Sydney Metro

[#Metro]

"Part of the problem we have today is that we have a clumsy 19th-century-focused double-deck system that keeps trying to have Band-Aid solutions," Berejiklian said.

Sure she wasn't talking about Brisbane and all of it's Band-Aids!?

[Fares_Fair]

The chairman of Infrastructure NSW, the former premier Nick Greiner, has embraced the new model for the north-west as a victory for common sense.

"There is not and there will not be a god-given right for people to go to the corner of their street and get on something and get off where they work in the city," Greiner said last week.

Oh 

[SurfRail]

"There is not and there will not be a god-given right for people to go to the corner of their street and get on something and get off where they work in the city," Greiner said last week.

"Unless they live in Brisbane Transport's service area," he hastily added.

[Gazza]

Oh 

Look outside Australia FF....No such thing as a single seat journey for everyone, you have to change trains!

[Fares_Fair]

"There is not and there will not be a god-given right for people to go to the corner of their street and get on something and get off where they work in the city," Greiner said last week.

"Unless they live in Brisbane Transport's service area," he hastily added.

[ozbob]

Sydney Morning Herald --> Expert warns of rail change risks

[somebody]

The lower Nth Shore includes Nth Syd station and the bridge. With 20 trains per hour over bridge, you are at capacity. Agree Nth of Nth Syd there are not 20 trains per hour due to terminators, for now. But the most urgent amplification project on city rail is the bridge. The Metro project will eventually resolve.

I'll add this: there is no need for North Sydney terminators. Checking the timetable, the first North Sydney starter is at 9:41am.  There are terminators from the other side, but that doesn't affect the problem you are referring to.  There are North Sydney terminators at 17:17, 17:47, 18:06, so that is a few trains whose paths are wasted.

[ozbob]

From Hills News click here!

North West Rail Link: Cherrybrook residents fear disruption

North West Rail Link: Cherrybrook residents fear disruption
BY STEVEN SPIERINGS
03 Jul, 2012 12:00 AM

RESIDENTS in Cherrybrook have voiced their concerns about how their homes will be affected during the construction of the North West Rail Link.

Tunnelling isn't due to start at Cherrybrook until 2014 but residents around Franklin and Robert roads are worried about excessive noise and traffic disruptions.

The News called a residents action group for Cherrybrook but members declined to comment.

An action group spokesman said several meetings with representatives of the North West Rail Link have been organised to address their concerns. Hornsby councillor Bruce Mills said Cherrybrook will become a noisy and dirty construction zone for up to six years.

"I've said before that I haven't met anyone opposed to more rail services," Cr Mills said.

"My concern is noise levels at neighbouring dwellings and a nearby childcare centre will exceed acceptable noise levels by up to 20 decibels."

A rail link spokesman said regular information sessions are being held.

"More than 500 people attended the eight recent information sessions," he said.

"Given the steep topography of the site, many nearby properties are lower than the construction site. Therefore, the noise walls are designed to lessen the impact on nearby properties as much as possible.

"And wherever possible we will keep the existing trees and vegetation around the perimeter of construction sites to act as a visual screen."

Hornsby MP Matt Kean said the government will be looking to implement viable traffic and noise solutions for anyone affected by construction.

"My door is open to anyone who will be impacted during the construction phase of the rail link," Mr Kean said.

WHAT CHERRYBROOK LOCALS SAID:

Shueta Sharma: ''I don't think Franklin Road will be able to handle an increase in traffic. It's a single-lane road with a school on it.''

Leland Lim: ''I'll definitely use it and I hope the station adds to my home value.''

Phillip Flores: ''It's a big improvement for the area and it will benefit the local schools and residents.''

Jaya Rattan: ''It's good it's being built underground which, hopefully, will minimise noise.''

Jay Saggerson: ''I'm happy we're getting a station but the worst part is the construction will go on for a long time.''

[ozbob]

From the Sydney Morning Herald click here!

Tunnel too small could make rail link a bridge too far

Tunnel too small could make rail link a bridge too far
Jacob Saulwick
July 4, 2012

WHEN the tunnels for the North West Rail Link are finished in just over four years, they will have an internal diameter of about 6.1 metres, too small for the type of trains used in Sydney.

The Transport Minister, Gladys Berejiklian, said the decision to bore smaller tunnels for Sydney's biggest rail project in decades was not about saving money.

But the commitment to smaller tunnels has sparked fears among some transport planners that, for the sake of a few centimetres on either side, the government could be forever locking off transport options.

This is because the size of the tunnels may not affect only the type of trains that use the North West Rail Link.

The government has also committed to connecting the north west link with another rail crossing for Sydney Harbour, so it will also have implications for the types of trains that use that crossing.

One concern is that it could limit the harbour crossing's ability to accommodate double-deck inter-urban trains, or even high-speed trains if they were introduced on the east coast.

The project director for the North West Rail Link, Rodd Staples, told an industry briefing last week the tunnels would have an internal diameter of 6.1 metres. This is about 40 centimetres smaller than tunnels bored for the Epping to Chatswood link.

It is also too small to fit a Sydney double-deck train and its overhead wiring, according to the government and several rail industry sources.

The trains are about 4.4 metres high and are powered by overhead wiring, which on RailCorp's guidelines, has to sit more than six metres above the rail.

One consultant who attended last week's industry briefing said if the North West Rail Link was built only for single-deck trains, it would be ''almost inevitable'' the second rail crossing would be limited to similar trains.

Another planner said it was crucial the second crossing allow express services from the central coast or Newcastle, using double-deck trains, or high-speed rail.

''The basic question is are we thinking about the Sydney basin, or also areas beyond the Sydney basin? If we are going to be spending so much money [on another harbour crossing] we should be,'' the planner said.

On the government's timeline, the contract for tunnelling the twin 15.5 kilometres underground for the North West Rail Link will be signed in about a year. This will allow the four tunnel boring machines it is ordering to be in the ground by the middle of 2014.

The chief executive of industry group the Tourism and Transport Forum, John Lee, said it was conventional to shape the size of a tunnel around the type of train to run through it.

''I think it has been a smart decision,'' Mr Lee said.

Ms Berejiklian said: "There will be some cost savings in building smaller tunnels, however, there will also be some additional costs like the conversion of the Epping to Chatswood rail tunnels to this new rapid transit system.''

"The second harbour crossing will be part of the rapid transit network. Fast, high-capacity, single-deck trains means we can move more people every hour than regular double-deck services.''

However, the Herald's transport inquiry of 2009 and 2010 argued against this analysis and found that double-deck trains could carry more people.

[somebody]

Well, if they vote against sense, you can expect outcomes like this.

This will be cursed for decades to come.

[somebody]

The 2nd tunnel was always going to be single deck standard, under ALP's plans or LNP. Its been long discussed the double deck network is close to its max and that no new tunnels through the city would be built for DD.

Well the ALP had finally backed down on this one.  It needs to be done, and will still need to be done after this second harbour crossing.

[somebody]

But nothing will be done to cater for Western and lower Northern line growth - probably a number of Sydney Terminal trains will re-appear.

[somebody]

But nothing will be done to cater for Western and lower Northern line growth - probably a number of Sydney Terminal trains will re-appear.

Agree, this will have to happen and I don't see why its so evil not to as remove the city tunnels from the equation and there is a reasonable of growth options in the whole western corridore timetable. Whats the difference between Plat 15 and 16, 30m? ok they have to go down and up, just like arriving on other platforms. So going from what I reviously saw on the timetable, why not have some of the Western Express' just run into Platform 15, maybe Richmond services which would run limited express from Granville or Blacktown?

Perhaps all Richmond trains should be converted to a Plat 15 terminator.

Richmond trains will possibly go over to sector 2 (city circle).  They require conflicts to reach Sydney Terminal.  But sectorisation would likely need to break in that world between Westmead and Seven Hills.

Other than that, one of the major problems with running into Sydney Terminal is that the trains leaving Central 16 (esp) and 17 for Town Hall are already full.  They cannot handle half a train full into any particular train and as Sydneysiders aren't inclined to wait for the next train it tends to load up that particular train leading to long dwells and late running.

The third point is that without breaking sectorisation through Homebush (bad) the ability to run into Sydney Terminal on the mains is limited to the number lower Northern Line paths plus the number of empty paths, currently only 4/hour + 1/hour.

I insist that best practice would be to give the Western Line its own path through the CBD.

[justanotheruser]

From Hills News click here!

North West Rail Link: Cherrybrook residents fear disruption

[/quote]
yes can't upset those precious cherrybrook residents. It is about time they showed concern for someone other than themselves. The damage they did when hornsby council was dominated by cherrybrook residents is still evident. No wonder they got voted off at next election!

[somebody]

From Hills News click here!

North West Rail Link: Cherrybrook residents fear disruption

yes can't upset those precious cherrybrook residents. It is about time they showed concern for someone other than themselves. The damage they did when hornsby council was dominated by cherrybrook residents is still evident. No wonder they got voted off at next election!

As a former resident of Cherrybrook, I have no idea what you are talking about.

[justanotheruser]

Please don't troll.  This is clearly incorrect from the capacity stats which Cityrail put out, and I linked to above.  As for the options to allow for future growth, well the 2 additional paths per hour possible is 2 more than there are for the Western+lower Northern lines through to North Sydney, not to mention the possibility of sending Pennant Hills via Strathfield.

Again, please don't troll.

Perhaps you need to look closer at the stats. The stats for the north shore line include trains that run near empty along the epping-chatswood link. Remove those trains from the north shore line figures and suddenly the gap between average load and max load becomes severely smaller. At the moment there is only a 10% difference in the figures for western line and north shore line.  Remove the chatswood-epping trains from that figure and north shore line is easily more crowded and close to capacity. I will find it interesting when I get some peak hour services again soon. Will I still miss out on a seat at hornsby like I did in the past (2002)

The other thing the figures you quoted show is that the northern line needs relief! The northern line and newcastle central coast are obviously the main priority (according to your evidence!)


Just out of curiosity Simon did you notice the glaring error in the article you quoted from the SMH?

[somebody]

Perhaps you need to look closer at the stats.

Incorrect.

The stats for the north shore line include trains that run near empty along the epping-chatswood link.

A gross exaggeration.  Trains with a Central time between 8am and 9am are all at least 80% seated load at all three measurement points: http://cityrail.info/about/our_performance/service_capacity.pdf

Remove those trains from the north shore line figures and suddenly the gap between average load and max load becomes severely smaller. At the moment there is only a 10% difference in the figures for western line and north shore line.  Remove the chatswood-epping trains from that figure and north shore line is easily more crowded and close to capacity. I will find it interesting when I get some peak hour services again soon. Will I still miss out on a seat at hornsby like I did in the past (2002)

I don't think I could try to find the words to respond to that extraordinary set of comments.

The other thing the figures you quoted show is that the northern line needs relief! The northern line and newcastle central coast are obviously the main priority (according to your evidence!)

Absolutely the northern line needs relief, and it was made worse by the ECRL as the upper northern line trains assisted at Eastwood and West Ryde, but no more.

Just out of curiosity Simon did you notice the glaring error in the article you quoted from the SMH?

Probably.  Care to illuminate me on what error you are referring to?

[justanotheruser]

Probably.  Care to illuminate me on what error you are referring to?

I'm sure someone of your superior knowledge could easily point it out. Just wondering then what exactly was the point of quoting the article if you know it has errors?

[somebody]

We're on the third page of this thread and I am sure I have quoted several articles.  I don't care to go back and re-examine the thread for errors in articles I have quoted.  The most recent article I quoted is from more than 3 weeks ago so I'm not sure why you are bringing that up now.

[ozbob]

From the Byron Shire News click here!

Fraser backs rail over highway

Fraser backs rail over highway

Greg White | 21st July 2012 1:20 PM

NATIONALS Member for Coffs Harbour, Andrew Fraser, has backed the NSW government decision to prioritise funding for Sydney's north west rail link rather than switch the money to complete the Pacific Highway upgrade.

With $3.5 billion committed to the city project despite the objections of Infrastructure Australia and the shock announcement Premier Barry O'Farrell had back-flipped on a promise to take the rail link directly into the city, the local member has thrown responsibility back on the Federal Labor Government and key independent Rob Oakeshott.

Speaking to ABC Mid North Coast, Mr Fraser challenged those parties to instead hand over $2 billion set aside for another Sydney scheme.

"The Federal Government if they wish to buy into this - or Mr Oakeshott wishes to buy into this - should press for the $2 billion that's sitting there doing nothing for the Parramatta to Epping rail link which no-one wants," he said.

"That should be re-allocated to the Pacific Highway and basically then that will be $200 - $300 million short of completing the task."

Last month's NSW budget allocated $9 billion to Sydney transport projects leaving the Coalition's pre-election promise of upgrading the full length of the Pacific Highway to dual carriageway by 2016 up in the air.

However Independent Lyne MP Rob Oakeshott secured a commitment from Federal Labor Minister Anthony Albanese to quarantine a record $3.56 billion from the Commonwealth budget that could be handed over for the upgrade if the state government had a change of heart.

"It's one thing to fight for funding you know is needed to complete the highway upgrade but it's another thing altogether to have secured the largest ever allocation to a state road project and then see it jeopardised by some sort of political game," Mr Oakeshott said.

[somebody]

Didn't see this in the news, and there's nothing on Infrastructure Australia's site, but it's kind of relevant, from the Minister.

Federal Government Rejects NWRL Again



13 July 2012

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT REJECTS NWRL AGAIN

Infrastructure Australia's ranking of the North West Rail Link as "early stage" and failure to see this project as a priority is another insult to the population of Sydney's west, Minister for Transport Gladys Berejiklian said today.

"Once again this is a joke - Infrastructure Australia's Michael Deegan and Federal Transport Minister Anthony Albanese are the only people who don't see this project as a priority," Ms Berejiklian said.

"Placing this project in the 'Early Stage' category shows just how little the Federal Government understands about the North West Rail Link.

"The fact that the Federal Government states in its latest document titled A Report to the Council of Australian Governments that 'further analysis of options is required' is an absolute joke.

"Labor spent more than a decade announcing and cancelling this project, but in the end had nothing to show for it. Taxpayers deserve to see progress."

The O'Farrell Government is getting on with the job of building this important project, with early construction work starting later this year, Ms Berejiklian said.

"We have allocated $360 million to fund the preparation of major construction sites, property acquisition and the second Environmental Impact Statement this financial year alone.

"A massive $3.3 billion has been set aside over the next four years for the construction of the North West Rail Link, with tunnel boring machines to be in the ground in 2014.

"We are determined to make sure the Federal Government understands the value of directing funding to this project."

http://www.gladys.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=261

[somebody]

KK tried and failed,

Don't remember that?  NWRL was an after WEX policy for KK.  There was a NW Metro but she dumped that policy.

[somebody]

Besides, they have no interest in looking like fools, which is what they would do if they gave money to build a line which can't reach the city!

[justanotheruser]

Besides, they have no interest in looking like fools, which is what they would do if they gave money to build a line which can't reach the city!

I don't remember the government looking like fools when they built the Y link. Are you sure your response is not just your own preconceived thinking? What about inter-urban trains? They don't really reach the city. The city really starts at town hall not central even though central is classified as city.

[somebody]

Besides, they have no interest in looking like fools, which is what they would do if they gave money to build a line which can't reach the city!

I don't remember the government looking like fools when they built the Y link. Are you sure your response is not just your own preconceived thinking? What about inter-urban trains? They don't really reach the city. The city really starts at town hall not central even though central is classified as city.

The Y-Link isn't a radial line.  I'll clarify my previous comment then:
"they have no interest in looking like fools, which is what they would do if they gave money to build a radial line which can't reach the city!

[somebody]

-Both routes have options for increased number of services to the city, inparticular the Nth line especially if services terminate at Plat 1-15 Central.

Well actually trains which now connect to Town Hall and Wynyard will need to run in to Central(i).  I'm sure this has been pointed out before.

I wouldn't sweat so much about Circular Quay, St James and Museum.  They aren't that well used nor are they particularly convenient for most.

- While the trains from the NW line will not reach the city centre directly on opening, it must be noted that neither does the bulk of the very sucessful Greater Syd buses and even the ferries leave you with a nice walk up hill. However the train will have a faster connection.

Not sure what you mean with the buses.  A sizeable portion of the bus routes in Sydney actually go in to the CBD.  Others go into other destinations like North Sydney, Parramatta and a few feed railway stations.

It's a bit annoying about not being able to use Cityrail to leave the ferry wharf without paying another flag fall, but that's Sydney's fare structure for you.

FWIW, Central is the busiest station, Town Hall is slightly behind and Wynyard is a fair way back in third.  Wynyard is the busiest per track though.

[justanotheruser]

Besides, they have no interest in looking like fools, which is what they would do if they gave money to build a line which can't reach the city!

I don't remember the government looking like fools when they built the Y link. Are you sure your response is not just your own preconceived thinking? What about inter-urban trains? They don't really reach the city. The city really starts at town hall not central even though central is classified as city.

The Y-Link isn't a radial line.  I'll clarify my previous comment then:
"they have no interest in looking like fools, which is what they would do if they gave money to build a radial line which can't reach the city!

It would appear they have decided this isn't a radial line either. It's just that you believe it should be.

[somebody]

It would appear they have decided this isn't a radial line either. It's just that you believe it should be.

Not sure how you can say that.  The second phase is to reach the CBD.

[somebody]

And now there seems to be a push by councils to have the Y link run into the city via Airport. Why I have no idea!

Are you sure that isn't a new Y link at Glenfield to have a faster Liverpool route?  It's not currently possible to get the Y link to run to the Airport, except via Circular Quay.

[justanotheruser]

It would appear they have decided this isn't a radial line either. It's just that you believe it should be.

Not sure how you can say that.  The second phase is to reach the CBD.

Well I knew that was 2nd phase but your comments suggested otherwise. How you can say they don't plan on going into CBD when the plan is there is strange.

[somebody]

Well I am not going to continue a pointless argument about it then.

[colinw]

SMH -> Coalition figures restive over new rail plan

CONCERNS are mounting in the Coalition's northern suburbs heartland about the proposed north-west rail link and the disruption it will cause to existing train services.

In addition, with the state government almost two months behind schedule in releasing its draft master plan for transport, public transport advocates are anxious that the government is locking in long-term decisions with minimal consultation.

Last month, the government announced a U-turn on the north-west rail link, scrapping a plan to construct it as a heavy rail extension to the existing train system.

Instead, a line will be built for single-deck trains on a privately run shuttle service between Chatswood and Rouse Hill. The new plan means that residents using stations on the Northern Line north of Epping who want to travel to the lower north shore or the city would have to catch three trains: one to Epping, a second on the shuttle service, and a third south from Chatswood.

This issue was raised at a community meeting at Pennant Hills on Saturday night, hosted by the federal MP for Berowra, Philip Ruddock.

The state MP for Hornsby, Matt Kean, also addressed the meeting. Yesterday, Mr Kean told the Herald there were ''legitimate concerns in the community about how this is going to work.

''I share those concerns and I have voiced them to the minister,'' Mr Kean said.

''I have been assured that there will be appropriate community consultation, but I want to make sure that the community's concerns are addressed and taken on board,'' he said. The concerns are emerging as the government prepares for the release of its long-awaited draft transport master plan, first scheduled for release in June.

The convener of Action for Public Transport, Jim Donovan, has written to the Transport Minister, Gladys Berejiklian, to complain that two significant decisions - the north-west rail link plan and the removal of the cap on container freight movements from Port Botany - had been made before the transport plan was released.

Ms Berejiklian said the community's response to the north-west rail link proposal had been positive. ''My view of interchanging is that if it is fast and convenient, it is a much better option for the customer,'' she said.

''Once the north-west rail link is built, trains will run approximately every five minutes from the north west to Chatswood via Epping, a significant increase in the frequency of services on the line between Epping and Chatswood compared to today,'' she said.

''Depending on where they live, customers in the Beecroft and Pennant Hills area also have the option to catch the new rapid transit trains on the north-west rail link from Cherrybrook station.''

[duncan]

I recently walked from Cudgegong Road to Schofields and it is not very far.

[somebody]

Might not be news that Prof Hensher doesn't think the NWRL is a good idea, but I thought I'd post it anyway.

[somebody]

Might not be news that Prof Hensher doesn't think the NWRL is a good idea, but I thought I'd post it anyway.

idiot

Not as stupid as building the NWRL without the CBD capacity.

[SurfRail]

Hensher is a shill for the bus industry.  He has a column in Australasian Bus and Coach where he conflates virtually all rail projects with the ribbon-cutting effect on the basis "buses are cheaper".

[somebody]

Might not be news that Prof Hensher doesn't think the NWRL is a good idea, but I thought I'd post it anyway.

idiot

Not as stupid as building the NWRL without the CBD capacity.

Its a stupid idea, just bloody practical and being realistic as well as delivering an election promise as much as possible and a solution that uterlises the remainder of the NS and NM capacity. If you were managing the books, you'd be doing the same or similar. Its all too easy for us arm chair specialists to spend money we don't have or not identified on how it will be sourced.

What's a stupid idea?  Ramped up buses?  What is a stupid idea is insisting that all the buses from the Harbour Bridge must run to York St (except about 10/hr or ~3% E86-E89).

NS is already at 18tph in the busiest part of the peak.  NM+Western is at 19tph through Town Hall.  What is this "Remainder of capacity" you speak of?

If I was managing the books, I would not be spending $8bn on something which cannot do very much to help public transport in Sydney.

Hensher is a shill for the bus industry.  He has a column in Australasian Bus and Coach where he conflates virtually all rail projects with the ribbon-cutting effect on the basis "buses are cheaper".

And have buses solved the problem to date? No! so why continue with this limited option.

Buses have done no worse than Cityrail over the last 30 years, and in the last decade done far better.  Much of the growth in PT use in Sydney is indeed on buses.

[somebody]

Simon, Syd CBD is like Brisbane. In peak hour its bus grid lock. 5 years back I stayed in a hotel near DH and went out for Breaky everyday. Bendy buses clearly too big for the streets they were on, jammy traffic.

I'm quite aware of the situation regarding bus congestion in the Sydney CBD, thank you very much.

While in the AM peak York St and George St northbound are quite congested, there is quite a bit of excess capacity on Clarence St, George St southbound, Castlereagh St and Elizabeth St (both directions).

The is additional capacity on the western mai to bring trains in from north and terminate at Central.

Without violating Clearways, this is very limited - to 4tph from the West.  I guess you can add a few more from the North.

Try telling Sydneysiders that this is your plan.  They'll throttle you.

[somebody]

So why flog the bus option if you know the streets are already congested? Just because one street has yet to be F___ed up, doesn't mean we have to.

Why flog the rail solution if you know that there is limited capacity for more trains?

There IS more capacity for more buses.  The reason for the inertia baffles me.

Unless things have changed, travelling from CC, the CC trains maybefull to Hornsby, but after Hornsby the numbers drop off a bit with often seating available. Many of these same trains stop at Epping and hence provide extra capacity on their own to Central. 6 weeks ago, we caught a 6pm'ish Central frequent stopper to Gosford. FYI, the most crowded that train was the entire trip was Straithfield to Epping. How many actually started the trip from other than Straithfield, how many changed mode/trains at Epping, no idea. But I suspect many/most?

What's your point?

The more of a sucess the NW line, the faster the City extension will occur.

Conversely, the less of a success it is, the slower this will occur.

[somebody]

I see far bigger priorities for Sydney's PT than this line.  Just getting the existing lines working properly is what is needed far more than rail expansion of what is already a quite extensive system.