Other rail possibilties

[tonyp]

You're missing the whole point of my argument. I wasn't comparing a Waratah in an all-stops pattern with an equivalent metro all-stops service. I was comparing a Waratah in an express pattern on an ATO upgraded outer suburban line with a metro all-stops service over an equivalent distance. All things being equal in terms of acceleration/deceleration performance, the Waratah with its higher maximum speed and far fewer stops would win hands down. I don't dispute the fact that the Waratahs would only be able to utilise their maximum speed of 130km/h on the express segments where the station spacings are much wider. It would still be in front even with the same maximum speed as the metro. With far fewer stops, dwell times don't come into it. I'm surprised you can't see the logic in that.

With the decentralisation strategy, there are many centres - like Burwood - that will need all trains to stop at them in future. So I see that, in the future, many of those semi-express suburban services will have increasing numbers of stops in them. If better performance comes with ATO, then that will be an advantage in reducing the potential for extending journey times as a result of stopping more.

The existing outer suburban lines will never realistically be converted to metro, so your spurious argument about the superiority of a metro service over the future upgraded existing network is irrelevant. DD trains are here to stay, so just get used to it.

I've never said that more suburban lines should be converted to metro. That's not generally practicable on such a scale and the cost-benefit probably not all that great. Given that, they definitely need better performance though.

[eddy]

Many lines in the past have just been single track and much of greater Sydney could be connected to a central hub to get across town quick smart and perhaps it would be better to provide a limited service to more people than a twin track to a few.

[Linto63]

If a line can be built with a single line, then it won't be the demand needed to build it in the first place. It reasonably safe to assume all future line will be double track throughout.

[Swift]

A cheap budget way to have completed the Chatswood to Parramatta rail link would have been to have a portal coming out of the underground line at Epping joining the main north line city bound, complete the quadrupling all the way to Strathfield and restore the double tracks on that section near the Arnotts factory linking to the western line for services to Parramatta and beyond.

[Geo101]

In 2018/19, the Transperth rail network carried 16% the number of passengers of Sydney Trains (62 vs 377 million), comparing operational performance of the two is meaningless.

The Perth network also differs quite a lot as there isn't any inter-city traffic of significance to compete for the track space. In fact, only two services (the Avon Link/MerredinLink & Australind) have to contend with the suburban trains.

And there are only two services each day (1 in the morning and 1 in the afternoon in each direction) for both of them, a total of 8 services over two lines!!

[Campbelltown busboy]

Here's a possible idea a south coast line extension to Bega or Eden and beyond for passenger services then maybe the ARTC could even use it as a Melbourne freight diversion for whenever there is track work happening on the main south line

[tonyp]

The Sydney Trains network is nowhere near the 815 km stated, that maybe the total length of the individual tracks. The network bounded by Berowra, Emu Plains, Macarthur and Waterfall is about 325 km (rough calculation, maybe out by a few km either way). The 173 km quoted for Perth is about right for that network. So that means Sydney's average passengers per route km is 3178 or 3.2 times that of Perth's 974.

It might be a case of hold it right there, not so fast - a little complication has set in which may mean we're both wrong and the Wikipedia contributor has at least part of the facts on their side. I decided to consult the horse's mouth and Sydney Trains has come back and informed me that their system is definitely 813 route kms (and that's definitely route, not track). This includes the lines to Newcastle, Lithgow, Macarthur and Bomaderry. It doesn't include the Hunter Valley lines, Lithgow to Bathurst or Macarthur to Goulburn.

What I've described is known as the Metropolitan Passenger Network and is owned by the NSW Transport Asset Holding Entity. The other lines beyond are owned by TfNSW and managed by either ARTC or John Holland Rail. The old metropolitan network that used to extend to Berowra, Emu Plains etc etc is no longer recognised or defined.

This obviously introduces a complication into that table in that we have a Queensland situation where there is no statistical distinction between urban and interurban - except that passenger statistics for both in NSW are still divided between the two, but without mileage figures to set them against. So there's probably little choice but to merge the urban and interurban figures for NSW and add on the extra kms for Goulburn, Bathurst and the Hunter Valley lines. Quite obviously the passengers per km figure will then come soaring down again.

It also leaves a lingering doubt that there's something not right about the Victorian figures but, on the other hand, maybe they're OK. In the end there's an apples and oranges situation where we're comparing urban systems with urban+interurban systems. If we settled on the latter, only Adelaide and Sydney metro would skew the comparison as urban-only systems. (Perth's Mandurah line, though not defined as such, is effectively interurban, covering almost the distance between Sydney and Wollongong or Melbourne to Geelong.)

[Transtopic]

Something like 20% of jobs are in Sydney CBD. Many more are in other centres, and the remainder are dispersed. That second category (in centres that aren’t the CBD) is the big growth opportunity for PT patronage growth, and is the kind of patronage that a connected, simple, single stopping pattern metro style network that encourages interchange will support. The world should not revolve around long distance trips into Sydney CBD.

That may be so, but the fact remains that the Sydney CBD has and will continue to have the largest concentration of employment across the Sydney Region, which is conducive to high capacity public transport particularly by rail. The other major employment centres such as Parramatta and Macquarie Park have only a fraction of the capacity, while smaller strategic centres and widely dispersed employment across the region make up the rest. I have accessed Land Use Planner - Employment statistics from the Transport for NSW website as follows -

Sydney CBD
2021 - 345,000
2056 - 511,000

Parramatta
2021 - 59,000
2056 - 118,000

Macquarie Park/North Ryde
2021 - 78,000
2056 - 111,000

I haven't been able to find any meaningful figures for the Western Parklands City, which only shows Badgerys Creek with an employment projection of around 16,000 in 2056.

It is extremely unlikely that modal share for public transport, which is 75% in the Sydney CBD, will approach anything like that in Parramatta or Macquarie Park, let alone in other centres. At best, they might reach 40-50% and even that's being generous. They will still be heavily dependent on private cars, particularly Macquarie Park because of its abundance of parking. Unlike Parramatta, Macquarie Park is still essentially a 'Business Park' and I expect that the Western Parklands City will develop in much the same way, not that there's anything wrong with that.

The dominance of employment in the Sydney CBD compared with the other strategic centres suggests that it won't just be reliant on the so called Eastern Harbour City, but will draw commuters from all over the Sydney Region and its hinterland. Hence the importance of maintaining the Sydney CBD as the focus of the broader transport network for Suburban, Intercity and Regional travel, particularly rail. Proposed new cross regional rail links will service the other major strategic centres as well as being serviced by the existing network.

Finally, I'm sceptical of the Three Cities concept promoted by the Government and more particularly the myth that it will create 30 minute cities. It might for some, but the vast majority will continue to travel all over the Sydney Region for employment opportunities. Parramatta and the Western Parklands City, based on the new airport and Aerotropolis, will never become true CBD's in their own right and at best are and will develop into major Sub-Regional centres. The same goes for Macquarie Park. The last thing Sydney needs is to develop like Los Angeles, which had a widely decentralised city structure without a central city soul. They appear to be now reversing that trend.

[Transtopic]

With the decentralisation strategy, there are many centres - like Burwood - that will need all trains to stop at them in future. So I see that, in the future, many of those semi-express suburban services will have increasing numbers of stops in them. If better performance comes with ATO, then that will be an advantage in reducing the potential for extending journey times as a result of stopping more.

I don't think that there would be too many extra stops required for semi-express services, as they already stop at most of the major stations. Burwood may be one and perhaps Kogarah or Rockdale another. In the case of Burwood, as it's a major strategic centre, it would make more sense for semi-express and Intercity services to stop there rather than Strathfield which is a rail junction. It's a similar situation on the Northern Line, where CCN Intercity services no longer stop at Eastwood but Epping only, which is a rail junction and a smaller centre than Eastwood, which also has an extensive local and regional bus network.

On another note, I came across this submission by John Austen to the Inquiry into the Bankstown Line metro conversion conducted by the NSW Legislative Council. Although it's a lengthy read, it gives some insight into the ineptitude of the TfNSW rail planners and their immediate predecessors in their machinations and misinformation over the future direction of Sydney's rail network. It all started in the days of the Iemma Labor Government with their North West Metro proposal and it seems it is continuing in spite of independent expert analysis questioning their motives. Although you may not agree with many of the comments made, it's worth taking the time to read it. Perhaps Kristina Keneally was right after all.

https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/lcdoc ... Austen.pdf

[Linto63]

It might be a case of hold it right there, not so fast - a little complication has set in which may mean we're both wrong and the Wikipedia contributor has at least part of the facts on their side. I decided to consult the horse's mouth and Sydney Trains has come back and informed me that their system is definitely 813 route kms (and that's definitely route, not track). This includes the lines to Newcastle, Lithgow, Macarthur and Bomaderry. It doesn't include the Hunter Valley lines, Lithgow to Bathurst or Macarthur to Goulburn.

In the 2013 restructure, Sydney Trains took over responsibility for the maintenance of the whole CityRail network from RailCorp, i.e. that bordered by Newcastle, Lithgow, Macarthur and Bomaderry, hence why maintenance vehicles with Sydney Trains signwriting can be seen alongside lines outside of Sydney. But the services operated beyond Berowra, Emu Plains and Waterfall by were taken over by NSW TrainLink. These are not included in the 377 million passenger journeys in 2018/19, but accounted for a further 41 million journeys.

It also leaves a lingering doubt that there's something not right about the Victorian figures but, on the other hand, maybe they're OK.

The electrified Melbourne network is about 400 km long (rough calculation), so the 965 km is wrong.

Perth's Mandurah line, though not defined as such, is effectively interurban, covering almost the distance between Sydney and Wollongong or Melbourne to Geelong.

The Mandurah line is still an all stops suburban service until Warnbro. It is only the last of the 12 stops at Mandurah that could be considered out of Perth, and would only account for a small part of the line's overall 21 million passenger journeys.

[grog]

That may be so, but the fact remains that the Sydney CBD has and will continue to have the largest concentration of employment across the Sydney Region, which is conducive to high capacity public transport particularly by rail. The other major employment centres such as Parramatta and Macquarie Park have only a fraction of the capacity, while smaller strategic centres and widely dispersed employment across the region make up the rest. I have accessed Land Use Planner - Employment statistics from the Transport for NSW website as follows -

Sydney CBD
2021 - 345,000
2056 - 511,000

Parramatta
2021 - 59,000
2056 - 118,000

Macquarie Park/North Ryde
2021 - 78,000
2056 - 111,000

I haven't been able to find any meaningful figures for the Western Parklands City, which only shows Badgerys Creek with an employment projection of around 16,000 in 2056.

It is extremely unlikely that modal share for public transport, which is 75% in the Sydney CBD, will approach anything like that in Parramatta or Macquarie Park, let alone in other centres. At best, they might reach 40-50% and even that's being generous. They will still be heavily dependent on private cars, particularly Macquarie Park because of its abundance of parking. Unlike Parramatta, Macquarie Park is still essentially a 'Business Park' and I expect that the Western Parklands City will develop in much the same way, not that there's anything wrong with that.

The dominance of employment in the Sydney CBD compared with the other strategic centres suggests that it won't just be reliant on the so called Eastern Harbour City, but will draw commuters from all over the Sydney Region and its hinterland. Hence the importance of maintaining the Sydney CBD as the focus of the broader transport network for Suburban, Intercity and Regional travel, particularly rail. Proposed new cross regional rail links will service the other major strategic centres as well as being serviced by the existing network.

Finally, I'm sceptical of the Three Cities concept promoted by the Government and more particularly the myth that it will create 30 minute cities. It might for some, but the vast majority will continue to travel all over the Sydney Region for employment opportunities. Parramatta and the Western Parklands City, based on the new airport and Aerotropolis, will never become true CBD's in their own right and at best are and will develop into major Sub-Regional centres. The same goes for Macquarie Park. The last thing Sydney needs is to develop like Los Angeles, which had a widely decentralised city structure without a central city soul. They appear to be now reversing that trend.

Parramatta already has a journey to work mode share of 41% public transport, and Macquarie Park 27% (both at the 2016 census).

There is no reason to think that with increased parking restrictions (likely) and a rail network like the Future Transport 2056 network that Parramatta wouldn't have a similar mode share to Sydney CBD.

There is no reason that over time Macquarie Park couldn't exceed Parramatta's current 41% mode share.

Using the same Land Use Planner and selecting all of the Metropolitan and Strategic Centres (excluding those in the inner city) that are located on the future rail network and employment is projected to reach 796699 in 2056. There is no reason why those jobs can't have a majority PT mode share, particularly as residential population growth is also concentrated on the rail network.

The jobs outside centres will always be hard to serve by PT, and so driving will always have a place, but Sydney is surprisingly well placed with a concentration of employment in centres on the current and future rail network - something Los Angeles could only dream of at this point.

[grog]

Actually looking again at the following image, I missed a whole bunch of strategic centres in my job numbers, so the number would actually be higher than what I posted above.

[tonyp]

I think a lot of people forget that there are 2 to 2.5 million people west, NW and SW of Parramatta. That's like a city the size of Perth or Brisbane. That's simply not viable as merely a passive dormitory serving a city way over to the east. The population and geographical centre of Sydney is near Parramatta. Decentralisation of work and other activity in the Sydney basin will continue increasingly into the future. The city of Sydney may not diminish, but western Sydney will only grow. Having a transit system focussed only on the city of Sydney is poor planning.

[BroadGauge]

The Mandurah line is still an all stops suburban service until Warnbro. It is only the last of the 12 stops at Mandurah that could be considered out of Perth, and would only account for a small part of the line's overall 21 million passenger journeys.

That last gap between Warnbro and Mandurah is fairly ridiculous (it's 23km between stations with suburbs in between), but I think the point made is how quickly that journey is made even when it stops at every station.

The distance from Perth Underground to Warnbro is 47.6km, which takes 38 minutes, with stops at 8 intermediate stations. To compare that with equivalent off-peak journeys in Sydney by distance, all of which are on limited stops services..

Central to St Marys (47.42km) - 54 minutes, 10 intermediate stops
Central to Riverstone (45.96km) - 57 minutes, 12 intermediate stops
Central to Macarthur via Airport (47.83.km) - 62 minutes, 15 intermediate stops

[tonyp]

In the 2013 restructure, Sydney Trains took over responsibility for the maintenance of the whole CityRail network from RailCorp, i.e. that bordered by Newcastle, Lithgow, Macarthur and Bomaderry, hence why maintenance vehicles with Sydney Trains signwriting can be seen alongside lines outside of Sydney. But the services operated beyond Berowra, Emu Plains and Waterfall by were taken over by NSW TrainLink. These are not included in the 377 million passenger journeys in 2018/19, but accounted for a further 41 million journeys.

That's exactly what I said - we have passenger statistics for both urban and interurban services but we only have route kms covering both together and even that figure doesn't cover all of the interurban lines. So we can't do a passengers per km calculation for the Sydney urban system but we can do one for urban+interurban that leaves out the distance of some lines on the edges.

The electrified Melbourne network is about 400 km long (rough calculation), so the 965 km is wrong.

We're past that point. As I said in my last post, PTV provides the information that the Melbourne urban system is 405 route km. We can do a reasonably good separate urban and interurban passengers per km calculation for Melbourne. For Sydney and Brisbane it's difficult to do a separate urban calculation because some key data is absent.

That last gap between Warnbro and Mandurah is fairly ridiculous (it's 23km between stations with suburbs in between), but I think the point made is how quickly that journey is made even when it stops at every station.

The distance from Perth Underground to Warnbro is 47.6km, which takes 38 minutes, with stops at 8 intermediate stations. To compare that with equivalent off-peak journeys in Sydney by distance, all of which are on limited stops services..

Central to St Marys (47.42km) - 54 minutes, 10 intermediate stops
Central to Riverstone (45.96km) - 57 minutes, 12 intermediate stops
Central to Macarthur via Airport (47.83.km) - 62 minutes, 15 intermediate stops

Yes, that discussion has been had previously and, likewise, the Sydney metro system has almost identical journey times to Perth within the parameters of equivalent numbers of stops/station spacing. So far, there won't be a metro line in the first tranche with the station spacings of the Mandurah line but one of the future lines out west may well have. Transtopic promises us that ATO will close the time discrepancy in Sydney. You'll have to keep an eye on how that pans out Broad Gauge because I'm unlikely to be around long enough to see the whole system completed, which is pretty frustrating as I've spent 60 years sitting around waiting for various NSW governments to get into serious action again on public transport and now it all comes in a big heap late in life!

The only reason I suggested that the Mandurah line might be considered interurban is if the said table has to be only an urban+interurban combined comparison, then it's not far fetched to consider Perth on that basis. However Adelaide doesn't have an interurban system either, so the whole basis of the comparison is pretty much up the spout. Somebody set out on that Wikipedia entry with good intentions and mostly sound statistics but in the end it's not going to work very well.

[Linto63]

The distance from Perth Underground to Warnbro is 47.6km, which takes 38 minutes, with stops at 8 intermediate stations. To compare that with equivalent off-peak journeys in Sydney by distance, all of which are on limited stops services.

Central to St Marys (47.42km) - 54 minutes, 10 intermediate stops
Central to Riverstone (45.96km) - 57 minutes, 12 intermediate stops
Central to Macarthur via Airport (47.83.km) - 62 minutes, 15 intermediate stops

And as has been said a thousand times, comparisons between a 19th century steam-era alignment with multiple interfaces with that of a segregated 21st century alignment is not like-for-like.

That's exactly what I said - we have passenger statistics for both urban and interurban services but we only have route kms covering both together and even that figure doesn't cover all of the interurban lines. So we can't do a passengers per km calculation for the Sydney urban system but we can do one for urban+interurban that leaves out the distance of some lines on the edges.

Yes it can, we have the patronage figures for the metropolitan network (377 million), the interurban network (41 million) from Sydney Trains and NSW TrainLink annual reports. These can be cross-referenced here. The route mileages can be worked out from this data, except for the Leppington line, which can be found here, so all the necessary data is available. Result might not be inch-perfect, but will be in the ballpark.

[tonyp]

And as has been said a thousand times, comparisons between a 19th century steam-era alignment with multiple interfaces with that of a segregated 21st century alignment is not like-for-like.

That argument is frequently used by defenders of the suburban system but it doesn't always stand up to close analysis. Yes, there are sections with bad route-entanglement and sections with poor alignments surviving from the 19th or 20th century. However, there is probably much more that has been rebuilt, largely separated and modernised - out of those examples particularly the Campbelltown line. The Western line west of Blacktown is also pretty good. While the Mandurah line is perhaps an extreme comparison, other Perth lines have close counterparts in Sydney (and other cities) with which they can be readily compared. The poorer Sydney performance is really down to other factors, including the general slowing-down of the trains, signalling etc, rather than the physical quality of the route itself.

Yes it can, we have the patronage figures for the metropolitan network (377 million), the interurban network (41 million) from Sydney Trains and NSW TrainLink annual reports. These can be cross-referenced here. The route mileages can be worked out from this data, except for the Leppington line, which can be found here, so all the necessary data is available. Result might not be inch-perfect, but will be in the ballpark.

Yes I'm aware that one can put it all together by collating information gathered from other sources. Just don't have the time for now. That does remind me of a Wikipedia anecdote. I do have my own record of station distances from railway documents, but it's also possible to see those in station entries in Wikipedia. For the most part I've found them to be perfectly accurate. However, some time ago I found on the south line via East Hills that things didn't add up, so I checked the information. It turned out the lazy contributor, instead of showing the railway distances, had merely plotted straight lines between stations on a map (or Google Maps) and taken those distances! I'm already well aware of the need to cross-check Wikipedia, it's just that the article we're discussing was sourced and used actual figures from the state agencies, but the parameters of a couple of the figures meant different things from what the author apparently thought.

[Transtopic]

Using the same Land Use Planner and selecting all of the Metropolitan and Strategic Centres (excluding those in the inner city) that are located on the future rail network and employment is projected to reach 796699 in 2056. There is no reason why those jobs can't have a majority PT mode share, particularly as residential population growth is also concentrated on the rail network.

The jobs outside centres will always be hard to serve by PT, and so driving will always have a place, but Sydney is surprisingly well placed with a concentration of employment in centres on the current and future rail network - something Los Angeles could only dream of at this point.

The Strategic Centres are widely dispersed and although collectively, the potential employment may exceed that of the Sydney CBD, none individually come anywhere near the concentration of employment in the latter, more so the smaller centres. Most of the Strategic Centres are already on the existing rail network and are serviced by through services to the Sydney CBD and I expect that will continue. Proposed new cross regional rail links will enhance their accessibility.

While the decentralisation of employment may ease some pressure on travel to and from the Sydney CBD, it will still be the single dominant destination from across the Sydney region by a long shot, and it will continue to require upgrades to the existing network in tandem with new lines. It's still too early to predict what the modal share will be into the larger sub-regional centres.

Aside from the fact that it doesn't differentiate between Sydney Trains and Sydney Metro, I'd hardly call the 2056 City-shaping Network map an accurate depiction of a future rail network. Most of the new lines haven't been fully investigated yet. At best they're a wish-list of projects. It doesn't show the ESR connection to Bondi Junction or the remnants of the T3 Line from Bankstown to Cabramatta and Lidcombe, where in the latter case, TfNSW is proposing to reinstate the Liverpool via Regents Park service after the metro conversion. Past experience demonstrates that future proposals can change over time, particularly over multiple election cycles.

Then there's the narrow lines showing links from Liverpool to Badgerys Creek, Campbelltown to Appin and Wollongong and the CBD to Mona Vale. What are they supposed to mean? Most likely they are potential rail links subject to further investigation, but you would think that they could have highlighted that. A very shoddy diagram.

[Transtopic]

I think a lot of people forget that there are 2 to 2.5 million people west, NW and SW of Parramatta. That's like a city the size of Perth or Brisbane. That's simply not viable as merely a passive dormitory serving a city way over to the east. The population and geographical centre of Sydney is near Parramatta. Decentralisation of work and other activity in the Sydney basin will continue increasingly into the future. The city of Sydney may not diminish, but western Sydney will only grow. Having a transit system focussed only on the city of Sydney is poor planning.

I agree with you that Western Sydney will continue to grow and Parramatta in particular will become an increasingly important hub for the region. I can't visualize the Western Parklands City centred around Western Sydney Airport and the Aerotropolis ever approaching the same level of concentrated employment and population as Parramatta, let alone the Sydney CBD. As I alluded to earlier, I think that the Western Parklands City is more likely to develop in a similar way to Macquarie Park. Macquarie Park is so spread out that it doesn't have a concentrated CBD structure, whereas Parramatta is more like Sydney with a traditional CBD structure, but on a smaller scale.

I've never suggested that a transit system for the Sydney Region should be solely focused on the CBD. I'm fully supportive of new cross regional links connecting with the major Strategic Centres such as Parramatta. The point I'm trying to convey is that transit links, in whatever form, should continue to connect with the Sydney CBD, as the dominant government, business and cultural hub for the Sydney Region and the State.

[Swift]

There seems to be this persistent "romantic" ideal of whittling down Sydney CBDs importance and giving the "others a go" with this decentralisation garbage.
Other centres can grow without it having to be at Sydney's expense like it's this religious dogma that must be followed. The only reason Gladys and Co Ltd wanted to "give" Parramatta the Powerhouse Museum (now cancelled thank goodness) was to sell off valuable real estate $$$ close to the city, not out of a desire to boost Parra as a new cultural hub.
Sydney's CBD will remain top dog by a long shot.

[Daniel]

To add some further weight - TfNSW’s ‘South East Sydney Transport Strategy’ which was released last week:
https://future.transport.nsw.gov.au/pla ... t-strategy

[grog]

I don’t think anyone is dismissing Sydney CBD’s importance now and in the future. It is just that a vast majority of people working there already take public transport. It just means that growth in PT patronage for the Sydney CBD will be closer to employment growth.

PT patronage growth outside of the CBD could be so much higher with the right network, just because so many people still drive to these locations. It’s about opportunity for mode shift.

[tonyp]

Then there's the narrow lines showing links from Liverpool to Badgerys Creek, Campbelltown to Appin and Wollongong and the CBD to Mona Vale. What are they supposed to mean? Most likely they are potential rail links subject to further investigation, but you would think that they could have highlighted that. A very shoddy diagram.

You need to read the map in the context of the report in which it is located. The thin lines are limited stop high-intensity bus lines where there is not enough demand for a rail line. The lines shown are the existing northern beaches B Line, the proposed Liverpool to Bringelly/WSA line and the existing Campbelltown-Wollongong service. The only drafting errors I can see are that BJ and Frenchs Forest are sitting on their own. The diagram should show the ESR and I believe they intended to show the proposed B LIne from northern beaches via Frenchs Forest to Chatswood.

[tonyp]

To add some further weight - TfNSW’s ‘South East Sydney Transport Strategy’ which was released last week:
https://future.transport.nsw.gov.au/pla ... t-strategy

A rail detail map released by TfNSW today:

[grog]

Then there's the narrow lines showing links from Liverpool to Badgerys Creek, Campbelltown to Appin and Wollongong and the CBD to Mona Vale. What are they supposed to mean? Most likely they are potential rail links subject to further investigation, but you would think that they could have highlighted that. A very shoddy diagram.

You need to read the map in the context of the report in which it is located. The thin lines are limited stop high-intensity bus lines where there is not enough demand for a rail line. The lines shown are the existing northern beaches B Line, the proposed Liverpool to Bringelly/WSA line and the existing Campbelltown-Wollongong service. The only drafting errors I can see are that BJ and Frenchs Forest are sitting on their own. The diagram should show the ESR and I believe they intended to show the proposed B LIne from northern beaches via Frenchs Forest to Chatswood.

It also isn't a 'rail' map, but a 'City Shaping Transport' map. There is also a 'City Serving Transport' map a few pages later which includes CBD to Bondi Junction and Cabramatta to Lidcombe. Most of the rest of the lines on that map are bus or light rail. It is just a reflection of the differing functions of those lines.