New Intercity Fleet Purchases/Observation

[boronia]

We'll need it when police have to investigate a toddler or midget the camera missed and ambulance have to attend and they need a hospital bed. Why not keep spending that money on prevention?

This sort of thing seems to happen with fully staffed stations already..

[Glen]

Without offering a view on the safety or otherwise of the new trains, Unions can have a tendency to invoke 'safety' as a way of keeping members jobs.

Remember the introduction of the XPT's? The late Bernie Willingale lead the AFULE on protracted strikes against a Labor government over two man crewing.

Ultimately they operated safely with just the driver in the cab (as DEB sets, the Silver City Comet and countless rail motors had done for many years).

[boronia]

It all comes down to money.

Remember one-person buses years back? "Bus drivers can't drive and collect fares at the same time". So the government dangled the carrot of an x% "loading" to do it and it suddenly became OK?

Probably the same thing with the XPTs. Might even work with the NIFs?

[tonyp]

It all comes down to money.

Remember one-person buses years back? "Bus drivers can't drive and collect fares at the same time". So the government dangled the carrot of an x% "loading" to do it and it suddenly became OK?

Probably the same thing with the XPTs. Might even work with the NIFs?

Also quite a few Sydney drivers have left to work in Melbourne and suddenly driver-only operation is OK for them. Same union. Or all-door loading on buses. OK in one jurisdiction, "dangerous" in another. Same unions. The ferry Kooleen way back in 1956. Direct engine control from the bridge was around since the 1930s and already very common on privately run ferries around Sydney. But no, the unions had to have an engineer on board the government-owned Kooleen, even though the skipper was standing a couple of metres directly above his head with a full set of controls. Remember the electrician who used to ride country trains to "look after" the air conditioning? The public service unions play political games, featherbedding their territory to blazes.

[tonyp]

There's an interesting ongoing discussion at the moment on Railpage about the perils of Driver Only Operation, relying on video monitoring.

I dipped into that Railpage discussion and there is this very interesting set of posts from somebody obviously in industry who makes the much overlooked point that the Sydney commuter rail system operates under a lot of grandfathered safety allowances that wouldn't be acceptable under new build. Hence the conflict brought about by the new trains.

Just putting it on the table that today, if in any heavy industry you would be designing a machine that allowed the person access door to be opened while in motion, you would NEVER get this past the safety HAZOP review. I repeat NEVER!.

If the railway was being built from new today, this would NEVER be allowed from day one.

The existing trains are grandfathered, to a degree. But if a guard was to say fall from the train in motion or be hit/injured, after the modification is complete to allow this, the govt has then set itself up to be sued with zero fall back! Likely the union would have to agree to a wavier that limits any future liability (which won't happen).

The same poster goes on to say:

my point is that this isn't just a union busting issue, its likely if not already to become a safety/legal one and yes the govt allowing a modification and SOP to be written that states a employee must look out the door of a moving train is going to become very controversial.

Actually probably already has, the OEM is more than likely saying they won't approve the required software change without affecting the warranty until the govt accepts the liability of doing so. Internally in the govt this has probably woken the legal/safety bear with a WTF moment.

Thus:

case closed why the Metro was built over DD and why there won't be any further significant extensions to DD.

I wonder what's happening with Brisbane with guards hanging out doors and the new trains there?

I did a quick random check on the Perth, Adelaide and Melbourne systems and there are a number of lightly curved platforms across those systems (not because of topography, but because island platforms are the worst offenders). Those systems have been running driver-only with only mirrors to guide them! Though I would think the newest trains on each system would now have CCTV.

I think this dispute will be the final nail in the coffin of the Sydney suburban and interurban system as we know it. It obviously still has to run for many decades yet under a whole lot of grandfathered provisions (and getting past DDA with boarding ramps, meaning it needs either a driver, guard or station staff to do that work). Reconstructing almost all stations on the system (whether for the existing or for metro conversion) is going to be a stupifying task if any government decides to go down that path and the Bankstown line conversion will be an interesting and very necessary trial run in that regard. (Leppington line has straight platforms, so that's an easy one.) The only viable way forward is continuing to infill Sydney with the metro system while trying to rectify the suburban system as much as possible, maybe on a line by line basis. That's going to suck up money from state coffers for generations ahead. At least the metro will ultimately pay for itself if it continues to be planned right.

[Merc1107]

I wonder what's happening with Brisbane with guards hanging out doors and the new trains there?

They do, but only for the first few seconds of motion ... after which you'll see (or hear - depends if you're watching or not!) the door shut. Not sure when they open the door upon arrival, however.

Just to add - middle management seem to be obsessed with risk assessment, Incidents by distance travelled and other statistics... Why can't they be sent out on a mission to study the various stations, and determine which are most likely to experience a safety incident? On the basis of that, a determination could be made on the necessity of guards on the train (perhaps only traveling on particular sections of a line) or whether only "high risk" stations would be manned and guards would not need to be present at all.

[Transtopic]

Your campaign for the Sydney legacy system is not going well Transtopic. This dispute highlights much that is wrong with it and it is starting to look like it is spending more time down than up. Apart from all its other inadequacies, it bleeds money all over the place and any attempts to stem this (like driver-only interurban trains) end up in ruins. I wouldn't hold out too much hope for the proposed ATO rollout either, as the union will also see that as a threat to its members' jobs. Anything that potentially eliminates the need for a driver they won't like.

Maybe eventually you'll see the reason for the political interest in metro rollout - it addresses every issue with the legacy system, including the financial issue, with something better. The legacy system has nothing going for it and the political pain is that it will take decades to get rid of it. Don't dream that a Labor government will be any different. They may be servants of the unions, but they also have to be prudent financial managers because ultimately, if they fail there, they lose government. Also, everybody needs to be grateful that sections of the legacy system are being converted to metro because it relieves the legacy system of pressure points that restrain it from working better. Conversion of the Bankstown line should see the suburban system working much better with the congestion around Central and the City Circle reduced. Overall, completion of the Tallawong-Bankstown and Sydney-Westmead lines should lead to a huge improvement in the suburban operation by taking a big load off it. And the metro lines will be free of the union and any of those safety issues, real or not, that have brought the legacy system to its knees.

My campaign for the Sydney legacy system, as you put it, is to stop the wasteful expense of converting existing lines to metro operation with the many compromises which have to be made. I'm not against building new greenfield metro lines where appropriate to areas not serviced by rail, but not on the outskirts of Sydney such as the ridiculous Western Sydney Airport Metro. Extension and conversion of the SWRL to metro from Bradfield (Aerotropolis) to Glenfield is even more absurd. Good luck with that getting past Infrastructure Australia and the new Federal Labor government after IA's earlier condemnation of the St Marys link, which wasn't even favoured by the Federal/State governments' joint scoping study.

The existing system can be upgraded far more cost effectively with the proposed digital signalling and ATO implementation and track infrastructure improvements, which is now being tested on T4. It doesn't need a far more expensive complete takeover by an incompatible metro system, with the many compromises that come with it and for the marginal operational benefit. Frequencies and journey times will be improved. Just BTW, the proposed ATO rollout is not driverless and is GoA 2 standard, which will still require a driver/observer basically to open and close doors and start the train and take over manual control in an emergency. Guards are another matter to be confirmed. I don't share your scepticism.

Do you seriously think that it is feasible, let alone affordable, to convert the whole Sydney Trains network to metro, if by your own admission, it would take years? If you do, then you're delusional and your antipathy towards the legacy system demonstrates your lack of objectivity. Even if hypothetically it would take years to convert, it would still require continuing investment in upgrading in the interim, which may at the end of the day be adequate enough to meet the demand and not require any conversion. The Bankstown Line conversion will indeed give us an indication of how feasible this strategy is, particularly in how it impacts on the broader rail network.

Please enlighten this poor soul on any legacy rail networks in the world, which cater for multiple uses and which have been converted to driverless operation.

[tonyp]

the marginal operational benefit.

The "marginal" operational benefits of the metro include potential for up to twice the capacity of the suburban system, more frequent services, all stations being served by every train, providing relief to the suburban system so that the latter can operate more effectively and quicker journey times. In other words, the capability to service a city of at least 8 million people. The suburban system is now at capacity in a city of 5 million people. The not-so-marginal standing benefits of the metro include profound ongoing financial relief to the State's coffers, greater reliability and not being subject to the vagaries of staff absences and industrial action. The current interurban fleet dispute in particular is a red line for the suburban system. The RTBU has it by the you-knows and this sort of action will continue to stymie the suburban system until infinity.

I'm surprised that you're hoping the Bankstown line conversion won't proceed. Are you worried that it could demonstrate that suburban to metro conversion is possible on a substandard (curved platforms) legacy line? It may succeed or may well end up demonstrating that there are still accessibility issues. There's only one way we can find out. On top of that, I would have thought that you'd be appreciative of the relief that it will bring to the city circle that will help some of the rest of the suburban system work better.

Finally, nobody advocating for double deckers ever thinks of the actual users, the commuters. With metro, not only do they get faster journeys, they get the enormous convenience of every station being served by every train. There's no argument at all for two-tier express/local trains - the metro still does quicker journeys than the semi-expresses while being a local train simultaneously. Before the building of the modern Perth system, nobody seriously thought that a metro would be good for long distances. Perth proved them wrong, Sydney is repeating the model. It's the ideal system for the typical spread-out Australian city. What's ahead for commuters on the Bankstown line spells it out: the existing two-tier service is at its limit, providing, in peaks, 3,600 seats per hour for stations bypassed by expresses, or 5,400 if you're lucky enough to be at one of the minority of stations served by all trains. The metro will have an opening service in peak that provides 5,670 seats per hour - at every station. That's only half of metro's present potential seating capacity and I haven't even mentioned total capacity, or ultimate capacity (at 2 minute headways with 8 car trains) for that matter (15,120 seats per hour or 45,000 people per hour).

[Linto63]

Is an of this relevant to the subject of this thread, i.e. the New Intercity Fleet? Nope, it is just a continuation (or rehashing) of a discussion in April, and many times before. Every time it's the same contributors who have been at each other for years labouring the same points, no one is learning anything new from it.

To try and avoid this groundhog day discussion continuing to clog up multiple threads, propose that a thread in the general section be established (entitled Single vs Double Deck trains or something similar), where the pros and cons of Metros vs Classic trains can be discussed with clogging up other threads with the relevant posts from this thread transferred. Thus those who are bored of it, can just simply avoid the thread and those who want to carry on can go to town. Similar thing happened a few years ago to address similar problems with the rear door entry and artics vs double deckers debates.

[Transtopic]

Good idea. I have no desire to regurgitate the SD v DD debate, but the poster in question never directly responds to the context of my posts, which is about the feasibility and practicability of converting existing legacy lines to driverless metro and not about new greenfield metro lines per se. That will be my final word on the matter.

[tonyp]

the feasibility and practicability of converting existing legacy lines to driverless metro and not about new greenfield metro lines per se. That will be my final word on the matter.

The Bankstown line will be the test bed for that and there's no point speculating further about it at this stage. It is something that future generations will look at in decades ahead after the initial metro network is largely in place.

[Campbelltown busboy]

Is an of this relevant to the subject of this thread, i.e. the New Intercity Fleet? Nope, it is just a continuation (or rehashing) of a discussion in April, and many times before. Every time it's the same contributors who have been at each other for years labouring the same points, no one is learning anything new from it.

To try and avoid this groundhog day discussion continuing to clog up multiple threads, propose that a thread in the general section be established (entitled Single vs Double Deck trains or something similar), where the pros and cons of Metros vs Classic trains can be discussed with clogging up other threads with the relevant posts from this thread transferred. Thus those who are bored of it, can just simply avoid the thread and those who want to carry on can go to town. Similar thing happened a few years ago to address similar problems with the rear door entry and artics vs double deckers debates.

That would be nice if the ones that clog the forums in this section of the board with their opinions about how Transport For NSW should take notes on what the latest public transport trend is in Central Europe or what PTA/TransPerth is doing with public transport in metropolitan Perth

[tonyp]

That would be nice if the ones that clog the forums in this section of the board with their opinions about how Transport For NSW should take notes on what the latest public transport trend is in Central Europe or what PTA/TransPerth is doing with public transport in metropolitan Perth

This is actually about this dispute because the situation is that the RTBU has the suburban and interurban system in such a headlock that any future attempts at improvement of their operation is going to be foiled in the interests of union featherbedding. The proposed ATO will go the same way because it involves the proposition that the driver does the guard's job, therefore the guard is redundant. So there are two options: that the suburban system be converted to driverless metro where it can, or that the suburban and interurban systems just continue as they always have, overstaffed, inefficient and bleeding money from high operational costs. That's going to have to be a political decision.

The Bankstown line is relevant because it will be be a testbed for feasibility of conversion of a legacy line built to legacy standards (which is not the case with the ECRL or Leppington lines). Bankstown conversion is necessary anyway, because it's the link to Liverpool and the relief for the city circle, but it's important to learn lessons from the conversion so that they can inform future decision-making about the metro, suburban and interurban systems.

[Fleet Lists]

The Bankstown Line is also being discussed in the Bankstown Metro thread. As usual you like to spread your opinion across a number of threads. Please leave it to the other thread. No need for duplication here.

[Swift]

The Bankstown conversion is the guinea pig for the suburban system and the NIFs are for the intercity lines, depending how this dispute eventually gets resolved.

[jpp42]

Why is the government so beholden to the RTBU? Why can't they just do something drastic like outsource NIF operation to a private company that would be happy to operate them as DOO? We have an accreditation system that supports multiple operators on the network, and freight works this way now - why is it a foregone conclusion that NSW Trains must operate the NIF?

Yes I know there might have some further industrial action on the Sydney Trains network in protest of such an action, but it would fizzle out eventually and at least the NIF's get used.

[tonyp]

Why is the government so beholden to the RTBU? Why can't they just do something drastic like outsource NIF operation to a private company that would be happy to operate them as DOO? We have an accreditation system that supports multiple operators on the network, and freight works this way now - why is it a foregone conclusion that NSW Trains must operate the NIF?

Yes I know there might have some further industrial action on the Sydney Trains network in protest of such an action, but it would fizzle out eventually and at least the NIF's get used.

Because employees are free to join (or not join) any union they wish and it is likely that staff in a private operation (many of whom would doubtless come from the government operation that it replaces) would join the RTBU or bring their RTBU membership with them, as has happened with the transfer of former STA bus regions to private operators.

[Merc1107]

Outsourcing trains seems not to make as much sense as it does with buses. For obvious reasons the privates cannot innovate on routes. Maybe rostering (assuming they have enough trains to do something cost-efficient), but otherwise you're playing with remuneration, management structures or even maintenance if there is insufficient oversight.

Cut pay too much and you'll either have shocking staff attrition, or reignite industrial disputes.

As there are some transport providers out there with a more top-heavy structure than even the Government, I would certainly be wary of suggesting the "p word" as the solution to these troubles. It seems some of this could have been avoided with more consultation and planning; assuming that hadn't taken place.

[Linto63]

SMH reporting an order for an extra 56 carriages was in the pipeline, but has been put on hold.

Extra trains for NSW on hold amid warning of investment slump

[boronia]

A bit confusing reading the article

The purchase of extra passenger trains is “on hold” beyond existing commitments in a project known as “more trains, more services”, according to the report, until there is greater certainty about patronage on the rail network, which took a hit during the pandemic.

The latest part of the “more trains, more services” project, which will be delivered, includes the purchase of an extra 56 train carriages for intercity services as well as a batch of new Waratah suburban trains. It also involves an upgrade to a rail maintenance facility on the Central Coast.

The third batch of Waratahs are to replace the K sets, not for growth?

[gilberations]

K set replacement yes, and as I’ve been led to understand, potentially a T set replacement too. Runout had it the cost of a new 8 car Waratah is less than the cost of an 8 car TTTU update

[Linto63]

The 40 K sets will be replaced by 55 H sets when these are released from interurban workings by D sets. Although only half of the K sets are required to operate the current timetable, so combined with the stock to be released from T3 services, there will be an additional 20 or so 8 car sets available. Taking into account that patronage levels are unlikely to return to pre-pandemic levels probably means there is no real need for any new stock until time is called on the T sets.

[Swift]

Taking into account that patronage levels are unlikely to return to pre-pandemic levels probably means there is no real need for any new stock until time is called on the T sets.

Never? That's a gloomy forecast and a real shame too as Sydney was finally ditching the self indulgent car in droves due to weekend traffic getting that bad. So they are now willing to put up with it due to covid paranoia, but happily ditch their masks when out shopping?

[grog]

The highest number of train sets are needed during peak, and a lot of peak travel is driven by white collar work that many are now doing part of the time at home. This has nothing to do with covid paranoia in the long term, and a decreased need for additional peak services certainly doesn’t meet a reduced need for off peak and weekend services. It’s just that those can use existing sets.

Of course I agree that never is a long time… I assume we will be back to 2019 patronage levels at peak within 5-10 years, but we will also have a bunch of new Metro lines at that point. Metro should drive patronage growth and the need for a return to growth in peak services - with the amplifications and additional sets that this implies.

[Transtopic]

K set replacement yes, and as I’ve been led to understand, potentially a T set replacement too. Runout had it the cost of a new 8 car Waratah is less than the cost of an 8 car TTTU update

If that's the case, then it makes sense as a more immediate replacement for the T sets, instead of the proposed upgrades, and bringing forward any future longer term replacement. It would also confirm that there is no plan to convert any further Sydney Trains' lines to metro or compatible SD operation for the foreseeable future if further DD stock is ordered, which would be expected to have a life expiry of around at least 30 years. The proposed conversion and extension of the SWRL to metro may be the exception, but that's still not guaranteed. I would hope that any further Waratah stock could be fully manufactured locally, which is after all based on a local design, as are the D sets.

With regard to the D sets, I expect that an early resolution to the dispute will be imminent, with an election looming in 7 months.