• Advertisement

Inner West Light Rail observations

Sydney / New South Wales Transport Discussion

Re: Light Rail Implementation 2013/4 _MLR Extension

Postby moa999 » Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:42 pm

Don't they just need to schedule the extra services on Monday (at least until July 1) :-)

In all seriousness a good move.
moa999
 
Posts: 2521
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2012 2:12 pm
Has thanked: 428 times
Been thanked: 395 times

Re: Light Rail Implementation 2013/4 _MLR Extension

Postby Frosty » Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:44 pm

Find that hard to believe they can increase frequency since on time running is now falling. When will they remove conductors aboard the trams I heard rumour going around they'll be removed soon.

Does anybody know the offical OTR running stats for the LR since I cant find them anywhere they seem like they're not published. I'm not a fan of the LR at the moment since its sardines all the way to at least Lilyfield and/or the Fish Market.
Frosty
 
Posts: 1827
Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2015 7:16 pm
Has thanked: 22 times
Been thanked: 123 times

Re: Light Rail Implementation 2013/4 _MLR Extension

Postby tonyp » Thu Jan 21, 2016 4:27 pm

I don't know if the performance and reporting requirements (if any) of the new contract have kicked in yet. I rely only on anecdotal evidence from lineside users and I understand that timekeeping is all over the shop. This is appalling for an operation on a completely quarantined corridor. Introducing additional services will only foul it up further.

The only saving grace is that the users don't seem to mind the timekeeping. I imagine Sydneysiders' expectations have been completely eroded away by generations of appalling bus (and even train) services and they don't expect any better.

So the journey planner is useless. If you need to get somewhere on time take your car.
Perpetually on a T3 to "I. P. Pavlova, přestup na Metro. Příští zastávka, Náměsti Míru"
User avatar
tonyp
 
Posts: 9248
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 1:31 am
Location: Shoalhaven
Has thanked: 1262 times
Been thanked: 1354 times

Re: Light Rail Implementation 2013/4 _MLR Extension

Postby jpp42 » Thu Jan 28, 2016 9:08 am

tonyp wrote:I don't know if the performance and reporting requirements (if any) of the new contract have kicked in yet. I rely only on anecdotal evidence from lineside users and I understand that timekeeping is all over the shop. This is appalling for an operation on a completely quarantined corridor. Introducing additional services will only foul it up further..


As a frequent user of the system I do find that having the real-time data working does somewhat ameliorate the effect of poor timekeeping. I can use TripView to find out how late the service is running (or sometimes 5-6 minutes early!), and plan my trip to the LR stop accordingly. It certainly doesn't make the situation good, but it's definitely a lot better than turning up and waiting for 20 minutes for a service that was supposed to be every 12 minutes, under the long time Lilyfield-Central timetable.

I'm curious though what their expansion plan is - clearly the current fleet (and single track turnback at DH), can't handle much growth. It seems a waste of resources to have an isolated double-track corridor and NOT run more frequent services if the demand is there. I still don't understand why they won't consider short-turns at Lilyfield, or wherever the next cross-over is closer to the city, since the biggest demand is from Fish Market inbound. Do they simply not have the safeworking flexibility to do this without delaying through services?
User avatar
jpp42
 
Posts: 1154
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 8:27 pm
Has thanked: 178 times
Been thanked: 263 times

Re: Light Rail Implementation 2013/4 _MLR Extension

Postby moa999 » Thu Jan 28, 2016 9:15 am

Noticed earlier in the week that the new (3rd) exit to Wentworth Park LR up to Jones St is now open (lift is still closed). Provides much better access to those up top.
moa999
 
Posts: 2521
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2012 2:12 pm
Has thanked: 428 times
Been thanked: 395 times

Re: Light Rail Implementation 2013/4 _MLR Extension

Postby tonyp » Thu Jan 28, 2016 9:33 am

jpp42 wrote:As a frequent user of the system I do find that having the real-time data working does somewhat ameliorate the effect of poor timekeeping. I can use TripView to find out how late the service is running (or sometimes 5-6 minutes early!), and plan my trip to the LR stop accordingly. It certainly doesn't make the situation good, but it's definitely a lot better than turning up and waiting for 20 minutes for a service that was supposed to be every 12 minutes, under the long time Lilyfield-Central timetable.

I'm curious though what their expansion plan is - clearly the current fleet (and single track turnback at DH), can't handle much growth. It seems a waste of resources to have an isolated double-track corridor and NOT run more frequent services if the demand is there. I still don't understand why they won't consider short-turns at Lilyfield, or wherever the next cross-over is closer to the city, since the biggest demand is from Fish Market inbound. Do they simply not have the safeworking flexibility to do this without delaying through services?

I understand from somebody in the know that it's not possible to timetable short-workings at Lilyfield.

Real time data is not enough. The journey planner needs to work. For example, if you're going from say Canterbury Road to Botany this way, you need to be sure that your bus, tram and bus or train will connect and that you'll get there on time. In other words, everything needs to run on time. That shouldn't be negotiable unless there's some rare one-off incident like an accident.

I'd be interested to hear your feedback on how the IWLR runs. It almost sounds like you'd be reporting on the rare occasion a tram runs on time rather then reporting out-of-schedules!

As for 5-6 mins early, that's not on. What are they thinking? Are you sure it's not the previous one running late?

This is the mob that's been given the "reward" of running CSELR. It doesn't give much cause for optimism.
Perpetually on a T3 to "I. P. Pavlova, přestup na Metro. Příští zastávka, Náměsti Míru"
User avatar
tonyp
 
Posts: 9248
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 1:31 am
Location: Shoalhaven
Has thanked: 1262 times
Been thanked: 1354 times

Re: Light Rail Implementation 2013/4 _MLR Extension

Postby simonl » Thu Jan 28, 2016 10:06 am

tonyp wrote:Real time data is not enough. The journey planner needs to work. For example, if you're going from say Canterbury Road to Botany this way, you need to be sure that your bus, tram and bus or train will connect and that you'll get there on time. In other words, everything needs to run on time. That shouldn't be negotiable unless there's some rare one-off incident like an accident.

Hang on. You can't argue that they should remove the padding and say that everything needs to run on time, all the time.

tonyp wrote:As for 5-6 mins early, that's not on.

Agreed.
simonl
 
Posts: 7986
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 7:03 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia
Has thanked: 851 times
Been thanked: 365 times

Re: Light Rail Implementation 2013/4 _MLR Extension

Postby moa999 » Thu Jan 28, 2016 10:37 am

tonyp wrote:I understand from somebody in the know that it's not possible to timetable short-workings at Lilyfield.
..
This is the mob that's been given the "reward" of running CSELR. It doesn't give much cause for optimism.


I was going to say that's heavy rail thinking ... but they manage to do it...
Surely running 12min headways to Dulwich Hill, and 6min to Lilyfield must be possible
moa999
 
Posts: 2521
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2012 2:12 pm
Has thanked: 428 times
Been thanked: 395 times

Re: Light Rail Implementation 2013/4 _MLR Extension

Postby simonl » Thu Jan 28, 2016 10:47 am

Seems there's a turnback siding west of lilyfield. Not sure why they would say it isn't possible, even if it does lack a path from the outbound platform to the siding which doesn't conflict with the inbound track.
simonl
 
Posts: 7986
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 7:03 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia
Has thanked: 851 times
Been thanked: 365 times

Re: Light Rail Implementation 2013/4 _MLR Extension

Postby Daniel » Thu Jan 28, 2016 10:54 am

Actually a fenced car storage yard, rather than a turnback road.
User avatar
Daniel
Administrator
 
Posts: 7028
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 9:03 pm
Location: Sutherland Shire
Has thanked: 371 times
Been thanked: 994 times
Favourite Vehicle: Mercedes-Benz O405 / CC '510'

Re: Light Rail Implementation 2013/4 _MLR Extension

Postby tonyp » Thu Jan 28, 2016 10:57 am

simonl wrote:Hang on. You can't argue that they should remove the padding and say that everything needs to run on time, all the time.


The "padding" should be within the layover/recovery time at the terminus.

Daniel wrote:Actually a fenced car storage yard, rather than a turnback road.

There is also a turnback track there I believe.
Perpetually on a T3 to "I. P. Pavlova, přestup na Metro. Příští zastávka, Náměsti Míru"
User avatar
tonyp
 
Posts: 9248
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 1:31 am
Location: Shoalhaven
Has thanked: 1262 times
Been thanked: 1354 times

Re: Light Rail Implementation 2013/4 _MLR Extension

Postby jpp42 » Thu Jan 28, 2016 4:25 pm

tonyp wrote:Real time data is not enough. The journey planner needs to work. For example, if you're going from say Canterbury Road to Botany this way, you need to be sure that your bus, tram and bus or train will connect and that you'll get there on time. In other words, everything needs to run on time. That shouldn't be negotiable unless there's some rare one-off incident like an accident.


I agree with you but I don't think they really considered easy connections as part of the recent expansion to the system. For example, there could have been a much more seamless connection at Dulwich Hill by building a new rail concourse to directly connect with the Light Rail lift/stairs. This would have also allowed Easy Access at Dulwich Hill, something you'd think it deserves given it's now an interchange station. And at Parramatta Road there is no bus stop near the light rail station (not to mention no connection to the Inner West Line, but I realise that is a bit of a harder problem). I do hope fixing this kind of thing is in the future plans.

tonyp wrote:I'd be interested to hear your feedback on how the IWLR runs. It almost sounds like you'd be reporting on the rare occasion a tram runs on time rather then reporting out-of-schedules!


The biggest problem really is the severe overcrowding between Central and The Star/Fish Market (during Fish Market hours the latter is very popular). This is claimed in the articles to be due to the extension, and patronage on the extension is certainly growing, but I think the bigger contributor is Opal. So many people avoided Light Rail previously due to the uncompetitive fares for Pyrmont ($4.60, now just $2.10 on Opal). I think this also affects on time running as it pushes up dwell time. Some of the aisles are fairly narrow, plus people don't always use the best etiquette (e.g. stepping out of the way if not getting off), which you see in other cities more used to packed trains.

Another operational issue I have a bit of a problem with is the crew changes at Convention station. I recognise that is near their base, but they spend so much time having a chat with each other, and generally farting around before getting the tram going again. This often makes that run 2-3 minutes late. Very different from Sydney Trains crew changes at Central where the driver/guard line up at exactly the right spot and change over in a matter of seconds.

I wish they had kept the extra Urbos II trams, although there were inferior in several ways, at least they could have used them during peak hour.

tonyp wrote:As for 5-6 mins early, that's not on. What are they thinking? Are you sure it's not the previous one running late?


This is according to the TripView data. Maybe they put in the wrong run number or something, but I've definitely seen that a few times.
User avatar
jpp42
 
Posts: 1154
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 8:27 pm
Has thanked: 178 times
Been thanked: 263 times

Re: Light Rail Implementation 2013/4 _MLR Extension

Postby Tonymercury » Thu Jan 28, 2016 4:30 pm

jpp42 wrote:I agree with you but I don't think they really considered easy connections as part of the recent expansion to the system. For example, there could have been a much more seamless connection at Dulwich Hill by building a new rail concourse to directly connect with the Light Rail lift/stairs. This would have also allowed Easy Access at Dulwich Hill, something you'd think it deserves given it's now an interchange station. .



It was very disappointing that for all of the rhetoric from TfNSW about accessibility etc. this was not done. Presumably it will not happen until the Metro arrives, which will be some years yet,
Tonymercury
 
Posts: 2590
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2005 3:14 pm
Location: Botany NSW
Has thanked: 260 times
Been thanked: 335 times

Re: Light Rail Implementation 2013/4 _MLR Extension

Postby Frosty » Thu Jan 28, 2016 5:38 pm

The LR Extension along with Opal has been a victim of its own success . Solution to the fish markets issue discourage people from going there in the first place. I was looking overhead from the Fish Market along the Anzac Bridge is the car park is too small and wasted space. The Star should fix itself once the second casino opens in Barangaroo.

Maybe a fare hike on LR. I'm advocating either people stop going to the Casino & or the Fish Market or increase the fares to discourage people. We need to reduce numbers

Operationally the LR is a shambles. One point is at Central the destination indicator says it is ready to depart but still spends an extra 2 minutes waiting for no reason. Like it makes Sydney Trains operation look good. For example at Bondi Jn during the peaks sometimes a train arrives late they still manage to dispatch the train on time most times. Once the train arrives at Bondi Jn comes to a full complete stop a driver already waiting at the other end , enters the cab and preps for the return trip. An efficient and slick turnaround.

tonyp wrote:
Real time data is not enough. The journey planner needs to work. For example, if you're going from say Canterbury Road to Botany this way, you need to be sure that your bus, tram and bus or train will connect and that you'll get there on time. In other words, everything needs to run on time. That shouldn't be negotiable unless there's some rare one-off incident like an accident.


I doubt anyone would make a journey Canterbury Road to Botany. It's easier and faster by car . If you would make that journey the most sense to use the 418 from Dulwich Hill Shops and change at Gardeners & Botany Rds for bus to Botany.
Frosty
 
Posts: 1827
Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2015 7:16 pm
Has thanked: 22 times
Been thanked: 123 times

Re: Light Rail Implementation 2013/4 _MLR Extension

Postby moa999 » Thu Jan 28, 2016 6:04 pm

They seem to have finally decided to unload passengers at the other end at Central so you don't have people pushing in as you try to get off..
moa999
 
Posts: 2521
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2012 2:12 pm
Has thanked: 428 times
Been thanked: 395 times

Re: Light Rail Implementation 2013/4 _MLR Extension

Postby boronia » Thu Jan 28, 2016 6:40 pm

jpp42 wrote:
This is according to the TripView data. Maybe they put in the wrong run number or something, but I've definitely seen that a few times.

xx
Last edited by boronia on Fri Jan 29, 2016 8:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
The Sydney Classic and Antique Truck (and Bus) Show
On again June 2020
@ The Museum of Fire.
User avatar
boronia
 
Posts: 19250
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 5:18 am
Location: Sydney
Has thanked: 290 times
Been thanked: 1865 times
Favourite Vehicle: Dennis

Re: Light Rail Implementation 2013/4 _MLR Extension

Postby boronia » Thu Jan 28, 2016 6:42 pm

moa999 wrote:They seem to have finally decided to unload passengers at the other end at Central so you don't have people pushing in as you try to get off..

And do the waiting people rush down to the tram when they see it stop there? :evil:
The Sydney Classic and Antique Truck (and Bus) Show
On again June 2020
@ The Museum of Fire.
User avatar
boronia
 
Posts: 19250
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 5:18 am
Location: Sydney
Has thanked: 290 times
Been thanked: 1865 times
Favourite Vehicle: Dennis

Re: Light Rail Implementation 2013/4 _MLR Extension

Postby jpp42 » Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:48 pm

boronia wrote:
moa999 wrote:They seem to have finally decided to unload passengers at the other end at Central so you don't have people pushing in as you try to get off..

And do the waiting people rush down to the tram when they see it stop there? :evil:


There are actually quite a few signs pointing out where to board, and the conductor prevents people from boarding until the discharge is completed and the tram moves up to the boarding area. It is indeed a welcome improvement. It also puts the discharging passengers a bit closer to the suburban concourse, and main gates of the intercity concourse, instead of way down at the west end where few people need to go.
User avatar
jpp42
 
Posts: 1154
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 8:27 pm
Has thanked: 178 times
Been thanked: 263 times

Re: Light Rail Implementation 2013/4 _MLR Extension

Postby Glen » Thu Jan 28, 2016 11:32 pm

tonyp wrote:I understand from somebody in the know that it's not possible to timetable short-workings at Lilyfield.
I wonder why that is? I understood a short turn is physically possible but since the opening of the extension and stabling road a terminating tram now has to shunt west of Lilyfield to reverse.
Glen
 
Posts: 2830
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 10:54 pm
Location: Sydney
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 211 times

Re: Light Rail Implementation 2013/4 _MLR Extension

Postby tonyp » Fri Jan 29, 2016 5:31 am

jpp42 wrote:
The biggest problem really is the severe overcrowding between Central and The Star/Fish Market (during Fish Market hours the latter is very popular). This is claimed in the articles to be due to the extension, and patronage on the extension is certainly growing, but I think the bigger contributor is Opal. So many people avoided Light Rail previously due to the uncompetitive fares for Pyrmont ($4.60, now just $2.10 on Opal). I think this also affects on time running as it pushes up dwell time. Some of the aisles are fairly narrow, plus people don't always use the best etiquette (e.g. stepping out of the way if not getting off), which you see in other cities more used to packed trains.

Another operational issue I have a bit of a problem with is the crew changes at Convention station. I recognise that is near their base, but they spend so much time having a chat with each other, and generally farting around before getting the tram going again. This often makes that run 2-3 minutes late. Very different from Sydney Trains crew changes at Central where the driver/guard line up at exactly the right spot and change over in a matter of seconds.

I wish they had kept the extra Urbos II trams, although there were inferior in several ways, at least they could have used them during peak hour.

Thank you for that feedback. I'm convinced that there's an issue with passenger exhange with the heavy patronage on the inner section of the line. The Urbos 2 trams were actually better because they had more doors. It's the same issue I've been going on about in the bus door thread. When you have high and frequent passenger turnover you need plenty of doors evenly spaced along the vehicle. One double door per 5 metres is a suitable standard. Once you cut back on doors, you're not only slowing passenger exchange but you're encouraging clustering of people inside near the doors because people don't want to be stuck away from a door when they want to get off. This means that the vehicle isn't loaded efficiently and to its capacity.

They made a huge mistake with the Urbos 3 and need to sell them and get the same trams specified for CSELR.

There are other operational issues around IWLR but this is one of the biggest.
Perpetually on a T3 to "I. P. Pavlova, přestup na Metro. Příští zastávka, Náměsti Míru"
User avatar
tonyp
 
Posts: 9248
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 1:31 am
Location: Shoalhaven
Has thanked: 1262 times
Been thanked: 1354 times

Re: Light Rail Implementation 2013/4 _MLR Extension

Postby tonyp » Fri Jan 29, 2016 5:37 am

Glen wrote:I wonder why that is? I understood a short turn is physically possible but since the opening of the extension and stabling road a terminating tram now has to shunt west of Lilyfield to reverse.

That's normal that the tram would have to shunt. It comes in on one platform face and has to go out on the nother, so it needs to change tracks somewhere beyond the stop, preferably in a way that doesn't conflict with oncoming trams.

If they could do it on the old Watson's Bay line (e.g. timetabled short-workings at Double Bay, Rose Bay) with trams every minute or two along the line I don't see what the problem is on a line with trams 10 minutes apart. The whole IWLR operation is a joke - well, a disaster, there's nothing funny about it.
Perpetually on a T3 to "I. P. Pavlova, přestup na Metro. Příští zastávka, Náměsti Míru"
User avatar
tonyp
 
Posts: 9248
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 1:31 am
Location: Shoalhaven
Has thanked: 1262 times
Been thanked: 1354 times

Re: Light Rail Implementation 2013/4 _MLR Extension

Postby boronia » Fri Jan 29, 2016 9:05 am

Would a trailing crossover on the Sydney side of the platforms solve that problem? The centre island here would simplify boarding from either side. Tram arrives on platform 2, unloads, loads, changes ends and departs. ("The next tram for Central departs from Platform 2"). Should be able to do this in 5-6 minutes before the next through service arrives. It may mean of course that you won't get an even 5-6 minute frequency inbound, just 2 services every 10-12 minutes; as long as the empty short worker runs in front of a loaded through service. This may be the difficulty in timetabling referred to? Especially in getting the subsequent regular 5-6 minutes out of Central.
The Sydney Classic and Antique Truck (and Bus) Show
On again June 2020
@ The Museum of Fire.
User avatar
boronia
 
Posts: 19250
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 5:18 am
Location: Sydney
Has thanked: 290 times
Been thanked: 1865 times
Favourite Vehicle: Dennis

Re: Light Rail Implementation 2013/4 _MLR Extension

Postby tonyp » Fri Jan 29, 2016 9:45 am

boronia wrote:Would a trailing crossover on the Sydney side of the platforms solve that problem? The centre island here would simplify boarding from either side. Tram arrives on platform 2, unloads, loads, changes ends and departs. ("The next tram for Central departs from Platform 2"). Should be able to do this in 5-6 minutes before the next through service arrives. It may mean of course that you won't get an even 5-6 minute frequency inbound, just 2 services every 10-12 minutes; as long as the empty short worker runs in front of a loaded through service. This may be the difficulty in timetabling referred to? Especially in getting the subsequent regular 5-6 minutes out of Central.


Like you said!

At least you found a justification for the only island platform on the line :wink:
Perpetually on a T3 to "I. P. Pavlova, přestup na Metro. Příští zastávka, Náměsti Míru"
User avatar
tonyp
 
Posts: 9248
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 1:31 am
Location: Shoalhaven
Has thanked: 1262 times
Been thanked: 1354 times

Re: Light Rail Implementation 2013/4 _MLR Extension

Postby Glen » Fri Jan 29, 2016 7:35 pm

tonyp wrote:
Glen wrote:I wonder why that is? I understood a short turn is physically possible but since the opening of the extension and stabling road a terminating tram now has to shunt west of Lilyfield to reverse.

That's normal that the tram would have to shunt. It comes in on one platform face and has to go out on the nother, so it needs to change tracks somewhere beyond the stop, preferably in a way that doesn't conflict with oncoming trams.

What I meant was that the crossover is on the Down side of the station not the Up side.

By contrast the crossover at John St Square is on the Up side, so after midnight when trams run from Central to John St Sq, they terminate on the Down platform, reverse and then crossover to the Up line to take up service from The Star back to Central.
Glen
 
Posts: 2830
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 10:54 pm
Location: Sydney
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 211 times

Re: Light Rail Implementation 2013/4 _MLR Extension

Postby tonyp » Sat Jan 30, 2016 9:52 am

Glen wrote:What I meant was that the crossover is on the Down side of the station not the Up side.

By contrast the crossover at John St Square is on the Up side, so after midnight when trams run from Central to John St Sq, they terminate on the Down platform, reverse and then crossover to the Up line to take up service from The Star back to Central.

Yes of course they can do this, but will it make any practical difference to the possibility for scheduling in short-worked runs given the present anarchy of the whole operation?

It seems to me they should learn how to run a basic, simple tram operation first before moving to something more complex. Baby steps - except that the baby is now 18 years old. As a cruel joke it would be nice to take them back in time and put them in charge of the old Watsons Bay line for a day.
Perpetually on a T3 to "I. P. Pavlova, přestup na Metro. Příští zastávka, Náměsti Míru"
User avatar
tonyp
 
Posts: 9248
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 1:31 am
Location: Shoalhaven
Has thanked: 1262 times
Been thanked: 1354 times

PreviousNext


  • Advertisement

Return to Discussion - Sydney / NSW

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], grog, matthewg and 10 guests