• Advertisement

NSW Future Rail Plan - NWRL/Metro/Harbour Crossing

Sydney / New South Wales Transport Discussion

Re: NSW Future Rail Plan - NWRL/Metro/Harbour Crossing

Postby mandonov » Mon Dec 04, 2017 5:34 pm

Track being installed on the skytrain: https://www.facebook.com/NSWPublicTrans ... 962579436/
mandonov
 
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 8:34 pm
Has thanked: 110 times
Been thanked: 305 times

Re: NSW Future Rail Plan - NWRL/Metro/Harbour Crossing

Postby andy_centralcoast » Tue Dec 19, 2017 5:15 am

Four former rail heavyweights, including Ron Christie, warn that the metro train plans will result in "degradation of the robustness and reliability" of Sydney's existing heavy rail network, and "ultimately lead to the total network becoming gridlocked and unworkable".

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/gridlocked-an ... 03omz.html
andy_centralcoast
 
Posts: 597
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2014 7:22 pm
Location: NSW
Has thanked: 48 times
Been thanked: 94 times

Re: NSW Future Rail Plan - NWRL/Metro/Harbour Crossing

Postby mandonov » Tue Dec 19, 2017 9:32 am

I disagree with their assessment of the Bankstown Line as a 'pressure valve' for the network. It's far more of a capacity hog for the T2/8, and its description as an 'escape route' kind of fly's in the face of the sectorisation that some of these men strove for.
mandonov
 
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 8:34 pm
Has thanked: 110 times
Been thanked: 305 times

Re: NSW Future Rail Plan - NWRL/Metro/Harbour Crossing

Postby grog » Tue Dec 19, 2017 12:39 pm

Yep I really can’t see how detaching a branch from a congested core could be seen as causing congestion. The opposite is true.
grog
 
Posts: 461
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2007 7:09 am
Location: Sydney
Has thanked: 39 times
Been thanked: 118 times

Re: NSW Future Rail Plan - NWRL/Metro/Harbour Crossing

Postby quaidy » Tue Dec 19, 2017 1:57 pm

I don’t think any of these ‘heavyweights’ really have any credibility.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
User avatar
quaidy
 
Posts: 110
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 8:55 pm
Has thanked: 17 times
Been thanked: 19 times

Re: NSW Future Rail Plan - NWRL/Metro/Harbour Crossing

Postby lunchbox » Tue Dec 19, 2017 2:39 pm

For starters, perhaps the Herald's use of "cripple" is a bit sensational. We don't know that the four "experts" used that word. It would be nice to see everything the Herald got under Freedom of Information.

Of the four experts, certainly Ron Christie and Dick Day have credibility, but might be criticised as being "old school". Sydney's Metro may have started in the wrong place geographically. Even the pollies who signed off on it would have to admit that it's far from perfect, but Sydney had to get a new-technology rail line sooner rather than later, and Metro is a start. The expert's 2015 concerns about the Inner West constraints have been overcome by the 2017 plan for a West Metro. Again, while the Metro route serves low population densities today, it won't be long before much of that density increases to Metro-justified levels.

What intrigues me is what might have prompted the four experts to band together in 2015. They would have had direct access to the decision makers. Were they shunned by the new blood at TfNSW?
lunchbox
 
Posts: 1394
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 3:50 pm
Location: Sydney
Has thanked: 229 times
Been thanked: 130 times
Favourite Vehicle: Bicycle - no waiting - on time

Re: NSW Future Rail Plan - NWRL/Metro/Harbour Crossing

Postby mandonov » Tue Dec 19, 2017 8:00 pm

Geographical Names Board are proposing 'Tallawong' as the official name for Cudgegong Rd Station, probably to coincide with a new suburb of the same name.

http://www.gnb.nsw.gov.au/place_naming/ ... ?id=130574
mandonov
 
Posts: 1393
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 8:34 pm
Has thanked: 110 times
Been thanked: 305 times

Re: NSW Future Rail Plan - NWRL/Metro/Harbour Crossing

Postby Transtopic » Tue Dec 19, 2017 8:04 pm

lunchbox wrote:What intrigues me is what might have prompted the four experts to band together in 2015. They would have had direct access to the decision makers. Were they shunned by the new blood at TfNSW?

Probably and they wouldn't have been interested in their opinions anyway. At least Christie had the foresight in his 2001 report to propose a segregated single deck metro system servicing new areas once the CityRail/Sydney Trains network had reached full capacity following his recommended upgrades.
Transtopic
 
Posts: 680
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2011 9:10 pm
Has thanked: 177 times
Been thanked: 121 times

Re: NSW Future Rail Plan - NWRL/Metro/Harbour Crossing

Postby Myrtone » Tue Dec 19, 2017 8:33 pm

Is there anyone here who feels that the Northwest metro is going to fail?
Myrtone
 
Posts: 236
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2007 11:29 am
Has thanked: 9 times
Been thanked: 4 times

Re: NSW Future Rail Plan - NWRL/Metro/Harbour Crossing

Postby rogf24 » Tue Dec 19, 2017 8:35 pm

Myrtone wrote:Is there anyone here who feels that the Northwest metro is going to fail?

Obviously some people don't like the fact that it's single deck (and I put my hand up) but no one has said that it would be a complete failure. So no.
User avatar
rogf24
 
Posts: 840
Joined: Thu May 09, 2013 4:20 pm
Has thanked: 79 times
Been thanked: 131 times

Re: NSW Future Rail Plan - NWRL/Metro/Harbour Crossing

Postby rogf24 » Tue Dec 19, 2017 8:43 pm

Myrtone wrote:
rogf24 wrote:Obviously some people don't like the fact that it's single deck (and I put my hand up) but no one has said that it would be a complete failure. So no.

What does "I put my hand up" mean?

I just got this inbox message from Myrtone. I just had to share it, would anyone care to explain to Myrtone? I'm lmao here.
User avatar
rogf24
 
Posts: 840
Joined: Thu May 09, 2013 4:20 pm
Has thanked: 79 times
Been thanked: 131 times

Re: NSW Future Rail Plan - NWRL/Metro/Harbour Crossing

Postby Tonymercury » Wed Dec 20, 2017 5:18 am

And even if it doesn't fail, what if it still loses an election for the Government?
Tonymercury
 
Posts: 2590
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2005 3:14 pm
Location: Botany NSW
Has thanked: 260 times
Been thanked: 335 times

Re: NSW Future Rail Plan - NWRL/Metro/Harbour Crossing

Postby simonl » Wed Dec 20, 2017 6:20 am

Myrtone wrote:Is there anyone here who feels that the Northwest metro is going to fail?

Depends on how you define fail, or succeed?

Getting governments re-elected, trains running, reducing traffic congestion or making Sydney more livable? It will succeed on the first two.
simonl
 
Posts: 7959
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 7:03 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia
Has thanked: 846 times
Been thanked: 364 times

Re: NSW Future Rail Plan - NWRL/Metro/Harbour Crossing

Postby Fleet Lists » Wed Dec 20, 2017 7:03 am

The first one is no certainty.
And even if they win the election some will say that it is despite the railway and not because of it. To a lot of people issues such as education and health are more important than transport.
Living in the Shire.
User avatar
Fleet Lists
Administrator
 
Posts: 20285
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 11:49 am
Location: The Shire
Has thanked: 996 times
Been thanked: 1089 times

Re: NSW Future Rail Plan - NWRL/Metro/Harbour Crossing

Postby Glen » Wed Dec 20, 2017 12:34 pm

The biggest challenge will be how smoothly AM peak commuters off the North West Metro will fit on board trains on the North Shore at Chatswood.
Glen
 
Posts: 2734
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 10:54 pm
Location: Sydney
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 184 times

Re: NSW Future Rail Plan - NWRL/Metro/Harbour Crossing

Postby rogf24 » Wed Dec 20, 2017 2:11 pm

The best way during the AM peak I reckon would be to bump the frequency up to 20tph and reduce the carriages to 5 so every metro train has a connecting DD train. They've done this before when 12 tph and 8 cars was changed to 15 tph and 6 cars so that more trains would nicely connect, they should have went a step further.
User avatar
rogf24
 
Posts: 840
Joined: Thu May 09, 2013 4:20 pm
Has thanked: 79 times
Been thanked: 131 times

Re: NSW Future Rail Plan - NWRL/Metro/Harbour Crossing

Postby andy_centralcoast » Wed Dec 20, 2017 7:21 pm

simonl wrote:
Myrtone wrote:Is there anyone here who feels that the Northwest metro is going to fail?

Depends on how you define fail, or succeed?

Getting governments re-elected, trains running, reducing traffic congestion or making Sydney more livable? It will succeed on the first two.

I don't think the issue is succeed or fail, but whether it's delivering the best outcome and at what expense to the existing rail network. It all depends on what was used as the decision criteria and determining factors for going with the metro option.

Just this afternoon several trains heading to Hornsby via Gordon were diverted via Macquarie Park to avoid congestion on the North Shore Line. This helped the T1 recover quickly from some significant delays. Once the ECRL is shut and converted to the metro, this diversion won't be possible. I wonder if this was considered as a factor for the NW Rail Link options.
andy_centralcoast
 
Posts: 597
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2014 7:22 pm
Location: NSW
Has thanked: 48 times
Been thanked: 94 times

Re: NSW Future Rail Plan - NWRL/Metro/Harbour Crossing

Postby Transtopic » Wed Dec 20, 2017 11:29 pm

andy_centralcoast wrote:I don't think the issue is succeed or fail, but whether it's delivering the best outcome and at what expense to the existing rail network. It all depends on what was used as the decision criteria and determining factors for going with the metro option.

Just this afternoon several trains heading to Hornsby via Gordon were diverted via Macquarie Park to avoid congestion on the North Shore Line. This helped the T1 recover quickly from some significant delays. Once the ECRL is shut and converted to the metro, this diversion won't be possible. I wonder if this was considered as a factor for the NW Rail Link options.

I doubt it. I don't think they gave any thought about the effects on the existing network by pinching parts of it for their metro agenda. They just wanted to get it done as cheaply as possible, and the Epping to Chatswood Rail Link was a sitting duck for conversion, especially as it was built by Labor. Even Labor's original North West Metro would have been a better option, albeit more expensive, but it was at least planned as a completely segregated line without interfering with the existing network.

Remember, the North West Rail Link was promised by the Coalition leading up to the 2011 State Election as an extension of the existing network, which at that stage only involved a line from Rouse Hill to Epping linking directly with the ECRL. It would still have shared services from the Upper Northern Line via the ECRL, with some trains terminating at Chatswood. At that stage an extension via a second harbour crossing to the CBD was considered to be a longer term project as patronage increased and more services were required. The Coalition's initial community consultation process for the NWRL was proposed as a heavy rail DD service with no mention of an alternative metro style service, but it morphed into a metro, including confiscation of the ECRL, after Infrastructure Australia refused to transfer funding from the Parramatta to Epping Rail Link promised by Julia Gillard (a dubious commitment anyway considering that it wasn't even on Infrastructure Australia's priority list). The communities directly affected were not given an opportunity to voice their opinions on this change of strategy. It was presented as a fait accompli. So like it or lump it.

Some on here have short memories, but when the Coalition's change of heart for the metro was first proposed, there was no plan to extend it beyond Chatswood to the CBD, effectively mirroring the initial proposal as an extension of the existing network. That came later when the penny dropped and they realised that the existing North Shore Line wouldn't be able to cope with the increased patronage and services. It's comical isn't it, when a metro style service was initially planned for long distance low density outer suburban services which had to transfer to a conventional DD service through the higher density inner suburbs into the CBD. If they had any sense of priorities, the inner city section of the metro should have been constructed first with the outer extensions later. Labor tried to do this with the ill-fated Central to Rozelle Metro, but it would have been more acceptable if it had been extended further, at least as far as Epping along the Victoria Rd corridor.

Once the Coalition proposed the extension of the North West Metro to the CBD, it had to go somewhere beyond Central. Instead of extending it into areas not currently serviced by rail, such as the West Metro, they instead chose the cheaper option of confiscating the Bankstown Line with little thought of the disruption that would cause to commuters during the conversion stage and the subsequent compromise of the Sydney Trains network operations. They just have to cop it is their attitude. They justified their decision to convert the Bankstown Line to metro on the basis that it would release more paths on the City Circle for existing Sydney Trains services, but an even better outcome would be to divert the Airport Line from the City Circle releasing more paths. However, that would involve expenditure on the existing network which is a no-go area for this government. Despite their spin, it does absolutely nothing in addressing congestion on the most heavily trafficed sector of the Sydney Trains network from Strathfield to the CBD, nor in fact will the West Metro, although I support It.

On this point, I'm completely in agreement with the four former State Rail/Railcorp executives. Contrary to some views expressed, despite being branded as "old school", they nonetheless have far more experience and credibility than many on here. These blowins that profess they know it all are wet behind the ears. There has to be a more pragmatic approach to resolving Sydney's rail network shortcomings and that includes significant investment in the existing network. The Metro agenda alone isn't enough and that will even be more telling as the existing network grinds to a halt because of under investment.
Transtopic
 
Posts: 680
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2011 9:10 pm
Has thanked: 177 times
Been thanked: 121 times

Re: NSW Future Rail Plan - NWRL/Metro/Harbour Crossing

Postby grog » Thu Dec 21, 2017 4:36 am

You can guarantee that the criteria for success within the government is something like:

- provide service to new areas
- increase core network capacity
- minimise increase in ongoing operating subsidy

The 3rd one is the key reason Metro would have been selected. Finding the capital cost of a new line is one thing. Finding the ongoing 70% operating subsidy is another! Sydney Metro avoids that by more or less breaking even (once in operations phase).
grog
 
Posts: 461
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2007 7:09 am
Location: Sydney
Has thanked: 39 times
Been thanked: 118 times

Re: NSW Future Rail Plan - NWRL/Metro/Harbour Crossing

Postby simonl » Thu Dec 21, 2017 6:31 am

Fleet Lists wrote:The first one is no certainty.
And even if they win the election some will say that it is despite the railway and not because of it. To a lot of people issues such as education and health are more important than transport.

They've already been re-elected in 2015. Hard to see that they would have been without some actual action on the NWRL.
simonl
 
Posts: 7959
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 7:03 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia
Has thanked: 846 times
Been thanked: 364 times

Re: NSW Future Rail Plan - NWRL/Metro/Harbour Crossing

Postby Linto63 » Thu Dec 21, 2017 7:11 am

simonl wrote:They've already been re-elected in 2015. Hard to see that they would have been without some actual action on the NWRL.
Seats in the north-west are all rock solid Liberal (Baulkham Hills 70/30 2 party preferred, Castle Hill 80/20, Epping 66/33) so was never going to bring about a change in government.
Linto63
 
Posts: 565
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2016 2:44 pm
Has thanked: 54 times
Been thanked: 105 times

Re: NSW Future Rail Plan - NWRL/Metro/Harbour Crossing

Postby boronia » Thu Dec 21, 2017 7:31 am

Fleet Lists wrote:The first one is no certainty.
And even if they win the election some will say that it is despite the railway and not because of it. To a lot of people issues such as education and health are more important than transport.

And all three rate higher than stadiums.
The Sydney Classic and Antique Truck (and Bus) Show
On again May 2018
@ The Museum of Fire.
User avatar
boronia
 
Posts: 17770
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 5:18 am
Location: Sydney
Has thanked: 258 times
Been thanked: 1619 times
Favourite Vehicle: Dennis

Re: NSW Future Rail Plan - NWRL/Metro/Harbour Crossing

Postby GazzaOak » Thu Dec 21, 2017 8:24 am

Transtopic wrote:I doubt it. I don't think they gave any thought about the effects on the existing network by pinching parts of it for their metro agenda. They just wanted to get it done as cheaply as possible, and the Epping to Chatswood Rail Link was a sitting duck for conversion, especially as it was built by Labor. Even Labor's original North West Metro would have been a better option, albeit more expensive, but it was at least planned as a completely segregated line without interfering with the existing network.


I'm bloody surprised how labor cowarded out of that idea.... that would have been done by now if they went though with it.... i even agree with that idea a whole lot more than current liberal ideas.... and im a liberal voter myself. That would have been much better to plonk the line though top ryde/pyrmont and defs would ease off the current light rail and issues around pyrmont, and there wouldn't be much need for a randwick/kengiston light rail because that line will probs follow the current alignment as the CSLR... (but i think even if that was built, i think CSLR would have been built regardless but maybe in a different alignment.
White ribbon day is most sexist thing ever
User avatar
GazzaOak
 
Posts: 848
Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2013 8:53 pm
Has thanked: 17 times
Been thanked: 50 times

Re: NSW Future Rail Plan - NWRL/Metro/Harbour Crossing

Postby tonyp » Thu Dec 21, 2017 9:30 am

The two tiers of the rail services that will emerge from 2019 need to be heavily tied-in with urban planning strategies. What's going to happen if you have a faster, higher-capacity rail service on one hand and a slower, lower-capacity service on the other is that development and people will be unevenly attracted to corridors with the former at the expense of the latter. So you'll have, for example, the NW corridor developing more strongly than the W and SW corridors, especially if you don't get that SW metro out to Liverpool (and beyond to connect up with the Leppington/Campbelltown lines) asap. As well as taking the Parramatta metro further west than Parrmatta.

In theory, you should be pulling the slower, lower-capacity service back to an area within which it can be optimised (still with a slow but bearable journey-time) and in which urban development may not be consolidated too much more and thus not overwhelm the capacity of that system with demand, which is probably, roughly-speaking, north shore, Sutherland, Lidcombe. Then let the metro (with a little tweak in the S-Bahn direction, specifically higher maximum speed) do the longer distance work. The only corridors I'd consider as possible exception to that are Penrith and Leppington-Campbelltown with their long sections of (theoretical, but unrealised) fast track, if the services could be significantly ramped-up to get good journey times without sacrificing stops. If they can't, well then it's metro/S-Bahn.

This is a reversal of what is normally accepted, but it's based on Sydney's specific reality (a system already in place that we have to rejig and optimise) - so, higher-capacity, faster trains for longer distances, lower-capacity, slower trains for shorter distances.
Perpetually on a T3 to "I. P. Pavlova, přestup na Metro. Příští zastávka, Náměsti Míru"
User avatar
tonyp
 
Posts: 7504
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 1:31 am
Location: Shoalhaven
Has thanked: 782 times
Been thanked: 913 times

Re: NSW Future Rail Plan - NWRL/Metro/Harbour Crossing

Postby Rails » Thu Dec 21, 2017 10:01 am

The thing I find interesting is that all those supporting the existing network and its expansion (that may possibly go for the former Railcorp execs too) seem to have no interest in what is actually the best solution for each line and Sydney itself. It seems their interest is the supporting the mode itself as well as the organizations around it. Its all about protecting the DD and its legacy, not looking at the big picture and doing what is best. They seem blind to this notion and just want to do whatever guarantees the DD. As if the network was about the trains and organization rather than being about those who use it.

I am certainly not against converting some lines to Metro because in reality if you were actually building these lines they would not be DD, that is more history rather than good design. I have often been accused of being a Metro lover. Wrong. I don't love any mode. I just support what I feel is the best solution. I was actually against the original NW Metro and the CBD Metro. I think they got it right the third time. Well at least as far as Central, past there is more debatable. I would rather have seen the Airport line to Revesby converted to Metro although I can understand why they went with Bankstown (with the expectation of making it to Liverpool).
Rails
 
Posts: 230
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 10:35 am
Has thanked: 61 times
Been thanked: 23 times

PreviousNext


  • Advertisement

Return to Discussion - Sydney / NSW

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 34 guests