NSW Gov funding for services post-Bankstown Metro Opening

 
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
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
Yes, Inner West Metro is not a priority before at least 2030.

If you are building a Inner West Metro, you are not using the City Circle tunnels, rather that track capacity is made available to others, basically the whole point of the exercise.

You will never get 30t/h from the current train technology. Its only just viable with SD with 3 or 4 door, certainly not the Sydney DD's. Again pushing the current system above 20t/h as timetabled is just asking for poor reliability as the French have found. As I said before, its all good until you find that simply getting someone with a pram on and off the train causes a knock on effect that takes hours to correct and then wonder why your monthly ontime performance sucks.

The govt is reluctant to branch the metro for the right reasons in that you open up another can of worms. The current equivalent of this is called Sydney Trains. End to end point dedicated tracks is the way to go, however in some circumstances if done right I have no issue with a ----

Sponsored advertisement

  Transtopic Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney
Yes, Inner West Metro is not a priority before at least 2030.

If you are building a Inner West Metro, you are not using the City Circle tunnels, rather that track capacity is made available to others, basically the whole point of the exercise.

You will never get 30t/h from the current train technology. Its only just viable with SD with 3 or 4 door, certainly not the Sydney DD's. Again pushing the current system above 20t/h as timetabled is just asking for poor reliability as the French have found. As I said before, its all good until you find that simply getting someone with a pram on and off the train causes a knock on effect that takes hours to correct and then wonder why your monthly ontime performance sucks.

The govt is reluctant to branch the metro for the right reasons in that you open up another can of worms. The current equivalent of this is called Sydney Trains. End to end point dedicated tracks is the way to go, however in some circumstances if done right I have no issue with a ----
RTT_Rules
Sorry, I mistakenly thought that you were referring to converting the existing Inner West Line to metro.  Hence my reference to the City Circle.

Still, I can't see any justification for basically duplicating the line with a new metro, even if you rationalise the number of stations.  It would be far more cost effective to build a new DD express tunnel, without expensive new stations except in the CBD, which could be used by outer suburban express trains such as Liverpool via both Granville and Regents Park.  That then frees up the Inner West Line for a frequent all stops service up to 24tph with the signalling upgrade, using the existing stations.  The money for a new metro would be better spent in areas without a current rail service.

The point I was making with regard to 30tph is that it would be the potential maximum frequency for the proposed ETCS - Level 2 digital signalling upgrade if used by SD automated trains, not DD with the current or even new technology.  With upgraded DD trains, the frequency will be limited to 24tph to reflect potential longer dwell times.  That is what is proposed and being trialed on parts of T4 as part of the More Trains, More Services Program.  There is also the potential to install platform screen doors and gap fillers with ATO, as they are doing on the Bankstown Line metro conversion.

They could potentially branch the Bankstown metro to Liverpool and Regents Park, as it will only be running at 15tph and it's never likely to reach its potential frequency of 30tph as a single line.  The same could be said for the other proposed lines, as they're only likely to warrant 30tph through the inner city core with branching.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Yes, Inner West Metro is not a priority before at least 2030.

If you are building a Inner West Metro, you are not using the City Circle tunnels, rather that track capacity is made available to others, basically the whole point of the exercise.

You will never get 30t/h from the current train technology. Its only just viable with SD with 3 or 4 door, certainly not the Sydney DD's. Again pushing the current system above 20t/h as timetabled is just asking for poor reliability as the French have found. As I said before, its all good until you find that simply getting someone with a pram on and off the train causes a knock on effect that takes hours to correct and then wonder why your monthly ontime performance sucks.

The govt is reluctant to branch the metro for the right reasons in that you open up another can of worms. The current equivalent of this is called Sydney Trains. End to end point dedicated tracks is the way to go, however in some circumstances if done right I have no issue with a ----
Sorry, I mistakenly thought that you were referring to converting the existing Inner West Line to metro.  Hence my reference to the City Circle.

Still, I can't see any justification for basically duplicating the line with a new metro, even if you rationalise the number of stations.  It would be far more cost effective to build a new DD express tunnel, without expensive new stations except in the CBD, which could be used by outer suburban express trains such as Liverpool via both Granville and Regents Park.  That then frees up the Inner West Line for a frequent all stops service up to 24tph with the signalling upgrade, using the existing stations.  The money for a new metro would be better spent in areas without a current rail service.

The point I was making with regard to 30tph is that it would be the potential maximum frequency for the proposed ETCS - Level 2 digital signalling upgrade if used by SD automated trains, not DD with the current or even new technology.  With upgraded DD trains, the frequency will be limited to 24tph to reflect potential longer dwell times.  That is what is proposed and being trialed on parts of T4 as part of the More Trains, More Services Program.  There is also the potential to install platform screen doors and gap fillers with ATO, as they are doing on the Bankstown Line metro conversion.

They could potentially branch the Bankstown metro to Liverpool and Regents Park, as it will only be running at 15tph and it's never likely to reach its potential frequency of 30tph as a single line.  The same could be said for the other proposed lines, as they're only likely to warrant 30tph through the inner city core with branching.
Transtopic
I wouldn't rationalise the number of stations as with inner city services closer spacer is better at capturing the numbers.

The tunnel express option from Strathfield is likely the better way to go for Liverpool via both routes then merge back with Inner West before the City Circle. If extra capacity is needed through the tunnels in future the Redfern - St James option is a cheap way out.
8 t/h Inner West (Homebush to City, all stops)
8 t/h Liverpool via Granville, (all to Strathfield, then express tunnel to Redfern)
8 t/h Liverpool via Regents Park. (all to Strathfield, then express tunnel to Redfern)
Total 24 t/h

Feeding Airport, East Hills and SW services  

Yes sounds nice, but I doubt the numbers will ever stack up.

While I favour the Regents Park option, I also wonder how many people will travel between Regents Park and Bankstown as through traffic once the Liverpool via Regents Park is returned. One of the two intermediate stations if I recall had a reasonable load, the other not.

On the North side it was obvious on our one and only return trip on the Metro that there is a big difference between the numbers using the ECRL vs those riding west of Epping. Hence Longer-term I would be looking to extend the Metro to Hornsby to more efficiently boost usage and train frequency without the need for the Epping to Strathfield's services to operate in high frequencies to cope with passenger numbers. The Western Metro will likely take some traffic off the North So, 4-6 t/h Epping to Central is likely all that will be needed for many years.
  Transtopic Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney
The tunnel express option from Strathfield is likely the better way to go for Liverpool via both routes then merge back with Inner West before the City Circle. If extra capacity is needed through the tunnels in future the Redfern - St James option is a cheap way out.
8 t/h Inner West (Homebush to City, all stops)
8 t/h Liverpool via Granville, (all to Strathfield, then express tunnel to Redfern)
8 t/h Liverpool via Regents Park. (all to Strathfield, then express tunnel to Redfern)
Total 24 t/h

Feeding Airport, East Hills and SW services  

Yes sounds nice, but I doubt the numbers will ever stack up.

While I favour the Regents Park option, I also wonder how many people will travel between Regents Park and Bankstown as through traffic once the Liverpool via Regents Park is returned. One of the two intermediate stations if I recall had a reasonable load, the other not.

On the North side it was obvious on our one and only return trip on the Metro that there is a big difference between the numbers using the ECRL vs those riding west of Epping. Hence Longer-term I would be looking to extend the Metro to Hornsby to more efficiently boost usage and train frequency without the need for the Epping to Strathfield's services to operate in high frequencies to cope with passenger numbers. The Western Metro will likely take some traffic off the North So, 4-6 t/h Epping to Central is likely all that will be needed for many years.
RTT_Rules
This is a hopeless website as I lost everything in responding to you and I have to start again.  So frustrating.  Moderators, it would be helpful if the option was available to save draft responses before they're timed out and come back to them later.

Now getting back to my response.

I would prefer that an express DD tunnel would extend into the CBD to Wynyard as proposed for a City Relief Line, rather than merging with the Inner West Line to the City Circle.  That then potentially provides up to 96tph with the upgraded signalling on the 4 track pairs into the CBD on the Western Line corridor, compared with the 60tph on the existing 3 track pairs and current signalling. The current services are 46tph across the 3 track pairs including BM and CCN Intercity services.  The additional track pair with amplification  and signalling upgrade could more than double the current number of services.

How you allocate the services across 4 potential track pairs is open to debate, but without going into specifics, my suggestion would be for the new express tunnel to Wynyard to be exclusively for T1 Western Line semi-express services; the Main Line to Sydney Terminal to be for T1 Western Line express services and BM and CCN Intercity services; the Suburban Line across the Harbour Bridge for T9 Northern Line and T2 Liverpool via Regents Park and Granville services, and the Inner West Line for an all stations service from Bankstown via Regents Park.
  Transtopic Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney


While I favour the Regents Park option, I also wonder how many people will travel between Regents Park and Bankstown as through traffic once the Liverpool via Regents Park is returned. One of the two intermediate stations if I recall had a reasonable load, the other not.

On the North side it was obvious on our one and only return trip on the Metro that there is a big difference between the numbers using the ECRL vs those riding west of Epping. Hence Longer-term I would be looking to extend the Metro to Hornsby to more efficiently boost usage and train frequency without the need for the Epping to Strathfield's services to operate in high frequencies to cope with passenger numbers. The Western Metro will likely take some traffic off the North So, 4-6 t/h Epping to Central is likely all that will be needed for many years.
RTT_Rules
With the Regents Park option, the community consultation showed that there was no great desire to travel from Liverpool and the intermediate stations to the CBD via Bankstown and having to interchange to the metro.  There would no doubt be some who want to travel to destinations on the Bankstown Line, but they would be in the minority compared with those who want a direct journey to the CBD.  Commuters from Birrong and Yagoona won't have a direct service to the CBD, but they would have the option of interchanging to the metro at Bankstown or to the Liverpool via Regents Park service.  There are two potential options for Birrong and Yagoona to have a direct service to the CBD.  One is to extend the Lidcombe to Bankstown shuttle as a through service via the Inner West Line and the other is to extend the metro from Bankstown to Regents Park.  I favour the latter.

Could you elaborate more on your experience on the North West Metro.  Are you suggesting that there were a greater number on the ECRL interchanging from the Northern Line at Epping compared with those already on the train west of Epping.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE

Could you elaborate more on your experience on the North West Metro.  Are you suggesting that there were a greater number on the ECRL interchanging from the Northern Line at Epping compared with those already on the train west of Epping.
Transtopic
The number of the NW Metro are notably lower on the NW line vs the ECRL section.

Going forward with the connection to the city opened, things may change, however I'd be expecting that 20+ train per hour will within a few years be required south of Epping, but it will be a long timer before its required west of Epping.

Hence for the purposes of efficient train operations, the number of services should be operated accordingly in each section as the NW is far from short. So either a turn back or longterm I think every 2nd train should head to Hornsby.
  Transtopic Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney
The number of the NW Metro are notably lower on the NW line vs the ECRL section.

Going forward with the connection to the city opened, things may change, however I'd be expecting that 20+ train per hour will within a few years be required south of Epping, but it will be a long timer before its required west of Epping.

Hence for the purposes of efficient train operations, the number of services should be operated accordingly in each section as the NW is far from short. So either a turn back or longterm I think every 2nd train should head to Hornsby.
RTT_Rules
I haven't been on the metro west of Epping, so I can't really comment.  It's not surprising though that there would be more boarding/alighting at Epping, as there would be some interchanging from the Northern Line from both Suburban and Intercity services to reach Macquarie Park and North Shore destinations as well as those coming by bus from areas such as Carlingford and North Rocks.  Anecdotal evidence suggests that there are also some from the North West who interchange at Epping to the T9 Suburban services to reach employment centres like Rhodes or the CBD to avoid interchange at Chatswood.  The latter could change when the metro extends into the CBD.

Metro Northwest does have a potential maximum frequency of 20tph.  It would have made sense to construct a turnback at Epping to allow for greater frequency to the east, particularly in peak hours, but I don't think that is now feasible.  There was a crossover immediately south of the Epping underground platforms which was used in peak hours in the contra-peak direction to serve Macquarie Park and AFAIK it's still there.  However, it would be problematic to use it with the higher frequency services.

There's little chance of the metro being branched at Epping to Hornsby.  Aside from the reluctance to branch metro lines, the Northern Line also has to cater for Intercity and freight services.  There are currently only 3 tracks from Epping to Thornleigh, with an extension proposed to Hornsby as part of the Northern Sydney Freight Corridor Program.  Although there have been long term proposals to quad the track from Epping to Hornsby, it's not currently on the agenda and may never be constructed.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
The number of the NW Metro are notably lower on the NW line vs the ECRL section.

Going forward with the connection to the city opened, things may change, however I'd be expecting that 20+ train per hour will within a few years be required south of Epping, but it will be a long timer before its required west of Epping.

Hence for the purposes of efficient train operations, the number of services should be operated accordingly in each section as the NW is far from short. So either a turn back or longterm I think every 2nd train should head to Hornsby.
I haven't been on the metro west of Epping, so I can't really comment.  It's not surprising though that there would be more boarding/alighting at Epping, as there would be some interchanging from the Northern Line from both Suburban and Intercity services to reach Macquarie Park and North Shore destinations as well as those coming by bus from areas such as Carlingford and North Rocks.  Anecdotal evidence suggests that there are also some from the North West who interchange at Epping to the T9 Suburban services to reach employment centres like Rhodes or the CBD to avoid interchange at Chatswood.  The latter could change when the metro extends into the CBD.

Metro Northwest does have a potential maximum frequency of 20tph.  It would have made sense to construct a turnback at Epping to allow for greater frequency to the east, particularly in peak hours, but I don't think that is now feasible.  There was a crossover immediately south of the Epping underground platforms which was used in peak hours in the contra-peak direction to serve Macquarie Park and AFAIK it's still there.  However, it would be problematic to use it with the higher frequency services.
Transtopic
It would appear, the door is still open on a turn back, construction free although some work is likely required for signally, power supply is I think OK as OH is in place.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epping_railway_station,_Sydney

Scroll down to track plan.

I did take note when I was there Aug 2019, I'm fairly certain the diagram is correct.

The other portal is now for road based vehicle access but as i recall from our trip in 2019, in the distant future if needed the Metro could branch off to the Main North with no crossing paths.
  Transtopic Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney

It would appear, the door is still open on a turn back, construction free although some work is likely required for signally, power supply is I think OK as OH is in place.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epping_railway_station,_Sydney

Scroll down to track plan.

I did take note when I was there Aug 2019, I'm fairly certain the diagram is correct.

The other portal is now for road based vehicle access but as i recall from our trip in 2019, in the distant future if needed the Metro could branch off to the Main North with no crossing paths.
RTT_Rules
I've added some further comments to my earlier post.  As the former links with the Northern Line were connected either side of the Main Line, I don't think it's feasible to construct a crossover between them to form a turnback.  It's unlikely that the Northern Line or any part would be converted to metro anyway.  I think that there's also a crossover at Castle Hill, but I'm not sure if it includes a dedicated turnback.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
I've added some further comments to my earlier post.  As the former links with the Northern Line were connected either side of the Main Line, I don't think it's feasible to construct a crossover between them to form a turnback.  It's unlikely that the Northern Line or any part would be converted to metro anyway.  I think that there's also a crossover at Castle Hill, but I'm not sure if it includes a dedicated turnback.
Transtopic
My point in the previous post is that the turn back without crossing paths exists NOW.

Coming out of Epping metro, both tracks branch off towards a centre track, merge then go over the Metro to head up the former north bound Portal. The track is still connected to the mainline, assume for track machine access.

I could be wrong but I don't think (and I check the track layout) there is a connection with the main line at Chatswood so this would make sense to have one at Epping.

Regarding potential for extending to Hornsby, The Epping portals is not an issue as the main can either go around the Metro on each side (4 tracks for all services) or the Metro go on the outside. If you want the Metro lines side by side and the mainline side by side. Then just modify the Epping dives or further north build a single track fly over or fly under similar to what is done east of Blackdown to bring the Y link trains to Richmond on nth side of the corridor.


EDIT, I know the Hornsby Metro isn't going to happen any time soon, if ever, but I think it should at some point.

I would then have
- Main North from Epping south merge into the Ex Liverpool services at Strathfield with Inner West pushed onto its own Metro.
- Plus Sexup to Granville
- This would leave the centre tracks for western services on its own dedicated track to Paramatta.
- Leaving north tracks on western corridor for improvement in interurban services.
Redfern to Sydney Terminal section needs a complete rethink (current layout is a mess) and rebuild to eliminate the number of crossing paths.
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

Even though there are potentially 60 trains an hour between strathfield and central Transtopic. 20 of those have to end up at Sydney terminal (ST) since there is room for only 40 through the city. With double deckers we aren't going to get anymore then 20 trains an hour per line and no signalling system or ATO is going to improve that. The signalling system is not the limiting factor in Sydney for more capacity it is the tangling of the network with suburban, outer suburban and intercity services and the platform infrastructure.

A double decker isn't a metro and so there are longer dwell times that need to be dealt with that makes 20tph the high mark for capacity. The metro has proven how much the screen doors and the 3rd door helps in getting people on an off the train quickly. The Sydney trains network lacks this and has so many things going against it for anything similar to possibly happen. Uneven platform heights for a start and the need for ramps to embark and disembark disabled people. ATO is not going to do anything more then to get rid of the driver.

RTT it is only at Epping where there a connection to the Sydney trains network.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Even though there are potentially 60 trains an hour between strathfield and central Transtopic. 20 of those have to end up at Sydney terminal (ST) since there is room for only 40 through the city. With double deckers we aren't going to get anymore then 20 trains an hour per line and no signalling system or ATO is going to improve that. The signalling system is not the limiting factor in Sydney for more capacity it is the tangling of the network with suburban, outer suburban and intercity services and the platform infrastructure.

A double decker isn't a metro and so there are longer dwell times that need to be dealt with that makes 20tph the high mark for capacity. The metro has proven how much the screen doors and the 3rd door helps in getting people on an off the train quickly. The Sydney trains network lacks this and has so many things going against it for anything similar to possibly happen. Uneven platform heights for a start and the need for ramps to embark and disembark disabled people. ATO is not going to do anything more then to get rid of the driver.

RTT it is only at Epping where there a connection to the Sydney trains network.
simstrain
The Paris RER DD's have 3 doors per car and the cars are ~24m long, but while they can have more people in the vestibule, the overall seated capacity isn't any more than Sydney due to the 3rd doors with very few seats in the mid level.

The issue with 20 or more trains per hour is that its not about jamming that many trains through the city tunnels, its from the start of the section where this occurs to the end. For example the Western Main to NSL (T1) services, the high frequency was prior to Metro from Nth Sydney to Strathfield and longerterm had the Metro not been built from Chatswood.

That's around 40 km  and around 15 or so stations that you have trains running nose to tail. Station spacing in travel time is uneven thus some locations you will have trains arriving while another is at the platform or leaving which artificially closes the gap even further. YEs this can be controlled with enhanced signally systems, but you are still dealing with a physical manually driven train with inertia and lag time.  All this sets you up for easy failure, which the French have found out. Its all good until its not.

Personally I think the capability of the system should have one spare slot every 30min to enable some catch up if needed.

Moral of the story, want the best system in the world, don't run it to within an
  Transtopic Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney
My point in the previous post is that the turn back without crossing paths exists NOW.

Coming out of Epping metro, both tracks branch off towards a centre track, merge then go over the Metro to head up the former north bound Portal. The track is still connected to the mainline, assume for track machine access.

I could be wrong but I don't think (and I check the track layout) there is a connection with the main line at Chatswood so this would make sense to have one at Epping.
RTT_Rules
There is no separate turnback on the former rail connections from the ECRL underground lines at Epping to the surface Northern Line tracks and there never has been.  I attach the original track diagram.

https://imgur.com/B48j2Sd

You will note that the track connections diverge to connect with either side of the Northern Line tracks (shown in broken red lines).  The Up and Down connections have now been completely removed from the Northern Line and part of the Down connection to the now Metro Down line retained for access for track maintenance vehicles.  Although the diagram doesn't show the original stub tunnels which now form part of the metro line, they branched either side of the original surface connections, with the Up metro line now passing under the Down surface connection.

You are correct that there is no direct rail connection between the metro lines and the existing network at Chatswood.
  Transtopic Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney
To add to my previous post, here also is the current surface track layout at Epping, which includes the 3rd track to Thornleigh.

https://imgur.com/aleAgmO
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
My point in the previous post is that the turn back without crossing paths exists NOW.

Coming out of Epping metro, both tracks branch off towards a centre track, merge then go over the Metro to head up the former north bound Portal. The track is still connected to the mainline, assume for track machine access.

I could be wrong but I don't think (and I check the track layout) there is a connection with the main line at Chatswood so this would make sense to have one at Epping.
There is no separate turnback on the former rail connections from the ECRL underground lines at Epping to the surface Northern Line tracks and there never has been.  I attach the original track diagram.

https://imgur.com/B48j2Sd

You will note that the track connections diverge to connect with either side of the Northern Line tracks (shown in broken red lines).  The Up and Down connections have now been completely removed from the Northern Line and part of the Down connection to the now Metro Down line retained for access for track maintenance vehicles.  Although the diagram doesn't show the original stub tunnels which now form part of the metro line, they branched either side of the original surface connections, with the Up metro line now passing under the Down surface connection.

You are correct that there is no direct rail connection between the metro lines and the existing network at Chatswood.
Transtopic
I wouldn't call it a turnback as not intended to do so, but there is a track connection from both tracks to the Metro via fly over to north bound main line. I'm sure if required it could be modified to into an active turnback.

I wouldn't call it part retained, rather fully retained but for only track access vehicles.

https://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/industry/asset-standards-authority/find-a-standard/train-operating-conditions-toc-manual-track-17
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epping_railway_station,_Sydney
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
To add to my previous post, here also is the current surface track layout at Epping, which includes the 3rd track to Thornleigh.

https://imgur.com/aleAgmO
Transtopic
Thanks, the surface connection is as to my understanding.
  Transtopic Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney
Regarding potential for extending to Hornsby, The Epping portals is not an issue as the main can either go around the Metro on each side (4 tracks for all services) or the Metro go on the outside. If you want the Metro lines side by side and the mainline side by side. Then just modify the Epping dives or further north build a single track fly over or fly under similar to what is done east of Blackdown to bring the Y link trains to Richmond on nth side of the corridor.


EDIT, I know the Hornsby Metro isn't going to happen any time soon, if ever, but I think it should at some point.

I would then have
- Main North from Epping south merge into the Ex Liverpool services at Strathfield with Inner West pushed onto its own Metro.
- Plus Sexup to Granville
- This would leave the centre tracks for western services on its own dedicated track to Paramatta.
- Leaving north tracks on western corridor for improvement in interurban services.
Redfern to Sydney Terminal section needs a complete rethink (current layout is a mess) and rebuild to eliminate the number of crossing paths.
RTT_Rules
The track diagrams which I previously posted show how impractical it is to reinstate any future rail connections between the Metro and Northern Lines as you suggested, nor is it even warranted.  

Although from your anecdotal evidence there were a greater number of commuters on the metro south of Epping (to Chatswood), this could be explained in part because the metro line has a frequency of 15tph in the peak compared with the Northern Line north of Epping having an all day frequency of 4tph.  Obviously, there are going to be less commuters per train to and from the North West which can skew the perceived respective patronage levels.  Because of the need for the Northern Line to cater for Suburban, Intercity and Freight services there is no way that one track pair could ever be dedicated to a segregated metro line.

I agree that in the longer term, if further track amplification between Strathfield and Central were to take place, then T9 Northern Line services should merge with T2 Liverpool via Regents Park/Granville express services on the Suburban tracks at Strathfield through the CBD to the North Shore.  T1 Western Line semi-express services should be used exclusively on the new track pair into a new CBD terminal, say Wynyard.  The Main Line would be for Outer Western Suburban Express and Western and Northern Intercity services into Sydney Terminal.  The Inner West Line could become a frequent all stations service @ 24tph from Homebush to the City Circle.  There's no point in having a separate metro line, as the existing DD line at a higher frequency would provide more than an adequate service.

I think you will find that the current Sydney Terminal Area Reconfiguration project (STAR) will address the issues you have raised between Redfern and Sydney Terminal.
  Transtopic Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney
I wouldn't call it a turnback as not intended to do so, but there is a track connection from both tracks to the Metro via fly over to north bound main line. I'm sure if required it could be modified to into an active turnback.

I wouldn't call it part retained, rather fully retained but for only track access vehicles.

https://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/industry/asset-standards-authority/find-a-standard/train-operating-conditions-toc-manual-track-17
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epping_railway_station,_Sydney
RTT_Rules
The Down connection from the metro to the Northern Line has been blocked off with buffer stops, although I'm not sure whether the points have actually been removed.  The Up connection has been removed completely, as you will note from the track diagram.

It's all academic anyway, because there's next to no chance that these connections will ever be reinstated, nor they be used for a turnback.
  Transtopic Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney
Even though there are potentially 60 trains an hour between strathfield and central Transtopic. 20 of those have to end up at Sydney terminal (ST) since there is room for only 40 through the city. With double deckers we aren't going to get anymore then 20 trains an hour per line and no signalling system or ATO is going to improve that. The signalling system is not the limiting factor in Sydney for more capacity it is the tangling of the network with suburban, outer suburban and intercity services and the platform infrastructure.

A double decker isn't a metro and so there are longer dwell times that need to be dealt with that makes 20tph the high mark for capacity. The metro has proven how much the screen doors and the 3rd door helps in getting people on an off the train quickly. The Sydney trains network lacks this and has so many things going against it for anything similar to possibly happen. Uneven platform heights for a start and the need for ramps to embark and disembark disabled people. ATO is not going to do anything more then to get rid of the driver.


simstrain
The intention with the digital signalling upgrade in conjunction with ATO is to increase capacity, i.e. higher frequencies, and reduce journey times.  That suggests that the current maximum frequency with the existing signalling technology will increase from the current 20tph to at least 24tph, which is generally accepted as the goal.  Otherwise what is the point of it?  It may help to refresh your memory by reading this again.  

https://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/projects/current-projects/digital-systems-program

The Sydney Terminal Area Reconfiguration project, as I previously alluded to, is likely to increase the number of suburban trains which can terminate at Sydney Terminal in the peak.  My reading of the situation is that it's a part of the strategy to terminate more suburban services at Central to interchange to the metro and other Sydney Trains' services, rather than expanding the capacity of existing lines into the CBD with further track amplifications.  It's short sighted IMO, but eventually it will come back to bite them or more likely any future government.

The metro lines both existing and proposed are unlikely to warrant more than 15tph as single lines without branching through the core CBD.  That doesn't appear to be on the government's agenda.  So what does that have to say about the existing network's capability of 20tph and potentially 24tph with the proposed upgrades?

ATO on the existing network will not make the system driverless, but will increase its capacity and reliability with the driver monitoring the system.
.
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

With double deckers we aren't going to get anymore then 20 trains an hour per line and no signalling system or ATO is going to improve that. ...
A double decker isn't a metro and so there are longer dwell times that need to be dealt with that makes 20tph the high mark for capacity. ...
simstrain

ATP won't.  But full ETCS Level 3 (if it ever exists) will.

Traditional electrically controlled block signalling can only determine if a train is in the block or not.  The system has to keep the trains the appropriate safety margin apart, *plus* the time taken to traverse the longest block on the critical path - which I believe in Sydney are the Platform blocks.  The timed stops were a fudge to allow some sort of approved SPADS back in the day (I think).  It works out to be about a 20 second saving.  Further, moving block can trade off speed for tighter headways if need be.  Only 30 seconds per slot needs to be saved to achieve 24tph with the same reliability and speed we have now, and it's clear (to me at least) there is already padding in the 3min separation.  The 20seconds saved by ATP is more than enough to achieve 24tph - without compromising (or improving) safety.
  Transtopic Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney
The issue with 20 or more trains per hour is that its not about jamming that many trains through the city tunnels, its from the start of the section where this occurs to the end. For example the Western Main to NSL (T1) services, the high frequency was prior to Metro from Nth Sydney to Strathfield and longerterm had the Metro not been built from Chatswood.

RTT_Rules
I don't quite get your point.  The ATP/ATO upgrade will allow higher frequencies for example on the Suburban tracks through the CBD to the North Shore Line.  The North Shore Line alone doesn't warrant 24tph after the metro extension to the CBD, but increased services from the west, including the Northern Line, could turn back at North Sydney, Lindfield or Gordon.
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

Transtopic again you fail to understand that the signalling isn't the reason why 20tph is the limit. The limiting factor to all this is the trains, platforms, dwell times and the passenger. We used to have 24-28 trains an hour back in the day but since the DD's took over the frequency has only been capable of 20 trains an hour around the city circle. ATO/ATP is not going to fix this. Even under the current time table with only 12 T2 trains an hour they constantly run 5 minutes late and it starts back at town hall on the way out and strathfield on the way in. Those 24TPH numbers are just a fantasy for the Sydney Trains network and not in any way shape or form even remotely achievable.
  Transtopic Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney
Transtopic again you fail to understand that the signalling isn't the reason why 20tph is the limit. The limiting factor to all this is the trains, platforms, dwell times and the passenger. We used to have 24-28 trains an hour back in the day but since the DD's took over the frequency has only been capable of 20 trains an hour around the city circle. ATO/ATP is not going to fix this. Even under the current time table with only 12 T2 trains an hour they constantly run 5 minutes late and it starts back at town hall on the way out and strathfield on the way in. Those 24TPH numbers are just a fantasy for the Sydney Trains network and not in any way shape or form even remotely achievable.
simstrain
No, you fail to understand that the whole purpose of the ATP/ATO upgrade is to increase frequencies, and therefore capacity, and reduce journey times by safely reducing headways allowing higher average speeds.  Otherwise, what's the point of it?

As I explained earlier, the upgrade being implemented could potentially allow up to 30tph if it were SD.  With DD operation it's been scaled back to 24tph to make allowance for potentially longer dwell times and other limiting factors for DD.  It's still an improvement on the current operations.  I saw on the news last night that they're now trialling gap fillers on the existing network to prevent passengers from falling between the train and platform.  This is similar to what they are doing on the Bankstown Line metro conversion.  The other factor to be taken into account will be that the new CBD metro will significantly reduce interchange congestion at the existing CBD stations.

The government has stated that the maximum number of services on the T4 Line will increase by 30% (from 18 to 24tph).  It's also worth noting that the number of T4 Suburban services will actually increase from 14 to 23tph (an increase of 40%), as 3 of the 4 SCO Intercity services will be diverted to Sydney Terminal and the 1 SCO Thirroul service will continue to Bondi Junction.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
The issue with 20 or more trains per hour is that its not about jamming that many trains through the city tunnels, its from the start of the section where this occurs to the end. For example the Western Main to NSL (T1) services, the high frequency was prior to Metro from Nth Sydney to Strathfield and longerterm had the Metro not been built from Chatswood.
I don't quite get your point.  The ATP/ATO upgrade will allow higher frequencies for example on the Suburban tracks through the CBD to the North Shore Line.  The North Shore Line alone doesn't warrant 24tph after the metro extension to the CBD, but increased services from the west, including the Northern Line, could turn back at North Sydney, Lindfield or Gordon.
Transtopic


Yep Just like Paris RER line C

However, the numerous stops, combined with the old and fragile infrastructure the line inherited, makes the Parisian section of the RER C very slow and inefficient. The numerous old curves and steep grades on RER C means trains sometimes need to slow down to 40 km/h (25 mph) to safely pass sections with tight alignments.[color=#0645ad][2][/color] In contrast, RER A was constructed with more modern standards enabling much higher average operating speeds. These problems are particularly evident on trips to and from the northern suburbs to the city center as taking Transilien lines and transferring to the [color=#0645ad][size=2][font=sans-serif]Métro[/font][/size][/color] is much faster than taking the meandering RER C with closely spaced stops. In addition, the RER C's complicated operating schedule created by its complex network of numerous branches means the entire line is vulnerable to delays from even the smallest incidents.

The alterative proposed for the NSL Metro was 24t/h. It was promoted intensively here by some and in the media. In reality the extra 4 trains of capacity would have been consumed by the time the Metro opens, then what, back to square one?

Operating any of Sydney's lines through the city is a pathway to failure that will come back to haunt to govt and passengers will loath t regret.

The alternative install a signally system that can manage 22- 24 t/h, time tabling is limited to 20t/h. This gives you some flexibility in the systems for delays and ability to catch up in peak to a point. However planning should be such that prior to 20t/h reach crush capacity being reached, alternative capacity such as a new line must be delivered. In a city like Sydney with a history of growth in PT exceeding population growth, there is little point in planning to use over capacity systems as an alterative to building new capacity.

  Transtopic Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney
The issue with 20 or more trains per hour is that its not about jamming that many trains through the city tunnels, its from the start of the section where this occurs to the end. For example the Western Main to NSL (T1) services, the high frequency was prior to Metro from Nth Sydney to Strathfield and longerterm had the Metro not been built from Chatswood.
I don't quite get your point.  The ATP/ATO upgrade will allow higher frequencies for example on the Suburban tracks through the CBD to the North Shore Line.  The North Shore Line alone doesn't warrant 24tph after the metro extension to the CBD, but increased services from the west, including the Northern Line, could turn back at North Sydney, Lindfield or Gordon.


Yep Just like Paris RER line C

However, the numerous stops, combined with the old and fragile infrastructure the line inherited, makes the Parisian section of the RER C very slow and inefficient. The numerous old curves and steep grades on RER C means trains sometimes need to slow down to 40 km/h (25 mph) to safely pass sections with tight alignments.[color=#0645ad][2][/color] In contrast, RER A was constructed with more modern standards enabling much higher average operating speeds. These problems are particularly evident on trips to and from the northern suburbs to the city center as taking Transilien lines and transferring to the [color=#0645ad][size=2][font=sans-serif]Métro[/font][/size][/color] is much faster than taking the meandering RER C with closely spaced stops. In addition, the RER C's complicated operating schedule created by its complex network of numerous branches means the entire line is vulnerable to delays from even the smallest incidents.

The alterative proposed for the NSL Metro was 24t/h. It was promoted intensively here by some and in the media. In reality the extra 4 trains of capacity would have been consumed by the time the Metro opens, then what, back to square one?

Operating any of Sydney's lines through the city is a pathway to failure that will come back to haunt to govt and passengers will loath t regret.

The alternative install a signally system that can manage 22- 24 t/h, time tabling is limited to 20t/h. This gives you some flexibility in the systems for delays and ability to catch up in peak to a point. However planning should be such that prior to 20t/h reach crush capacity being reached, alternative capacity such as a new line must be delivered. In a city like Sydney with a history of growth in PT exceeding population growth, there is little point in planning to use over capacity systems as an alterative to building new capacity.
RTT_Rules
Sorry, but you're still not making any sense.  What relevance has a NSL Metro got?  A new metro line is already being extended from Chatswood to the CBD, which will effectively double the existing capacity.

If, like simstrain, you are suggesting that the signalling upgrade is to merely increase it's capability to 22-24tph, while limiting the timetabling to 20tph, then you're way off the mark.  I suggest you have another read of my earlier posts.  The upgrade is clearly intended to increase services as well as reduce journey times, not maintain them at existing levels.

While Metro West will certainly add capacity between Parramatta and the CBD via a new rail corridor, it won't do a lot in increasing services on T1 west of Parramatta/Westmead or on T2 from Liverpool/Leppington, because of the limited number of paths available to them to continue into the CBD without further track amplification on the existing network.  The government so far hasn't committed to this, but it may well be part of future stages of the More Trains, More Services Program.

Transport for NSW has already acknowledged that even with the completion of the current metro projects, the Sydney Trains network will continue to provide 80% of rail journeys in Sydney for the foreseeable future.  An extensive network like that can't be replaced overnight by metro lines, whether new or converted.  With the current new DD rolling stock in service and on order, that makes the latter option unlikely for many years, if ever.

Sponsored advertisement

Display from: