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

[Glen]

What you should do is compare actual dwell times between Sydney and other systems.

In particular focus on how long a train takes to load and unload, then how long it sits there waiting for the timetable.

That will show the difference!

Then consider this happens at every station every trip every day.

Add up all that wasted time and hey presto you'll have a much faster railway, cheap as chips.

[Linto63]

The Sydney Trains network is to be progressively semi-automated to GoA2. What are you talking about?

GoA2 isn’t full automation, it is partial automation with a driver remaining in situ. It is unlikely to be rolled out across the full network, being concentrated on the sections of the network closer to the cbd where its benefits will best be utilised. Thus your statement of no point persevering with the suburban system is an incorrect assessment as to what will happen.

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.

The union doesn’t decide what does and doesn’t happen, the government does. That the last government made a dog’s breakfast of the NIF introduction was down to its incompetence and is not how things normally play out. I doubt the unions were any more happy about the removal two man working or guards from freight trains in decades past, yet governments were able to get it done.

[tonyp]

GoA2 isn’t full automation, it is partial automation with a driver remaining in situ.....The union doesn’t decide what does and doesn’t happen, the government does.

GoA2 is automation. It operates the train to its optimum performance. The presence of staff only has an influence on the operation of the doors, hence affecting dwell time.

The RTBU can and does have an influence on compromising the outcome of technology improvements to the system. They're also devious. Constance reached an agreement with them about the NIF and they came back later and wanted more. The timing of that second bite coincided with the lead-up to an election too. They seem to have done the same with the regional fleet to leverage the new government. The most odious thing is taking the public hostage too, but that has at least swung public opinion heavily in favour of the metro.

[Linto63]

Constance reached an agreement with them about the NIF and they came back later and wanted more.

Constance was found to be gullible / naive on a number of occasions, that he was outplayed doesn't surprise.

[Transtopic]

GoA2 isn’t full automation, it is partial automation with a driver remaining in situ.....The union doesn’t decide what does and doesn’t happen, the government does.

GoA2 is automation. It operates the train to its optimum performance. The presence of staff only has an influence on the operation of the doors, hence affecting dwell time.

The RTBU can and does have an influence on compromising the outcome of technology improvements to the system. They're also devious. Constance reached an agreement with them about the NIF and they came back later and wanted more. The timing of that second bite coincided with the lead-up to an election too. They seem to have done the same with the regional fleet to leverage the new government. The most odious thing is taking the public hostage too, but that has at least swung public opinion heavily in favour of the metro.

I don't have any allegiance to the RTBU or any union for that matter, but you're overstating the influence they have on future rail planning, as distinct from operational factors which directly affect their members. I don't recall that they had much influence on the former Labor government's decision to build the North West Rail Link as a metro line along the Victoria Rd corridor. It was abandoned for other reasons.

With respect to the regional train fleet, what makes you think that the RTBU is leveraging the new Labor government to make changes to the design specification? Perhaps they are legitimate changes proposed by other stakeholders which were ignored by the previous government, but now considered to be more relevant to get the best outcome.

Your comments would have more credibility if you refrained from your continual anti-union, anti-Labor bias and offered more objective opinions.

[matthewg]

With respect to the regional train fleet, what makes you think that the RTBU is leveraging the new Labor government to make changes to the design specification? Perhaps they are legitimate changes proposed by other stakeholders which were ignored by the previous government, but now considered to be more relevant to get the best outcome.

There was a brief note somewhere about removing CCTV screens from the cab and removing (the regulator required) cab camera.
They are demanding cab layout changes that preclude an easy introduction of DOO in the future, the SAME tactic used on the NIF fleet. They refuse to operate any train that has the potential to be made into a DOO train in the future.

The government has lost control of driving any productivity improvements on the railways.

The RBTU has its place looking out for its members - someone has to stop the managers from shafting the workers on the ground - but this stubborn resistance against DOO is just boosting the business case for GoA4 automation. They will win a few battles but lose the war.

[Glen]

Memories of Bernie Willingale trying to keep the "fireman" on the XPT.

So was the XPT a modern version of a steam locomotive or a modern version of the Silver City Comet?

[tonyp]

I don't have any allegiance to the RTBU or any union for that matter, but you're overstating the influence they have on future rail planning, as distinct from operational factors which directly affect their members. I don't recall that they had much influence on the former Labor government's decision to build the North West Rail Link as a metro line along the Victoria Rd corridor. It was abandoned for other reasons.

So the RTBU's current opposition to the Bankstown line conversion (and to metro in general) has something to do with their operational working conditions, even though metro isn't affecting those or resulting in loss of jobs? RTBU has also been represented on the Administrative Committee of NSW Labor, as unions are part of Labor's governing structure. Of course they have a political interest as well. They don't want any technological advance that might challenge their jobs. Your statement is very naive and I also think it's touch and go whether they will ultimately come on board with any semi-automation of suburban trains.

https://www.nswlabor.org.au/alex_claassens
https://www.nswlabor.org.au/governance_structure

[BAMBAM]

I don't have any allegiance to the RTBU or any union for that matter, but you're overstating the influence they have on future rail planning, as distinct from operational factors which directly affect their members. I don't recall that they had much influence on the former Labor government's decision to build the North West Rail Link as a metro line along the Victoria Rd corridor. It was abandoned for other reasons.

So the RTBU's current opposition to the Bankstown line conversion (and to metro in general) has something to do with their operational working conditions, even though metro isn't affecting those or resulting in loss of jobs? RTBU has also been represented on the Administrative Committee of NSW Labor, as unions are part of Labor's governing structure. Of course they have a political interest as well. They don't want any technological advance that might challenge their jobs. Your statement is very naive and I also think it's touch and go whether they will ultimately come on board with any semi-automation of suburban trains.

https://www.nswlabor.org.au/alex_claassens
https://www.nswlabor.org.au/governance_structure

Signallers, Customer service attendants, infrastructure workers like track, ground, overhead workers.

Who isn’t worried when going from government employment to private sector?

[tonyp]

Signallers, Customer service attendants, infrastructure workers like track, ground, overhead workers.

Who isn’t worried when going from government employment to private sector?

Personally, I found it a blessed relief going from government employment to the private sector. In any case, is that a reason to oppose the technological change from happening at all, especially when no jobs are being lost?

[Randomness]

Yes, if anything it’ll relieve current shortages, provide more service and encourage more people into transport and resulting in more staff.

[Linto63]

So the RTBU's current opposition to the Bankstown line conversion (and to metro in general) has something to do with their operational working conditions, even though metro isn't affecting those or resulting in loss of jobs? RTBU has also been represented on the Administrative Committee of NSW Labor, as unions are part of Labor's governing structure.

For all this talk that the RTBU has influence over government policy, there is little evidence of it. The new government hasn't back tracked on the conversion of the metro line or adopted a renationalisation agenda much as the RTBU may want it. The union kicked up a stink in the aforementioned removal of second men from XPTs and brake vans in the 1980s, but the Labor government of the day saw these changes through. What the RTBU is doing is seeking to maximise the terms and conditions of its membership, which is what it is paid to do.

[Transtopic]

I don't have any allegiance to the RTBU or any union for that matter, but you're overstating the influence they have on future rail planning, as distinct from operational factors which directly affect their members. I don't recall that they had much influence on the former Labor government's decision to build the North West Rail Link as a metro line along the Victoria Rd corridor. It was abandoned for other reasons.

So the RTBU's current opposition to the Bankstown line conversion (and to metro in general) has something to do with their operational working conditions, even though metro isn't affecting those or resulting in loss of jobs? RTBU has also been represented on the Administrative Committee of NSW Labor, as unions are part of Labor's governing structure. Of course they have a political interest as well. They don't want any technological advance that might challenge their jobs. Your statement is very naive and I also think it's touch and go whether they will ultimately come on board with any semi-automation of suburban trains.

https://www.nswlabor.org.au/alex_claassens
https://www.nswlabor.org.au/governance_structure

Despite their opposition, which is no surprise, they haven't stopped the Bankstown Line metro conversion going ahead have they, even with a Labor government in power? I repeat, you're overstating their influence. I might add, that the negotiated settlement to get the NIF back on track, was between the RTBU and the previous LNP government, which could have been avoided if the latter hadn't adopted "it's my way or the highway" attitude.

There are plenty of examples in the past where Labor governments haven't cow-towed to the union movement. Minns himself has previously expressed the view that the union movement should have less influence on Labor government decision making and has sought greater diverse representation within the party. Much like the Liberal's so called "broad church".

The digital signalling and ATO upgrades on the existing network are proceeding nonetheless, with contracts already being awarded to Siemens Mobility, which no doubt will upset your narrative.

Getting back to the theme of this thread, that will enable not only higher speeds, but also higher average speeds with the upgraded signalling, which you continue to ignore.

[pway_master]

The digital signalling and ATO upgrades on the existing network are proceeding nonetheless, with contracts already being awarded to Siemens Mobility, which no doubt will upset your narrative.

Getting back to the theme of this thread, that will enable not only higher speeds, but also higher average speeds with the upgraded signalling, which you continue to ignore.

After some digging with ex-signals people, the speeds I originally posted about were decreased in 2006/2007 as the XPT/XPL fleet had trip mechanisms retro-fitted for metropolitan use only. There are more technical aspects related to it, but basically 115km/h was what the trips were originally set up for & meant the higher speeds had to go...... The tracks were & are still fine for > 115km/h where previously posted, however I doubt the new signalling projects would be taking this into account (ie. corporate memory loss of newer staff who haven't dealt with those speeds since 2007).


Extract of weekly notice 03 -2007.

This is what I was hoping to point out to people in the thread, the fact that it is currently our conventional signalling that has manifested into the lower track speeds for the white [XPT] speedboard (which now encompasses the majority of the fleet on the lines where we had higher track speeds existed prior).

My dilemma is that these current projects (Digital systems & ATO) are going ahead but no emphasis is being brought to our attention about the about the entirely feasible track speed increases from current 115km/h limits (particularly where is previously existed, and possibly in areas where it has never been looked at such as between West Ryde - North Strathfield, or Waterfall - Sutherland.

There are freely available TfNSW signal standards that indicate the ETCS & ATO systems won't necessarily require trainstops, however this is a long way away I believe. Also fyi the trainstops are rated to 140km/h maximum, meaning that is the maximum we would be able to achieve currently .

I have also read that there was Union resistance to the 130km/h running of A,B,M, & H Sets due to drivers needing to learn 2 sets of speedboards for each route (namely the blue & white). Perhaps this is more of an issue while we still have the V, K & T sets around. NSWTrainlink drivers were permitted to go up to 130km/h, although due to the aforementioned speed reductions this doesn't happen in the metropolitan area.

The dicussion about whether improving track speeds is a worthwhile endeavour should preferably occur in another thread, to keep this one on purely topic regarding technical permissible max speeds & their implementation in the real railway.

[boronia]

I had a trip up to Maitland during the week. Quite exhilarating belting along at 145+ in a Hunter set and back in an END.

[Randomness]

That’s disappointing to hear with the trips. I assume the 140 limit is for the stationary equipment next to signals rather than on trains? I don’t think drivers passing signals at danger are that common now (though I have no data), and there would be less of a chance above 140. In any case, the equipment could be repaired.

Or maybe there could be an addition to More Trains More Services to use the radio based TPWS system that the UK and Victoria use, but just fitting them on intercity trains and routes that allow speeds higher than 160. It would very likely be cost prohibitive for the 30km benefit though, so I understand.

[BAMBAM]

I have also read that there was Union resistance to the 130km/h running of A,B,M, & H Sets due to drivers needing to learn 2 sets of speedboards for each route (namely the blue & white). Perhaps this is more of an issue while we still have the V, K & T sets around. NSWTrainlink drivers were permitted to go up to 130km/h, although due to the aforementioned speed reductions this doesn't happen in the metropolitan area.

Not sure what or any if union has on any matter, basically Intercity can follow the white boards and suburban drivers are to follow the blue board unless there’s only yellow or white they are permitted to follow white ones. Considering drivers need to learn all speed boards on the network, I don’t see the confusion of speed boards.

[Linto63]

Assuming that it was seven kilometres that had its speed reduced from 160km/h to 115km/then that would have only added one minute to the journey time, if it were the full 20 kilometres from Blacktown to Penrith then it would be three minutes. And that is not factoring in the extra acceleration or declaration time. Either way immaterial savings for an XPT service to Dubbo with a journey time of six hours.

If services were to operate at 160km/h, it is likely they would end up having to slow for a preceding service, so may well end up with a similar journey time anyway. For high speed to be of benefit, it needs to be on an elongated section, as is the case on the lines out of Melbourne. But with the Northern, Western and Illawarra lines all having steep, curvy sections with line speeds of 60 - 80km/h immediately after leaving Sydney, that benefit cannot be exploited.

[Transtopic]

My dilemma is that these current projects (Digital systems & ATO) are going ahead but no emphasis is being brought to our attention about the about the entirely feasible track speed increases from current 115km/h limits (particularly where is previously existed, and possibly in areas where it has never been looked at such as between West Ryde - North Strathfield, or Waterfall - Sutherland.

While track speeds haven't been specifically raised, it has been confirmed that journey times will be reduced with the proposed upgrades. That could be a combination of factors, such as higher track speeds and improved acceleration/deceleration performance, which hasn't been fully utilised with the inherent design capability of the latest rolling stock.

There are freely available TfNSW signal standards that indicate the ETCS & ATO systems won't necessarily require trainstops, however this is a long way away I believe. Also fyi the trainstops are rated to 140km/h maximum, meaning that is the maximum we would be able to achieve currently .

I don't think that the ETCS & ATO systems will require any train stops at all, as all existing trackside signalling equipment will be removed and replaced with in-cab signalling. Even heritage steam trains will have portable in-cab signalling devices. ATP, which I believe is now completed on the electrified network, will replace it. Contracts have already been awarded for the first stage of the ETCS & ATO system on T4, with other lines to follow.

I have also read that there was Union resistance to the 130km/h running of A,B,M, & H Sets due to drivers needing to learn 2 sets of speedboards for each route (namely the blue & white). Perhaps this is more of an issue while we still have the V, K & T sets around. NSWTrainlink drivers were permitted to go up to 130km/h, although due to the aforementioned speed reductions this doesn't happen in the metropolitan area.

No doubt as part of the digital signalling and ATO upgrades, speed boards will also be removed, instead relying on the in-cab signalling.

With ATO, drivers won't actually be driving the train per se, but will only start the train from a station, when ATO takes over control with a consistent line speed according to track limitations until the next station stop. It will be no different to how the metro operates with ATO between stations. The "driver" will monitor the system in transit and take over manual control in the event of an emergency such as encroachment on the track. The union's concerns would then be irrelevant, as the ATO system would regulate the track speeds, without the variable driver performance.
"

[tonyp]

Assuming that it was seven kilometres that had its speed reduced from 160km/h to 115km/then that would have only added one minute to the journey time, if it were the full 20 kilometres from Blacktown to Penrith then it would be three minutes. And that is not factoring in the extra acceleration or declaration time. Either way immaterial savings for an XPT service to Dubbo with a journey time of six hours.

If services were to operate at 160km/h, it is likely they would end up having to slow for a preceding service, so may well end up with a similar journey time anyway. For high speed to be of benefit, it needs to be on an elongated section, as is the case on the lines out of Melbourne. But with the Northern, Western and Illawarra lines all having steep, curvy sections with line speeds of 60 - 80km/h immediately after leaving Sydney, that benefit cannot be exploited.

Exactly what I've been saying previously, but thanks for restating it. The more voices, the better to help make the penny drop. Suburban distances between stations aren't long enough to make any meaningful gains from higher speed and, in any case, long distance trains going beyond run into the topography of the east coast ranges and have to slow down anyway.

We can, however, improve journey time on suburban services by raising average speeds. The clue for this is the shorter journey times for the metro (comparing like for like distances and number of stops), despite it having the lowest allowable maximum speed of the two systems.

[Transtopic]

Assuming that it was seven kilometres that had its speed reduced from 160km/h to 115km/then that would have only added one minute to the journey time, if it were the full 20 kilometres from Blacktown to Penrith then it would be three minutes. And that is not factoring in the extra acceleration or declaration time. Either way immaterial savings for an XPT service to Dubbo with a journey time of six hours.

If services were to operate at 160km/h, it is likely they would end up having to slow for a preceding service, so may well end up with a similar journey time anyway. For high speed to be of benefit, it needs to be on an elongated section, as is the case on the lines out of Melbourne. But with the Northern, Western and Illawarra lines all having steep, curvy sections with line speeds of 60 - 80km/h immediately after leaving Sydney, that benefit cannot be exploited.

Exactly what I've been saying previously, but thanks for restating it. The more voices, the better to help make the penny drop. Suburban distances between stations aren't long enough to make any meaningful gains from higher speed and, in any case, long distance trains going beyond run into the topography of the east coast ranges and have to slow down anyway.

We can, however, improve journey time on suburban services by raising average speeds. The clue for this is the shorter journey times for the metro (comparing like for like distances and number of stops), despite it having the lowest allowable maximum speed of the two systems.

I agree with you to a point, but as I mentioned previously, the ATP/ATO upgrades will raise average speeds with a combination of safely allowing for faster track speeds at closer headways between stations, than the current lumbering slowed down timetable, and utilising the inherent improved acceleration/deceleration performance of the latest suburban rolling stock, which hasn't been used to date.

Whereas the benefit of the higher maximum design speeds of 130km/h for suburban rolling stock since the Millenniums, including the Oscars, will be for the longer distance suburban services where quadruplication allows for express running bypassing the slower inner all stations services. The More Trains, More Services program has previously stated that further track amplifications will be part of future upgrades to allow separation of express and all stations services.

It remains to be seen what the ultimate maximum speed will be on the suburban network, as distinct from Intercity and Regional services, when the upgrades are completed. I suspect it will be raised to 130km/h where the track standard permits it, which is the current design specification for suburban trains.

The NIF and NRF have a maximum design speed specification of 160km/h, like the XPT, but that may only be realisable outside of the suburban network where track standards permit it. However, I could be proven wrong if suburban track speeds up to 160km/h, which are feasible, can be integrated with the slower suburban express services at 130km/h, depending on the frequency. We will have to wait and see.

[Aurora]

Also consider timetables for a given line are generally built based on the slowest train on a given line, so benefits may not be seen immediately once commissioned. That would depend on how far away such technology is from full commissioning on that line.

[tonyp]

Also consider timetables for a given line are generally built based on the slowest train on a given line, so benefits may not be seen immediately once commissioned. That would depend on how far away such technology is from full commissioning on that line.

Plus the idea of track speeds over 130 would only apply to expresses on the outer ends of the West and South lines and the South line doesn't have extra tracks to enable that. So basically only Blacktown to St Marys.

[Transtopic]

Also consider timetables for a given line are generally built based on the slowest train on a given line, so benefits may not be seen immediately once commissioned. That would depend on how far away such technology is from full commissioning on that line.

Plus the idea of track speeds over 130 would only apply to expresses on the outer ends of the West and South lines and the South line doesn't have extra tracks to enable that. So basically only Blacktown to St Marys.

Could also apply on the Northern Line between North Strathfield Junction and West Ryde, or even Epping, which is a fairly straight alignment for most of the way except between West Ryde and Denistone. Quadruplication should be completed by the end of the decade as part of the Northern Sydney Freight Corridor program, which will also include triplication between Epping and Hornsby in the Down direction.

[Linto63]

Northern Sydney Freight Corridor program was completed in 2016 with third down line opened between Epping and Thornleigh. There is a Stage 2 proposal to quad Rhodes to West Ryde and triple Thornleigh to Hornsby, but this is more to accommodate extra freight services than allowing for passenger services to operate at higher speed. Once again an increase in line speed on a 6-10 kilometre section would only bring small, if any, reductions in journey times.