Sydney Metro - Tallawong to Bankstown

[tonyp]

The population will vote with their feet in the end as they grow weary of the dysfunctional and collapsing suburban system. Look already at customer satisfaction ratings of the metro vs the suburban system. It will eventually influence where people want to live and set up business.

Don't you realise that none of that "necessary work" on the suburban system that you keep talking about is ever going to be done by any government? They're not going to throw good money after bad at a system that's being brought to its knees by a combination of the unions, management incompetence and its own inherent shortcomings. It's incurable, while the metro is basically bulletproof and clearly the better investment.

[Linto63]

That being the same bulletproof metro that fell over a few days ago?

[tonyp]

That being the same bulletproof metro that fell over a few days ago?

That's absolutely nothing compared to what's happening with the suburban system.

[Linto63]

Cost blowouts appear to be forcing the government to reconsider some of its metro expansion plans.

Cost blowouts to force government to make hard decisions on mega projects (Sydney Morning Herald)

[Transtopic]

The population will vote with their feet in the end as they grow weary of the dysfunctional and collapsing suburban system. Look already at customer satisfaction ratings of the metro vs the suburban system. It will eventually influence where people want to live and set up business.

Don't you realise that none of that "necessary work" on the suburban system that you keep talking about is ever going to be done by any government? They're not going to throw good money after bad at a system that's being brought to its knees by a combination of the unions, management incompetence and its own inherent shortcomings. It's incurable, while the metro is basically bulletproof and clearly the better investment.

You're completely out of touch with reality Tony. In spite of your obsession about the metro, it's never going to replace the existing Sydney Trains suburban network, which by Transport for NSW own admission, will remain the dominant rail network for some years to come. This is no doubt why the penny has finally dropped because of the dramatic pre-Covid increase in patronage to over 400 million passengers per annum and the government has belatedly committed playing catch-up by investing more funding into upgrading the existing network with its digital signalling and ATO upgrade to cope. It will make a difference.

It's fanciful to suggest that new metro lines or conversion of existing lines could ever replace the existing network, nor is there any apparent intention of doing so, when other options are available to upgrade it with modern technology, which is now underway. That doesn't preclude new metro lines being built in areas not currently serviced by rail, particularly in the inner city with cross regional links. The metro is not a panacea for relieving congestion and increasing capacity on the existing network, and any extensions thereof, where other more cost effective solutions are available. The cost alone in switching to metro operation would be prohibitive and is not necessary.

[tonyp]

If the suburban system ever gets out of the mire it's sinking into through the combined efforts or management and the unions, it might continue to play a role. You do realise that "massive" patronage figure (which includes interurban patronage), still hasn't reached the levels achieved by the former Sydney tram system. For a major railway system in a city of 5 million it's very ordinary. And it's at its limits of capability. With the present mess, any government is going to back away from investing in it. Metro yields far more bang for bucks.

[Transtopic]

If the suburban system ever gets out of the mire it's sinking into through the combined efforts or management and the unions, it might continue to play a role. You do realise that "massive" patronage figure (which includes interurban patronage), still hasn't reached the levels achieved by the former Sydney tram system. For a major railway system in a city of 5 million it's very ordinary. And it's at its limits of capability. With the present mess, any government is going to back away from investing in it. Metro yields far more bang for bucks.

You\re still living in denial Tony. Your antipathy towards the existing network colours your opinions. It may not be perfect, but its deficiencies are now being finally addressed with more funding. Even the LNP government is not backing away from it. What's the patronage of the former tram system got to do with it? It was a different era when private car use was not as prevalent as it is today.

With the escalating costs of the limited metro lines now underway or planned, how can you seriously contemplate replacing the whole of the existing network with metro, which may I remind you, also has to cater for intercity, regional and freight services. The cost is not even worth thinking about. For someone with a background in the transport industry, I'm astonished that you cannot or will not recognise this. No doubt there will be a place for new metro lines, but not as a solution to resolving congestion issues on the existing network, which will require continuing investment.

I suggest you have a good read of the following link.

https://www.rtsa.com.au/wp-content/uplo ... ASPECT.pdf

[Linto63]

You do realise that "massive" patronage figure (which includes interurban patronage), still hasn't reached the levels achieved by the former Sydney tram system.

A meaningless chalk and cheese comparison ignoring the massive rise in car ownership. What percentage of the population had a car in the 1940s vs today? According to the ABS, there was 1 vehicle on the road for every 7 people in the 1940s when tram patronage peaked. By the time the last trams ran in the early 1960s it was 1 in 4 and by the end of the 1990s, less than 1 in 2. Admittedly these are nationwide, so Sydney's numbers may not have moved quite as much, but indicative of what happened. It is now below 1 in 1.5.

The 2017 census states 66% of people in Sydney drive to work vs 21% who use public transport, hence even pro-public transport governments spend far more on roads.

[Merc1107]

You do realise that "massive" patronage figure (which includes interurban patronage), still hasn't reached the levels achieved by the former Sydney tram system.

A meaningless chalk and cheese comparison ignoring the massive rise in car ownership. What percentage of the population had a car in the 1940s vs today?

Regardless of car ownership, that a street based transport system, which theoretically has a far lower carrying capacity should be better-utilused than a modern(?) heavy rail system, travelling far greater distances, with larger rolling stock and perhaps equal frequency in places, suggests something has gone tremendously wrong. What about train patronage in the heyday of the tram? Was it greater than today?

Were the trams not scrapped - how much more room for growth would there be versus the Sydney Trains network today needing signalling improvements (which in itself is a huge investment)?

[tonyp]

Regardless of car ownership, that a street based transport system, which theoretically has a far lower carrying capacity should be better-utilused than a modern(?) heavy rail system, travelling far greater distances, with larger rolling stock and perhaps equal frequency in places, suggests something has gone tremendously wrong. What about train patronage in the heyday of the tram? Was it greater than today?

Were the trams not scrapped - how much more room for growth would there be versus the Sydney Trains network today needing signalling improvements (which in itself is a huge investment)?

At the time that Sydney tram patronage peaked, in the late 1940s, Sydney suburban train patronage was little more than half that of the trams. Train patronage has only reached its highest point right now (or pre covid strictly speaking). However, the train system years ago was serving predominantly middle and outer suburbia which has slowly but steadily grown in population over the years. The tram system served the already densely populated inner and middle suburbs.

However, in the last twenty or thirty years, the population growth in both inner and outer suburbs has been very large and at the same time, road traffic congestion has worsened and parking availability declined. So the train and bus systems have had a rapid rise in demand after some 40 years or so of patronage stagnation. This has exposed the weaknesses in both systems that compromise their ability to meet such growth. Indeed both have reached their limits. So, on the streets, we've had the reintroduction of trams to provide increased capacity and the metro system has been kicked off to relieve pressure on both the suburban train and bus systems.

The planning system anticipated this growth quite well since the 1980s, but was then let down by the political system which was painfully slow to respond - indeed it basically didn't until after the 2011 election, which has resulted in a frantic and massive catch-up effort. In your home state, both planning and politics anticipated such growth much earlier (also from the 1980s onwards) and by the 1990s WA had decided to convert the entire Perth rail system to a higher-capacity, line-separated rapid transit system (supported by an excellent complementary bus system), which was an absolute masterstroke. The pressures in Perth were far lower than in Sydney, but the lesson for the rest of Australia's major cities was there.

NSW has a far more difficult job than WA does. The suburban rail system, with its tangled operations, is very little amenable to line separation and conversion to rapid transit as Perth's was, so Sydney's rapid transit system has to be overlaid on top of a mostly ongoing suburban network, though typically along infill corridors between existing rail lines - basically converting the combined rail network from its present hub and spoke pattern to a grid that better serves a decentralised city like Sydney. However, on the corridors along which both systems will be relatively parallel, the metro system will provide substantial relief to the suburban system, which is one of its intentions. The Northwest Metro has already drawn patronage away from the Richmond line and the Bankstown conversion with its faster journey and greater frequency will remove that load from the suburban system and very likely increase patronage on that line. The effect will be far more profound on the core lines between Chatswood and Sydenham (one could extend that from Epping) and Sydney CBD and Parramatta where the closely parallel metro lines will slash the journey time by about 1/3 (while still retaining basically the same number of stops), on top of increased frequency and vastly greater capacity (both initial and design).

So, to answer your question, what has gone "wrong" with the Sydney suburban system is that it has reached its full potential to move people. If it had stuck with single deck trains (but with more doors) and introduced modern signalling, it could have done a small amount better but would still reach a limit. So the only answer now is to build new, separated lines and, if we're going to do that, we logically should opt for the best technology that offers the highest capacity, the quickest journeys, lowest operating costs and, as recent events forcibly bring home, insulation from industrial blackmail.

[tonyp]

I should add that too many critics see the suburban and metro systems as opposed and competing systems, but it's all intended to be part of one whole. When I talk about converting the rail network from hub and spoke to a grid, this is the intention, shown by the metro and suburban networks (present and future) overlaid on each other. Maybe in the long term some of those lesser connections may not be built, but the basic grid will be there. Perth is doing something similar with Metronet. Melbourne is starting down the same path with its outer circle. Sydney is more decentralised than any other Australian city. It's geographical and population centre is roughly at Parramatta, yet its rail system mostly radiates from Sydney CBD, irrelevant to the huge activity and population growth that is taking place in western Sydney.

[Transtopic]

I'd take the 2056 rail network plan with a grain of salt. It looks like it was designed by some work experience student without any real thought put into how it would work in practice. They're just lines on a map.

Future network proposals seem to change on a regular basis and past history should teach us that will continue over multiple election cycles with changes of government. If Labor wins the next state election in 12 months time, then it could all change again.

While Sydney may be more decentralised than any other Australian city, the Sydney CBD will remain the single dominant employment, cultural and entertainment centre by a huge margin, compared with sub-regional centres like Parramatta and Macquarie Park. It will continue as the focal point for Metropolitan, Regional and National economic activity. It therefore warrants a continuation of its role as the hub of the rail network.

That doesn't preclude improving rail connectivity with Parramatta as the city's second CBD, but it will always have a secondary role. Other major sub-regional centres in Western Sydney like Bankstown, Liverpool, Campbelltown, Blacktown and Penrith are more widely dispersed and have a complementary role in serving the western region.

Getting back to the 2056 rail network plan, there are several elements of it which don't make sense. The first is the apparent diversion of the Richmond Line to the Inner West Local and the City Circle, which is essentially an all stations stopping pattern, or semi-express which reduces the frequency. It is unclear whether the Liverpool via Regents Park service will terminate at Lidcombe as a shuttle requiring interchange or merge with the Richmond service continuing to the City Circle. The Liverpool via Granville service will no longer have a direct link to the CBD, instead being diverted as part of a new Cumberland Line from the Aerotropolis to Epping via Parramatta.

In both South Line instances, it would require interchange to continue into the Sydney CBD and I can't see that being acceptable to commuters, when the government has already committed to reinstating the direct Liverpool via Regents Park service to the City Circle after the Bankstown Line metro conversion. There will no longer be a direct service from Liverpool to Bankstown to interchange to the metro, which was the original intention. Transport for NSW has confirmed that over 90% of commuters on the South Line are heading to the Sydney CBD as their destination.

The next issue is the ambiguous nature of the new Cumberland Line. The plan doesn't disclose whether it will be a metro line or an extension of the existing network, but more likely the former, which will require conversion to metro of the SWRL and the South Line from Glenfield to Merrylands with a new link through Parramatta to Epping. It would also require quad track from Liverpool to Cabramatta for Liverpool via Regents Park services. There doesn't appear to be any allowance for freight trains if the existing Old South Line from Glenfield to Merrylands is converted to metro.

The location of an interchange station in Parramatta is also problematic. Would it be at the existing station or the new Metro West station, which are a couple of blocks apart? Commuters between Cabramatta and Granville who are heading to the Sydney CBD could be disadvantaged in being forced to interchange to either, depending on their destination in the CBD.

If the intention is to convert the SWRL to metro, which so far hasn't been officially suggested, then why can't it connect directly with the Metro West extension at the Aerotropolis, which would eliminate the need for additional terminating platforms and allow through running? Although the St Marys to Aerotropolis metro is probably now a fait accompli, I would have preferred that the SWRL were to be extended to the airport terminus as a first stage as part of the Sydney Trains network, with later stages extending to St Marys and Macarthur which had always been the long term plan. Metro Nothwest could be extended from Tallawong to St Marys without requiring interchange at Schofields, which is the current plan because of the incompatibility of the two metro systems. The metro rolling stock for the airport metro will be wider than the current Metro Northwest stock and limited to 4 car trains. The overhead power will be 25kv AC, as will Metro West, compared with the current metro line of 1500v DC, which no doubt was because of taking over the existing Epping to Chatswood Rail Link.

Moving along, I also have my doubts about the proposed metro links focusing on Kogarah. Hurstville is the major strategic centre in the South region and it should at least have the benefit of a metro line along the A3 road corridor to Macquarie Park. Despite the current aversion to branching the metro lines, the Metro West extension to La Perouse should branch at Randwick to Kogarah via Sydney Airport and continue to Miranda on the Cronulla Line. A separate line could run from Kogarah to Norwest via Kingsgrove, Bankstown and Parramatta. Interchange between the Hurstville and Kogarah lines could take place at Kingsgrove.

Finally, there is a lack of east-west links on the northern side of the harbour compared with the southern side. To address this deficiency, I propose that a new metro line be constructed from Blacktown to the CBD via Baulkham Hills, North Rocks, Carlingford, Eastwood, Top Ryde and along the Victoria Rd corridor via Monash Park, Gladesville, Drummoyne and Rozelle, linking with Metro West at White Bay (the Bays precinct). It would maximise the inherent capacity through the CBD, as I'm sceptical of whether 30tph would ever be warranted for Metro West when there are likely to be further upgrades to the existing Western Line.

[tonyp]

Very patronising to the state's planners to compare them to work experience students. They know a thing or three that you don't. Never since Bradfield has any planning scheme over estimated transport capacity, but they've all underestimated it, together with population growth.

[In Transit]

There's no doubt that long term planning is necessary... however by its very nature it can get disconnected from reality too.

However I'm sure that the planners involved would be the first to admit that there's plenty of room to debate - and no doubt there was lots of debate as an input to these plans. There''s rarely just one solution that stands head and shoulders above the rest, so there's plenty of room for opinions.

The good thing about published long term plans is that they can be viewed and debated - under our secretive style of government there's precious little public debate, let alone publicly available background material that supports decision making and mounts an argument.

[Fleet Lists]

And keep in mind that whenever there is a change of government, the long term plan is thrown out of the window.

[tonyp]

Not really. The present plan is the result of work that has been in progress since the Greiner government and continued through the Labor government. It's quite bipartisan.

[Linto63]

Fact still remains that only parts of it will ever be built. These long term maps will evolve over time, lines will be added, others will be deleted. Some will be dictated by population growth occurring in different ways to what was envisaged, others by political needs, i.e. giving priority to project in swinging electorates.

[bambul]

The location of an interchange station in Parramatta is also problematic. Would it be at the existing station or the new Metro West station, which are a couple of blocks apart? Commuters between Cabramatta and Granville who are heading to the Sydney CBD could be disadvantaged in being forced to interchange to either, depending on their destination in the CBD.

I was last in Parramatta in December and was surprised by how easy and seamless the transition from the current Sydney Trains Parramatta Station to the planned Sydney Metro Parramatta Station is. If any future PERL station there runs North-South and is about 160m long, then an exit at each end could be located across the street from each of these two stations (which look to be 200m-250m apart). This would likely involve passing the fare gates each time, as connecting up the fare zones across the 3 stations after the fact wouldn't be straightforward.

However it would be on par with many transfers at Central or the future Martin Place/Hunter St/Wynyard Stations. These sort of transfers only seem to exist in large CBD mega stations, which Parramatta seems to be evolving into.

[Swift]

That being the same bulletproof metro that fell over a few days ago?

You talk about it like it's part and parcel of the system, like the old system's multiple entrenched problems.

On my first and only ride on the metro three or so years ago Epping -Castle Hill then to Chatswood, I was disgusted at the snails pace on a modern Waratah to Wynyard straight afterwards. It may as well have been on an S set with tulloch trailers in the consist, such was it's stark contrast.

I felt like I had been magically teleported to another country when I first got on the Metro to Castle Hill.

[Linto63]

Merely making the point, that it is not totally infallible as somebody was suggesting. Of course it's faster, brand new train on a brand new, superior alignment with a better power to weight ratio will always have the wood on a legacy system. But it is what it is, and only dreamers believe the whole legacy system will be converted to metro standards.

[Swift]

Of course, you're right on all counts. But that train was SLOW even for the existing system.

[Glen]

Of course, you're right on all counts. But that train was SLOW even for the existing system.

That's simply because Sydney's trains were deliberately slowed down by slower timetables about twenty years ago.

It's embarrassing and quite unjustified but no new Government, Transport Minister or ex Tube boss has ever tackled it.

[Transtopic]

Of course, you're right on all counts. But that train was SLOW even for the existing system.

The curvature on the alignment of the North Shore Line from Chatswood to North Sydney isn't exactly conducive to high speed. As others have mentioned the timetable was slowed down in 2005 to improve on-time running statistics. The existing Sydney Trains rolling stock is more than capable of improved performance, but it's being deliberately held back. I expect that we will see some significant improvement in journey times as the digital signalling and ATO is rolled out across the network over the next decade.

[Swift]

Not doubting the rolling stock themselves can go much more quickly, including an S set which I was just using for dramatic effect, I was aware it was going artificially slow.
Still not a good look for anyone changing onto it. It really served to show how archaic the old system feels, whatever the cause.
The Sydney Metro is the only transport mode, apart from the latest model car going on a stretch of road free of traffic, that really feels like "we made it" in this century.

[tonyp]

One reason for choice of metro was better performance on steeper gradients, hence straighter alignment for going under the harbour. A shame they have to live with the legacy of that curving line under the Lane Cove River because it could have been built much straighter if built for metro.

It's a fantasy to think that the double deckers could match the performance of the metro trains, whatever it says on paper. We're talking about metro journey times over 10 minutes quicker by the time we get to outer ends of lines, stopping at all stops. It's a huge discrepancy to bridge.