Strathfield - Central sector.  The sextup and digital signalling upgrade will potentially bring the whole Granville to Central sector up to 72tph from the current 46tph (including T9 & T2 Ashfield), which is a significant increase in anyone's language.

But how will these additional services be accommodated into the CBD with the existing track infrastructure (Strathfield to Central) you may well ask?

It's really quite simple.  Greater use could be made of the underutilised Main Line into Sydney Terminal for both Suburban and Intercity services, and the T2 Inner West Local could become an all stations service allowing it to realise its optimum capacity.  Each line would be segregated without any crossovers, a single pattern (all stops or express) would be operated on the respective track pairs and sectorisation would not be compromised.

There doesn't appear to be any publicly released information yet about the intended future operations for Suburban services terminating at Central, apart from redirecting South Coast Intercity services from Bondi Junction to Central via the Illawarra Dive.  I agree that it would be preferable for Western Line express services from Penrith and Richmond to run on the Main to Sydney Terminal, shared with BM and CCN Intercity services, rather than T9 from Hornsby.  Hornsby via Strathfield is half the distance of the Penrith and Richmond Lines and it would be more logical for the latter to use the Main Line, without the need to cross over to the Suburban tracks.  The T9 Northern Line Suburban services merge more easily at Strathfield with the Suburban tracks via the grade separated flyover.  T1 Western Line semi-express services would still retain a through service on the Suburban tracks across the Harbour Bridge to the North Shore Line, while T9 would miss out altogether if services terminated at Central.

I agree that in the longer term, further track amplification between Strathfield and Central may be warranted, regardless of Metro West, but it wouldn't be needed until the existing Main Line reached its maximum capacity.  It would only need to be an express tunnel to Redfern without any intermediate stations, although it should logically extend into the CBD via a City Relief Line as previously proposed.

I don't quite get your last statement about the 4th track pair with a different gauge and rubber tyred rolling stock, unless you're taking the mickey.

Sponsored advertisement

Display from: