ESR - Extension and Woollahra opening

[rtt_rules]

If they do go down the start over route, what will they do with the substation down the Bondi end?

I think this is part of the motivation to build the station is that the power supply for the ESR needs upgrading to handle modern double-deckers** before the new Tangara replacement fleet arrives next decade so I wonder if this is a sort-of two for one deal where they can finally boost the power whilst justifying the disruption and cost by adding a station and a bunch more housing and finally being able to run any of the ST fleet including Tangara replacements.

**separate question is of course whether ESR shouldn't be a Metro line which would be faster, more reliable, more frequent and higher-capacity but anyway this is what they're doing

Part A - station upgrade
If it works it works. Yes do the two projects at the same time to save money.

Part B - Metro
I don't see the value.

- ESR is now going to be just what 5 stations over 8km, what time is realistically expected to be saved?

- More frequent, frequency is driven by the southern part of T4, not ESR as this is already under uterlised.

- High capacity, train capacity is underused now

Overall, I see what you mean, but I don't see the benefit without considering the cost or disruption to do so. Also T4 south needs somewhere to run to so they whole line would need converting which is currently difficult due to the shared use.

I think there was some longterm plan to quad to Sutherland such that Cronulla trains would be physically seperate from Waterfall/SCO/freight. If this was to happen, yes I think Metro the ESR - Cronulla although you still need to deal with Waterfall but TBH this could be pushed onto an improved tiered SCO service.

For now I would prefer a 2 - 3 station extension of the ESR.

[anything_analogous]

Part B - Metro
I don't see the value.

- ESR is now going to be just what 5 stations over 8km, what time is realistically expected to be saved?

- More frequent, frequency is driven by the southern part of T4, not ESR as this is already under uterlised.

- High capacity, train capacity is underused now

Overall, I see what you mean, but I don't see the benefit without considering the cost or disruption to do so. Also T4 south needs somewhere to run to so they whole line would need converting which is currently difficult due to the shared use.

I think there was some longterm plan to quad to Sutherland such that Cronulla trains would be physically seperate from Waterfall/SCO/freight. If this was to happen, yes I think Metro the ESR - Cronulla although you still need to deal with Waterfall but TBH this could be pushed onto an improved tiered SCO service.

For now I would prefer a 2 - 3 station extension of the ESR.

Yeah to be clear I wasn't suggesting to just do the bare minimum to smash through a Metro conversion and leave the thing out to dry - I mean a considered approach that would incorperate or even necessitate the elements you named, and I was clear to say that there is a case for it not that it was cut and dry, but the benefits are clear imo. Yes you need:

-some form of additional track pair between Hurstville and Sutherland, whether it be quadding the legacy line or a new fast express tunnel to get South Coast trains running faster and smoother but you still have an issue with freight

-unlocking the future extension from BJ further east/SE to capture more ridership and unlock development, in which case time savings unlocked by Metro begin to add up more and the more capable model of single-deck with more ability to handle tight spacing and twists and turns means extension can be more tailored to the physical and developmental needs of the corridor.

-benefits to Metrofication aren't just for those five stations between TH-BJ, they add up all the way down the Illawarra line too. Frequency is needed along the whole Illa to Eastern Suburbs corridor, we can't consider the ESR in isolation.

[rtt_rules]

Yeah to be clear I wasn't suggesting to just do the bare minimum to smash through a Metro conversion and leave the thing out to dry - I mean a considered approach that would incorperate or even necessitate the elements you named, and I was clear to say that there is a case for it not that it was cut and dry, but the benefits are clear imo. Yes you need:

-some form of additional track pair between Hurstville and Sutherland, whether it be quadding the legacy line or a new fast express tunnel to get South Coast trains running faster and smoother but you still have an issue with freight

-unlocking the future extension from BJ further east/SE to capture more ridership and unlock development, in which case time savings unlocked by Metro begin to add up more and the more capable model of single-deck with more ability to handle tight spacing and twists and turns means extension can be more tailored to the physical and developmental needs of the corridor.

-benefits to Metrofication aren't just for those five stations between TH-BJ, they add up all the way down the Illawarra line too. Frequency is needed along the whole Illa to Eastern Suburbs corridor, we can't consider the ESR in isolation.

Ok, understood, yes there is more benefit on the south side than the east.

I believe, SCO and freight will share the same corridor. The SCO traffic isn't sufficent enough to justify a tunnel it would be the Metro.

Option of following the legacy route is that it makes it easy to use common resources and service the full Cronulla branch.

Option of a new more direct tunnel is that it brings in new to rail options, more direct but then by-passes 1/3 of the Cronulla branch so what do you do then? This si why It hink the option of a Metro terminating at Miranda was on the table. But could the Metro come to Miranda then take the existing corridor to Cronulla. Carinbah is straight platforms, but Woolaware station would need relocation, TBH a short tunnel to enable the line to be straight and a station under the "The Kingsway". The cost would be partly offset by a signifcant amount of realestate being released through the 40 to 60 m wide ROW corridor that is over 700 m long.

As for Kirawee and Gymea, maybe leave the existing line to Miranda station and then run a lower frequency service or yet another shuttle? Or Metro spilts and runs both to Sutherland and Cronulla. The Miranda line would join the existing line at Kogarah and then use the eastern pair of tracks through to BJ.

The ESR, yes a number of options, I personally favour a Y junction with about a 4km, two station branch on either side to Bondi Beach and Nth Bondi for NE branch and Bronte and Coogee for SE branch.

So all up

- ESR extended x 2 for 4km and 4 or 5 new stations
- 9.3 km tunnel from Kogarah to Miranda with 3 new stations and new Miranda station
- Rebuild the Cronulla branch to Metro as a Y with a new station at Woolaware

Then run 30 trains per hour up the core in a faster timetable than now.

SCO has a passing loop from Kogarah to Hurtsville to pass the suburbans to Waterfall.

[anything_analogous]

I believe, SCO and freight will share the same corridor. The SCO traffic isn't sufficent enough to justify a tunnel it would be the Metro.

Option of following the legacy route is that it makes it easy to use common resources and service the full Cronulla branch.

Option of a new more direct tunnel is that it brings in new to rail options, more direct but then by-passes 1/3 of the Cronulla branch so what do you do then? This si why It hink the option of a Metro terminating at Miranda was on the table. But could the Metro come to Miranda then take the existing corridor to Cronulla. Carinbah is straight platforms, but Woolaware station would need relocation, TBH a short tunnel to enable the line to be straight and a station under the "The Kingsway". The cost would be partly offset by a signifcant amount of realestate being released through the 40 to 60 m wide ROW corridor that is over 700 m long.

As for Kirawee and Gymea, maybe leave the existing line to Miranda station and then run a lower frequency service or yet another shuttle? Or Metro spilts and runs both to Sutherland and Cronulla. The Miranda line would join the existing line at Kogarah and then use the eastern pair of tracks through to BJ.

The ESR, yes a number of options, I personally favour a Y junction with about a 4km, two station branch on either side to Bondi Beach and Nth Bondi for NE branch and Bronte and Coogee for SE branch.

So all up

- ESR extended x 2 for 4km and 4 or 5 new stations
- 9.3 km tunnel from Kogarah to Miranda with 3 new stations and new Miranda station
- Rebuild the Cronulla branch to Metro as a Y with a new station at Woolaware

Then run 30 trains per hour up the core in a faster timetable than now.

SCO has a passing loop from Kogarah to Hurtsville to pass the suburbans to Waterfall.

SCO doesn't have enough traffic on its own to justify a Kogarah-Sutherland tunnel in the near future, but in combination with:
-ETCS
-a Thirroul express tunnel
-a proper Wollongong local suburban service
-the River Metro linking Kogarah to Parramatta via T8 Kingsgrove, M1 Bankstown and T3 Sefton

it might. This would bring your triptimes down and reliability up, you would be offering better frequency and could offer a bunch more TOD in a very attractive area. Currently a lot of potential SCO riders just drive up to Sutherland and get whatever train they can from there due to the poor frequency, slow triptime and unreliable service. I don't know for certain, but given the figure that was released in those leaked documents last year indicated quadding the T4 to Sutherland would be the best part of 8-10bn dollarydoos I am inclined to think we should look at other options, we are pretty good at tunneling now. Whether that be something similar to the plans you have outlined I don't know. I think regardless their proposed River Line from Miranda-Kogarah-Parramatta

The Bankstown conversion has been pretty disasterous, dunno what it means for future conversions, especially since they are already going down the route of ETCS Lvl2 for the ESR-Illa corridor now anyway plus infilling another 1970s station design. But I know the final product would be vastly better.

What do you mean by "ESR extended x2" by the way? I still think the 1970s alignment to Kingsgrove is the preferred option for me, could potentially then continue elevated or in trench along the Anzac Parade median to Maroubra and send Metro West somewhere else:
-Airport Line Tunnel conversion? Newer line than Bankstown and we have seen ECRL conversion was easier.
-Elevated over Southern Cross Drive to KSAirport and Sydenham, maybe potentially with a branch to Pagewood and Matraville?

-

[Transtopic]

Quadding T4 from Hurstville to Sutherland is the best option by a country mile. It completes a separate sector running ATO in an all stations pattern without any crossover. At up to 24tph, why do you need to convert it to metro? The difference in journey time would also be minimal. I doubt if a cost/benefit analysis would stack up in favour of metro conversion with the inherent disruption to existing services. They'll also be getting the new DD trains which are far more comfortable with double the number of seats. I can't see any government doing more metro conversions, as distinct from new lines, and from what I can see, none are proposed.

An ESR extension from Bondi Junction should run to Rose Bay via Bondi Rd, Bondi Beach and North Bondi.

[rtt_rules]

SCO doesn't have enough traffic on its own to justify a Kogarah-Sutherland tunnel in the near future, but in combination with:
-ETCS
-a Thirroul express tunnel
-a proper Wollongong local suburban service
-the River Metro linking Kogarah to Parramatta via T8 Kingsgrove, M1 Bankstown and T3 Sefton

it might. This would bring your triptimes down and reliability up, you would be offering better frequency and could offer a bunch more TOD in a very attractive area. Currently a lot of potential SCO riders just drive up to Sutherland and get whatever train they can from there due to the poor frequency, slow triptime and unreliable service. I don't know for certain, but given the figure that was released in those leaked documents last year indicated quadding the T4 to Sutherland would be the best part of 8-10bn dollarydoos I am inclined to think we should look at other options, we are pretty good at tunneling now. Whether that be something similar to the plans you have outlined I don't know. I think regardless their proposed River Line from Miranda-Kogarah-Parramatta

The Bankstown conversion has been pretty disasterous, dunno what it means for future conversions, especially since they are already going down the route of ETCS Lvl2 for the ESR-Illa corridor now anyway plus infilling another 1970s station design. But I know the final product would be vastly better.

What do you mean by "ESR extended x2" by the way? I still think the 1970s alignment to Kingsgrove is the preferred option for me, could potentially then continue elevated or in trench along the Anzac Parade median to Maroubra and send Metro West somewhere else:
-Airport Line Tunnel conversion? Newer line than Bankstown and we have seen ECRL conversion was easier.
-Elevated over Southern Cross Drive to KSAirport and Sydenham, maybe potentially with a branch to Pagewood and Matraville?

I think a proper SCO suburban is ideal and it does seem a bit weird like currently to have a local suburban on SCO to only terminate to meet the T4 suburbans, it would make sense of the SCO suburban had toilets, but....

I think the Bankstown conversion project review and lessons learnt excercise which most reasonable organisations always undertake at the end of any major project is going to highlight extensive mismanagement at govt interference. Whether the mismanagement is at govt level or contractor or both will be for other to decide as none of the work was technically or logistically complex especially as most of its been done on the rest of the network at various places over the last few years and other legacy networks like NYC subway.

Regardless I personally don't see the T4 being metrofied as its not part of any other major new to rail project like M1.

Its barely 10km by rail from Hurtsville to Sutherland or 8km as the crow flys. I'm not sure how they can come up with a $1B/km quadding figure.

Penhurst station to Mortadale station is going to involve alot of propertys to be brought and demolished. However the amount of actual land required isn't huge and the remaining land could then be resold and denisifed. South of Mortdale there is the original alignment, but that would get politically messy. River crossing needs a new bridge, but south to Sutherland there is sufficent room in the ROW.

But again, if you are going to spend so much money which is on par per km as Metro West, then why not tunnel from say south Carlton station to just north of Sutherland and drop in a 1-2 new to rail stations to repeat what they are going to be doing at Woollahra, ie create islands of medium rise buildings in say a 500 m radius around each new station.

The new tunnel would then be used by Cronulla services and maybe SCO?

[anything_analogous]

Quadding T4 from Hurstville to Sutherland is the best option by a country mile. It completes a separate sector running ATO in an all stations pattern without any crossover.

If it were cheap and easy and a fast alignment, then maybe. At $8-10bn (so around a billion per kilometer) with
-no new station catchments added/possible
-several road bridge modification/replacement works needed
-locking in sub-115kmh curves all over the place
-an additional Como Bridge structure (NIMBY battle ahead?) needed
-potential major protracted Illawarra stations/line closures

I don't think it is "the best option by a country mile". It might still be the better option, I didn't say definitively that it wasn't.

At up to 24tph, why do you need to convert it to metro? The difference in journey time would also be minimal. I doubt if a cost/benefit analysis would stack up in favour of metro conversion with the inherent disruption to existing services.

-cheaper to run at high frequency
-has a positive reputation with the public
-needs no drivers let alone guards so no staff needing repositioning during disruptions
-staff base generally need less training
-disruptions dealt with faster due to more flexible routing (granted ETCS might have advanced to match this by the time of implementation)
-PSDs as standard
-average speed improvements would still likely be double-digit%

The cost-ben analysis might still turn up unfavourable that's true, I simply don't know. Existing services wouldn't see thaaaaat much interruption, I would only be suggesting doing it once you have quadded Kogarah-Sutherland so SCO would be running faster than today anyway and with ETCS running 24tph even all-stoppers on one track pair would be fairly competitive with today's environment.

They'll also be getting the new DD trains which are far more comfortable with double the number of seats.

Seats per hour across the corridor is the important stat not really the number of seats per individual train, and there are outstanding questionmarks over whether Sydney Trains or any double-deck system can reliably run 24tph under full line loading (please don't come with RER and its bifurcated platforms and 3-door rolling stock and the RATP actually knows how to run a frequent service with serious loading). Note that 36tph using Metro trains with 513 seats is 18.4k per hour per direction where 24tph using DD trains with 894 seats is 21.4k per hour per direction so it isn't that different. If they can only reliably get 22tph DDs through then the seats drops to 19.6k. Also ~18% of those additional seats in our DDs are middle seats which people don't like, and also another maybe ~10% in our DDs are longitudinal seats too same as Metro trains so how are these more comfortable? Alot of us favour getting somewhere faster in our "more comfortable" equation, same as not having to hear "you could be fined for placing your feet on the seats" over and over interjected only by some bored guard announcing everything for a second time after the automatic announcement

[Transtopic]

They'll also be getting the new DD trains which are far more comfortable with double the number of seats.

Seats per hour across the corridor is the important stat not really the number of seats per individual train, and there are outstanding questionmarks over whether Sydney Trains or any double-deck system can reliably run 24tph under full line loading (please don't come with RER and its bifurcated platforms and 3-door rolling stock and the RATP actually knows how to run a frequent service with serious loading). Note that 36tph using Metro trains with 513 seats is 18.4k per hour per direction where 24tph using DD trains with 894 seats is 21.4k per hour per direction so it isn't that different. If they can only reliably get 22tph DDs through then the seats drops to 19.6k. Also ~18% of those additional seats in our DDs are middle seats which people don't like, and also another maybe ~10% in our DDs are longitudinal seats too same as Metro trains so how are these more comfortable? Alot of us favour getting somewhere faster in our "more comfortable" equation, same as not having to hear "you could be fined for placing your feet on the seats" over and over interjected only by some bored guard announcing everything for a second time after the automatic announcement

My reference with regard to the number of seats was on the basis of an equivalent number of journeys up to 24tph. It is extremely unlikely that an upgraded T4 with ETCS - L2 and ATO will ever need more than that, especially as the ESR already operates under capacity with 18tph which includes 3 x SCO services. Under the new scenario, SCO and T4 Waterfall services will run direct to Sydney Terminal There's a snow flakes chance in hell that a 36tph metro services would ever be needed just to equate with the number of seats, when it would grossly overstate the total overall capacity needed. Remember also, that every station on the upgraded T4 from Cronulla to Bondi Junction would receive 24tph in the peak, whereas many only currently receive 6tph or less.

There are no question marks over whether the Sydney Trains DD system could operate reliably at 24tph with the ETCS and ATO upgrades. We're not talking about the system as it exists with the current signalling. They're chalk and cheese. It also allows for 30tph to recover from incidents. Even RER is upgrading its signalling. The lower frequency compared with the metro reflects its longer dwell times, but how many of the metro lines are actually going to warrant 30tph or more? Contracts have now been awarded for the next tranche of the Digital Systems upgrades on the T1 North Shore Line from Town Hall to Hornsby.

To convert T4 to driverless metro would require a much longer and more expensive shutdown than the Bankstown Line conversion which would be politically untenable. It's not needed anyway when there is an alternative available, at far less expense and disruption, to provide an equivalent level of service.

[Rails]

If it were cheap and easy and a fast alignment, then maybe. At $8-10bn (so around a billion per kilometer) with
-no new station catchments added/possible
-several road bridge modification/replacement works needed
-locking in sub-115kmh curves all over the place
-an additional Como Bridge structure (NIMBY battle ahead?) needed
-potential major protracted Illawarra stations/line closures

Good post. I have the same concerns for the Hurstville to Sutherland quad you have raised. It's a big number to complete this quad. That's even ignoring cost blow outs. I think the extension is a good thing, but in reality the amount of people it will service is low. We can't discount that the money may be better spent on removing freight from the corridor altogether and seperating out Hurstville to the ESR where a large percentage of the passengers actually come from vs Waterfall and even the SCO, especially without upgrades there too. I guess that's what a business case is for.

I will also be interested to see if they can reliably run 24 TPH DD through the City sections as the recent leaked plans show. A knowledgeable poster on another forum I don't use any more said it was an issue they were having with the T4 testing. Suggested it wasn't possible. SD may have better luck with it's door configuration/ lack of stairs. In fact previous Government documents show it was meant to be able to run 30 TPH like the Metro (but we all know the Metro can run a much higher number if they want it to).

1000000604.png

However, the new Government has committed to DD it seems. So, unless those trains are redeployed elsewhere and a new fleet purchased for T4, that's the choice. Also possible if you split T4 of course.

[tonyp]

That's a very emphatic statement that doible deck can't perform as well as single deck.

[rtt_rules]

Good post. I have the same concerns for the Hurstville to Sutherland quad you have raised. It's a big number to complete this quad. That's even ignoring cost blow outs. I think the extension is a good thing, but in reality the amount of people it will service is low. We can't discount that the money may be better spent on removing freight from the corridor altogether and seperating out Hurstville to the ESR where a large percentage of the passengers actually come from vs Waterfall and even the SCO, especially without upgrades there too. I guess that's what a business case is for.

I will also be interested to see if they can reliably run 24 TPH DD through the City sections as the recent leaked plans show. A knowledgeable poster on another forum I don't use any more said it was an issue they were having with the T4 testing. Suggested it wasn't possible. SD may have better luck with it's door configuration/ lack of stairs. In fact previous Government documents show it was meant to be able to run 30 TPH like the Metro (but we all know the Metro can run a much higher number if they want it to).

1000000604.png


However, the new Government has committed to DD it seems. So, unless those trains are redeployed elsewhere and a new fleet purchased for T4, that's the choice. Also possible if you split T4 of course.

Just because we don't have SD's now for ESR-Cronulla doesn't mean we are locked in. The need for SD's is mostly linked to completing the quad, this won't happen this side of 2033 and once the project starts will take the best part of 3 - 4 years to complete. This could easily be aligned with the purchase of a SD fleet to operate on it and regardless as it won't be a full Metro, but rather Metro light then the Metro light uterlising the ST saef working system would likely be compatible for DD operations, at least intially. 24 / 30 t/h capacity won't be required until some time in the future, not next 10 years.

The ESR corridor through the city does not have the all same issues as the city circle and T1 with one major exception, narrow Town Hall station platforms. So yes if there is a large amount of changing of trains at Town Hall then this will be a challenge but ESR is used by T1 and others to access Martin Place. Maybe less getting off, but likely lots getting off.

Considering the low levels of freight, I do not see a huge amount of money being spent for a SCOFL, although it could be better accommadated with a few passing lanes where the surrounding ROW is friendly to do so, which north of Sutherland maybe a challenge.

[Rails]

Just because we don't have SD's now for ESR-Cronulla doesn't mean we are locked in. The need for SD's is mostly linked to completing the quad, this won't happen this side of 2033 and once the project starts will take the best part of 3 - 4 years to complete. This could easily be aligned with the purchase of a SD fleet to operate on it and regardless as it won't be a full Metro, but rather Metro light then the Metro light uterlising the ST saef working system would likely be compatible for DD operations, at least intially. 24 / 30 t/h capacity won't be required until some time in the future, not next 10 years.

The ESR corridor through the city does not have the all same issues as the city circle and T1 with one major exception, narrow Town Hall station platforms. So yes if there is a large amount of changing of trains at Town Hall then this will be a challenge but ESR is used by T1 and others to access Martin Place. Maybe less getting off, but likely lots getting off.

Considering the low levels of freight, I do not see a huge amount of money being spent for a SCOFL, although it could be better accommadated with a few passing lanes where the surrounding ROW is friendly to do so, which north of Sutherland maybe a challenge.

My understanding is that along with the Tangara upgrade program, the current Government have begun the fleet replacement for T4 program and contracts. In line with their Aussie made trains election commitments, they are purchasing the same style DD trains we have now. Can this be changed, I couldn't say.

By removing freight from T4, I meant invest in the Maldon Dombarton freight line. Connecting the port to the existing freight network via the Campbelltown region rather than Sydenham. Something the Feds may pay for, rather than relying on the state Government.

[rtt_rules]

My understanding is that along with the Tangara upgrade program, the current Government have begun the fleet replacement for T4 program and contracts. In line with their Aussie made trains election commitments, they are purchasing the same style DD trains we have now. Can this be changed, I couldn't say.

By removing freight from T4, I meant invest in the Maldon Dombarton freight line. Connecting the port to the existing freight network via the Campbelltown region rather than Sydenham. Something the Feds may pay for, rather than relying on the state Government.

Yes, but again we are not talking now, we are talking future when the quad is done, likely not complete prior to mid 2030's and by then purchasing addditional rolling stock in SD format isn't an issue as network growth will accomdate additional cars. The M sets are due for replacement around 2040.

Also you are not going to compromise a major project for ever like the quad of ESR - Cronulla segregated / sectorised line because of existing rolling stock that is approaching end of life. Just order the stock as needed for the project and move the DD's into other parts of the network and boost frequency. There are other major projects to increase frequency such as digital signally and other growth related projects that can absorb these trains.

Assume a 150 min round trip with a train every 4 min with spares is 40 sets x 8 cars = 320 cars, 400 cars for 3 min schedule.

And yes, these trains can and should be made in Australia/NSW and its a poor excuse not to do otherwise. Also potentially issuing the same contract to the Tanagara replacement program contractor could easily negoiate to have some of the new fleet converted to SD and extended as required.

I believe Tony posted that one of the govts tried to get the private sector to build the DM line, but got nothing and not surprising as who would invest in below rail infrastructure with a pro-road govt. Look at all the past failures for privatisaion of below rail projects.

[Rails]

My understanding is that along with the Tangara upgrade program, the current Government have begun the fleet replacement for T4 program and contracts. In line with their Aussie made trains election commitments, they are purchasing the same style DD trains we have now. Can this be changed, I couldn't say.

By removing freight from T4, I meant invest in the Maldon Dombarton freight line. Connecting the port to the existing freight network via the Campbelltown region rather than Sydenham. Something the Feds may pay for, rather than relying on the state Government.

Yes, but again we are not talking now, we are talking future when the quad is done, likely not complete prior to mid 2030's and by then purchasing addditional rolling stock in SD format isn't an issue as network growth will accomdate additional cars. The M sets are due for replacement around 2040.

Also you are not going to compromise a major project for ever like the quad of ESR - Cronulla segregated / sectorised line because of existing rolling stock that is approaching end of life. Just order the stock as needed for the project and move the DD's into other parts of the network and boost frequency. There are other major projects to increase frequency such as digital signally and other growth related projects that can absorb these trains.

Assume a 150 min round trip with a train every 4 min with spares is 40 sets x 8 cars = 320 cars, 400 cars for 3 min schedule.

And yes, these trains can and should be made in Australia/NSW and its a poor excuse not to do otherwise. Also potentially issuing the same contract to the Tanagara replacement program contractor could easily negoiate to have some of the new fleet converted to SD and extended as required.

I believe Tony posted that one of the govts tried to get the private sector to build the DM line, but got nothing and not surprising as who would invest in below rail infrastructure with a pro-road govt. Look at all the past failures for privatisaion of below rail projects.

The new T4 trains are for the 2030s. The refurbished Tangara trains are for now (and up to 10 years from memory). So, rather than the quad with a Single Deck fleet as discussed in the transport planning documents,, the new Government is purchasing DD and leaving T4 as is with new signalling. The 24 TPH number is for DD,. SD is 30 TPH. The quad is not committed to, but of course you can still build it later and run DD to Cronulla. Or as I said, send the DD elsewhere on the network.

I said that about the Maldon Dombarton. It was the private sector who weren't interested. Different time though, and I'm talking about the Feds paying this time. Freight aligns well with Federal funding, especially now that we have the push to link freight to SW Sydney / WSA area with the Western Sydney freight line.

[rtt_rules]

The new T4 trains are for the 2030s. The refurbished Tangara trains are for now (and up to 10 years from memory). So, rather than the quad with a Single Deck fleet as discussed in the transport planning documents,, the new Government is purchasing DD and leaving T4 as is with new signalling. The 24 TPH number is for DD,. SD is 30 TPH. The quad is not committed to, but of course you can still build it later and run DD to Cronulla. Or as I said, send the DD elsewhere on the network.

I said that about the Maldon Dombarton. It was the private sector who weren't interested. Different time though, and I'm talking about the Feds paying this time. Freight aligns well with Federal funding, especially now that we have the push to link freight to SW Sydney / WSA area with the Western Sydney freight line.

The Future Fleet Replacement program is for the whole fleet with the intention to build locally and can easily be modfied / extended to cover a SD fleet requirement should the quad project proceed and proceed as a physically seperated operation optmised to SD.

For many years I've been saying the Sydney trains fleet is large enough to have continous production of DD and now SD sets built at a govt own factory but tendered out for 10 + 5 year contracts using the same design with a revamp for every new contract to allow for new technology and design rules. Production rates may vary slightly to account for fleet retiremet peaks etc but would be largely the same rate and never stop.

The SD sets to be used on the T4 line would be built to a similar profile, ie car length, width, bogie position, 1500 VDC, door position and safe working. its just the cabin and seating arrangement that has changed. The traction, mechanical and electrical systems would also be largely the same to reduce spares between SD and DD fleets

The metro fleet will at one point need expanding at one point and replacing and should be an extension of the program.

For now I believe only further purchases of the R sets should be imported due to small order sizes.

[Transtopic]

That's a very emphatic statement that doible deck can't perform as well as single deck.

That's true in terms of frequency over 24tph, but when is 30tph or more ever likely to be needed on lines such as T4. I suggest that there would be minimal difference in journey times with the ETCS - L2 and ATO upgrading. I agree that new lines should be metro, but on a cost/benefit analysis, it's not worth it when you consider the cost and disruption with lengthy shutdowns in converting existing lines. No further conversions are proposed and for good reason.

[Transtopic]

The Future Fleet Replacement program is based on a long term DD design, so that's what we can expect for the foreseeable future. Changing to a SD design down the track would be starting the process all over again.

On T4 including the ESR, they have decided to stick with DD for whatever reason and the first tranche will be allocated to T4 as replacement for the Tangaras which will be phased out over the next decade. TBH, I don't think it will make much difference in terms of frequency and journey times compared with SD. A few minutes perhaps.

[Rails]

The new T4 trains are for the 2030s. The refurbished Tangara trains are for now (and up to 10 years from memory). So, rather than the quad with a Single Deck fleet as discussed in the transport planning documents,, the new Government is purchasing DD and leaving T4 as is with new signalling. The 24 TPH number is for DD,. SD is 30 TPH. The quad is not committed to, but of course you can still build it later and run DD to Cronulla. Or as I said, send the DD elsewhere on the network.

I said that about the Maldon Dombarton. It was the private sector who weren't interested. Different time though, and I'm talking about the Feds paying this time. Freight aligns well with Federal funding, especially now that we have the push to link freight to SW Sydney / WSA area with the Western Sydney freight line.

The Future Fleet Replacement program is for the whole fleet with the intention to build locally and can easily be modfied / extended to cover a SD fleet requirement should the quad project proceed and proceed as a physically seperated operation optmised to SD.

For many years I've been saying the Sydney trains fleet is large enough to have continous production of DD and now SD sets built at a govt own factory but tendered out for 10 + 5 year contracts using the same design with a revamp for every new contract to allow for new technology and design rules. Production rates may vary slightly to account for fleet retiremet peaks etc but would be largely the same rate and never stop.

The SD sets to be used on the T4 line would be built to a similar profile, ie car length, width, bogie position, 1500 VDC, door position and safe working. its just the cabin and seating arrangement that has changed. The traction, mechanical and electrical systems would also be largely the same to reduce spares between SD and DD fleets

The metro fleet will at one point need expanding at one point and replacing and should be an extension of the program.

For now I believe only further purchases of the R sets should be imported due to small order sizes.

I don't think you can just change from DD to SD. As I said, it appears the choice for the new fleet has been made. There's no commitment to the quad. The best we can hope for is that they can deliver that 24 TPH figure. I think that's enough capacity for this line in its current form. I would only agitate for change if extending off the ESR. If so, just split out the Hurstville to ESR section and create a new sector with its own SD trains.

[rtt_rules]

RE: Airport line connection to T3 City circle connection. Yes after doing some digging the Airport line currently cannot connect to the city loop currently feeding T3, although anything is possible, just takes money.

RE : comment about the heritage listing of the fly overs, the airport line project connection to the fly overs already indicates some modifications can be undertaken, but I would suspect wholesale destruction is out.

Re: SD, the DD order could easily be ammended to convert some of the planned DD's to SD, I didn't say all. Its called a prject variation and happens all the time and the L2/L3 project was full of them. Also the first new DD's maybe bound for T4, however should a major project such as the Quad be undertaken the existing fleet is not an impost to the potential outcome of the project as they would simply be moved to another part of the network which has happened multiple times over the last few decades.

ie older suburban DD sets placed on IU routes and then kicked off by H sets which have then been kicked off by D sets. T sets moved from other parts of the network to the T4, DD -> Metro etc etc.

The D set procurement program required infrstructure upgrade of the Mt Vic to Lithgow section, so no reason a infratructure program cannot justify changes to rolling stock to maximise on the project outcome.

[rtt_rules]

I don't think you can just change from DD to SD. As I said, it appears the choice for the new fleet has been made. There's no commitment to the quad. The best we can hope for is that they can deliver that 24 TPH figure. I think that's enough capacity for this line in its current form. I would only agitate for change if extending off the ESR. If so, just split out the Hurstville to ESR section and create a new sector with its own SD trains.

Note enough traffic to justify Hurtsville to ESR on its own, needs to be extended to Cronulla to be viable.

[Oldfart]

RE: Airport line connection to T3 City circle connection. Yes after doing some digging the Airport line currently cannot connect to the city loop currently feeding T3, although anything is possible, just takes money.

RE : comment about the heritage listing of the fly overs, the airport line project connection to the fly overs already indicates some modifications can be undertaken, but I would suspect wholesale destruction is out.

Re: SD, the DD order could easily be ammended to convert some of the planned DD's to SD, I didn't say all. Its called a prject variation and happens all the time and the L2/L3 project was full of them.

Thanks for that info. Much appreciated.

Re: SD vs DD on ESR, I suspect SDs might have have a slight advantage with acceleration between closer gapped stations, but probably not enough to matter that much, at least initially. While I’m a fan of metros, the ESR looks to me to be best dealt with by ETCS Level 2 with ATO. I assume that could be done stages if needed, e.g. Level 2 only between Bondi Junction and Sydenham, or Hurstville, initially.

Something like the proposed new T2 between Revesby and Homebush via SYD airport and the CC probably has a stronger case for SDs, given the number of people with travel luggage, with ETCS Level 2 with ATO throughout, and maybe platform screen doors in selected locations.

Feel free to question or correct anything there.

[Transtopic]

RE: Airport line connection to T3 City circle connection. Yes after doing some digging the Airport line currently cannot connect to the city loop currently feeding T3, although anything is possible, just takes money.

RE : comment about the heritage listing of the fly overs, the airport line project connection to the fly overs already indicates some modifications can be undertaken, but I would suspect wholesale destruction is out.

Re: SD, the DD order could easily be ammended to convert some of the planned DD's to SD, I didn't say all. Its called a prject variation and happens all the time and the L2/L3 project was full of them.

Thanks for that info. Much appreciated.

Re: SD vs DD on ESR, I suspect SDs might have have a slight advantage with acceleration between closer gapped stations, but probably not enough to matter that much, at least initially. While I’m a fan of metros, the ESR looks to me to be best dealt with by ETCS Level 2 with ATO. I assume that could be done stages if needed, e.g. Level 2 only between Bondi Junction and Sydenham, or Hurstville, initially.

Something like the proposed new T2 between Revesby and Homebush via SYD airport and the CC probably has a stronger case for SDs, given the number of people with travel luggage, with ETCS Level 2 with ATO throughout, and maybe platform screen doors in selected locations.

Feel free to question or correct anything there.

ETCS - Level 2 has already been completed on the ESR from Erskineville to Bondi Junction and on the Cronulla Line from Sutherland to Cronulla, but as far as I know, it's not yet operational. North Shore Line's next. The whole of the electrified network including Intercity lines will eventually be upgraded. Current policy is for an all DD fleet replacement.

Putting aside the future network strategy, this was the operating plan proposed by the previous government after the Bankstown Line conversion is completed. It is based on the current signalling. I don't expect it to change much, if at all, under the current government.

[rtt_rules]

Something like the proposed new T2 between Revesby and Homebush via SYD airport and the CC probably has a stronger case for SDs, given the number of people with travel luggage, with ETCS Level 2 with ATO throughout, and maybe platform screen doors in selected locations.

Yes, this would make more sense, although again I would prefer the quad extended south to East Hills and remove these extra stops from T8.

T8 has this weird arrangement going on which I'm sure is about using T8 to off-set the lack of Revesby starters which means capacity on T8 is being used for East Hills line.

ie
in peak
- T8 via airport stops at Patsow and Riverwood only (2 stops)?
- T8 via Sydneham East Hills to Revesby (3 stops)
- T8 via Sydneham Revesby only (1 stop)

off peak its the East Hills to Revesby (3 stops) via Airport

Considering the speed of the track through the outer part of the East Hills line these stops cost T8 around or over 60 sec each, vs 30 sec for slower sections of track. Its like lets take one of the best parts of the network for consistent high track speed and likely capable of higher (signally driven?) and throw a noose around its neck.

Post Bankstown opening the Sydneham starter is to be moved to someone else further out, cannot remember, someone mentioned it here.

So ideally extend the quad and get T8 to stop once, EH or Revesby but Revesby has much larger patronage and job done.

The extra capacity on the EH line provided by additional services means and acknowleding that many Leppington line users likely change traisn at Glenfield anyway means we now likely have more capacity for Leppington without actually increasing the number of trains by more than a few?

The number of airport station users will no doubt increase by alot once the airport premium fare is removed once the stations are handed over to the state in 2030. This would certainly justify more focus on catering for airport users.

[Rails]

RE: Airport line connection to T3 City circle connection. Yes after doing some digging the Airport line currently cannot connect to the city loop currently feeding T3, although anything is possible, just takes money.

RE : comment about the heritage listing of the fly overs, the airport line project connection to the fly overs already indicates some modifications can be undertaken, but I would suspect wholesale destruction is out.

Re: SD, the DD order could easily be ammended to convert some of the planned DD's to SD, I didn't say all. Its called a prject variation and happens all the time and the L2/L3 project was full of them. Also the first new DD's maybe bound for T4, however should a major project such as the Quad be undertaken the existing fleet is not an impost to the potential outcome of the project as they would simply be moved to another part of the network which has happened multiple times over the last few decades.

ie older suburban DD sets placed on IU routes and then kicked off by H sets which have then been kicked off by D sets. T sets moved from other parts of the network to the T4, DD -> Metro etc etc.

The D set procurement program required infrstructure upgrade of the Mt Vic to Lithgow section, so no reason a infratructure program cannot justify changes to rolling stock to maximise on the project outcome.

I'll reply to your post about the flyovers back in the other thread. I will add, I'm pretty sure you can't sign a contract for locally built DD and then half way through just say, actually, can you switch some of those to SD please. But as I said originally, you could instead move those DD to other lines for growth and buy off the shelf SD from overseas that arrive much faster.

[rtt_rules]

I'll reply to your post about the flyovers back in the other thread. I will add, I'm pretty sure you can't sign a contract for locally built DD and then half way through just say, actually, can you switch some of those to SD please. But as I said originally, you could instead move those DD to other lines for growth and buy off the shelf SD from overseas that arrive much faster.

You can, its called a project variation order, it will include any finacial implications to either party and works required or not required.

During all the major rail projects for the city over last few years, ie L2/L3, M1 city etc, all included changes to project scope post contract signing or variation orders.

For example in 2015 we went out for tender to modernise potline 1 and 3 (same technology to same modern technology). However during the intial parts of Potline 1 portion of project metal prices dropped. So Potline 3 upgrade was changed to a take out price and we subsequently took it out.

So venders were requested how much to do Potline 1 on its own and they modified their bids accordingly and we agreed. So clearly project over heads barely changes as mobilisation and demobilisation of the work force is more expensive than keeping them on the pay roll for 18mth.

However as the entire industry later slowed down prior to potline being completed we asked venders to offer Potline 3 at a revised cost and we got potline 3 moderisation bid for 25 - 35% less than original because the whole industry slowed down venders bid projects costs with little or no profit to keep their respective cash flows going.

For SD, the govt simply says we want to convert say 400 of the 2000 DD's to say 480 SD's (example here), but retain as much common componentry as possible. The variation order will include the design costs for the SD, change construction cost and increase in numbers.

Remember in the tram thread, Tony indicated that the last of the R(x) trams for Sydney being built by ??? was cancelled because they were late and because the govt realised it didn't want them. The delay's may have trigged a no penalty clause.

However for the former Bombarton to Maldon project, the Griener govt had to cover all vender profits and other early termination costs ie demobilisation, compensation to employees and sub contractors for contracts signed and materials supplied or in manufacture and penalty's which once it was all added up cost more than actually building the line. The govt could afford that so easy.

For the AMC magensium project in Qld, the govt went broke mid construction due to failing to meet bank requirements prior to bank money being released. So many venders and sub contractors got nothing.