Sydney Metro - Tallawong to Bankstown

Sydney / New South Wales Transport Discussion
matthewg
Posts: 1704
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2012 1:11 pm

Re: NSW Future Rail Plan - NWRL/Metro/Harbour Crossing

Post by matthewg »

neilrex wrote:Most driverless systems are 100% underground. Which means no tresppassers, dogs, sheep, cars falling down embankments, trees, or bad weather. Or even WOLO's.
You are mixing cause and effect. Most driverless metro systems are underground (or elevated) because they are built though established city centres where acquiring land for a surface route is near impossible, not because they were planned to be automated.

London's DLR has a large amount of surface route, I've ridden other 100% automated lines with surface running on the extremities too. The Copenhagen line is mostly surface, dipping underground only under the city centre. The lines are just protected by alarmed fences.
Glen
Posts: 3364
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 10:54 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: NSW Future Rail Plan - NWRL/Metro/Harbour Crossing

Post by Glen »

Driverless trains can be single deck or double deck, underground, above ground or on ground.

In the end, it's just that they are driverless.

I realise not everyone has had a chance to ride one overseas, but they are very impressive.
moa999
Posts: 2923
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2012 3:12 pm

Re: NSW Future Rail Plan - NWRL/Metro/Harbour Crossing

Post by moa999 »

neilrex wrote:If the cost of excavations is so important, then why are these humungous caverns being excavated under the CBD, for tiny trains to use ? Monuments to the architects' cyclopean appendages, apparently. The comparison between the Pitt street station and Town Hall is absurd.
Suspect once those tunnels are lined, have platforms, bases, HVAC, water pumps etc installed they won't look that big
tonyp
Posts: 12348
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:31 am

Re: NSW Future Rail Plan - NWRL/Metro/Harbour Crossing

Post by tonyp »

moa999 wrote:Suspect once those tunnels are lined, have platforms, bases, HVAC, water pumps etc installed they won't look that big
I think neilrex is referring to the station boxes. A station is a station and will be the same size regardless of the type of train. The point is that because the single-deck train can tolerate steeper gradients, the station boxes don't necessarily have to be so deep, depending on the surface topography, which means less/shorter escalators and less levels of concourse for the climb to the surface. One thing that impresses me on the NW metro is the number of stations that are able to be just sub-surface/open cut. I mentioned earlier how the NW line at North Sydney - when it was being designed for double-deckers - had to rotate out east to Neutral Bay because of the gradient. The other issue there was that the line was so deep under North Sydney that the proposed station also had to be moved eastwards onto the side of the slope down to Neutral Bay (emergency fire egress issues).

One of the age-old issues with using a metro for short-distance work versus a tram on the surface is that, while the metro might run faster between stops, by the time you've clambered in and out of the stations deep underground, you've lost the journey-time advantage. Some underground railways actually boast about having e.g. the world's longest escalators - I can tell you that is nothing to boast about, but an embarrassment that needs to be hidden!

So, over time, metros have become recognised as being more useful for longer-distance work and the old initial policy in many cities of ripping up the tramways when a metro was built was quickly abandoned when they realised. City centre stations are more for joining or leaving the network from a longer-distance journey, not for transit within the city centre - the old single terminus broken down into several more convenient terminuses closer to where people want to go. If this were not the case, we would have seen no more buses and trams in the Sydney CBD, as the City Circle should theoretically have assumed all of the internal circulation work, but it hasn't because of that station-access inconvenience factor (plus service frequency). With Sydney's topography, at least with metro it will be possible to keep stations nearer the surface than if they are double-deck lines. It's just a pity that that huge loop at Chatswood was built when it ultimately wasn't necessary.
tonyp
Posts: 12348
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:31 am

Re: NSW Future Rail Plan - NWRL/Metro/Harbour Crossing

Post by tonyp »

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/nswel ... 5fb28d651a
Premier announces Metro Northwest line more than $1b under budget
Edward Boyd, The Daily Telegraph

The Sydney Metro Northwest railway line will officially open in May more than $1 billion under budget, just weeks after the state election this Saturday.

Premier Gladys Berejiklian went for a test ride on the driverless train this morning from Tallawong station near Rouse Hill to Norwest station, located in the Norwest Business Park in western Sydney.

The four stop trip along part of the 36 kilometre track was a smooth experience for the Premier and the media selected to attend.

It was the first ride on the brand new Sydney Metro North West line. Picture: Toby Zerna
MORE NEWS

The train had a ‘new car’ smell and reached speeds close to 100 kilometres an hour.

Ms Berejiklian said it was a “thrill” to ride along the $8.3 billion Metro line, which began construction in 2013.

“We’ve just taken a ride on the first Metro to come to New South Wales and to come to Australia,” she said.

“I am quite struck for words as to how awesome it was to experience what so many commuters will in May, (in) just a couple of months’ time.”

“We are thrilled this $8.3 billion project will be finished on time and $1 billion dollars under budget,” Ms Berejiklian said.

Minister for Transport Andrew Constance said the Metro Northwest railway line is the first of many Metro projects the Coalition government has pledged to deliver.

“We delivered this service for the people of Sydney’s Northwest, but we are not done, with the Metro currently being extended from Chatswood, under the Harbour and onto Bankstown,” he said.

All 22 trains built by French multinational company Alstom have been delivered to the marshalling yard at Tallawong in Sydney’s west and are currently being tested along the track. More than 35,000 kilometres of testing has already taken place through the 13 stations along the line.

The driverless trains can carry up to 1300 people, will arrive at stations every four minutes, and have three doors per carriage to speed up entries and exits.

Initially the Northwest Metro will carry up to 18,000 passengers an hour in each direction, with the ability to expand to40,000 an hour in the future.

The second stage of the Sydney Metro, the City and Southwest line from Chatswood to Bankstown, is predicted to have services running in 2024.
andy_centralcoast
Posts: 819
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2014 8:22 pm
Location: NSW

Re: NSW Future Rail Plan - NWRL/Metro/Harbour Crossing

Post by andy_centralcoast »

$1 billion is a lot of money to shave off a project, the accountants who did the original budgeting must have over estimated the cost by quite a lot!
neilrex
Posts: 697
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 8:34 pm

Re: NSW Future Rail Plan - NWRL/Metro/Harbour Crossing

Post by neilrex »

moa999 wrote:
neilrex wrote:If the cost of excavations is so important, then why are these humungous caverns being excavated under the CBD, for tiny trains to use ? Monuments to the architects' cyclopean appendages, apparently. The comparison between the Pitt street station and Town Hall is absurd.
Suspect once those tunnels are lined, have platforms, bases, HVAC, water pumps etc installed they won't look that big
It\s not the tunnels and platforms that I was referring to really. It's the enomity of some of the other areas. Like the concourse. The plans which caught my attention several years ago, might not be the same as the final plans. We'll wait and see.
neilrex
Posts: 697
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 8:34 pm

Re: NSW Future Rail Plan - NWRL/Metro/Harbour Crossing

Post by neilrex »

Constance was also quoted today as saying "people will see a train every two minutes".

The only way that could possibly be true, is if he thinks people are counting the trains going the other way to their intended direction of travel,

There are only 22 trains. It doesn't take rocket science to figure out that there cannot be a train every 2 minutes.
neilrex
Posts: 697
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 8:34 pm

Re: NSW Future Rail Plan - NWRL/Metro/Harbour Crossing

Post by neilrex »

"" while the metro might run faster between stops, by the time you've clambered in and out of the stations deep underground, you've lost the journey-time advantage.""

Your spin is getting a bit ridiculous.

From Kensington to Martin Place, a metro could run in 8 minutes. The tram will take 30 minutes and will be slower than a bus.

The difference between 8 and minutes and 30 minutes covers a lot of escalator time.

8 minutes would be an absolute game-changer. The productivity benefits would be enormous. You could go home from the CBD for lunch. And for people travelling from Penrith or Campbelltown, it makes the driving option look much worse, compared to train and slooooowwww tram.

And anyway, the tram stop placement is not all that convenient, anyway. If you wanted a stop midway between Wynyard and Town Hall, or midway between Town Hall and Central, then you're right out of luck. and you might say, it's still not very far, which would be true if you were already on George Street, but if you are coming from 4 blocks down King Street, or Liverpool Street, then it is a problem which undermines the usefulness of the tram.
andy_centralcoast
Posts: 819
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2014 8:22 pm
Location: NSW

Re: NSW Future Rail Plan - NWRL/Metro/Harbour Crossing

Post by andy_centralcoast »

neilrex wrote:Constance was also quoted today as saying "people will see a train every two minutes".

The only way that could possibly be true, is if he thinks people are counting the trains going the other way to their intended direction of travel,

There are only 22 trains. It doesn't take rocket science to figure out that there cannot be a train every 2 minutes.
The numbers quoted in the above press release say it will initially carry up to 18,000 passengers per hour in each direction with each train carrying 1300 passengers. That puts it at a train every 4-5 minutes.
neilrex
Posts: 697
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 8:34 pm

Re: NSW Future Rail Plan - NWRL/Metro/Harbour Crossing

Post by neilrex »

andy_centralcoast wrote:
neilrex wrote:Constance was also quoted today as saying "people will see a train every two minutes".

The only way that could possibly be true, is if he thinks people are counting the trains going the other way to their intended direction of travel,

There are only 22 trains. It doesn't take rocket science to figure out that there cannot be a train every 2 minutes.
The numbers quoted in the above press release say it will initially carry up to 18,000 passengers per hour in each direction with each train carrying 1300 passengers. That puts it at a train every 4-5 minutes.
It will only carry that many, if so many people actually want to go.
andy_centralcoast
Posts: 819
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2014 8:22 pm
Location: NSW

Re: NSW Future Rail Plan - NWRL/Metro/Harbour Crossing

Post by andy_centralcoast »

neilrex wrote:
andy_centralcoast wrote:The numbers quoted in the above press release say it will initially carry up to 18,000 passengers per hour in each direction with each train carrying 1300 passengers. That puts it at a train every 4-5 minutes.
It will only carry that many, if so many people actually want to go.
Yes - those would be max capacity figures.

Interestingly the SMH says each 6 carriage metro train has room for 378 seated passengers and 774 standing passengers, which makes a total of 1152 instead of the 1300 quoted in the Government media release. An 8 car Waratah has 896 seats and probably room for around 300 standing (at a guess).

The article also says the new line still needs to get approval from the National Rail Safety Regulator before it can commence passenger services.
neilrex
Posts: 697
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 8:34 pm

Re: NSW Future Rail Plan - NWRL/Metro/Harbour Crossing

Post by neilrex »

63 seats in each of those carriages ? I am dubious.

Anyway, here is an interesting story about the conflict between the direct route and the scenic route, in Canberra.

https://www.railpage.com.au/news/s/prop ... ail-detour
tonyp
Posts: 12348
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:31 am

Re: NSW Future Rail Plan - NWRL/Metro/Harbour Crossing

Post by tonyp »

neilrex wrote:"" while the metro might run faster between stops, by the time you've clambered in and out of the stations deep underground, you've lost the journey-time advantage.""

Your spin is getting a bit ridiculous.

From Kensington to Martin Place, a metro could run in 8 minutes. The tram will take 30 minutes and will be slower than a bus.

The difference between 8 and minutes and 30 minutes covers a lot of escalator time.

8 minutes would be an absolute game-changer. The productivity benefits would be enormous. You could go home from the CBD for lunch. And for people travelling from Penrith or Campbelltown, it makes the driving option look much worse, compared to train and slooooowwww tram.

And anyway, the tram stop placement is not all that convenient, anyway. If you wanted a stop midway between Wynyard and Town Hall, or midway between Town Hall and Central, then you're right out of luck. and you might say, it's still not very far, which would be true if you were already on George Street, but if you are coming from 4 blocks down King Street, or Liverpool Street, then it is a problem which undermines the usefulness of the tram.
If you read my post I was talking about short distance work. There's no spin, just some facts and in my case actual lived experience in a number of cities. Trains vs street transport is a complex equation of pluses and minuses dependent on specific situations. Sometimes it's faster on the surface over short distances if train stations are a couple of km apart, if their frequency is less, if the stations are underground etc etc. Otherwise, for example, the city circle would have replaced all buses; people wouldn't stay on the bus at Bondi Jct and Edgecliff etc etc. People soon work out which option is best for them, with trains becoming the stronger choice as distance increases.
User avatar
GazzaOak
Posts: 885
Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2013 9:53 pm

Re: NSW Future Rail Plan - NWRL/Metro/Harbour Crossing

Post by GazzaOak »

neilrex wrote:"" while the metro might run faster between stops, by the time you've clambered in and out of the stations deep underground, you've lost the journey-time advantage.""

Your spin is getting a bit ridiculous.

From Kensington to Martin Place, a metro could run in 8 minutes. The tram will take 30 minutes and will be slower than a bus .
I think if you live directly on the tram line, then is quicker

But i do agree that a metro in this area is needed. They can just use the planned west metro and connect to eastern suburbs using an different aligment.
White ribbon day is most sexist thing ever
tonyp
Posts: 12348
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:31 am

Re: NSW Future Rail Plan - NWRL/Metro/Harbour Crossing

Post by tonyp »

Metro would only be quicker if you're near a station. After leaving Central there would have been stations only at Moore Park, Racecourse, UNSW and Maroubra Jct - compared to umpteem tram stops to both Kingsford and Randwick. I think that answers the question.

The West Metro is planned to connect with CSELR at Maroubra Jct then proceed to Malabar.
tonyp
Posts: 12348
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:31 am

Re: NSW Future Rail Plan - NWRL/Metro/Harbour Crossing

Post by tonyp »

I get the impression from watching these videos that they've detuned the acceleration of the Sydney Metro trains to about the same as the Perth trains, slower at least than on typical European metros but faster than Sydney suburban trains. (On the Prague video here, wait to see the acceleration after the attendant changeover.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPW9ZG0ZIYI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eznIhpeJTEk

I note that the Sydney Metro train reverses in 25 seconds. It would have to be a pretty Olympian driver who could get from one end of the train to the other and start up in that time! The Prague system is an older one with GoA2 level of automation. The Sydney system is a GoA4 system.
Nugget
Posts: 277
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 10:17 am

Re: NSW Future Rail Plan - NWRL/Metro/Harbour Crossing

Post by Nugget »

tonyp wrote:I note that the Sydney Metro train reverses in 25 seconds. It would have to be a pretty Olympian driver who could get from one end of the train to the other and start up in that time!
Presumably driverless also means attendantless.
tonyp
Posts: 12348
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:31 am

Re: NSW Future Rail Plan - NWRL/Metro/Harbour Crossing

Post by tonyp »

Nugget wrote:
Presumably driverless also means attendantless.
Yes it's a GoA4 system, there is not even an attendant.
mandonov
Posts: 1712
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 8:34 pm

Re: NSW Future Rail Plan - NWRL/Metro/Harbour Crossing

Post by mandonov »

neilrex wrote:
neilrex wrote:If the cost of excavations is so important, then why are these humungous caverns being excavated under the CBD, for tiny trains to use ? Monuments to the architects' cyclopean appendages, apparently. The comparison between the Pitt street station and Town Hall is absurd.
It\s not the tunnels and platforms that I was referring to really. It's the enomity of some of the other areas. Like the concourse. The plans which caught my attention several years ago, might not be the same as the final plans. We'll wait and see.
Humongous caverns are being constructed because we live in the 21st Century and can no longer accept cramped and dangerous station design.

Town Hall is a bad station. It was built in and for a bygone era where novel concepts such as fire safety and emergency egress barely existed, and where the thought that so many people would use the station that they would have to close the stairs to platforms was unfathomable. Concourses are larger now because we've realised that hundreds of people exiting a train every minute probably needs more space to accomodate their movements.

I assume the cavern and concourses you're talking about is actually Martin Place, where a developer has offered to build the station at little/no cost to the government in exchange for retail space and commercial air rights above the platforms. This is why there is a level or two of retail before reaching the gateline.

Comparing modern stations to those constructed almost 90 years ago is pointless.
neilrex
Posts: 697
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 8:34 pm

Re: NSW Future Rail Plan - NWRL/Metro/Harbour Crossing

Post by neilrex »

the plan I was looking at before , was the plan for the pitt street station next to town hall.

The "cavern" on the plan had a cross-sectional area about 10 times that of town hall station, for only two tracks.

It is not clear how having a 12 metre ceiling enhances intrinsic fire safety, or enables passengers fleeing from a fire to scramble over each other more readily. A 3.5 metre ceiling would accomplish that. A 12 metre ceiling merely makes it impossible to change the light bulbs.

As for the Martin Place station, forcing commuters to tramp 3 or 4 hundred metres out of their way by circuitous routes to get to the platform, doesn't seem to enhance fire safety or crowding issues, either.
tonyp
Posts: 12348
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:31 am

Re: NSW Future Rail Plan - NWRL/Metro/Harbour Crossing

Post by tonyp »

The higher the ceiling, the longer it takes smoke to work its way down to the floor, giving people more time to escape. I haven't seen the Martin Place plan but if there's a retail zone, it sounds like the old shopping centre design trick of channeling people past the shops on their way.
jaseee
Posts: 283
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 4:50 pm

Re: NSW Future Rail Plan - NWRL/Metro/Harbour Crossing

Post by jaseee »

It would be easier close and renovate Town Hall after the metro opens, I assume, to bring it up to safety standards. Close it down for a little while and get passegers to change trains to the metro.
Engineering
Posts: 83
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 8:48 pm

Re: NSW Future Rail Plan - NWRL/Metro/Harbour Crossing

Post by Engineering »

Virtually all of the infrastructure of these stations needs to be contained within the “plan footprint” of the platforms themselves and hence need substantial vertical space for all the exits, infrastructure and retail, to avoid massive disruption to the existing building next door. Compare this to existing stations like Wynyard, where much of th for print of the station extends out horizontally well beyond the platform footprint.

The stations need to be deep enough so as to avoid the foundations of next door buildings.
neilrex
Posts: 697
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 8:34 pm

Re: NSW Future Rail Plan - NWRL/Metro/Harbour Crossing

Post by neilrex »

tonyp wrote: If you read my post I was talking about short distance work. There's no spin, just some facts and in my case actual lived experience in a number of cities. Trains vs street transport is a complex equation of pluses and minuses dependent on specific situations. Sometimes it's faster on the surface over short distances if train stations are a couple of km apart, if their frequency is less, if the stations are underground etc etc. Otherwise, for example, the city circle would have replaced all buses; people wouldn't stay on the bus at Bondi Jct and Edgecliff etc etc. People soon work out which option is best for them, with trains becoming the stronger choice as distance increases.
The reason why trains have not replaced buses in the CBD area, is the historic fare system.

You could have terminated all the buses approaching the CBD via Oxford Street years ago, at Museum, and forced all the passengers to get on the train at Museum. That would have been faster, for many of them. And the reason people didn't, is the high fares.

It used to be an argument that buses were more convenient for people who could walk 200 metres to a bus stop instead of 400 metres to a train stop. But that rationale in favour of buses has been defeated by the abolition of half of the bus stops which used to exist along Elizabeth Street.

If you changed from a bus to a train at Museum, you might have to wait 12 minutes for a train, which would negate the speed advantage over the bus travelling along Elizabeth St in the traffic jam.

It's all very well to say that if metro stations are 3 km apart, then slower public transport such as buses running parallel are more convenient. But the reality is that the Sydney cbd city circle stations are not 3 km apart. And are not going to become 3 km apart.

In the scenario I was discussing, a metro to Kensington cutting the travel time to the CBD from 30 minutes to 8 minutes, there is no way that the burden of going down the escalator is going to make a bus more attractive.

And guess what, if you want to go to the Taylor Square area, well the bus isn't going to be any better because they are abolishing the buses.
Post Reply

Return to “Discussion - Sydney / NSW”