Inner West Light Rail observations

[tonyp]

How about a useful bus service to and from Pyrmont, to provide an alternative to the tram ?

Capacity.

[boronia]

How about a useful bus service to and from Pyrmont, to provide an alternative to the tram ?

501 from Railway Square and 389 from Town Hall.

[jpp42]

Crush loads tonight coming from Central around 6:00 meant I missed my stop at Convenion - people wouldn't / couldn't move. I should have used the 389 from Town Hall even though it required a change of trains at Central (coming from the airport). It's maddening how they persist with such infrequent service when they have the trams for more service on weekends.

[tonyp]

Do you mean that you couldn't get to the door to get out at Convention?

[jpp42]

Yes the tram was so crush loaded that it was impossible to move , with dozens of people blocking the door who didn't speak English and couldn't understand I needed to get out. I was also carrying a suitcase so needed more space than normal and decided rather than try to barrage my way through I would just wait until The Star, where experience told me nearly most everyone would get off. They did, and I caught the next tram back to Convention.

[tonyp]

Yes the tram was so crush loaded that it was impossible to move , with dozens of people blocking the door who didn't speak English and couldn't understand I needed to get out. I was also carrying a suitcase so needed more space than normal and decided rather than try to barrage my way through I would just wait until The Star, where experience told me nearly most everyone would get off. They did, and I caught the next tram back to Convention.

It really annoys me that TfNSW deleted doors off the standard spec of the CAF tram. WTF is the problem they have about doors on Sydney transit vehicles nowdays?! They either don't have enough of them or if they do they keep the damn things shut.

[moa999]

Both Canberra and Newcastle have the same design with two single and two double doors.
Assume it gives them a few more seats in those segments.

[tonyp]

Both Canberra and Newcastle have the same design with two single and two double doors.
Assume it gives them a few more seats in those segments.

I know that's the mindset, but totally inappropriate on vehicles that are doing high volume, high turnover work on short journeys (20-35 minutes). This is Transit 101 stuff that any competent transport professional should know. Canberra and Newcastle may start off quiet but it will turn around and bite them on the bum later (sooner in Canberra) and they're stuck with the wrong vehicles with a 30 year lifespan.

I can't quite remember now whether the second tranche of IWLR CAFs were ordered when the tidal wave of demand was obvious on the horizon or not. If so, somebody at TfNSW needs to be dragged across the coals for incompetence, along with the people who decided that a single track terminus at Dulwich Hill was OK.

[matthewg]

I know that's the mindset, but totally inappropriate on vehicles that are doing high volume, high turnover work on short journeys (20-35 minutes). This is Transit 101 stuff that any competent transport professional should know. Canberra and Newcastle may start off quiet but it will turn around and bite them on the bum later (sooner in Canberra) and they're stuck with the wrong vehicles with a 30-year lifespan.

NSW has proven it's quite happy to toss out those 30-year lifespan vehicles at less than 20.

The CAFs on the Midland Metro in England looks to be pretty much the same as ours. I think TfNSW saw the line drawings that had both seat options over the bogies and said 'we'll take that', with no further discussion.
The only difference between our CAFs and the Midland Metro ones is Midland Metro picked the same seating arrangement over both sides of the motor bogies instead of having half-n-half.

As far as I remember the door arrangement was identical. Everything else looked identical other than the over bogie seats and the colour scheme.









I can't quite remember now whether the second tranche of IWLR CAFs were ordered when the tidal wave of demand was obvious on the horizon or not. If so, somebody at TfNSW needs to be dragged across the coals for incompetence, along with the people who decided that a single track terminus at Dulwich Hill was OK.[/quote]

[neilrex]

24 hour capacity is a pretty meaningless concept unless you can actually persuade the customers to use it all the time.

Maybe extending bar opening times downtown would help.

And there are still vast tracts of residential areas and commercial areas wihich are nowhere near a train. Service to more areas, instead of higher capacity on existing routes, is the key to a bigger uptake of public transport usage.

[Linto63]

Likewise the design capacity of the CSELR tram line is capable of moving more than half State Transit's present entire Sydney patronage on a 24 hour basis.

On the basis that all the entire tram fleet is on the road 24/7?

Labor never achieved anything like this, to the contrary slaughtering the capacity of the street transport system when it closed the second generation tram system.

And when was it decided to close the tram network, over 60 years ago? The proponents of that decision have long since left the stage. Trams were on the way out worldwide in the 1950s, and it was only Melbourne, Hong Kong and the Eastern Bloc, and perhaps a handful of others, that bucked the trend. And when the Libs commenced a 10 year term in office in 1965, what did they do to reverse? Not a thing.

[tonyp]

Likewise the design capacity of the CSELR tram line is capable of moving more than half State Transit's present entire Sydney patronage on a 24 hour basis.

On the basis that all the entire tram fleet is on the road 24/7?

That was a typo, I meant 18 hours a day at full timetable.

NSW Labor is still against trams. The proponents' political descendents are still on the stage.

[Linto63]

NSW Labor is still against trams. The proponents' political descendents are still on the stage.

The extensions of the Inner West line from Glebe to Lilyfleld was commissioned by the Carr government in 1997 and the Dulwich Hill extension by the Keneally government in 2010. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-23/ ... 3f/6276858

No doubt Labor in opposition is playing politics with the CBDSELR, but it has been so badly managed, they would not be doing their job if not trying to hold the government to account. But to state Labor is completely anti tram, based on the evidence, is an incorrect statement.

[tonyp]

They were opposed to IWLR. Carr got to open it because it had already been started under the previous Liberal government, but then Labor thwarted all efforts to extend it or encourage it in any way. They washed their hands of it and just let it run as a private business. Keneally kicked off preliminary works for an an extension as an act of political desperation to save a dying government.

Foley has since stated that he didn't want CSELR through the CBD. NSW Labor luminaries like Brereton have in the past stated the NSW party's intense opposition to trams. They'll open something that was started by a previous party because it would be reckless to stop the project, but then they will do nothing for it while in government. Expect the Liberals' tram projects to stagnate if Labor gets in.

[Linto63]

They were opposed to IWLR. Carr got to open it because it had already been started under the previous Liberal government, but then Labor thwarted all efforts to extend it or encourage it in any way.

The Glebe to Lilyfield extension was authorised in 1997 after the first section had opened, by the Carr government that came to office in 1995. Doesn't appear to be the actions of a government trying to thwart.

They washed their hands of it and just let it run as a private business.

The original section of light rail was always operated by the private sector under a BOOT contract entered into by the Fahey government. Unlikely any future government would have been able to get out of that cheaply.

Keneally kicked off preliminary works for an an extension as an act of political desperation to save a dying government.

Maybe they did, but if they were fundamentally opposed to the concept, unlikely.

NSW Labor luminaries like Brereton have in the past stated the NSW party's intense opposition to trams.

No doubt there are some within the ALP who are opposed to it, much like there are some within the government; the transport minister having reportedly labelled it a dog. Laurie Brereton and Deirdre Grusovin have both been out of office for 15 years, so not necessarily the thinking of the contemporary ALP.

[boronia]

Wasn't the original line funded by Federal ALP?

[Linto63]

Did a bit more research. Construction on the first section commenced in January 1996, 8 months after the Carr government took office. So it may have been a Labor initiative, but more likely that the process was commenced by the outgoing Liberal government. The original operator was TNT who also operated the monorail.

The feds contributed $21m to the $65m construction cost, with a private sector consortium financing the balance in a BOOT deal.

[Swift]

I liked that it restored tram tracks where they originally ran to and from the old railway colonnade.
So it was only 35 years that Sydney was without trams. Where did it terminate before it was extended to Lilyfield?
Funny to read that John Howard's regime part funded the cost when Tony Abbott refused to fund any public transport projects -roads only. It took Malcolm Turnbull, who is a believer in public transit, to help fund the Gold Coast extension.

[Linto63]

Where did it terminate before it was extended to Lilyfield?

Wentworth Park

Funny to read that John Howard's regime part funded the cost..

While the Howard government may have wriiten the cheques, the commitment was made by the Keating government as part of its One Nation program.

[tonyp]

In answering this, I don't want to be in the position of disclosing too many confidences as I worked on the inside on both IWLR and CSELR projects, directly and indirectly and on and off over a period of a couple of decades, know people within the public service involved with these projects, know or have spoken with some of the politicians on both sides (including currently), as well as the management of the former light rail company.

This is about the NSW ALP. Of course, Labor has acted differently and often very commendably at Federal level and in other states and territories with regard to tramways. In NSW it all started in the bitterness from the 1917 strike and some of the politicians in the 1950s (including Cahill) were directly affected by this and had a very negative view of the tramways. This carried down through some families too, probably including Bob Carr's. One thing old Labor folk were very good at was holding grudges! The major reason that Liberal governments after the 1960s couldn't reinstate tramways is that everything was completely destroyed, infrastructure, trams the lot and the expertise gone, combined with a Transport and Treasury bureaucracy that had become zealously pro-bus and equally zealously anti-tram. It would have been an uphill battle and the Liberals had to await somebody with the quiet but very tough determination of Gladys to fight back on this.

The original IWLR was a Federal Labor initiative, promoted also privately and in some public circles in NSW and passively supported and facilitated by the Fahey goverment on the basis that it would be a BOOT project. All of the intial setup work and agreements were done by the Coalition govt. By the time Labor was elected it was all locked-in and there was no choice but to build it (to Wentworth Park) and open it. That's when the fun started for the light rail company as Carr's initial high-sounding words at the opening ceremony were not carried through in fact. The company got the extension to Lilyfield (funded by itself iirc) approved when the goods train operation on the line ceased and the government had no other use for the line and couldn't object. Keneally's approval of a further extension was an act of political desperation as already noted and also facilitated by the end of railway usage. She had to overcome internal pressure to use the easement for a road link.

At the other end of the line, the light rail company wanted to extend it through the CBD to Circular Quay, offering a financial commitment as well. This was fought off by Scully (Roads and later Transport Minister) and the company was fobbed off over the following years with vague noises about reconsidering it when the cross-city tunnel opened. Of course, after it opened (2005) nothing happened. Note also that through these years the government kept the light rail operation at arms length by never structurally absorbing it into the Sydney public transport system, as the Liberals later did. NSW Labor was very much in cahoots with both Transport and Treasury about all this and left a legacy of a deliberately loaded and biased bureaucracy which the Liberals have had a devil of a job to reform.

The other significant player, as eternally, was the RTA which saw any dollars going to public transport as coming from their personal river of gold and constantly acted to ensure that their turf was protected. RMS continues this war against any NSW government to the current day. Alongside has been NSW Treasury which has always seen public transport as wanting their money (ie our taxes) rather than being provided by the private sector and recovering their costs from the passengers (ie double taxation). TfNSW functions as an extension of this perverted view with many of its senior personnel being ex Treasury. As a consequence NSW has an underfunded bus system trying to do more than it possibly can with massive underfunding and repressive TfNSW controls. An example of impossibility supported by the London Transport ethos of there being no transport problem that can’t be solved by buses and more buses - this of course being a classic example of suppression of demand rather than good public transport policy.

This is all very much NSW Labor's legacy, though of course Greiner gave it a huge kick-start, but Labor could have changed that if they wanted to. They didn't. Ironically, it's now the Greiner-led Infrastructure NSW report of a few years back that, among other things, recommended a bus tunnel through the city rather than trams that now forms the inspiration for current NSW Labor transport policy.

Did Keneally succeed in finally changing Labor's attitude to trams? No. Hear it from the horse's mouth:

https://www.facebook.com/LukeFoleyNSW/v ... 255319805/

You can see that Labor considers that public transport holding up car traffic is a "problem" and that they think buses provide adequate capacity for any job (that London Transport thinking, demand-suppression in disguise). They really still have absolutely no idea - or is it more sinister, that they actually dislike public transport and do their utmost to suppress demand at the beck and call of RMS and Treasury? The huge crisis of capacity in Sydney's public transport - largely a Labor legacy - is not addressed at all in their current transport policy.

Another irony in this video, incidentally, is that contrary to Foley's comment, this government has done more for western Sydney public transport than Labor ever did in 15 years. I might add also - just so that this isn't taken as a partisan political debate - that I'm apolitical. I'll support the government that does the best job for the state's transport. The only place Labor is doing this is on the south coast, led by two MPs who, I have to say, are future Premier material.

[David10]

Expect the Liberals' tram projects to stagnate if Labor gets in.

The appetite for light rail must have stagnated after the George St fiasco. Doubt any transport minister of either persuasion would welcome the prospect of addressing the Parramatta Chamber of Commerce and telling them there will be need to be 'short term' road closures during the construction phase, to the collective groans of 'just like George St'.

[tonyp]

The appetite for light rail must have stagnated after the George St fiasco. Doubt any transport minister of either persuasion would welcome the prospect of addressing the Parramatta Chamber of Commerce and telling them there will be need to be 'short term' road closures during the construction phase, to the collective groans of 'just like George St'.

TfNSW should have learned a thing or three about building light rail after this and hopefully every future job will be done much better. Also, building into the Sydney CBD was always going to be the worst and most dificult part of any tram project in NSW.

[Swift]

The only place Labor is doing this is on the south coast, led by two MPs who, I have to say, are future Premier material

.
That relates to Labor's belief in buses though. It's not like they are trying to introduce trams or expanded rail services.

[tonyp]

The only place Labor is doing this is on the south coast, led by two MPs who, I have to say, are future Premier material

.
That relates to Labor's belief in buses though. It's not like they are trying to introduce trams or expanded rail services.

No, it's also the rail services.

[STMPainter2018]

There are plenty of simple solutions imho.
1. Add to CAF order for Newcastle and pinch a few
2. Traffic light priority at Darling, Thomas, George, Pitt and Castlereagh. Could shave 3+ minutes, which increases number of services
3. Shortrun trams to Wentworth Park using crossover and spare driver ready to step into opposite end.
4. Spare driver at Dulwich Hill to step in to opposite end and reduce changeover times.

As for the Citadis trams - my understanding is that they are broadly compatible (and will run to the Pyrmont maintenance shed), but as a new type don't meet the most recent DDA standards for gap and level.

3 out of your 4 options are possible. It's too late to pinch a few CAFs from Newcastle, not to mention they are incompatible. Also the Citadis trams will be running to the new Lilyfield maintenance hub, not Pyrmont. Which brings me to one point of incompatibly that needs to be fixed; one which no one has brought up yet: the different rail profiles between the two tram lines. As I can recall, ATM, the point work and check rails for the IWLR have a hybrid railway/tramway profile built to German standards, whereas the point work for the CSELR line is regular tramway profile built to French and Melbourne standards. And imo, this is gonna be a big problem for the Citadis trams that will travel over the Inner West line to Lilyfield, as they will have to tread carefully over all the points or risk derailment and cause delays. The only way to fix this is to convert the check rails and any other bits of point-work, to the same standard of tramway profile the CSELR has. This will allow Citadis trams to run over the IWLR without any major operational problems. This will also mean the wheel profiles on the current CAFs would have to be shaved down, allowing them to run on parts of the CSELR line where they don't run the loading gauge (more details on that later), and hopefully a removal of those stupid speed restrictions that are in place over the current sets of points between Lilyfield and The Star, which would mean a increase in runtime, ergo, more efficient services etc.

Now in terms of loading gauge between the two types of trams themselves, I think Matthewg has said previously that the most easiest solution to allow Citadis to run passenger services on the IWLR without violating the DDA standards would be to install platform gaps. You'd also have to extend most of the stops length wise probably but if you do those two things, then the IWLR would in theory be able to have Citadis-run services and with the extra capacity these trams have, this would only be a plus. The only downside is, this would leave the CAF trams out of gauge for their own line however, IIRC, you just have to remove the outside door sills in order to improve this problem. Hopefully this would also mean the CAFs could run on the CSELR line without issue. I hope.

So in summary, in order to make the IWLR line compatible with the CSELR line, you just have to:
1. Convert the current hybrid rail profiles on points and check rails to standard French tramway profile.
2. Shave the wheel profiles on the CAF trams and remove the outer door sills.
3. Install platform gaps on most tram stops and extend them lengthwise.

Do that, along with implementing the service congestion solutions moa999 brought up, and Sydney will have a compatible and consistent Light Rail network across the board that hopefully will also operate efficiently on both lines. The only problems the LR network should have by then would be the single track terminus at Dulwich Hill and the APS along George St (THANKS I HATE IT). But even then, these can be fixed in the future. Other than that, creating a compatible and competent tramway-light rail network should be a piece of cake. In theory. In practice is another matter all together. Which is why it's important to continually hassle the right people to be competent at their jobs. But I've rambled on long enough.