Sydney Metro West announced

[Transtopic]

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

That may be so, but it's still duplicating the light rail line. The operating costs of an extended ESR line would be substantially reduced by the much greater patronage. Metro is not necessarily the magic bullet. Only time will tell what is the best strategy.

[stupid_girl]

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

That may be so, but it's still duplicating the light rail line. The operating costs of an extended ESR line would be substantially reduced by the much greater patronage. Metro is not necessarily the magic bullet. Only time will tell what is the best strategy.

I don't believe such an indirect route can attract much greater patronage.

[tonyp]

I don't believe such an indirect route can attract much greater patronage.

It's a cross-regional route best suited to a high-frequency, high-capacity bus (400) or tram service. Also all of the station sites have been sold and many built over with new development, especially UNSW.

[Transtopic]

I don't believe such an indirect route can attract much greater patronage.

You're still ignoring my contention that it would be duplicating the light rail route. So why would you bother? A metro link from the CBD would be more beneficial if it ran via Zetland/Green Square and Sydney Airport to Miranda and let an extension of the ESR pick up the South Eastern suburbs, as much as it is anathema to anti-Sydney Trains' lobby. You're delusional if you think it wouldn't pick up significantly greater patronage on the ESR. It would certainly be a lot faster than the light rail route. I know I'm a lone voice here, but someone has to challenge the biased opinions of the metro lobby.

[Transtopic]

I don't believe such an indirect route can attract much greater patronage.

It's a cross-regional route best suited to a high-frequency, high-capacity bus (400) or tram service. Also all of the station sites have been sold and many built over with new development, especially UNSW.

With respect tonyp, you're being disingenuous by describing a route from Maroubra Junction to the CBD via Bondi Junction as being "cross-regional". The fact that it takes advantage of existing infrastructure shouldn't be discounted, just as the original Parramatta to Chatswood Rail Link took advantage of the longer and far more circuitous route via the existing Carlingford Line rather than the more direct route via Eastwood. The fact that previously proposed station sites have been sold is irrelevant, as there will always be alternative options, just as there are with the proposed metro expansion.

[Frosty]

Anyways if any serious proposal to extend the ESR occurred imagine the NIMBY uproar particularly when it would run through a marginal electorate. It would be described as catalyst to high rise development and be called turning Eastern suburbs into Hong Kong.

[tonyp]

Anyways if any serious proposal to extend the ESR occurred imagine the NIMBY uproar particularly when it would run through a marginal electorate. It would be described as catalyst to high rise development and be called turning Eastern suburbs into Hong Kong.

A lot of the eastern suburbs, like the inner west, are designated conservation areas and there's not going to be a lot more development than there already is. The development/urban consolidation potential is in the SE suburbs.

If the ESR were to be extended along its proposed 1960s route, there is nothing to economically justify a station (including no strong nodes) anywhere between BJ and UNSW/POWH. The continuous nature of settlement in the area, as in much of the inner city, is best served by bus or tram with their closer stop spacing. A train of any sort is going to be inconvenient because of the long gaps between stations, requiring surface transport feeders to get to the stations - which then adds to the door to door journey time. Trains have their best advantage further out with long distances between suburbs.

[boronia]

Labor commits $8 billion to fast-track Sydney Metro West

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/nsw/lab ... 50wyi.html

[moa999]

https://twitter.com/7NewsSydney/status/ ... 25825?s=19

Last 30secs - cost now looking at $20+ bn

[rogf24]

Open 2028, construction 2020, 20 mins, stations @ Westmead, Parramatta, Sydney Olympic Park, North Strathfield, Burwood North, Five Dock, The Bays Precinct and the City, still looking at Rydalmere and Pyrmont.
https://outline.com/swHUtU

[boronia]

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/nsw/nsw ... 511g6.html
Something odd, though

The government is also investigating possible stations between Olympic Park and Parramatta, such as Rydalmere and Pyrmont.

[mandonov]

Something odd, though

Sad thing is that it isn't odd at all for the SMH to do lazy reporting.

[rogf24]

Something odd, though

Sad thing is that it isn't odd at all for the SMH to do lazy reporting.

Did you mean Nine Entertainment?

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[Transtopic]

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/nsw/nsw ... 511g6.html
Something odd, though

The government is also investigating possible stations between Olympic Park and Parramatta, such as Rydalmere and Pyrmont.

It's obvious that the planning and business case still haven't been completed and they're drip feeding us information on the run. It's just a rehash of previous announcements without any definitive determination of the final route and station locations, including through the CBD and beyond. It's unlikely we'll be any the wiser before the election, not that it really matters that much, because it's a work in progress.

I suspect that there is still a debate being waged within the bureaucracy and government about whether they want Metro West to be a fast express service between Parramatta and the Sydney CBD or a slower service along a new rail corridor with multiple stations along its route. I prefer the latter. The more stations that are added, which is not a bad thing in itself, the slower the overall journey time, but it then becomes less competitive with the existing Sydney Trains' express services, which could potentially be improved even further. So why try and duplicate the existing express service for the sake of ideological purity? It's a questionable priority and Metro West would be far more productive if it serviced a whole new rail corridor with as many stations as needed.

Let Sydney Trains continue to service the outer suburban regions with express running through the inner city, rather than forcing commuters to interchange to a metro service to complete their journey to the CBD, which won't be popular. There will obviously need to be further upgrades to the existing network to cater for this, which future governments of whatever persuasion will inevitably have to face. The current government's obsession with the metro expansion as the magic bullet for resolving Sydney's rail deficiencies and encouraging more interchange in the process, is a flawed strategy and is a backward step compared with Bradfield's original vision and for example London's Thameslink and Crossrail, which is to minimise interchange by extending outer suburban lines into or through the CBD. Interchanging between lines for non-CBD destinations is an entirely different matter.

It's a bit rich for Constance to suggest that the T1 Western Line will reach capacity in 15 years, when it's already bursting at the seams, but they don't want to spend money on it, hoping the metro will resolve all of the congestion problems. The chickens are now coming home to roost with the increasing failure of the current system to cope because of the lack of investment.

[boronia]

They have subsequently removed Rydalmere and Pyrmont from mention.

[tonyp]

Let Sydney Trains continue to service the outer suburban regions with express running through the inner city, rather than forcing commuters to interchange to a metro service to complete their journey to the CBD, which won't be popular. There will obviously need to be further upgrades to the existing network to cater for this, which future governments of whatever persuasion will inevitably have to face. The current government's obsession with the metro expansion as the magic bullet for resolving Sydney's rail deficiencies and encouraging more interchange in the process, is a flawed strategy and is a backward step compared with Bradfield's original vision and for example London's Thameslink and Crossrail, which is to minimise interchange by extending outer suburban lines into or through the CBD. Interchanging between lines for non-CBD destinations is an entirely different matter.

Bradfield's vision is hopelessly inadequate for a multi-centred city of 8 million people (he never anticipated a population of anything remotely like that size or the modern urban structure), as is the notion of being able to maintain significant numbers of single-seat journeys. The trick with interchange is frequency. With a population that size, we will have great frequency, believe me.

The notion of metro for short distance, double-deck for long distance fails on reality. As can be seen in the figures I have posted on this forum ad nauseum, Sydney Trains can't even come near the metro's journey times running express/semi-express, let alone all stops. Even the old faster times that Glen mentions aren't as fast as the metro's journey times. Double-deck trains simply can't match the acceleration/deceleration and dwell times (and thus high average speed) of a modern single deck train. Metro can also deliver more trains per hour. The only situation in which double deck comes into its own is complete express running to the outskirts of the metropolis and the interurban areas. I hate to mention Perth again, but even the best of those journeys in Sydney fail to come near the journey times of all-stops single deck trains in Perth. Except for, notably, the platform doors and the automation, the Sydney metro will be extremely similar to the Perth system.

[Transtopic]

Bradfield's vision is hopelessly inadequate for a multi-centred city of 8 million people (he never anticipated a population of anything remotely like that size or the modern urban structure), as is the notion of being able to maintain significant numbers of single-seat journeys. The trick with interchange is frequency. With a population that size, we will have great frequency, believe me.

The notion of metro for short distance, double-deck for long distance fails on reality. As can be seen in the figures I have posted on this forum ad nauseum, Sydney Trains can't even come near the metro's journey times running express/semi-express, let alone all stops. Even the old faster times that Glen mentions aren't as fast as the metro's journey times. Double-deck trains simply can't match the acceleration/deceleration and dwell times (and thus high average speed) of a modern single deck train. Metro can also deliver more trains per hour. The only situation in which double deck comes into its own is complete express running to the outskirts of the metropolis and the interurban areas. I hate to mention Perth again, but even the best of those journeys in Sydney fail to come near the journey times of all-stops single deck trains in Perth. Except for, notably, the platform doors and the automation, the Sydney metro will be extremely similar to the Perth system.

So London, Paris, Berlin and Geneva to name just a few have got it wrong have they? I'm not just talking about DD trains. Are you suggesting that the whole Sydney rail network should be replaced with metros? That's clearly preposterous and it will never happen.

I'm not against having new metro lines, but not as a replacement of existing lines. It's a waste of resources. There's very little left of the State's family silver to sell off and future governments will have to be more prudent with their infrastructure spending. In some situations, it may be more economical to upgrade and expand the existing network in preference to a whole new metro line. That's something which shouldn't be lightly dismissed. With the number of recently introduced Tangara, Millennium, Oscar and Waratah rolling stock and more on order, DD trains running on the existing network are going to be around for a long time to come, so get used to it! There's no reason why a future government wouldn't look at speeding up the existing train service as an alternative strategy, when there's clearly a lot of slack in the existing timetable and potential to upgrade current speed boards. It's not exactly rocket science and you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[neilrex]

I am unconvinced that this metro will take 20 minutes when the existing trains with only 1 intermediate stop take 28 minutes.

Unless it is going to be faster than any other metro in the world, which I doubt.

[stupid_girl]

I am unconvinced that this metro will take 20 minutes when the existing trains with only 1 intermediate stop take 28 minutes.

Unless it is going to be faster than any other metro in the world, which I doubt.

Sydney trains are deliberately slowed down. Modern metro system can have high acceleration and top speed exceeding 100km/h. Shanghai metro Line 16 takes 57 minutes over a distance of nearly 59km.

[mandonov]

Omg we don't need to rehash the exact same arguments again.

How about we discuss the proposed stations, because I'm quite surprised that Rydalmere has edged out Camellia for consideration.
Pyrmont is still a maybe, which I suspect is due to NIMBY concerns.
Glad to see Five Dock and North Burwood chosen instead of King's Bay, as those two will be fantastic for bus interchange possibilities and will take hundreds of buses out of the CBD.

[rogf24]

If Pyrmont doesn't get a station, I hope the LR is extended to the Bays Metro Station opening on day 1 so there is a good connection there at least.

[neilrex]

Shanghai Metro line 16 has 12 stops in 59 km. It's out in the countryside - that weird kind of Chinese countryside where you go past fields, and then a bunch of 49 story appartments in the middle of fields, then more fields and lot of concrete batching plants. It doesn't even run to Shanghai.

Pyrmont is hard to get in an out of, on all sides. It has been , since 1995 when the Victoria road buses mostly stopped going there.

[andy_centralcoast]

I am unconvinced that this metro will take 20 minutes when the existing trains with only 1 intermediate stop take 28 minutes.

Unless it is going to be faster than any other metro in the world, which I doubt.

NSW Transport Minister Andrew Constance's spokesperson said the 20-minute journey was the government's "target".

A spokesman for the Premier told AAP CrossCheck "20 minutes is an aim" and the government would not know until the final business case was completed what the exact travel time from Parramatta to the city would be.

https://www.centralwesterndaily.com.au/ ... s/?cs=9397

[tonyp]

I am unconvinced that this metro will take 20 minutes when the existing trains with only 1 intermediate stop take 28 minutes.

Unless it is going to be faster than any other metro in the world, which I doubt.

A greater understanding of the significance of average speed is needed by many people. There are other important factors at play besides maximum speed, including acceleration/deceleration, dwell time, track alignment and junctions. The winner is always the service with the highest average speed.

From my statistics for a 33 km segment:

Blacktown-Redfern mixture of services:
41 mins, 7 stops; 47 mins, 13 stops; IC 32 mins, 1 stop.

Sydney Metro NW Rouse Hill-Chatswood: 35 mins, 10 stops

[neilrex]

well I think the west metro should have more stops, so people can actually get on it and use it. No point building a "metro" if the stops are so far apart that people cannot get to them. And that applies to people coming into the area, as well as the people who live there, going out. You need to think more about networks which can realistically serve as people's primary means of getting around, rather than the current leading paradigm which is basically that trains serve people's work trips to the CBD and they are assumed to use cars for every other aspect of their lives.

The express service should be on the existing rail line. It has 4 and 6 tracks, which the metro never will. It can have segregation of stopping and express services, which the metro never will. It carries people directly from the outer suburbs, which the metro never will. If you want a 20 minute express journey there should be more effort made to improve performance of the existing railway, it is not rocket science.

I am not convinced that trains can go as fast underground as they do on the surface. You run into issues with managing the airflow. The fastest Chinese metro lines are above ground. So are the fastest lines in Perth and Melbourne. So are the fastest metro lines in Japan.