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.
Showing posts with label clearways. Show all posts
Showing posts with label clearways. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
Saturday, August 4, 2012
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):
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.
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
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.
Thursday, July 5, 2012
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.
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.
Sunday, June 17, 2012
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)