• Advertisement

Sydney Metro - Tallawong to Bankstown

Sydney / New South Wales Transport Discussion

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

Postby mandonov » Fri May 12, 2017 10:26 pm

How much of that is timetable padding, and how much is the increase in dwell time due to a) a vastly increased population, and b) a train design that is restrictive to free flowing passenger exchange?
mandonov
 
Posts: 1631
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 8:34 pm
Has thanked: 173 times
Been thanked: 377 times

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

Postby boronia » Fri May 12, 2017 10:45 pm

The vestibules and doors in a double decker are the same as was in the single deckers, and the limitations in getting into the saloons are about the same, so the delays would be largely due to the increased numbers.
The Sydney Classic and Antique Truck (and Bus) Show
On again June 2019
@ The Museum of Fire.
User avatar
boronia
 
Posts: 18718
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 5:18 am
Location: Sydney
Has thanked: 276 times
Been thanked: 1773 times
Favourite Vehicle: Dennis

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

Postby Transtopic » Fri May 12, 2017 11:15 pm

Glen wrote:Well I always like to go back to my 1938 timetable and that's how you see where we’ve really lost it.

Some of the best (worst) examples are on all stations off-peak and weekend running on steep uphill routes.

For example, Central to Hornsby Shore all stations:

1938 44 mins
1949 45
1958 47
1960 46
1973 46
1980 45
1984 41
1992 44
2000 45
2004 47
2005 51
2017 51

Remember, in 1938 we are talking about two-motor Leeds Forge and Bradfield ex-steam cars whining up and over the Harbour Bridge!

Wynyard to Hornsby Main, express Redfern – Burwood:
T
1938 55 mins
1949 55
1958 57
1960 57
1973 57
1980 54
1984 51
1992 53
2000 54
2004 57
2005 58
2017 59 (equiv)

Nobody is ever going to convince me that there is ANY excuse for that appalling result, after the millions of dollars that have been spent on “upgrading”. It’s simply a disgrace.

Even Central - Bankstown all stations … was 31 mins in 1938, now it is 36 mins. How much time was that 'metro' going to save??

Wynyard - Strathfield all stations … was 27 mins in 1938, now it is 32 mins.

Wynyard - Liverpool via Granville, express Redfern – Burwood … was 55 mins in 1938, now it is 62 mins.

Need I go on?

One of the things which has really peeved me off, is the misinformation put out by the government in comparing the relative performance stats of SD metro and DD rolling stock.

As Glen has pointed out, despite billions of dollars being invested in upgrading the rail infrastructure and a more modern rail fleet, it is scandalous that the timetable is actually slower than it wnas 80 years ago.

No doubt this is in part due to the government's preoccupation with improving on-time running stats, but with the upgrades that have taken place, there is no longer any excuse to pad the timetable.

The government has been devious in comparing the performance of a new metro system with the existing legacy DD network in falling to acknowledge that DD operations on a new upgraded line with modern station design would also provide enhanced performance.

I would like to hear from someone with the technical expertise who can provide an unbiased assessment of how quickly the timetable could be speeded up if the Waratah stock was allowed to be operated at its full potential.
Transtopic
 
Posts: 895
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2011 9:10 pm
Has thanked: 243 times
Been thanked: 174 times

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

Postby grog » Sat May 13, 2017 1:29 am

mandonov wrote:How much of that is timetable padding, and how much is the increase in dwell time due to a) a vastly increased population, and b) a train design that is restrictive to free flowing passenger exchange?

^^^ this

Nobody talks about how you don't need padding when your trains are running 10tph with 80% capacity vs when your trains are running 18-20tph at 130% capacity.

People just say "it's padding"
grog
 
Posts: 504
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2007 7:09 am
Location: Sydney
Has thanked: 41 times
Been thanked: 145 times

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

Postby tonyp » Sat May 13, 2017 5:24 am

Glen wrote:Even Central - Bankstown all stations … was 31 mins in 1938, now it is 36 mins. How much time was that 'metro' going to save??

They project the journey at 28 minutes in their travel calculator, so that's faster than the 1938 single deck stock and heaps faster than the deckers.

I actually think they're being conservative about the metro's potential performance - or else they're planning to veer towards mediocrity like everything they do in NSW transport. As you know, I often use Prague as a benchmark because the Czechs really know pretty-much better than anybody else how to do metro, trams and buses (but not so good on distance trains where they've been constrained by legacy factors affecting infrastructure, as well as money).

Looking at various segments of the Prague metro (which moves 600 million ppa over three lines), I find the typical journey time over the equivalent of the Central-Bankstown distance (18.7 km) is pretty much 29 minutes. However, the Bankstown metro will have 11 intermediate stops whereas the typical number of stops in that distance on the Prague metro is 15. This means that it's looking like somebody isn't going to execute their metro up to par and it ain't Prague! And remember that a Prague line is moving 10x more people than the Bankstown line is now. How would they go with deckers on the Prague metro I wonder? Well actually I don't wonder. They have 4 double doors per car and no steps on their trains.

Nevertheless, even if the Sydney metro is not going to be right up with world's best practice, it's still going to have an edge over Sydney's suburban operation at any time in the latter's life. (Your summary does remind me though that I recall that the 1980s were the best time but I guess they didn't run on time and that was a political problem.)

As for RER line A, I'm trying to find out more. I've established that it's 108 km long with 44 intermediate stops but the French journey planners are so obscure that I can't find the end to end journey time, which is the critical point of comparison. I see that the line carries 300 million ppa which is very respectable.
Perpetually on a T3 to "I. P. Pavlova, přestup na Metro. Příští zastávka, Náměsti Míru"
User avatar
tonyp
 
Posts: 8681
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 1:31 am
Location: Shoalhaven
Has thanked: 1125 times
Been thanked: 1213 times

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

Postby Tonymercury » Sat May 13, 2017 5:55 am

tonyp wrote:
Glen wrote: So the best way out of it is automation with high-performance trains - which happen to be single deck. I'm a pragmatist.


Why do they have to be single deck?
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 tonyp » Sat May 13, 2017 6:23 am

Tonymercury wrote:Why do they have to be single deck?

The quote is mine, not Glen's.

I didn't say they have to be. They happen to be. I'm open to alternatives but nobody has apparently come up with a high-performance double deck train for suburban stopping services, they're all single deckers and every system buys single deckers if these are their performance critieria. It's not hard to see why. Even if you can get a decker to accelerate and stop as well as a single decker (and I've yet to see evidence of that), no double decker around has four doors per side per car and no steps. Even three doors and shorter sections of double deck aren't going to cut it against such a single decker. Steps and shortage of doors are the death of vehicles in high-turnover service, whether it's trains, trams or buses.
Perpetually on a T3 to "I. P. Pavlova, přestup na Metro. Příští zastávka, Náměsti Míru"
User avatar
tonyp
 
Posts: 8681
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 1:31 am
Location: Shoalhaven
Has thanked: 1125 times
Been thanked: 1213 times

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

Postby simonl » Sat May 13, 2017 7:11 am

What about the RER example just a few posts ago?
simonl
 
Posts: 7977
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 7:03 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia
Has thanked: 850 times
Been thanked: 365 times

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

Postby tonyp » Sat May 13, 2017 7:25 am

simonl wrote:What about the RER example just a few posts ago?

Waiting until somebody can find a journey time to appraise against the distance and number of stops.
Perpetually on a T3 to "I. P. Pavlova, přestup na Metro. Příští zastávka, Náměsti Míru"
User avatar
tonyp
 
Posts: 8681
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 1:31 am
Location: Shoalhaven
Has thanked: 1125 times
Been thanked: 1213 times

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

Postby simonl » Sat May 13, 2017 8:14 am

grog wrote:
mandonov wrote:How much of that is timetable padding, and how much is the increase in dwell time due to a) a vastly increased population, and b) a train design that is restrictive to free flowing passenger exchange?

^^^ this

Nobody talks about how you don't need padding when your trains are running 10tph with 80% capacity vs when your trains are running 18-20tph at 130% capacity.

People just say "it's padding"

Is there any reason to assume that the deckers are more highly loaded than the single deck trains in the 30s? Doubtless they ran less services back then. They didn't have the ESR for a start.
simonl
 
Posts: 7977
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 7:03 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia
Has thanked: 850 times
Been thanked: 365 times

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

Postby lunchbox » Sat May 13, 2017 12:03 pm

CENTRAL METRO STATION
Further to my Nov. 02 2016 post re Central Metro having an entry only at the northern end, TfNSW's "Project update" document dated January 2017 confirms (page 34) that Central Metro station will have NO ACCESS TO THE SOUTHERN END OF THE PLATFORMS FROM RAILWAY SQUARE. This is despite the fact that the southern end of the platforms is roughly beneath the Devonshire Street pedestrian tunnel. It will add minutes to the door-to-door journey times for millions of future travellers from the south-west and south-east. It is in direct conflict with previous Metro "blurb" which made much of the need to consider door-to-door journey times, not just the time spent on the train.
Another one for the "Falures in Policy" thread on this site!
lunchbox
 
Posts: 1471
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 3:50 pm
Location: Sydney
Has thanked: 344 times
Been thanked: 148 times
Favourite Vehicle: Bicycle - no waiting - on time

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

Postby grog » Sat May 13, 2017 12:29 pm

Wait for the full Central Walk I'd say...

https://www.sydneymetro.info/article/ce ... al-station

This only mentions the suburban platforms, but the plans supposedly go the whole way through to the Western side. Expect the western half to be staged with the Central Station redevelopment plans.
grog
 
Posts: 504
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2007 7:09 am
Location: Sydney
Has thanked: 41 times
Been thanked: 145 times

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

Postby tonyp » Sat May 13, 2017 1:05 pm

With the aid of Google maps I managed to grab a section of RER line A between Acheres Grand Cormier and Vincennes, from a suburb to the centre of Paris. It's 31 km long and has 10 intermediate stops. A trip over this section takes 35 minutes. I can't draw a direct comparison with the Prague metro as the longest line there is 25 km long which takes 40 minutes with 21 intermediate stops. There are so many stops it doesn't have much opportunity to get up to maximum speed and thus relies more on acceleration/deceleration - which I can say from personal experience is in warp-speed territory.

On the Mandurah line, Kwinana is 33 km from Perth and it takes 26 minutes with 6 intermediate stops. A closer comparison might be the Joondalup line where it is 33 km to Clarkson with 9 intermediate stops which takes on average 32 minutes. On the NW metro it is about 32 km from Cudgegong Rd to Chatswood with 11 intermediate stops and the projected journey time is 37 minutes. My general impression is that the Sydney metro is going to perform very similarly to - indeed a little slower than - the Perth railway which is technically an S Bahn. That's a credit to Perth on the one hand and a sign that (by comparison with both Perth and the Prague metro) the Sydney metro is so far projected to perform a little lazily - but it's hypothetical early days at this stage. Metro is certainly capable of better and we'll see what emerges in 2019.

As for the RER, yes those double deckers obviously perform very well, but not better than a single deck metro is able to perform. The question then is whether those stairs and doors become an issue at stops. I do note that the new Sydney metro trains do only have 3 double doors per car. The C series in Perth, if they eventuate, are planned to have 4 doors per car.

The final question is, if you did graft the RER double deck service onto the NW metro line, what would the capacity be compared to the single deckers?
Perpetually on a T3 to "I. P. Pavlova, přestup na Metro. Příští zastávka, Náměsti Míru"
User avatar
tonyp
 
Posts: 8681
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 1:31 am
Location: Shoalhaven
Has thanked: 1125 times
Been thanked: 1213 times

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

Postby simonl » Sat May 13, 2017 2:13 pm

It will take the most radical town planning changes to use up even half of the NWRL's capacity. 12k pax/peak is the total demand. Perhaps half of that will actually use the NWRL. Rest will use the buses or just keep driving. Capacity over two hours would be more like 40k.

I don't know why we're even mentioning the NWRL's capacity ???
simonl
 
Posts: 7977
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 7:03 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia
Has thanked: 850 times
Been thanked: 365 times

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

Postby Glen » Sat May 13, 2017 8:10 pm

Glen
 
Posts: 2816
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 10:54 pm
Location: Sydney
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 208 times

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

Postby Glen » Sat May 13, 2017 8:30 pm

grog wrote:
mandonov wrote:How much of that is timetable padding, and how much is the increase in dwell time due to a) a vastly increased population, and b) a train design that is restrictive to free flowing passenger exchange?

^^^ this

Nobody talks about how you don't need padding when your trains are running 10tph with 80% capacity vs when your trains are running 18-20tph at 130% capacity.

People just say "it's padding"

I'm not sure to where or when you are referring?

In the 1938 timetable the number of trains departing Wynyard in the 60 minute period from 5pm was as follows:

• Up Shore to Down Western and Northern lines: 26

• Up West and North to Down Shore: 21

• Wynyard low level dead end to Bankstown and Local West: 27

• (The latter included 17 trains per hour on the Bankstown line - seems like Bankstown has had a 'Metro' once before?) :-)

• St James dead end to Illawarra and Kingsgrove 25.

Today we consider the lines 'at capacity' at 20 trains per hour.

According to an article in ARHS Bulletin (April 2001) by I.A.Brady, which relates to the period immediately before this, in the 1937 working timetable there were 35 trains in the PM peak one hour leaving St James, which was at that stage a 3 track dead end shunt, with two tracks used for regular reversing and the third as a storage road during the off-peak (the then-future City Outer) from which trains were fed in during the PM peak.

The article goes on to say this 35 trains per hour arrangement at St James "did not work" and so in 1937 Bankstown trains were shifted from St James turnback to Wynyard Low Level, as listed in the dot points above.

Those were the days.
Last edited by Glen on Sat May 13, 2017 8:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Glen
 
Posts: 2816
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 10:54 pm
Location: Sydney
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 208 times

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

Postby Glen » Sat May 13, 2017 8:46 pm

tonyp wrote:As for the RER, yes those double deckers obviously perform very well, but not better than a single deck metro is able to perform. The question then is whether those stairs and doors become an issue at stops.

The final question is, if you did graft the RER double deck service onto the NW metro line, what would the capacity be compared to the single deckers?

Just ask the French why they chose to equip the busiest line in Europe with double-deckers!

On the subject of average speeds and average stop spacing here are some figures I calculated back in 2005 to compare Sydney, Brisbane and Perth, from slowest to fastest in that order of course:

Line ... Average speed ... Average stop spacing

Inner West ... Average speed ... 28 km/h ... Average stop spacing ... 1.06 km
Hornsby Shore ... Average speed ... 30 km/h ... Average stop spacing ... 1.34 km
Hurstville stopping ... Average speed ... 36 km/h ... Average stop spacing ... 1.35 km
Bankstown ... Average speed ... 31 km/h ... Average stop spacing ... 1.34 km
Hornsby Main ... Average speed ... 37 km/h ... Average stop spacing ... 1.58 km
Liverpool via Granville ... Average speed ... 39 km/h ... Average stop spacing ... 2.55 km

Ferny Grove ... Average speed ... 36 km/h ... Average stop spacing ... 1.24 km
Shorncliffe ... Average speed ... 39 km/h ... Average stop spacing ... 1.29 km
Beenleigh ... Average speed ... 43 km/h ... Average stop spacing ... 1.58 km
Cleveland ... Average speed ... 41 km/h ... Average stop spacing ... 1.70 km
Ipswich ... Average speed ... 45 km/h ... Average stop spacing ... 1.68 km
Caboolture ... Average speed ... 50 km/h ... Average stop spacing ... 2.16 km

Midland ... Average speed ... 38 km/h ... Average stop spacing ... 1.14 km
Fremantle ... Average speed ... 41 km/h ... Average stop spacing ... 1.27 km
Armadale ... Average speed ... 47 km/h ... Average stop spacing ... 1.69 km
Currambine ... Average speed ... 63 km/h ... Average stop spacing ... 3.24 km
Glen
 
Posts: 2816
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 10:54 pm
Location: Sydney
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 208 times

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

Postby Transtopic » Sat May 13, 2017 8:48 pm

I'm still waiting for someone with the technical expertise (not just a biased opinion) to provide an objective performance and line capacity analysis between the SD metro and Waratah DD stock if it is allowed to utilise its full performance potential on a new line, such as the NWRL and its extension into the CBD. Comparisons between the new segregated metro lines, whether SD or DD, and the legacy network are irrelevant.

To put it into perspective, how much difference would there really be, if any, in operating a SD metro to satisfy a realistic demand on the NWRL (certainly not 30tph and even 15tph is questionable) compared with a Waratah's potential performance at the same frequency (more like 12tph IMO). With the long station spacing on the NWRL, which is not typical for a metro, the alleged advantage of the metro stock in acceleration and deceleration performance is diminished. Comparing dwell times for DD stock on the legacy network at the most congested CBD stations at Central, Town Hall and Wynyard with SD metro on a new line with modern station design is also misleading. Even on the existing network, dwell times outside of the CBD are not an issue.

One thing that the metro purists have to come to terms with is that there are limited opportunities for converting any part of the existing network, which will continue to be the dominant system for years to come. Future planning should acknowledge that reality. Having said that, I fully support new segregated inner city metro lines. I envisage that in time, Howard Collins will become the new Czar in Sydney and NSW rail planning and operation.
Transtopic
 
Posts: 895
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2011 9:10 pm
Has thanked: 243 times
Been thanked: 174 times

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

Postby Transtopic » Sat May 13, 2017 9:06 pm

Glen wrote:
tonyp wrote:As for the RER, yes those double deckers obviously perform very well, but not better than a single deck metro is able to perform. The question then is whether those stairs and doors become an issue at stops.

The final question is, if you did graft the RER double deck service onto the NW metro line, what would the capacity be compared to the single deckers?

Just ask the French why they chose to equip the busiest line in Europe with double-deckers!

On the subject of average speeds and average stop spacing here are some figures I calculated back in 2005 to compare Sydney, Brisbane and Perth, from slowest to fastest in that order of course:

Line ... Average speed ... Average stop spacing

Inner West ... Average speed ... 28 km/h ... Average stop spacing ... 1.06 km
Hornsby Shore ... Average speed ... 30 km/h ... Average stop spacing ... 1.34 km
Hurstville stopping ... Average speed ... 36 km/h ... Average stop spacing ... 1.35 km
Bankstown ... Average speed ... 31 km/h ... Average stop spacing ... 1.34 km
Hornsby Main ... Average speed ... 37 km/h ... Average stop spacing ... 1.58 km
Liverpool via Granville ... Average speed ... 39 km/h ... Average stop spacing ... 2.55 km

Ferny Grove ... Average speed ... 36 km/h ... Average stop spacing ... 1.24 km
Shorncliffe ... Average speed ... 39 km/h ... Average stop spacing ... 1.29 km
Beenleigh ... Average speed ... 43 km/h ... Average stop spacing ... 1.58 km
Cleveland ... Average speed ... 41 km/h ... Average stop spacing ... 1.70 km
Ipswich ... Average speed ... 45 km/h ... Average stop spacing ... 1.68 km
Caboolture ... Average speed ... 50 km/h ... Average stop spacing ... 2.16 km

Midland ... Average speed ... 38 km/h ... Average stop spacing ... 1.14 km
Fremantle ... Average speed ... 41 km/h ... Average stop spacing ... 1.27 km
Armadale ... Average speed ... 47 km/h ... Average stop spacing ... 1.69 km
Currambine ... Average speed ... 63 km/h ... Average stop spacing ... 3.24 km

Thank you.
Transtopic
 
Posts: 895
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2011 9:10 pm
Has thanked: 243 times
Been thanked: 174 times

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

Postby neilrex » Sat May 13, 2017 10:55 pm

Trains drive slowly because they are driven slowly. And because they stop for 2 minutes at some places, because the timetable requires them to do so. Because the timetable is written too slowly.

This is entirely predictable outcome of judging management at all levels according to how many trains are late, instead of how rapidly the customers are conveyed to their destinations. Make the timetable so slow that even a tortoise could keep up. Problem solved.

Another problem nobody probably wants to mention, is how long it takes to get wheelchairs on and off the train.
neilrex
 
Posts: 610
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 8:34 pm
Has thanked: 350 times
Been thanked: 59 times

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

Postby tonyp » Sun May 14, 2017 6:50 am

Glen wrote:Just ask the French why they chose to equip the busiest line in Europe with double-deckers!

All that glitters is not gold. Ask why nobody is equipping metros with double deckers.

Glen wrote:On the subject of average speeds and average stop spacing here are some figures I calculated back in 2005 to compare Sydney, Brisbane and Perth, from slowest to fastest in that order of course:

Those two single-deck systems soundly out-perform the double deck system.

Transtopic wrote:I'm still waiting for someone with the technical expertise (not just a biased opinion) to provide an objective performance and line capacity analysis between the SD metro and Waratah DD stock if it is allowed to utilise its full performance potential on a new line, such as the NWRL and its extension into the CBD. Comparisons between the new segregated metro lines, whether SD or DD, and the legacy network are irrelevant.

It's not what the vehicles are accomplishing on the move that's the issue, it's what happens at stops. This is the theme that I bring up time and time again in relation to, not only trains, but trams and buses too. It's a much bigger issue than anybody (with a few exceptions) seems to understand. A double deck train with less doors will not process turnover of passengers as well as a single deck train with more doors and therefore ultimately the capacity of a double deck operation will be lower, regardless of the initial superficial impression that you can get more people on a double deck train. The most efficient train type in terms of quickly moving people per hour along a line is a single deck with 4 doors per side per car and longitudinal seats (or preferably no seats but that's not acceptable of course). Perth understands with its C series design. Sydney understands with the metro trains with longitudinal seats but only has 3 doors per car (which may turn out to be a problem in the long term - we never seem to get anything right).

RER line A has a theoretical capacity of 30 trains an hour per direction but in practical terms I understand from French sources has difficulty achieving that on a sustained basis. I am also told that only having 3 doors per car is a problem as 4 doors is preferable but not possible on a double decker. If that's the case in France, where does it leave your 2 door Waratah's ability to achieve full performance potential. I'd suggest well below that of a single deck metro train.

You need to see our double deck trains in the same way as you see double deck buses. You wouldn't use them on the Gong Shuttle or to Bondi Beach, you'd use them out to places like Palm Beach and Baulkham Hills where the bus is running express with a low turnover en route. Our double deck trains are best suited to long distance express runs to the outer suburbs and interurban/intercity service. They're completely inadequate for high-turnover stopping services, not because of carriage capacity but because of how they exchange and store passengers which ultimately governs true service capacity.
Perpetually on a T3 to "I. P. Pavlova, přestup na Metro. Příští zastávka, Náměsti Míru"
User avatar
tonyp
 
Posts: 8681
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 1:31 am
Location: Shoalhaven
Has thanked: 1125 times
Been thanked: 1213 times

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

Postby strata » Sun May 14, 2017 9:46 am

I don't think the government has put so much thought into it, tonyp. They've clearly made the decision not to build any core capacity for the existing network, and the NWRL as a metro is a result of that.

But even if they were equivalent in terms of acceleration/deceleration I wouldn't be pushing for DD rolling stock anyway. RER only started replacing their SDs after they had upgraded the infrastructure to support 30tph and fully exhausted that capacity, and here we are today running DD trains through the city at 20tph or less.
strata
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 12:18 pm
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time

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

Postby tonyp » Sun May 14, 2017 10:39 am

Just browsing through a French site, I see that new automatic driving equipment has been installed on the RER line A trains in April this year, resulting in an increase in commercial speed by 5 km/h and reducing travel time on the Vincennes-La Defense section by 2 minutes.

http://www.mobilicites.com/011-6166-RER ... ntral.html

However, other local discussion reveals that the reason for development of this new technology is that the line has been struggling for years to meet the standards that are claimed for it and that it has struggled to yield better than 25 trains per hour and the discrepancy between this and what the timetable claims is due to trains being frequently cancelled. The line has reached capacity and they are trying to squeeze more out of it. Not all of the trains on the line are double deck but they are continuing to buy more double deckers to increase train capacity, but this is counteracted by the passenger-exchange limitations of the three-door configuration. One reason for the automatic driving equipment is to free up time for the driver to better concentrate on the door situation at the busiest stops. The doors are manually opened and closed by the driver.

This is a line that has reached its limits, yet it's small fry compared to the busiest single-deck systems. These are old figures but they give the general picture:

Passengers per day:

Paris RER line A 2017 1 200 000

Tokyo 2007

JR East Tokyo 3 727 115
JR East Yamanote 3 545 764
JR East Utsunomiya 3 274 279
JR East Chuo 3 144 205
Odakyu Odawara / Enoshima 1 814 000
JR East Sobu 1 712 764
Keio Hon 1 286 966
JR East Joban 1 231 707
Tokyo Metro Tozai 1211718
JR East Sobu rapid 1,122,271
Tokyu Denentoshi 1,107,570
Keikyu Hon 1103308
Tokyu Toyoko 1069856
Tokyo Metro Marunouchi 1064464
Tokyo Metro Hibiya 1054272
Tokyo Metro Chiyoda line 1050804
Tokyo Metro Ginza line 1 002 932

Moscow 2007

Tagansko-Krasnopresnenskaya Line 1 449 222
Kaluzhsko-Rizhskaya Line 1 399 472
Zamoskvoretskaya Line 1 362 599
Serpukhovsko-Timiryazevskaya Line 1 092 949
Sokolnicheskaya Line 1 031 914

Passengers per hour (1992) (Tokyo and RER A)

JR East Chuo :
103,080 JR East Kehin Tohoku (southern part): 92,700
JR East Yamanote (outer): 92,000
JR East Kehin Tohoku (northern part): 98,800
JR East Yamanote (interior) 89 100
Tokyo Metro Chiyoda: 83,036
JR East Sobu: 82,230
Seibu Shinjuku:
77,043 Tokyo Metro Tozai: 76,509
JR East Jo ban: 74,640
JR East Tokaido line: 71,287
Keio Hon: 66,429
Seibu Ikebukuro: 63 569
Tokyo Metro Hibiya: 60,678
Tobu Hon: 59 629
Tokyo Metro Yurakucho: 58,782
RER A: 55 000 (In 2007 RER A was over 65 000)

What limits the RER deckers in the end is doors (and to some extent stairs). If they're struggling to hold the standards with 3 doors, what hope would Sydney double deckers have with 2 doors? Zilch. And the recognised best standard is 4 doors which is simply physically impossible in a double deck rail car.

Sydney was a city that once ran 8 door trams with 8 second stop dwells, pretty much the best performance in the world. What's happened to us that we're now so intent on removing doors or stopping people using them? And on top of that we like having stairs in everything! WTF, it's just insanity. At least with the GCLR, CSELR (but not IWLR) and the Adelaide Citadis we're finally getting some properly-specified trams again. And you never see a double-deck tram anywhere (except for the antiquarian example of Hong Kong) and internal steps in the gangway are now almost extinct. Will our rail and bus sectors ever cotton on to their example?
Perpetually on a T3 to "I. P. Pavlova, přestup na Metro. Příští zastávka, Náměsti Míru"
User avatar
tonyp
 
Posts: 8681
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 1:31 am
Location: Shoalhaven
Has thanked: 1125 times
Been thanked: 1213 times

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

Postby simonl » Sun May 14, 2017 12:43 pm

Who wants Japanese loadings duplicated here?
simonl
 
Posts: 7977
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 7:03 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia
Has thanked: 850 times
Been thanked: 365 times

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

Postby tonyp » Sun May 14, 2017 12:49 pm

simonl wrote:Who wants Japanese loadings duplicated here?

Or Russian? The figures are to demonstrate that no matter how much capacity you can wring out of a double deck line, you can wring more out of a single deck line. I'm not saying you have to use all of that capacity. It's more like "future-proofing". Better than putting a ceiling on things and then 50 years later the next generation says "why the hell did they do that, now look at the mess we have to sort out" - like with replacing Sydney's trams with buses.
Perpetually on a T3 to "I. P. Pavlova, přestup na Metro. Příští zastávka, Náměsti Míru"
User avatar
tonyp
 
Posts: 8681
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 1:31 am
Location: Shoalhaven
Has thanked: 1125 times
Been thanked: 1213 times

PreviousNext


  • Advertisement

Return to Discussion - Sydney / NSW

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests