NSW Gov funding for services post-Bankstown Metro Opening

 
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
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.
Transtopic
Mmm, was just reading some stiff on Western Airport Metro and one of the maps used shows the Bankstown to Liverpool Metro and has listed potential future metro from Liverpool.

I agree its not going to happen before 2030, however I wouldn't quite write it off yet.

Sponsored advertisement

  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
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.  ...

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
The sexup will keep T2/T3 off T1.

It will enable T1 Western line services to operate without conflicting moves and the need for a tightly sync'ed timetable and would basically eliminate any interaction between T1 and T9 with any other line excluding T5.

It would also enable the interurban services and outer suburban expresses to operate with less stops and less chance of delays though forced conflicting movements at Homebush.

Longerterm, the Sexup and removal of much of the Inner West stations to their own Metro would provide a vastly streamlined network moving people from Nth, West and SW via the Western corridor very efficiently with few stops with greatly increased capacity over today with no conflicting movements and far less synchronized timetabling.

For me the longterm key DD capacity and further debottle necking improvements required are
- Sexup Homebush to Lidcombe and later Granville
- Construct Inner West Metro
- Extend Quad to Sutherland
- Extend Quad to East Hills.
- Quad Glenfield to Campbelltown
- Quad Nth Sydney to St Leonard's
- Quad St Mary's to Penrith
- Quad Strathfield to Hornsby

Western Airport Metro needs to be delayed by up to 10 years and simply extend the Leppington line for a fraction to the cost to Aerotroplis and Airport.
  viaprojects Chief Train Controller



For me the longterm key DD capacity and further debottle necking improvements required are
- Sexup Homebush to Lidcombe and later Granville
- Construct Inner West Metro

- Quad Nth Sydney to St Leonard's
- Quad St Mary's to Penrith
RTT_Rules


not going to happen .. got the metro for the most part ... and st Mary's to Penrith has been trashed that cost is a problem - moving the the yards at Penrith has been cancel a long time ago ..


Western Airport Metro needs to be delayed by up to 10 years and simply extend the Leppington line for a fraction to the cost to Aerotroplis and Airport.


no thanks ... the feds will pull all there cash support for any rail option in the area ..
  Transtopic Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney
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.
Mmm, was just reading some stiff on Western Airport Metro and one of the maps used shows the Bankstown to Liverpool Metro and has listed potential future metro from Liverpool.

I agree its not going to happen before 2030, however I wouldn't quite write it off yet.
RTT_Rules
I can't say I've seen any recent plans to extend a Bankstown - Liverpool metro to the new airport, as that was dropped long ago.  However, I concede that the Bankstown - Liverpool metro extension is still a possibility
  Transtopic Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney
The sexup will keep T2/T3 off T1.

It will enable T1 Western line services to operate without conflicting moves and the need for a tightly sync'ed timetable and would basically eliminate any interaction between T1 and T9 with any other line excluding T5.

It would also enable the interurban services and outer suburban expresses to operate with less stops and less chance of delays though forced conflicting movements at Homebush.

Longerterm, the Sexup and removal of much of the Inner West stations to their own Metro would provide a vastly streamlined network moving people from Nth, West and SW via the Western corridor very efficiently with few stops with greatly increased capacity over today with no conflicting movements and far less synchronized timetabling.

For me the longterm key DD capacity and further debottle necking improvements required are
- Sexup Homebush to Lidcombe and later Granville
- Construct Inner West Metro
- Extend Quad to Sutherland
- Extend Quad to East Hills.
- Quad Glenfield to Campbelltown
- Quad Nth Sydney to St Leonard's
- Quad St Mary's to Penrith
- Quad Strathfield to Hornsby

Western Airport Metro needs to be delayed by up to 10 years and simply extend the Leppington line for a fraction to the cost to Aerotroplis and Airport.
RTT_Rules
I basically agree with what you're saying, but would it be necessary to convert the Inner West Line to metro?  You also have to consider how that would affect the City Circle which also has to cater for longer distance T2 Liverpool/Leppington and T8 Campbelltown DD services.  I don't think it's feasible.  

You could just as easily run compatible SD trains from say Bankstown via Regents Park and the Inner West through the City Circle to Revesby or East Hills, in tandem with the longer distance DD services.  But when you think it through, what's the point of it if you can run a train every 2 and a half minutes (24tph) with the digital signalling upgrade and without all the cost and disruption of converting it to metro.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
The sexup will keep T2/T3 off T1.

It will enable T1 Western line services to operate without conflicting moves and the need for a tightly sync'ed timetable and would basically eliminate any interaction between T1 and T9 with any other line excluding T5.

It would also enable the interurban services and outer suburban expresses to operate with less stops and less chance of delays though forced conflicting movements at Homebush.

Longerterm, the Sexup and removal of much of the Inner West stations to their own Metro would provide a vastly streamlined network moving people from Nth, West and SW via the Western corridor very efficiently with few stops with greatly increased capacity over today with no conflicting movements and far less synchronized timetabling.

For me the longterm key DD capacity and further debottle necking improvements required are
- Sexup Homebush to Lidcombe and later Granville
- Construct Inner West Metro
- Extend Quad to Sutherland
- Extend Quad to East Hills.
- Quad Glenfield to Campbelltown
- Quad Nth Sydney to St Leonard's
- Quad St Mary's to Penrith
- Quad Strathfield to Hornsby

Western Airport Metro needs to be delayed by up to 10 years and simply extend the Leppington line for a fraction to the cost to Aerotroplis and Airport.
I basically agree with what you're saying, but would it be necessary to convert the Inner West Line to metro?  You also have to consider how that would affect the City Circle which also has to cater for longer distance T2 Liverpool/Leppington and T8 Campbelltown DD services.  I don't think it's feasible.  

You could just as easily run compatible SD trains from say Bankstown via Regents Park and the Inner West through the City Circle to Revesby or East Hills, in tandem with the longer distance DD services.  But when you think it through, what's the point of it if you can run a train every 2 and a half minutes (24tph) with the digital signalling upgrade and without all the cost and disruption of converting it to metro.
Transtopic
The purpose of converting the Inner West to a Metro is to enable more services into the tunnels from the Liverpool via what ever route you choose while at the same time making the service faster by reducing stops.

Agree, Bankstown Metro should start at Regents Park AND Liverpool, eventually.

The future is a completely disentangled network where each line/service has its own pair for tracks with the same stopping pattern. Its why the Metro is being built to enable this to happen immediately on the Metro corridor and start the progress on the DD corridor to this direction.

increasing capacity from 20 to 24 t/h just buys you time, but if the trains need to cross paths your stuffed.

So say by 2030, Inner West Metro to Strathfield is built AND Sexup to Granville.
8 services per hour via each route all to Burwood, Redfern, City. No crossing paths with any other service apart from T5, vastly improved reliability, timetable and operational simplicity.





Liverpool via both Regents Park and Granvile operating at 16 trains per hour
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE


For me the longterm key DD capacity and further debottle necking improvements required are
- Sexup Homebush to Lidcombe and later Granville
- Construct Inner West Metro

- Quad Nth Sydney to St Leonard's
- Quad St Mary's to Penrith

not going to happen .. got the metro for the most part ... and st Mary's to Penrith has been trashed that cost is a problem - moving the the yards at Penrith has been cancel a long time ago ..


Western Airport Metro needs to be delayed by up to 10 years and simply extend the Leppington line for a fraction to the cost to Aerotroplis and Airport.

no thanks ... the feds will pull all there cash support for any rail option in the area ..
viaprojects
Penrith, just run 4 tracks into the 3 platform station with a shunt neck beyond the station if needed and is there already.

Emu Plains will eventually need a 3rd track to enable terminators to get out of the way of through traffic.

Feds can pay for the Leppington extension. Money banked for another day.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
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.
Mmm, was just reading some stiff on Western Airport Metro and one of the maps used shows the Bankstown to Liverpool Metro and has listed potential future metro from Liverpool.

I agree its not going to happen before 2030, however I wouldn't quite write it off yet.
I can't say I've seen any recent plans to extend a Bankstown - Liverpool metro to the new airport, as that was dropped long ago.  However, I concede that the Bankstown - Liverpool metro extension is still a possibility
Transtopic
Bankstown - Liverpool extension is off the plan, for now!

I would not say its dead and buried by a longshot and the fact its still on the some of the Sydney Western Airport dsketches means they haven't forgotten either.
  Transtopic Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney




Western Airport Metro needs to be delayed by up to 10 years and simply extend the Leppington line for a fraction to the cost to Aerotroplis and Airport.


no thanks ... the feds will pull all there cash support for any rail option in the area ..
viaprojects
I wouldn't be so sure about that.  The Feds have been largely reliant on the State government for their input for a rail link to the new airport, but in the light of the damning Infrastructure Australia assessment, they may start to question whether they've backed the right horse.  They are after all contributing half the cost and are under considerable budgetary pressure because of the COVID pandemic.

If it can be demonstrated that the extension of the existing line from Leppington to the Aerotropolis and Airport Terminal is a lot less expensive as well as providing a better performing option in the short term in connecting with the broader rail network, including the CBD,  then I can see no reason why the Feds wouldn't support it.  They wouldn't care whether or not it's a metro.  The State government's business case is deficient and hasn't been able to demonstrate why their preferred option of the North-South Link from the Aerotropolis to St Marys should be prioritised.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE




Western Airport Metro needs to be delayed by up to 10 years and simply extend the Leppington line for a fraction to the cost to Aerotroplis and Airport.


no thanks ... the feds will pull all there cash support for any rail option in the area ..I wouldn't be so sure about that.  The Feds have been largely reliant on the State government for their input for a rail link to the new airport, but in the light of the damning Infrastructure Australia assessment, they may start to question whether they've backed the right horse.  They are after all contributing half the cost and are under considerable budgetary pressure because of the COVID pandemic.

If it can be demonstrated that the extension of the existing line from Leppington to the Aerotropolis and Airport Terminal is a lot less expensive as well as providing a better performing option in the short term in connecting with the broader rail network, including the CBD,  then I can see no reason why the Feds wouldn't support it.  They wouldn't care whether or not it's a metro.  The State government's business case is deficient and hasn't been able to demonstrate why their preferred option of the North-South Link from the Aerotropolis to St Marys should be prioritised.
Transtopic
13 - 14km of track through mostly low cost country side,
No stabling facilities
No stand alone MTCE facilities
Extension of existing services
Only require a few more sets
Only need to build two new stations
Could be up and running before the airports first passenger plane
Time table can be readily adjusted to suit first few years of expect light passenger numbers.
fits into the existing network like a glove.
Provides direct services to Both Paramatta and Sydney CBD.
Expected construction cost around $2 - 2.5 B (depending on length of tunnels and underground stations, not $11B.
  Transtopic Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney
The purpose of converting the Inner West to a Metro is to enable more services into the tunnels from the Liverpool via what ever route you choose while at the same time making the service faster by reducing stops.

Agree, Bankstown Metro should start at Regents Park AND Liverpool, eventually.

The future is a completely disentangled network where each line/service has its own pair for tracks with the same stopping pattern. Its why the Metro is being built to enable this to happen immediately on the Metro corridor and start the progress on the DD corridor to this direction.

increasing capacity from 20 to 24 t/h just buys you time, but if the trains need to cross paths your stuffed.

So say by 2030, Inner West Metro to Strathfield is built AND Sexup to Granville.
8 services per hour via each route all to Burwood, Redfern, City. No crossing paths with any other service apart from T5, vastly improved reliability, timetable and operational simplicity.





Liverpool via both Regents Park and Granvile operating at 16 trains per hour
RTT_Rules
I don't quite understand what you're getting at.  I've already demonstrated how the network can be untangled with segregated lines and single stopping patterns, without the need to convert to metro on the Inner West Line.  The digital signalling upgrade will enable higher frequencies and faster journey times.  I don't see the need to increase frequency from 24tph to 30tph by converting to metro to save half a minute, when it's questionable whether that frequency is even warranted on the inner sections of the line.


Just BTW, I don't agree that the Bankstown metro should be extended to Regents Park or Liverpool on the existing tracks.  That's already been dropped with the proposed reinstatement of Liverpool via Regents Park services post Bankstown Line metro conversion.
  Transtopic Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney
Bankstown - Liverpool extension is off the plan, for now!

I would not say its dead and buried by a longshot and the fact its still on the some of the Sydney Western Airport dsketches means they haven't forgotten either.
RTT_Rules
I wouldn't say it's off the agenda, but it obviously needs further investigation to determine if it's feasible, having regard to the flood prone topography.
  Transtopic Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney
13 - 14km of track through mostly low cost country side,
No stabling facilities
No stand alone MTCE facilities
Extension of existing services
Only require a few more sets
Only need to build two new stations
Could be up and running before the airports first passenger plane
Time table can be readily adjusted to suit first few years of expect light passenger numbers.
fits into the existing network like a glove.
Provides direct services to Both Paramatta and Sydney CBD.
Expected construction cost around $2 - 2.5 B (depending on length of tunnels and underground stations, not $11B.
RTT_Rules
Agree entirely with your assessment.  You've nailed it on the head.

It's a shame that the media and the State Opposition haven't emphasised these facts to question the government's ideological metro agenda, specifically with regard to an immediate rail connection to the new airport.  It doesn't preclude future North-South rail links, whether metro or the existing network, connecting with the Airport and Aerotropolis when the demand warrants it.
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

My argument against the Granville-Strathfield sextup is:

1) It won't add significant extra capacity ...
2) The transit time benefits are marginal, at best, skipping 5 stops for only some services.
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.
Transtopic
(My Bolding).

Those two points mean capacity east of Strathfield available to the Granville-Strathfield corridor is - at best 46tph.  So you are building 20 slots of capacity, of which only 6 (at best) can used.

Further, T9 is (or was pre COVID) underserviced (competing for slots with T? (Penrith), and the NIFs mean there will be more Central Coast services via Strathfield (can't do via Chatswood with a 10 car train).

What I *thought* they would ultimately do is run all the Northern Line into Sydney Terminal and have that operate as a separate sector.  Probably about as politically popular as running all stations from Leppington to Sydney via Macdonnaldtown.  Just as I was taking the p*** with the rubber tyred metro to service the inner west, if they slow that service down any more @simstrain and the Liverpudlians won't be asking for 2+2 seating and a loo, they'll want sleeping berths and a dining car Smile.

Even with a Western Express- which really would solve a lot of problems - I still don't see a great need or any great benefit in a sextup for the reasons above: it just moves the bottleneck - or perhaps just stresses the existing bottleneck more.  I would like to see the corridor upgraded for faster running: 120kph average from Parra to Central.
  djf01 Chief Commissioner





Western Airport Metro needs to be delayed by up to 10 years and simply extend the Leppington line for a fraction to the cost to Aerotroplis and Airport.


no thanks ... the feds will pull all there cash support for any rail option in the area ..I wouldn't be so sure about that.  The Feds have been largely reliant on the State government for their input for a rail link to the new airport, but in the light of the damning Infrastructure Australia assessment, they may start to question whether they've backed the right horse.  They are after all contributing half the cost and are under considerable budgetary pressure because of the COVID pandemic.

If it can be demonstrated that the extension of the existing line from Leppington to the Aerotropolis and Airport Terminal is a lot less expensive as well as providing a better performing option in the short term in connecting with the broader rail network, including the CBD,  then I can see no reason why the Feds wouldn't support it.  They wouldn't care whether or not it's a metro.  The State government's business case is deficient and hasn't been able to demonstrate why their preferred option of the North-South Link from the Aerotropolis to St Marys should be prioritised.13 - 14km of track through mostly low cost country side,
No stabling facilities
No stand alone MTCE facilities
Extension of existing services
Only require a few more sets
Only need to build two new stations
Could be up and running before the airports first passenger plane
Time table can be readily adjusted to suit first few years of expect light passenger numbers.
fits into the existing network like a glove.
Provides direct services to Both Paramatta and Sydney CBD.
Expected construction cost around $2 - 2.5 B (depending on length of tunnels and underground stations, not $11B.
RTT_Rules
I'll add one more to that: (potentially) a direct link between the two airports.
  Transtopic Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney
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.
(My Bolding).

Those two points mean capacity east of Strathfield available to the Granville-Strathfield corridor is - at best 46tph.  So you are building 20 slots of capacity, of which only 6 (at best) can used.

Further, T9 is (or was pre COVID) underserviced (competing for slots with T? (Penrith), and the NIFs mean there will be more Central Coast services via Strathfield (can't do via Chatswood with a 10 car train).

What I *thought* they would ultimately do is run all the Northern Line into Sydney Terminal and have that operate as a separate sector.  Probably about as politically popular as running all stations from Leppington to Sydney via Macdonnaldtown.  Just as I was taking the p*** with the rubber tyred metro to service the inner west, if they slow that service down any more @simstrain and the Liverpudlians won't be asking for 2+2 seating and a loo, they'll want sleeping berths and a dining car Smile.

Even with a Western Express- which really would solve a lot of problems - I still don't see a great need or any great benefit in a sextup for the reasons above: it just moves the bottleneck - or perhaps just stresses the existing bottleneck more.  I would like to see the corridor upgraded for faster running: 120kph average from Parra to Central.
djf01
No, that's not correct.  Putting aside the T2 sector between Granville and Strathfield, there are only 20tph on the other track pair, including 4tph BM Intercity for T1 services.  The sextup would potentially increase this to 40tph with existing signalling and 48tph with the upgrade. That's over double the existing capacity.

Assuming a future capacity of 14tph (8tph T9 + 6tph CCN) for the Northern Line merging at Strathfield, that leaves 34tph east of Strathfield for T1 and BM services with the sextup and signalling upgrade compared with the current 20tph.  This wouldn't be achievable without the sextup.  That still leaves spare capacity for both the Western and Northern Lines if there was further track amplification between Strathfield and Central.

If you run all Northern Line services into Sydney Terminal, then you would be stuck with T1 Western Line express services crossing from the Main to the Suburban, which could be avoided if the T1 express services ran into Sydney Terminal.

Regrettably, a faster express service for T2 from Leppington/Liverpool to the CBD isn't possible without further track amplification from Strathfield to Central.  However, the digital signalling upgrade will allow faster services even with an all stops pattern.  That's the compromise without further investment in upgrading the existing network.
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

Those two points mean capacity east of Strathfield available to the Granville-Strathfield corridor is - at best 46tph.  So you are building 20 slots of capacity, of which only 6 (at best) can used.
...
No, that's not correct.  Putting aside the T2 sector between Granville and Strathfield, there are only 20tph on the other track pair, including 4tph BM Intercity for T1 services.  The sextup would potentially increase this to 40tph with existing signalling and 48tph with the upgrade. That's over double the existing capacity.

Assuming a future capacity of 14tph (8tph T9 + 6tph CCN) for the Northern Line merging at Strathfield, that leaves 34tph east of Strathfield for T1 and BM services with the sextup and signalling upgrade compared with the current 20tph....
Transtopic

With all due respect, I think you are comparing apples with oranges a bit here, with pre and post signal upgrades - though I'm not convinced I have not mis-understood you.

14tph on the Mains from the North leaves 6 unused slots, and that is the extra capacity that could be unlocked by a sextup.

Post upgrading to 24tph it becomes 10 new slots, but only in the unlikely event the main north or CCoast services are added also.

I missed your comment on the STAA project, and not sure if I understood completely.  Was the suggestion the Mains would be redirected to the SHB and the Suburbans to the City Circle, or would things go "back to normal" east of Redfern?

I've long been an advocate of such a project, but always in the context of suburbanising the Interurbans (essentially trading away the capacity at ST for better sectorisation).  The NIFs/Ds make that impossible - or at least very very difficult.  (UG platform extensions, or front two cars do not stop art Town Hall, rear two do not stop at Wynyard).
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE




Western Airport Metro needs to be delayed by up to 10 years and simply extend the Leppington line for a fraction to the cost to Aerotroplis and Airport.


no thanks ... the feds will pull all there cash support for any rail option in the area ..I wouldn't be so sure about that.  The Feds have been largely reliant on the State government for their input for a rail link to the new airport, but in the light of the damning Infrastructure Australia assessment, they may start to question whether they've backed the right horse.  They are after all contributing half the cost and are under considerable budgetary pressure because of the COVID pandemic.

If it can be demonstrated that the extension of the existing line from Leppington to the Aerotropolis and Airport Terminal is a lot less expensive as well as providing a better performing option in the short term in connecting with the broader rail network, including the CBD,  then I can see no reason why the Feds wouldn't support it.  They wouldn't care whether or not it's a metro.  The State government's business case is deficient and hasn't been able to demonstrate why their preferred option of the North-South Link from the Aerotropolis to St Marys should be prioritised.13 - 14km of track through mostly low cost country side,
No stabling facilities
No stand alone MTCE facilities
Extension of existing services
Only require a few more sets
Only need to build two new stations
Could be up and running before the airports first passenger plane
Time table can be readily adjusted to suit first few years of expect light passenger numbers.
fits into the existing network like a glove.
Provides direct services to Both Paramatta and Sydney CBD.
Expected construction cost around $2 - 2.5 B (depending on length of tunnels and underground stations, not $11B.I'll add one more to that: (potentially) a direct link between the two airports.
djf01
Agree, I left it out because then it brings other questions into play about anti sectorisation, difference in level of frequency or services etc etc.

I've previously promoted here (many times) that the route from St Mary's to Western Airport and then Leppington should be DD with a service running between both airports and both CBD's as semi express in both directions to form a city to outer west semi express loop that connects multiple major destinations and transfer hubs to others points in the city, say on a 10min clock face timetable 16 hours a day.

The airport services coming out of the Sydney CBD would jump across to the Interurban tracks via a fly over/under if there isn't one now using the spare capacity on the interurban tracks to Paramatta, Blackdown and St Mary's (yes sexup was included). The down to Leppington, through to East Hills, Quad from East hills then onto Mascot Airport line and in reverse.

The question I have to my own statement especially in the first 10 years of airport operation, is this frequency of service warranted and how much traffic will there likely be between the two airports?
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
The purpose of converting the Inner West to a Metro is to enable more services into the tunnels from the Liverpool via what ever route you choose while at the same time making the service faster by reducing stops.

Agree, Bankstown Metro should start at Regents Park AND Liverpool, eventually.

The future is a completely disentangled network where each line/service has its own pair for tracks with the same stopping pattern. Its why the Metro is being built to enable this to happen immediately on the Metro corridor and start the progress on the DD corridor to this direction.

increasing capacity from 20 to 24 t/h just buys you time, but if the trains need to cross paths your stuffed.

So say by 2030, Inner West Metro to Strathfield is built AND Sexup to Granville.
8 services per hour via each route all to Burwood, Redfern, City. No crossing paths with any other service apart from T5, vastly improved reliability, timetable and operational simplicity.





Liverpool via both Regents Park and Granvile operating at 16 trains per hour
I don't quite understand what you're getting at.  I've already demonstrated how the network can be untangled with segregated lines and single stopping patterns, without the need to convert to metro on the Inner West Line.  The digital signalling upgrade will enable higher frequencies and faster journey times.  I don't see the need to increase frequency from 24tph to 30tph by converting to metro to save half a minute, when it's questionable whether that frequency is even warranted on the inner sections of the line.


Just BTW, I don't agree that the Bankstown metro should be extended to Regents Park or Liverpool on the existing tracks.  That's already been dropped with the proposed reinstatement of Liverpool via Regents Park services post Bankstown Line metro conversion.
Transtopic
Hi
1) Issue one, while the Inner West service remains on T2, then you will always have issues with adding extra stops to T2 just to slow the T2 services down to fit in with all stoppers. Ultimately higher frequency services for both services for Inner West and T2 which should be running express from Burwood to Redfern will be slowed.

2) Increasing frequency to 24t/h as timetabled is not desirable as it pushes the network to irreparable knockon delays every time someone "farts" getting on or off the train. Delays then feed on delays as late running services to crowded stations take even longer. Paris has gone down the 24t/h route for some of its RER routes and its a complete disaster for punctuality.  

24t/h capability is fine, but should be only available for repairing the damage from delays for a maximum of 20t/h.

Pushing stations such as 8 or so stations onto its own Metro route would enable T2 services to run about 4min faster and reduce the number of stops on the service to something more reasonable and better suited to the length of the service.

The Inner West Metro would then provide a more frequent service that is more suited to inner suburban communities where car ownership tends to be lower and usage less. The Metro doesn't have to follow the main line 100%, it can also branch off to feed areas currently beyond walk up distance to a rail station including Sydney Uni and hospital/Camperdown then running under the existing line around Stanmore, Croydon, Burwood then towards Enfield and South Strathfield.  

Regarding extending Bankstown Metro.

Regents Park - Extend to Regents Park for me to eliminate the need for a high cost shuttle is a no brainer.

Liverpool - no, the extension would be new trackage, tunnel not far west of Bankstown when the existing line heads north. stations at George's Hall and Chipping North, underground to Liverpool. Station alignment such that extension 1-2 stops further west heading to Cecil Hills.
  Transtopic Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney
With all due respect, I think you are comparing apples with oranges a bit here, with pre and post signal upgrades - though I'm not convinced I have not mis-understood you.

14tph on the Mains from the North leaves 6 unused slots, and that is the extra capacity that could be unlocked by a sextup.

Post upgrading to 24tph it becomes 10 new slots, but only in the unlikely event the main north or CCoast services are added also.

I missed your comment on the STAA project, and not sure if I understood completely.  Was the suggestion the Mains would be redirected to the SHB and the Suburbans to the City Circle, or would things go "back to normal" east of Redfern?

I've long been an advocate of such a project, but always in the context of suburbanising the Interurbans (essentially trading away the capacity at ST for better sectorisation).  The NIFs/Ds make that impossible - or at least very very difficult.  (UG platform extensions, or front two cars do not stop art Town Hall, rear two do not stop at Wynyard).
djf01
Admittedly I may have confused things a little, so let's start again using existing service frequencies as the base case.

East of Strathfield, the Main has 12tph (4xT9 + 4xCCN + 4xBM), all running to Sydney Terminal.

The Suburban has 20tph (16xT1 + 4xT9) all running through the CBD across the Harbour Bridge.

The Main and Suburban with the existing signalling have a potential combined line frequency of 40tph.

With the existing combined frequency of 32tph, that leaves 8 spare paths.

Without the T1 sextup, they can't be used for increased T1 or BM services, but some could be for T9 and CCN.

With the sextup, T1 and BM  services could be increased, sharing with T9 and CCN on whatever split-up is decided.

The signalling upgrade will increase the combined line frequency for the Main and Suburban to 48tph, an increase of another 8 paths.

That's a total of 16 extra paths with the signalling upgrade, to be split between T1, BM, T9 and CCN if the sextup proceeds, but only 4 extra paths for T1/BM if it doesn't.

At a minimum, I would suggest that 12 of those paths could be allocated to T1 and BM.

That still leaves spare track capacity on the Granville - Strathfield sector with the sextup, which could be utilised if further track amplification by way of an express tunnel were to be contemplated between Strathfield and the CBD.

The other factor to be considered is that the sextup will allow the T2 Parramatta services to be shifted to T1, freeing up extra paths on T2 and completely separating it.  I'd consider the shifted T2 services to be additional services for T1 and it also opens up the opportunity to extend them as an all stations service to/from Blacktown.
  Transtopic Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney
I missed your comment on the STAA project, and not sure if I understood completely.  Was the suggestion the Mains would be redirected to the SHB and the Suburbans to the City Circle, or would things go "back to normal" east of Redfern?

I've long been an advocate of such a project, but always in the context of suburbanising the Interurbans (essentially trading away the capacity at ST for better sectorisation).  The NIFs/Ds make that impossible - or at least very very difficult.  (UG platform extensions, or front two cars do not stop art Town Hall, rear two do not stop at Wynyard).
djf01
It was suggested that the Mains would be diverted at Eveleigh to the Suburban through Platforms 3/4 at Redfern and connect directly with the second track pair at the throat of the Sydney Terminal Yard.  It is assumed that this connection will be for suburban services terminating at Central. The current Main link into Platforms 1/2, merging with the Illawarra Dive, would be retained for Intercity and Regional services, although it doesn't preclude suburban terminating services also using it.

Consequently, the Suburban from Eveleigh would be diverted to Platforms 5/6 at Redfern and back again to its original path before the flying junctions.  Similarly, the Inner West Local would be diverted in parallel to Platforms 7/8 and the Illawarra Local to Platforms 9/10 and back to their original paths.

There's no suggestion that the 10 car NIFs will travel through the CBD, either via the City Circle or across the Harbour Bridge, as it's impractical for reasons expressed.  However that does raise the issue of continuing Central Coast Intercity services via the North Shore Line, although it could potentially be operated by 6 or 8 car NIF Sets.
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

With all due respect, I think you are comparing apples with oranges a bit here, with pre and post signal upgrades - though I'm not convinced I have not mis-understood you.

14tph on the Mains from the North leaves 6 unused slots, and that is the extra capacity that could be unlocked by a sextup ...
East of Strathfield, the Main has 12tph (4xT9 + 4xCCN + 4xBM), all running to Sydney Terminal.

The Suburban has 20tph (16xT1 + 4xT9) all running through the CBD across the Harbour Bridge.

The Main and Suburban with the existing signalling have a potential combined line frequency of 40tph.

With the existing combined frequency of 32tph, that leaves 8 spare paths.

Without the T1 sextup, they can't be used for increased T1 or BM services, but some could be for T9 and CCN.
Transtopic


Check, I follow you so far.


The signalling upgrade will increase the combined line frequency for the Main and Suburban to 48tph, an increase of another 8 paths.

That's a total of 16 extra paths with the signalling upgrade, ...
This is where you lose me.  Granville - Strathfield will also be upgraded to 24 tph, taking your upgrade back to 12 extra slots (half a track pair).  

As a side note, I could argue the suburbans between Granville and Strathfield also get another 4 slots (and have 4 spare), if you are prepared to "mix the streams".  Conceivably the Richmond Line could be taken off T1 and added to T2 (or given a new number) to use the extra slots ATP offers, freeing up more on the main T1 route: Penrith-Sydney.

But I think post NIFS, there will be another 4 Central Coast train not going via Chatswood, bringing the Northern line up to 16tph, leaving only 4 slots free, and 8 post ATP ie 1/5th of a track pair, then 1/3rd of a track pair released by the sextup.  

That's why I think that sextup offers little value.  The likely possible utilisation of the 3 track pairs Granville/Lidcome to Strathfield with sextup will be only 2 track pairs.



p, which could be utilised if further track amplification by way of an express tunnel were to be contemplated between Strathfield and the CBD.
I'm with you 100% here.  If they built that, then definitely the sextup is worthwhile.


The other factor to be considered is that the sextup will allow the T2 Parramatta services to be shifted to T1, freeing up extra paths on T2 and completely separating it.  I'd consider the shifted T2 services to be additional services for T1 and it also opens up the opportunity to extend them as an all stations service to/from Blacktown.

I agree that is an option - and potentially a good option.    That would be an extensions of the current T2 ex-Parra services, and perhaps another 4tph pattern when ATP releases another 4 slots on T2/Inner West.  But I don't see why the sextup is necessary for that (at least not for capacity reasons).
  Transtopic Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney
I've previously promoted here (many times) that the route from St Mary's to Western Airport and then Leppington should be DD with a service running between both airports and both CBD's as semi express in both directions to form a city to outer west semi express loop that connects multiple major destinations and transfer hubs to others points in the city, say on a 10min clock face timetable 16 hours a day.

The airport services coming out of the Sydney CBD would jump across to the Interurban tracks via a fly over/under if there isn't one now using the spare capacity on the interurban tracks to Paramatta, Blackdown and St Mary's (yes sexup was included). The down to Leppington, through to East Hills, Quad from East hills then onto Mascot Airport line and in reverse.

The question I have to my own statement especially in the first 10 years of airport operation, is this frequency of service warranted and how much traffic will there likely be between the two airports?
RTT_Rules
I also agree that an existing network connection between St Marys and Leppington via the Airport and Aerotropolis would be a better option, without compromising operations by having incompatible systems interfacing at the Airport and Aerotropolis.

However, may I suggest an alternative operational pattern to what you have proposed.  

Rather than the Airport Line services via the City Circle jumping across to the Interurban (Main) tracks, that they instead merge with the Suburban tracks via the flying junctions.  They would then effectively become part of T1 semi-express services to St Marys completing the loop.  It's not ideal because it breaks sectorisation.  Another alternative is to continue on the T2 Local tracks to Liverpool or Glenfield via either Regents Park or Granville.

There is also a further possibility to operate a continuous T5 Cumberland Line loop in both directions, in addition to a direct CBD connection via the East Hills Line.

In the initial years of operation, a 15 minute all day frequency is all that's likely to be warranted.  Evidence from overseas suggests that there is minimal demand for travel between two airports in the same city, although it certainly doesn't hurt if it's already there, as the government's current planning seems to be to divert all T8 services via the Airport Line to the City Circle, bypassing Sydenham.
  Transtopic Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney
Hi
1) Issue one, while the Inner West service remains on T2, then you will always have issues with adding extra stops to T2 just to slow the T2 services down to fit in with all stoppers. Ultimately higher frequency services for both services for Inner West and T2 which should be running express from Burwood to Redfern will be slowed.

2) Increasing frequency to 24t/h as timetabled is not desirable as it pushes the network to irreparable knockon delays every time someone "farts" getting on or off the train. Delays then feed on delays as late running services to crowded stations take even longer. Paris has gone down the 24t/h route for some of its RER routes and its a complete disaster for punctuality.  

24t/h capability is fine, but should be only available for repairing the damage from delays for a maximum of 20t/h.

Pushing stations such as 8 or so stations onto its own Metro route would enable T2 services to run about 4min faster and reduce the number of stops on the service to something more reasonable and better suited to the length of the service.

The Inner West Metro would then provide a more frequent service that is more suited to inner suburban communities where car ownership tends to be lower and usage less. The Metro doesn't have to follow the main line 100%, it can also branch off to feed areas currently beyond walk up distance to a rail station including Sydney Uni and hospital/Camperdown then running under the existing line around Stanmore, Croydon, Burwood then towards Enfield and South Strathfield.  

Regarding extending Bankstown Metro.

Regents Park - Extend to Regents Park for me to eliminate the need for a high cost shuttle is a no brainer.

Liverpool - no, the extension would be new trackage, tunnel not far west of Bankstown when the existing line heads north. stations at George's Hall and Chipping North, underground to Liverpool. Station alignment such that extension 1-2 stops further west heading to Cecil Hills.
RTT_Rules
Unfortunately, without further track amplification between Strathfield and the CBD, we're stuck with a mixed stopping pattern on T2 unless they convert it to a single all stops pattern.  With the limited time savings for so called "semi-express" services, they might as well adopt the all stops pattern, increasing the potential frequency in the process.

There's no point in converting the T2 Inner West Local to metro, which still has to connect with the City Circle, even if further track amplification allowed the longer distance T2 express services to be separated.

Increasing frequency to 24tph with the signalling upgrade will only be possible with a single pattern, whether all stops or express.  I don't see any problem with 24tph when integrated with ATO, which will safely reduce headways and allow higher frequencies and average speeds.  Limiting the frequency to 24tph, from potentially 30tph, makes allowance for any increase in dwell times for DD.  A separate metro for the Inner West, building new underground stations isn't needed.  An express tunnel for existing services without any intermediate stations would be of far greater value.

I can see your point about extending the metro from Bankstown to Regents Park to simplify interchange with Sydney Trains services and eliminate the Lidcombe shuttle service, but the government so far seems to be reluctant to branch the metro lines.  If the direct extension to Liverpool from Bankstown isn't feasible, then extending to Regents Park is certainly worthy of consideration.
  Transtopic Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney


Check, I follow you so far.


The signalling upgrade will increase the combined line frequency for the Main and Suburban to 48tph, an increase of another 8 paths.

That's a total of 16 extra paths with the signalling upgrade, ...
This is where you lose me.  Granville - Strathfield will also be upgraded to 24 tph, taking your upgrade back to 12 extra slots (half a track pair).  

As a side note, I could argue the suburbans between Granville and Strathfield also get another 4 slots (and have 4 spare), if you are prepared to "mix the streams".  Conceivably the Richmond Line could be taken off T1 and added to T2 (or given a new number) to use the extra slots ATP offers, freeing up more on the main T1 route: Penrith-Sydney.

But I think post NIFS, there will be another 4 Central Coast train not going via Chatswood, bringing the Northern line up to 16tph, leaving only 4 slots free, and 8 post ATP ie 1/5th of a track pair, then 1/3rd of a track pair released by the sextup.  

That's why I think that sextup offers little value.  The likely possible utilisation of the 3 track pairs Granville/Lidcome to Strathfield with sextup will be only 2 track pairs.



p, which could be utilised if further track amplification by way of an express tunnel were to be contemplated between Strathfield and the CBD.
I'm with you 100% here.  If they built that, then definitely the sextup is worthwhile.


The other factor to be considered is that the sextup will allow the T2 Parramatta services to be shifted to T1, freeing up extra paths on T2 and completely separating it.  I'd consider the shifted T2 services to be additional services for T1 and it also opens up the opportunity to extend them as an all stations service to/from Blacktown.

I agree that is an option - and potentially a good option.    That would be an extensions of the current T2 ex-Parra services, and perhaps another 4tph pattern when ATP releases another 4 slots on T2/Inner West.  But I don't see why the sextup is necessary for that (at least not for capacity reasons).
djf01
I have tried to express it as simply as I could.  Why do you have to make it so complicated?

With the signalling upgrade and without the sextup on the Granville - Strathfield sector, there would only be an additional 4tph possible, regardless of the extra capacity from Strathfield to Central.

With the sextup, which potentially increases services on that corridor by 28tph, any immediate increase would be limited by the available extra paths east of Strathfield, which would be 16tph which also would have to be shared with T9 and BM Intercity.  However, it would still increase services for T1 and BM above the 4tph without the sextup, leaving additional capacity available for any possible future amplification east of Strathfield.  The current Granville - Strathfield corridor is a bottleneck.

Ideally, the whole corridor from Granville to the CBD should be upgraded with amplification, notwithstanding Metro West.

Sponsored advertisement

Display from: