Sydney Metro - Tallawong to Bankstown

[Linto63]

The Oscar seats are bench seats!

A small number are longitudinal bench seats, 16 in trailers, 10 in driving cars with the other 90-100 reversible seats on the 2 decks. https://transportnsw.info/travel-info/w ... car-trains

I'm hoping that a better effort will be put into the ergonomics of the NIF.

Given that the project is being run by a bunch of expat Brits who have a love of ironing board seats like these https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-B0XZa5_GU, I fear we could be getting the same .

[BroadGauge]

A small number are longitudinal bench seats, 16 in trailers, 10 in driving cars with the other 90-100 reversible seats on the 2 decks. https://transportnsw.info/travel-info/w ... car-trains

I think he was referring to the shape of the 'normal' seats in one.


(Yes, I know that's an Endeavour, but the seats are the same - I'm just posting what I'm familiar with as I haven't been on a H set for a long time )

At least something a bit like the seats below are a bit more ergonomically designed


Speaking of those, I'll have to go for a run up to Lithgow to get one more ride on a V set before they start becoming increasingly rare! I did catch one up to the Newcastle 500 last November, but copping a H set the whole way back to Sydney soured that trip a bit..

[Transtopic]

The Oscar seats are bench seats! Even the metro seats are more comfortable. Nobody but a grenadier guard would have a body profile of a ramrod straight back and thighs! I'm hoping that a better effort will be put into the ergonomics of the NIF. Still, they will only have a minority of seats facing forward, something between 1/4 and 1/3. The rest will face sideways or backwards.

I suspect that they won't be anything like the Oscars, but more like the V-sets with their 2+2 seating. I haven't checked it, but the split between forward and backward facing seating will depend on which direction you're travelling in. Shame that the seating is not reversible. In the scheme of things, a rather shallow argument to save costs, when passenger comfort should have priority for longer distance commuters (sorry, I brought that up again).

As for journey time, it's sad to see how standards and expectations have slipped. Lucky we at least have metro holding the light in Sydney.

You shouldn't assume that journey times on the existing network can't be improved, which they undoubtedly will be, as the newer rolling stock and ATO is introduced across the network. Standards haven't slipped, in fact the specifications for the new rolling stock have been upgraded as I've previously mentioned, but it will take a long time before the benefits are realised. You should be patient and not be so ready to criticise existing operations over such a vast and complex network. We're not starting with a clean sheet. As I keep repeating ad nauseum, you don't have to throw the baby out with the bathwater to improve things.

[tonyp]

I think he was referring to the shape of the 'normal' seats in one.

Yes I was. All of the seats in the Hs are like church pews. Longitudinal seats are not necessarily benches but if well designed are simply longer runs of individually-moulded seats. A bench can be anything from a two-seater to infinity.

The shortest possible journey time has been one of the principal driving forces of good transit operators around the world for a century and a half. Nobody should resile from their commitment to this fundamental principle, but this is exactly what has been happening in NSW in the last few decades. I don't know that the "British incursion" can be blamed for this as at least their train journeys over there have traditionally been quite fast. A slack attitude has developed in NSW.

[Linto63]

The shortest possible journey time has been one of the principal driving forces of good transit operators around the world for a century and a half. Nobody should resile from their commitment to this fundamental principle, but this is exactly what has been happening in NSW in the last few decades.

Don't believe there has been a deliberate move to slow trains per se. But it certainly has happened in places due to other factors such as increasing congestion and fat being built into timetables to add robustness. We also live in a more litigious era that compels transport operators to be more proactive wth safety regimes.

[tonyp]

Don't believe there has been a deliberate move to slow trains per se. But it certainly has happened in places due to other factors such as increasing congestion and fat being built into timetables to add robustness. We also live in a more litigious era that compels transport operators to be more proactive wth safety regimes.

I think everybody is just covering their backs after Waterfall and it's dumbed everything down to the extent that it's institutionally entrenched. This is one huge advantage of introducing the metro - to break free from this constraint. With the aid of a local politician to cut through the PR wall, I had an interesting conversation with a rail manager as to why the south coast service was so slow despite some 80% of the line (Sydney-Waterfall and Thirroul-Nowra) being to all intents virtually straight. The answer was (and I don't know if this is bs too) that it's primarily because they have to slow down for level crossings and other "hazards" even though they're all protected in various ways. I don't know what they'd think of the Fremantle line with its multiple level crossings with express trains thundering through at 110 km/h. It seems indeed that they've caught a disease of the corporate brain in NSW for which a cure will now be extremely difficult, if not impossible.

[Linto63]

The biggest hinderance to the South Coast line is the the Illawarra escarpment, hence 60 minutes from Waterfall to Wollongong by rail versus 30 minutes via the F6. Fix that, and the journey time for road and rail would be similar.

Level crossing speed limits don't appear to drop universally, e.g. 28 minutes into his clip https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQo9t0wKGNA there is no drop from 100km/h on the approach to Dapto and likewise at 32 minutes outside Unanderra. But these have a good line of sight for the driver. It may well be that it is at crossings with poorer lines of sight that the limit drops on approach. While all crossings are now barriered, doesn't guarantee there won't be an obstruction, the drop in the speed limit will probably not be enough to avoid a collision, but if the driver is able to wash 30km/h off and say hit the object at 50km/h and not 80km/h then that will be a much better result for those on board.

[rogf24]

Real Time now available on Metro. I guess that was what the trackwork was for,

[tonyp]

The biggest hinderance to the South Coast line is the the Illawarra escarpment, hence 60 minutes from Waterfall to Wollongong by rail versus 30 minutes via the F6. Fix that, and the journey time for road and rail would be similar.
.

With its huge costs we'll be waiting till eternity for this to reach the top of the priority list. It would be vastly more cost effective and would produce significant results early to address the straight sections north of Waterfall and south of Thirroul. The average speeds over these sections are really poor. Averaging about 55 km/h on straight track with few stops is definitely at the wrong end of the railway performance spectrum.

[boronia]

Speaking of those, I'll have to go for a run up to Lithgow to get one more ride on a V set before they start becoming increasingly rare! I did catch one up to the Newcastle 500 last November, but copping a H set the whole way back to Sydney soured that trip a bit..

I don't think there is any rush to get your ride. BMT will be the last line to get the NGIFs

[Linto63]

Averaging about 55 km/h on straight track with few stops is definitely at the wrong end of the railway performance spectrum.

Assuming that no editing has taken place, the clip above shows the 11.1km from North Wollongong to Thirroul taking 8.25 minutes, an average of 80km/h and the 14.1km from Waterfall to Sutherland 9.5 minutes, an average of 90km/h. According to journey planner, express trains are tabled to cover these sections in 8 and 11 minutes respectively, or 83 and 77km/h respectively.

Distances from here https://www.nswrail.net/lines/show.php? ... outh_coast

[tonyp]

Assuming that no editing has taken place, the clip above shows the 11.1km from North Wollongong to Thirroul taking 8.25 minutes, an average of 80km/h and the 14.1km from Waterfall to Sutherland 9.5 minutes, an average of 90km/h. According to journey planner, express trains are tabled to cover these sections in 8 and 11 minutes respectively, or 83 and 77km/h respectively.

Distances from here https://www.nswrail.net/lines/show.php? ... outh_coast

I know you think I resort to all sorts of dark trickery to present Sydney/NSW Trains in the worst possible light, but in fact I choose the better examples and round up figures so much I should get a job in the railways spin department, all in order to avoid accusations that I'm trying to do the dirty on them. But they do a good job of that themselves. They're generally speaking the slowest commuter services in Australia, period. The big, complex city excuse doesn't work either because Melbourne does a better job, even without the benefit of lots of track amplifications.

It may surprise many people - who assume that the curvy bit between Waterfall and Thirroul slows the south coast service badly - that the average speed doesn't actually rise even when the trains reach the straights to the north and south of that section. They still plod along at the same average speed - something below 60 km/h - all the way to Central and all the way to Nowra. Yes, as you observe, there's a little sprint on the straights either side, like a horse let out into the paddock, but once they've had this brief thrill they revert to the crawl. Rounding the time and distance figures very roughly, the 40 km between Central and Waterfall is covered in 40 mins, the 30 km between Waterfall and Thirroul in 30 mins and the 80 km between Thirroul and Nowra in 80 mins (without the Kiama wait). That's unwaveringly 60 km/h throughout, which with correction of figures to exact times and distances is 56 km/h. This is the (ahem) "fast" trains with 19 intermediate stops en route, averaging a stop every 8 km.

I have by my side the timetables, the statewide official railway distances to two decimal places and the track diagrams with speed boards etc, so I'm not short of information on which to do calcs. If I'm having a quick discussion like this I'll round the figures to favour the railways and I subtract the waits at stations, notably the Kiama transfer. (For the Gerringong-Berry-Nowra resident it is of course something below 55 km/h including that Kiama wait.) That average speed of 56 km/h remains roughly around the same whether in the Central-Waterfall section, Waterfall-Thirroul or Thirroul-Nowra. (Since the faster trains don't stop at Waterfall I use the passing time which is 9 minutes out of Heathcote.) How good is that, a train that runs at the same average speed whether it's on curves or on the straight? What could possibly be wrong?

Bringing the metro into it now and referencing that good run north of Waterfall, let's look at some comparative figures on a long, interurban-style non-stop stretch of about 6 km:

Sydney Metro:
Epping-Cherrybrook (6.2 km): 4 mins (average speed 93 km/h) (speed limit 100 km/h)

Sydney Suburban:
Heathcote-Waterfall (5.6 km): 4-5 mins (67-84 km/h) (speed limit 115 km/h)
(*that Heathcote-Waterfall express run fits with the mid-range average speed here)

Brisbane Interurban:
Ormeau-Coomera (6.8 km): 4-5 mins (81-102 km/h) (speed limit 140 km/h)

Perth:
Murdoch-Cockburn Central (6.7 km): 3 mins (130 km/h) (speed limit nominally 130 km/h but likely exceeded)

There's a pattern there. The south coast is run slow, no matter how good the running conditions. On top of that, the metro is a lively little performer, even over distances as well as stop-start - same formula in Perth of course. With the double deckers, we know about the curves and the poor stop-start performance, but there's something dreadfully wrong with the way those double deckers are being operated on the straight where's there's distance between stops. That's where they should be in their best element.

[Swift]

I was on a V set about four years ago from Eastwood to Central and it was a bit behind schedule, so the driver decided to play a little catch up and it took what felt like little more than five minutes to reach Strathfield, and you could have balanced a glass of red wine on the window sill and not had a single stain on the upholstery.
It was like a blast from a past when these trains actually ran to their capability on a regular basis.

[Transtopic]

Assuming that no editing has taken place, the clip above shows the 11.1km from North Wollongong to Thirroul taking 8.25 minutes, an average of 80km/h and the 14.1km from Waterfall to Sutherland 9.5 minutes, an average of 90km/h. According to journey planner, express trains are tabled to cover these sections in 8 and 11 minutes respectively, or 83 and 77km/h respectively.

Distances from here https://www.nswrail.net/lines/show.php? ... outh_coast

I know you think I resort to all sorts of dark trickery to present Sydney/NSW Trains in the worst possible light, but in fact I choose the better examples and round up figures so much I should get a job in the railways spin department, all in order to avoid accusations that I'm trying to do the dirty on them. But they do a good job of that themselves. They're generally speaking the slowest commuter services in Australia, period. The big, complex city excuse doesn't work either because Melbourne does a better job, even without the benefit of lots of track amplifications.

It may surprise many people - who assume that the curvy bit between Waterfall and Thirroul slows the south coast service badly - that the average speed doesn't actually rise even when the trains reach the straights to the north and south of that section. They still plod along at the same average speed - something below 60 km/h - all the way to Central and all the way to Nowra. Yes, as you observe, there's a little sprint on the straights either side, like a horse let out into the paddock, but once they've had this brief thrill they revert to the crawl. Rounding the time and distance figures very roughly, the 40 km between Central and Waterfall is covered in 40 mins, the 30 km between Waterfall and Thirroul in 30 mins and the 80 km between Thirroul and Nowra in 80 mins (without the Kiama wait). That's unwaveringly 60 km/h throughout, which with correction of figures to exact times and distances is 56 km/h. This is the (ahem) "fast" trains with 19 intermediate stops en route, averaging a stop every 8 km.

I have by my side the timetables, the statewide official railway distances to two decimal places and the track diagrams with speed boards etc, so I'm not short of information on which to do calcs. If I'm having a quick discussion like this I'll round the figures to favour the railways and I subtract the waits at stations, notably the Kiama transfer. (For the Gerringong-Berry-Nowra resident it is of course something below 55 km/h including that Kiama wait.) That average speed of 56 km/h remains roughly around the same whether in the Central-Waterfall section, Waterfall-Thirroul or Thirroul-Nowra. (Since the faster trains don't stop at Waterfall I use the passing time which is 9 minutes out of Heathcote.) How good is that, a train that runs at the same average speed whether it's on curves or on the straight? What could possibly be wrong?

Bringing the metro into it now and referencing that good run north of Waterfall, let's look at some comparative figures on a long, interurban-style non-stop stretch of about 6 km:

Sydney Metro:
Epping-Cherrybrook (6.2 km): 4 mins (average speed 93 km/h) (speed limit 100 km/h)

Sydney Suburban:
Heathcote-Waterfall (5.6 km): 4-5 mins (67-84 km/h) (speed limit 115 km/h)
(*that Heathcote-Waterfall express run fits with the mid-range average speed here)

Brisbane Interurban:
Ormeau-Coomera (6.8 km): 4-5 mins (81-102 km/h) (speed limit 140 km/h)

Perth:
Murdoch-Cockburn Central (6.7 km): 3 mins (130 km/h) (speed limit nominally 130 km/h but likely exceeded)

There's a pattern there. The south coast is run slow, no matter how good the running conditions. On top of that, the metro is a lively little performer, even over distances as well as stop-start - same formula in Perth of course. With the double deckers, we know about the curves and the poor stop-start performance, but there's something dreadfully wrong with the way those double deckers are being operated on the straight where's there's distance between stops. That's where they should be in their best element.

Yes we know you're the infallible fountain of all knowledge and about your obsessive anathema with regard to anything to do with the existing Sydney Trains/NSW Trains operations. I haven't heard you say anything positive about them yet.

Rather than being continually critical, what about suggesting some positive solutions about how they could improve their performance? That doesn't include the unrealistic suggestion of just replacing or converting existing lines with a metro.

As usual, you have also lightly dismissed Linto63's post with regard to journey times between North Wollongong and Thirroul and Waterfall and Sutherland to support your argument. Where is he wrong? I'd really like to know.

[rogf24]

Some puff from TfNSW

[Transtopic]

I was on a V set about four years ago from Eastwood to Central and it was a bit behind schedule, so the driver decided to play a little catch up and it took what felt like little more than five minutes to reach Strathfield, and you could have balanced a glass of red wine on the window sill and not had a single stain on the upholstery.
It was like a blast from a past when these trains actually ran to their capability on a regular basis.

My sentiments exactly when I regularly caught even the U-boats from Eastwood to the CBD. It just demonstrates how much slack there is in the current timetable and how much journey times could potentially be improved. Take note tonyp.

[tonyp]

Very interesting watching that film, having a bit of time to do so. There are a couple of spots where the train hits 120 but it doesn't sustain speeds, continually trailing off. The run between North Wollongong and Thirroul was terribly slow considering the track alignment. Even Dapto-Albion Park was indifferent. Acceleration is extremely poor and some of the dwells are very long considering how few people are boarding. I'm thinking that double deckers also have problems in curves due to centre of gravity. Some years ago I became aware of their sway compared to single deckers and, having exposed my poor human guinea pig, my wife to quite lot of trains recently, I explored further the bad reaction she had to the recent long double deck journey and the main point at issue was that the continuous swaying affected her very badly. I asked her how the Endeavours and the other single deckers on the metro and in Perth affected her and she said she had no trouble with them at all.

I begin to think that there are suspension issues with the deckers and very likely they are not too good on curves if there isn't enough superelevation, so they have to slow down. I like the deckers in principle for long-distance express work but gee there are a lot of issues to sort out. I don't recall these problems with the very fast double deck trains I have ridden in Germany and elsewhere in Europe and I suspect there are a more than a few design and operational matters to deal with here. I suspect that the local competence disappeared with Comeng unfortunately and now there are lots of cooks in the kitchen collectively producing duds. Thank god for the metro.

[Swift]

My sentiments exactly when I regularly caught even the U-boats from Eastwood to the CBD.

Those things were even faster, or felt it due to their comparative lack of insulation from the outside. The drivers weren't afraid to pelt them through the curves from Epping to Hornsby, with lots of rocking to and fro as well as side to side! Tonyp will appreciate that part.

[tonyp]

My sentiments exactly when I regularly caught even the U-boats from Eastwood to the CBD.

Those things were even faster, or felt it due to their comparative lack of insulation from the outside. The drivers weren't afraid to pelt them through the curves from Epping to Hornsby, with lots of rocking to and fro as well as side to side! Tonyp will appreciate that part.

It is a feature of the general blanket of cautious mediocrity that has settled over the entire operation that drivers apparently aren't allowed to use their initiative like they used to. Naturally this will slow everything down. Tell me about it with tram drivers on the new systems nowadays being trained as though they're having to drive a hearse. Still, though, it seems to be a NSW thing and not Australia-wide by any means.

In answer to Transtopic's question as to what I would do to improve it - I wouldn't even pretend to know where to start. There are not only equipment issues, there are institutional issues too. It's a mess. I do actually believe in the value of deckers for long express and semi-express runs. Getting them to work as well as they do in Europe is the issue.

[Linto63]

It may surprise many people - who assume that the curvy bit between Waterfall and Thirroul slows the south coast service badly - that the average speed doesn't actually rise even when the trains reach the straights to the north and south of that section.

A fast service will take 35 minutes to cover the 31.5km Thirroul - Waterfall section, a 55km/h average. Even adding 5 minutes for the stop at Helensburgh, still only 63km/h, so average speeds actually do rise quite a bit to to 80-90km/h on the straight sections immediately north and south.

Rounding the time and distance figures very roughly, the 40 km between Central and Waterfall is covered in 40 mins

The section north of Sutherland is hardly flat, it winds its way down to the Georges River and then up the other side. By this stage it is also having to fit in with T4 services. Yes it could travel faster, but inevitably will just end up crawling behind a stopping service.

...and the 80 km between Thirroul and Nowra in 80 mins (without the Kiama wait).

Beyond Wollongong it is an all stops, so obviously this is going to be a slower journey.

It is a feature of the general blanket of cautious mediocrity that has settled over the entire operation that drivers apparently aren't allowed to use their initiative like they used to.

In other words, ignore speed limits if they see fit. That sought of thinking died out long ago.

[Swift]

It is a feature of the general blanket of cautious mediocrity that has settled over the entire operation that drivers apparently aren't allowed to use their initiative like they used to.

In other words, ignore speed limits if they see fit. That sought of thinking died out long ago.

I think the whole issue is the speed limits are too low!

[Transtopic]

In other words, ignore speed limits if they see fit. That sought of thinking died out long ago.

I think the whole issue is the speed limits are too low!

That's the crux of the matter, which could easily be fixed at the stroke of a pen. It doesn't require trashing of the whole system to achieve that outcome.

[mandonov]

Putting aside the problem of Oscars constantly vibrating and shuddering at high speeds, there's no good reason why lengthy sections of dead straight track are limited to 115 for double deck trains. Why do those same straight sections of track allow XPT's to go to 130, because it's not as if there's any centrifugal forces that necessitate limiting DD's to 115.

This all becomes much more relevant seeing as NIF's have been ordered with a maximum speed of 160kmh, 55kmh of which will never be utilised unless things change.

[neilrex]

When I travel to the South Coast, the trains from Sutherland tp Waterfall and Thirroul to Wollongong go pretty damn fast. I am surprised that it is actually as slow as 90.

[Transtopic]

My sentiments exactly when I regularly caught even the U-boats from Eastwood to the CBD.

Those things were even faster, or felt it due to their comparative lack of insulation from the outside. The drivers weren't afraid to pelt them through the curves from Epping to Hornsby, with lots of rocking to and fro as well as side to side! Tonyp will appreciate that part.

Just to add to that, I can recall the 46 Class electric locos thundering through Eastwood with the older country rolling stock at the rate of knots, compared with the current CCN express trains, or even the XPT for that matter.