Very worthy paper about Sydney rail planning: 1855 revisited

This paper (7mb, 13 pages) gives what I consider to be an almost completely fair review of the current policies of the current Transport Minister, Gladys Berejiklian.

A couple of points of difference:

1. The paper appears to be under the impression that freight trains will be able to run via Tempe still.  I'm pretty sure this is incorrect and the only option available now would be a massively longer trip via Moss Vale.
2. The paper argues that sectorisation i.e. Clearways are to be undone by the plan.  It's not clear that this is correct.
3. Bus services aren't getting enough attention.

Otherwise, it's a very good paper and probably errs on the side of being generous.

MyZone tickets valid on Moore Park-Central event shuttles

In what is a positive move announced a few months ago, people heading to Moore Park can use their MyZone tickets.  Unfortunately, the overpriced tickets for the shuttles are still to be sold.

Ideally they would just make these shuttles free, which is what would happen in Qld or WA.  In the Qld case they would send the bill for the services to the promoter.  Making the shuttles free for everyone would be an equitable outcome and nearly everyone is paying a fare to reach Central anyway.  It is dubious why people who happen to hold a MyMulti ticket should receive free travel on these services - it is very unlikely these services would cause a tipping point to make it worthwhile to purchase a MyMulti.  Fare integration would make such trips of negligible cost anyway.

Making them free would save hassle with selling the tickets as well as hassle for the intending commuters.

In short, while it is a positive move that an anomaly is being reduced, this change isn't going far enough.

Cityrail Marshalls

Cityrail have introduced Marshalls on Town Hall platform 3, as detailed in
this SMH report.  This is an attempted solution to the capacity limitations on the Western and lower Northern Lines which run through this platform with limited space for intending passengers.  A lot of the problem has been and remains people trying to board impeding people trying to get off.  The reality is that Cityrail encourage this behaviour by blowing the whistle or playing the "Stand clear, doors closing" message while people are still trying to get off.  This is an unprofessional and unacceptable practice which remains to this day.  It no doubt contributes significantly to the low level of regard Cityrail is held by Sydneysiders.

This practice must end, forthwith!

Infrastructure NSW's criticism of the under utilisation of the City Circle

Infrastructure NSW has bagged the City Circle for being under utilised, which it is.  Why is this so?  Put simply there is not enough rolling stock to fill in all the paths.  There is currently in the busiest hour at Central approaching the Town Hall leg of the City Circle 7:57am to 8:53am 15 trains made up of:
2 Bankstown via Lidcombe
7 South line via Fairfield
2 Bankstown via Sydenham
2 Ashfield all stops
2 Liverpool via Regents Park

The Infrastructure NSW plan would remove the ability to fill in the gaps with Bankstown via Sydenham trains.  The only option would be to reverse the parts of Clearways which have been achieved and go back to using the "Illawarra Junction" near Macdonaldtown to achieve this - a move sure to reduce reliability.  Ron Christie has slammed this aspect of the Infrastructure NSW plan particularly.

Currently, there are only a few impediments to putting more trains on the Bankstown and East Hills lines, which would fill up the City Circle.  Better that this option is left in reserve for future growth.

The Infrastructure NSW report should be binned.

Draft Transport Masterplan fails

Sandy Thomas was being far too kind when called this plan a lightweight piece of fluff.  So much is missing from this plan it isn't funny. 

While the plan has numerous mentions of interchanges, integrated fares is never mentioned, and a fare structure review is mentioned only once.  The low level of importance attached to this issue is likely to soon see Sydney with a fare structure found in few places outside the third world.  The rest of Australia already has integrated fares and Auckland and Wellington are likely to get it soon.

A number of interchanges in Sydney have failed.  Edgecliff, Newtown and Pennant Hills are three which spring to mind.  At Pennant Hills, the M2 bus services are actually cheaper to use than the train, which is underutilised.  This is a perverse outcome as the bus services are more expensive to provide than feeder buses and it no doubt contributes to the negative growth which has occurred in peak rail patronage at this station.  Newtown isn't strictly an interchange but it is far faster on a train than a bus particularly in peak yet few people get off the bus to use a train there.  The lack of integrated fares are part of the problem.

While the plan has quite a number of mentions of increased frequency, it is not mentioned what services particularly are to have their frequency increased, nor the operating hours of such frequency, nor what the appropriate frequency would be.

Chapter 4 shows that the proposed southern destinations of the single deck trains are actually expected to be the least congested in 2031, which is presumably before the second harbour crossing would be built.  It also shows that the Northern Line is likely to continue to be under served.  No capacity increase is planned for Strathfield-Town Hall, unfortunately.

Chapter 4 also shows that the East Hills line to Macarthur is expected to be under served.  Didn't anyone tell them that the Erskenville-Sydenham sextuplication would allow trains from Macarthur to access Sydney Terminal?  Not without significant spend if the absurd Hurstville metro proceeds, but that is very unlikely anyway.

The Northern Beaches Bus Rapid Transit proposal is reprised unchanged, even though the study (strangely) found no options with benefits greater than costs.

The Light Rail proposal is just inconvenient for most people as it requires detouring via Central.  Perhaps the idea is that the via Taylor Square buses would remain but this is not explained.

While the plan suggests that rail has a low mode share to the Airport, no suggestions for action are made.  Surely the problem is that the fares are far too high and buying out the private partner is something which could be looked at.

Even if the plan's unfunded proposals are implemented, it still forecasts increased congestion, in some cases by a quite significant margin, particularly Rouse Hill-Macquarie Park.

Service slow downs from 2005

I have come across some timetables from 1996.  Graphs of the service speed are shown below.

Here's the North Shore Line:

And the Northern Line:

Very annoying to have to put up with these ultra slow services which apply now.  The services were slow enough before they were slowed further.

Where would we be if we had the Western Express instead of the Epping Chatswood Rail Link?

Much better off.

I would presume that on opening of a Western Express (WEX a.k.a. CBD enhancement project), the Blue Mountains trains would use it along with the Western Line trains.

Harbour Bridge trains (sector 3):

• 4/hour Epping
• 4/hour Hornsby all to Eastwood, West Ryde, Strathfield, Redfern
• 4/hour Cabramatta via Granville
• 4/hour Glenfield via Regents Park

Moving the South Line to the Harbour Bridge has to be considered a given as it is a faster path on the middle pair of tracks (suburbans) from Strathfield to Macdonaldtown and no conflicting move penalty for doing so as applied in the past with that option.

The above assumes that turnbacks would be constructed at Regents Park (to turn around Bankstown trains) and at Cabramatta, with the Lidcombe turnback becoming unneeded.

A Glenfield via Regents Park to the Harbour Bridge should be somewhat faster than the existing service to Liverpool and help get people out of their cars.  The major limitation with the proposed patterns is that there is little room to allow for growth in patronage on the Western Line, other than with the larger trains proposed, without kicking the Blue Mountains trains out onto the Harbour Bridge, which in turn blocks increases in the Harbour Bridge services.  One solution might be a Homebush-Lidcombe sextuplication, but I have no idea what that would cost.

Outer City Circle, AM peak, would handle all trains from Bankstown, Ashfield, Homebush and Campbelltown via Sydenham.  This would enable simplicity in timetabling and therefore reliability as every train past Erskenville platform 1 would head the same way, however it might be a little controversial as the via Museum path is left with significant unused capacity.  The Erskenville-Sydenham sextuplication would be the next enhancement to increase capacity in this part of the network.

In the PM peak, I would expect that the Campbelltown via Sydenham trains would leave the CBD via Museum, however, the Bankstown trains would be more balanced running via Town Hall at all times.

You can see that the WEX would indeed be well used and the only thing preventing CBD capacity from the west from being fully populated is the lack of rolling stock.  While the via Museum leg of the City Circle remains under utilised, that is left in reserve to allow for increased running via Revesby and Bankstown.  This leg cannot be used for Western Line trains in any event and only 4 trains per hour in the AM peak from the Bankstown line are able to be moved to it and filled in by other trains from the West.

NWRL justification

The justification for the North West Rail Link, contains a couple of interesting points in objective 4 in section 22.3.1:
(a) 29 million trips within 5 years of its opening, which is about half the number of trips currently using the bus system in the relevant region, region 4.  Obviously, people will still continue to use buses into Parramatta and other locations but I expect more than half of bus users are going to or from the CBD-Macquarie Park area.
(b) almost 160 buses are to be removed from the CBD in the morning peak.  This is approximately the amount of buses which enter the CBD in the morning peak from the North West.

I have little doubt that point (b) would not actually happen within the next decade, particularly while the rail-rail interchange at Chatswood remains.

Basically, the justification does not suggest an increase in the public transport usage in the North West.

Is Western Fast Rail back on the agenda?

As I previously blogged, the current government has made a number of apparently ill thought through and half baked announcements, firstly Richmond to Campbelltown then single deck metro from the North West to Chatswood.  The questions seems to be why?  I suggest that they have been softening up the voters for something they may not like.  What that might be is a revitalisation of the Western Fast Rail privatised project.  Reports from when the Liberals were still in opposition quoted the current transport minister as saying that the project should be looked at more seriously.

This is complete supposition; but you heard it here first!

CBD Enhancement dropped!

Unfortunately, it seems from recent documentation that the previously planned CBD enhancement from Eveleigh to Wynyard and beyond is to not proceed.  This is a decision which means that there will not be much improvement in Cityrail for decades, particularly for the Western and Northern Lines.

Giving the Western Line its own path through the CBD would be best practice.  It's the busiest line on the network, and busier than the North Shore line (counting the upper Northern Line), Illawarra Line and Eastern Suburbs Line all of which have their own path through the CBD.  So why not separate the network out further which will help with allowing more and stricter sectorisation?  That would get these passengers out of the current Town Hall and Wynyard significantly easing platform congestion and the new platforms should be able to be built wider than the existing platforms. Alternatively with what is known as bifurcation which means that there would be 4 additional platforms per station to reduce/remove dwell time in the CBD from being the capacity restriction.  This would leave Parramatta dwell times as the limitation.

The above linked documentation mentions some restrictions which are either soon to be removed or can be.  Numbers 3, 4 and 9 can be easily removed, they just choose not to.  In the case of number 9 which the document details removing this does mean trains need to take a slower path, however, this limitation is solved by the CBD enhancement (formerly called the Western Express) as described above, as is number 7.

Such an unceremonious dumping deserves an explanation, however the linked document above seems to be an attempt to deflect the criticism rather than explain it.  It does not refer at all to the plan to increase CBD capacity along the "Metro West" alignment as originally planned, but an alternative plan which had never been publicly proposed involving a Cityrail expansion along the "Metro Pitt" alignment, which would not help the Western Line.

I just wonder if they are pushing some agenda, and if so then what?  Perhaps it is just to be different from the Keneally government's sensible Western Express plan.

Cityrail timetable proposals in recent news - Part 3

An official video shows that the second phase of this plan involves:

1. A new harbour crossing, connecting to the Metro Pitt alignment.
2. Metro connecting to the Bankstown line and part of the Illawarra line.
3. Removal of Campbelltown via Sydenham. 
4. No increased capacity for the Western, South or North lines beyond what is possible now.
5. Some Western line trains to take the slower path around the city circle.

Almost every aspect of this plan is daft.

1. Sending metro trains down the Illawarra line to Hurstville means that some Railcorp passengers will be taken away from the Eastern Suburbs Railway, to be replaced by no one.
2. Overtaking manoeuvres will no longer be possible.  All trains will likely need to run with the same stopping pattern, presumably Redfern, Sydenham, Wolli Creek, Rockdale, Kogarah, Hurstville and then all stations to Waterfall or Cronulla.  A capacity reducing skip stop is also possible.  It will be exceedingly difficult to operate the South Coast trains with only one pair of tracks the whole distance.
3. Removing the Bankstown line from the city circle removes what is the only swing player between the Town Hall and Museum legs.  This will not be helpful.
4. Removing Campbelltown via Sydenham will result in slower journeys and be less competitive with road transport, particularly with the planned M5 widening.  I do not think that additional frequency through the Airport line adds nearly as much value.
5. Additional Western line paths into the city circle requires them to either add a conflicting move at Macdonaldtown or traverse Strathfield platforms 7 and 8.  The latter will increase journey times, the former would reduce reliability.  There is a good reason why every inquiry has recommended a new CBD path, to prevent such trades from being made.  This new path is being done in such a way as most of the benefit which should be realised is completely wasted.  You might as well run in to the Wynyard platform 1 and 2 dead end as the trams used to.

If a crossing under the harbour is to be done, it really should increase capacity for the other side of Central.  This plan does not achieve that at all.  It wastes some of the presently available capacity.

I hope that we hear nothing further about this plan.

Cityrail timetable proposals in recent news - Part 1

A Sydney Morning Herald article has reported that it is being suggested for a number of stations to lose their access to Town Hall, but the Cumberland Line is to be given an upgraded service and run through to Richmond.  These changes are sure to be unpopular and reduce the effectiveness of Cityrail, so the question is why would it even be considered?  One word: sectorisation.  This means that parts of Cityrail can function independently of the whole, as has been all but achieved with the Illawarra and Eastern Suburbs lines.  Cityrail branded this concept clearways a number of years back.

Basically, to have a strict sectorisation the Cumberland line would need to either be completely removed, or pushed into what is known as sector 2, meaning lines accessing the City Circle.  This means that lines through Parramatta platforms 3 and 4 need to go to sector 2, and given that it is not possible to come from the Richmond line without accessing these lines, the Richmond line needs to go along for that ride.  Since trains serving Harris Park, Wentworthville, Toongabbie and Pendle Hill normally only use Parramatta platforms 3 and 4, these trains would no longer be able to reach Central.  Similarly, Clyde, Auburn, Lidcombe and Burwood would no longer have a single seat service to Parramatta.  Clyde stops would need to be added to selected south line trains.  The most popular peak pattern - All to Redfern/Parramatta/Blacktown/Mt Druitt all to Penrith would need to be slowed down significantly with probably 6 more stops.  It's not entirely clear why the lower Northern line cannot run through Town Hall with sectorisation however, even with the conflicting move* between outbound interurbans and inbound suburbans north of Strathfield.  It is also unclear how Blue Mountains line trains would operate at all if this is done.

This is sectorisation becoming the enemy of Cityrail doing a good job, rather than its friend, which it usually is. I feel this is being leaked now to soften up users of Cityrail for a timetable which isn't going to be liked.  It is certainly true that the Western Line needs its own path through the CBD though, which should have been built before the Epping Chatswood Rail Link was.

What alternatives are there for 2013?
Alternative One:
Increase running into Sydney Terminal for the Western Line.  It is unclear why there are still 3 (both directions combined) Springwood trains per day crossing the Harbour Bridge.  This was done before the ECRL freed up a few paths across the Harbour Bridge so there is precedent.

Altenative Two:
Run additional lower Northern Line trains into Sydney Terminal. This is a satisfactory option for increasing the Northern Line which is incredibly overcrowded but does nothing for the Western Line, which is nearly as bad.

Alternative Three:
Run all lower northern line trains into Sydney Terminal. The existing trains should not be damaged in this way, even if increased in frequency.  Varied stopping patterns cannot reasonably apply for the Western Line between Redfern and Parramatta so all my comments above would apply in that zone and about the Blue Mountains Line trains being virtually unable to run.

Alternative Four:
Connect the lower Northern line the City Circle, moving some or all of the inbound AM Bankstown line trains to the Museum.  This has a conflicting move* at Macdonaldtown and thus would surely reduce reliability to pre-2005 levels so has a snowballs' chance of proceeding.

* A conflicting move is where one train needs to get in the way of a train on another track, blocking its progress.  While it can be timetabled, things don't always run to timetabling.  It ultimately reduces reliability.

UPDATE 22/6/2012: Or here's a better idea: Terminate the Cumberland line at Parramatta from the south.  This means that Parramatta platforms 3 and 4 can become part of sector 2 and Harris Park commuters need to backtrack to Parramatta to reach the CBD.  This is not really a big problem as they are likely to have a faster trip to the city by doing this in any event.  This means that all tracks and platforms at Westmead and west are available to sector 3 trains without violating sectorisation and it also means Cumberland trains don't run relatively uselessly all the way to Blacktown.

Opal: Integrating ticketing versus Integrated fares

Opal has been promised as the solution to Sydney's fare mediocrity.  It is not at all clear that this is correct.  What is entirely possible is that MyZone fare structure will be sold through Opal.  MyZone is not an integrated fare structure, it is a differential fare structure.  Integrated fares would require a mode blind single flag fall system.  IPART (Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal) have been quite vocal against an integrated fare system.  Politicians don't like changing it much either as it leads to either some people suddenly having to pay more, or significantly less fare revenue.

What Opal will surely be is an integrated ticket, which means a single ticket which can be used on any transport mode i.e. Cityrail/STA bus/private bus/ferry.  This should free users from the need to purchase separate tickets for each mode constantly.  It is not clear whether it will free users from loading certain passes on to the card to obtain the appropriate fare, as applies with Melbourne's myki.

An integrated fare system is the first step in a transformation in Sydney's public transport.  If you are coming from Bondi Beach to the city, you should not need to pay extra to get off the bus at Bondi Junction and get on a train.  Ceasing to discourage these types of transfers would be very beneficial for the efficiency of the system overall.  The train costs the same regardless of how many people use it and has no capacity issues, however if more people use the bus then more buses must be run.  Within STA there are a number of routes and deviations on routes which only exist to remove the need to transfer.

It is possible that, like Brisbane, an integrated fare system would be implemented and the needed restructures to bus routes not occur.  There would still be some benefits in this case.  At least people can escape the George St traffic jam by getting off their morning bus at Newtown and using a train, for example.  These created spaces on the bus can also then be reused on the way to the CBD.

Every other major Australian city has already implemented an integrated fare system, including Canberra.  Adelaide did it in the 1960s.  Auckland is planning to implement it this/next year, and Wellington will likely follow.  Christchurch already has a one free transfer system.

I fear that Sydney is going to be left as the only city in the region without an integrated fare system.

Second rail harbour crossing back on the agenda

The Sydney Morning Herald has again reported that a new harbour crossing is back on the agenda.  The SMH reports that the advice to Gladys Berejiklian is this is needed for natural growth and the NWRL.  Well, sort of.  It is only needed in this or the next decade because of the NWRL.

It was always disingenuous and/or dishonest to suggest that the NWRL without a second harbour crossing was a reasonable policy, but it was a winning strategy at the 2011 NSW election.  In my opinion Infrastructure Australia was absolutely correct to rebuff the current NWRL plan.

Some people have suggested that signalling improvements could delay the need for this.  Well that may be, but it would not come cheap and nor would it remove some remaining conflicting moves particularly at Macdonaldtown.  Signalling improvements also would not help to remove the south line from the need to pass the platform faces between Summer Hill and Macdonaldtown - these lines are slower than the centre pair of tracks, which are slower than the northern pair of tracks.  There needs to be a study on the bang for buck of this particular option.  Personally, I believe it will defer the need for track amplifications only slightly so should not proceed.

What about single deck?  Well while you might have more trains, the number of seats on the line would be reduced for sure.  It is unclear whether or not the number of standing spaces would be increased by enough to compensate, but I think it is fair to say that reduced seating is against what Sydneysiders want.  There are similar issues with increasing the number of doors per carriage.

The SMH also reports that the "City Relief Line" is dead.  Well, that's creative politicking right there.  Transport for NSW report that all options feature a "CBD enhancement" which is basically the city relief line by another name.  As for the suggestion the under the harbour line might connect to the Illawarra, that is insane, and a waste of web bandwidth to debunk.

New Cityrail timetable for 2013

Last month a new Cityrail timetable was promised for introduction in late 2013.  What should it contain?

1. Increased Cumberland line services.  Only 5 per day apparently well utilised services is a bit of a waste of the infrastructure built.  It also reduces the incentive to put jobs into Parramatta.  The Epping-Chatswood link is given credit for Optus moving into the Macquarie Park area, but the lack of service on the Cumberland is somehow not thought responsible for the low growth in jobs in Parramatta
2. Extension of the current Chatswood terminators from Hornsby via Macquarie Park somewhere.  Not reaching the city results in these trains being under utilised.
3. Increase in Parramatta's off peak service.  4 low speed trains per hour off peak is a poor service for such a major centre, not counting Blue Mountains trains.
4. Remove Campbelltown via Granville and have a minimum 15 minute frequency for Campbelltown via East Hills and Airport.
5. 15 minute all day frequency for the South Line - currently this drops back to half hourly in the middle of the day weekdays and evenings.
6. 15 minute all day frequency to Penrith.
7. Removing city to Liverpool via Regents Park trains thanks to utilising the Lidcombe turnback.
8. Further rationalisation of stopping patterns.
9. Faster trains.

What is it unlikely to contain?

1. Increased Illawarra line trains - some say that it isn't possible to increase this while freight is still operating on the 2 track between Hurstville and Sutherland.
2. Increased Epping via North Strathfield trains, both at peak and off peak.  Increasing the peak trains would require either trimming Western Line trains or increased running into Sydney Terminal.  Increasing off peak trains seems relatively unlikely, perhaps because it would make it harder for freight to connect with Flemington.
3. Increased trains to Berowra - these have conflicts with freight and interurbans which do not apply for Hornsby terminators.
4. 10 minute frequency (or better) on the Inner West and Bankstown lines.
5. Bringing back Parramatta via Bankstown trains.  These trains are a conflicting move nightmare, and it isn't entirely clear that it is so necessary to encourage those living from Berala to Erskenville to work in Parramatta as opposed to the CBD.
6. Something to connect the Carramar to Sefton stretch to Parramatta, at least in peak.  The M91 does connect Chester Hill.  Otherwise it will be in necessary to double interchange at Birrong and Lidcombe or Cabramatta and Granville or single change at Cabramatta.
7. Faster trains.  Witness the slow downs which have recently been announced for a couple of trains on the Newcastle line from 18 June 2012.