search the site
 daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Continental Forums > OZScrapers > Urban Spaces > Transportation

Transportation Trains, planes and automobiles.



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old January 20th, 2015, 12:10 PM   #41
Jabbawookie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 446
Likes (Received): 153

If I had to pick between these two options I prefer the Sydney Uni option.

A station at the northern end of Barangaroo would have to be pretty deep. The DA for ‘The Sandstone Precinct’ notes the SRT line would be about 60 metres below, so how deep would a station at the northern end of Barangaroo have to be?

With more recent SRT documents no longer mentioning an extension to the west of Bankstown and a very lukewarm ‘maybe’ for a branch to Hurstville could there be an opportunity for other branches on the city side of the harbour? Maybe a West Metro could initially branch from this proposal if the Sydney Uni option is chosen? Or maybe a South-East Metro could initially branch from this proposal if the Waterloo option is chosen?

On the northern side of the harbour an initial branch to Mosman/ The Northern Beaches or Epping to Parramatta could also be a possibility.

Then when there is a need/ demand for another line through the Sydney CBD and a third harbour crossing you could remove the branching so the West Metro or South-East Metro to Mosman/ The Northern Beaches could become its own segregated line.

I hope they're clever enough to include stubs for potential branches like these as part of the planning process.
Jabbawookie no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old January 20th, 2015, 12:27 PM   #42
PGBSYD
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 632
Likes (Received): 209

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jabbawookie View Post

With more recent SRT documents no longer mentioning an extension to the west of Bankstown and a very lukewarm ‘maybe’ for a branch to Hurstville could there be an opportunity for other branches on the city side of the harbour? Maybe a West Metro could initially branch from this proposal if the Sydney Uni option is chosen? Or maybe a South-East Metro could initially branch from this proposal if the Waterloo option is chosen?

On the northern side of the harbour an initial branch to Mosman/ The Northern Beaches or Epping to Parramatta could also be a possibility.

Then when there is a need/ demand for another line through the Sydney CBD and a third harbour crossing you could remove the branching so the West Metro or South-East Metro to Mosman/ The Northern Beaches could become its own segregated line.

I hope they're clever enough to include stubs for potential branches like these as part of the planning process.
Well said. I do not understand why they are set on the conversion of the Bankstown line. Leave the existing rail system alone! There are so many better options as outlined above like an inner west / olympic park / parramatta line or a South Eastern suburbs line.

The cost to convert Bankstown will be huge. Invest in a new line. Converting Sydney Trains to SRT services is mistake.
PGBSYD no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 20th, 2015, 12:39 PM   #43
Cloud nine
Registered User
 
Cloud nine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Sydney
Posts: 396
Likes (Received): 82

Admiralteyskaya station on St Petersburg metro is 86m down, so I don't think 50m depth necessarily determines the issue. Many of the St Petersburg metro stations are deep and people there seem to tolerate it, but I am not sure that Sydney residents would tolerate what I found to be a seemingly endless journey to the underworld. Also, I don't know what happens when the escalators are out of order. Admiralteyskaya has a very modest street entrance.

The point about the sandstone buildings is that they are in public ownership. Candidates for metro stations in public ownership are rare indeed. A
Cloud nine no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 20th, 2015, 12:40 PM   #44
BuildBigger
Registered User
 
BuildBigger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Sydney/Melbourne
Posts: 1,970
Likes (Received): 266

Everyone will have their own opinions about the conversion but imo I think it is a positive move.

It will allow greater capacity on the City circle, expand the driverless train system, provide a blueprint to fix the horribly indirect tail end of the Bankstown line and initiate a broader process of converting lines close to the CBD to metro services, effectively instituting a more dynamic tiered system.

I'm sure some of the more experienced members could specify other improvements but I do see this as the start of a genuinely modern network for Sydney.
__________________

mw123, pat_, TRS-80 liked this post
BuildBigger no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 20th, 2015, 01:49 PM   #45
zoomwhoosh
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,501
Likes (Received): 687

Quote:
Originally Posted by PGBSYD View Post
Well said. I do not understand why they are set on the conversion of the Bankstown line. Leave the existing rail system alone! There are so many better options as outlined above like an inner west / olympic park / parramatta line or a South Eastern suburbs line.

The cost to convert Bankstown will be huge. Invest in a new line. Converting Sydney Trains to SRT services is mistake.
Are you suggesting that the SRT terminate at Central?
zoomwhoosh no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 20th, 2015, 01:50 PM   #46
zoomwhoosh
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,501
Likes (Received): 687

Quote:
Originally Posted by BuildBigger View Post
Everyone will have their own opinions about the conversion but imo I think it is a positive move.

It will allow greater capacity on the City circle, expand the driverless train system, provide a blueprint to fix the horribly indirect tail end of the Bankstown line and initiate a broader process of converting lines close to the CBD to metro services, effectively instituting a more dynamic tiered system.

I'm sure some of the more experienced members could specify other improvements but I do see this as the start of a genuinely modern network for Sydney.
Just curious what you mean by the "horribly indirect" tail end?
zoomwhoosh no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 20th, 2015, 02:14 PM   #47
zoomwhoosh
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,501
Likes (Received): 687

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jabbawookie View Post
If I had to pick between these two options I prefer the Sydney Uni option.

A station at the northern end of Barangaroo would have to be pretty deep. The DA for ‘The Sandstone Precinct’ notes the SRT line would be about 60 metres below, so how deep would a station at the northern end of Barangaroo have to be?

With more recent SRT documents no longer mentioning an extension to the west of Bankstown and a very lukewarm ‘maybe’ for a branch to Hurstville could there be an opportunity for other branches on the city side of the harbour? Maybe a West Metro could initially branch from this proposal if the Sydney Uni option is chosen? Or maybe a South-East Metro could initially branch from this proposal if the Waterloo option is chosen?

On the northern side of the harbour an initial branch to Mosman/ The Northern Beaches or Epping to Parramatta could also be a possibility.

Then when there is a need/ demand for another line through the Sydney CBD and a third harbour crossing you could remove the branching so the West Metro or South-East Metro to Mosman/ The Northern Beaches could become its own segregated line.

I hope they're clever enough to include stubs for potential branches like these as part of the planning process.
I'm not sure what you mean by the "sandstone precinct"?

A station at the northern end of Barangaroo would have to be at least as deep as the harbour and then some. You can find a map of the harbour here:

http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/documents/...parramatta.pdf

The area the line would go through would be less than 20m deep. Once you take into account the need to find solid rock, and the depth of the tunnel itself then you're looking at close to 40m below sea level. Depending on the exact location the station at Barangaroo could be a bit more or a bit less.

Earlier discussion convinced me that the SRT needs two southern branches. I think the inner west line makes good sense. I think they're still going to go to Bankstown and could go to Regents Park with a short Birong to Regents Park tunnel.

If you had to design two brand new southern branches then one of them could go to Roseberry, Eastgardens, Maroubra. But somehow my feeling is you could get more bang for your buck and more inter connectivity between lines here.

Has anyone also considered the option of going inner west then Strathefield and then to Epping? I heard recently that they were talking about quading the line from Strathfield to Epping (I wasn't sure there was enough room tbh). But if they could do this then they could make the other two lines metro.

And closely related to that you could of course build a metro in a new tunnel to Strathfield and then on the surface to Epping. This metro would replace nearly all of the inner west stations.

And since I'm just speculating here, it could go Central, Sydney Uni, Petersham Park (you could close Lewisham and Petersham stations), Ashfield (rebuild the station and replace it entirely with a station that only operates on the SRT), and then Strathfield.

Now if you built a light rail line from Strathfield station to Ashfield station then you could close all the intermediate stations (Croydon, Burwood)

Indeed with a bit of work you could remove the inner west line entirely west of newtown.

Anyhow just speculating..

Last edited by zoomwhoosh; January 20th, 2015 at 02:24 PM.
zoomwhoosh no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 20th, 2015, 05:00 PM   #48
snowboard99
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sydney / New York
Posts: 985
Likes (Received): 351

Quote:
Originally Posted by PGBSYD View Post
Well said. I do not understand why they are set on the conversion of the Bankstown line. Leave the existing rail system alone! There are so many better options as outlined above like an inner west / olympic park / parramatta line or a South Eastern suburbs line.

The cost to convert Bankstown will be huge. Invest in a new line. Converting Sydney Trains to SRT services is mistake.
The eventual plan, which may or may not happen, was to take over Bankstown, Hurstville and Revesby. This has big flow on benefits to the Sydney Trains system in allowing more services from further out. The first step in this is Bankstown, which frees 4tph in each direction on the City Circle. This allows more services from Campbelltown and SWRL to run to the city, which will be needed as the SW Growth Center is developed. The 8tph free on the City Circle via Town Hall may be used for the Western line if they can get over the sectorisation issues.

Hurstville allows an extra 6tph from the Illawarra line as that line needs it. I would say the completion of this is not in the initial plan as it will require a diversion of freight to the Maldon to Dombarton Railway - obviously not yet in existence.

Revesby (in the long term) allows further increases from SWRL/Campbelltown as that area grows further and the airport is built at Badgerys Creek. This could just be added as the growth is required, or the plans could change by this time.

If you don't take over these existing lines with the SRT, then you need to come up with other ways to allow this growth on the Sydney Trains network from further out.
__________________

mandonov, OZ Rails, TRS-80 liked this post
snowboard99 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 20th, 2015, 10:58 PM   #49
mandonov
Henny
 
mandonov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Sydney
Posts: 2,612
Likes (Received): 1213

Quote:
Originally Posted by zoomwhoosh View Post
Just curious what you mean by the "horribly indirect" tail end?
The 'Y' shaped line between Lidcombe, Bankstown and Cabramatta.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zoomwhoosh View Post
I'm not sure what you mean by the "sandstone precinct"?
The two sandstone buildings under Loftus Street in the CBD. Although I think that 60m depth is in relation to an east-west line, not this current proposal.

------------

We can't just leave the current system alone when it's running pretty inefficiently trying to be both a metro system AND a commuter system. We need the SRT to rationalise the inner-city vs. the long distance routes to create an efficient metro system as well as an efficient commuter system.
__________________
.

Last edited by mandonov; January 20th, 2015 at 11:10 PM.
mandonov no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 21st, 2015, 03:44 AM   #50
DAJAN
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,386
Likes (Received): 622

Quote:
Originally Posted by snowboard99 View Post
The eventual plan, which may or may not happen, was to take over Bankstown, Hurstville and Revesby .
AFAIR, the plan that was publicised a few years back, had Bankstown, Hurstville and Inner west (ie, Homebush), but no mention of Revesby.

By all means, I agree that Revesby would be an ideal candidate for SRT, just mentioning that it had not been in the plan.

Quote:
Originally Posted by snowboard99 View Post
Hurstville allows an extra 6tph from the Illawarra line as that line needs it. I would say the completion of this is not in the initial plan as it will require a diversion of freight to the Maldon to Dombarton Railway - obviously not yet in existence.
.
The main clash in freight vs. Hurstville SRT, was that Erskineville to Hurstville had the if the existing western pair of surface tracks converted to SRT (including the branching to Bankstown at Sydenham), then the freight tracks from Marrickville to Illawarra would need to grade separate over that western SRT, in order to reach the eastern pair approaching Tempe. (or closure of that Marrickville-Tempe freight track altogether once Maldon to Dombarton is built)

However, now that Central to Sydenham SRT is to be tunnelled instead, it means a "Hurstville branch portal" could instead be situated south of the junction (ie, near Tempe) thus not clashing with the freight tracks. (although maybe they want the tunnel portal north of Sydenham for both branches, hence the above described situation still remains)

A few other matters:

If SRT were to serve both Hurstville and Revesby, you've got probably two options in terms of existing corridors:

Option 1. From Tempe to Hurstville, the existing western pair of surface tracks is converted to SRT, including the pair branching off at Wolli Creek towards Revesby. Campbelltown/SWRL DD trains using the Airport corridor tunnel.
In between Wolli Creek and Turrella, you would need to build grade separations, as the DD express via Airport would need the outer pair, whilst the SRT from Tempe would need the inner pair.

Option 2. Convert the Airport line tunnel into SRT, for both Revesby and Hurstville, whilst keeping all four surface tracks via Tempe as DD (for both Illawarra and Campbelltown/SWRL)
All track arrangements approaching Turrella would remain unchanged, however you would need another portal from the airport line towards Hurstville (possibly west of the Wolli Creek platforms, swinging southwards via a short tunnel before surfacing near Arncliffe)

Option 2 also means you could confine Hurstville and Revesby to one shared SRT sector, whilst Bankstown and Homebush could be the other SRT sector.
DAJAN no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 21st, 2015, 04:04 AM   #51
OZ Rails
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,990
Likes (Received): 210

Quote:
Originally Posted by DAJAN View Post
AFAIR, the plan that was publicised a few years back, had Bankstown, Hurstville and Inner west (ie, Homebush), but no mention of Revesby.

By all means, I agree that Revesby would be an ideal candidate for SRT, just mentioning that it had not been in the plan.


There was a much more recent document released actually based on the SRT plans that had removed the inner west connection due to technical difficulties around Redfern and replaced it with the connection to Revesby (that required the existing local/ express configuration to be swapped at Wolli Creek). However since they are now saying 15 tph to Bankstown I would say that is gone.
OZ Rails no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 21st, 2015, 04:17 AM   #52
OZ Rails
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,990
Likes (Received): 210

I still like this one (although it seems the Illawarra line would need to change based on recent posts).

[IMG]http://i61.************/2cwly6s.png[/IMG]
OZ Rails no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 21st, 2015, 04:23 AM   #53
zoomwhoosh
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,501
Likes (Received): 687

There's not a whole lot of room just before Tempe station to squeeze a portal in. It'd probably make more sense to build a freight flyover.
zoomwhoosh no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 21st, 2015, 01:29 PM   #54
zoomwhoosh
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,501
Likes (Received): 687

Quote:
Originally Posted by OZ Rails View Post
I still like this one (although it seems the Illawarra line would need to change based on recent posts).
There is also the issue of freight through Cabramatta. Someone earlier said you could build a short tunnel between Birong and Regents Park under the freight line. That would leave you with a SRT that goes to Regents Park and then Cabramatta to Lidcombe would be handled a separate issue.

I like what you've done with T2, but.. I'll repeat what I've said before.

If you're going to put an eastern branch in it, I would rather the branch occur at Woolaraha (east of Edgecliff) and have Bondi Junction and Bondi on that line (with maybe a new station at Waverley Park). That way the two branches would have a bit more balance.

Then the southern Branch would head due south with a station at Woolarah (Oxford/Ocean streets), Alison Road (interchange with light rail), UNSW (Village Green) and then Kingsford.
zoomwhoosh no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 21st, 2015, 01:30 PM   #55
Jabbawookie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 446
Likes (Received): 153

Quote:
Originally Posted by mandonov View Post

The two sandstone buildings under Loftus Street in the CBD. Although I think that 60m depth is in relation to an east-west line, not this current proposal.
The previous east-west corridor was further south of ‘The Sandstone Precinct’ (As per map 6/9 in the following link).
https://www.nsw.gov.au/gcse?ca=CBD%20rail%20link
Maybe this was when the north-south corridor was being investigated for heavy rail (Legacy double deck trains)? Maybe single deck SRT trains do not need to be a 60m below Bridge Street to get under Sydney Harbour? Or has the revised corridor which now takes the SRT under Sydney Harbour close to one of the deepest parts of the harbour now mean that this is correct? Can anyone confirm this?
You can also see from map 6/9 if the SRT follows the initial curve of the previous CBD Metro after Martin Place and then curves back to the north that a station at Barangaroo could be located at ‘Central Barangaroo’. I think this makes a station at Barangaroo a very good idea although as Zoom suggests as long as it’s no deeper than give or take 40m.
Jabbawookie no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 21st, 2015, 02:38 PM   #56
zoomwhoosh
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,501
Likes (Received): 687

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jabbawookie View Post
The previous east-west corridor was further south of ‘The Sandstone Precinct’ (As per map 6/9 in the following link).
https://www.nsw.gov.au/gcse?ca=CBD%20rail%20link
Maybe this was when the north-south corridor was being investigated for heavy rail (Legacy double deck trains)? Maybe single deck SRT trains do not need to be a 60m below Bridge Street to get under Sydney Harbour? Or has the revised corridor which now takes the SRT under Sydney Harbour close to one of the deepest parts of the harbour now mean that this is correct? Can anyone confirm this?
You can also see from map 6/9 if the SRT follows the initial curve of the previous CBD Metro after Martin Place and then curves back to the north that a station at Barangaroo could be located at ‘Central Barangaroo’. I think this makes a station at Barangaroo a very good idea although as Zoom suggests as long as it’s no deeper than give or take 40m.
I'm not sure if there was ever a proposal for a DD train line that passed under the harbour near Loftus Street.

As far as the SRT goes my original impression was that it would pass under the Rocks area. That's simply based on earlier maps.

Now that they are talking about including Barangaroo as a station, it would make sense for the SRT to pass under Barangaroo Point, and a bit east of Goat Island, where the harbour is relatively shallow.

On the NWRL tunnel video they were talking about grades of 3-4% for the single deck trains. That would allow you some flexibility in terms of ascending relatively quickly under land. That's 15-20m elevation in half a Km.

Even with DD trains and a max grade of 2% I still can't see why you'd need 60m deep relative to surface level at Bridge Street. 35-40m seems more reasonable. And less for SD train, but see above. Its going somewhere else.
zoomwhoosh no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 21st, 2015, 06:02 PM   #57
snowboard99
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sydney / New York
Posts: 985
Likes (Received): 351

Quote:
Originally Posted by zoomwhoosh View Post
I'm not sure if there was ever a proposal for a DD train line that passed under the harbour near Loftus Street.

As far as the SRT goes my original impression was that it would pass under the Rocks area. That's simply based on earlier maps.

Now that they are talking about including Barangaroo as a station, it would make sense for the SRT to pass under Barangaroo Point, and a bit east of Goat Island, where the harbour is relatively shallow.

On the NWRL tunnel video they were talking about grades of 3-4% for the single deck trains. That would allow you some flexibility in terms of ascending relatively quickly under land. That's 15-20m elevation in half a Km.

Even with DD trains and a max grade of 2% I still can't see why you'd need 60m deep relative to surface level at Bridge Street. 35-40m seems more reasonable. And less for SD train, but see above. Its going somewhere else.
This shows the protected corridor that has been in place since the previous Chatswood to Redfern link was proposed back around 2005 - it would be protected assuming a DD line.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redfern...d_railway_line

(down the right hand side is the map)
snowboard99 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 21st, 2015, 07:42 PM   #58
zoomwhoosh
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,501
Likes (Received): 687

Quote:
Originally Posted by snowboard99 View Post
This shows the protected corridor that has been in place since the previous Chatswood to Redfern link was proposed back around 2005 - it would be protected assuming a DD line.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redfern...d_railway_line

(down the right hand side is the map)
Thanks for that. I've seen that map before but it escaped my memory.

Yes there are two possible stations. One at Macquarie Place going across at an angle and the other sort of underneath the Museum of Modern Art.

And I see what they are trying to do now and that's hug the western side of the Bridge. But I can't see the need to go 60m below ground still.
zoomwhoosh no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 21st, 2015, 09:20 PM   #59
BuildBigger
Registered User
 
BuildBigger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Sydney/Melbourne
Posts: 1,970
Likes (Received): 266

Quote:
Originally Posted by zoomwhoosh View Post
Just curious what you mean by the "horribly indirect" tail end?
Just the current arrangement connecting to Liverpool. I would rather the new SRT connect straight to Liverpool with the other sections of the line converted to light rail.
BuildBigger no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 21st, 2015, 11:33 PM   #60
Inego
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,849
Likes (Received): 152

Quote:
Originally Posted by zoomwhoosh View Post
There's not a whole lot of room just before Tempe station to squeeze a portal in. It'd probably make more sense to build a freight flyover.
North of Sydenham is a possibility though, especially with the old Sydney Steel precinct largely derelict.
Inego no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 08:35 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu