Sydney Metro - Tallawong to Bankstown

Sydney / New South Wales Transport Discussion
Glen
Posts: 2830
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 12:54 pm
Location: Sydney

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

Post by Glen »

I think one of the biggest issues was whether the NWRL actually suited a Metro or if its role was really more like that of the Paris RER. I tend to more feel the latter.

grog
Posts: 530
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 9:09 pm
Location: Sydney

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

Post by grog »

I'm sure most agree that the line is longer than you would use for a 'metro' in a perfect world, but that's acting as if metro, suburban, u-bahn, s-bahn, RER, subway, underground, crossrail etc aren't just all trains.

Sure it's a bit long, but you compensate for that by adding more seats than you otherwise would. And how do you do that? By adding service frequency. That is the simplest way to add seated capacity to a line! At 15tph Sydney Metro is probably running at about twice the required capacity for the NWRL, but it's about adding seats. When you need more seats, add more services. It can go to 30tph without trying. Ideally you wouldn't run the trains this far and wouldn't need to do this, but that doesn't mean it won't work.

If this was DD, this line would most likely be sharing 20tph (24tph with ATO) with the upper northern line after connecting with a new Chatswood to Redfern DD line - and that would work too. I supported this configuration when it was proposed as part of the MREP in 2005 because it would have worked. I support the current plan because it will work. Both can indeed be true.

The big difference between these 2 plans is that MREP would have likely recovered about 30% of its operating costs from fares, and the current plan will likely either recover most or all of its operating costs. This is a big deal when you want to see a massive expansion of rail capacity across the city as I do. Capital costs aside, every dollar you can save on operating costs is a dollar that can be invested into operating additional services elsewhere.

I am not a metro fanatic or a metro purist. I don't believe in wholesale conversion of lines. But I do think new lines using the latest technology even if taking over sections of existing lines does make a lot of sense, and that investment in the existing Sydney Trains lines makes sense - and bus improvements and light rail. Even new toll roads and local street capacity improvements for that matter. We are a city of 5 million going on 8 million, and we need to be ready if this place is going to work.

neilrex
Posts: 697
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 10:34 am

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

Post by neilrex »

That's a fine theory but it won't actually work . 15 trains an hour ? 30 ? You'll be lucky to see 10. Trains cost money, don't you know ?

Outside peak hour and on weekends, you'll be lucky to get 6 trains an hour, and half the customers will be standing for 40 minutes even then.

User avatar
tonyp
Posts: 9484
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2006 3:31 pm
Location: Shoalhaven

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

Post by tonyp »

I think you also have to think in terms of journey time not distance. Also those various types of train service have grey areas between where they morph into each other. I see the Perth system as having metro characteristics and I see the Sydney metro as having S Bahn characteristics. And what are the differences between their trains (especially if the C series comes to fruition)? Bugger all, except the Perth ones have higher maximum speeds and the Sydney ones should have faster acceleration and deceleration. So Perth's metro-like trains run 70 km to Mandurah - shock horror - but they do it in 50 minutes. That changes the picture.
Perpetually on a T3 to "I. P. Pavlova, přestup na Metro. Příští zastávka, Náměsti Míru"

grog
Posts: 530
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 9:09 pm
Location: Sydney

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

Post by grog »

neilrex wrote:That's a fine theory but it won't actually work . 15 trains an hour ? 30 ? You'll be lucky to see 10. Trains cost money, don't you know ?

Outside peak hour and on weekends, you'll be lucky to get 6 trains an hour, and half the customers will be standing for 40 minutes even then.
That's a very dismissive reply given that the line is contracted to run at 15tph peak, 6tph off peak. Are travelers from Campbelltown lucky to get their 2tph off peak? 6tph metro is more seats than that.

A metro train is a hell of a lot cheaper than one of our DD sets.

Rails
Posts: 254
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 12:35 am

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

Post by Rails »

grog wrote:I'm sure most agree that the line is longer than you would use for a 'metro' in a perfect world, but that's acting as if metro, suburban, u-bahn, s-bahn, RER, subway, underground, crossrail etc aren't just all trains.

Sure it's a bit long, but you compensate for that by adding more seats than you otherwise would. And how do you do that? By adding service frequency. That is the simplest way to add seated capacity to a line! At 15tph Sydney Metro is probably running at about twice the required capacity for the NWRL, but it's about adding seats. When you need more seats, add more services. It can go to 30tph without trying. Ideally you wouldn't run the trains this far and wouldn't need to do this, but that doesn't mean it won't work.

If this was DD, this line would most likely be sharing 20tph (24tph with ATO) with the upper northern line after connecting with a new Chatswood to Redfern DD line - and that would work too. I supported this configuration when it was proposed as part of the MREP in 2005 because it would have worked. I support the current plan because it will work. Both can indeed be true.

The big difference between these 2 plans is that MREP would have likely recovered about 30% of its operating costs from fares, and the current plan will likely either recover most or all of its operating costs. This is a big deal when you want to see a massive expansion of rail capacity across the city as I do. Capital costs aside, every dollar you can save on operating costs is a dollar that can be invested into operating additional services elsewhere.

I am not a metro fanatic or a metro purist. I don't believe in wholesale conversion of lines. But I do think new lines using the latest technology even if taking over sections of existing lines does make a lot of sense, and that investment in the existing Sydney Trains lines makes sense - and bus improvements and light rail. Even new toll roads and local street capacity improvements for that matter. We are a city of 5 million going on 8 million, and we need to be ready if this place is going to work.
Brilliant post. I share your thoughts to the letter!

User avatar
rogf24
Posts: 1111
Joined: Thu May 09, 2013 6:20 am

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

Post by rogf24 »

Well for all this bashing about how transport operations in Sydney sucks compared to Perth, there's at least one thing Sydney is good at and soundly beats all other Australian cities at - transit-oriented development (for the lack of a better term), which is why Sydney, despite bumbling operation, still has Australia's highest rate of public transport usage. We'll be stuffed without it I reckon, at least the current network can kind of support we have so far.

User avatar
tonyp
Posts: 9484
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2006 3:31 pm
Location: Shoalhaven

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

Post by tonyp »

rogf24 wrote:Well for all this bashing about how transport operations in Sydney sucks compared to Perth, there's at least one thing Sydney is good at and soundly beats all other Australian cities at - transit-oriented development (for the lack of a better term), which is why Sydney, despite bumbling operation, still has Australia's highest rate of public transport usage. We'll be stuffed without it I reckon, at least the current network can kind of support we have so far.
That's because the basis of urban planning in Sydney has been polycentred for many years, partly because the Sydney CBD is so geographically constricted. This means that the structure of Sydney is quite different from any other major Australian city. Sydney also has significant conurbation around it, again unlike anywhere except SE Queensland.

I venture to suggest that the rate of PT usage in Sydney (and also Melbourne incidentally) is simply because of the size of the population of the city and thus the congestion constraint placed on private car use by sheer numbers. When congestion becomes particularly bad, people are forced into PT. In other cities it's still significantly easier to use the private car, though that is changing as those cities grow. Non-bumbling public transport initiatives in other cities have in fact produced some significant examples of growth in usage. Perth's growth is nothing short of spectacular, but positive outcomes can also be seen in places like Brisbane, Adelaide and Gold Coast.
Perpetually on a T3 to "I. P. Pavlova, přestup na Metro. Příští zastávka, Náměsti Míru"

User avatar
rogf24
Posts: 1111
Joined: Thu May 09, 2013 6:20 am

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

Post by rogf24 »

tonyp wrote:That's because the basis of urban planning in Sydney has been polycentred for many years, partly because the Sydney CBD is so geographically constricted. This means that the structure of Sydney is quite different from any other major Australian city. Sydney also has significant conurbation around it, again unlike anywhere except SE Queensland.

I venture to suggest that the rate of PT usage in Sydney (and also Melbourne incidentally) is simply because of the size of the population of the city and thus the congestion constraint placed on private car use by sheer numbers. When congestion becomes particularly bad, people are forced into PT. In other cities it's still significantly easier to use the private car, though that is changing as those cities grow. Non-bumbling public transport initiatives in other cities have in fact produced some significant examples of growth in usage. Perth's growth is nothing short of spectacular, but positive outcomes can also be seen in places like Brisbane, Adelaide and Gold Coast.
I think it's worth noting that Sydney built both residential density and especially commercial centres (like shopping centres, offices, etc) around train stations. Other Australian cities have centres outside of the CBD too but they're a bit like Norwest right now although on a smaller scale. If other Australian cities are so much less polycentric with a much stronger CBD to make up for it, why aren't their to PT numbers, especially Melbourne's, on the same scale as Sydney's? (considering they have a "CBD boost" due to a stronger CBD)

Part of it could be explained by geography but we could have also sprawlled endlessly into the west or Central Coast with Toronto 401 style freeways instead. Imagine if the M1 was like the 401.

That doesn't mean that we don't have anything to learn from other Australian cities when it comes to development (and we should be learning heaps from them) but Sydney does seem to have something different that other Australian cities don't.

User avatar
tonyp
Posts: 9484
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2006 3:31 pm
Location: Shoalhaven

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

Post by tonyp »

I'd suggest that the tram system in Sydney had a lot to do with this. The scale of it and the intensity and density of its use is not well-understood by many people who think it was like Melbourne's, when in fact it was more on the scale and patronage of Melbourne, Brisbane and even Adelaide combined. There were actually ten separate systems or lines in the second generation of it and it influenced much of the city's development pattern (not only residential but commercial as well) until the 1940s. The rail didn't have that much influence until after WW2.

It has to be remembered also that Sydney had developed a polycentred mentality right from 1788, unlike any other major city (except maybe Perth-Fremantle). Parramatta was established in 1788, Liverpool in 1810. Although they took a long time to develop, they were always there as nodes in the city's planning consciousness. For a long time now, Sydney has developed in the double spiderweb pattern based on Sydney and Parramatta. This has encouraged stronger public transport use around other nodes. Post WW2 it has also encouraged multi-directional heavy car use, which, as population has grown, has forced people onto public transport through congestion.

I think you'll find that Melbourne's PT usage is now closing fast on Sydney's, allowing for the difference in population size between the two cities. Sydney's net rate of PT growth (relative to population growth) has stagnated - and is actually negative for buses. From 1970 to 2013, Sydney's PT use grew 11% compared to 45% for Melbourne, 28% for Brisbane and 125% for Perth. (Adelaide and Hobart saw negative growth.)
Perpetually on a T3 to "I. P. Pavlova, přestup na Metro. Příští zastávka, Náměsti Míru"

neilrex
Posts: 697
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 10:34 am

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

Post by neilrex »

grog wrote: Outside peak hour and on weekends, you'll be lucky to get 6 trains an hour, and half the customers will be standing for 40 minutes even then.
That's a very dismissive reply given that the line is contracted to run at 15tph peak, 6tph off peak.

I'll believe it when I see it. And also, you seem to be agreeing that there will be only 6 tph off peak ?

It isn't just about capacity, frequency that mediocre also affects interchange times to other lines, and to buses.

grog
Posts: 530
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 9:09 pm
Location: Sydney

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

Post by grog »

(You might want to fix your quotes)

Wait - if this line was a Sydney Trains operated DD line it would be lucky to get 4tph off peak. Seems like the goalposts are moving?

simonl
Posts: 7986
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 9:03 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

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

Post by simonl »

grog wrote:(You might want to fix your quotes)

Wait - if this line was a Sydney Trains operated DD line it would be lucky to get 4tph off peak. Seems like the goalposts are moving?
So run DD trains more frequently.

grog
Posts: 530
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 9:09 pm
Location: Sydney

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

Post by grog »

Same could be said for SD :)

User avatar
tonyp
Posts: 9484
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2006 3:31 pm
Location: Shoalhaven

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

Post by tonyp »

grog wrote:Same could be said for SD :)
The single deckers can go down to 2 minute headways all day long. Paris RER line A, from third party French accounts, apparently has trouble sustaining 2 minute headways with double deckers on a sustained basis even with 3 doors per side per car. With just 2 doors in Sydney I'd say the prospects become dire.

The whole argument for double deckers here is based on the premise that anything single deckers can do, double deckers can do better, to paraphrase the Irving Berlin song. But if double deckers can't maintain the same headways on a sustained basis, then any passenger (and seating) capacity deficiency in the single deckers is quickly offset by the fact that you can push more of them along the line. On top of this, there's provision to lengthen the single deckers to 1,500 passenger capacity, pretty close to the double deckers' crush capacity, whereas the double deckers cannot be expanded.

The single deckers with their multiple doors (preferably 4 but 3 is passable) can also efficiently exchange such loads on a stop after stop basis whereas at that sort of loading, the double deckers, on Sydney Trains own admission, are only good for loading the crowd at one end and then unloading them at the other for an event. They couldn't do efficient exchange along the route within a reasonable dwell. They wouldn't fill anyway because people would hang around the doors and not move inside, as is also the case on our buses.
Perpetually on a T3 to "I. P. Pavlova, přestup na Metro. Příští zastávka, Náměsti Míru"

simonl
Posts: 7986
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 9:03 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

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

Post by simonl »

grog wrote:Same could be said for SD :)
I think 6tph off peak is more than adequate for the demand. I expect they might find that they only need 2-4 car trains at any time of day.
tonyp wrote:The single deckers can go down to 2 minute headways all day long.
Maybe.

Here's a grab bag of best headways around the world: http://www.publictransit.us/ptlibrary/M ... 03.27_.htm

Moscow Metro's 90s headways are the best, with 4 doors/car/side. I don't think you could do that with 3 doors.

simonl
Posts: 7986
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 9:03 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

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

Post by simonl »

tonyp wrote:I'd suggest that the tram system in Sydney had a lot to do with this.
I don't know why you think so? Westfield's policy of building shopping near train stations, at least in Sydney is surely a big factor. Only exceptions I can think of OTOH are Warringah Mall and Eastgardens, both of which opened after the trams were removed or nearly removed. Actually, Westfield have shown a similar pattern of building near heavy rail in SE Qld in some cases with Indooroopilly, Strathpine, Helensvale.

It was a factor in Brisbane though, at least at Chermside.

User avatar
tonyp
Posts: 9484
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2006 3:31 pm
Location: Shoalhaven

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

Post by tonyp »

That's now. I'm talking about over the last 100 years. Do you think Bondi Junction came into existence decades ago out of nothing?
Perpetually on a T3 to "I. P. Pavlova, přestup na Metro. Příští zastávka, Náměsti Míru"

Glen
Posts: 2830
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 12:54 pm
Location: Sydney

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

Post by Glen »

tonyp wrote:That's now. I'm talking about over the last 100 years. Do you think Bondi Junction came into existence decades ago out of nothing?
I understood Bondi Junction's major commercial growth occurred after the ESR arrived.

User avatar
tonyp
Posts: 9484
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2006 3:31 pm
Location: Shoalhaven

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

Post by tonyp »

Glen wrote:
tonyp wrote:That's now. I'm talking about over the last 100 years. Do you think Bondi Junction came into existence decades ago out of nothing?
I understood Bondi Junction's major commercial growth occurred after the ESR arrived.
There was quite a big commercial centre there for a long time, but obviously not the way it looks now. Many of these centres that developed around the tram system were off-railway.
Perpetually on a T3 to "I. P. Pavlova, přestup na Metro. Příští zastávka, Náměsti Míru"

simonl
Posts: 7986
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 9:03 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

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

Post by simonl »

Actually the Westfield there opened in 2003 - well after the ESR.

What do you call "quite big"?

User avatar
tonyp
Posts: 9484
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2006 3:31 pm
Location: Shoalhaven

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

Post by tonyp »

simonl wrote:Actually the Westfield there opened in 2003 - well after the ESR.

What do you call "quite big"?
Google the history of some of these centres and also look at the historic photos and you'll see.
Perpetually on a T3 to "I. P. Pavlova, přestup na Metro. Příští zastávka, Náměsti Míru"

simonl
Posts: 7986
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 9:03 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

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

Post by simonl »

Not that it is on me to support your argument, but here's a pretty revealing photo from 1978: http://www.ozroads.com.au/NSW/Freeways/ ... reeway.htm Admin: Link updated

Meh.

Vs now: http://medias.photodeck.com/e4d161c0-e0 ... xlarge.jpg

User avatar
boronia
Posts: 19459
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2004 7:18 pm
Favourite Vehicle: Fire engine; PD4107
Location: Sydney

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

Post by boronia »

simonl wrote:Actually the Westfield there opened in 2003 - well after the ESR.

What do you call "quite big"?
There was a big shopping centre before Westfield subsumed the major players. Grace Bros, BJ Plaza, Carousel Centre.

Back in the 50s/60s, BJ also had three movie theatres, large Coles and Woolworths "variety stores". It has long been a major shopping centre for the eastern suburbs.
The Sydney Classic and Antique Truck (and Bus) Show
On again June 2021
@ The Museum of Fire.

neilrex
Posts: 697
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 10:34 am

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

Post by neilrex »

Shopping malls are built where they are, for a whole host of reasons, including existing shopping centres and the availability of land.

Some of the suburban town centres of Sydney, which mostly have a shopping mall, were there before the railways came. For example, Liverpool and Parramatta. And some have developed after the railways came. "Hornsbÿ" was originally at Normanhurst, and moved to Hornsby after the railways came.

I don't think that most of the Westfields were built so that shoppers could get there by train.

Back in the days when lots of people went shopping by train - back in the 30's and 50's when the typical shopper did not own a car, back in those days, most of the shopping was done in the CBD.

"Roselands" was quite remarkable when it was built, it was considered one of the marvels of the age, people came from far and wide to visit it, all in all it hasn't really been a great success.

Post Reply

Return to “Discussion - Sydney / NSW”