Sydney Metro West announced

[moa999]

Transtopic.
In simple terms self-interest

If it's quicker (highly likely to Wynyard) or closer to pax workplace, then pax west of Parramatta or at Parramatta will transfrr to the Metro, freeing up capacity on the DD.

Closer in some who used to bus/drive to DD stations, will instead move to the Metro.

Combined with the capacity created by shifting T3 to Metro, you've given back years of growth options to the DD network.


Self-interest is also why there is almost always a backlash against change. The perceived losers (or those who win the least) protest, the winners stay quiet.
Like the scrapping of the 8 then free under Opal, and provision of free transfers.

[tonyp]

I suggest the latter would be more appropriate for a limited seating metro service, which is how rapid transit/metro systems typically operate. The more stations, the slower the service. Suggestions that you restrict the number of stations (and potential passengers) on a metro service, to provide a faster service between the start and end points are farcical. In any event, an express line already exists, and contrary to some delusional comments, with further upgrades to speed limits, could be more than competitive with a multiple-station metro service, which Metro West seems destined to become.

Two points. The metro isn't limited seating when you compare on a seats per hour basis given the stark difference in potential headways between trains on the two systems. Apart from which, the need for seating is based on journey time, not distance, which leads to the second point - that the below tabulation, based on similar parameters for all examples (notably fairly straight track), suggests that Sydney Trains services tend to be slower, no matter how few stations they have to stop at.

In addition, being able to reach 130 km/h doesn't count for much when the train accelerates and decelerates like a slug, thus lowering average speed. Good journey times rely on being able to accelerate to line speed as quickly as possible, holding the line speed for as long as possible and decelerating into the stop as late as possible. This is more significant than maximum speed, although certainly a line speed of 130 will have a small advantage over 100. A good example of this was the PR claim of a maximum speed of 80 km/h for that notorious example of sluggery, the IWLR. In practice it was found that the only place that 80 was reached was for a few seconds in the middle of the Glebe Tunnel. The rest of the time between the stops either side of the tunnel was spent slowly accelerating away from one stop then slowly decelerating towards the other. The overall journey time for IWLR is a good 5 minutes or so slower than it should be.

13 km segment:

Benchmark:
Perth-Mosman Park (13.5 km): 11 stops, 21 minutes
Perth-Beckenham (13.8 km): 9 stops, 19 minutes
Perth-East Guildford (14 km): 11 stops, 20 minutes

Sydney:
Central-Homebush (12.7 km): 11 stops, 27 minutes
Sydenham-Bankstown (13.4 km): 9 stops, 25 minutes
(Sydney Metro projected time for 13 km: Sydenham-Bankstown: 9 stops, 21 minutes)

30 km segment:

Benchmark:
Perth-Armadale: 35 mins, 12 stops; 39 mins, 17 stops

Sydney Central-Glenfield via East Hills: 43 mins, 11 stops; 49 mins, 17 stops

33 km segment (IC=intercity train):

Benchmark:
Perth-Clarkson: 33 mins, 9 stops.
Perth-Kwinana: 28 mins, 6 stops.

Sydney:
Blacktown-Redfern: 41 mins, 7 stops; 47 mins, 13 stops; IC 32 mins, 1 stop.
Cronulla-Redfern: 43 mins, 8 stops.
Central-Hornsby via Strathfield: IC 37 mins, 4 stops.
Central-Macquarie Fields via East Hills: 40 mins, 7 stops.
(Sydney Metro projected time for 33 km: Rouse Hill-Chatswood: 35 mins, 10 stops)

Adelaide:
Seaford-Mile End: 48 mins, 21 stops; 43 mins, 13 stops.
Adelaide-Munno Para (diesel): 43 mins, 13 stops.

Melbourne:
Ferntree Gully-Parliament: 43 mins, 10 stops.
Southern Cross-Dandenong: 47 mins, 16 stops.
Flinders Street-Werribee: 42 mins, 9 stops.

47 km segment (IC=intercity train):

Benchmark:
Perth-Warnbro: 38 mins, 9 stops

(NSW)Thirroul-Bombo: IC 48-54 mins, 9 stops

(Qld)Beenleigh-Varsity Lakes (49km): IC 32 mins, 5 stops

70 km segment (IC=intercity train):

Benchmark:
Perth-Mandurah: 51 mins, 10 stops

Sydney Central-Douglas Park (diesel) (65 km): IC 63-66 mins, 6 stops

Melbourne (Southern Cross)-North Geelong (diesel): IC 55 mins, 9 stops

[tonyp]

Combined with the capacity created by shifting T3 to Metro, you've given back years of growth options to the DD network.

This is a really key point that is missed by most, including the Labor Party with, for example, its proposal to abandon the conversion of the Bankstown line to metro.

[Transtopic]

Combined with the capacity created by shifting T3 to Metro, you've given back years of growth options to the DD network.

This is a really key point that is missed by most, including the Labor Party with, for example, its proposal to abandon the conversion of the Bankstown line to metro.

And compromised Sydney Trains' operations in the process, especially west of Bankstown, where commuters will no longer have a direct train service to Sydney. Yeah, not much thought put into that! I think you underestimate the level of anger that will be aroused once it dawns on them what they will end up with. The again, they're only Labor voters, so they don't count.

I don't give a stuff about your statistics with regard to the relative train speeds between Sydney Trains and other jurisdictions. You assume that Sydney Trains can never improve on its current performance levels which is unfounded. The rollout of ATP/ATO across the network will allow this to happen. As I've said before, comparing the Perth's rail network with the much larger and more complex Sydney system is unrealistic.

In any event, no one has yet come up with a plausible explanation of how the Metro West will actually relieve overcrowding on the T1 Western Line WEST of Parramatta and allow for future expansion of services. No matter how much faster it allegedly may be between Parramatta and the CBD, and that's questionable, it doesn't address the need for more services from the outer Western suburbs. The problem is west of Parramatta, not to the east to the CBD and that can only be addressed by providing more Sydney Trains' services, but they currently have nowhere to go east of Parramatta. The metro can't resolve this as it's not practicable to terminate these additional services at Westmead or Parramatta, requiring interchange to continue into the CBD. The only alternative is to amplify the existing Western Line by constructing an express tunnel to the CBD allowing additional services to have a continuous path without the need to interchange.
If you can't see this, then you're blinded by your metro obsession and you are in denial. I'm not against Metro West servicing a new inner city rail corridor, but I strongly object to the spin that it will add more capacity to the T1 Western Line and relieve overcrowding, especially from the outer Western Suburbs, which is a bald faced lie.

You're also twisting the facts comparing the relative speeds and timing between Parramatta and the CBD for the metro and a Sydney Trains' express tunnel. Assuming the Metro West goes ahead, and that's by no means certain if there's a change of government and in spite of Labor's commitment to it, it appears certain that it will have multiple stations which will slow down its run time from Parramatta to the CBD. An express Sydney Trains' service in a new tunnel on a straighter alignment with possibly only one intermediate station would allow a Waratah to utilise its full potential of 130km/h. It should be able to do it in at least 15 minutes if not less to Central. A metro train with as many as eight stations between Parramatta and the CBD and a maximum speed of 100km/h isn't going to come near it, even allowing for its allegedly superior acceleration and deceleration performance which is irrelevant. 25 to 30 minutes at best I'd suggest to Wynyard. Come on, pull the other leg.

I'm a simple minded person and perhaps I haven't got the brain capacity to understand the rationale for proposing Metro West as a solution to providing additional capacity on the T1 Western Line, not just from Parramatta to the CBD. Please enlighten me!

[mandonov]

It's been said publicly that Metro West rolling stock will be capable of at least 130km/h, if not 160.

When C&SW serves its purpose of relieving the City Circle, the excess capacity can be used for more services on the Inner West Line.
A way that this capacity can be used to relieve the Western Line is for current T2 Parramatta terminators to be extended to Richmond, making the outer pair of Western Line tracks exclusive to T2 and T5. The 6 City Circle paths freed by the T3 can be allocated to the rest of the T2, but unfortunately that increased frequency requires stopping at all stations and more interchange, easily accommodated by Metro West and a relieved T1 and T2.

Theoretical:
T2 20TPH
- 6TPH Rich/Scho
- 14TPH Liv/Lep
T1 24TPH (incl. Northern)
- 16TPH StM/Pen express
- 4TPH BMT
MW 30TPH

These are conservative numbers that I'm using because I've chosen not to terminate anything at Central (bar the BMT) due to your insistence that it's the end of the world to do so.

Now the way that MW relieves the lines is two fold:
Firstly, it takes all passengers from Westmead and Parramatta off T1. This is significant, so don't downplay it.
Secondly, it becomes the new primary access to Olympic Park, relieving pressure from Lidcombe, Strathfield, and T2.

The relief of T2 in particular allows the Richmond Line to become an integrated part of it, freeing slots for the higher patronage T1 services. Cross platform interchange at Seven Hills will allow Richmond Line access to a regular fast service, and an easy Epping style interchange at Westmead will allow the whole Western Line faster access to the job centres of Olympic Park, Pyrmont and the northern CBD. If TfNSW wanted, then they could add more stops to T1 such as at Burwood or Lidcombe.

[tonyp]

I don't give a stuff about your statistics with regard to the relative train speeds between Sydney Trains and other jurisdictions. You assume that Sydney Trains can never improve on its current performance levels which is unfounded. The rollout of ATP/ATO across the network will allow this to happen. As I've said before, comparing the Perth's rail network with the much larger and more complex Sydney system is unrealistic.

In a city with the geographical spread typical of Australian cities, journey time is absolutely critical to enticing people out of using cars.

In the comparisons above with Perth, I have tried to present Sydney in the best possible light by choosing some sections of line that are not tangled up with other parts of the system and the trains are running free on pretty straight track. The Perth statistics are taken from Perth Station where some trains have to negotiate junctions to get in and out of the station. The legacy lines that constitute half the Perth examples were built in the 1880s and the A sets that run them have a maximum speed of 110 km/h. Only the B sets used on the north-south line can reach 130 and I think that's basically only on the longer stretches of the Mandurah line. Focus on the 13 and 30 km segments in particular and note that the Sydney metro journey times are very close to the Perth ones. Sydney's double deck trains are simply not capable of the performance, whatever the signalling.

Edit: I'll elaborate on that last sentence that the reason that the double decks are not capable of such performance is not signalling or maximum speed, but their acceleration and deceleration and their dwell time. Like their cousins, double deck buses, they're good only for long-distance, limited stop, limited turnover journeys requiring higher seating capacity to compensate for their longer headways and journey time, like interurban services.

[GazzaOak]

It's been said publicly that Metro West rolling stock will be capable of at least 130km/h, if not 160.

Now the way that MW relieves the lines is two fold:
Firstly, it takes all passengers from Westmead and Parramatta off T1. This is significant, so don't downplay it.
Secondly, it becomes the new primary access to Olympic Park, relieving pressure from Lidcombe, Strathfield, and T2.

The relief of T2 in particular allows the Richmond Line to become an integrated part of it, freeing slots for the higher patronage T1 services. Cross platform interchange at Seven Hills will allow Richmond Line access to a regular fast service, and an easy Epping style interchange at Westmead will allow the whole Western Line faster access to the job centres of Olympic Park, Pyrmont and the northern CBD. If TfNSW wanted, then they could add more stops to T1 such as at Burwood or Lidcombe.

I felt they should have done 2 pairs of lines (2 for express sydney train service where at least 60% of western line and all BMT trains use this line and terminate at central and 2 for the metro system (which will be extended to eastern suburbs) which will do all stops and that means they can build more stations along that line, and only 2-3 of these stations will also serve the express services).

Also in that manner, the middle pair of lines can be used for south trains as well, since most western line is using the underground express track. So that means there could be leppington to hornsby via the north shore line and grandville.

The all stops line can be exclusively used for homebush terminators or can go to liverpool via regants park.

[rogf24]

On Metro West travel time, I notice Grand Paris Express Metro Line 18 will take 30 minutes to travel 35km and 12 stations. Station spacing = 2.91km and average speed = 70km/h. Assuming Metro West will have 8 stations (6 in middle) between Parramatta and CBD, which is looking likely, and 23km like T1 that would mean spacing of 2.88km. Since Paris Metro Line 18 can do 70km/h on that roughly 2.9km spacing, there's no reason why Metro West won't be able to do that. If Metro West does average 70km/h on 2.9km spacing like Paris Metro, Metro West should be able to cover the 23km and 8 stations in 20 minutes.

If Paris can do this, surely Sydney Metro can achieve these travel times and average speeds on a similar spacing.

As for no direct service to the city, Berala and Regents Park no longer have a direct service and it doesn't seem like it's being restored anytime soon. Despite the anger, it's going nowhere and I would imagine the same for passengers between Carramar and Yagoona and T2/T5 Richmond passengers. Also, in the 2010 Ron Christie report, passengers between Carramar and Yagoona would have lost direct services as well since Christie proposed sending all Bankstown Line trains in a tunnel direct to Liverpool but with double-decker trains and converting the line to light rail.

[Transtopic]

It's been said publicly that Metro West rolling stock will be capable of at least 130km/h, if not 160.

When C&SW serves its purpose of relieving the City Circle, the excess capacity can be used for more services on the Inner West Line.
A way that this capacity can be used to relieve the Western Line is for current T2 Parramatta terminators to be extended to Richmond, making the outer pair of Western Line tracks exclusive to T2 and T5. The 6 City Circle paths freed by the T3 can be allocated to the rest of the T2, but unfortunately that increased frequency requires stopping at all stations and more interchange, easily accommodated by Metro West and a relieved T1 and T2.

Theoretical:
T2 20TPH
- 6TPH Rich/Scho
- 14TPH Liv/Lep
T1 24TPH (incl. Northern)
- 16TPH StM/Pen express
- 4TPH BMT
MW 30TPH

These are conservative numbers that I'm using because I've chosen not to terminate anything at Central (bar the BMT) due to your insistence that it's the end of the world to do so.

Now the way that MW relieves the lines is two fold:
Firstly, it takes all passengers from Westmead and Parramatta off T1. This is significant, so don't downplay it.
Secondly, it becomes the new primary access to Olympic Park, relieving pressure from Lidcombe, Strathfield, and T2.

The relief of T2 in particular allows the Richmond Line to become an integrated part of it, freeing slots for the higher patronage T1 services. Cross platform interchange at Seven Hills will allow Richmond Line access to a regular fast service, and an easy Epping style interchange at Westmead will allow the whole Western Line faster access to the job centres of Olympic Park, Pyrmont and the northern CBD. If TfNSW wanted, then they could add more stops to T1 such as at Burwood or Lidcombe.

Sorry, but I'm still nor convinced by your argument. Whatever way you look at it, it's still downgrading existing Sydney Trains' services, particularly on the Richmond Line as you suggest as well as the Leppington/Liverpool Line , by providing a slower all stations service via T2 or requiring interchange to reach the CBD faster when commuters currently have a fast direct service without requiring interchange. Metro West does bugger all for them, as it equally does for Penrith/Emu Plains commuters. The whole stategy for justifying the metro as providing additional capacity on the T1 Western Line to relieve overcrowding and in the process requiring more interchange, without any significant time saving, is flawed. On the other hand, it would be a more credible argument if it was promoted as providing additional capacity between Parramatta and the CBD along a new catchment area not currently serviced by rail, but don't misrepresent that it resolves capacity issues for the Outer Western Line.

The government's mistake is in trying to promote Metro West as being 'all things to all people' where you end up with a camel which satisfies no one and doesn't resolve the issues which it is purported to address. It can't provide a faster express service to the CBD for longer distance commuters and at the same time service a new inner city rail corridor with multiple stations, for which it it is more suited. It can't be both. You're incredibly naive if you think that commuters will just cop having to interchange to reach the CBD on the main trunk routes when alternative solutions are available. They will make their displeasure known at the ballot box.

Just to respond to your 'theroetical' assumptions for capacity on the various sectors, my analysis of the current timetable suggests the following:-

T2 - Currently 14tph (Leppington 8; Parramatta 4; Ashfield 2) with mixed stopping pattern and probably limited to 16tph. The unused capacity on the City Circle is irrelevant unless T2 becomes a single all stations operating pattern.

T1 - Limited to 20tph (Richmond 2; Schofields 4; Emu Plains/Penrith 8; St Marys 2; Northern Line 4) through CBD to North Shore with 16tph Western Line and 4tph Northern Line.

Western Main - Currently 12tph into Sydney Terminal (Blue Mountains 4; Central Coast/Newcastle 4; Hornsby Northern Line peak 4)

There is little scope to substantially increase line capacity on the T1 Suburban and T2 Inner West tracks, even with ATO upgrading. However, there is obviously significant spare capacity on the Western Main into Sydney Terminal which could address some of the shortfall for increased direct services from the Outer West to address overcrowding and the Northern Line, but is it desirable in increasing interchange congestion at Central, with or without the metro? It may be acceptable as an interim measure, but in the longer term, amplification of the existing network by way of an express tunnel from Granville to the CBD providing a new direct path without interchange is the only sensible option. As GazzaOak suggested, an express tunnel as part of the Sydney Trains network, exclusively for Western Line services, would allow South Line services to use the Suburban tracks for faster express services from Strathfield/Burwood through to the North Shore Line in conjunction with the Northern Line. With sextuplication from Homebush to Lidcombe, the T2 Inner West Line could then become a single all stations operating pattern with greater frequency through to Bankstown. Metro West can operate as a complementary all stations, albeit slower, service along a new rail corridor through the Inner West. That's not such a bad thing in looking at it in the context of expanding the reach of the rail network. It's horses for courses.

However, if Labor wins the next election, with their promise to cancel the Bankstown Line metro conversion, then it's a whole new ball game.

[rogf24]

The idea of using the combination of what has been discussed will work, which is what you originally asked for.

That is:
Allowing T1 Penrith and Blue Mountains to use all 20-24 paths on a pair between Blacktown and Parramatta
Shifting Richmond Branch to T2/T5 and giving it the other pair to increase capacity from the west to Parramatta so both T1 and and T2/T5 pairs are better utilised instead of facing a bottleneck at Parramatta
Using Metro West as the path to the city for Richmond Line passengers via an interchange
Building a 20 minute (70km/h average) metro to minimise travel time increases for Richmond interchange passengers to city, no time savings but is workable
Increasing capacity to T2 to 20-24 by having a single all stops stopping pattern all the way to Granville (or Lidcombe)
Route T2/T5 Richmond trains through Parramatta so they don't have to terminate where there isn't enough room anyway
Increasing average speed of T2 all stops services to keep travel time increases to a minimum (if at all)
Introducing ATO onto T1 and T2 to enable more capacity and faster travel times

While this will work, the question of whether it is desirable is another issue. I would agree this is not a desirable solution, but it will work and help address capacity issues.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[tonyp]

I don't have as strong an opinion on the west metro as I do on the NW, I can see the arguments on both sides. However, it seems to me that there are some future inevitabilities about Sydney's public transport that a lot of anti-metro, pro-suburban trains proponents gloss over.

1. The population of each of Sydney and Melbourne is going to grow to the size of the present population of New York over coming decades, which will result in a gigantic need for public transport capacity in the future.

2. Even present public transport capacity is inadequate for the present population due to decades of neglect.

3. Interchange during journeys will become an established and accepted fact because no public transport system can sustain entirely single-vehicle (never mind single-seat!) journeys in the face of such demand. One reason that interchange will become more attractive is greater provision (frequency) of services so that interchange time will be minimised (no more 25 minute waits like I had in the "good ol' days"!).

4. Metro has substantially higher capacity than double deck suburban trains will ever be capable of. Even if the total capacity of each train is roughly the same, metro is able to run closer headways at higher average speeds.

5. The argument in favour of the seating capacity of double-deck suburbans is already diluted by the level of delivery of seats per hour by metro and the faster journeys resulting in less standing time for standees, but in future it will be further diluted by less provision of seating in order to increase total capacity and reduction in passenger amenity on double-deckers. The new intercity fleet is the leading edge of the wedge on this, though it is half-baked in the sense that it needs to be simultaneously accompanied by a radical improvement in journey times to compensate for the lower level of amenity.

In this last respect, I believe the current delivery of suburbans will be the last in which you'll see reversible seating, because (and it's not pommie management that's responsible for this) reversible seats add weight and reduce the potential number of seats that can be fitted to a train. Future design will trend towards opening up more potential for standees. This means that you need a system that will deliver quick journey times, which is what they've done in Perth and why the metro-like trains they have there work OK. I see the Sydney metro as having far more in common with the Perth system than with traditional inner-city underground metros of overseas and I think the Sydney system designers see it that way too.

[BroadGauge]

1. The population of each of Sydney and Melbourne is going to grow to the size of the present population of New York over coming decades

Now that's a scary thought. It's hard enough getting around those cities as it is.

[rogf24]

Worth remembering that the 8 million number for New York is the city only. The New York Metropolitan Area has almost as many people as all of Australia. Sydney and Melbourne metro areas are far, far from this.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[tonyp]

Worth remembering that the 8 million number for New York is the city only. The New York Metropolitan Area has almost as many people as all of Australia. Sydney and Melbourne metro areas are far, far from this.

Yes I meant the city of New York. That's big enough on its own!

[swtt]

1. The population of each of Sydney and Melbourne is going to grow to the size of the present population of New York over coming decades

Now that's a scary thought. It's hard enough getting around those cities as it is.

That's ironic, as human beings generally love living around other people and that's where jobs are, but obviously sometimes good places become too good and attract too many people and start to decline.

[Rails]

My understanding is that the two busiest stations on the T1 Western line are Parramatta and Westmead. These are followed by Blacktown, Seven Hills and Penrith. The West Metro will automatically relieve the T1 Western line by taking a substantial chunk of the T1 patronage for the two busiest stations. This will free up space on the DD services for passengers from Blacktown, Seven Hills and Penrith. You should also see passengers transferring from DD Western line services if they are better serviced by the West Metro to their destination, Olympic Park, Wynyard, Barangaroo and Martin Place in particular. The last two would already require interchange anyway and it removes any Martin Place Interchange stress from the west to T4. West Metro will also open up new destinations like the Bays Precinct and Pyrmont. So if you use T1 to get to Pyrmont you no longer need to. Less people at Town Hall.

So relief should also be seen at Lidcombe and Strathfield. In fact no Express T1 Western line trains should have to stop here, meaning a quicker trip to Redfern and Central from the West, using up the available capacity on the Mains with Central terminators. If heading to the Shore these should be popular as you can interchange to the CBD Metro for a 10 min or more saving. The NW Metro should also take a chunk out of the Seven Hills and Richmond line patronage, especially when it is extended to North Sydney and the CBD. Even more again when they extend the NW Metro to Schofields. There are many facets to this but this is relief to the T1 line no matter how you look at it. Little pieces that all add up.

I know that there is a fixation by many on the outer burbs for rail but the most pressing need is not services to Richmond or Penrith, its Parramatta and Westmead. We will have a reliable, very frequent and high capacity rail line connecting the two main Sydney CBDs in tandem with the one linking the Northern Employment centres with the CBD and allowing fast interchange to the West. If they can sort the Airport line to the same level then I think Sydney has the backbone it needs for the future. Its possible that could actually come via the extension of the West Metro to Kogarah (with new Airport stations) but personally I think that an upgrade of the current Airport line is a better solution.

Then you get to the suburban aspects of the West Metro. From here it is speculation at this point but it appears that they will either run the Richmond line as T5 services with Interchange at Westmead to empty CBD bound services or they will extend the T2 line to Richmond, again using Westmead to Interchange to the West Metro. Either way removing the Richmond line from T1 creates 6 extra paths for the rest of the T1 line. In theory you could actually have all the express no longer stop at Seven Hills for more space and a quicker trip from Blacktown to Westmead and making sure that the Richmond passengers use the West Metro. If the 20 min figure for the West Metro is accurate, its going to be much faster for them to the CBD even with changing trains. Its currently 1:25 mins from Richmond to Wynyard including 50 mins to Westmead. 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.

So even with an express tunnel from Parramatta to Redfern/ Central you are not going to deliver a faster service to the core CBD by building this infrastructure for the DD services. Youre probably looking at a 15 min trip from Parra on such a line and even if you also built a new CBD relief line its still going to most likely just match the trip to Wynyard on a 20 min West Metro. It may be needed in the future purely on a capacity basis but with the West Metro having a crush load of something like 44,000 pax I'm not sure its going to be built any time soon and I'm a long term supporter of such a tunnel as my previous posting has shown.

[Frosty]

The business case for Metro West would be improved surely with an extension to Eastern Suburbs to stimulate redevelopment in areas such as Little Bay or Eastlakes.
Airport Line would probably best done by isolating from rest of Sydney Trains network & upgrading it either have it some sort of metro Central to Revesby all stations or leave it double deck and increase 22tph or 24tph. Could Airport Line be terminated at Central fairly easily by realigning tracks to have 22/23 be exclusive terminating platforms while 20 can handle inbound City Circle & 21 outbound ?

[tonyp]

The intention is that Metro West will be eventually extended through Waterloo to Malabar.

[Glen]

With apologies if this has been mentioned before, but just remember that Sydney Trains deliberately slowed their timetables in 2005 in the (false) belief that this was necessary to make them safer and more reliable. That is why they spend so long idling at stations.

Current double-deck trains are capable of much faster running times than those scheduled.

Sydney's original electric trains, the 1920's two-motor single-deckers were scheduled at significantly faster speeds than today's trains are, at all times of day (peak / off-peak / nights / weekends), even on hilly lines and also ran substantially more frequently through the City underground (originally 36 trains per hour at the height of the peak from St James dead-end shunt).

[Transtopic]

My understanding is that the two busiest stations on the T1 Western line are Parramatta and Westmead. These are followed by Blacktown, Seven Hills and Penrith. The West Metro will automatically relieve the T1 Western line by taking a substantial chunk of the T1 patronage for the two busiest stations. This will free up space on the DD services for passengers from Blacktown, Seven Hills and Penrith. You should also see passengers transferring from DD Western line services if they are better serviced by the West Metro to their destination, Olympic Park, Wynyard, Barangaroo and Martin Place in particular. The last two would already require interchange anyway and it removes any Martin Place Interchange stress from the west to T4. West Metro will also open up new destinations like the Bays Precinct and Pyrmont. So if you use T1 to get to Pyrmont you no longer need to. Less people at Town Hall.

So relief should also be seen at Lidcombe and Strathfield. In fact no Express T1 Western line trains should have to stop here, meaning a quicker trip to Redfern and Central from the West, using up the available capacity on the Mains with Central terminators. If heading to the Shore these should be popular as you can interchange to the CBD Metro for a 10 min or more saving. The NW Metro should also take a chunk out of the Seven Hills and Richmond line patronage, especially when it is extended to North Sydney and the CBD. Even more again when they extend the NW Metro to Schofields. There are many facets to this but this is relief to the T1 line no matter how you look at it. Little pieces that all add up.

I know that there is a fixation by many on the outer burbs for rail but the most pressing need is not services to Richmond or Penrith, its Parramatta and Westmead. We will have a reliable, very frequent and high capacity rail line connecting the two main Sydney CBDs in tandem with the one linking the Northern Employment centres with the CBD and allowing fast interchange to the West. If they can sort the Airport line to the same level then I think Sydney has the backbone it needs for the future. Its possible that could actually come via the extension of the West Metro to Kogarah (with new Airport stations) but personally I think that an upgrade of the current Airport line is a better solution.

Then you get to the suburban aspects of the West Metro. From here it is speculation at this point but it appears that they will either run the Richmond line as T5 services with Interchange at Westmead to empty CBD bound services or they will extend the T2 line to Richmond, again using Westmead to Interchange to the West Metro. Either way removing the Richmond line from T1 creates 6 extra paths for the rest of the T1 line. In theory you could actually have all the express no longer stop at Seven Hills for more space and a quicker trip from Blacktown to Westmead and making sure that the Richmond passengers use the West Metro. If the 20 min figure for the West Metro is accurate, its going to be much faster for them to the CBD even with changing trains. Its currently 1:25 mins from Richmond to Wynyard including 50 mins to Westmead. 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.

So even with an express tunnel from Parramatta to Redfern/ Central you are not going to deliver a faster service to the core CBD by building this infrastructure for the DD services. Youre probably looking at a 15 min trip from Parra on such a line and even if you also built a new CBD relief line its still going to most likely just match the trip to Wynyard on a 20 min West Metro. It may be needed in the future purely on a capacity basis but with the West Metro having a crush load of something like 44,000 pax I'm not sure its going to be built any time soon and I'm a long term supporter of such a tunnel as my previous posting has shown.

It's still pure speculation on how Sydney Trains' services will be adjusted on the Western Line to fit in with the Metro West operation. It may or may not involve diversion of Richmond Line trains to the Cumberland Line or Inner West Local, but until such time as there is an official statement to that effect, then it's pointless trying to second guess what the outcome might be. One thing is certain though, the strategy of trying to squeeze more out of the Sydney Trains' system without providing adequate track amplification, to justify the metro as providing that additional track capacity, is going to impact on the broader rail network and in some cases provide an inferior service. There are consequences, no matter how much you try to disguise them. Forcing commuters to change trains for a journey into the CBD, even if marginally faster, isn't going to cut it with the average punter. Whatever way you look at it, it's an inferior service.

I would like to take issue with your assertion that the West Metro will free up space on the DD services for passengers from Blacktown, Seven Hills and Penrith. How? Putting aside the possibility of Richmond Line services being diverted to T2, which is still to be determined, how can it have any effect on stations to the west of Westmead which it doesn't even service, where there is the greatest overcrowding? I may be a little slow on the uptake, but you need to explain this more concisely. The capacity from Westmead/Parramatta to the CBD is not the real issue. It's to the west of Parramatta. More passengers from the west get off at Parramatta than get on, so there is a net increase in available capacity for those boarding.

Oh, on another matter, funny how the metro passenger capacity keeps creeping up, from what was originally 39,000 passengers per hour to 46,000 per hour. At the same time, existing DD capacity has reduced from 24,000 to 22,000 per hour. It's a misleading comparison anyway, as it compares passenger capacity on a crush loaded metro train with an arbitrary maximum load on a DD train (135% of seated capacity) on the existing network. No mention of the potential carrying capacity of DD with signalling upgrading, let alone comparing crush load capacity on a new line similar to the metro to give a more realistic comparison. Please don't mention the doors, as the real issue is station design, not the trains themselves. Just for the record, a DD train service running at 24tph with upgraded signalling would have a crush load capacity of 42,000 (1,750 per train). In practical terms, it may not ever reach this level or in fact be warranted, so the comparisons are very selective. And by the way, the speed and acceleration/deceleration performance levels for the metro rolling stock compared with the Waratahs are also grossly overstated. The Waratahs have a maximum speed of 130km/h, which is never utilised, and acceleration/deceleration of 1.0m/S2, which is also rarely utilised. They're not as sluggish as you may think. Why would Sydney Trains and its predecessor, CityRail, specify these performance levels if there was no intention to utilise them in the longer term? Until such time as the whole suburban fleet has been upgraded, there's no point in speeding up the timetable, as the older stock such as the S's, K's, C's couldn't keep up.

The performance statistics of Alstom's 'Metropolis' trains for the Sydney metro system aren't readily available, but I can vaguely recall that the maximum speed is 90-100km/h. Acceleration/deceleration performance is harder to find, but from my observation on Alstom's website, most of the 'Metropolis' variants have a common acceleration of 1.1m/S2 and deceleration of 1.3m/S2 (in emergency mode), which is close to that of the Waratahs. There is not such a big difference in performance levels that some may think. A Waratah on a new limited stop (if any) straighter alignment would beat a metro train with up to 8 intermediate stops hands down and without the need to interchange. So let's put that argument to bed.

I could be more swayed to the metro option (as a purported solution to relieving overcrowding on T1) if there had been a transparent public debate comparing the relative merits of extending the existing network through track amplification or constructing an new independent metro line. That didn't happen. We were just presented with the Metro West as a fait accompli. If the metro option turned out to be the preferred choice, then I'd embrace it. But so far, I'm still not convinced.

[grog]

There is a lot wrong there, 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.

[Rails]

The intention is that Metro West will be eventually extended through Waterloo to Malabar.

It's both, Future Transport has this line branched, first to run to Malabar and then via the Airport to Kogarah and eventually Miranda. I personally don't like that and don't think it will happen.

[Rails]

Airport Line would probably best done by isolating from rest of Sydney Trains network & upgrading it either have it some sort of metro Central to Revesby all stations or leave it double deck and increase 22tph or 24tph. Could Airport Line be terminated at Central fairly easily by realigning tracks to have 22/23 be exclusive terminating platforms while 20 can handle inbound City Circle & 21 outbound ?

I think that the best option put forward by the Government so far is from the Western Sydney rail scoping document. Airport line from Revesby is separated out and runs 30 TPH max SD to a new CBD station. That CBD station should interchange to the other Metro lines. Makes sure the Metro takes a lot of the load vs the existing network although I guess how they do it will come down to cost. Central may end up attractive in that regard.

[tonyp]

A few points I'd like to make. First, valiant Glen keeps reminding us that the suburban train system used to perform much better and indeed it did. I have experienced that myself and I have looked at all the old timetables back to the early days. However, the time-saving differences weren't all that great and not of the order that trains like metro trains or Perth suburban trains can achieve.

Secondly, I try to avoid hyperbole. I am quite satisfied with the safe statistic that the metro can move 40,000 an hour fully-deployed (full-length trains with 2 minute headways) and I'm not particularly concerned whether double deckers on an improved system can move 22,000 or 24,000 an hour. The fact is that there is still a huge gap between 24,000 and 40,000.

Thirdly, as grog notes (and I know that the Sydney trains people have tested this), while an 8 car DD can be filled with something approaching 1,800 people (if they can convince people to move into the centres of the cars which is another story), it is then useless for anything other than a non-stop end to end journey e.g. like Central to Olympic park for an event, and would be completely dysfunctional for a regular service with stops en route involving passenger exchange. 1,200 to 1,300 is regarded as the practical capacity which is the same as a short Sydney Metro train and less than a long one.

Acceleration/deceleration - you'd have to ride a metro overseas to fully appreciate that and it remains to be seen whether they will deploy this capability to the max in Sydney. Perth trains do not accelerate/decelerate as quickly as a metro train (because they're not metro trains) but are still significantly quicker off the mark than a Sydney DD. Unfortunately we can't experience the full capability of a modern Sydney DD because they never use it (or do they, we never know?). Maximum speed - the Alstoms for Sydney are set at 100 km/h. For the station spacings on this line, this is a completely adequate maximum speed. As I keep saying, average speed governed by acceleration/deceleration and dwells is far more significant.

Finally, the door issue is in fact absolutely critical. This is basic public transport science. What's with this constant door denialism in Sydney nowadays (a city that used to be exceptionally good at this science). Doors are absolutely critical to dwells and to distributing passengers within the vehicle effectively so that it fills to its capacity. People don't like being trapped in a crowd away from an exit. Precisely because of the doors, the metro trains will fill to capacity whereas the DDs won't, just as the CSELR will fill to capacity while Sydney's buses as they are currently designed won't. TfNSW has acknowledged this in the past when calculating the practical standing capacity of the metro trains and CSELR trams at 4 ppsm and the DD trains and State Transit's buses at around 2.5 ppsm. This is not because of floor area but because of doors.

[Rails]

It's still pure speculation on how Sydney Trains' services will be adjusted on the Western Line to fit in with the Metro West operation. It may or may not involve diversion of Richmond Line trains to the Cumberland Line or Inner West Local, but until such time as there is an official statement to that effect, then it's pointless trying to second guess what the outcome might be. One thing is certain though, the strategy of trying to squeeze more out of the Sydney Trains' system without providing adequate track amplification, to justify the metro as providing that additional track capacity, is going to impact on the broader rail network and in some cases provide an inferior service. There are consequences, no matter how much you try to disguise them. Forcing commuters to change trains for a journey into the CBD, even if marginally faster, isn't going to cut it with the average punter. Whatever way you look at it, it's an inferior service.

I would like to take issue with your assertion that the West Metro will free up space on the DD services for passengers from Blacktown, Seven Hills and Penrith. How? Putting aside the possibility of Richmond Line services being diverted to T2, which is still to be determined, how can it have any effect on stations to the west of Westmead which it doesn't even service, where there is the greatest overcrowding? I may be a little slow on the uptake, but you need to explain this more concisely. The capacity from Westmead/Parramatta to the CBD is not the real issue. It's to the west of Parramatta. More passengers from the west get off at Parramatta than get on, so there is a net increase in available capacity for those boarding.

Oh, on another matter, funny how the metro passenger capacity keeps creeping up, from what was originally 39,000 passengers per hour to 46,000 per hour. At the same time, existing DD capacity has reduced from 24,000 to 22,000 per hour. It's a misleading comparison anyway, as it compares passenger capacity on a crush loaded metro train with an arbitrary maximum load on a DD train (135% of seated capacity) on the existing network. No mention of the potential carrying capacity of DD with signalling upgrading, let alone comparing crush load capacity on a new line similar to the metro to give a more realistic comparison. Please don't mention the doors, as the real issue is station design, not the trains themselves. Just for the record, a DD train service running at 24tph with upgraded signalling would have a crush load capacity of 42,000 (1,750 per train). In practical terms, it may not ever reach this level or in fact be warranted, so the comparisons are very selective. And by the way, the speed and acceleration/deceleration performance levels for the metro rolling stock compared with the Waratahs are also grossly overstated. The Waratahs have a maximum speed of 130km/h, which is never utilised, and acceleration/deceleration of 1.0m/S2, which is also rarely utilised. They're not as sluggish as you may think. Why would Sydney Trains and its predecessor, CityRail, specify these performance levels if there was no intention to utilise them in the longer term? Until such time as the whole suburban fleet has been upgraded, there's no point in speeding up the timetable, as the older stock such as the S's, K's, C's couldn't keep up.

The performance statistics of Alstom's 'Metropolis' trains for the Sydney metro system aren't readily available, but I can vaguely recall that the maximum speed is 90-100km/h. Acceleration/deceleration performance is harder to find, but from my observation on Alstom's website, most of the 'Metropolis' variants have a common acceleration of 1.1m/S2 and deceleration of 1.3m/S2 (in emergency mode), which is close to that of the Waratahs. There is not such a big difference in performance levels that some may think. A Waratah on a new limited stop (if any) straighter alignment would beat a metro train with up to 8 intermediate stops hands down and without the need to interchange. So let's put that argument to bed.

I could be more swayed to the metro option (as a purported solution to relieving overcrowding on T1) if there had been a transparent public debate comparing the relative merits of extending the existing network through track amplification or constructing an new independent metro line. That didn't happen. We were just presented with the Metro West as a fait accompli. If the metro option turned out to be the preferred choice, then I'd embrace it. But so far, I'm still not convinced.

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.