When will Sydney track speeds get back up to 130-160km/h

[Transtopic]

I haven't looked up the Paris RER Line A for several years but when last I did they had a pretty impressive throughput on their timetable.

Mind you that's with 10 car DD's and three doors per car.

How's it going in practice?

The throughput of RER A is great, because they have so many people to move (at least 300 million a year, which is like the entire Sydney Trains system!), but the 2 minute headways don't last too long before they drop back a little for breathers and/or miss a couple of stops to catch up. It's a tough gig and they don't manage it with ease, but the French railways are very capable.

However, it's the journey time we're discussing and in that regard, the Paris operation is closer to Sydney Trains than Sydney Metro. Indeed it shows that automatic operation won't speed up a heavily-used double deck service that much.

I've done comparisons in the past on the basis of similar pretty straight and level track profiles, same distance, same or similar number of stops. Here are a couple of the results. Bear in mind that the Sydney suburban examples typically include long express sections, whereas the Sydney Metro and RER A are all stops. So the Sydney suburban services have differing stopping patterns, but I've chosen examples that have the same number of intermediate stops as the other two systems.

58 km

Sydney suburban Emu Plains- Central: 21 stops, 75 minutes, average speed 46 km/h.

Paris RER A Marne-La-Vallee - St-Germaine: 22 stops, 72 minutes, 49 km/h.

Sydney Metro: Tallawong-Marrickville: 20 stops, 62 minutes, 57 km/h.

63 km

Sydney suburban Emu Plains- North Sydney: 23 stops, 86 minutes, 44 km/h.

Paris RER A Boissy-St-Leger - Cergy-Le-Haut: 24 stops, 80 minutes, 47 km/h.

Sydney Metro Tallawong-Canterbury: 23 stops, 68 minutes, 58 km/h.

So RER A's strength is its ability to move large patronage at close frequency, but with a pretty ordinary journey time. RER A represents what Sydney's suburban operation strives to be with more automation and better signalling, yet it doesn't achieve much improvement in journey time. This suggests to me that this is an inherent weakness of double deck trains, something that an average blind freddy and his dog has known for years but somehow doesn't find its way past the rose-coloured glasses of double deck enthusiasts. Double deckers have their role on long distance semi-express services where they don't have to stop so much. For stopping services, they're not so good.

We've struck the right balance with Sydney Metro - much higher capacity, capable of 2 minute headways and with an average speed at least some 10 km/h higher than that of the other two operations. By the way, this also provides an insight into the other question here - will higher speed limits improve journey time? The metro is theoretically the tortoise here, limited to 100 km/h, compared to the hares on suburban at 115 and RER A at 120. Isn't there an old fable about the hare and the tortoise? As I keep saying like a broken record, it's average speed that's significant.

You continue to peddle your false comparison of journey times of the metro with the existing slowed down Sydney Trains timetable, without acknowledging the improvements which will be made with the digital signalling and ATO upgrades. Comparisons with the Paris RER are also irrelevant.

Why would the government spend millions and ultimately billions on upgrading the Sydney Trains network with digital signalling and ATO if there is no benefit? It would cost significantly more to convert existing lines to metro for only marginal benefit, not to mention the disruption which is yet to be experienced on the Bankstown Line conversion, let alone duplicating lines with metro. It wouldn't stack up on a cost/benefit analysis.

I might add that I'm not a DD purist, but just accept the bleedingly obvious fact that it's what we have at present and is likely to be for many decades to come on the existing network. There may be an opportunity to introduce compatible SD trains on some inner city lines in the future, which had been proposed on the existing network before the segregated metro system was prioritised. I support new metro lines in the inner city regions servicing areas without an existing rail service and that includes cross regional metro lines.

You have ignored my earlier post about "average speed", in again failing to acknowledge the inherent acceleration/deceleration capability of the latest suburban rolling stock, which has been geared down, and can potentially be upgraded to its original design specification which is close to the performance of the metro stock, dwell times aside on the busiest stations in the CBD. In any event, dwell times should be improved when the metro line takes interchange pressure off Town Hall in particular.

[tonyp]

You continue to peddle your false comparison of journey times of the metro with the existing slowed down Sydney Trains timetable, without acknowledging the improvements which will be made with the digital signalling and ATO upgrades. Comparisons with the Paris RER are also irrelevant.

What else can I do but compare with the existing timetable? I acknowledge that we should likely have a better journey time after those tech upgrades, but there is no projected timetable that I can compare with. I could follow Glen's cue and take one of the old timetables from the past and compare with that and I suspect that I would get results similar to the RER A times.

Why would the government spend millions and ultimately billions on upgrading the Sydney Trains network with digital signalling and ATO if there is no benefit? It would cost significantly more to convert existing lines to metro for only marginal benefit, not to mention the disruption which is yet to be experienced on the Bankstown Line conversion, let alone duplicating lines with metro. It wouldn't stack up on a cost/benefit analysis.

Generally agreed, but only business cases will reveal the answers to that.

I might add that I'm not a DD purist, but just accept the bleedingly obvious fact that it's what we have at present and is likely to be for many decades to come on the existing network. There may be an opportunity to introduce compatible SD trains on some inner city lines in the future, which had been proposed on the existing network before the segregated metro system was prioritised. I support new metro lines in the inner city regions servicing areas without an existing rail service and that includes cross regional metro lines.

Generally agreed, except that metro lines filling gaps in the system are also needed in western Sydney. Metro performs best on all-stops long-distance services and this is what the planners want - activation opportunities in every centre with fast links between them.

You have ignored my earlier post about "average speed", in again failing to acknowledge the inherent acceleration/deceleration capability of the latest suburban rolling stock, which has been geared down, and can potentially be upgraded to its original design specification which is close to the performance of the metro stock, dwell times aside on the busiest stations in the CBD. In any event, dwell times should be improved when the metro line takes interchange pressure off Town Hall in particular.

I did agree that it seems that we can improve the acceleration/deceleration performance of new double deckers with the appropriate upgrades. What I said is that there's far more than that needed to attain anything near metro-level performance.

[Transtopic]

There's all these railway-operation clues around for the taking and you really should look at them, rather than just have blind faith that the existing human-crewed double deckers can somehow achieve all these stellar objectives as they are. Their design and technology is simply against them. Wrong sort of train for the job.

Just accept the fact that's what we have at present and all your wishing in the world isn't going to magically change it into your ideologicalised metro network. It's a matter of opinion whether the existing Sydney Trains network, regardless of whether it's DD or not, is best suited for the Sydney's travel demands.

Previous studies have shown that Sydney's rail network is more aligned with the Paris RER and Zurich's suburban rail network.

[Transtopic]

You continue to peddle your false comparison of journey times of the metro with the existing slowed down Sydney Trains timetable, without acknowledging the improvements which will be made with the digital signalling and ATO upgrades. Comparisons with the Paris RER are also irrelevant.

What else can I do but compare with the existing timetable? I acknowledge that we should likely have a better journey time after those tech upgrades, but there is no projected timetable that I can compare with. I could follow Glen's cue and take one of the old timetables from the past and compare with that and I suspect that I would get results similar to the RER A times.

Why would the government spend millions and ultimately billions on upgrading the Sydney Trains network with digital signalling and ATO if there is no benefit? It would cost significantly more to convert existing lines to metro for only marginal benefit, not to mention the disruption which is yet to be experienced on the Bankstown Line conversion, let alone duplicating lines with metro. It wouldn't stack up on a cost/benefit analysis.

Generally agreed, but only business cases will reveal the answers to that.

I might add that I'm not a DD purist, but just accept the bleedingly obvious fact that it's what we have at present and is likely to be for many decades to come on the existing network. There may be an opportunity to introduce compatible SD trains on some inner city lines in the future, which had been proposed on the existing network before the segregated metro system was prioritised. I support new metro lines in the inner city regions servicing areas without an existing rail service and that includes cross regional metro lines.

Generally agreed, except that metro lines filling gaps in the system are also needed in western Sydney. Metro performs best on all-stops long-distance services and this is what the planners want - activation opportunities in every centre with fast links between them.

You have ignored my earlier post about "average speed", in again failing to acknowledge the inherent acceleration/deceleration capability of the latest suburban rolling stock, which has been geared down, and can potentially be upgraded to its original design specification which is close to the performance of the metro stock, dwell times aside on the busiest stations in the CBD. In any event, dwell times should be improved when the metro line takes interchange pressure off Town Hall in particular.

I did agree that it seems that we can improve the acceleration/deceleration performance of new double deckers with the appropriate upgrades. What I said is that there's far more than that needed to attain anything near metro-level performance.

Sorry, but that's not a credible response. You can argue all you like about how new metro lines outperform existing Sydney Trains lines, which I acknowledge, but you seem to be oblivious of whether in the real world it would be worth the cost and disruption of converting or duplicating existing lines to metro for only marginal benefit compared with the proposed upgrades. As I have previously stated, I'm not opposed to new metro lines servicing new rail corridors.

Apart from the digital signalling and ATO upgrades to the Sydney Trains network, including some track amplifications and junction remodelling, the only further extensions I can visualise are from Bondi Junction on the ESR to Rose Bay via Bondi Rd, Bondi Beach and North Bondi, and extension of the SWRL to Narellan and WSA, rather than the proposed metro extension and conversion. Otherwise new inner city lines should be metro.

[tonyp]

Just accept the fact that's what we have at present and all your wishing in the world isn't going to magically change it into your ideologicalised metro network. It's a matter of opinion whether the existing Sydney Trains network, regardless of whether it's DD or not, is best suited for the Sydney's travel demands.

Previous studies have shown that Sydney's rail network is more aligned with the Paris RER and Zurich's suburban rail network.

Automated metro is not ideology. It's simply how they're building urban commuter railways nowadays. Indeed, without counting it up (if somebody has the time, they're welcome to do that), I wonder whether there are now more automated metros existing and under construction in the world than there are traditional commuter railways.

https://wiki2.org/en/List_of_driver-less_train_systems

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... il_systems

Indeed, is anybody, anywhere, still building new intra-urban commuter railways or are they all now legacy?

Zurich's S Bahn is more what we'd call an interurban system. It serves, not only the Zurich urban area, but also neighbouring cantons and even runs into Germany. I've noticed that a lot of people don't realise that Sydney's suburban double deck system is almost unique. They see double deck commuter trains in Europe and assume that they're suburban trains like here, when in fact they're what we call interurbans. They connect the main urban area with separate settlements outside the city and even other cities. The distances are of course deceptive. You can be out of a European city in 10-15 km, but in Australia that may be up to 50 km. Still doesn't change the definition of a suburban vs interurban train.

RER A is actually considered a rapid transit line rather than a suburban line (even though it ain't so rapid) and has had to be relieved by construction of two additional lines about 20 years ago - RER E and metro line 14. It's probably better as an example of what not to do, but the French have done a great job keeping it going nevertheless.

Incidentally, you're assuming a lot of support for all these initiatives from the RTBU, an assumption that on past events is not a sound one. There'll end up being some devaluing compromise down the line, as has happened with the unfortunate NIF.

Finally, in answer to your last post just seen, I'm actually not all that interested in conversion of further suburban lines to metro (except Leppington line). There are so many new metro lines needed that will occupy forward planning for decades ahead that conversions are very low priority. I'd rather see suburban lines converted to automated or semi-automated single deck operation before seeing them converted to metro. I can't see any new suburban lines being built though. All future new lines will be metro.

[Glen]

I've travelled on the Paris RER Line A and to me it felt very much like going from Wynyard to Penrith. I think it is very comparable to how we use double deckers.

[Glen]

I could follow Glen's cue and take one of the old timetables from the past and compare with that

Here ya go, click this

https://busaustralia.com/forum/viewtopi ... 8#p1097533

[tonyp]

I've travelled on the Paris RER Line A and to me it felt very much like going from Wynyard to Penrith. I think it is very comparable to how we use double deckers.

They call the French line rapid transit, presumably, because it stops at all stations and, like a metro, it's quite fast in doing so, but otherwise, yes, it's definitely a suburban line. It's noteworthy that it has a higher average speed than an equivalent Penrith service, even though it stops at all stations, whereas the average Sydney suburban service has to semi-express over sections of routes in order to keep journey time within limits.

Here ya go, click this

https://busaustralia.com/forum/viewtopi ... 8#p1097533

To do an exact comparison with a 1938 running time I need to find an equivalent section of metro with the same number of stations and that combination isn't available at this stage of the metro rollout. However, it's possible to get a general picture.

Both the Wynyard-Hornsby (via Strathfield) and Wynyard-Liverpool (via Granville) runs have roughly the same distance and 18 intermediate stations (not stopping between Redfern and Burwood), taking about 55 minutes in 1938. The closest metro equivalent in distance at present is Tallawong-Chatswood, which has 11 intermediate stops and takes 37 minutes. If we allow a 3-4 minute handicap for the missing stations, you can either add that on to the metro, bringing it to about 40-41 minutes, or take it off Liverpool/Hornsby, reducing it to about 51 minutes. The suburban running time was definitely better in 1938, but the metro is about 14 minutes better still over the same distance/ number of stations.

If they ever extend the Bankstown metro to Liverpool, the trip would be no more than 40 minutes Liverpool to Central. The further the metro travels, the better it gets. This embarrassing (for the suburban system) fact is why metro opponents want to clip its wings by declaring that "metro is only for inner city services". Unfortunately, the rest of the world is catching on to this fact and there are now some incredibly long metro lines being built, Sydney Metro's being far from the top of the list in line length. This table only shows tunneled lengths. Some, if not many of these lines would have further length not in tunnels.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_l ... l_sections

[Glen]

To grab a quote from the web:
"The RER lines (Réseau Express Régional or Regional Express Network) are different from other train lines because they do not terminate in Paris. They cross the capital underground, so that passengers can get from one side of the region to the other on the same line."

I wasn't trying to compare a 1938 timetable to the Metro, rather to compare how fast those two motor single deckers must have been whining to run from Central to Bankstown in 31 minutes, a whole five minutes faster than we now force DD drivers to crawl along at, just to give the appearance of running on time.

[tonyp]

To grab a quote from the web:
"The RER lines (Réseau Express Régional or Regional Express Network) are different from other train lines because they do not terminate in Paris. They cross the capital underground, so that passengers can get from one side of the region to the other on the same line."

I wasn't trying to compare a 1938 timetable to the Metro, rather to compare how fast those two motor single deckers must have been whining to run from Central to Bankstown in 31 minutes, a whole five minutes faster than we now force DD drivers to crawl along at, just to give the appearance of running on time.

Yes I realise what the function of the RER lines is. I used to ride RER C many years ago.

I took the old Sydney timetables comparison as a hypothetical exercise in the performance that the double deckers could achieve if the operational constraints were removed.

I remember somebody commenting once that there's now a whole generation of drivers on the system who are programmed to drive slow. Are there any speed demons left?

[BAMBAM]

I remember somebody commenting once that there's now a whole generation of drivers on the system who are programmed to drive slow. Are there any speed demons left?

It’s not that new drivers are trained to be slow, they are trained where safety of passengers are priority. You speed to try and make up time but make mistakes like running through red signals or skipping stations when meant to be stop and your foot is out of the job.

Gone are the days you lived in where safety wasn’t paramount and speed limits wasn’t a thing, where one mistake and you’re alright don’t do it again. Now safety more important and on time running plays second fiddle to safety. You won’t get fired if you’re 5 minutes late but you’ll will be fired if your trying to drive up to maximum speed limit and running red signals because your worry about your train being late. Drivers don’t get paid more if they on time, they get paid to transport passengers safely in a safe and reasonable manner.

[tonyp]

It’s not that new drivers are trained to be slow, they are trained where safety of passengers are priority. You speed to try and make up time but make mistakes like running through red signals or skipping stations when meant to be stop and your foot is out of the job.

Gone are the days you lived in where safety wasn’t paramount and speed limits wasn’t a thing, where one mistake and you’re alright don’t do it again. Now safety more important and on time running plays second fiddle to safety. You won’t get fired if you’re 5 minutes late but you’ll will be fired if your trying to drive up to maximum speed limit and running red signals because your worry about your train being late. Drivers don’t get paid more if they on time, they get paid to transport passengers safely in a safe and reasonable manner.

So really, automation with its exceptional safety record is the only answer. There's no point persevering with the suburban system when metro can do the job better and more safely.

[Glen]

I remember somebody commenting once that there's now a whole generation of drivers on the system who are programmed to drive slow. Are there any speed demons left?

It’s not that new drivers are trained to be slow, they are trained where safety of passengers are priority. You speed to try and make up time but make mistakes like running through red signals or skipping stations when meant to be stop and your foot is out of the job.

You won’t get fired if you’re 5 minutes late but you’ll will be fired if your trying to drive up to maximum speed limit and running red signals because your worry about your train being late.

It's not an issue of safety.

Trains ran faster safely before.

The Waterfall accident was nothing to do with train speeds or timetables, but did provide a convenient management excuse to slow the system in order to make the on time running look better.

As a result dwell times are ridiculous.

I would counter that excessively long dwells are actually more dangerous because they encourage passengers to run for the train, so much so that now we have posters and announcements telling us not to do that.

Oh and "if your trying to drive up to maximum speed limit and running red signals" I think the preceding caution signal might trip your air first!

[Linto63]

58 km

Sydney suburban Emu Plains- Central: 21 stops, 75 minutes, average speed 46 km/h.

Paris RER A Marne-La-Vallee - St-Germaine: 22 stops, 72 minutes, 49 km/h.

Sydney Metro: Tallawong-Marrickville: 20 stops, 62 minutes, 57 km/h.

The usual apples vs oranges comparison ignoring the different operating environments, the legacy Sydney network being disadvantaged by an inferior alignment and having to integrate with multiple other lines.

Are there any speed demons left?

Anybody who didn't get the memo that those days are over would have been moved on.

It’s not that new drivers are trained to be slow, they are trained where safety of passengers are priority.

Exactly, the hairy chested days where drivers could pick and choose when to follow and ignore the rules are long gone.

So really, automation with its exceptional safety record is the only answer. There's no point persevering with the suburban system when metro can do the job better and more safely.

Meanwhile, back in the real world...

The Waterfall accident was nothing to do with train speeds or timetables, but did provide a convenient management excuse to slow the system in order to make the on time running look better.

Make on time running look better, or make on time running better? There is a difference.

[Transtopic]

Incidentally, you're assuming a lot of support for all these initiatives from the RTBU, an assumption that on past events is not a sound one. There'll end up being some devaluing compromise down the line, as has happened with the unfortunate NIF.

It's a spurious argument that the RTBU somehow dictates how a Labor government, or even an LNP government for that matter, would plan for future extensions to the rail network. They can offer an opinion like anyone else and it's up to the government of the day, of whatever political persuasion, to make the final decision.

On the other hand, when it comes to ordering new rolling stock in which RTBU members have a vested interest, it is fitting that they should have some input at the design stage, as they will be key stakeholders in operating the trains. This was the failure of the NIF program, when the LNP government thought they could just bulldoze their way through by sidelining the union, when the current impasse could have been avoided if issues were sorted out at the design stage, instead of leaving it to the last minute. The interim Sydney Trains review said as much, when it recommended that all stakeholders should be consulted when designing and ordering new rolling stock. Not only that, it also recommended that Sydney Trains as the operating entity, should also be consulted when future changes to the rail network impact on its integrity. Incredibly, this wasn't the case when the metro lines were being planned.

Finally, in answer to your last post just seen, I'm actually not all that interested in conversion of further suburban lines to metro (except Leppington line). There are so many new metro lines needed that will occupy forward planning for decades ahead that conversions are very low priority. I'd rather see suburban lines converted to automated or semi-automated single deck operation before seeing them converted to metro. I can't see any new suburban lines being built though. All future new lines will be metro.

Well I'm glad to hear that, although I'm still not convinced that converting the SWRL and any extension to metro is the right way to go. When the business case is completed later this year, we will have a clearer idea of whether it's feasible in the light of how it impacts on existing rail services.

As I mentioned in a previous post, there are only limited opportunities to extend the existing Sydney Trains network and the same goes for extending further metro links into the outer suburban regions. Other than an ESR extension and possibly the SWRL, at least we can agree that all future rail links within the eastern half of the metropolitan region, including a future Northern Beaches Rail Link, should be metro.

The forthcoming extended shutdown of the Bankstown Line for metro conversion and the disruption it will cause, will be a test of whether future governments will have the stomach for further conversions. Converting existing lines to metro compromises the benefit of new segregated metro lines when you have legacy curved platforms and other expensive remediations to safely separate a driverless system where it directly interfaces with the legacy network. It's just not worth it IMO.

However, we're getting off track, and we should instead focus on the subject of this thread.

[Glen]

I tried Googling the slow down of the network in 2005 and found this interesting blog:

https://schwandl.blogspot.com/2011/03/t ... yrail.html

"CityRail can without doubt be classified as a MASS transit system, but it is certainly not a RAPID transit system. It is indeed one of the slowest rail systems I have ever been on. This must have been different some 6 years ago, before a new timetable was introduced in 2005, due to the regular delays registered prior to that. The new timetable, however, was so stretched that delays are virtually impossible, as speeds were reduced and time buffers were built into the timetable. While I have not observed any substantial delays during my two-week stay in Sydney, the negative side of this timetable is that each and every journey on CityRail appears to be an extremely slow adventure and requires a lot of patience".

[Glen]

There were plans to slow Sydney's trains long before the Waterfall accident but they were postponed due to, surprise surprise, the cost in extra crews needed when trains run slower.

This April 2002 SMH article refers to that plan:

https://www.smh.com.au/national/shortag ... df6d9.html

CityRail's first timetable change in 10 years, due to start in a fortnight, was dramatically shelved last night after train managers discovered they needed another 60 drivers to operate the system.

CityRail employs 950 drivers, but at least 1000 workers are needed to operate the new system, which features longer journey times to the city to cut down on track cross-overs.

The changes are based on boosting capacity to the network, critically overstretched, by making journey and dwell times longer, but by running more carriages on some of the worst lines.

Outer-suburban trips to the CBD will take five minutes extra, with a ride around the City Circle taking 18, rather than 15 minutes.

The timetable is also aimed at boosting reliability by reducing from 528 to 352 the number of daily movements across the 10 main track junctions. The large number of crossings amplifies small delays - and makes bigger the job of track maintenance.

Also referenced here:

https://www.aptnsw.org.au/cgi-bin/item. ... 032400.txt

New CityRail timetable
posted Saturday 13 April 2002
This new timetable, which was to be introduced on 21st April 2002, has been postponed indefinitely.
Its main features are slower running times and other changes, such as reduced use of crossovers, intended to make services more reliable. It endeavours to provide more seats at peak times by optimising the use of rolling stock.

According to the Minister for Transport, it was decided to postpone the timetable due to a shortage of trains crews (drivers and guards). However, activists who have been arguing that services should be accelerated rather than retarded say that the postponement is a tacit acknowledgement that passengers would not tolerate the extra waiting times.

A similar slowing was actually introduced in 2005.

[tonyp]

The usual apples vs oranges comparison ignoring the different operating environments, the legacy Sydney network being disadvantaged by an inferior alignment and having to integrate with multiple other lines..... Meanwhile, back in the real world...

This Sydney alignment is not as bad as you make it out to be. The difference between Sydney and Paris would be greater if it were.

The real world today is automation.

[Glen]

Thanks to an old ATDB post, I found this reference on page 175 (167) of the 2008 report by IPART, showing how the average speed of Sydney's Trains was reduced in 2005/6 from 46km/h to 41km/h.

https://www.ipart.nsw.gov.au/sites/defa ... cument.pdf

Not a good return on investment one might suggest.

[Transtopic]

If they ever extend the Bankstown metro to Liverpool, the trip would be no more than 40 minutes Liverpool to Central. The further the metro travels, the better it gets. This embarrassing (for the suburban system) fact is why metro opponents want to clip its wings by declaring that "metro is only for inner city services". Unfortunately, the rest of the world is catching on to this fact and there are now some incredibly long metro lines being built, Sydney Metro's being far from the top of the list in line length. This table only shows tunneled lengths. Some, if not many of these lines would have further length not in tunnels.

The further the metro travels, the more seats it needs per trip, a fact which you seem to ignore.

The length of the metro lines being built internationally depends on whether they are focused on the prime destination in their respective CBDs or pass through it as a continuous line to another region. Metro Northwest is a typical example, where the bulk of its patronage will be focused on the CBD and its extension to Bankstown will likewise be focused in the opposite direction. You could likewise say the same for the Sydney Trains T1 Line from Berowra to Emu Plains which is close to 100km, but that doesn't mean that it would warrant conversion to metro, which would be absurd.

[tonyp]

The further the metro travels, the more seats it needs per trip, a fact which you seem to ignore.

The need for seating is a factor of journey time, not distance. On top of that, the number of trains per hour is what determines the number of seats on offer and metro services typically have a higher number of trains per hour than suburban. Finally, the people most in need of a seat - those towards the end of a line - always get one on the forward journey and, if they miss out when they start the return journey, one becomes available as other passengers leave along the line and they can then be seated to the end of their journey.

[Transtopic]

The further the metro travels, the more seats it needs per trip, a fact which you seem to ignore.

The need for seating is a factor of journey time, not distance. On top of that, the number of trains per hour is what determines the number of seats on offer and metro services typically have a higher number of trains per hour than suburban. Finally, the people most in need of a seat - those towards the end of a line - always get one on the forward journey and, if they miss out when they start the return journey, one becomes available as other passengers leave along the line and they can then be seated to the end of their journey.

That's a false excuse. Would hypothetical longer distance metro services even warrant a frequency of 30 tph or more having regard to the likely demand, which diminishes the further a line extends into the urban fringes? It might be more relevant in inner city regions, where the likely demand would warrant higher metro frequencies to equate with more seats.

At the end of the day, what is the point of suggesting longer distance metro services replacing existing ST services, which isn't going to happen? By your own admission, further conversions of the existing rail network aren't warranted, when the limited resources should be directed to new segregated metro lines servicing new rail corridors. That doesn't mean that continuing investment in the existing ST network should be ignored.

[Merc1107]

The usual apples vs oranges comparison ignoring the different operating environments, the legacy Sydney network being disadvantaged by an inferior alignment and having to integrate with multiple other lines.

Well, perhaps you'd like to furnish us with a fairer comparison then?

[Linto63]

This Sydney alignment is not as bad as you make it out to be.

There are but a handful of straight sections east of Blacktown, but for much of their length the Main Suburban and Main Western lines meander.

The real world today is automation.

The real world is that the whole Sydney Trains network is not going to be automated.

[tonyp]

This Sydney alignment is not as bad as you make it out to be.

There are but a handful of straight sections east of Blacktown, but for much of their length the Main Suburban and Main Western lines meander.

The real world today is automation.

The real world is that the whole Sydney Trains network is not going to be automated.

The Paris and Sydney Metro lines also meander, but, unlike those two examples, Sydney western line trains get to express or semi-express through the less straight section of the line east of Parramatta. But in spite of this great advantage, they're still slower than the other two examples' all-stations services.

The Sydney Trains network is to be progressively semi-automated to GoA2. What are you talking about? On the other hand, maybe you're right - the RTBU will find a way of stopping it. Apart from the actions of those luddites, the future of railways in general is progressive automation.