Sydney Metro - Tallawong to Bankstown

[boronia]

Wentworth Point probably didn't exist when they built the wharf?

[Swift]

Rename time, especially as the Olympics were over two decades ago and getting more irrelevant by each passing year.

[Jurassic_Joke]

Haven’t been on the Metro since before lockdown, had another ride and have to say I’m very glad to say they’ve done away with something very annoying since the start of the pandemic - (loud) on board digital voice announcements every single time the Metro departs a station. At the start of pandemic it was “to limit the spread of Coronavirus, avoid non essential travel where possible”, then it was “wearing a face mask is strongly recommended on PT…………….see ____ for more information” then “wearing a face mask is mandatory on PT…… fines will apply” every single time the Metro would depart a station. Every single time! It got so annoying, especially on longer trips. Even Sydney Trains didn’t do that.

They’ve thankfully pared it down and only keep digital voice announcements on departure to once every several stops now which is much better.

[Swift]

You must not have been alone. Reminds me decades ago before OH&S, they disabled the Tangara's door beeps for the vision impaired because it was annoying passengers who no doubt wrote in to complain.
Then they got reconnected when the nanny state got into full swing, annoying or not!

[boronia]

https://www.railexpress.com.au/bankstow ... ull-swing/

[Campbelltown busboy]

You must not have been alone. Reminds me decades ago before OH&S, they disabled the Tangara's door beeps for the vision impaired because it was annoying passengers who no doubt wrote in to complain.
Then they got reconnected when the nanny state got into full swing, annoying or not!

There is a couple of cam corded filmed videos of the Cityrail system from 1991 on YouTube witch includes Tangaras when then had a beeping tone while the doors where open

https://youtu.be/f-O5a2_5n88

Skip forward to 12:10

[Swift]

There is a couple of cam corded filmed videos of the Cityrail system from 1991 on YouTube witch includes Tangaras when then had a beeping tone while the doors where open

https://youtu.be/f-O5a2_5n88

Skip forward to 12:10

I saw the whole thing. Great seeing the interiors of the various trains as well as the open door riding on the red sets.
Yes that was the one. It appears the uploader is London based and was visiting Sydney at the time.

[Transtopic]

I'm still perplexed why there was such a big step-up from the platforms, as shown at North Sydney, even for the original SD red rattlers. You would have thought that in designing the stations for the City Underground, that they would have level platform access, as the floor height for the then new electric rolling stock was known at the time. That problem still persists to this day on many stations on the network. I've never been on the SWRL, but can anyone confirm whether those newer stations have level platform access?

It will be interesting to see how this issue is addressed on the Bankstown Line metro conversion, albeit with gap fillers.

[moa999]

Still the case today.
I've often wondered whether it was a view that people noticed vertical distance more.

Or whether it was to save on tamping and let the track naturally settle.

[hornetfig]

I think the small step into the train was seen as a feature, not flaw.

In terms of when the change occurred -
ESR (1979) - step up
East Hills extension (1987) - step up
Airport line (1994 contract) - level
Olympic Park (1998) - level

That's not a surprise. The change coincides with the DDA: 1992

[Linto63]

Looks like the Metro may soon have a new commuter.

Former NSW premier Gladys Berejiklian appointed to new position at Optus

[Swift]

Imagine the salary she would be pulling. I imagine Uber Black will be her transport.

[boronia]

News report this evening that metro was down due to a "control failure". Staff had to get on the trains and "manually restart them".

[Aurora]

They called it a communications issue from the official alerts I recall.

Guessing the metro trainsets lost contact with control centre?

[Transtopic]

Sigh! So they're not as infallible as some like to make out. They're as subject to failures like any other mortal transport system. We all know how vulnerable computer systems can be to outside influences.

[tonyp]

Sigh! So they're not as infallible as some like to make out. They're as subject to failures like any other mortal transport system. We all know how vulnerable computer systems can be to outside influences.

Of course they are, but I'm sure the recovery was relatively quick. Not that the entire system had a coronary occlusion lasting an entire day, if not days.

You'll be pleased to know that Railway Digest is carrying on the good fight against metro, nearly three years on. You double deck fans certainly have it for tenacity, that's for sure. Under the guise of a "review" of the system, the authors relaunch the now-tedious arguments for capacity, completely ignoring, of course, the not insignificant matter of passengers per hour - indeed seats per hour. However, they have introduced an ingenious new argument - that the standee density of a metro train should be the same as that of a double deck train.

The internationally accepted standard for a comfortable standee capacity on a public transport vehicle is 4 persons per square metre. This is then tempered by the factor of functionality. If the vehicle has only one door, it becomes a problem moving these people on and off at stops within a reasonable dwell time, whereas this standee density is fine in terms of passenger exchange if there are, say, three or four doors. So, the more doors there are, the higher the tolerable allowance for standee density. Ideally, a vehicle should have one double-leaf door per five linear metres of length.

While this standard is common in Europe (four door metro cars, five to six door 30 metre trams, three to four door 12 metre buses, for example) and used to be fairly common in Australia, nowadays it's rare here. A notable exception is the Sydney Citadis trams which have six double leaf doors in 30 metres, so are in fact rated at 6 ppsm (which is where that total capacity of 450 for a coupled set comes from). At the other end of the scale, our buses, with their two door/one entry layout, are rated at only about 2 ppsm, as are the double deck trains. The Sydney metro train capacity, with three doors per car, is based on a modest and comfortable 4 ppsm, though I've no doubt they could handle 6 ppsm and still remain functional.

However, this is not acceptable to the scholars at Railway Digest who believe that, out of "fairness", the metro should be rated at the same 2 ppsm as the seriously dysfunctional two-door-per-car double deck trains. The total capacity of a metro train under this measurement should actually be about 700, compared to a claimed 1,300 for a double deck train. So bingo, we can now see what a complete failure the metro apparently is as a mass transit system. To deliver the coup de grace, the authors also measured the total width of metro train vs double deck train doors and found that the difference isn't all that great, completely ignoring the fundamental fact that it's distribution of doors along the vehicle that's the significant issue.

But yeah, keep fighting!

[Linto63]

Of course they are, but I'm sure the recovery was relatively quick. Not that the entire system had a coronary occlusion lasting an entire day, if not days.

Per the SMH: passengers stuck for up to three hours between Epping and Cherrybrook. Not the fault of the train per se, but clearly a failure by the private, customer focussed operator. Transport minister said contractual penalties will be applied.

[Merc1107]

Per the SMH: passengers stuck for up to three hours between Epping and Cherrybrook. Not the fault of the train per se, but clearly a failure by the private, customer focussed operator. Transport minister said contractual penalties will be applied.

How high would the stakes be for a large-scale disruption like this?

Time and again it seems "customer-focused" operators are only so inclined when it suits. If the penalties and reputational damage from disruption and tardiness are not harsh enough, or too-easily circumvented, it seems that ideology goes out the window. One needn't dig too deep to find innumerable examples of this - compare these against the "core values" (more managerial claptrap) of the "customer-focused" operators and there is quite often a disparity.

[tonyp]

And Sydney Trains' regularly fumbled responses to frequent collapses of the suburban system are a model of government customer focus?

[Linto63]

The metro isn't more resilient because it is was built to metro standards or is operated by a private contractor, but because it is a 21st century built line vs one on a 19th century alignment built with picks and shovels. Sydney Trains could spend 10 times what it does on making the network more resistant to adverse weather conditions and there would still be problems.

[Merc1107]

The various and sundry Government operators (the few leftover!) seem to paint themselves as "customer-focused" too, so I'm not sure what your point is, Tony.

My point is, without a will, there's no way. Public or private - if there's no penalty (or a small, easily circumvented one) for large disruptions, you won't get customer focus. Economists would refer to this situation as Government failure - because it is Government intervention (or lack thereof) in the market that precipitates an environment where disruption and dismay are the norm.

[Transtopic]

You'll be pleased to know that Railway Digest is carrying on the good fight against metro, nearly three years on. You double deck fans certainly have it for tenacity, that's for sure. Under the guise of a "review" of the system, the authors relaunch the now-tedious arguments for capacity, completely ignoring, of course, the not insignificant matter of passengers per hour - indeed seats per hour. However, they have introduced an ingenious new argument - that the standee density of a metro train should be the same as that of a double deck train.

The internationally accepted standard for a comfortable standee capacity on a public transport vehicle is 4 persons per square metre. This is then tempered by the factor of functionality. If the vehicle has only one door, it becomes a problem moving these people on and off at stops within a reasonable dwell time, whereas this standee density is fine in terms of passenger exchange if there are, say, three or four doors. So, the more doors there are, the higher the tolerable allowance for standee density. Ideally, a vehicle should have one double-leaf door per five linear metres of length.

While this standard is common in Europe (four door metro cars, five to six door 30 metre trams, three to four door 12 metre buses, for example) and used to be fairly common in Australia, nowadays it's rare here. A notable exception is the Sydney Citadis trams which have six double leaf doors in 30 metres, so are in fact rated at 6 ppsm (which is where that total capacity of 450 for a coupled set comes from). At the other end of the scale, our buses, with their two door/one entry layout, are rated at only about 2 ppsm, as are the double deck trains. The Sydney metro train capacity, with three doors per car, is based on a modest and comfortable 4 ppsm, though I've no doubt they could handle 6 ppsm and still remain functional.

However, this is not acceptable to the scholars at Railway Digest who believe that, out of "fairness", the metro should be rated at the same 2 ppsm as the seriously dysfunctional two-door-per-car double deck trains. The total capacity of a metro train under this measurement should actually be about 700, compared to a claimed 1,300 for a double deck train. So bingo, we can now see what a complete failure the metro apparently is as a mass transit system. To deliver the coup de grace, the authors also measured the total width of metro train vs double deck train doors and found that the difference isn't all that great, completely ignoring the fundamental fact that it's distribution of doors along the vehicle that's the significant issue.

I have read the metro review in Railway Digest and your comments are extremely disingenuous to the authors, as IMO they gave a balanced appraisal and if anything were complimentary about the metro. They quoted some comparative capacity figures between the Alstom Metropolis metro rolling stock and the Sydney Trains Waratah stock, relying on Sydney Metro and respected consultant Neil Douglas. The authors offered an opinion that a more valid comparison between the two types of rolling stock would be at a more comfortable standee capacity of 2 ppsm, having regard to the fact that the DD Waratahs have at least 50% more floor space than an equivalent length metro train, although the latter are only currently operating as 6 car sets with even less capacity. This is your sole reason for disparaging the whole article when they are merely stating the bleeding obvious.

From the very beginning of the decision to construct the NWRL as a metro, in spite of election promises and even the initial community consultation to construct it as an extension of the then CityRail network, the current government has waged a disinformation campaign to misrepresent the comparative performance of the metro trains and the existing DD trains for the new line. For starters, they compared the metro line operating at 30tph with the existing CityRail DD system operating at 20tph, rather than the DD trains operating on a new line with upgraded signalling and ATO which would allow them to operate up to at least 24tph, if not more with modern station design. This has never been acknowledged.

In any event, Metro Northwest is only operating at a frequency of 15tph in the peak and I understand it is designed for a maximum frequency of 20tph with ultimately 8 car trains. Where does that leave the balance without branching, which no longer appears to be on the agenda?

The other contentious issue is the relative capacities of the respective train sets. The capacity of the DD stock has consistently been understated while an equivalent length SD metro train has been overstated to give it an advantage in overall line capacity at its maximum frequency of 30tph, compared with 20tph for DD. Below is a comparative analysis of DD and SD capacities in a comprehensive technical report prepared by Douglas Economics for Transport for NSW in 2012.

DD v SD Rolling Stock Capacity.PNG (74.82 KiB) Viewed 1128 times

To suggest that standing room at 6 ppsm on a metro train is Australia would be acceptable is absurd, as there would virtually be no seats. While it may be acceptable for short journeys in more populous Asian cities, it would not be the case with Sydney Metro, which is essentially a low density longer distance suburban network operated by metro style rolling stock with limited seating.

Looking at it in the real world of peak capacity, that would equate to a line capacity for DD with upgraded signalling and ATO at 24 tph of 33,600 and the same for metro at 30tph. On a new line with modern station design, without the constraints of the existing CBD stations, the DD frequency could even be increased further.

A further analysis was carried out by John Austen, A transport economist and former Infrastructure Australia executive, into the relative capacities of the Bankstown Line before and after metro conversion.

Bankstown Line - Indicative train capacity comparison.PNG (16.16 KiB) Viewed 1128 times

In fairness, the EIS was based on the operation of 6 car metro trains, but even making allowance for the ultimate capacity of 8 car metro trains, it's unlikely that the demand would warrant that capacity, even if the line is extended to Liverpool. It also conclusively puts the lie to your assertion that the metro would provide more seats, even if operating at 30tph, compared with a DD at 24tph. No doubt you will beg to differ.

It is extremely unlikely that the Bankstown Line metro conversion will ever warrant more than 15tph and even Metro Northwest is unlikely to warrant 30tph. Without further branching of the metro lines, then the inherent capacity of 30tph through the CBD will be wasted, when it could have been more usefully used as an extension of the existing rail network to increase capacity through the CBD, which had always been the long term intention.

The frog will win out in the end.

[tonyp]

Keep trying. You miss the point about door distribution and access to doors and the influence of that on passenger density. The greater floor space of a double deck car is irrelevant when passengers won't move too far from doors and afraid that they can't get to them in time if they do. Add to this the inhibiting effect of stairs on passenger flow. The double deckers clog up internally around those two doors. Also dwell times become extended because of these issues.

The capacity calculations made for the metro trains based on 4 ppsm are very reasonable - 1,100 for 6 cars, 1,500 for 8 cars, with ability to exchange a crowd within about 25 seconds. Double deckers just can't compete with that combination.

No other city apart from Paris tries to do the job of a metro with double deck trains and even that example has three door cars and struggles. Melbourne turned down double deckers precisely for these reasons after looking beyond theory and actually running one live alongside their single deck three door trains. The double deck was holding up the single deck trains. You can't get a better empirical trial than that.

And arguing that a corridor won't provide the demand for a metro is no argument. It provides the capacity that the planning system is looking for in order to plan for greater population and activity along that corridor. Adequate transport capacity is necessary for future growth of a city.

[Linto63]

Having read the Railway Digest article, the suggestion that the authors have an agenda is nonsense. While it does point out some of the Metro's short comings, offers plenty of praise as well.

[Transtopic]

Keep trying. You miss the point about door distribution and access to doors and the influence of that on passenger density. The greater floor space of a double deck car is irrelevant when passengers won't move too far from doors and afraid that they can't get to them in time if they do. Add to this the inhibiting effect of stairs on passenger flow. The double deckers clog up internally around those two doors. Also dwell times become extended because of these issues.

The capacity calculations made for the metro trains based on 4 ppsm are very reasonable - 1,100 for 6 cars, 1,500 for 8 cars, with ability to exchange a crowd within about 25 seconds. Double deckers just can't compete with that combination.

No other city apart from Paris tries to do the job of a metro with double deck trains and even that example has three door cars and struggles. Melbourne turned down double deckers precisely for these reasons after looking beyond theory and actually running one live alongside their single deck three door trains. The double deck was holding up the single deck trains. You can't get a better empirical trial than that.

And arguing that a corridor won't provide the demand for a metro is no argument. It provides the capacity that the planning system is looking for in order to plan for greater population and activity along that corridor. Adequate transport capacity is necessary for future growth of a city.

And you miss the point that the lower frequency of 24tph for an upgraded Sydney Trains network compared with the metro at 30tph through the CBD core reflects the longer dwell times for DD at the existing CBD stations. With a new line for DD through the CBD, with upgraded signalling and ATO, the dwell times could be reduced and a frequency of at least 26tph could be achieved. The proposed signalling upgrade which is being progressively rolled out across the Sydney Trains network will allow for 24tph through the existing CBD stations and up to 30tph to recover from disruptive incidents. In either example, the DD network still comes out in front in terms of seating capacity and overall line capacity, having regard to the fact that without branching, the metro is unlikely to realise its full potential through the CBD core. Relative seating capacity is also ignored, where the DD system wins hands down, when it is an important consideration for longer distance journeys for which a metro style service with limited seating is not suited.

Paris is not alone in running DD trains through the CBD. Zurich and Berlin are examples of running DD services where loading gauges permit it. The point is that the Paris RER is not trying to do the job of a metro. It is a separate system from the existing Paris Metro, which services limited inner city locations, and is essentially a suburban railway for longer distance journeys which have been extended into and through the Paris CBD without the need to interchange, not unlike Bradfield's original proposal for Sydney's suburban rail network with extension into the CBD via the City Underground. Sydney has never had an equivalent metro system servicing the inner city region. This is why the Paris RER is a valid comparison with Sydney's suburban rail network and that's not going to change any time soon. It doesn't preclude the establishment of a separate metro network for new lines servicing inner city regions up to 20km or so. The Christie Report said as much after further upgrades to the existing network were exhausted.

The frog will win and you will choke.