Tonymercury wrote:Rails wrote:The thing I find interesting is that all those supporting the existing network and its expansion (that may possibly go for the former Railcorp execs too) seem to have no interest in what is actually the best solution for each line and Sydney itself. I
I've said this before - but here goes again.
That is probably not the case at all, for remember that Christie, one of the people quoted in the SMH, proposed metros, so I suspect that many do not have a problem with metros but can't see much good in what is actually underway, but cannot see much in the way of anything happening, other than talk, to fix the rest of the system.
Exactly Tony. Much of the criticism about the metro is the way it's being implemented by cannibalising sections of the existing network, with little thought being given to how it impacts on it, not the metro concept in itself. Anyone who makes a legitimate criticism about the metro implementation is immediately branded a heretic by some of these metro advocates and smeared with the accusation of being out of touch and a "protector" of the existing Sydney Trains network. Far from it. We'd all like to see a more efficient and cost effective rail network, which would include separately operated metros, but it can't be achieved by bastardising the existing network by picking off bits and pieces to fit in with a metro strategy.
I think Rails is being disingenuous by suggesting that Christie proposed a separate metro system "as an afterthought for the future", when it was a clear commitment for the longer term expansion of rail services into areas without rail. It was more than "just a couple of separate future Metro lines" as Rails puts it, but a comprehensive network based on a "H" configuration, with lines from Miranda to the Northern Beaches, Sydenham to Parramatta via the CBD and the south west to the north west via Parramatta. Hardly an "afterthought". Whether or not he proposed it as part of the then Railcorp operations is irrelevant, as it could have been hived off in the future as a separate privately operated network by the government of the day. The fact that he proposed new metro lines along high frequency strategic bus routes without a rail service is a positive outcome isn't it?
As I've said many times before, I support a segregated metro system, but I'm totally against conversion of any part of the existing network to metro operation, unless it can be demonstrated that it doesn't compromise existing services across the whole network. That's something that hasn't been properly considered in the current metro projects.
Contrary to Rails' opinion, I don't agree that certain lines make more sense as Metro to the existing network, inferring conversion. Let's take an example. The Inner Western T2 Line is often identified in this category and on the face of it, it makes sense, but it currently has a mixed operating pattern of all stations and semi-express services from the South Line. If it were to be converted to metro, say from Homebush to the CBD, the South Line services would be pushed onto the already congested Suburban and Main tracks from Strathfield to the CBD shared by T1 Western and Northern Line services, soon to be increased by diversion of Upper Northern Line services via Strathfield. There just isn't enough capacity on the Suburban and Main tracks to cater for all of these services, let alone provide for any future capacity.
Despite the government's spin, it's a myth that the proposed West Metro will address this capacity deficiency and I dare anyone to suggest otherwise. The West Metro, which I actually support, services a new rail corridor through the Inner West and it will do bugger all to relieve congestion on the existing T1 Western and Northern Lines. We don't even know yet where the West Metro station will be located in Parramatta, allegedly allowing interchange for Outer Western Line commuters to the metro, a dubious claim at best. Why would you bother? There's more Western passengers that get off at Parramatta than get on. The real issue is the need to have the capacity to increase more services from the Western, Richmond, South and Northern Lines through the congested corridor from Granville to the CBD. The West Metro won't do that. Converting the Inner West Line to Metro will only exacerbate the situation and then you have the problem of how it will extend into the CBD. Converting the City Circle to metro isn't an option, despite the wishful thinking of some. The only pragmatic solution is to provide more track capacity on the Sydney Trains network from Granville to the CBD, which essentially means an express tunnel, preferably following the previously proposed City Relief Line route from Eveleigh to Barangaroo. An expansion of track capacity through the Inner West corridor would allow the Inner West Line to operate with a single all stops pattern with greater frequency. It doesn't have to be a metro.
Converting existing lines to metro is a waste of money, when there are limited funding recourses. The money would be better spent on infrastructure upgrades to the existing network AND new segregated metro lines servicing inner city areas without a rail service. As far as the relative operating costs are concerned between the existing network and a metro system, then obviously the latter is clearly superior. That doesn't mean to say that the operating costs of the existing network couldn't be substantially reduced, if there was the political will to implement reforms, in spite of union opposition. There is a huge investment in the current rail network and you don't wastefully throw the baby out with the bathwater, just because you have a different ideological bent on how it should be run. However, I fear our current bunch of politicians are a gutless lot and look for the easy way out, at the public's expense.
