Sydney Metro

[somebody]

As per project scope, stage 2 of the NW RL would seem to open up more slots for the west in the city tunnels.

Actually not really, at least as it has been explained so far.  South of the Harbour it was to attach to Hurstville & Bankstown.  Puts the capacity where it isn't needed.

The people did indeed vote for the NWRL but I say they voted for a stupid plan.

As for the bus solution "failing", how do you draw this conclusion?  Far more people in Brisbane use the bus services than rail services.  Arguing that rail passengers travel further is arguing that we should cater to people living less sustainable lifestyles as opposed to those living more sustainable ones.  In Sydney it is only slightly in rail's favour in terms of trips and the growth is on the side of the buses AIUI.

[somebody]

I'm not too worried about the interchange, although the double change to get to St Leonards from Pennant Hills will certainly be annoying for some.  Perhaps that will be better done via Hornsby as in the past.

What annoys me is nothing is being done to allow for growth on Western Line in particular.  I also don't see how the interchange at Chatswood will work at all, without 20tph running all the way to Hornsby stopping all stations, which would tie up more rollingstock.  Gordon starters would have to coordinate with NWRL trains - not going to happen if the latter is to run at 12tph.

[somebody]

However the growth will have to be on western suburban lines which are currently under uterlised and this will need to be done with consistent timetabling.

If you are saying this you clearly are neither listening to what I am saying nor checking your facts first.  I'm not inclined to comment further.

[colinw]

Is there any reason why the stations north of Epping can't just have the old Northern Line pattern restored?  i.e. re-extend the current Northern Line services that run to/from Epping via Strathfield to run to Hornsby?  There will still need to be services for the lower Northern Line stations (Eastwood, etc.), so to my way of thinking it would make sense to re-extend those to Hornsby.

Not sure where you would terminate them in the City 'though? Before the ECRL I think they ran to St Leonards.

[somebody]

Is there any reason why the stations north of Epping can't just have the old Northern Line pattern restored?  i.e. re-extend the current Northern Line services that run to/from Epping via Strathfield to run to Hornsby?  There will still need to be services for the lower Northern Line stations (Eastwood, etc.), so to my way of thinking it would make sense to re-extend those to Hornsby.

Not sure where you would terminate them in the City 'though? Before the ECRL I think they ran to St Leonards.

Yes, because Western Line trains have taken their paths.  Pre-ECRL there were a number of Western Line trains which ran to Sydney Terminal.  These trains now actually reach Town Hall & North Sydney.

[colinw]

So what do Epping to City via Strathfield trains do in peak now?

[somebody]

So what do Epping to City via Strathfield trains do in peak now?

Those trains run through Town Hall.  But if the Normanhurst-Cheltenham trains are to reach Town Hall, you would be needing 2 trains every 15 minutes as opposed to the 1 every 15 minutes which now applies.  You can't just extend the Epping trains because they are already radically overloaded.

[colinw]

Ah, ok. Only enough paths for 4TPH.

[somebody]

Where do the trains on the Western Main go when they reach the CBD?  Mains only connect to Sydney Terminal.  Suburbans connect to the Harbour Bridge and Locals connect to the City Circle.  To get from the Western Main to Town Hall you need to crossover to the suburbans at some point.

It's a bit of a stretch to suggest the locals can handle 20tph due to the express patterns.  Suggesting there is 40tph for the west isn't at all true.  Even if you ran 20tph into Sydney Terminal (if possible) you wouldn't get through Lidcombe.

[somebody]

Those aren't the correct names.  Northern pair - Mains; middle pair - Suburbans; southern pair - locals.  It will be confusing if you refer to them by the wrong names intentionally.

Just keep this in mind - current peak through Town Hall is 15tph Western (including 1 Springwood), 4tph Epping and 13tph combined South and Inner West lines.  Growth at 1% p.a. year on year over 20 years would require 6tph and a bit to maintain current crowding levels.

[somebody]

15 + 4 + 13 = 32

Those numbers excluded the Bankstown Line.

At Parramatta, the pointwork for a two platform turnback on Platforms 3 & 4 already exists.  Not sure about the signalling but I would presume that it is.

As for the speed, most of the mains from Strathfield to Redfern are 90km/h, I think a bit of 80km/h.  Probably some minor works would see it raised to 100+ if they were interested in doing such a thing.  Suburbans and Locals are slower.

Don't really agree with closing the stations from Croydon to Macdonaldtown and providing a different network.  If a new network is required it would be underground so stations would be expensive.  Why not send the express trains underground?

[somebody]

Rail link no relief for road gridlock

    By Andrew Clennell, State Political Editor
    The Daily Telegraph
    September 06, 2012 12:00AM
    1 comment

BUILDING the North West Rail Link will have virtually no effect on road congestion, saving motorists just one minute per trip between Rouse Hill and Macquarie Park in 2031.

At a cost of $8 billion, that amounts to $133 million a second, according to the government's own transport masterplan.

In just under 20 years, the drive from Rouse Hill to Macquarie Park will take 82 minutes if the rail link is built - or 83 minutes if it is not. Now it takes 63 minutes.

The draft report also said the M4 East project will shave six minutes off travel times from Parramatta to Sydney and the M5 duplication will save nine minutes from Liverpool to Sydney Airport.

Infrastructure NSW chairman Nick Greiner and chief executive Paul Broad have argued against the government's preference for the North West Rail Link, with Mr Greiner even calling it a "social equity project".
Recommended Coverage
MP calls for end to refund on tolls
MP demands cash refunds on the M5 toll be scrapped, claiming his constituents are paying $5000 a year on tolls while the people of the southwest get their money back.
Longer and in the never never
THERE are two very distinct types of long-term plans. The first is required to be long because of the range and scope of the project.

Infrastructure NSW, which is due to report back to the government next month with its own plan, wants the M4 East and M5 duplication given priority at a cost of $10 billion to $15 billion.

Premier Barry O'Farrell and Transport Minister Gladys Berejiklian are sticking with the rail link, a Liberal pre-election pledge.

Ms Berejiklian also wants a $10 billion-plus second Harbour rail crossing to work in conjunction with the North West rail project.

Professor David Hensher, from the Institute of Transport and Logistics at Sydney University, yesterday said he was "absolutely not surprised" that the government's own modelling had found the rail project would make little difference to road congestion.

"It's not a big enough project to make a difference," he said. "Single individual projects on a fairly narrowly defined (route) ... are not going to make much of a difference."

Professor Hensher said he had done modelling work showing bus journeys using transit lanes on the M2 take up to 20 minutes less than if the North West Rail Link existed, particularly as all passengers would have to change at Chatswood to get into the city.



The fact the project will have little effect on road congestion is also backed by the government's project definition report sent to Infrastructure Australia last year which claimed the link would carry more than 70,000 passengers a day by 2031, but of those "approximately two-thirds are expected to transfer from other rail services" (like the Richmond and Western lines), with the remainder from buses and cars.

Ms Berejiklian did not address the issue of a minor reduction in road congestion but said in a statement: "The trip from Rouse Hill to Macquarie Park will take around 26 minutes on the North West Rail Link - a massive incentive to use public transport.

"The North West Growth Centre will grow by some 200,000 people over the coming decades and there is no question that the North West Rail Link has to be built."

Opposition Leader John Robertson said the project was "the dud deal of the century".

s"The Government still hasn't announced a start date, a finish date or how they are going to pay for it - but already questions are starting emerge about whether or not this project will deliver value for taxpayer dollars," Mr Robertson said.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/rail-link-no-relief-for-road-gridlock/story-e6freuy9-1226466001993

[#Metro]

But (one) the purpose of public transport (and I keep banging on PURPOSE all the time!) is to move large volumes of people quickly. Congestion relief is a benefit, but not a purpose, and the project is still valuable, even if it doesn't have significant congestion relief to it.

Consider the South East busway, before and immediately after construction.

The South East Busway transports 7 lanes of traffic, or between 12 000 to 18 000 pphd into the Brisbane CBD in peak hour. In comparison, a single car lane on the Pacific Motorway has a maximum throughput of 2000 vehicles per hour, and since there are only 3 lanes heading towards the CBD on the Pacific Motorway, the pphd volume for Car Rapid Transit working under IDEAL conditions is just 6000 pphd.

Now you would think that with 7 lanes of traffic equivalents (14000 pphd) taken "off" the road by the SE Busway, that we should be able to go out during the height of peak hour and see that the motorway is completely and absolutely empty of any and all vehicles (because 14 000 pphd - 6000 pphd = negative 8000 pphd!!)

Clearly this is not the case. Any "free slots" liberated from the motorway by the busway causes induction of additional trips on the motorway and also will get eaten up over time as people consume any time saving benefit.

HENCE, IN GENERAL public transport does NOT reduce congestion. Provided that the CBD is sufficiently small, and the outlying suburbs sufficiently larger than the CBD in terms of population etc, it doesn't matter what you do - you can build whatever you want and it will STILL be congested. The volume of people moved did increase though. But it does BYPASS it (did this this morning, wonderful sight whizzing by the cars).

pphd = passengers per hour, per direction.

[somebody]

With Bondi Beach, I'm fairly sure building the line would be against what the locals want.  Perhaps you are arguing it should be built anyway - I'm not sure.

The line is viable, even Wiki has pages on previous govt proposed and cancelled projects of NWRL vs EPRL, which route, one verus the other, technology etc over 15 years. Lets just get on with it and build the F'in thing. There is no magic bullet, this is just one more step.

Build the line with no paths for the CBD?  Seems a feeble plan to me.

[somebody]

Sigh.  I thought you were going to detail what you would recommend.

Adding a greenfield line to a large growing area of Sydney also cannot be a failure

What are your criteria for success?  Having a line here?  If your criteria is actually increased PT use at any price, then I guess it's hard to be a failure too.

As I said before the only questional railway line is Sydney right now is the Carlingford line and maybe Y-link.

Y-Link anecdotally carries a number of people on the services which exist.  Just needs to be increased.

If you are going to build a line against what the locals want you would build the Northern Beaches before the NW.  The only reason for the NW line being built first is that the locals are calling for it.  Interesting that you think the Bondi Beach line should be built against what they want.

Yes there is no point in building just the Chatswood-CBD section.  Both need to be built or neither.

Building the 2nd harbour crossing without increasing the paths for the Western Line is the most galling aspect of Glady's incompetent planning.  The additional paths which are theoretically available between Strathfield and Town Hall cannot be used without making ugly compromises, and even if they could organic growth would use them up over the next decade or two.

Lack of CBD paths is the main reason why it is very hard to add paths for the lower Northern Line which are very needed.  I'm going to be very interested how this would be done.  Lack of paths is the reason why we don't have a decent Liverpool via Regents Park service.  You think nothing should be done about these things for decades, which is just bizarre.  I'm not sure why I've bothered making these comments - you're taking away my will to reply.

[somebody]

Your alt plan to build the western express corridore also has no paths in the city

How do you figure?  That is its entire purpose.  Or is this just a troll i.e. posting an incorrect fact to get a response.

[somebody]

Your alt plan to build the western express corridore also has no paths in the city

How do you figure?  That is its entire purpose.  Or is this just a troll i.e. posting an incorrect fact to get a response.

Its not a troll, how do you see it working?

The so called experts say the NWRL will reduce congestion on the Western corridore by about 50,000 a day, how does this impact on the requirement?

The draft plan says approx 2-3000 passengers from the busiest 1 hour.  I guess if that eventuates it could defer the need for perhaps a decade or so.  I personally cannot imagine that happening while the interchange at Chatswood applies.

The WEX was to attach to the mains (northern track pair) at Eveleigh and run in to its own tunnel along the Metro West alignment.  One limitation is that it blocks access to Sydney Terminal along the main west lines.   That's not that much of a limitation - this capacity is released for the south side with the Erskenville-Sydenham sextup.

WEX also was supposed to allow for longer trains.

Main limitation of the of the WEX was that perhaps it didn't do enough, and you want to do nothing?    

[somebody]

Additionally, the WEX would allow the South Line to be promoted to the suburbans (middle track pair) == Harbour Bridge, would free up enough paths for Liverpool via Regents Park express, would then allow the Bankstown line to be promoted to the Town Hall leg of the city circle so more paths available across the system.

[somebody]

I think it was about $4.5bn.  Bargain.  So long as it can be later extended under the harbour I don't have a real problem with it.

I'm relieved that you can finally see what I have been trying to say for some time.

[somebody]

Re: Western vs Illawarra:
If you look at the detailed service capacity stats, it's really just 3 trains from Waterfall (counting the 8:09 Central arrival starting at Thirroul) that are significantly overcrowded.  If this was a concern you could skip Rockdale.  But I'm inclined to think it should stay as is.  It's not that far in from Rockdale to be standing - 17 minutes to Central.

Compare to the western line and you see a solid wall of standing for over an hour.  Which lines up with the Western Line getting more passengers from less trains.

[BrizCommuter]

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/breaking-news/sydney-nw-rail-link-gets-planning-approval/story-e6freono-1226486120981
Planning approval has been granted.

[ozbob]

Sydney Morning Herald --> Crush hour: $9b rail link flaw

[somebody]

Sydney Morning Herald --> Crush hour: $9b rail link flaw

I saw this in hard copy.   Interesting that what I have been saying for years is today front page news.

[ozbob]

Sydney Morning Herald --> Extra $4b needed to upgrade rail network to cope with link

[somebody]

Shane, a couple of points:
(a) without looking, current utilisation is 18tph across the Harbour Bridge southbound in the AM peak
(b) regarding option 2, there is no guarantee that the Gordon/Lindfield starter is the next train to reach Chatswood when a train load from the NWRL is waiting for the connection.

Yet another article: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/chatswood-will-cope-with-rail-link-passengers-minister-20121002-26wq3.html

Still seems that the media haven't caught up that the upper northern line will almost certainly need to run to/from Sydney Terminal in peak.

[somebody]

I thought it was more, but was using the Nth Shore timetable at central for 7:45 to 8:45

Correct, but:
8am-8:59am at Town Hall = 18tph.

Simple, schedule it. If you run 4t/hr from NWRL, time it to connect with CR. Yes there will be trains that don't connect, watch the cattle adjust when they find out leaving 5-10min later or earlier = seat

Plan was for 12tph on the NWRL.  A bit hard to coordinate this with a 20tph railway.  Besides, such planning will go awry with the slightest provocation.

[somebody]

Yes they could run frequent little trains like Vancouver Skytrain,

I wouldn't rule this possibility out.  There has been talk of driverless too.  Infrastructure NSW plan seems to have it ultimately connecting with the Inner West line, which is far more sensible than Hurstville (Bankstown was OK in principle).

[somebody]

EIS 2 is released: http://northwestrail.com.au/

Have your say on second Environmental Impact Statement
Rouse Hill Station street view

North West Sydney has got its first look at the region's eight new railway stations and other major benefits of the North West Rail Link.

The project's second Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is now on public exhibition and the community will have until December 3 to have their say.

Click here for a summary of the second Environmental Impact Statement, including locations where you can have your say during the public exhibition period.

This is a great opportunity to participate in the community discussion around the North West Rail Link and to have your say.

The second EIS highlights key benefits of the project, including:

    The North West Rail Link is forecast to reduce car trips by 14 million a year soon after opening – this is about 12,000 fewer car trips in an average two-hour weekday morning peak. The reduction in car trips is forecast to increase to 20 million a year by 2036;
    The trip from Cudgegong Road, Rouse Hill to Macquarie Park will take about 28 minutes, to Chatswood 37 minutes and to Wynyard (including an interchange) 57 minutes.

The second EIS focuses on:

    Design and operation of the eight new railway stations at Cherrybrook, Castle Hill, Showground, Norwest, Bella Vista, Kellyville, Rouse Hill and Cudgegong Rd;
    Commuter parking for 4,000 cars;
    How the rapid transit rail link operates, including the new generation single deck trains announced as part of Sydney's Rail Future;
    Transport interchanges;
    Areas around the railway stations; and
    Rail infrastructure like railway tracks and signalling systems.

The first EIS was approved in late September, giving the planning green light to building the 15km of tunnels, station excavations and starting the work on the 4km skytrain section.

By splitting the planning approvals process in two, we can now get on and build the tunnels – which will take the longest amount of time – while spending a little extra time through the second EIS looking at the design of the stations and the areas around them.

Following community feedback over the past 18 months, key improvements to the North West Rail Link include:

    Going from six to eight railway stations;
    Increasing commuter car parking by 1,000 spaces – to 4,000;
    Securing the future of the Castle Hill Showground;
    Easing disruption to Norwest Boulevard during construction by slightly moving Norwest station; and
    Reducing the size of the Cheltenham construction site by more than 2,000 square metres.

The full Environmental Impact Statement can be viewed in our library.

Very optimistic forecasts there.  Only really possible with a lot of people doing non-CBD rail trips on the line.

[somebody]

Not sure what the forecast numbers are, but I suppose if its a sucess it will finally kill off the mentality that all PT infratsructure must be CBD focused.

It's in the quoted block above, to repeat:

about 12,000 fewer car trips in an average two-hour weekday morning peak

[SurfRail]

8 car DD sets would be closer to 2,000 pax easily at crush loads.  The seated capacity alone is around 100-110 per carriage.

Melbourne manages around 1,500 at crush for a 6 car set, here and Perth would probably manage 1,000 to 1,100.  (I believe the Perth tolerances are a bit higher than ours.)

Adelaide tends to operate 4-car maximum trains these days so it would be less still.

[somebody]

I can only imagine that they are forecasting some counter peak loads.

But the suggestion is that the capacity of the single deck trains is to be 1300, running 12tph.  I think that is what you are looking for.

8 car DD sets would be closer to 2,000 pax easily at crush loads.  The seated capacity alone is around 100-110 per carriage.

Melbourne manages around 1,500 at crush for a 6 car set, here and Perth would probably manage 1,000 to 1,100.  (I believe the Perth tolerances are a bit higher than ours.)

Adelaide tends to operate 4-car maximum trains these days so it would be less still.

Standing capacity of a Cityrail DD in practice isn't very high.  Not many people stand on the upper and lower decks but rather crowd the vestibules.  Also the aisles are quite narrow and the ceiling isn't high (on the lower deck about 6').

[Set in train]

Feeder buses, they acutally understand the concept in NSW! 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-10-31/plans-to-axe-express-buses-to-city-criticised/4343412?section=nsw

57 mins on the train from Rouse Hill is comparable to current midday traffic the google maps calc is saying.

[somebody]

Feeder buses, they acutally understand the concept in NSW! 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-10-31/plans-to-axe-express-buses-to-city-criticised/4343412?section=nsw

57 mins on the train from Rouse Hill is comparable to current midday traffic the google maps calc is saying.

I would say less than in QLD.  QLD doesn't have too many bus runs of 30km+ competing directly with rail feeders, e.g. 620X to City competes with 626 feeder.  @Zillmere, Fruitgrove and Altandi would be the closest examples OTOH.

I suppose the 250 @Cleveland would be an example.

[ozbob]

Twitter

Jake Saulwick ‏@JakeSaulwick

Public transport advocates have made a video in protest against O'Farrell's privatised north-west rail shuttle: ...

Published on 4 Feb 2013

In 2012 NSW's O'Farrell Government announced that Sydney's long-awaited North West Rail Link would proceed, but only as a metro-style, privatised operation. In addition, the Epping-Chatswood tunnel and its stations would be modified so that it could not be used by modern double-deck suburban trains.

This video examines the misinformation, motivations, personalities and politics behind the decision.

[ozbob]

From the Sydney Morning Herald click here!

Call to reverse decision on train tunnels

Call to reverse decision on train tunnels
March 6, 2013 Jacob Saulwick

Gladys Berejiklian needs to urgently intervene to prevent tunnels for the north-west rail link being dug smaller than the rest of Sydney's train network, a member of the Herald transport inquiry of 2010 warns.

Sandy Thomas, a consultant to NSW governments and author of the Herald's independent transport inquiry report, said the Transport Minister's decision to build the smaller tunnels was akin to setting up different rail gauges in each of the Australian colonies more than 150 years ago.

This year, the government will award tenders for firms to dig 14 kilometres of tunnel for the north-west rail link, slightly too small to accommodate CityRail's double-deck trains.

This will mean the privately-run north-west rail link will be operationally separate from the rest of the CityRail network. But it will also mean that if the government fulfils its promise to link the north-west rail link to a new crossing of Sydney Harbour and the existing Bankstown and Illawarra lines, these lines too will be unable to run double-deck trains with more seats.

Transport for NSW is building the tunnels slightly smaller because it says single-deck trains are the future. They need to spend less time at stations dropping passengers off and the department argues they can carry more people than double-deck trains.

Mr Thomas said that last year was ''likely to be remembered as the year an ambitious NSW Transport Minister Gladys Berejiklian mistakenly placed her faith in 'experts' from only one side of the debates and, in doing so, inadvertently destroyed the future cohesion, interoperability, integrity, reliability, capacity and efficiency of Sydney's rail network''.

Mr Thomas, who appealed to the minister to intervene to allow larger tunnels, said the disagreement over planning for the north-west rail link was part of a conflict that has split bureaucrats since at least 2005.

The nub of the dispute is whether the government should expand the heavy rail network first, or instead focus on building new train lines using private companies to run single-deck trains.

A spokeswoman for Transport for NSW said it was ''certain'' the department's plan was the right one. Mr Thomas' critique is available at catalyst.com.au.

[SteelPan]

I think it's hilarious when govt depts tell us their certain their plan is the "right one"    famous last words...after all that visionary thinking of the different rail gauges proved spot-on didn't it       

[ozbob]

Twitter

Jake Saulwick ‏@JakeSaulwick 2m

Consortia led by MTR, which runs Melbourne's trains, and Serco, the detention centre operator, shortlisted to run the north west rail link

==================

[SurfRail]

Serco previously ran buses in Adelaide (amongst many other utility type industries).

[Gazza]

Serco also run the London DLR.
http://www.serco.com/markets/transport/docklands.asp

[ozbob]

Serco are into everything it seems ..

--> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serco_Group