Sydney Metro - Tallawong to Bankstown

[Fleet Lists]

I agree but why did the Dept of Planning drop its transport planning out of its brief? Not because the planners wanted it but because politicians thought it best to go that way. So dont blame the planners for it. And the quarter acre block was not isolated to Sydney. Most of the other factors I would agree with.

[simonl]

I think the main thing Sydney has on Melbourne is weather. The latter has already passed Sydney on PT trips per capita, which happened around 2008.

Let's hope that they don't retire any more carriages. The crowding is sure to be reducing use of Cityrail, as well as the speed.

[tonyp]

I agree but why did the Dept of Planning drop its transport planning out of its brief? Not because the planners wanted it but because politicians thought it best to go that way. So dont blame the planners for it. And the quarter acre block was not isolated to Sydney. Most of the other factors I would agree with.

Mmmm, the pushing out of transport in DoP came from both within and from politicians. And yes the quarter acre block was an Australia-wide thing but Sydney was least able to sustain it - they could have seen (and had a responsibility to see) that coming much earlier, poor population projections and hindsight notwithstanding.

[Fleet Lists]

The head of the planning dept was a lackey for the minister put there by the minister- doing what the minister wanted - not necessarily good for planning. Of course this is not uncommon in governments.

[Newcastle Flyer]

for a rail line to be built [again if you include part of the former rogan's hill branch] in that area, the area will have to become a marginal seat.
at the moment, the area are in too safe seats

[stupid_girl]

The corridor is available for 2 extra tracks Sydenham to Erskinville. By the time the Metro comes it will be almost maxed out for train paths anyway. I hope this option is brought back onto the table.

I can see that simplicity is what they are aiming for, i.e. all Bringelly / Campbelltown / East Hills line trains via Airport line to City Inner (20 tph instead of currently 12tph), all Bankstown and Hurstville line metro trains via Illawarra Locals to new harbour crossing (20 tph currently 10tph), all Illawarra's via Illawarra (Mains) to ESR with capacity created by removing Hurstville's and so on.

No room for Campbelltown’s via Sydenham there and no need for 6 tracking. I don't like the idea of slowing Campbelltown pax by 5 minutes though.

Travelling via Airport only add 2 minutes of travelling time.
This is minimal compared to the dwell time at various stations.

There is no need for 2 extra tracks between Sydenham to Erskinville since the beginning.
The Airport Line already serves as the third track pair between Wolli Creek and Central.
It's a waste of resources to add any more tracks until the Airport Line reaches capacity.

[stupid_girl]

The corridor is available for 2 extra tracks Sydenham to Erskinville. By the time the Metro comes it will be almost maxed out for train paths anyway. I hope this option is brought back onto the table.

I seriously hope not.

3 track pairs between Wolli Creek and Central (2 via Sydenhem, 1 via Airport) is sufficient.
Money should be invested elsewhere.

[simonl]

Travelling via Airport only add 2 minutes of travelling time.

What's your source for this? Serving 5 stations rather than 2 and taking a less direct path seems like it would slow the trains by more than 2 minutes.
Timetable:
Beverley Hills, Syd, Red, Central = 20 minutes
Kingsgrove, Wolli all to Central = 21 minutes
Beverley Hills-Kingsrove = 3 minutes

I'd question the stops at Sydenham and Redfern too, but probably you'd just catch the train in front on current infrastructure.

The Ersk-Syd sextup is more needed for operational separation than capacity. It has some merit, although whether merit > cost is debatable.

[simonl]

for a rail line to be built [again if you include part of the former rogan's hill branch] in that area, the area will have to become a marginal seat.
at the moment, the area are in too safe seats

What is your point? Are you saying that the NWRL will not be built because there aren't enough marginal seats? That would be a very bold statement.

[jaseee]

Well if the Campbelltown trains go express from Glenfield to Wolli Ck on the new quad then some time will be saved there.

[Skindog the Hawk]

Well if the Campbelltown trains go express from Glenfield to Wolli Ck on the new quad then some time will be saved there.

I believe the plan is not for express Glenfield to Wolli, but rather all stops to Revesby, then express to Sydenham.

SD.

[simonl]

The old plan was for Campbelltown, all to Glenfield, Revesby, Sydenham, with the SWRL taking over serving stops between Glenfield and and Revesby. The new plan is silent on what happens between Glenfield and Revesby, but it does show that Revesby-Sydenham is to go.

[jaseee]

If I were to simplify stopping patterns, I would do it as follows (assuming 20tph):
* Macarthur, all to Glefield, Wolli Ck, all to Town Hall via the Airport and Museum (8tph)
* Leppington, all to Revesby, Wolli Ck, all to Town Hall via the Airport and Museum (5tph)
* Revesby, all to Wolli Ck, all to Town Hall via the Airport and Museum (7tph)

That would be in addition to the South Line trains via Granville that could commence from Leppington and also the Cumberland/Richmond line trains as well.

[VivalaBuses]

Why not do 8xMacarthur, 6xLeppington, 6xRevesby, creating a more predictable, user-friendly timetable, rather than odd numbers of trains/hour to a destination

[stupid_girl]

Travelling via Airport only add 2 minutes of travelling time.

What's your source for this? Serving 5 stations rather than 2 and taking a less direct path seems like it would slow the trains by more than 2 minutes.
Timetable:
Beverley Hills, Syd, Red, Central = 20 minutes
Kingsgrove, Wolli all to Central = 21 minutes
Beverley Hills-Kingsrove = 3 minutes

I'd question the stops at Sydenham and Redfern too, but probably you'd just catch the train in front on current infrastructure.

The Ersk-Syd sextup is more needed for operational separation than capacity. It has some merit, although whether merit > cost is debatable.

You should compare trains with identical stopping pattern.
There are a couple in the pre-PM peak and also late night.
The difference is exactly 2 minutes.

On New Year's early morning when trains skip airport stations, the difference is zero!

[simonl]

I also think the Macarthur trains need to stop at Revesby. Otherwise you are requiring a double change to reach Kingsgrove for example.

But all this is completely hypothetical. None or little of phase 2 will actually happen. When a government puts up a plan which it has to win at least two and probably three elections before it happens, we know the plan will change even if the government doesn't.

You should compare trains with identical stopping pattern.
There are a couple in the pre-PM peak and also late night.

I see the late night train you are referring to, if not the PM peak one. You don't think this could be because of fat in the timetable with that train? And you are ignoring the possibility of bypassing Redfern and Sydenham which is likely not possible without the sextup (perhaps Sydenham is indeed possible).

[Fleet Lists]

But all this is completely hypothetical. None or little of phase 2 will actually happen. When a government puts up a plan which it has to win at least two and probably three elections before it happens, we know the plan will change even if the government doesn't.

It is not often that I fully agree with you, but you have got that one right.

[Glen]

I don't like the idea of slowing Campbelltown pax by 5 minutes though.

Travelling via Airport only add 2 minutes of travelling time.

I take your point that it is on current timetables but I think they are too slow.

Central to Wolli Creek via Airport is 9.5km whilst Central to Wolli Creek via Illawarra line is 7.3km.

With the Illawarra line being 23% shorter and having 2 or 3 fewer stops one would expect the Sydenham route should save more than it does.

[simonl]

I think part of the problem is the interaction with the Bankstown line.

Consider the scenario that the CBD enhancement aka Western Express goes through. One would expect that the western line goes to the new sector, complete, and the South Line goes to sector 3 (Harbour Bridge). That would mean that the Bankstown line should logically connect to the Town Hall leg of the City Circle full time, otherwise the city circle would be very unbalanced. In this world the Ersk-Syd sextup would be well justified. Before then? I don't think so. Just add additional services to Campbelltown via East Hills.

[Route243]

Re Simonl post.
It is always easy to make such comments AFTER the event. They certainly did NOT vote for that plan which is being pushed by someone who is not responsible to voters, as would be expected from him.

The previous government left things far too late and too little to be re-elected.

It's not just the previous government but ones before, Wran abandoned many freeways and truncated rail projects.

He also got rid of the goods yard at Darling Harbour. This could have been a secondary site for a major rail terminal.

I have to say Unsworth did a good thing by building the Sydney Harbour Tunnel

Greiner did nothing citing the debts of the Wran/Unsworth govt.

John Fahey and Bruice Baird were good, they did have projects like Transit North a light rail to the northern beaches and a few other projects including a major ferry terminal at Homebush Bay for the Olympics.

However their plans were undone when the gullible voters elected Bob Carr based on his promise of abolishing tolls on the M4 and M5 which could not be kept.

Hang on, before you jump on the urban planners, have you ever stopped to think that the real issue is with the Department of Premier and Cabinet and also the Treasury? Having worked in government, I can tell you the planners come up with the right stuff as the primary plan but are quickly bundled out of the picture and the cheaper 'alternative' plans get the nod. As long as it ticks the 'gets votes' box.

If you look back over the history of NSW planning since 1945 the planners have not always come up with the, ahem, wisest ideas! The brew is, however, compounded by wild west politics, people who want (wanted) to live on quarter acre blocks in the suburbs, uncompleted rail infrastructure, destruction of a highly capable tram sytem and the Dept of Planning turfing transport planning out of its brief about 20 years ago. Among many other factors. So we've arrived at a point where the infrastrucure backlog and catalogue of errors to rectify is so vast that it would take, as Ron Christie said, 30 years of all transport investment being poured into PT to have a chance of rectifying it. Sydney is now a deeply dysfunctional city that will lose (has lost?) its position to Melbourne as a place to live and do business.

That's my optimistic prognosis. I'll give you my pessimistic one in another post.

I would add the waste of money spent sending our diggers to two World Wars to fight with "mother Britain". I have no criticism for the troops, they fought gallantly and many paid with the ultimate price.

However had we not gone especially to World War I we could have had the Harbour Bridge completed a decade or so earlier.

Even once the bridge was completed we were soon off
to War again to fight Hitler at more unnecessary expense. Had Australia stayed out of the European Theatre of war Bradfields Vision might have been a reality.

[tonyp]

^^
So what about European countries (and China) that had their infrastructure destroyed by war and yet rebuilt to standards far higher than ours? Australia was physically unscathed. Australia has always been a very wealthy country but governments have been too weak and corrupt to put some of that wealth into building up public infrastructure (other than roads). And voters accept it tacitly.

[simonl]

Re Simonl post.
It is always easy to make such comments AFTER the event. They certainly did NOT vote for that plan which is being pushed by someone who is not responsible to voters, as would be expected from him.

The previous government left things far too late and too little to be re-elected.

FWIW (not much), I was saying the same things before the election. Not sure if I said so on this site though.

[stupid_girl]

I also think the Macarthur trains need to stop at Revesby. Otherwise you are requiring a double change to reach Kingsgrove for example.

But all this is completely hypothetical. None or little of phase 2 will actually happen. When a government puts up a plan which it has to win at least two and probably three elections before it happens, we know the plan will change even if the government doesn't.

You should compare trains with identical stopping pattern.
There are a couple in the pre-PM peak and also late night.

I see the late night train you are referring to, if not the PM peak one. You don't think this could be because of fat in the timetable with that train? And you are ignoring the possibility of bypassing Redfern and Sydenham which is likely not possible without the sextup (perhaps Sydenham is indeed possible).

Until the Airport Line gets exhausted, it's a complete waste of money to increase capacity between Sydenhem and City.
I don't see how saving 2 minutes can justify the cost of two extra tracks, not to mention that the Campbelltown via Airport service before 2004 is actually faster than Campbelltown via Sydenhem service today.

[stupid_girl]

Travelling via Airport only add 2 minutes of travelling time.

I take your point that it is on current timetables but I think they are too slow.

Central to Wolli Creek via Airport is 9.5km whilst Central to Wolli Creek via Illawarra line is 7.3km.

With the Illawarra line being 23% shorter and having 2 or 3 fewer stops one would expect the Sydenham route should save more than it does.

East Hills Line is already travelling as fast as Illawarra Line (and 2 minutes faster than Bankstown Line) between Sydenhem and Redfern. I don't think there will be any significant saving.

It appears that Airport Line, being newer, can support smoother running.

[mubd]

Adding another deck to a bridge getting close to a hundred years old... hmmm probably not. Stuff the cars. Just put extra tracks on the eastern side! Time to make some hard choices.

From what I've heard of previous proposals for the idea, the fact that the bridge is 100 years old isn't much of a problem. Problem is that they're suggesting a new train crossing built either within the existing bridge structure (not exactly 6 road lanes) or suspended underneath.