Metro network expansion

[Merc1107]

This just seems to be an excuse to bring up history, I struggle to see how the reference to post-war governments getting rid of the trams is in any way relevant to Minns' policy

When history is ignored, or only a sanitised, inoffensive version of it is presented (sound familiar?), it starts repeating itself (or at least starts rhyming a bit too much - e.g. WA and its constant need to do overstep boundaries in a vain attempt to out-do the East). There are plenty of examples of well-trodden paths the human race keeps leading itself down, and never with the best results.

Our politicians seem apt at not only making outlandish promises that they rarely keep, but ignoring what's happening across the nation (there's a reason Labor is in vogue presently, the same will be true when the Liberals are next in vogue). Unfortunately it seems the average citizen ends up being the one who pays for the repeatedly bungling of both sides. So it is well-worth repeating some details, as there are inconvenient truths about all the major political players in this country that more people should be mindful of, versus the types of blind support most people like to give.

[Linto63]

But this article is NOT just about Minn's policy. Some historical references are certainly acceptable.

Historical references are a;pprpriate, but it's drawing a long bow to suggest that a future Minns government decision not to proceed with some of the Metro lines is in any way related to the decision to close the tram network back in the 1950s. Not building something and closing something down are quite different.

[alleve]

Agreed. I get wanting to not repeat the mistakes of the past, wanting to know the context in which decisions are made, etc. But that doesn't mean we need to refer to history for absolutely everything, let alone historical references that aren't in any way relevant. I really struggle to see how Minns being careful about throwing money into building proposed metro lines is in any way similar to the post-war shutdown of existing tram infrastructure.

Back on topic, I see the concept of rapid bus routes to Bradfield/WSA from Penrith, Liverpool and Campbelltown as a positive. It easily achieves what the metro routes would achieve, but at a fraction of the cost.

[tonyp]

There is an undercurrent with NSW Labor of opting for buses as a "cheap" (but ineffective) solution to a transport need requiring substantial capacity. The tram replacement of the 1950s was an early example, then the T-ways and Metrobuses of the Carr etc Labor governments, which is very recent. In the latter context, Minns suddenly coming on hot about buses as an alternative to rail does ring familiar alarm bells. It was bad enough in the 1950s when the buses had only about 60% of the capacity of the trams they replaced. Today, substituting buses for metro results in about an 88% loss of present metro capacity or a 95% loss of potential metro capacity. It's so ludicrous that you think it's a joke, but he is serious. They must think people are stupid.

A comment from a NW local on Minns' social media summarises the mood in the west:

Hey Chris, Syd bus avg max capacity = 58 and a 6 car Metro = 1100 so ~18 busses to shift one Metro load and guess what, Metro’s run on electricity too
I live in Kellyville and for 5 years had the misfortune of having to travel on the hugely overcrowded T-Way busses.
So which genius thought it was a cheaper solution than a railway? Why Labor Premier Bob Carr that’s who!
To Carr’s great chagrin the railway still had to be built.
Please don’t make the mistake of repeating his short term vision, as travelling on the Metro is luxurious by comparison, so much more civilised, speedy and reliable.
Infrastructure debt doesn’t count - put it on the never never, like the Harbour Bridge which took 56 years to pay off and what a fabulously useful piece of infrastructure it is.
Why not be like Jack Lang and broaden your vision to extending the Metros and bugger the busses

[tonyp]

Back on topic, I see the concept of rapid bus routes to Bradfield/WSA from Penrith, Liverpool and Campbelltown as a positive. It easily achieves what the metro routes would achieve, but at a fraction of the cost.

"It easily achieves what the metro routes would achieve, but at a fraction of the cost and a fraction of the capacity, leaving everybody else to hail taxis or drive their car to the airport."

There, fixed!

I always get a laugh from the BRT mob and their over-inflated idea of what a bus is. They must wear some special glasses through which a bus going past looks like the Queen Mary. It should hardly need explaining. Every type of transit vehicle has a role at different levels of capacity needs. Horses for courses. Metros do the supersize jobs with huge numbers of people to move. Suburban trains have less capacity but still move lots of people. Trams have an intermediate role, typically as a local service, moving moderately large numbers of people. Buses fill the gaps at the bottom of the spectrum with small to smallish capacity, typically on feeder or cross regional services. They shouldn't really be on trunks but can do so up to a certain capacity limit with high capacity buses. One thing buses can't do is the job of trams or trains.

[Transtopic]

It sounds like a replay of the postwar Labor government's elimination of the tram system - buses are the answer, Councils rising up against them.

Chris Minns announces new rapid buses fleet for Western Sydney if he wins the election

A new fleet of rapid buses would link Campbelltown, Liverpool and Penrith to Sydney’s second airport from 2026 if Labor wins the election, but Chris Minns faced criticism from inside his own ranks for refusing to commit to two future metro lines.
James O'Doherty
and
Lachlan Leeming

March 1, 2023 - 5:00AM

dailytelegraph.com.au
Minns accused of abandoning Western Sydney metro plans to ‘play politics’

NSW Labor Leader Chris Minns is “playing politics” by prioritising rail lines in marginal seats at the expense of Western Sydney’s metro proposals, according to Fairfield Mayor Frank Carbone. His comments come after NSW Labor announced they would delay the metro projects which would connect Sydney’s east to west – and instead focus on connecting the city’s north and south. “Here we are facing a scenario where in Western Sydney people are still going to have to face hours and hours on public transport,” Mr Carbone told Sky News Australia. “Why take the two projects off the table which have been identified by Transport for NSW – the one project … Infrastructure Australia and Infrastructure NSW has said is a priority. “He’s playing politics and trying to drive the rail lines in the areas that he wants to win which are the two marginal seats. “I’ve put six years of my life into fighting for that link.”

A new fleet of rapid buses would link Campbelltown, Liverpool and Penrith to Sydney’s second airport from 2026 if Labor wins the election, in a pledge which came as leader Chris Minns faced criticism from inside his own ranks for refusing to commit to two future metro lines to Badgerys Creek.

As part of the $305 million election pledge, Labor would procure 84 new locally-built buses to service three rapid bus routes and four local routes from 2026, insisting new metro lines currently under construction may not be ready in time for when the airport opens.

It came after Mr Minns put the brakes on two proposed metro lines over cost blowout concerns, in a move the government says will eventually deprive 250,000 residents of a metro station in their suburb.

The Coalition has committed to funding separate business cases for the two metro lines, one linking Bankstown to Glenfield and the other connecting Parramatta to the airport line.

Premier Dominic Perrottet yesterday accused Labor of scrapping projects to cover a “budget blackhole”.

“Labor are already cancelling projects from opposition because they don’t have an economic plan and without an economic plan, they can’t build the transport infrastructure that Western Sydney need,” he said.

Now one of Mr Minns’ own MPs has lashed out at Labor putting new metro lines on the go-slow.

A Labor MP told The Telegraph lashed the move, calling it “very shortsighted”.

“Labor can’t crow about what the Libs have done for Western Sydney, when this is what they’ve done,” they said.

Mr Minns said the new rapid buses would be in place when the airport opens, accusing the Coalition of failing to deliver on a similar plan.

“Dominic Perrottet promised the buses five years ago. They haven’t delivered. Labor will, and we’ll also create more jobs in the process by making sure the buses are built right here in NSW,” he said.

“We have a situation where a new airport will be open, thousands of jobs created but people wanting to work at the airport don’t have access to public transport services to get there.

“Labor is prioritising the transport links Western Sydney needs to get to and from work and around the city.”

While not explicitly cancelling the planned metro lines, Mr Minns said that if elected his government would finish existing projects first – like converting the existing rail line from Bankstown to Sydenham to accommodate the driverless metro.

“When you’ve got debt exploding, the deficit exploding and projects that are far from being completed, I think it makes a lot more sense to complete stage one, rather than putting all the money into stage two,” Mr Minns said.

Labor Treasury spokesman Daniel Mookhey said Labor’s “priority” would be to “get to the bottom” of how much the Bankstown to Sydenham conversion will cost before committing to future projects. Mr Mookhey eventually committed Labor to completing the project even amid cost blowouts.

But he said the Bankstown to Glenfield section depended on getting costs of existing work under control.

What about a little more honesty? Minns didn't say that the rapid bus network would replace the metro lines, but promised to implement it in time for the airport's opening in 2026, which had been the LNP government's commitment, but they've been tardy in implementing it. The only metro line that will be completed in time for the airport's opening will be the WSA metro from St Marys. The rest are still a long way off. Your comments about Labor's past policies are completely irrelevant.

Minns has good reason to hold off on a business case for the Metro West extension from Westmead to the Aerotropolis, when you consider the uncertainty surrounding the viability of that link as commented in the SMH article. Why would he otherwise not proceed with at least a business case, which doesn't necessarily commit a Labor government to proceeding with it?

"Despite the political advantages of building the Metro between Parramatta and the new airport, transport bureaucrats have internally questioned the cost-benefit ratio of the project."

Similarly, with the lack of clarity around the status of the delayed Bankstown Line metro conversion and cost overruns, it would be pointless to commit to a business case to extend the metro line to Glenfield until that is resolved. Extension and conversion of the SWRL to metro from Glenfield to the Aerotropolis is a separate issue, for which its need is questionable if the Bankstown Line metro conversion doesn't proceed. We will have to wait and see how things pan out after the election.

Neither party has committed to starting construction on any of the proposed new metro lines beyond completion of the business cases, which may or may not have a positive outcome.

Fairfield Mayor Frank Carbone's criticism of Labor's policy is just grandstanding in a political ploy to run in the election for the seat of Cabramatta as an Independent. He would be well aware that Parramatta, Fairfield, Cabramatta and Liverpool already have a direct rail connection with Leppington on the SWRL and a potential extension to the Aerotropolis via the Cumberland Line. There is potential for this link to be further upgraded with higher frequencies and reduced journey times. He has no ideas what he's talking about.

[alleve]

Back on topic, I see the concept of rapid bus routes to Bradfield/WSA from Penrith, Liverpool and Campbelltown as a positive. It easily achieves what the metro routes would achieve, but at a fraction of the cost.

"It easily achieves what the metro routes would achieve, but at a fraction of the cost and a fraction of the capacity, leaving everybody else to hail taxis or drive their car to the airport."

You only need a fraction of the capacity, the metro will be running mostly empty for twenty years. If the rest of the WSA metro routes are built in ten to fifteen years, do you honestly think we will struggle using buses in the meantime? If you do, you're dreaming.

You said it yourself, "Metros do the supersize jobs with huge numbers of people to move". This route does not and for two decades will not have huge numbers to move. It won't even have relatively tiny numbers to move.

Let me remind you, by the way, that the alternative in 2026 is just the St Marys metro and no buses.

[tonyp]

Minns didn't say that the rapid bus network would replace the metro lines, but promised to implement it in time for the airport's opening in 2026, which had been the LNP government's commitment, but they've been tardy in implementing it. The only metro line that will be completed in time for the airport's opening will be the WSA metro from St Marys. The rest are still a long way off. Your comments about Labor's past policies are completely irrelevant.

When Labor talks buses, it's to replace trains or trams. That's been a consistent outcome with them for generations. It's like the kiss of death. They will promise the higher capacity mode at the outset, then keep deferring it until finally arguing that it isn't necessary after all, all the while the potential patronage that can't fit on board bleeds off into their private cars. It's happened for too long to think otherwise. If some future Labor government breaks the spell, well and good, but I'll believe it when I see it. This is why I hark back to the 1950s as an example, when new railway lines were promised to replace the trams and then they prematurely got rid of the trams anyway and brought in the buses before those railways were built. It was the Coalition that finally started the ESR, only to have it cut short by the following Labor government. Carr did the same and it will likely happen again if Minns wins. They're already talking up a crabwalk out of it.

Fairfield Mayor Frank Carbone's criticism of Labor's policy is just grandstanding in a political ploy to run in the election for the seat of Cabramatta as an Independent. He would be well aware that Parramatta, Fairfield, Cabramatta and Liverpool already have a direct rail connection with Leppington on the SWRL and a potential extension to the Aerotropolis via the Cumberland Line. There is potential for this link to be further upgraded with higher frequencies and reduced journey times. He has no ideas what he's talking about.

Even the briefest glimpse at a map reveals that there is a huge mass of urban area in W/SW Sydney that is away from a railway - which only skirts its eastern edge, thus requiring feeder buses. This mass will gradually spread westwards into the Kemps Creek area and, of course, across to the Western Sydney Metro corridor. There is no PT of any significance servicing that mass apart from, yes, another T Way which is good up to the point of its fairly low capacity ceiling (like the NW T Way), but way way short of being a railway.

Those two metro corridors from Westmead and Bankstown will go through the heart of this huge area and need to be included in the coordinated business case because it's all an integrated, planned network, part of a citywide plan, not a bunch of separated, piecemeal rail lines. This is the difference between the sort of planning vision and perspective you get from a Coalition government, compared to what you get from a Labor government. That's another thing that Labor needs to learn to do properly.

Carbone's right on the ball and Liverpool and Campbelltown share his concerns too. That's a huge chunk of LGAs lined up against Labor.

[tonyp]

This route does not and for two decades will not have huge numbers to move. It won't even have relatively tiny numbers to move.

You will be very wrong, just wait and see.

[Transtopic]

"It easily achieves what the metro routes would achieve, but at a fraction of the cost and a fraction of the capacity, leaving everybody else to hail taxis or drive their car to the airport."

You only need a fraction of the capacity, the metro will be running mostly empty for twenty years. If the rest of the WSA metro routes are built in ten to fifteen years, do you honestly think we will struggle using buses in the meantime? If you do, you're dreaming.

You said it yourself, "Metros do the supersize jobs with huge numbers of people to move". This route does not and for two decades will not have huge numbers to move. It won't even have relatively tiny numbers to move.

Let me remind you, by the way, that the alternative in 2026 is just the St Marys metro and no buses.

Agree entirely. As discussed previously, the WSA metro line as a priority is misplaced, although it would have greater long term benefit when it is extended to the north and south, but that's still some way off. The Rapid Bus Network was proposed as a complementary project to be completed in time for the airport's opening. Why has the extension and conversion of the SWRL from Glenfield to the Aerotropolis to metro suddenly come onto the agenda, when it was previously given a low priority?

The business case for the WSA metro states that it would only initially have a patronage of 880 passengers per hour per direction in the peak, until such time as the line is extended. That represents 11% of the lines capacity per direction. It was given a negative cost/benefit ratio as a priority. With 4 car trains running at 12tph in the peak, that equates to 73 passengers per train or an average of 18 passengers per carriage, which could be easily met with a Rapid Bus Network in the interim period until the demand warrants the metro line. However, we're now stuck with it for better or for worse.

[Transtopic]

Minns didn't say that the rapid bus network would replace the metro lines, but promised to implement it in time for the airport's opening in 2026, which had been the LNP government's commitment, but they've been tardy in implementing it. The only metro line that will be completed in time for the airport's opening will be the WSA metro from St Marys. The rest are still a long way off. Your comments about Labor's past policies are completely irrelevant.

When Labor talks buses, it's to replace trains or trams. That's been a consistent outcome with them for generations. It's like the kiss of death. They will promise the higher capacity mode at the outset, then keep deferring it until finally arguing that it isn't necessary after all, all the while the potential patronage that can't fit on board bleeds off into their private cars. It's happened for too long to think otherwise. If some future Labor government breaks the spell, well and good, but I'll believe it when I see it. This is why I hark back to the 1950s as an example, when new railway lines were promised to replace the trams and then they prematurely got rid of the trams anyway and brought in the buses before those railways were built. It was the Coalition that finally started the ESR, only to have it cut short by the following Labor government. Carr did the same and it will likely happen again if Minns wins. They're already talking up a crabwalk out of it.

Fairfield Mayor Frank Carbone's criticism of Labor's policy is just grandstanding in a political ploy to run in the election for the seat of Cabramatta as an Independent. He would be well aware that Parramatta, Fairfield, Cabramatta and Liverpool already have a direct rail connection with Leppington on the SWRL and a potential extension to the Aerotropolis via the Cumberland Line. There is potential for this link to be further upgraded with higher frequencies and reduced journey times. He has no ideas what he's talking about.

Even the briefest glimpse at a map reveals that there is a huge mass of urban area in W/SW Sydney that is away from a railway - which only skirts its eastern edge, thus requiring feeder buses. This mass will gradually spread westwards into the Kemps Creek area and, of course, across to the Western Sydney Metro corridor. There is no PT of any significance servicing that mass apart from, yes, another T Way which is good up to the point of its fairly low capacity ceiling (like the NW T Way), but way way short of being a railway.

Those two metro corridors from Westmead and Bankstown will go through the heart of this huge area and need to be included in the coordinated business case because it's all an integrated, planned network, part of a citywide plan, not a bunch of separated, piecemeal rail lines. This is the difference between the sort of planning vision and perspective you get from a Coalition government, compared to what you get from a Labor government. That's another thing that Labor needs to learn to do properly.

Carbone's right on the ball and Liverpool and Campbelltown share his concerns too. That's a huge chunk of LGAs line up against Labor.

Utter rubbish! Your anti-Labor bias just diminishes your credibility even further. What's the 1950s got to do with the 21st century? I'm sick of hearing your rants. Get over it!

[Stu]

Without going too far off topic, rapid buses are mentioned in the articles below from 2022 and 2020 respectively.
NSW Government ‘City Deal’ from 2018.

https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/pr ... 5bl4e.html

https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/re ... 54wf4.html

[alleve]

When Labor talks buses, it's to replace trains or trams.

May I remind you that the bus links were a Liberal promise that hasn't been delivered on?

Before you make assumptions on what Minns would do based on things he's never said purely because of what people generations ahead of him did, consider that Minns implementing rapid bus links would be him fulfilling promises the previous government failed to deliver on.

He's not bringing up buses to replace the metro. He's bringing up buses because the LNP committed and then didn't follow through. Given that he's going into an election, it makes sense he'd want to draw people's attention to that.

[tonyp]

What drags the discussion down is uncompromising and ideological defence of the double deck suburban system, which is now an outdated and inadequate technology. Clinging on to it to the exclusion of the more effective alternative of automated rapid transit is not doing the discussion any favours. The metro is also very popular. It shouldn't pass unnoticed that all those councils and people clamouring for rail out there are clamouring for metro, not suburban extensions.

I understand that an express busway service from Liverpool to WSA was always on the books. With the emergence of the proposed extension of the metro from Bankstown to Glenfield, this must inevitably be under review. This is another reason that these business cases should be coordinated and done for all lines.

Obviously though, until all lines are completed there will need to be bus services to the WSA region from key points not served by the first metro line. That will be a routine part of network planning and not worth fanfaring as some sort of special initiative..

[Transtopic]

What drags the discussion down is uncompromising and ideological defence of the double deck suburban system, which is now an outdated and inadequate technology. Clinging on to it to the exclusion of the more effective alternative of automated rapid transit is not doing the discussion any favours. The metro is also very popular. It shouldn't pass unnoticed that all those councils and people clamouring for rail out there are clamouring for metro, not suburban extensions.

I understand that an express busway service from Liverpool to WSA was always on the books. With the emergence of the proposed extension of the metro from Bankstown to Glenfield, this must inevitably be under review. This is another reason that these business cases should be coordinated and done for all lines.

Obviously though, until all lines are completed there will need to be bus services to the WSA region from key points not served by the first metro line. That will be a routine part of network planning and not worth fanfaring as some sort of special initiative..

No one is dragging the discussion down except you. DD trains haven't been mentioned. It's more about having two incompatible suburban rail systems which compromise its efficient operation, whether DD or SD. You're totally out of touch with reality, because the existing Sydney Trains' network is going to be around for decades to come and will continue to be upgraded. Just accept that fact. New segregated metro lines in inner city regions without a rail service will complement the existing network.

[Linto63]

You will be very wrong, just wait and see.

Given how many times your prophet of doom predictions have turned out to be incorrect, we need not be too worried.

[boronia]

"The metro is popular"

No doubt it is. It is a new line in an expanding suburban environment. I wonder how less popular the line would have been if it had been operated as a conventional double deck service?

[tonyp]

Given how many times your prophet of doom predictions have turned out to be incorrect, we need not be too worried.

I can't think where. I remember more than a decade ago telling everybody that, when a tram system was built (or unshackled in the case of L1), it would be wildly popular and successful. There was plenty of cynicism about that, which unfortunately extended to the planners at Transport who thought that L1 would never be preferred over the local buses, so they underspecified the trams and built Dulwich Hill as a single track terminus with modest capacity expectations. Then the patronage rockets from about 3 million to about ten million a year and people can't get on trams (pre covid, still recovering). The three inner Sydney light rail lines are now carrying over 27 million a year (already, post covid and still recovering), as much as the Airport and South line to Campbelltown. L2/L3 alone carries more than twice as many passengers as the 333 to Bondi. The previous Labor government thought Metrobuses could do the sort of job trams could.

I also predicted how popular rapid transit rail would be, based on observation of the Perth system and how public transport patronage rocketed after new or upgraded lines were opened. We'll see that fully unleashed when the first line is opened all the way through eastern Sydney. People are attracted by quick journey times and close headways.

[tonyp]

New segregated metro lines in inner city regions without a rail service will complement the existing network.

That statement alone ("inner city") indicates your total lack of understanding of the technology of rapid transit rail. In fact, the further it goes, the better it gets. It's the best rail solution for the sprawling Australian city because it shortens journey times without having to skip stops (i.e. quicker than even semi-express suburban trains), while offering higher capacity and greater frequency. I've tried to educate people such as yourself by using the Perth system as an example, but some people respond with a red herring knee jerk about population size when it's about the technology, not the population of the city. Yes, the suburban system will be around for a long time, but the important thing needed to get Sydney working better (the "30 minute journey") is to roll out rapid transit rail where it's most effective and that's over longer distances. Some people can't accept that rapid transit rail offers quicker journey times than express commuter rail, even when you put the figures in front of them. That suggests blind adherence to ideology rather than an open mind to seeking the best solution.

"The metro is popular"

No doubt it is. It is a new line in an expanding suburban environment. I wonder how less popular the line would have been if it had been operated as a conventional double deck service?

It wouldn't have attracted as many people out of their cars with a slower, much less frequent journey. When the NW metro opened and before the pandemic hit, there was an immediate positive effect on traffic levels on Windsor Rd and a reduction in patronage of the Richmond line. It's like a magnet that attracts people because of what it is, not just the generic effect of it being rail. My niece, who lives at Quakers Hill, drives over to the metro to catch a train rather than use the Richmond line. If that's an attraction even with the change at Chatswood and the slow last leg into the city, imagine what it's going to be like when it runs through and knocks several minutes off that last leg. Also worth looking at the customer satisfaction and reliability ratings of the metro vs suburban in the transport stats. That tells a story on its own.

[Linto63]

I can't think where.

You predicated that chaos would reign at UNSW because the platforms were islands, something that hasn't come to bear.

L2/L3 alone carries more than twice as many passengers as the 333 to Bondi.

So it should, the L2/L3 fleet of about 50 trams (60 less a few on L1) have a per hour capacity of 10,000, route 333's fleet can carry 3,000, assuming all of Waverley's artics are dedicated to it.

I also predicted how popular rapid transit rail would be, based on observation of the Perth system and how public transport patronage rocketed after new or upgraded lines were opened.

Didn't need to be Einstein to see that coming. The metro would have been a success whether built to classic or metro standards, it was something that should have been built at the same time as the M2 motorway when that part of Sydney was opened up.

People are attracted by quick journey times and close headways.

Some peope are, others have different priorities.

[alleve]

1. "It wouldn't have attracted as many people out of their cars with a slower, much less frequent journey."

2. "When the NW metro opened and before the pandemic hit, there was an immediate positive effect on traffic levels on Windsor Rd and a reduction in patronage of the Richmond line.... My niece, who lives at Quakers Hill, drives over to the metro to catch a train rather than use the Richmond line."

3. "that's an attraction even with the change at Chatswood and the slow last leg into the city."

1. The metro runs at 6tph out of peak and 15tph in the peak. That's no different to the T4. I also don't see how the metro is any faster either given the large stretches between stations, especially the long straight between Cherrybrook and Epping. Suburban stock hits higher top speeds and would run faster on several sections of the line.

2. The metro beating the Richmond line shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. The Richmond line is single track, no matter what you build it would have better frequencies than the Richmond line. It's also not surprising that there's a benefit on traffic, a major rail line opened.

My point with both of the above is that the success of the NWRL is not down to it being metro. It would have been successful no matter what.

That's not to say there's any issue with it being metro, that's a different discussion. But I don't agree with the concept that its success stems from it being a metro.

3. I catch the line regularly as I often have to travel to Macquarie Park. The interchange at Chatswood is a minor pain but it really doesn't matter, I don't think anyone would be turned off catching the line simply because of that.

[Merc1107]

1. The metro runs at 6tph out of peak and 15tph in the peak. That's no different to the T4. I also don't see how the metro is any faster either given the large stretches between stations, especially the long straight between Cherrybrook and Epping. Suburban stock hits higher top speeds and would run faster on several sections of the line.

How much faster would you need to go to save any substantial amount of time?

Over at Skyscraper City, there was some discussion a while ago about speeding up the Mandurah line in Perth, which, past around Cockburn, has several segments between stations that are very long (particularly Warnbro to Mandurah, which is 25km, give or take a few hundred metres). Even then, faster speeds wouldn't save much time. Assuming the train runs at full speed the entire distance (which is impossible, as the speed limit drops substantially in the last few kilometres as the end of the track is approached), the difference between 130km/h and 160km/h is about 2mins.

(25/160)*60 = 9.375
(25/130)*60 = 11.538
(25/100)*60 = 15

In this specific example, it's evident that frequency improvements would hold more benefit than trying to wind the track speed up to the nines.

[tonyp]

1. The metro runs at 6tph out of peak and 15tph in the peak. That's no different to the T4. I also don't see how the metro is any faster either given the large stretches between stations, especially the long straight between Cherrybrook and Epping. Suburban stock hits higher top speeds and would run faster on several sections of the line.

2. The metro beating the Richmond line shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. The Richmond line is single track, no matter what you build it would have better frequencies than the Richmond line. It's also not surprising that there's a benefit on traffic, a major rail line opened.

My point with both of the above is that the success of the NWRL is not down to it being metro. It would have been successful no matter what.

That's not to say there's any issue with it being metro, that's a different discussion. But I don't agree with the concept that its success stems from it being a metro.

3. I catch the line regularly as I often have to travel to Macquarie Park. The interchange at Chatswood is a minor pain but it really doesn't matter, I don't think anyone would be turned off catching the line simply because of that.

That's the frequency they've chosen for the metro now, while it's only a cross-suburban line. It's designed for as much as 30 trains per hour in 8 car (1,500 passenger) trains when and if required. It's pointless to judge what the metro can achieve when it's deliberately not being run to the full extent of its design capability at present.

I see the common mistaken assumption there that maximum speed is a significant factor on an urban operation. Because of station spacings, increased maximum speed is futile after a certain point. If the train reaches it, it then has to start slowing down again for the next station. As Merc1107 points out, even on the Mandurah line with its long station spacings, additional maximum speed achieves almost nothing. What is significant is average speed and that is determined more by acceleration, deceleration and dwell times.

The metro's average speed is typically about 10 km/h faster than that of the suburban system, comparing on the basis of the same number of stops over the same distance. Even between Sydenham and Bankstown with its numerous close stops, the metro's average speed will be 6 km/h faster than the existing trains. I've run all the figures on this forum previously.

The comparison with the Richmond line is more with the double track section. I think, from feedback that I've seen, a significant part of the success of the metro is down to it being a rapid transit system. People really like it, strange though that may seem to those who argue about seating capacity etc (which in reality boils down to seats per hour, not seats per train).

[Linto63]

I wonder how less popular the line would have been if it had been operated as a conventional double deck service?

Would have been equally successful. While there would be some who would cop a 30 minute journey, but say not for me at 35, they would be a very small minority. It' provides a service that there was a pent up demand for.

By way of a similar example, in Melbourne stations at places like Tarneit and Wyndham Vale that opened within the last decade have been equally successful, the car parks having had to be expanded many times over. Instead of just being served by through Geelong trains, they have become busy enough to justify terminating services. And some of the rolling stock that operates these is 50 years old hauled by 30 year old diesels.

[tonyp]

Would have been equally successful. While there would be some who would cop a 30 minute journey, but say not for me at 35, they would be a very small minority. It' provides a service that there was a pent up demand for.

While not arguing that a suburban service to the NW would not be used, there are several value-added reasons why a metro service attracts more people to this line than if it were a suburban service. The metro will be at least 15 minutes faster to Central than a suburban service would have been, far more frequent due to constraints on the suburban service resulting from it having to merge with other lines and significantly greater potential capacity than a suburban service, not to mention reliability, being automated and not affected by the consequences of disruptions on the suburban system.

There will be similar benefits on the Bankstown line, including a faster journey time that will eliminate the need for semi-expresses, meaning that everybody at every station can catch every train, more services meaning more seats per hour in peaks and greater capacity. Watch the patronage rise when it opens.

I think the current political shenanigans in western Sydney tell us something about the metro. When it appears that future expansion of it is threatened, everybody is up in arms. Nobody, absolutely nobody, is calling for expansion of the suburban system. People aren't stupid, they know which one is better. At least the current controversy now shows that both political sides are committed to metro, one way or the other.