[Myrtonos]

Here is a video with an explanation of why metro evolved and why Australian cities don't have them.

I will elaborate. When they started to build underground in those old cities, surface trains were still steam hauled and except for a single line in London, the underground lines were all electric right from the start.
So these electric underground lines had to be separate from mainlines with trips on these trains limited to something like 10km. There would be stops every kilometre or so and most peak period passengers would stand. And it seems they ran trains frequently right from the beginning.
The video mentions the problem that metro was designed to solve and how late developers were able to avoid it.
The centre of Sydney did develop before there was a railway through it and before there was a railway to Circular Quay, and there was a need for a tunnel to get trains through the centre and to Circular Quay. The Eastern suburbs also developed before the only railway so far in those suburbs.
But the Sydney suburban was electrified before any of these and therefore could be extended underground. There was no need for a separate, incompatible network of underground lines.
The video even shows a bit of the A.B.C fact check but towards the end is inaccurate about what Melbourne and Sydney are doing as Sydney is indeed implementing a separate metro. But the Northwest rail link was indeed planned as a proper rail link, part of the existing network.
But in no other Australian city is this even being considered. The Sydney one is even being built out into suburbia, with short haul trains meant for short haul stop start runs but with suburban station spacings and covering suburban distances.

 

[L2]

Because they already have metros

 

[Myrtonos]

These are different from the smaller trains running typically underground in those older cities.
For example, we have Xtrapolis trains running here, and Alstom also makes the Metropolis for metro-style rail. The latter is a short-haul train meant for short-haul stop-start runs.
Our suburban trains also share tracks with country trains in places. Metro style rail tends not to share tracks like this. Many metro trains run on standard gauge track but are smaller than both broad and standard gauge non-metro trains but maybe typical of narrow gauge non-metro rail.

 

[Mild Ignoramus]

Don't have the population density to justify it

/thread

 

[L2]

These are different from the smaller trains running typically underground in those older cities.

But they're all called "metro"

Melbourne, Adelaide, Hobart, Launceston, Burnie & Devonport all have metros.

 

[zoomwhoosh]

God this has to be stupidest thread on SSC for a long time..

 

[snowboard99]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Capacity_Metro_Trains

 

[466nick]

:lock::lock:

 

[DAJAN]

But in no other Australian city is this even being considered. The Sydney one is even being built out into suburbia, with short haul trains meant for short haul stop start runs but with suburban station spacings and covering suburban distances.

WRONG.

Brisbane has a longer term plan for a new Metro running from the SW to the NE. (Which is still a proposal, albeit with no time frame attached)

And more recently, had a plan for a rubber tyred Metro running on the busway alignment from the inner north to Wollongabba, which has since had its plan changed to a bi-articulated Metro from the inner north to Eight Miles Plains. (However, the Sydney Metro probably has at least double if not triple the capacity of either of those versions)

 

[AtD]

But they're all called "metro"

Melbourne, Adelaide, Hobart, Launceston, Burnie & Devonport all have metros.

There's Metros all over the country!

 

[L2]

There's Metros all over the country!

 

[Myrtonos]

Brisbane has a longer term plan for a new Metro running from the SW to the NE. (Which is still a proposal, albeit with no time frame attached)

Do they really plan a separate, incompadible metro line? If so, would it even be standard gauge?

And more recently, had a plan for a rubber tyred Metro running on the busway alignment from the inner north to Wollongabba, which has since had its plan changed to a bi-articulated Metro from the inner north to Eight Miles Plains. (However, the Sydney Metro probably has at least double if not triple the capacity of either of those versions)

I've never heard of this plan before. But why not just a new line part of the existing electrified network?

 

[Gazza2]

Do they really plan a separate, incompadible metro line? If so, would it even be standard gauge?


I've never heard of this plan before. But why not just a new line part of the existing electrified network?

The busway alignment has several tight turns and steep inclines, and the underground / below grade stations in the system would not accomodate QR rolling stock.

The busway is suitable for conversion to light rail or a VAL type system, though in the end they have gone with bi articulated buses. In effect the project is just a vehicle upgrade and the rebuild of a certain stretch where buses confict with private vehicles.

 

[Gazza2]

What is the thrust of this topic anyway? It comes across as wanting to justify not building a metro.....

The thrust of your argument seems to be "we've never had a metro so therefore we can never have one"
, and
"everything we do must be compatible with whatever was decided at the turn of the century when suburban rail was first built"

The NW rail link is being built rn and you cant do shit about it.

 

[AtD]

^^ Myrtonos is a sock-puppet for EcoTransit, a "lobbyist" who has spent the last decade trying to convince everyone that Metro is a bad idea and all Sydney needs is the existing double-deck network. He says he's a public transport advocate but in reality he just complains about the NSW Liberals and joins NIMBY groups.

Too much time on his hands.

 

[snowboard99]

I really wish Sydney had a competent and sensible transit advocacy group. I’d join one, but unfortunately don’t have the time to start one.

 

[strata]

Even just the existence of a transit advocacy group would be an improvement, there are currently none in Sydney.

 

[Myrtonos]

The busway alignment has several tight turns and steep inclines, and the underground / below grade stations in the system would not accomodate QR rolling stock.

How about trolleybuses or light metro (segregated light rail)?

The busway is suitable for conversion to light rail or a VAL type system, though in the end they have gone with bi articulated buses. In effect the project is just a vehicle upgrade and the rebuild of a certain stretch where buses confict with private vehicles.

Would it be suitable for high platform light rail?

What is the thrust of this topic anyway? It comes across as wanting to justify not building a metro.....

Right now, because one line is being built, it's about not wanting to extend that line or build more.

The thrust of your argument seems to be "we've never had a metro so therefore we can never have one"
, and
"everything we do must be compatible with whatever was decided at the turn of the century when suburban rail was first built"

The argument is that cities in Australia and New Zealand were able to avoid the problem that metro-style rail was originally designed to solve, this advantage should not be squandered.
When the suburban rail was built, standards like loading gauge were decided. The argument here is that everything we do must be the same loading gauge or larger.
There are other standards that were decided that are like that, they are ruling gradient and minimum curve radius. Again, every new line must have the same ruling gradient or less, and the same minimum curve radius or wider. Conform to or exceed these standards.

And to do anything that is incompatible with what was has worked well for more than a century, there needs to be a special reason for doing so, such as a larger loading gauge or a flatter ruling gradient.

 

[Airvan00]

Too much time on his hands.

Not the only thing.

 

[Melb_aviator]

Sydney has a transport network that required a significant overhaul, and with the privatisation of the power network it had money to invest in a metro system that would provide significant advantages in achieving many of their goals.

It should come as no surprise that Sydney has the highest density of the Australian capitals, which lends itself to this network. Unlike Melbourne though, it does not have an extensive tram system. The NSW govt has started to extebd the light rail network which will be another step in improving network coverage.

At the end of the day, this is a big undertaking, requiring significant capital to plug a big infreastructire gap which has developed in Sydney over the past decade or so. Other states are choosing to invest in projects that will work for their networks (Melbourne: Metro Rail Tunnel, Level Crossing Removals. Brisbane: Cross River Rail). The Metro Rail Tunnel for example helps to significantly increase capacity and facilitate a metro-like service, although it won’t be geared that way completely.

We will wait and see what moves governments make in the future.