SkyscraperCity banner

1 - 20 of 7178 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
985 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
This thread is for discussion on the stage 2 addition to the Sydney Rapid Transit Network. Australia'a first fully automated driverless high capacity rail system.

Stage 2 will commence at Chatswood on Sydney's Northshore where the currently under construction stage 1 North West Rail SRT ends and will continue across the harbour and under the CBD to end at Sydenham in Sydney's inner South.

Stage 2 encompasses the vitally important cross harbour / CBD link which will deliver Sydney up to 4 new CBD rail stations (Barangaroo possible) together with an additional station at either Sydney University or Waterloo.

At Sydenham stage 2 of the SRT will then join the Bankstown line.

Stage 3 will then convert the Bankstown line to metro services freeing up capacity across the whole network to provide for a 60% increase in capacity network wide inclusive of stages 1-3 of the SRT.

The current Sydney Rail network carries approx 1 million passengers on a typical week day.

Project is currently in planning phase with expected commencement of construction in 2017.

Cost estimate is approx $8-$10 Billion dollars. This is on top of the $8Billion cost of stage 1 the North West Rail SRT. Total cost of stages 1-3 is expected to be $20 billion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,329 Posts
Some useful topics i will be looking out for:
Portal at chatswood and any extension of surface quadding
Locations of stations at st leonards, crows nest and vic cross
Potential Artarmon west station
Location of sub harbour tunnel
Potential for barangaroo station
Design of martin place, townhall pitt st and central underground stations
Route of line to sydenham and potential syd u or waterloo stations
Redesign of sydenham if required and location of tunnel portal
Additions to fleet and proposed operation of services not going on to nwrl
Any tunnel stubs eg northern beaches
Funding of this
Any area plans etc to support station development


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
985 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
I always thought the line would be above ground from Chatswood to St Leonards as they have left room to quad the line. From St Leonards it would then dive underground to a new stations at Crows Nest and Victoria Cross (Nth Sydney). I think this is still the case.

I hope then it goes across the harbour on the west side to a new station at Barangaroo then swings east to Martin Place (Interchange with Eastern Suburbs Railway) then to Town Hall under Pitt street (connection with existing Town Hall) then through to Central.

I believe if they choose Sydney Uni as the stop after central they will put the station with close linkage to the Central Terminal stubs rather than suburban and then this would alleviate concerns when the Northern Line from Hornsby via Epping is sectorised to terminate at Central rather than continue to city underground. This will then open up the Western Line to 3 minute frequencies.

If they choose Waterloo as the stop after Central maybe they can use the disused underground platforms at Central on the Eastern side of the station.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,121 Posts
Some useful topics i will be looking out for:
Portal at chatswood and any extension of surface quadding
Locations of stations at st leonards, crows nest and vic cross
Potential Artarmon west station
Location of sub harbour tunnel
Potential for barangaroo station
Design of martin place, townhall pitt st and central underground stations
Route of line to sydenham and potential syd u or waterloo stations
Redesign of sydenham if required and location of tunnel portal
Additions to fleet and proposed operation of services not going on to nwrl
Any tunnel stubs eg northern beaches
Funding of this
Any area plans etc to support station development


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I reckon they will run the whole thing end to end

The depot (RTRF if you must) for the NWRL that is being built at Tallawong Rd is intended to service the whole Rapid Transit system, part of the requirements are to allow for "augmentation" ie more trains + extensions
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
944 Posts
If they choose Waterloo as the stop after Central maybe they can use the disused underground platforms at Central on the Eastern side of the station.
I can tell you categorically that these platforms will never be used for trains. TIDC/TCA/TfNSW have done a few internal reports on them (which I've read) and the related risks are too high. The main issues:
- risks related to either shutting down the ESR or operating it while constructing tunnels
- shallowness of tunnels and the fact the crown of the tunnels will come close to, or actually breach the surface at various points unless a steep descent is factored in (not possible due to ESR tunnels below)
- construction issues and the large amount of underpinning that will need to be done at various places north and south of the tunnel stubs to prevent caving-in

regardless of where the new station after central goes, there are way too many easier places to construct new platforms than try to re-use these ones.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
918 Posts
I can tell you categorically that these platforms will never be used for trains. TIDC/TCA/TfNSW have done a few internal reports on them (which I've read) and the related risks are too high. The main issues:
- risks related to either shutting down the ESR or operating it while constructing tunnels
- shallowness of tunnels and the fact the crown of the tunnels will come close to, or actually breach the surface at various points unless a steep descent is factored in (not possible due to ESR tunnels below)
- construction issues and the large amount of underpinning that will need to be done at various places north and south of the tunnel stubs to prevent caving-in

regardless of where the new station after central goes, there are way too many easier places to construct new platforms than try to re-use these ones.
My moneys on new underground platforms between the suburban and interurban platforms. I think this will also be a catalyst for a new east-west concourse running under the suburban and interurban platforms.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,362 Posts
My moneys on new underground platforms between the suburban and interurban platforms. I think this will also be a catalyst for a new east-west concourse running under the suburban and interurban platforms.
Yeah I'd put money on them doing an open cut on Central. Although it could just as easily be platforms 5-7.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,362 Posts
I can tell you categorically that these platforms will never be used for trains. TIDC/TCA/TfNSW have done a few internal reports on them (which I've read) and the related risks are too high. The main issues:
- risks related to either shutting down the ESR or operating it while constructing tunnels
- shallowness of tunnels and the fact the crown of the tunnels will come close to, or actually breach the surface at various points unless a steep descent is factored in (not possible due to ESR tunnels below)
- construction issues and the large amount of underpinning that will need to be done at various places north and south of the tunnel stubs to prevent caving-in

regardless of where the new station after central goes, there are way too many easier places to construct new platforms than try to re-use these ones.
This puzzles me. Presumably this was thought about when they designed platforms 24-27. So, what happened? Were they just incompetent in the basic design? Or did assumptions shift when they tacked on the eastern suburbs line? Or was it standards that changed? I also have a problem trusting TIDC. So if you can shed more light on this I'd be interested.

The other thing that I can observe is that south of these platforms there isn't much of any consequence that would prevent working top down. And north of these platforms the eastern suburbs line quickly curves to the west. So, lots of question marks. Some drawings would settle it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,329 Posts
Well you could build a mega loop using post 2000 trackage via st marys marsden park then the nwrl, ectl, srt Revesby quad, extend to glenfield, leppington. Badgerys and back to st marys
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,750 Posts
Haven't been on here much, work has been smashing me so I may have missed this being discussed earlier in another thread but I believe I read in an article that the proposed second under harbour road crossing will run from Rozelle up to the Warringah Freeway. Would that not cross over the proposed under harbour rail tunnel that's part of Stage 2 of the SRT? How does that work? Or an I being a little dim?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,750 Posts
It would probably join it at the Gore Hill Freeway end, nowhere near the bridges approaches. In any case, the road tunnel could just go under the rail tunnel.
I think I saw an image showing it joining around the Falcon St Interchange, however considering the rail line would have to be buried under the harbour floor I would be surprised if the road tunnel was under that again? I guess it all depends on the locations of the tunnels.
 

·
Sure, Jan...
Joined
·
3,383 Posts
I think I saw an image showing it joining around the Falcon St Interchange, however considering the rail line would have to be buried under the harbour floor I would be surprised if the road tunnel was under that again? I guess it all depends on the locations of the tunnels.
You may be right. The SIS mentions the portal being WITHIN the existing corridor, and just north of Ernest St is the only significant vacant land along the corridor that could be used as tunnel portals. It also lines up well with the Northern Beaches extension of the tunnel that goes under Middle Harbour.

It could possibly go OVER the rail tunnel just north of Victoria Cross station.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,362 Posts
It would probably join it at the Gore Hill Freeway end, nowhere near the bridges approaches. In any case, the road tunnel could just go under the rail tunnel.
I had a quick look at that the other day. The problem is where you'd actually find space to join the new freeway to the existing one.

I'm guessing maybe the M2/A1 junction. If that's the case the tunnels will never come near.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,750 Posts
I can tell you categorically that these platforms will never be used for trains. TIDC/TCA/TfNSW have done a few internal reports on them (which I've read) and the related risks are too high. The main issues:
- risks related to either shutting down the ESR or operating it while constructing tunnels
- shallowness of tunnels and the fact the crown of the tunnels will come close to, or actually breach the surface at various points unless a steep descent is factored in (not possible due to ESR tunnels below)
- construction issues and the large amount of underpinning that will need to be done at various places north and south of the tunnel stubs to prevent caving-in

regardless of where the new station after central goes, there are way too many easier places to construct new platforms than try to re-use these ones.
missed this post, that is very strange, I have the same sort of queries Zoom mentioned, any possibility one or more of these "internal" reports are online?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
944 Posts
missed this post, that is very strange, I have the same sort of queries Zoom mentioned, any possibility one or more of these "internal" reports are online?
nope...that's why they're internal. get a job with TPD and they're all there ;)

This puzzles me. Presumably this was thought about when they designed platforms 24-27. So, what happened? Were they just incompetent in the basic design? Or did assumptions shift when they tacked on the eastern suburbs line? Or was it standards that changed? I also have a problem trusting TIDC. So if you can shed more light on this I'd be interested.

The other thing that I can observe is that south of these platforms there isn't much of any consequence that would prevent working top down. And north of these platforms the eastern suburbs line quickly curves to the west. So, lots of question marks. Some drawings would settle it.
Excuse me this is going to be a rant but you really have not considered any factors at all apart from some weird mode-fetish desire to make use of platforms 26/27. Drawings will not settle it, unless you have managed to get your hands on TfNSW's GIS database, including elevations.

Why the platforms were built in the first place - my understanding is that the platforms weren't built for anything in particular - just that they might be of use at some point in the future, in much the same way that the Redfern spare platforms were built just as platforms. Neither of these sets of platforms have anything in the way of stub tunnels in the way the north Sydney tunnels fly-under or St James tunnels do - those stub tunnels had a definite direction and purpose behind them. From what I've read around the traps, it was built at the time for a southern suburbs railway, which did eventuate but that was after the ESR was integrated into the Illawarra line, freeing up space on the City Circle to integrate the new southern line (the airport line) into the rest of the network.

I am curious that you consider there "isn't much of any consequence" to building tunnels north or south of these platforms. Do you have a degree in civil engineering? Have you studied geotechnics at all? Structural mechanics? Risk?

I'm not saying it's not possible to build the tunnels. It is. But you'd end up with extremely expensive tunnels that wouldn't necessarily meet your needs and you'd have to construct and cast tunnels in the direct vicinity of high-frequency underground (and above ground) railway lines. What you think "isn't much of any consequence" comes out in massive political and financial terms, which I mentioned previously but I'll re-iterate: you'll need to shut down the ESR to Central for the duration of construction. This will at least involve stopping services at Redfern and Town Hall, if not Martin Place. The new tunnels would be subsurface, for at least some length as the tunnels move past the ESR tunnels, which as I'll point out below - they won't. You'll probably also need to shut down city circle services for the duration of the underpinning works on the Elizabeth Street viaduct, which is made of lots of soil and lots of sandstone.

You also have the most basic premise of where the tunnels would actually go, north of Central, which is what this project is really about - a second harbour crossing. You seem to think that the ESR tunnels pull away to the west quite quickly (which is true), but so would these tunnels. If you were to build these tunnels under Elizabeth Street, you'd still have some of the above issues I'd raised, but you'd probably have it a bit easier sinking the line underneath Elizabeth Street's rising terrain. Unfortunately Elizabeth Street already has a train line running along it. You're not going to spend a few billion dollars duplicating a train line that isn't at capacity. You want your new, very expensive tunnels to also swing west, right above the ESR and right under those sandstone and soil fill viaducts above them and then line them up with the MetroWest or the MetroPitt corridor, meaning either way you're sitting on top of the ESR for a few hundred metres. The works would most likely close off the city circle for whenever construction occurs for underpinning and tunnelling (meaning if only on weekends - protracted construction time frame = cost increases. meaning if all the time - however many hundreds of thousands of trips that are made in the AM peak alone on a weekday need to be diverted to other stations not in the CBD or other modes). Due to the shallowness of these tunnel you'll probably also see Belmore Park ripped up - it's just practical.

South of Central you'd have to clear the tunnel east quite sharply, underpin any buildings directly above the rail line (remember it is essentially subsurface and not 20m below ground level) and then after that figure out where your train tunnels are gonna go because go a few more hundred metres and you've got the airport line also at a pretty shallow depth, trying also to get further away from the surface to reduce vibrations and avoid building foundations.

After you've cleared under (you won't make it over) the airport line, Congratulations! You've fulfilled your dream of using platforms 26 and 27. Because of the complex engineering works to build around existing infrastructure, your project timeline is essentially endless and your budget is repeatedly blown out until the project is cancelled, half completed.

Alternatively, you could bore tunnels at a deeper level giving you much more variability in design, predictability in conditions and much less risk. Your project is completed on time, within budget and without the need to close down any existing rail services into the city.

Do you see why platforms 26 and 27 will never be used?








As for problems trusting TIDC - I think that's perfectly valid. There was some questionable design decisions made by all of the RailCorp affiliated infrastructure construction agencies. But it's not relevant here.
 
1 - 20 of 7178 Posts
Top