Possible Metro and Rail Network Changes

[Oldfart]

For what it's worth, it's proposed to construct a third station box for HSR at the WSI Terminal.

If the HSR or Metro West extension don't proceed, an alternative rail link with the CBD is the SWRL extension and the East Hills Line express tracks which are capable of 160km/h with the upgraded signalling. Send them to Sydney Terminal and the T8 services via the Airport Line, which is what is immediately proposed.

Hey, great piece of artwork there. Shows the second terminal and the cross-connection to the terminals on the other side of the airport, additional parking levels, and buildings (presumably including the new Commend Centre for Federal Police, Border Force, etc.).

The terminal extension running north east will actually also have boarding from the ‘back side” of the terminal for smaller aircraft. The big boarding pier gates can actually accommodate a single wide body jet or two single aisle (737 size) domestic jets, but the latter is not shown.

Things to look out for:

1 - There are only two rail corridors running in under Elizabeth Drive and into the Business Park and Terminals area. If you are proposing a third line you would need to indicate where it could fit. (Refer online to the full expansion shown on “WSI Airport Site layout 82 MAP”)

2- The first Metro Line (under construction) is to knit the Western Suburbs to the north (Penrith to Parramatta) with those in the South West, via the airport, and help facilitate jobs and residential development throughout that area. It’s not designed for transporting people to the harbour/CBD, as most airport users will be from Western Sydney, but it will start with one transfer point (St Marys) and end up later with four to various Sydney Train lines. Essentially it will be able transfer passengers to lines to more distant locations, BUT serving the Western Suburbs is its core mission.

3. The second line seems to be conceived to create a faster link between WSI and the harbour/CBD area. That will enable greater convenience for people further away to use the airport (and essentially poach passengers from SYD). It probably isn’t needed until a few decades as WSI (capacity up to 82 million annual passengers) starts to overtake SYD in patronage. I don’t see any reason why it needs to extend any further than the Terminals station, or have a stop at the Business Park, if its purpose is purely transporting air passengers.

4. Initial talk suggested the second line would be an extension of Metro West to WSI. Given the very high passenger capacity of MW trains (twice that of WSI Metro, all other factors being equal), that might be a bit overdone. Now there is discussion about using a HSR connection, integrated with the Newcastle HSR project. That would be a pricier and premium service, and I think you would only get it as a substitute for a second metro, not as an addition.

5. The first metro line turns hard left just south of the Terminals station to head for Bradfield. If the other lines are not extended past that station, or they parallel the turn of the first, then little problem. BUT, if one needs to go a different direction (e.g. extending the HSR line further south, then provision needs to be made to go over or under that first line.

6. An ETCS L4-auto Sydney Trains connection along the new T8 to Central is a viable option, but will need to wait until that system is operating throughout that route to get best benefit. And that might be decades.
- The T8 does not currently go along the SWL from Glenfield, so it might need to be reclassified, so passengers don’t confuse it with the numerous T8 services to/from C’Town / Macarthur from Central, or services going via SYD airport, or T5 / NCL services going to/from Parramatta and beyond.
- At peak times, line capacity may ultimately limit just how many of those services could be fitted in. Depending on overall demand it might be as little as 4 kph.
- As you’ve probably gathered from previous posts, my preference would be to run any such line from Bradfield South, not from Bradfield or WSI airport itself. Duplicating lines in such areas costs billions, when there is already a line that people can use anyway. Providing ‘convenience’ is not IMHO sufficient reason, as the cost is high and would be better spent in areas that don’t have service at all.

[Oldfart]

You continue to misunderstand the capacity of metro, implying here that a 3/4 car metro train is inferior to an 8 car double deck. Capacity is not just a measure of individual train sets, it's also a measure of trains per hour. The optimum sustainable performance of suburban 8 car sets with a capacity of 1,200 is about 24,000 pphpd.

The design capacity of Metro WSI using 4 car Inspiro sets with a capacity of 860 is 25,800 pphpd. Even with the initial 3 car sets, it is capable of 19,350 pphpd, should they choose to timetable at 30 tph. Even with the digital upgrades, the suburban system can't sustain 25 tph, let along 30 tph. Even the much-vaunted Paris RER A can't do that without taking regular breathers or skipping stops - and they're more efficient 3 door cars.

Great point.

The mention of 7740 pphpd in documents creates a misapprehension. That’s the number for a 3 car train operating every five minutes (which is what 12 trains on the 23 km, stage one, WSI metro can provide, allowing for two trains being in maintenance). Given the modest start to WSI, I’m confident that will do the job for the duration of the first operating contract (every five minutes in peak, every 10 minutes off-peak)

Increase the number of trains to operate every two minutes lifts capacity to 19,350. Add a 4th carriage and it becomes 25,800. Some hate the term, but I call it a Light Metro (Note, not a “Light Rail Metro”), and a quite ‘high end’ Light Metro at that. It enables lower costs as stations, (often the most expensive part), can be a fraction of the usual size, yet still deliver much greater frequency than commuter rail, and can match the latter in overall capacity if ever needed.

It is optimised for providing services in areas sparser than dense city centres, without sacrificing frequency. It is also an entirely different animal than “classical metros” designed for densely populated areas. Because metro lines are typically ’stand alone” each can be optimised for its specific purpose. Which is why the WSI Metro can, and should, be “different” from the M1 or Metro West.

The biggest likely criticism is that, until extensions are built, its patronage will be very light. As the airport grows and the line densifies that will gradually increase. Unlike the M1 and Metro West there is not a pre-existing parallel line from which a lot of initial patronage can be instantly materialised. In parts of Europe it would be the sort of situation where they would use a ‘pre-metro’ - a simpler line (usually light rail) with lower capacity and costs, designed to be readily convertible to full metro when needed.

It might also have another ‘party trick’ up its sleeve. Imagine WSI has become a busy airport, and during one afternoon some thunderstorm activity causes lots of aircraft to be delayed or put in holding until the storms pass (normally 30 minutes to an hour). In that time there will be backlog of arrivals, increasing the demand for transport on the metro. Because it usually has some spare trains, and is driverless, those can be added as services to help clear the temporary passenger surge without crowding, on request. Try doing that with most modes of transport.

[Transtopic]

For what it's worth, it's proposed to construct a third station box for HSR at the WSI Terminal.

If the HSR or Metro West extension don't proceed, an alternative rail link with the CBD is the SWRL extension and the East Hills Line express tracks which are capable of 160km/h with the upgraded signalling. Send them to Sydney Terminal and the T8 services via the Airport Line, which is what is immediately proposed.

Things to look out for:

1 - There are only two rail corridors running in under Elizabeth Drive and into the Business Park and Terminals area. If you are proposing a third line you would need to indicate where it could fit. (Refer online to the full expansion shown on “WSI Airport Site layout 82 MAP”)

It's not my proposal. Assuming HSR is built, which I'm sceptical about, it would be all underground.

2- The first Metro Line (under construction) is to knit the Western Suburbs to the north (Penrith to Parramatta) with those in the South West, via the airport, and help facilitate jobs and residential development throughout that area. It’s not designed for transporting people to the harbour/CBD, as most airport users will be from Western Sydney, but it will start with one transfer point (St Marys) and end up later with four to various Sydney Train lines. Essentially it will be able transfer passengers to lines to more distant locations, BUT serving the Western Suburbs is its core mission.

I know it's not designed to transport passengers to and from the Harbour CBD, but it will have very low patronage in the early years. 880 pph per direction, which is 11% of the lines capacity with 3 car trains @12tph. Most of that will be between Orchard Hills and St Marys to interchange to T1.

3. The second line seems to be conceived to create a faster link between WSI and the harbour/CBD area. That will enable greater convenience for people further away to use the airport (and essentially poach passengers from SYD). It probably isn’t needed until a few decades as WSI (capacity up to 82 million annual passengers) starts to overtake SYD in patronage. I don’t see any reason why it needs to extend any further than the Terminals station, or have a stop at the Business Park, if its purpose is purely transporting air passengers.

It you're referring to Metro West, this has been discussed at length in earlier posts. If this gets up and as stated by others, it is more likely to have multiple stations to service the local area rather than an express line with few or no stations, even if the HSR doesn't go ahead. It may well terminate at WSI, but it would also serve the Business Park as the line runs through it parallel to the WSI Metro Line.

4. Initial talk suggested the second line would be an extension of Metro West to WSI. Given the very high passenger capacity of MW trains (twice that of WSI Metro, all other factors being equal), that might be a bit overdone. Now there is discussion about using a HSR connection, integrated with the Newcastle HSR project. That would be a pricier and premium service, and I think you would only get it as a substitute for a second metro, not as an addition.

The Metro West trains would be longer and require a longer station box, but there's not much you can do about that. If HSR eventuates, I don't see the need to have a station at WSI, or even Parramatta for that matter, as it will be a very short ride and there are other alternatives. It's not like it's a Hong Kong style Airport Express.

5. The first metro line turns hard left just south of the Terminals station to head for Bradfield. If the other lines are not extended past that station, or they parallel the turn of the first, then little problem. BUT, if one needs to go a different direction (e.g. extending the HSR line further south, then provision needs to be made to go over or under that first line.

If the Metro West line is extended to Bradfield, it would also have to pass under or over the WSI Metro line on an underground alignment, as the proposed station at Bradfield was to the west of the WSI Metro station. If HSR isn't built, then problem solved.

6. An ETCS L4-auto Sydney Trains connection along the new T8 to Central is a viable option, but will need to wait until that system is operating throughout that route to get best benefit. And that might be decades.
- The T8 does not currently go along the SWL from Glenfield, so it might need to be reclassified, so passengers don’t confuse it with the numerous T8 services to/from C’Town / Macarthur from Central, or services going via SYD airport, or T5 / NCL services going to/from Parramatta and beyond.
- At peak times, line capacity may ultimately limit just how many of those services could be fitted in. Depending on overall demand it might be as little as 4 kph.
- As you’ve probably gathered from previous posts, my preference would be to run any such line from Bradfield South, not from Bradfield or WSI airport itself. Duplicating lines in such areas costs billions, when there is already a line that people can use anyway. Providing ‘convenience’ is not IMHO sufficient reason, as the cost is high and would be better spent in areas that don’t have service at all.

The ETCS for Sydney Trains is Level 2 and not Level 4. I think it will happen sooner than you think. The beauty of Level 2 is that trains can be driven
automatically where installed and manually on sections waiting for installation. London's Elizabeth Line has ETCS - Level 2 through the city core and manual control on its branches to the east and west in mixed traffic conditions.

It may not happen, but if the SWRL and any extension runs via the East Hills Line to Sydney Terminal, then I agree it will need to have a new classification, as it would be sharing with the NCL (T5?) as far as Glenfield and T8 as far as Wolli Creek Junction.

As the T8/T2 Revesby to Homebush service via the Airport Line and City Circle is only proposed in the leaked plan to run 12tph, I have suggested switching the T8 Macarthur/Campbelltown services to the Airport Line running in tandem with the Revesby services from Wolli Creek instead of to Sydney Terminal. That's what's proposed when the Bankstown metro line opens or could even happen before. That then frees up paths for SWRL through services to Sydney Terminal via Sydenham, sharing with SHL, SCO and Waterfall services. It could potentially run at up to 12tph.

The Final Business Case for the South West Rail Planning will reveal the location of the interchange station for any SWRL extension in the next few months. It could still be Bradfield South.

[Transtopic]

You continue to misunderstand the capacity of metro, implying here that a 3/4 car metro train is inferior to an 8 car double deck. Capacity is not just a measure of individual train sets, it's also a measure of trains per hour. The optimum sustainable performance of suburban 8 car sets with a capacity of 1,200 is about 24,000 pphpd.

The design capacity of Metro WSI using 4 car Inspiro sets with a capacity of 860 is 25,800 pphpd. Even with the initial 3 car sets, it is capable of 19,350 pphpd, should they choose to timetable at 30 tph. Even with the digital upgrades, the suburban system can't sustain 25 tph, let along 30 tph. Even the much-vaunted Paris RER A can't do that without taking regular breathers or skipping stops - and they're more efficient 3 door cars.

Great point.

The mention of 7740 pphpd in documents creates a misapprehension. That’s the number for a 3 car train operating every five minutes (which is what 12 trains on the 23 km, stage one, WSI metro can provide, allowing for two trains being in maintenance). Given the modest start to WSI, I’m confident that will do the job for the duration of the first operating contract (every five minutes in peak, every 10 minutes off-peak)

Increase the number of trains to operate every two minutes lifts capacity to 19,350. Add a 4th carriage and it becomes 25,800. Some hate the term, but I call it a Light Metro (Note, not a “Light Rail Metro”), and a quite ‘high end’ Light Metro at that. It enables lower costs as stations, (often the most expensive part), can be a fraction of the usual size, yet still deliver much greater frequency than commuter rail, and can match the latter in overall capacity if ever needed.

It is optimised for providing services in areas sparser than dense city centres, without sacrificing frequency. It is also an entirely different animal than “classical metros” designed for densely populated areas. Because metro lines are typically ’stand alone” each can be optimised for its specific purpose. Which is why the WSI Metro can, and should, be “different” from the M1 or Metro West.

The biggest likely criticism is that, until extensions are built, its patronage will be very light. As the airport grows and the line densifies that will gradually increase. Unlike the M1 and Metro West there is not a pre-existing parallel line from which a lot of initial patronage can be instantly materialised. In parts of Europe it would be the sort of situation where they would use a ‘pre-metro’ - a simpler line (usually light rail) with lower capacity and costs, designed to be readily convertible to full metro when needed.

It might also have another ‘party trick’ up its sleeve. Imagine WSI has become a busy airport, and during one afternoon some thunderstorm activity causes lots of aircraft to be delayed or put in holding until the storms pass (normally 30 minutes to an hour). In that time there will be backlog of arrivals, increasing the demand for transport on the metro. Because it usually has some spare trains, and is driverless, those can be added as services to help clear the temporary passenger surge without crowding, on request. Try doing that with most modes of transport.

Despite the potential capacity of the WSI Metro (up to 26,000 pph per direction @ 30tph), the forecast patronage in the business case is 3,200 pph in 2036 and 6,200 pph in 2056.

[Rails]

Hey, great piece of artwork there. Shows the second terminal and the cross-connection to the terminals on the other side of the airport, additional parking levels, and buildings (presumably including the new Commend Centre for Federal Police, Border Force, etc.).

The terminal extension running north east will actually also have boarding from the ‘back side” of the terminal for smaller aircraft. The big boarding pier gates can actually accommodate a single wide body jet or two single aisle (737 size) domestic jets, but the latter is not shown.

Things to look out for:

1 - There are only two rail corridors running in under Elizabeth Drive and into the Business Park and Terminals area. If you are proposing a third line you would need to indicate where it could fit. (Refer online to the full expansion shown on “WSI Airport Site layout 82 MAP”)

2- The first Metro Line (under construction) is to knit the Western Suburbs to the north (Penrith to Parramatta) with those in the South West, via the airport, and help facilitate jobs and residential development throughout that area. It’s not designed for transporting people to the harbour/CBD, as most airport users will be from Western Sydney, but it will start with one transfer point (St Marys) and end up later with four to various Sydney Train lines. Essentially it will be able transfer passengers to lines to more distant locations, BUT serving the Western Suburbs is its core mission.

3. The second line seems to be conceived to create a faster link between WSI and the harbour/CBD area. That will enable greater convenience for people further away to use the airport (and essentially poach passengers from SYD). It probably isn’t needed until a few decades as WSI (capacity up to 82 million annual passengers) starts to overtake SYD in patronage. I don’t see any reason why it needs to extend any further than the Terminals station, or have a stop at the Business Park, if its purpose is purely transporting air passengers.

4. Initial talk suggested the second line would be an extension of Metro West to WSI. Given the very high passenger capacity of MW trains (twice that of WSI Metro, all other factors being equal), that might be a bit overdone. Now there is discussion about using a HSR connection, integrated with the Newcastle HSR project. That would be a pricier and premium service, and I think you would only get it as a substitute for a second metro, not as an addition.

5. The first metro line turns hard left just south of the Terminals station to head for Bradfield. If the other lines are not extended past that station, or they parallel the turn of the first, then little problem. BUT, if one needs to go a different direction (e.g. extending the HSR line further south, then provision needs to be made to go over or under that first line.

6. An ETCS L4-auto Sydney Trains connection along the new T8 to Central is a viable option, but will need to wait until that system is operating throughout that route to get best benefit. And that might be decades.
- The T8 does not currently go along the SWL from Glenfield, so it might need to be reclassified, so passengers don’t confuse it with the numerous T8 services to/from C’Town / Macarthur from Central, or services going via SYD airport, or T5 / NCL services going to/from Parramatta and beyond.
- At peak times, line capacity may ultimately limit just how many of those services could be fitted in. Depending on overall demand it might be as little as 4 kph.
- As you’ve probably gathered from previous posts, my preference would be to run any such line from Bradfield South, not from Bradfield or WSI airport itself. Duplicating lines in such areas costs billions, when there is already a line that people can use anyway. Providing ‘convenience’ is not IMHO sufficient reason, as the cost is high and would be better spent in areas that don’t have service at all.

Good post, and this aligns with what I was saying earlier. If they can manage to implement the proposed fare framework, I feel that the HSR from WSA to Parramatta and the CBA will have a market and fill that express requirement. The capacity is right for what it will be asked to do. Don't want to pay? Catch the Metro to St Marys and an express to Central. Certainly in the early decades.

I was also intimating that it does appear that an express West Metro extension from Westmead to WSA is overkill. Not that this catchment doesn't deserve rail, but that this is not the right fit. Especially if HSR is built, West Metro is a lot of capacity to fill for what will be an expensive line to build. I believe it will be mismatched. Certainly in the form I saw in various documents that are no longer online.

I mentioned that I feel that instead of the NCL, perhaps it made more sense to build a Metro from Epping to WSA via Carlingford, Parramatta and Prariewood. This would be more in line with the WSA Metro than West Metro. A cheaper to construct line. Meaning 3-4 car trains, smaller stations etc. Frequency allows it to meet longer term requirements at TonyP points out. The idea being to feed the M1 Metro at Epping, bus/ LR at Carlingford, the West Metro at Parramatta, the rapid bus network at Prariewood and ar the WSA, the Metro and Airport itself.

You can have more stations on the line because the express aspect doesn't matter, and that includes south west of Parramatta where there's a great need. You could stage the line too, say Epping to Prariewood first. The stations would be cheaper and could be transformative like in the NW. Lots of development opportunities that aren't as well served by the West Metro extension, but also without the Westmead dog leg.

[rtt_rules]

The issue for ME vs HSR to WSA is this.

- Commuters, these people will make up the bulk of the users and numbers in much larger number than HSR capacity.

- WSA is not a premium airport, at last for now, its a tourist, low cost carrier, freight, back up for MAscot and non-curfewed airport. The suits who will pay the premium are mostly headed to Mascot

- HSR mode of transport is designed to cater for 250 - 600 km and completely inefficent at much less. Also are you going to book our a train for the first 50km and then have those seats empty for the remaining portion of the trip, assume to Canebrra?

- No one ever promoted MW extension as an "express", its a direct route vs the two alternatives with typical modern suburban stopping distances

- MW and ST in general is heavily subsidised ST around 75%, Metro around 50%, how much will HSR expect to be subsidised, 10, 20, 30%?

- MW will have around 5 or so stations between Westmead and WSA, someone published the expected stations but at around 20 - 25 route km, thats about right. HSR will not serve this

- MW is forecast to run through a large residential area currently not currently served by rail or HSR, ie I believe this to include Greystanes, Wetherrill Park / Bossley Park, Mt Vernon / Kemps Ck etc. The locality of Pariewood is basically a golf course and shopping centre.

- NCL is a different project, currently ahead of MW western extension in priority, but likely MW extension will start before HSR 1C. NSW can afford to fund MW western extension in the mid 2030's and generally part of the "grand plan" of the development of Western Sydney which is where a large chunk of votes are and as we saw under the previousLNP govt, they were not affraid to invest in ALP seats. HSR is political dependent project and 1C will need to survive around 4 - 5 elections, like two changes of govt of which support from any other state is near or less than zero. I see 1c only proceeding as part of the Central - Canberra HSR connection. However again there are less than 500,000 people benefiting from this and not all agree with HSR nor will change their vote for it.

The slow speeds mentioned by someone in a previous reply for the intial sections of track is why HSR will be struggling to be justified to Melbourne and Brisbane. 150 - 200 km/h here, 200 - 250 km/h there and bang your average speed is now below 300 km/h and you now falling behind air travel by more than 1-2 hr. For HSR to be competetive against Air Syd - Mel it needs to hold 350 km/h for most of the trip. Not reach 350 km/h, HOLD IT station to station, almost the whole way. Even a stop speed of 300 km/h is too slow. At least MSR is more realistic and doesn't try and chase down planes going 2 - 3 x as fast. Shanghai to Beijing corridor with nearly 800 M living along the way averages 290 km/h.

- Station cost for underground or suspended railways doesn't get "cheaper" because they are more closely spaced, rather their costs is mostly fixed with only minor variation to construction costs mostly around turnstyle areas, potentially more exits, size bathrooms etc. Lower density locations will have different carpark sizes but this really doesn't impact on the total car park costs for the line. The new station placements on both MW and M1 are based on maximising return on investments and minimum impact on trip time. Hence NWRL stations are on average just over 2km apart, not the more traditional 1km like on ST. Equally the new lines in Brisbane, Melbourne, SA and Perth station spacings are 2- 4 km apart. MW isa round 4-5 km apart on average. Would be closer if not for the dead spot around Rose Hill.

[anything_analogous]

Great point.

The mention of 7740 pphpd in documents creates a misapprehension. That’s the number for a 3 car train operating every five minutes (which is what 12 trains on the 23 km, stage one, WSI metro can provide, allowing for two trains being in maintenance). Given the modest start to WSI, I’m confident that will do the job for the duration of the first operating contract (every five minutes in peak, every 10 minutes off-peak)

Increase the number of trains to operate every two minutes lifts capacity to 19,350. Add a 4th carriage and it becomes 25,800. Some hate the term, but I call it a Light Metro (Note, not a “Light Rail Metro”), and a quite ‘high end’ Light Metro at that. It enables lower costs as stations, (often the most expensive part), can be a fraction of the usual size, yet still deliver much greater frequency than commuter rail, and can match the latter in overall capacity if ever needed.

It is optimised for providing services in areas sparser than dense city centres, without sacrificing frequency. It is also an entirely different animal than “classical metros” designed for densely populated areas. Because metro lines are typically ’stand alone” each can be optimised for its specific purpose. Which is why the WSI Metro can, and should, be “different” from the M1 or Metro West.

The biggest likely criticism is that, until extensions are built, its patronage will be very light. As the airport grows and the line densifies that will gradually increase. Unlike the M1 and Metro West there is not a pre-existing parallel line from which a lot of initial patronage can be instantly materialised. In parts of Europe it would be the sort of situation where they would use a ‘pre-metro’ - a simpler line (usually light rail) with lower capacity and costs, designed to be readily convertible to full metro when needed.

It might also have another ‘party trick’ up its sleeve. Imagine WSI has become a busy airport, and during one afternoon some thunderstorm activity causes lots of aircraft to be delayed or put in holding until the storms pass (normally 30 minutes to an hour). In that time there will be backlog of arrivals, increasing the demand for transport on the metro. Because it usually has some spare trains, and is driverless, those can be added as services to help clear the temporary passenger surge without crowding, on request. Try doing that with most modes of transport.

Despite the potential capacity of the WSI Metro (up to 26,000 pph per direction @ 30tph), the forecast patronage in the business case is 3,200 pph in 2036 and 6,200 pph in 2056.

Aren’t those numbers for a "do nothing" scenario (or rather a "do-nothing-else"), ie. without any further work to increase ridership like extending to schofields, extending to Oran park, and/or having swrl come in to interchange?

[Transtopic]

I mentioned that I feel that instead of the NCL, perhaps it made more sense to build a Metro from Epping to WSA via Carlingford, Parramatta and Prariewood. This would be more in line with the WSA Metro than West Metro. A cheaper to construct line. Meaning 3-4 car trains, smaller stations etc. Frequency allows it to meet longer term requirements at TonyP points out. The idea being to feed the M1 Metro at Epping, bus/ LR at Carlingford, the West Metro at Parramatta, the rapid bus network at Prariewood and ar the WSA, the Metro and Airport itself.

While on the face of it, it's not a bad idea, the primary function of the NCL is to take T2 off the Western Suburban tracks to Parramatta and Granville, which frees up capacity for more T1 services to the CBD. 14 to 24tph which is a 71% increase according to the leaked plan.

I suppose you could just terminate the NCL (from the south) at Parramatta with the tunnel from Merrylands, but that's adding another line into the Parramatta CBD in addition to the Epping to WSA line. Where do you locate the new station in Parramatta?

I think that with either proposal, the line should run direct to Macquarie Park from Parramatta, which will be the major trip generators. An alignment to Epping will just exacerbate interchange congestion and there are few options left for additional platforms in the Epping Town Centre. Nothing is shown in the recent Epping Town Centre Master Plan. Interchange on the direct line to Macquarie Park would be possible with the Northern Line at Eastwood and with M1 at the Macquarie University Station.

[Transtopic]

Despite the potential capacity of the WSI Metro (up to 26,000 pph per direction @ 30tph), the forecast patronage in the business case is 3,200 pph in 2036 and 6,200 pph in 2056.

Aren’t those numbers for a "do nothing" scenario (or rather a "do-nothing-else"), ie. without any further work to increase ridership like extending to schofields, extending to Oran park, and/or having swrl come in to interchange?

Yes, which is why Infrastructure Australia did not support it as a stand alone line "at this time" without the further extensions.

[rtt_rules]

I think the key observations for all these ST projects visions

Is that ST is moving in a direction to
- Rid itself of flat junctions, remaining will be for mostly non revenue services
- Remove merging lines almost everywhere with exception of some with fly overs, ie T8 to SCO and T9 to T1.
- Maximise track capacity by not sharing lines
- Eliminate knock on delays from one line to another by seperating services and likely infrastruture such as power and signally as much as practical
- Continue seperation from freight projects
- Eventually being able to operate the various lines indepently of each other including train technology etc on each line. Gone are the days of "sharing new models because we need to be fair to all"
- People will change trains, not trains change tracks.

So yes, while NCL will likely run from SWRL to Epping / Eastwood / MP / what ever, I believe the final product will be a 100% dedciated track service. No other service will share the same tracks and this may open technology options for the new trains to operate on this corridor post NCL completion. Not saying it will or must be MNetro, could be power supply, SD, driverless DD what ever.

Also as much as I would like to see SWRL operate to Central via T8, there is I believe zero chance in this happening just like T3 will I believe be kicked off the main south at some point and have a junction like Lidcombe at Cabramatta, if it survives in HR ST format at all.

For NSWtf to achieve this "vision" then its clear in many ways what needs to happen with new projects, Metro or ST. Digital's full roll out is what 10 years away and yet one of the selling points of digital was closer spaced operations through junctions yet they seem to be focused on removing junctions. So maybe not the longterm magic bullet as frequently promoted but yes an major improvement over line side signally.

Also a key reason why SWRL and MWSA technology incompability issues preventing merging to WSA is not actually the reason why the two lines would never have merged anyway. Just entrenching old style design principles when the "vision" is the opposite.

[Rails]

The issue for ME vs HSR to WSA is this.

- Commuters, these people will make up the bulk of the users and numbers in much larger number than HSR capacity.

- WSA is not a premium airport, at last for now, its a tourist, low cost carrier, freight, back up for MAscot and non-curfewed airport. The suits who will pay the premium are mostly headed to Mascot

- HSR mode of transport is designed to cater for 250 - 600 km and completely inefficent at much less. Also are you going to book our a train for the first 50km and then have those seats empty for the remaining portion of the trip, assume to Canebrra?

- No one ever promoted MW extension as an "express", its a direct route vs the two alternatives with typical modern suburban stopping distances

- MW and ST in general is heavily subsidised ST around 75%, Metro around 50%, how much will HSR expect to be subsidised, 10, 20, 30%?

- MW will have around 5 or so stations between Westmead and WSA, someone published the expected stations but at around 20 - 25 route km, thats about right. HSR will not serve this

- MW is forecast to run through a large residential area currently not currently served by rail or HSR, ie I believe this to include Greystanes, Wetherrill Park / Bossley Park, Mt Vernon / Kemps Ck etc. The locality of Pariewood is basically a golf course and shopping centre.

- NCL is a different project, currently ahead of MW western extension in priority, but likely MW extension will start before HSR 1C. NSW can afford to fund MW western extension in the mid 2030's and generally part of the "grand plan" of the development of Western Sydney which is where a large chunk of votes are and as we saw under the previousLNP govt, they were not affraid to invest in ALP seats. HSR is political dependent project and 1C will need to survive around 4 - 5 elections, like two changes of govt of which support from any other state is near or less than zero. I see 1c only proceeding as part of the Central - Canberra HSR connection. However again there are less than 500,000 people benefiting from this and not all agree with HSR nor will change their vote for it.

The slow speeds mentioned by someone in a previous reply for the intial sections of track is why HSR will be struggling to be justified to Melbourne and Brisbane. 150 - 200 km/h here, 200 - 250 km/h there and bang your average speed is now below 300 km/h and you now falling behind air travel by more than 1-2 hr. For HSR to be competetive against Air Syd - Mel it needs to hold 350 km/h for most of the trip. Not reach 350 km/h, HOLD IT station to station, almost the whole way. Even a stop speed of 300 km/h is too slow. At least MSR is more realistic and doesn't try and chase down planes going 2 - 3 x as fast. Shanghai to Beijing corridor with nearly 800 M living along the way averages 290 km/h.

- Station cost for underground or suspended railways doesn't get "cheaper" because they are more closely spaced, rather their costs is mostly fixed with only minor variation to construction costs mostly around turnstyle areas, potentially more exits, size bathrooms etc. Lower density locations will have different carpark sizes but this really doesn't impact on the total car park costs for the line. The new station placements on both MW and M1 are based on maximising return on investments and minimum impact on trip time. Hence NWRL stations are on average just over 2km apart, not the more traditional 1km like on ST. Equally the new lines in Brisbane, Melbourne, SA and Perth station spacings are 2- 4 km apart. MW isa round 4-5 km apart on average. Would be closer if not for the dead spot around Rose Hill.

There is no HSR vs Metro West extension. It's not a choice on offer. What makes you think that's a consideration? HSR has a business case for a line between Central, Parramatta and WSA with Federal Government support. Metro West is a blurred line on a website that no one is putting it forward really. Rulled out by Labor even before the election. Doesn't appear on TNSW plans for the next few decades. It was with a bunch of lines that the previous opposition leader said were under consideration, but we don't know what the new Liberal leader is putting forward yet. The NCL is getting a business case, we should know more about that one soon.

The Metro West extension certainly was put forward as an express line previously, to support passengers from WSA with access to Parramatta and the CBD. It was part of the justification for the 20 min travel times for West Metro. To allow for the WSA extension to provide a competitive travel time to the CBD. I saw the corridor and station options, it was not put forward as a line with traditional suburban service patterns or station spacing. There were 3 stations between Westmead and WSA, about 27 KMs from memory. No comparison with the NW Metro. However, since then they seem to have taken the West Metro extension back to the beginning. So, we don't really know what it will look like now. But if HSR does get up, any future rail through here will have to then consider that passenger traffic for its BCR. As I originally said. It's unavoidable.

[tonyp]

Ignoring a half million people in Cumberland/Fairfield region who need commuter rail that should have been built when the region started urbanising in the 1950s. This is a formula for Los Angeles 2.

[Transtopic]

Upon closer examination of the WSI HSR station and the elevation in the business case, it appears that it will actually have 2 island platforms with 4 tracks, the same as Central. Talk about overkill and a much wider station box squeezed in along with the 2 metro station boxes.

[anything_analogous]

Ignoring a half million people in Cumberland/Fairfield region who need commuter rail that should have been built when the region started urbanising in the 1950s. This is a formula for Los Angeles 2.

Agree and it would have been incrementally cheaper to just let the tbm keep digging to a site in the west Fairfield area to extract them and then worry about building stations later, rather than now in future having to come back and reactivate the stub tunnels from westmead and do it all over. If Minns had focused his efforts on getting extensions to metro west rather than getting his undies in a twist over "saving" the damn thing offering billions to the racecourse for zero results, something fruitful in this region might have been achievable.

I will say though. They do at least have usable busways in place in west Fairfield area, whilst the LA busways in post-streetcar areas are god awful.

[tonyp]

The busways are very low capacity. Not a solution.

[anything_analogous]

The busways are very low capacity. Not a solution.

They’re also much slower, you’re not getting any pushback from me, I’m just saying they are superior (in a different league) to LA post-streetcar moonscape/hellscape. Not a final goal, no.

[rtt_rules]

Ignoring a half million people in Cumberland/Fairfield region who need commuter rail that should have been built when the region started urbanising in the 1950s. This is a formula for Los Angeles 2.

Agree and it would have been incrementally cheaper to just let the tbm keep digging to a site in the west Fairfield area to extract them and then worry about building stations later, rather than now in future having to come back and reactivate the stub tunnels from westmead and do it all over. If Minns had focused his efforts on getting extensions to metro west rather than getting his undies in a twist over "saving" the damn thing offering billions to the racecourse for zero results, something fruitful in this region might have been achievable.

I will say though. They do at least have usable busways in place in west Fairfield area, whilst the LA busways in post-streetcar areas are god awful.

MW Phase 1 should have gone one more station to Greystanes / South Wentworthville, would have found alot more bodies.

[rtt_rules]

There is no HSR vs Metro West extension. It's not a choice on offer. What makes you think that's a consideration?

HSR has a business case for a line between Central, Parramatta and WSA with Federal Government support. Metro West is a blurred line on a website that no one is putting it forward really. Rulled out by Labor even before the election. Doesn't appear on TNSW plans for the next few decades. It was with a bunch of lines that the previous opposition leader said were under consideration, but we don't know what the new Liberal leader is putting forward yet. The NCL is getting a business case, we should know more about that one soon.

The Metro West extension certainly was put forward as an express line previously, to support passengers from WSA with access to Parramatta and the CBD. It was part of the justification for the 20 min travel times for West Metro. To allow for the WSA extension to provide a competitive travel time to the CBD. I saw the corridor and station options, it was not put forward as a line with traditional suburban service patterns or station spacing. There were 3 stations between Westmead and WSA, about 27 KMs from memory. No comparison with the NW Metro. However, since then they seem to have taken the West Metro extension back to the beginning. So, we don't really know what it will look like now. But if HSR does get up, any future rail through here will have to then consider that passenger traffic for its BCR. As I originally said. It's unavoidable.

Never said it was, I said MW will continue when the time is right and this is why.

Hunter St to Nth Strat is roughly 11.5 km, there are 5 stops or around 2.3 km apart with a long gap between The Bays and Five Dock due to water and not much on land on east side of water crossing. So aligned with M1 station spacing.

Nth Strat to Westmead
NS - OP : 2.1 km
OP - Parra : ~7 km, mostly nothing under to stop at, Minns found this out the hard way.
Parra - WM : ~2 km, typical ball park M1 distance

9 stations all up vs ST T1W 5 or 6 stops, so ST is actually "The express" something others opposed to the MW project not me have posted many many times.

I wouldn't call MW an "express service" its a modern alignment with a train technology that has better acceleration and braking performance. It also doesn't follow the route laid out by a dude with a shovel and horse when the area was still natural bush combined with some awkard track alignment caused by stations now gone and sexup of the inner portion of the corrior. The fact that MW could have these extra stops was because it could still do the trip in 20min and because these locations needed a rail option.

The reason MW western extension project has proposed (for now) just three extra stops is because most of the corridor is void of density, proximty to other lines. Greystanes, Wetherill Park (not sure of 3rd station) will be within 10km of Westmead. In comparison to M1 Cherrybrook, its 7km from Epping. Fropm Bossley Park to the airport, its horses and goats and native reserve, for now. Times may change when the project moves to proceed.

Unless there is a deliberate attempt to run a WSA - Syd CBD a a higher speed connection, which I'm not yet convinced there is, I see it being built to feed Canberra, the commuter line will need to be built. The HSR just misses some hubs its not a viable alternative if coming from the north or south.

[rtt_rules]

Interesting comparison, the new Oslo Airport and Airport line

History
When the Parliament of Norway on 8 October 1992 decided to build a new central airport for Eastern Norway, they also decided that the main mode of ground transport should be by rail. While the previous airport, Oslo Airport, Fornebu, was located just outside the city limits, the new airport, Oslo Airport, Gardermoen, would be located 50 kilometres (31 mi) north of the city, outside the reach of existing public transport.

The principle of the airport construction was that it was not to be footed by the tax payers; the entire airport would be built with borrowed money through Oslo Lufthavn AS, a subsidiary of the Norwegian Airport Administration. The same principle was chosen for the airport rail link—the Norwegian State Railways (NSB) creating the limited company subsidiary NSB Gardermobanen AS, founded on 24 November 1992, to perform the construction of the line. It would be able to charge train operators using the line, channeling the payments to cover down payments and interest of the debt used to build the railway. Profit margin was estimated to 7.5%.

Rail costs to Airport
Commuter (Vy) : Train options from Oslo Central Station (Oslo S) to Oslo Airport (OSL) cost between 114–129 NOK (AUD ~18)
Flytoget airport express : Roughly 230–268 NOK for the faster Flytoget airport express (AUD ~40)

Trip times
Vy : trains take about 23 minutes
Flytoget : takes 19-22 minutes (less stops)
Both run every 10–20 minutes

Market share
All Rail : 68% of all ground transport options
Vy : slightly over half
Flytoget : slightly under half

Population of Greater Oslo is around 1.5 M and airport numbers 6 Mpa. WSA pax numbers will exceed Oslo airport by 2035 but local population from Bradfield to Orchard Hills etc will take well into the 2040's to exceed Oslo.

Now I've used both and I will say the Flytoget was a nice experience and even got by backpack returned when I left on the train, but that trip was paid by work / supplier.

Also when I used it in 2011, you paid by swipping your credit card, no frigging around buying GoCards / Opals, just swipe at the turnstyle in both directions and that was 2011 !!!, Sydney only introduced this what last year? Seriously Public transport operators of Australia, WTAF are you doing still not introducing this basic of basic concepts especially for airport to city travellers. International and out of state vistors to not want to stuff around getting yet another travel card to store their money on for which likely get lost or forgotten about.

Flytoget has a very loyal customer base in part because of the 96% on time reliabilty and its trains get priority over Vy.

However when travelling with the family 2 years back, we count the pennies more as our money x 3, so wife said we are using Vy.

What does this all mean?
- MW is automatically justified when the time comes
- HSR if it happens will not impact in MW business case or its numbers significantly.

[tonyp]

From Bossley Park to the airport, its horses and goats and native reserve, for now. Times may change when the project moves to proceed.

It won't stop at Bossley Park. Horsley Park and particularly Cecil Park (presently small hobby farms) are already in process for rezoning and redevelopment. Cecil Park is right on the trajectory for Metro West. Such developments are premised on there being a railway, otherwise they will remain low density/ semi rural.

Cecil Park urban centre and potential station location indicated by red dot on map:

https://www.fairfieldcity.nsw.gov.au/fi ... 04.219.pdf

https://www.fairfieldcity.nsw.gov.au/fi ... rt_nsw.pdf

[Stu]

Infrastructure Australia.
Infrastructure Priority List.
Corridor preservation for Western Sydney Airport rail connections.

https://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov ... onnections

[Rails]

Never said it was, I said MW will continue when the time is right and this is why.

Hunter St to Nth Strat is roughly 11.5 km, there are 5 stops or around 2.3 km apart with a long gap between The Bays and Five Dock due to water and not much on land on east side of water crossing. So aligned with M1 station spacing.

Nth Strat to Westmead
NS - OP : 2.1 km
OP - Parra : ~7 km, mostly nothing under to stop at, Minns found this out the hard way.
Parra - WM : ~2 km, typical ball park M1 distance

9 stations all up vs ST T1W 5 or 6 stops, so ST is actually "The express" something others opposed to the MW project not me have posted many many times.

I wouldn't call MW an "express service" its a modern alignment with a train technology that has better acceleration and braking performance. It also doesn't follow the route laid out by a dude with a shovel and horse when the area was still natural bush combined with some awkard track alignment caused by stations now gone and sexup of the inner portion of the corrior. The fact that MW could have these extra stops was because it could still do the trip in 20min and because these locations needed a rail option.

The reason MW western extension project has proposed (for now) just three extra stops is because most of the corridor is void of density, proximty to other lines. Greystanes, Wetherill Park (not sure of 3rd station) will be within 10km of Westmead. In comparison to M1 Cherrybrook, its 7km from Epping. Fropm Bossley Park to the airport, its horses and goats and native reserve, for now. Times may change when the project moves to proceed.

Unless there is a deliberate attempt to run a WSA - Syd CBD a a higher speed connection, which I'm not yet convinced there is, I see it being built to feed Canberra, the commuter line will need to be built. The HSR just misses some hubs its not a viable alternative if coming from the north or south.

It was proposed with 3 stops to allow for it to fill a role as an express rail service between WSA and Parramatta and the CBD. To meet a pre determined journey time. Like West Metro does the same between Parramatta and the CBD (the 20 minute journey time requirement). Both balancing that with a few major stations to support development and interchange. Not the same as the NW Metro. Or any other rail line. It was it's own thing.

My original comment was simply that IF they build HSR from the CBD to Parramatta onto WSA, this line will be reviewed to include more stations. The stations you listed were not proposed originally, are they just what you think should be built based on spacing? Station spacing isn't fixed. Things can happen that see bigger gaps like West of Epping and south of Chatswood on the M1.

If you read the blurb on the TNSW page, it's even non committal about a rail line through this corridor being connected to the West Metro. I think you'll find that the West Metro stops after Westmead in the way it does to provide options should requirements change in the future. Same with the WSA Metro. It's all open as to how this line may end up, assuming it gets built at all. Nothing is guaranteed in NSW public transport!

[tonyp]

The metro corridors became generic "rail" corridors in planning documents after Labor was elected and the RTBU was demanding that no new metro lines be built. Despite certain people here denying that RTBU, or the union movement in general, has any influence on Labor policy, it's very obvious that they do, in their role as part of the State ALP executive and financial underwriters of the party. It's very naive to think they don't, after all where does the ALP have its origins?

The intention to build lines as metro may well quietly continue (I can't see TfNSW planners seriously intending that the NCL be a suburban line), but politically it's currently not to be seen that way on paper. I've worked with many Ministers of both sides over the years. I know what goes on behind the public facades. I also know that the planners won't accept the Cumberland/Fairfield region continuing as a potential growth region without rail through it. Until then, development will be virtually frozen (like it is in Manly-Warringah and SE Sydney) until the public transport mode with the necessary capacity to support growth is built. This of course means that there is a cap on housing supply, contrary to the policy of the present government.

[rtt_rules]

It was proposed with 3 stops to allow for it to fill a role as an express rail service between WSA and Parramatta and the CBD. To meet a pre determined journey time. Like West Metro does the same between Parramatta and the CBD (the 20 minute journey time requirement). Both balancing that with a few major stations to support development and interchange. Not the same as the NW Metro. Or any other rail line. It was it's own thing.

My original comment was simply that IF they build HSR from the CBD to Parramatta onto WSA, this line will be reviewed to include more stations. The stations you listed were not proposed originally, are they just what you think should be built based on spacing? Station spacing isn't fixed. Things can happen that see bigger gaps like West of Epping and south of Chatswood on the M1.

If you read the blurb on the TNSW page, it's even non committal about a rail line through this corridor being connected to the West Metro. I think you'll find that the West Metro stops after Westmead in the way it does to provide options should requirements change in the future. Same with the WSA Metro. It's all open as to how this line may end up, assuming it gets built at all. Nothing is guaranteed in NSW public transport!

thanks, but i wouldn't get too excited about what was "proposed" a few years ago for a railway to be built in a decades time. As Tony's post confirms, there is alot more redevelopment currently underway or going to be underway that is not always easy to keep on top of and this redevelopment is likely going to be more of a trigger for MW-west than passenger numbers at the airport.

The stations sites I listed was just a quick reference to a map showing population. I have no idea of the actual proposed station sites and again for a project at such a very early stage of proposal for me it doesn't really matter as its as relevent as what colour the station staffs uniforms will be in 10 years time.

Adding 1 or 2 extra stations to service a growing large community makes more sense than worring about a 20min statement issued by former govt over a decade a ago (when the project is finally approved to proceed).

There is alot of commonality with the M1 project design approach as with MWSA and M1. The fundamentals are the same, but with variations for local conditions.

I'm not aware about any details about how the tunnels end west of Westmead station. However I wouldn't be too concerned about how this is perceived limiting options with potential exception to running anywhere east of a line between due Nth and Sth.

[anything_analogous]

I also know that the planners won't accept the Cumberland/Fairfield region continuing as a potential growth region without rail through it. Until then, development will be virtually frozen (like it is in Manly-Warringah and SE Sydney) until the public transport mode with the necessary capacity to support growth is built. This of course means that there is a cap on housing supply, contrary to the policy of the present government.

Then why are they letting Wilton/appin sprawl (and to a lesser extent the northwest beyond the reach of metro/T1/BRT towards box hill) have its way with us three ways 'til Sunday???