Sydney Metro West announced

[Transtopic]

There is a lot wrong there.

Like what?

but just one quick point to call out - a DD train with 1750 on board could not run 24tph no matter the signaling - the dwell would blow out and not allow it to keep its scheduled headway.

I did qualify that statement by suggesting that "in practical terms, it may not even reach this level, or in fact be warranted". You could equally apply the same logic to a crush-loaded metro train. The point I'm highlighting is the selective use of comparative capacities, which aren't comparing like for like, to enhance the supposed superiority of the metro trains.

A more realistic comparison in real world operations would be to compare the likely maximum peak loading taking frequency into account, not a theoretical crush loading capacity. Comparing a crush loaded metro train with a practical limit on a DD train is not a valid comparison. A practical load capacity of 135% of seats on DD trains (1,200) is an arbitrary figure anyway, imported from the UK, which has little relevance to Sydney Trains' operations. It roughly equates to a standing capacity of 2 people per sq m. To compare like with like, you should also assess the practical, not theoretical, load capacity of the metro trains on the same basis i.e. 2 people per sq m standing, which would equate to around a total of 900 people per train, not the mooted 1,300 or higher at double the standing room capacity of 4 people per sq m.

All things being equal, with new lines and upgraded signalling, the practical relative line capacities would be approximately 29,000 per hour for DD (24 x 1,200) and 27,000 per hour for metro (30 x 900). Comparing a fully loaded metro train, even with its greater number of door channels (6 v 4), with a less than full DD at 70% of its crush load capacity is not a valid argument. I know you won't agree with this, but it's a more realistic assessment of how the respective systems would operate in practice.

[tonyp]

The practical load capacity of a metro car is the same as its theoretical load capacity because it has three evenly-spaced double-leaf doors per side. The practical capacity of a double deck car is not the same as its theoretical capacity because it has two double-leaf doors per car towards the car ends and a crowd won't pack the car to its centre because people don't want to be that far from a door and be trapped inside.

This is proven science now extending back over more than a century of public transport vehicle design. Hell, they even figured it out on Sydneys trams in the 1880s and TfNSW still recognises it today (though rarely puts it into practice unfortunately). I just don't understand the denial of something that's so well proven, though I remember Ecotransit putting out an embarrasing video trying to discredit the metro in which they demonstrated their complete ignorance of the science of mass passenger movement. I think I'll just go and bang my head against a wall somewhere.

[Transtopic]

If you're not willing to entertain the "speculation" it's not worth discussing it until further details are released by the Government because none of us know yet. So that goes both ways. If the claim is that T1 cannot be relieved by the Metro, that's clearly wrong. Claiming that the Richmond line would be slower under Metro West is wrong too. Claiming that a tunnel for the DD would be faster would be wrong at this point too. If people want to move the goal posts then that's a whole different scenario again but from where we are now I believe what I said above is correct. We will see what happens from here when the details are released.

One thing that I will agree with you on Rails is that it's not worth discussing further until we know exactly how the government (currently Liberal, but who knows in a couple of month's time) proposes that Metro West will relieve capacity constraints on the T1 Western Line, particularly from the Outer West. All suggestions so far, including my own, are all pure speculation, which may or may not eventuate.

Just to pick you up on a couple of points, your assertion that "claiming the Richmond Line would be slower under Metro West is wrong" needs to challenged. How? If the Richmond Line were to be diverted to T2 or T5 or both, interchanging to Metro West at Westmead or Parramatta wouldn't be significantly faster, if at all taking interchange time into account, than the existing express T1 line to the CBD, depending on your destination.

On the other hand, a new express tunnel as part of the Sydney Trains' network, allowing direct access to the CBD without the need to interchange, would be considerably faster than an all stations metro service requiring interchange. How can you say with a straight face that an express tunnel as part of the Sydney Trains' network, with possibly only one intermediate station and on a straighter alignment, compared with possibly up to eight stations on Metro West, can be slower? Even the metro's purported superior acceleration/deceleration performance, compared with the Waratah DD stock, which is questionable, can't make up for the faster maximum speed of the Waratah's with at best only one intermediate station between Parramatta and the CBD. A Sydney Trains' express tunnel would also be far cheaper than Metro West with multiple stations along its route, not that it wouldn't be justified in the longer term as an expansion of rail services through the Inner West.

My greatest lament is that there hasn't been a transparent public debate about the relative merits of the options of expanding and enhancing the existing network or introducing an incompatible metro system. Metro Northwest is a case in point, where the metro option was presented as a fait accompli without any prior consultation. The Metro West seems to be following the same course. There may have been in-house deliberations, but the public still has the right to know the justification for their decisions. So far, it's all misleading spin and questionable decision making. With Rodd Staples now the Secretary for Transport for NSW, it doesn't give me much confidence that we can have an objective transparent debate. It's like putting Dracular in charge of the blood bank. If after widespread public consultation, the metro option is considered to be the best way forward, then so be it. I will accept it.

[lunchbox]

Rodd S will say what he and the government agree that he will say. He was all in favour of Labor's ill-fated Central to Rozelle Metro, and said so in the press of the day. There are lots of quotable, alternative, experts, who do not have to toe the government line in order to keep their jobs.

[tonyp]

Sydney's most critical transport need is capacity and Staples is simply working on implementation of the mode that offers the most capacity and bang for bucks (modes plural including trams for street transit). Any other allegedly suppressed transit expert would be saying the same thing if they were good at their jobs. In any event, the case for metro was first put forward by Dr Garry Glazebrook in his major transport planning study for Sydney a decade ago. Staples is simply the engineer implementing it, not the originator and proponent. In terms of a public debate, there was plenty of public discussion, the underlying feature of which I observed at the time is that very few members of the public or even transport enthusiasts understood anything at all about capacity. Many still don't.

[rogf24]

Hehe, I've got a copy of the Glazebrook plan saved on my computer and here are the maps from his report.

[Rails]

One thing that I will agree with you on Rails is that it's not worth discussing further until we know exactly how the government (currently Liberal, but who knows in a couple of month's time) proposes that Metro West will relieve capacity constraints on the T1 Western Line, particularly from the Outer West. All suggestions so far, including my own, are all pure speculation, which may or may not eventuate.

Just to pick you up on a couple of points, your assertion that "claiming the Richmond Line would be slower under Metro West is wrong" needs to challenged. How? If the Richmond Line were to be diverted to T2 or T5 or both, interchanging to Metro West at Westmead or Parramatta wouldn't be significantly faster, if at all taking interchange time into account, than the existing express T1 line to the CBD, depending on your destination.

On the other hand, a new express tunnel as part of the Sydney Trains' network, allowing direct access to the CBD without the need to interchange, would be considerably faster than an all stations metro service requiring interchange. How can you say with a straight face that an express tunnel as part of the Sydney Trains' network, with possibly only one intermediate station and on a straighter alignment, compared with possibly up to eight stations on Metro West, can be slower? Even the metro's purported superior acceleration/deceleration performance, compared with the Waratah DD stock, which is questionable, can't make up for the faster maximum speed of the Waratah's with at best only one intermediate station between Parramatta and the CBD. A Sydney Trains' express tunnel would also be far cheaper than Metro West with multiple stations along its route, not that it wouldn't be justified in the longer term as an expansion of rail services through the Inner West.

My greatest lament is that there hasn't been a transparent public debate about the relative merits of the options of expanding and enhancing the existing network or introducing an incompatible metro system. Metro Northwest is a case in point, where the metro option was presented as a fait accompli without any prior consultation. The Metro West seems to be following the same course. There may have been in-house deliberations, but the public still has the right to know the justification for their decisions. So far, it's all misleading spin and questionable decision making. With Rodd Staples now the Secretary for Transport for NSW, it doesn't give me much confidence that we can have an objective transparent debate. It's like putting Dracular in charge of the blood bank. If after widespread public consultation, the metro option is considered to be the best way forward, then so be it. I will accept it.

Strange comment, you seem willing to speculate on changes when it suits you but not if it supports the Metro. Despite your usual little digs what I said was correct (I don't think you actually read it). As of today the following is true:

*The Government are saying 20 min or under Parra to CBD for the West Metro to a station between Wynyard and Martin Place (Constance said this just recently).

*Its currently 1:25 mins from Richmond to Wynyard including 50 mins to Westmead. I looked through peak and couldn't see any faster services.

*Interchange to the West Metro for a 20 min trip allows for a 15 min saving minus at worst a 2 min interchange @ 30 TPH. I can see a worst case of 11 mins time saving from Westmead.

*You're looking at best 15 mins from Parra to Central with one or two intermediate stop using current rolling stock in an express tunnel for the suburban network. Are you claiming they can do better?

*Then another 5 mins to Wynyard via the Metro West reserved corridor. Maybe you could do that slightly quicker but with existing rolling stock and dwells I'm not confident.

Will this be the case when they fully announce the West Metro? Ive no idea, while I can speculate on some aspects that seem obvious to me (not new ideas either) and even how they could do better with the DD if Railcorp loosened their grip, I can really only comment on the information currently available.

[Transtopic]

Sydney's most critical transport need is capacity and Staples is simply working on implementation of the mode that offers the most capacity and bang for bucks (modes plural including trams for street transit). Any other allegedly suppressed transit expert would be saying the same thing if they were good at their jobs. In any event, the case for metro was first put forward by Dr Garry Glazebrook in his major transport planning study for Sydney a decade ago. Staples is simply the engineer implementing it, not the originator and proponent. In terms of a public debate, there was plenty of public discussion, the underlying feature of which I observed at the time is that very few members of the public or even transport enthusiasts understood anything at all about capacity. Many still don't.

Totally irrelevant comment. There has not been a meaningful public debate on the relative merits of expanding the existing rail network or introducing an incompatible metro system. It's just not all about capacity, but how changes will impact on the broader rail network,which so far have been suppressed.

[Transtopic]

One thing that I will agree with you on Rails is that it's not worth discussing further until we know exactly how the government (currently Liberal, but who knows in a couple of month's time) proposes that Metro West will relieve capacity constraints on the T1 Western Line, particularly from the Outer West. All suggestions so far, including my own, are all pure speculation, which may or may not eventuate.

Just to pick you up on a couple of points, your assertion that "claiming the Richmond Line would be slower under Metro West is wrong" needs to challenged. How? If the Richmond Line were to be diverted to T2 or T5 or both, interchanging to Metro West at Westmead or Parramatta wouldn't be significantly faster, if at all taking interchange time into account, than the existing express T1 line to the CBD, depending on your destination.

On the other hand, a new express tunnel as part of the Sydney Trains' network, allowing direct access to the CBD without the need to interchange, would be considerably faster than an all stations metro service requiring interchange. How can you say with a straight face that an express tunnel as part of the Sydney Trains' network, with possibly only one intermediate station and on a straighter alignment, compared with possibly up to eight stations on Metro West, can be slower? Even the metro's purported superior acceleration/deceleration performance, compared with the Waratah DD stock, which is questionable, can't make up for the faster maximum speed of the Waratah's with at best only one intermediate station between Parramatta and the CBD. A Sydney Trains' express tunnel would also be far cheaper than Metro West with multiple stations along its route, not that it wouldn't be justified in the longer term as an expansion of rail services through the Inner West.

My greatest lament is that there hasn't been a transparent public debate about the relative merits of the options of expanding and enhancing the existing network or introducing an incompatible metro system. Metro Northwest is a case in point, where the metro option was presented as a fait accompli without any prior consultation. The Metro West seems to be following the same course. There may have been in-house deliberations, but the public still has the right to know the justification for their decisions. So far, it's all misleading spin and questionable decision making. With Rodd Staples now the Secretary for Transport for NSW, it doesn't give me much confidence that we can have an objective transparent debate. It's like putting Dracular in charge of the blood bank. If after widespread public consultation, the metro option is considered to be the best way forward, then so be it. I will accept it.

Strange comment, you seem willing to speculate on changes when it suits you but not if it supports the Metro. Despite your usual little digs what I said was correct (I don't think you actually read it). As of today the following is true:

*The Government are saying 20 min or under Parra to CBD for the West Metro to a station between Wynyard and Martin Place (Constance said this just recently).

*Its currently 1:25 mins from Richmond to Wynyard including 50 mins to Westmead. I looked through peak and couldn't see any faster services.

*Interchange to the West Metro for a 20 min trip allows for a 15 min saving minus at worst a 2 min interchange @ 30 TPH. I can see a worst case of 11 mins time saving from Westmead.

*You're looking at best 15 mins from Parra to Central with one or two intermediate stop using current rolling stock in an express tunnel for the suburban network. Are you claiming they can do better?

*Then another 5 mins to Wynyard via the Metro West reserved corridor. Maybe you could do that slightly quicker but with existing rolling stock and dwells I'm not confident.

Will this be the case when they fully announce the West Metro? Ive no idea, while I can speculate on some aspects that seem obvious to me (not new ideas either) and even how they could do better with the DD if Railcorp loosened their grip, I can really only comment on the information currently available.

Still ignoring the fact that an express tunnel as part of the Sydney Trains' network from Westmead would be faster to Central, which is the major destination, than an all stations metro. Travel time to Wynyard may well be similar, but is it worth interchanging, when most would probably already have a seat? I don't think so.

[tonyp]

Totally irrelevant comment. There has not been a meaningful public debate on the relative merits of expanding the existing rail network or introducing an incompatible metro system. It's just not all about capacity, but how changes will impact on the broader rail network,which so far have been suppressed.

Unfortunately such debates get derailed by the lies and exaggerations of the "against" camp. For example, with metro we get the "cattle car"/ "kiddies toy" epithet hurled around as well as the "no seats" claim, completely ignoring that it's not a one for one comparison. With trams, there is a veritable garbage truck of false claims emptied on the debate, including "outdated technology", "buses/electric buses can do the same job" completely ignoring the huge difference in capacity and the gridlock that buses succumb to if they try to make up the capacity shortfall - for starters.

The planning approval system has contained provision for public feedback all along and newspapers, esp the SMH, have acted as a good platform for public discussion. Community groups like Ecotransit also emerged as a vehicle for public debate, though in most cases succumbed to ideology rather than genuine professional appraisal. The opportunity for public discussion has been tarnished all along by the failure by any party with another viewpoint to present any professional alternative cases.

[Rails]

Still ignoring the fact that an express tunnel as part of the Sydney Trains' network from Westmead would be faster to Central, which is the major destination, than an all stations metro. Travel time to Wynyard may well be similar, but is it worth interchanging, when most would probably already have a seat? I don't think so.

Err, I don't think I ignored that at all, I said it... Also I don't think Central is the most important stop, I believe the majority of CBD employment is in the area around Wynyard/ Martin Place and down to Town Hall, thus the placement of the West Metro station. Hopefully a second station will be closer to Museum offering excellent CBD coverage but that remains to be seen.

With the West Metro delivering passengers to the CBD proper, you run express DD from the outer West into ST to terminate. The Metro allows you to remove from T1 express services stops at Lidcombe with its direct access to Olympic Park and Strathfield with its interchange station to the Northern line. So express between Parra and Redfern for all services. Although it would be better for crush load DD if you ran Parra to Central.

Further up the line you run a single pattern express from Blacktown to Westmead and Parra. So hopefully with this single pattern express on a dedicated corridor you can knock off some trip time. Combined with the planned track improvements at Central hopefully you can get the DD trip time from Parra closer to 20mins. Any faster and you probably need that tunnel.

[PaulSEO]

9 stations according to Constance:

https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/tra ... 50te6.html

[iamthouth]

From https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/new ... 50myx.html

"A new rail line to Malabar in Sydney's south-east via Randwick or to Miranda in the Sutherland Shire via Sydney Airport are options the state's top transport officials have been canvassing behind closed doors."

[rogf24]

No new info there, all has been announced in Future Transport. Must be the election time re-announcements.

Apart from the bit about the Airport Line but chances of that are slim. They'll probably build a new Airport Line.

[gilberations]

No new info there, all has been announced in Future Transport. Must be the election time re-announcements.

Apart from the bit about the Airport Line but chances of that are slim. They'll probably build a new Airport Line.

Having 2 separate airport lines wouldn’t be the worst idea

[Frosty]

A second Airport Line wouldn’t be the worst idea provided it serves new areas such as Zetland or Eastlakes.

In the SMH article it claims converting the Airport Line to metro releases 12tph of capacity into the City Circle this is only partially true as 4tph are Revesby all stops, 2 trains are Revesby limited stops trains Riverwood & Padstow then express to Wolli Creek while the rest are Campbelltown/MacArthur trains which would have to run via Sydenham in future.
It could be a good idea to have some Campbelltown/Macarhtur trains stop at Tempe, St Peters & Erskineville once Metro to Bankstown & Revesby occurs enabling T4 trains not to be slowed down further.

[Transtopic]

Here's something novel. What about building new rail lines into areas not currently serviced by rail, rather than duplicating or cannibalising existing lines? Extending the ESR from Bondi Junction to Maroubra Junction or Malabar via Randwick should also be considered as an option, as it is grossly underutilised at present. None other than Nick Greiner recommended this when he was Chairman of Infrastructure NSW.

[tonyp]

Here's something novel. What about building new rail lines into areas not currently serviced by rail, rather than duplicating or cannibalising existing lines? Extending the ESR from Bondi Junction to Maroubra Junction or Malabar via Randwick should also be considered as an option, as it is grossly underutilised at present. None other than Nick Greiner recommended this when he was Chairman of Infrastructure NSW.

Going via BJ is too indirect a route for the Anzac Pde corridor. It would take far too long to get to the city or Central. I still think in theory that the best extension possibility of the ESR is to Bondi Beach, but the economics don't stack up at present and you would still need buses to service the intermediate points along the corridor, a deficiency of any heavy rail project.

[Campbelltown busboy]

Here's something novel. What about building new rail lines into areas not currently serviced by rail, rather than duplicating or cannibalising existing lines? Extending the ESR from Bondi Junction to Maroubra Junction or Malabar via Randwick should also be considered as an option, as it is grossly underutilised at present. None other than Nick Greiner recommended this when he was Chairman of Infrastructure NSW.

Going via BJ is too indirect a route for the Anzac Pde corridor. It would take far too long to get to the city or Central. I still think in theory that the best extension possibility of the ESR is to Bondi Beach, but the economics don't stack up at present and you would still need buses to service the intermediate points along the corridor, a deficiency of any heavy rail project.

The 1947 ESR plan had the line going via the SCG and nobody knows where the original ESR that was in the Bradfield Sydney railway plan would have ended up for more read this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_S ... ilway_line

[Stu]

"[A metro line from] Kogarah via Sydney Airport makes the most sense because it's the cheapest option. They could roll it out in a single term of government because they could convert the existing heavy rail," a transport source said.

How would the T8 Airport line be linked to the T4 Illawarra line?

[swtt]

"[A metro line from] Kogarah via Sydney Airport makes the most sense because it's the cheapest option. They could roll it out in a single term of government because they could convert the existing heavy rail," a transport source said.

How would the T8 Airport line be linked to the T4 Illawarra line?

Lots of reengineering work required. Maybe that might spur on extra platforms at Wolli Creek for actual T8 services that run via Sydenham!

Sent from my Huawei Mate 20 Pro using Tapatalk

[Transtopic]

Here's something novel. What about building new rail lines into areas not currently serviced by rail, rather than duplicating or cannibalising existing lines? Extending the ESR from Bondi Junction to Maroubra Junction or Malabar via Randwick should also be considered as an option, as it is grossly underutilised at present. None other than Nick Greiner recommended this when he was Chairman of Infrastructure NSW.

Going via BJ is too indirect a route for the Anzac Pde corridor. It would take far too long to get to the city or Central. I still think in theory that the best extension possibility of the ESR is to Bondi Beach, but the economics don't stack up at present and you would still need buses to service the intermediate points along the corridor, a deficiency of any heavy rail project.

From Maroubra Junction, it's not as indirect as you may think. It would follow Avoca St from Maroubra Junction on a direct route to Randwick, bypassing Kingsford. It's no more indirect than the circuitous Epping to Chatswood Rail Line or the proposed Parramatta to Macquarie Park metro link via Carlingford and Epping. Bondi Junction is after all the major strategic centre in the eastern suburbs and it would also provide enhanced access from the south east. Building a new metro line along the Anzac Pde corridor would only be duplicating the light rail route, which the operator may have something to say about.

We should be making the best use of existing infrastructure where possible and extending the underutilised ESR is a case in point. I know this will offend the sensitivities of the metro protagonists, but it shouldn't be discounted, just because heaven forbid, anyone would dare suggest that the existing Sydney Trains' network should be extended. The government is fast running out of any more family silver to sell off and the mana from heaven through privatisations in recent years is unlikely to be repeated. In future, every dollar of infrastructure spending will have to be carefully scrutinized and costs contained, where existing infrastructure can be used if appropriate. Extending the ESR is going to be a lot cheaper than building a completely new metro line. At the very least, extending the ESR should be considered as a option and if it is rejected, then so be it.

An extension of the ESR to Maroubra Junction or even Malabar doesn't preclude a branch line from Bondi Junction to Bondi Beach/North Bondi.

[tonyp]

There is no way an ESR extension could deliver SE patronage quicker to Central than via Anzac Pde.

I don't think there's any objection in principle to extending Sydney Trains lines in the appropriate places. The thing is that metro delivers far, far more capacity bang for buck than a line used by double deckers. It boils down to value for money. The double deckers will be best in future for express long-distance services.

[stupid_girl]

I don't think extending the ESR is going to be cheaper than building a completely new metro line. The distance from Malabar to Bondi Junction is not significantly shorter than to the city. Also, the long term operating cost will be much higher for ESR extension than a new metro line.

[Transtopic]

There is no way an ESR extension could deliver SE patronage quicker to Central than via Anzac Pde.

I don't think there's any objection in principle to extending Sydney Trains lines in the appropriate places. The thing is that metro delivers far, far more capacity bang for buck than a line used by double deckers. It boils down to value for money. The double deckers will be best in future for express long-distance services.

Like Badgerys Creek Airport to the CBD?