Sydney Metro - Tallawong to Bankstown

Sydney / New South Wales Transport Discussion
Liamena
Posts: 364
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 9:12 pm

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

Post by Liamena »

tonyp wrote:At maximum capacity of both systems (8 cars at 30 tph for metro, 8 cars at 20 tph for suburban), 15,000 seats per hour for metro vs 18,000 seats per hour is not that great a difference. On top of this, metro has faster journeys so that seating is less critical as you get to your destination quicker.
Is that claim currently true ? It doesn't add up.

The original proposal was for trains with seating similar to what the Melbourne suburban trains currently have.

That plan has been changed and the trains actually being implemented have seats like Chinese metros, which is only about 26 seats per carriage, and that is on six car trains.
tonyp
Posts: 12348
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:31 am

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

Post by tonyp »

Liamena wrote: That plan has been changed and the trains actually being implemented have seats like Chinese metros, which is only about 26 seats per carriage, and that is on six car trains.
The seating capacity is unchanged. There are longitudinal seats along each side. They would be very similar to the Perth trains similarly outfitted.
Liamena wrote: The new Bankstown line will have only a third of the seats which it currently does.
Even looking at the present Bankstown timetable, as opposed to potential, there are 8 trains per hour in the peak hours - a 10 minute headway is interspersed with some trains halfway in between the slots, but these skip about 5 stations on the line. The metro is starting off at 15 trains per hour with a six-car consist and no skipped stations. The metro journey is also 8 minutes faster from Bankstown to Central on an all-stops comparison.

So if you're lucky enough to be at one of the stations where all trains stop, you get 7,200 seats per hour on the double decks, or 5 trains an hour and 4,500 seats per hour if you're at one of the skipped stations. On the metro you will have, on the startup minimum service, 5,670 seats per hour. That's not one third of the current seating availability, that's about 80% of what you presently have through the stopping stations and about 125% of the seats you currently have if you live at Wiley Park, Canterbury, Hurlstone Park, Dulwich Hill and Erskineville.

It doesn't look like there'll be too much hardship, especially considering the faster journey. Gotta go, I'm off to check realestate.com for house prices at Wiley Park, Canterbury, Hurlstone Park, Dulwich Hill and Erskineville. Looking forward to more chance of sitting down on the train in 2020 whatever. :wink:
grog
Posts: 614
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2007 8:09 am
Location: Sydney

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

Post by grog »

Liamena wrote:
tonyp wrote:At maximum capacity of both systems (8 cars at 30 tph for metro, 8 cars at 20 tph for suburban), 15,000 seats per hour for metro vs 18,000 seats per hour is not that great a difference. On top of this, metro has faster journeys so that seating is less critical as you get to your destination quicker.
Is that claim currently true ? It doesn't add up.

The original proposal was for trains with seating similar to what the Melbourne suburban trains currently have.

That plan has been changed and the trains actually being implemented have seats like Chinese metros, which is only about 26 seats per carriage, and that is on six car trains.
Yes, these are the official numbers with the new all longitudinal seating config. The initial 6 car trains will have 378 seats, and the eventual 8 car trains will have just over 500. By moving from 2x2 traverse seating to longitudinal seating you only lose about 4 seats per car. Most cars will be 64 seats with the following config:

7 seats - door - 9 seats - door - 9 seats - door - 7 seats (x2 for both sides of train)

The end carriages will lose a few seats each so will be a little less than 64.

From day one there will still be 79% as many seats as currently, none of them will be the middle seats of a 3 seater with the awkward shuffle, and the journey from Bankstown to Central will be up to 8 minutes quicker (or 3 minutes quicker than current limited stops services). Sounds pretty good to me!
Last edited by grog on Thu Sep 28, 2017 12:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
boronia
Posts: 21567
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 6:18 am
Favourite Vehicle: Ahrens Fox; GMC PD4107
Location: Sydney NSW

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

Post by boronia »

The initial 6 car trains will have 378 seats, and the eventual 5 car trains will have just over 500.
Is this correct?? Less carriages with more seats?
Preserving fire service history
@ The Museum of Fire.
flitter
Posts: 86
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 1:38 pm

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

Post by flitter »

Liamena wrote: It's not "an obsession". It is simply reality. The new Bankstown line will have only a third of the seats which it currently does. It may not be that bad if the Liverpool passengers are no longer on those trains, but it is still a big reduction.

Having a train turn up 2 minutes sooner, and then standing on it for more than half an hour, does not look like an appealing proposition to me.
I get that it’s more comfortable to sit... my point was that it seems that every time this subject comes up in this thread everyone seems to want a guaranteed seat every time they get on a train.

I’ve done the London commuting and half an hour standing you get used to, but anytime outside the peak there’s usually a seat within a few stops if you want it (and I get that we should be better than that anyways and apparently everyone in Sydney travels only to the CBD on a train).

I don’t know of any short distance (<100km) public transport system in the world that operates on a fully-seated-all-the-time basis (unless you count airlines) and having more standing room (I can’t remember the how the ‘crush load’ figures on the metro will compare to the old trains - sorry) would seem to be the easiest way to give more space without making the trains a km long.

Anyway, the trains are arriving, the line is being built, isn’t it time to move on from this until we see just how full it is?
Liamena
Posts: 364
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 9:12 pm

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

Post by Liamena »

Here are some points about the current timetable and what that document actually says.

(a) It says there are currently 4 to 10 trains an hour in the morning peak on the Bankstown line. Between 7 and 8 AM, the basic pattern is 4 trains an hour from Lidcombe through Bankstown, and 4 trains an hour from Liverpool via Bankstown, which each run every 15 minutes and are reasonably well spaced at Bankstown. Before 7 AM and after 8 AM, these trains space out to 20 minute and then 30 minute intervals from each branch. The trains ex Liverpool skip 4 stations on the Bankstown line, and also Erskineville.

There are 9 trains from Bankstown in 60 minutes, counting the 7:07 train and also the 8:07 train and the ones between them. There is no 60 minute period with 10 trains that I can identify in the current timetable, so that claim seems dubious. The basic peak hour rate is actually 8 trains an hour. Including the train at both ends of the hour is actually double counting. The stations with only 4 trains are skipped because of low patronage, or to provide a faster journey from Liverpool, or to equalise loadings between the trains from Liverpool and Lidcombe, and probably partly for all of those reasons. The limited stops trains gain 5 minutes between Bankstown and Redfern.

There is no functional impediment to making all 8 trains an hour, all stops from Bankstown to Sydenham, if that was considered desirable.

(b) Claims "you will wait 4 minutes for a train instead of 6-9 minutes currently".
Actually, the timetabled departure times in the morning peak at Bankstown station are 5-10-5-10 gaps between trains.
And if customers are arriving at the boarding station at random times, then the average waiting time experienced by the customer is only half of the interval ( or average interval ) between trains. And at that time scale, passenger arrival times at the station are pretty random, because the bus arrival time will vary or it will depend on how long you have to wait for the traffic light to cross the road to get to the station.
So, on average "you will wait" about 2 minutes for a metro train or about 4 minutes for the existing service, unless you are at one of the stations which only gets 4 trains an hour, in which case you will see a big improvement. But passengers on the metro, who currently can get the limited stops services, will have a disbenefit from now having to stop at those other stations.

(c) Quite a lot of those saved minutes here and there get chewed up by extra walking on more circuitous routes to access the re-arranged station entry points. Opportunities are being lost to have additional station entry points to expand the walk-up region accessible to the stations. Chinese metro stations have direct access to the station from all directions. It is also inexplicable why in these locations slated for high density, and presumably "vibrancy", reinvigorated retail and less car-dependence, most of the station concourses are "paid areas" only, restricting local pedestrian mobility.

(d) On page 6 it says "Sydney's new metro railway will have a target capacity of 40,000 passengers per hour. Sydney current train system can currently carry about 24,000 people per hour per line". It isn't entirely clearly stated whether that is in each direction, or both. Sydney's current trains have 880 seats, or around 1100 people at 120% peak loading. At 20 trains per hour, that would be 22,000 people. So the 24,000 capacity is presumably in one direction. Many metros in large, dense, cities are "full" in both directions in busy hours. That isn't the case in Sydney, and except in some inner areas, it is never going to happen. So you need to be aware of claims about surplus capacity, when that surplus capacity is on contra-peak trains which few people can or will actually use.

(e) On page 8, repeats the odd claim of 4-10 trains currently, when the actual peak rate is 8 trains per hour, and only between just after 7 to just after 8 AM ex Bankstown.
It then says, "over the three hour morning peak, "Sydney metro will be able to move 51,000 in each direction on the Bankstown line, that' an extra 15,000 people than now (sic)".
The actual peak period is not three hours long. Prior to 7 AM, there is only 1 trains each 15 minutes, ex Bankstown. And at the other end of the peak hour, the trains space out a bit erratically with the first 15 minute gap at Bankstown appearing after the 8:57 train. Secondly, there is never going to be equal demand in both directions, so the key statistic here is the 51,000 capacity in the peak direction ( towards Sydney ). Assuming that they actually intend to run trains at the "peak" rate for a full three hours, that is 51,000/3 or 17,000 passengers per hour in the peak direction. Some of that capacity is inevitably wasted, because there are probably not enough commuters who actually want to catch the train at 6 AM, or commence their journey at 9 AM, to fully utilise that peak capacity at the beginning and end of the peak period.

So, the capacity in the peak direction is 17,000 passengers per hour, presumably on 15 trains at 4 minute intervals, which is 1133 passengers per train on average during that hour.

So what about the claim that it is an extra 15,000 passengers than now ? The Bankstown line currently has 8 train an hour during the actual peak hour. 8 trains at 1100 ( 120% of seated capacity ) load is 8800 passengers per hour. The metro capacity of 17,000 passengers per hour is more than the current Sydney trains capacity of 8800 passengers an hour. But 17,000 is not "extra 15,000 than now" (8800).

Alternatively, you can consider that there are 19 trains from Bankstown to Sydney departing Bankstown between 6 AM and 9 AM, a three hour peak period. That is 6.3 trains an hour, averaged over a full three hour period, compared to 8 in the actual peak hour, or 4 trains per hour off-peak. Those 19 trains can carry 20,900 passengers, if they were all 120% loaded. So, if you set aside the issue that there will invevitably be more demand at 7:30 AM than there is at 6 AM or 9 AM, the three hour capacity is supposedly 51,000 for the metro, compared to 21,900 for the existing Sydney trains. Which is also not "extra 15,000 than now" capacity.

Actually, it is not obvious what this claim of metro capacity being "extra 15000 than now" is supposed to be, because it seems to be wrong, or not very reasonable, for either a 1 hour or 3 hour peak period calculation.

It's also worth pointing out that if the rolling stock were available, there is no inherent obstacle to running the 8 trains an hour service over a full three hour period, thereby delivering 24 trains during the 3 hour period.

It's also unclear what happens to the passengers from west of Bankstown.

(f) Further down on page 8, it claims that, "in the three-hour morning peak, metro will deliver more than 17,000 seats on 45 services from Bankstown to the city".
This statement seems to imply that Metro will be running the 4-minute headway service for a full three hours (15 trains per hour), which is good, but excess service at the start and end of the peak isn't as useful as capacity when customers actual want to travel ( ie. around the middle of the peak, not the fringes of it ).

This compares to the 16720 seats on the existing 19 services which Sydney trains currently runs ( at 880 actual seats per train), or the 21,120 seats which Sydney trains could provide if they actually ran their peak 8 trains per hour for a full three hours.

It's interesting that the Metro's claimed provision of 17,000 seats is so close to Sydney trains capacity of 16,720 seats. Although Metro will be providing a higher proportion of those seats at times like 6:10 AM when there are not so many people wanting to travel.

If you consider an actual 1 hour period in the peak, then Metro is claiming 5666 seats per hour, compared to Sydney trains 7040 seats at 8 trains per hour at 880 seats per train.

Now that comparison doesn't look too bad, if it is actually correct.

Metro's claim of 17,000 seats on 45 trains, comes to 377 seats per train, which would be 47 seats per carriage, which is 23 seats per carriage side, not including spaces for prams, wheelchairs, luggage and bicycles. There is only one decent photo of the interior of the train, right at the end, which appears to show 7 seats in a row on either side of the train, between two of the carriage doors, so 23 seats per carriage side seems plausible.

(g) On page 16, there is this odd claim "There are only two lines through the city (T1 North Shore, Northern and Western Line and T4 Eastern Suburbs
and Illawarra Line) and two lines that share the City Circle loop (T2 Airport, Inner West and South Line and T3 Bankstown Line). Because of this, a number of services are
required to terminate at Central Station." Do any T2 or T3 services terminate at Central "because of this" ? ( whatever "this" is ). The only T2 and T3 services that I see terminating at Central ( and inconveniencing people ) are the services being terminated to send to Macdonaldtown depot.

Then there is the bizarre comparing oranges and apples graphic on page 17.

If these are actually good reasons, then they have not expressed them very well.
Liamena
Posts: 364
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 9:12 pm

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

Post by Liamena »

flitter wrote:
I get that it’s more comfortable to sit... my point was that it seems that every time this subject comes up in this thread everyone seems to want a guaranteed seat every time they get on a train.
Odd. I don't see anyone demanding "a guaranteed seat".

What I tend to object to, is the misleading spin and propaganda and dodgy statistics which keeps claiming that these schemes are an "improvement", when they are actually not. For example, the Randwick trams are claimed "to replace 9 buses", when they actually have the same number of seats as 2 buses. From the user point of view, that is not an improvement ! And particularly since the trams from Randwick are going to be SLOWER than the bus. At least the Bankstown metro can claim to be 3 minutes quicker than the trains they are replacing. And commuters ( and anyone else ), going to Coogee or Maroubra, is going to be forced to make a time-wasting interchange.

The Government has been claiming that the Randwick trams will not only replace buses, but attract car drivers from cars too. This seems delusional. There are some people who like to claim that trams are so much better than buses, a much smoother ride, or whatever. Or a bit easier to get on and off. I am unconvinced that the alleged smoother ride of a tram is worth standing an extra hour a day for.

The reduction in total seating capacity of the tram is quite drastic, and the Government went to great lengths about 4 years ago to obfuscate and downplay it. Compared to the Bankstown metro where the actual reduction in seating capacity is only about 20%, and there is some offsetting advantages. You'll still notice that they don't mention this anyway, you have to figure it out, and some of their figures appear to be actually bogus.

If I was a car driver from the south-east suburbs, and the government wanted to attract me away from the car to public transport, they would be much more likely to convince me to sit on a bus for 30 minutes, than stand on a tram for 30 minutes. Other people's mileage may vary.

And I see it as almost north-korean-grade nonsense to tell people with mobility impairments that the tram or metro is much easier to get onto, and then you can stand on it for half an hour.
flitter
Posts: 86
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 1:38 pm

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

Post by flitter »

So what you’re saying is that you don’t want anything new unless it’s ‘better’ rather than ‘different’?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
grog
Posts: 614
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2007 8:09 am
Location: Sydney

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

Post by grog »

boronia wrote:
The initial 6 car trains will have 378 seats, and the eventual 5 car trains will have just over 500.
Is this correct?? Less carriages with more seats?
Quite obviously a typo. 8 car.
Liamena
Posts: 364
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 9:12 pm

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

Post by Liamena »

flitter wrote:So what you’re saying is that you don’t want anything new unless it’s ‘better’ rather than ‘different’?
I didn't say that at all. What I don't like are spurious Government claims that it is "different and better", when it is actually "different and worse".

If it is actually going to be "different and worse", then the propagandists should come clean and actually admit that that is the case.
grog
Posts: 614
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2007 8:09 am
Location: Sydney

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

Post by grog »

Liamena wrote: (d) On page 6 it says "Sydney's new metro railway will have a target capacity of 40,000 passengers per hour. Sydney current train system can currently carry about 24,000 people per hour per line". It isn't entirely clearly stated whether that is in each direction, or both. Sydney's current trains have 880 seats, or around 1100 people at 120% peak loading. At 20 trains per hour, that would be 22,000 people. So the 24,000 capacity is presumably in one direction. Many metros in large, dense, cities are "full" in both directions in busy hours. That isn't the case in Sydney, and except in some inner areas, it is never going to happen. So you need to be aware of claims about surplus capacity, when that surplus capacity is on contra-peak trains which few people can or will actually use.
This is 40,000 passengers per hour per direction.

This is running at a future frequency of 30tph, and future train length of 8 cars.

Each train will carry 1,333 passengers, of which just over 500 will be seated.

Per carriage it is 64 seated and about 100 standing. This is at a standing density of about 4 people/m^2, which is not considered a crush load by international standards.

It would require something crazy for the line to ever be loaded to that level at the suburban ends. This kind of loading is more likely to only be reached in the Central core of the line where people will be on the train for ~10-15 minutes maximum.
grog
Posts: 614
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2007 8:09 am
Location: Sydney

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

Post by grog »

Liamena wrote:I didn't say that at all. What I don't like are spurious Government claims that it is "different and better", when it is actually "different and worse".

If it is actually going to be "different and worse", then the propagandists should come clean and actually admit that that is the case.
But it is a matter of opinion isn't it? Different passengers will find value in different service attributes attractive. Some will see it as better and some will see it as worse.
tonyp
Posts: 12348
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:31 am

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

Post by tonyp »

grog wrote: But it is a matter of opinion isn't it? Different passengers will find value in different service attributes attractive. Some will see it as better and some will see it as worse.
I think most will see it as better once they experience it.

You can have a "dry run" on the Sydney metro right now if you hop over to Perth. The trains are the same, including seating numbers and layout (bar one less door per car), and the performance is pretty-much the same, maybe a tad faster in Perth because the trains not only have the stop-start sprinting ability but also a higher maximum speed, the latter being a careless omission in the Sydney metro spec considering its tandem suburban-train role.

Perth-Clarkson on the Joondalup line is an almost exact match for Rouse Hill-Chatswood in terms of distance, number of stops and journey time which is a good 10 minutes quicker than any equivalent section on the Sydney suburban system. Perth-Mosman Park on the Fremantle line is an almost exact match in similar terms (also closely-spaced stops) to Sydenham-Bankstown - and the metro and Perth times are similar and a few minutes faster than the Sydney suburban operation. What you will notice in Perth (and soon on the Sydney metro) is the much livelier performance than the double deck operation and a good, even distribution of passengers with short dwells as the doors are more centred in the car and there is a flat floor between them which people readily disperse into, unlike the blockage up and down stairs and consequent vestibule congestion you get in Sydney.

One thing I notice, in terms of the seating issue, is the number of people who seem happy to stand in the Perth trains even when there are seats available, probably because the journeys are over quite quickly. Most of the Perth sets have something like 60-odd longitudinal seats per car like the Sydney metro sets. They're perfectly comfortable and quite adequate for most off-peak patronage. Transperth/Sydney Metro = near as bib and bub, a U Bahn/S Bahn blend.

Capacity. The first and foremost consideration is total capacity. Seating capacity is icing on the cake to attract passengers, but the faster the journey, the less significant it is. You compare modes by total capacity not seating capacity. In any case, seats per hour is a more valid comparison than a per vehicle vs per vehicle comparison.

The commonly accepted measure of comfortable carrying capacity, as Grog said, is 4 persons per square metre. This is determined not only by floor area but by the practical capability of the vehicle to load and unload to this capacity within a short dwell time. The number and distribution of doors and whether the internal floor is flat (stepless) or not has a huge bearing on this. The Sydney metro trains and the CSELR trams are rated at 4 ppsm because they have plenty of well-distributed doors and a flat floor. The Sydney double deck trains and the typical Sydney bus are capacity-rated at about 2.5 ppsm because of their inefficiencies in the above respects, compounded severely in buses by being restricted to load only through the front door. The reason Sydney trains and buses seem jammed full at 2.5 ppsm is because of vestibule congestion. Single deck trains and low-floor trams are far more efficient movers of higher numbers of people. They can also be competitive on seat numbers if they're operated to their optimum.
flitter
Posts: 86
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 1:38 pm

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

Post by flitter »

Having just been to Perth and travelled on the Mandurah line, have to agree (surprisingly) with tonyp


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
User avatar
GazzaOak
Posts: 885
Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2013 9:53 pm

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

Post by GazzaOak »

I been on Berlin and Munich S/U bhan's and i can concur we could end up operating the metro in a similar manner to them (minus the drivers).... I think there will be spur lines with the current NWRL (for example, maybe in the future the government could build northern beaches/hurstville lines, and use chatswood/sydeham as the junction where the trains split up)... I personally think even with spur metro line, we'll probs won't even need 30tph per hour... i think 25-26 tph during peak will be enough for both lines.

The only place where a full 30tph is really need is the west metro from parra...
White ribbon day is most sexist thing ever
tonyp
Posts: 12348
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:31 am

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

Post by tonyp »

flitter wrote:Having just been to Perth and travelled on the Mandurah line, have to agree (surprisingly) with tonyp
:shock: :lol:

Yes, imagine a journey to Thirroul, Douglas Park, Blaxland or Woy Woy (all the same distance as Mandurah) being over in just 50 minutes - and in a metro-style train without needing the "comfort" of a double-decker. Time, not distance is the critical determinant of the need for comfort.
GazzaOak wrote:I been on Berlin and Munich S/U bhan's and i can concur we could end up operating the metro in a similar manner to them (minus the drivers).... I think there will be spur lines with the current NWRL (for example, maybe in the future the government could build northern beaches/hurstville lines, and use chatswood/sydeham as the junction where the trains split up)... I personally think even with spur metro line, we'll probs won't even need 30tph per hour... i think 25-26 tph during peak will be enough for both lines.

The only place where a full 30tph is really need is the west metro from parra...
I think it was a strategic mistake calling it a metro and not thinking outside the metro "square" when putting it together (e.g. having faster trains for those final leaps at the outer ends with greater station spacings). It really is a blended metro/suburban operation with soft boundaries between the two. You can't pigeonhole it and when critics start to realise this, we might hear less of "metro trains don't go far out into the suburbs, that's a job for double deck suburbans".
Liamena
Posts: 364
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 9:12 pm

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

Post by Liamena »

The problem with the argument of "comfortable trains" for longer distances, is that people won't pay for it.

In Chicago or New York or China or London, trains going outside the area covered by the "metro" services cost about 10 times as much to go two or three times as far. In Australia, they cost twice as much to go four times as far.
Liamena
Posts: 364
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 9:12 pm

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

Post by Liamena »

grog wrote: It would require something crazy for the line to ever be loaded to that level at the suburban ends. This kind of loading is more likely to only be reached in the Central core of the line where people will be on the train for ~10-15 minutes maximum.
That's a very curious claim.

It might even be correct, in some generic sense.

When I was an actual daily peak hour commuter, it was certainly the case that when trains were loaded to something like 130% in the evening peak at Wynyard, by the time they got to Artarmon, ( after about 15 minutes ), enough people got of that you could often get a seat. That was before so many people got on at Chatswood.

But not all of the lines are like that. The Western line, for example. I've trains on the western line, even on Saturdays (!) where they were completely full and nobody got off before Parramatta, because there are hardly any stops on that line.
User avatar
Fleet Lists
Administrator
Posts: 23803
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:49 pm
Location: The Shire

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

Post by Fleet Lists »

Liamena wrote:The problem with the argument of "comfortable trains" for longer distances, is that people won't pay for it.

In Chicago or New York or China or London, trains going outside the area covered by the "metro" services cost about 10 times as much to go two or three times as far. In Australia, they cost twice as much to go four times as far.
To reverse that trend in NSW could be political suicide.
Living in the Shire.
Liamena
Posts: 364
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 9:12 pm

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

Post by Liamena »

People from Rouse Hill reading the government spruiking the 2+2 seating and free wifi and tray tables, and comparing their travelling conditions and speed and prices to people from Woy Woy, there could be some political disgruntlement there too.
Liamena
Posts: 364
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 9:12 pm

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

Post by Liamena »

Is there a clear plan yet, for what people from Liverpool will do, who currently use the Bankstown line ?

And Chester Hill ? And Birrong ?

There was a lot of confusion a few years ago, if it was resolved, I missed it.
User avatar
Fleet Lists
Administrator
Posts: 23803
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:49 pm
Location: The Shire

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

Post by Fleet Lists »

Not that I am aware of.
Living in the Shire.
User avatar
Daniel
Administrator
Posts: 7062
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 9:03 pm
Favourite Vehicle: Mercedes-Benz O405 / CC '510'
Location: Sutherland Shire

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

Post by Daniel »

You get off the train and change for the metro?
tonyp
Posts: 12348
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:31 am

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

Post by tonyp »

Liamena wrote:People from Rouse Hill reading the government spruiking the 2+2 seating and free wifi and tray tables, and comparing their travelling conditions and speed and prices to people from Woy Woy, there could be some political disgruntlement there too.
Why would there be? People from Woy Woy are in the train to Central for about 72 minutes, people from Rouse Hill to Central will be in the train for 50 minutes. One is obviously an interurban service (with only 4 stops), one a suburban service (with 16 stops).
Liamena wrote:Is there a clear plan yet, for what people from Liverpool will do, who currently use the Bankstown line ?
And Chester Hill ? And Birrong ?
Trains coming into Bankstown from Regents Park direction will terminate and interchange with metro trains at Bankstown.
mandonov
Posts: 1712
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 8:34 pm

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

Post by mandonov »

Liamena wrote: Are there any train sidings ? It's going to be hard getting the line up and running at 5 AM every morning, if the trains have to make a two-hour trip from the back of Rouse Hill first.
There will be a depot in Sydenham at the tunnel dive site.
Post Reply

Return to “Discussion - Sydney / NSW”