Article: New northwest rail link more a shuttle

[ozbob]

From the Daily Telegraph click here!

New northwest rail link more a shuttle

New northwest rail link more a shuttle

    EXCLUSIVE by Rhys Haynes
    From: The Daily Telegraph
    July 06, 2011 12:00AM

THE northwest rail link will run as a shuttle service between Rouse Hill and Chatswood, with as few as two trains an hour going into the CBD, it can be revealed.

It is understood four to six trains an hour will take commuters from the northwest to Chatswood. But due to capacity constraints on the interconnecting north shore line, not all services will continue into the CBD.

Northwest rail link project manager Rodd Staples said yesterday about a third of commuters using the line won't work in the CBD.

"The project team, as part of its detailed planning and preparatory work for the northwest rail link, is reviewing preliminary demand analysis to establish who will use the new line," he said.

"The Department of Transport's preliminary data analysis indicates between 30 and 40 per cent of passengers travelling from the northwest won't travel across the Harbour Bridge, instead disembarking to go to work in centres like Macquarie Park, Chatswood, St Leonards and North Sydney."

He added the link will also free up overcrowding on the western line.

"Preliminary research shows many commuters from the northwest drive to stations along the western line and catch the train into the city," he said.

"It shows there would be reduction of up to 2500 passengers per peak on the western line if the northwest rail link existed today."

The government acknowledges the present CityRail timetable has 18 trains crossing the Harbour Bridge each hour, with room for just two more. A new timetable may fix that problem before the new line opens, it is believed.

The previous state government had proposed to divert the northwest line before Epping station at Cheltenham, and send four trains an hour down the main northern line via Strathfield.

Transport Minister Gladys Berejiklian rejects claims the project could not be successful unless another Harbour crossing is built.

"In August last year the then state Labor government made a submission for funding to the commonwealth body, Infrastructure Australia, on transport priorities for NSW," she said.

"It included an 80-odd page submission on the northwest rail link, clearly showing it as the top priority."

Transport consultant Chris Stapleton said the shuttle-run idea may be the only solution to the capacity issues.

"It is a clever way of solving the problem. Eventually they will have to have something across the Harbour anyway, because the line is full," he said.

[colinw]

Here comes the NSW request for a couple of bazillion dollars to build Cross Harbour Rail.  We'd better get our CRR business case done and submission in pronto!

[Stillwater]

People should read this appraisal carefully, because it goes to the heart of IA's concerns about the business case for CRR.

http://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/2011_coag/files/Cross_River_Rail_Appraisal2011.pdf

The fact that IA wants a review of the Queensland Government's costings, engineering drawings and assessment of a benefit-cost ratio indicates that it does not believe that the state government's case has sufficient rigour.

That is damning.

The state government has been caught  'cooking up' the benefit-cost ratio.  It has not allowed for any contingency (an amount set aside for any cost increases during construction), the costings do not include cost associated with train stabling or with additional rolling stock requirements.

The IA appraisal shows, quite rightly, why IA says this project is not yet ready.

The message for Queensland? ...... business case, business case,robust business case with sufficient data and analysis to prove why CRR is a good investment and a better investment when considered against other national infrastructure projects in which IA is being asked to invest federal taxpayer dollars.

[colinw]

Which is worrying, because elsewhere IA have said that CRR was one of the best & most detailed submissions!

[O_128]

6tph to chatswood is fine considering that chatswood is like a CBD, there are also heaps of trains to the CBD from chatswood.

[somebody]

6tph to chatswood is fine considering that chatswood is like a CBD, there are also heaps of trains to the CBD from chatswood.

Disagree with you there.  There is nothing fine about terminating 6tph at Chatswood.

[Gazza]

Couldn't they just build the two new harbour crossing tracks by reclaiming the ones that used to be on the harbour bridge, and then build a supplementary harbour road crossing . It seems road tunnels can be built for less cost than rail ones, and at least they could  use  a PPP to do the road tunnel...Less risky because the market is already there, so investors would perhaps be less spooked than say a tunnel on a non pre existing route.
Same outcome, but money saved.

Of course, another option is to say to the public, it would cost  X billion to reclaim the harbour bridge, or  XXXXXXXXXXX billion to do the line fully underground, which should we do?

As a site note, when did they remove the other two tracks on the harbour bridge anyway?

[somebody]

1958 according to Wiki.

I'd think re-building the bridge of the road would be a real headache.  It was a Wynyard terminating set up, so people would have to change to reach Town Hall.

It may be possible to have something towards Mosman without the bridge over the road, but it would require reclaiming two traffic lanes from the Harbour Bridge.  More politically doable in Sydney than what it would be in Brisbane, but still problematic.  Also, without the connection to North Sydney it would be an isolated system.  Perhaps a tram would be an interesting idea.

[somebody]

CRR/IA discussion split off to Qld IA thread here: http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=6319.40

Let's keep it on topic, or at least in the correct state.

[O_128]

1958 according to Wiki.

I'd think re-building the bridge of the road would be a real headache.  It was a Wynyard terminating set up, so people would have to change to reach Town Hall.

It may be possible to have something towards Mosman without the bridge over the road, but it would require reclaiming two traffic lanes from the Harbour Bridge.  More politically doable in Sydney than what it would be in Brisbane, but still problematic.  Also, without the connection to North Sydney it would be an isolated system.  Perhaps a tram would be an interesting idea.

The current favoured idea is to use the tunnels from wynard that are currently are a carpark to build light rail across the other 2 lanes and create a route to Manly, Mosman, Waringah Mall

[somebody]

Favoured by whom?

[colinw]

Ah, looks like Barry is after a 2nd rail crossing of the harbour ...

The Daily Telegraph -> Barry O'Farrell offers Julia Gillard a rail switch

THE southwest rail link or a second harbour crossing would be funded by the federal government and NSW would approve the Epping to Parramatta rail link under a compromise deal put forward by Premier Barry O'Farrell yesterday.

The deal has been put on the table in an attempt to cut the impasse on rail infrastructure funding, senior state government sources confirmed.

As negotiations continue over the state-backed $7 billion North West Rail Link and the Gillard-backed $3 billion Epping to Parramatta project, Mr O'Farrell suggested Ms Gillard fund the southwest link, which would serve Labor electorates.

Werriwa is held by Labor with a 6 per cent margin whereas Macarthur is held by the Liberals by 3.5 per cent.

There has long been resistance to federal funding of the North West Rail Link, which mostly serves the safe Liberal seat of Mitchell.

"We have put a position to them, we've made clear that our priorities are northwest and southwest," a senior goverment source said.

"We've suggested to them why don't they pay for southwest, because that's their territory and we'll guarantee the Epping to Parramatta is a third item.

"The strategy would be 'You're wedded to Epping to Parramatta, we're wedded to northwest rail - why don't you use the same amount of funding that was going to go into Parramatta to Epping to help us relieve an existing problem?'

"Whether that's southwest, whether it's a second harbour crossing, whether it's another project, that's still a help to us because we still manage to avoid (making) borrowings (for the northwest)."

A senior state government source said some in the Gillard government were seeing the "illogicality" of the position of Infrastructure Minister Anthony Albanese, who wants to plug on with the Epping to Parramatta project even though work would not begin on it until after the next federal election.

A federal minister is understood to have recently told Mr O'Farrell that there was clear benefit in the federal government funding some aspect of the North West Rail Link and being at milestone announcements on the link in the lead-up to the federal election.

Since the NSW election, Mr O'Farrell has made it a mission to attempt to reach a compromise with the Prime Minister which would see federal funding directed to the North West Rail Link.

[Stillwater]

Well, such political horse trading clearly does go on.  It is interesting to see politicians put the case in such a matter-of-fact way, and so bluntly through the media.  Obviously, the way that electorates vote influences the roll-out of infrastructure to those places.  The question is whether that is a good thing.

The conservative-voting people of the Sunshine Coast know all about this, as their track duplication to Landsborough was stopped short at Beerburrum just days after voting out the local Labor member in a state election. 

That action was taken against the advice of transport officials who warned the government that there would be no appreciable gain won from track duplication to Beerburrum without the work proceeding to Landsborough.

When politics triumphs over common sense, you have to shake your head in wonder.  And disappointment. 

[somebody]

When politics triumphs over common sense, you have to shake your head in wonder.  And disappointment. 

The NWRL plans are another example of this.  Yet it has been hammered in the media, apparently, as being needed.  I can remember seeing a 4 corners special on it.

[O_128]

Well, such political horse trading clearly does go on.  It is interesting to see politicians put the case in such a matter-of-fact way, and so bluntly through the media.  Obviously, the way that electorates vote influences the roll-out of infrastructure to those places.  The question is whether that is a good thing.

The conservative-voting people of the Sunshine Coast know all about this, as their track duplication to Landsborough was stopped short at Beerburrum just days after voting out the local Labor member in a state election. 

That action was taken against the advice of transport officials who warned the government that there would be no appreciable gain won from track duplication to Beerburrum without the work proceeding to Landsborough.

When politics triumphs over common sense, you have to shake your head in wonder.  And disappointment. 

In a way having different parties in different levels forces governments to make these deals, To avoid these kind of issues I would like to see a 2 term maximum for all politicians to stop infrastructure being based around someone trying to keep there cushy job.

[somebody]

In a way having different parties in different levels forces governments to make these deals, To avoid these kind of issues I would like to see a 2 term maximum for all politicians to stop infrastructure being based around someone trying to keep there cushy job.

No way to the two term idea.  That's the rule for the US President, who are famous for not getting anything done in their second term.

[Stillwater]

At a federal level, Infrastructure Australia was established to take the politics out of chosing appropriate infrastructure projects and put them in order of priority.  One or two states need to catch up with that thinking.

[somebody]

Maybe it was about being seen to be taking politics out of it.

[colinw]

Northern District Times -> Northwest rail link tunnel deeper than harbour

THE northwest rail link will include Sydney's deepest tunnels – reaching almost 70m, or the equivalent of a 25-storey building, underground.

By comparison, the Epping Chatswood rail link averages only 20m underground and most City Circle tracks are only a few metres below the surface.

Figures released by Transport Minister Gladys Berejiklian's office reveal the rail link's underground tunnels will reach 67m under shops at Thompsons Corner on the intersection of Pennant Hills and Castle Hill roads.

At almost 70m underground the tunnel would be 20m deeper than Sydney Harbour at its deepest point – the equivalent of getting in an elevator and going to "level minus 25" a spokeswoman said.

Tender documents show the state government has set an ambitious task for developers of the 23km long northwest rail link, which includes 15km of deep, underground twin tunnels stretching from Epping to Kellyville.

At its most shallow point – underneath Celebration Drive, Bella Vista – the tunnel will still be 18m deep.

That's still 7m deeper than the roof of tunnels leading into the City Line's St James station.

The roof of the Pitt St tunnel at Town Hall station is only four metres underground while Wynyard is just over 1m.

About 3km of the northwest link tunnels at Kellyville and Rouse Hill will also be "cut and cover" – above ground tunnels with a roof installed over a pit.

Equipment and workers will be shuttled to and from the deeper tunnels by shafts cut into the surface.

"Although the project has concept approval, more detailed design and engineering work will be required before a full environmental impact statement into the project can be developed," NSW Transport said in a statement.

[somebody]

For those who haven't been to Thompsons' Corner, it has great views of the city due to being at the top of a reasonably steep hill.  This is no surprise.

[O_128]

Im still against this project on the basis that these people shouldnt buy a house then demand a rail line when 7 billion could build a northern beaches metro from the city all the way to manly, seems a little unfair to me. Also the north west line has been going on for years so why was it not shovel ready. This goes for CRR as well, these projects should be completely shovel ready so when the funding is available it can start straight away.

[colinw]

What about buying a house in the reasonable belief that a line is going to be built?

Case in point - what if lots of people move to Ripley in the believe that the promised line will be built, and then it gets canned?  That is effectively the situation in the North West.  My sister works at NorWest Business Park, and 10 years ago they were getting fliers advising about trial drilling for the survey for the line.

For that matter, by that logic why should we build CAMCOS or the Coolangatta extension?

[somebody]

I'm against this project for a few reasons:
1) There is no CBD capacity for it
2) It's about stealing PT patronage from other modes rather than building new PT patronage
3) It will likely result in slower trips, except for really odd ones
4) CityRail are an incredibly inefficient operator.  There is a need to improve this first before making the problem bigger.

I'm sorry.  May be a little left field given that we are on a rail forum.

[colinw]

I don't disagree with much of what you say Simon, although I believe it will grow PT patronage relative to the bus service there.

I do not, however, think we should play the "you bought a house out there, live with it" card, particularly in the case of an area which was developed on the back of repeated promises to deliver a line, just as Springfield & now Ripley are being developed in Ipswich, or Mango Hill area was developed in Brisbane.

I actually quite liked the North West metro idea, expensive as it was, primarily because it broke away from CityRail.

Question - are you against Kippa-Ring for similar reasons?  I think they are somewhat comparable.

[O_128]

What about buying a house in the reasonable belief that a line is going to be built?

Case in point - what if lots of people move to Ripley in the believe that the promised line will be built, and then it gets canned?  That is effectively the situation in the North West.  My sister works at NorWest Business Park, and 10 years ago they were getting fliers advising about trial drilling for the survey for the line.

For that matter, by that logic why should we build CAMCOS or the Coolangatta extension?

Its principal, the hills began development 20 years ago and is still going today and I do agree with you, but we all know the only reason this is going ahead is because its liberal heartland and I am liberal but this is really just to get votes. If I were planning I would have made it a light rail line to Epping where they can then transfer to services there and the state would save 6 billion and could put that towards CBD relief line or a nothern beaches or eastern suburbs metro, Also when I was living in sydney I remember living at allambie and we got flyers about the new northern beaches line proposal, Our house was there was built in the 50s and there was no promise of a rail line.

Add to this that Military/spit road is about 10 times worse than coro drive in peak hour and that the area is extremely dense with no mcmansions to be seen (bar mosman who dont want a rail line) and I think that these areas are much more deserving than people who live so far away.

Also shame on previous governments to not allocate and preserve a corridor, I doubt the springfield line would go ahead if it had to be underground.

And colinW I'm a mixed bag about Kippa Ring Its needed but not at the expense of it being built before CRR. though its a similar political issue

[colinw]

No different to Springfield or Kippa-Ring then.  I do not believe for one moment that the Springfield line would have gotten up if the area wasn't solid Labor.

I actually take the view that once an area has grown to a certain point, there is a social obligation to provide decent public transport (bus service, rail, busway, light rail, metro, whatever).  Regardless of the whys, hows, or how they vote.

If we want to control this we have to stop the development going ahead in the first place.

Thus, North West Sydney should get something.  Ditto Springfield & Mango Hill.  Too late for all of those.  They exist, they need to be linked into their respective public transport systems.  It could be argued that North West Sydney already has adequate bus services and doesn't need rail - certainly seems to be Simon's position and I partially agree with him there.

But we should be STOPPING Ripley, Flagstone and (particularly) Yarrabilba before we create another one of these situations.  Instead put the development west along the Rosewood line, or anywhere infill can happen along an existing line.

This kind of sprawl needs to be stopped before the houses go up.  If the Government permits the development, then it has an obligation to provide the service.

[SurfRail]

I'm not as concerned about Ripley and Flagstone - these have been masterplanned for quite some time, and if the employment generation is going to be anything like the way Springfield is turning out and the railways are installed they should be OK.

The ones I am really concerned about are:
- Yarrabilba
- Caloundra South
- In-fill development between Beenleigh and Coomera.

These places are going to end up like Rouse Hill, only likely without the obligatory big shopping and commercial centre.  They are all commuter belts with no strong sense of place - the other 2 not nearly as bad due to their projected local employment and proximity to other strong regional centres (including Springfield).

[colinw]

Agree there.  Yarrabilba in particular really annoys me.  The existing roads & rail corridor into the area are 3rd rate. I predict a car centric sprawlfest.

Ripley, as you say, will be fine if it proceeds as promised & planned.

But imagine instead that we allow the development to go ahead at Flagstone & Ripley, then welch on provision of the rail service. End result: North West Sydney!

The Ripley line is only an indicative line on a map, by 2031.  I see no indication that it is in any way guaranteed to go ahead.  And by making it go via Ipswich they are dooming it to be indirect, plus the old Fassifern branch alignment to Churchill was not a particularly good rail alignment (steeply graded & tight curves), so it is unlikely to be a good bit of railway.

Anyway, this is wandering off topic a bit, we should try to keep on topic about NWRL. (But happy to discuss Yarrabilba, etc. in the correct threads).

[O_128]

Agree there.  Yarrabilba in particular really annoys me.  The existing roads & rail corridor into the area are 3rd rate. I predict a car centric sprawlfest.

Ripley, as you say, will be fine if it proceeds as promised & planned.

But imagine instead that we allow the development to go ahead at Flagstone & Ripley, then welch on provision of the rail service. End result: North West Sydney!

The Ripley line is only an indicative line on a map, by 2031.  I see no indication that it is in any way guaranteed to go ahead.  And by making it go via Ipswich they are dooming it to be indirect, plus the old Fassifern branch alignment to Churchill was not a particularly good rail alignment (steeply graded & tight curves), so it is unlikely to be a good bit of railway.

Anyway, this is wandering off topic a bit, we should try to keep on topic about NWRL. (But happy to discuss Yarrabilba, etc. in the correct threads).

Dont worry in 10 years when Im living in my apartment on top of wooloongabba station I'm going to laugh my head off when the front page of the courier mail has a picture of an aussie battler family in front of there mcmansion in yarrabilba having a sob because fuel is $3 a liter and the government failed them by not building a rail line out to them, But Ill have a laugh and stroll down for my 3 min train ride to the city  .


My views on Camcos are different as SC is a city and should have its own rail.

[colinw]

I'd agree with you in the case of Yarrabilba, because there is NOT a promised rail line and the Government is making it clear it will be road & bus.

If that scenario were to occur at Flagstone or Ripley I would be agreeing with the "battler", because a clear expectation was set that a line would be provided, and the line appeared in Government planning documents & mapped.

Personally I'm already sniggering, because I have a bus at the end of my street and a station two blocks away.  And work is within cycling range.  Doesn't stop me demanding my quarter hourly train and buses that run after 7PM 'though :-)

[somebody]

Question - are you against Kippa-Ring for similar reasons?  I think they are somewhat comparable.

I don't completely agree.  Removing Albion/W/T/Nundah from the stopping pattern on the mains would make Kippa-Ring relatively achievable.  It may need to be an 18 minute peak frequency, which isn't ideal.  I get this by saying 9 minute frequency each for Caboolture and Petrie trains, and 9 minutes shared between Nambour and Kippa-Ring trains.  Although this tends to require wrong road running north of Petrie.

The other possibility for Kippa-Ring is merely extending the Petrie trains there.  Although I for one would not be thrilled with that concept if I lived at Mango Hill.

If Doomben still runs at 2tph in peak things become exceedingly difficult without CRR.

The other quite important distinction is that CRR may be happening, and is needed more for south side lines.  That it improves north side ones as well is a bit of cream on the top.

[O_128]

I'd agree with you in the case of Yarrabilba, because there is NOT a promised rail line and the Government is making it clear it will be road & bus.

If that scenario were to occur at Flagstone or Ripley I would be agreeing with the "battler", because a clear expectation was set that a line would be provided, and the line appeared in Government planning documents & mapped.

Personally I'm already sniggering, because I have a bus at the end of my street and a station two blocks away.  And work is within cycling range.  Doesn't stop me demanding my quarter hourly train and buses that run after 7PM 'though :-)

Of course not , had you just moved into your new mcmansion out at north lakes and were demanding a bus and metro station to your house then I would be annoyed, 

[colinw]

The Sydney Morning Herald -> Fears of too few services on north-west rail link

IT IS THE multibillion-dollar question the NSW government is asking taxpayers to take on trust: has it chosen the right route for the north-west rail link?

After the travails of her predecessors, the Transport Minister, Gladys Berejiklian, has promised a more transparent approach to the job.

But on the biggest question about the state's biggest transport project - where the trains will actually go - the team building the railway line is brooking no debate.

The government is locking in behind a plan that would send all trains from the north-west from Epping to Chatswood.

Because of the way the line is being planned, no trains will be able to head from Epping down to Strathfield.

The issue is crucial, because the way the line links to the already crowded CityRail network helps determine how many trains can run on it.

Ms Berejiklian said the plan was to run between four and six services in peak hour.

''There will be at least four to six, some transport experts reckon we can get more than that, but we are being very conservative until we do our homework and work out exactly what we perceive demand will be at that given time,'' she said this week.

But previous estimates show at least eight trains an hour will be needed.

In advice to the Labor government in February, the director-general of Transport NSW, Les Wielinga, said: ''Demand estimates indicate that to adequately service the north west, a minimum of eight trains per hour would be required, of which between four and six would need to continue beyond Chatswood to the CBD.''

Asked yesterday if that was still Mr Wielinga's view, a spokesman for the Department said it was developing a ''more accurate'' model.

''The project team is continuing to review its analysis of the likely patronage of the north-west rail link,'' the spokesman said.

For much of the past decade, RailCorp has planned to connect the north west line to Epping station above ground near Cheltenham.

This was the plan the previous government submitted to Infrastructure Australia in August. Under this concept, RailCorp could run four trains an hour from Epping to Strathfield, four from Epping to Chatswood, for a total of eight.

But the plan now is to link the tunnel from the north-west direct to the Epping-to-Chatswood tunnel, preventing any trains heading to Strathfield.

Mr Wielinga's February advice to Labor said that in the absence of any extra capacity in the CBD, the extra north-west trains would require service cuts elsewhere.

One suggestion was to send trains from Hornsby that head to the city via Epping and Chatswood, down to Strathfield and Central Station instead.

Ms Berejiklian denied service cuts would be necessary.

But an independent transport consultant critical of the proposed route said there was no point building the line in a way that would benefit fewer commuters.

''If you only run six trains an hour on the north-west rail link, does that mean we have to build a second M2 instead?'' the consultant said.