WSI for Western Sydney Airport

[SYD]

The idea is to build Metro West first from Sydney CBD Hunter Street to Westmead.

Bradfield must be turning in his grave at the prospect of a line grinding to a halt in the middle of the CBD. The reality is, no one has decided who to pork barrel first - extend it to the south east (ie La Parouse), or Bondi or God forbid, implement the original Eastern suburbs line to the airport and beyond. Not one, but two lines to/from SYD!

Then, later, if there is more funding, extend Metro West from Westmead to WSI. It is not a stuff-up as the NSW government just doesn't have that much money to build everything at once.

and apparently not even enough to complete the study on how and when to extend - that’s the stuff up I was referring to. But an “all stops” Metro from the CBD to WSI would be torture. You need an express service to do some rapid heavy lifting (the gist of the article posted by @justinbrett.

If you want to look at stuff up, you can look at MEL.

Yes, unbelievable. Yet, so many here are happy with Skybus.

Probably because the proposed rail route was all over the shop and the current bus appears to work. But just think how many buses and cars would be off the roads with a reasonably regular multi carriage train link….?

Nah, there is no way NSW will build heavy rail anymore. The main line is severely constrained and requires much higher operational expenditures. Metro is driverless, can run at very high capacity, and is far better suited to the future.

The Metro is heavy rail without unionised drivers and conductors…

In fact, I would argue that more existing Sydney Trains lines will be converted to Metro in the long run to decouple the capacity constraints and lower operational expenditure. That's why they are doing the Bankstown line Metro conversion.

Yep. Hopefully the T4 soon also but all those pesky bendy platforms (Martin Place, what were they thinking…?).

Rather than debate you (considering current metro has cost far more than heavy rail per km); I'll just post this article that outlines the points better than I could.

Railroads parading as metros: the long and short of Sydney rail maze

The Berejiklian government has invested billions in metros, but big gaps between stations may defy their purpose as zippy people movers.

www.smh.com.au

That journo was overthinking it a bit but in the context of getting to the outer fringes, it’s essential to have something that isn’t “all stations”. Anyone who‘s done the Paris RER v metro to long distances knows the differences. Putting aside how grotty the RER is - because it services those who can’t afford to live inside the Perifique.

Although I guess arguing about which type of rail is used at Sydney's secondary airport is probably going to annoy a lot of Victorians At least they put something in.

It would be more humorous if AVV gets a rail connection before MEL. It’s sooo close to existing infrastructure!

Bite the bullet and chuck an elevated train over the Tulla freeway…

 

[justinbrett]

Your article is Paywalled. So I cannot read it.

Also, the metro is mostly underground, and it is being built now than 100 years ago, of course cost per km is higher than heavy rail. I am very sure that if they try to build heavy rail now underground, it would cost far more than Metro.

Another thing to note that the Sydney Trains heavy rail rolling stock is much more expensive than Metro trains.

Metro is standard gauge with overhead wires - it's not a true metro/subway "third rail" system. Although I'm having flashbacks to our "Is Elizabeth Line a Tube Line" debate so let's not go there.

The line is mostly above ground, and a heavy rail line from Leppington would probably not go underground at all, except perhaps for the airport itself. There's really no difference in cost to the line itself (per Km) as it's essentially the same track, it's the stations where Metro has the extra costs to enable the automation. I'm also assuming Metro needs CCTV or other sensors on the entire track when above ground.

The point of the article was that choosing rolling stock for inner city lines with frequent stops should be different to suburban lines with vast distances between stations. A Metro "Metropolis" train seats 378, heavy rail Waratah seats 880. Both have significant standing room capacity on top of this, but that's not ideal for a long journey.

 

[kamchatsky]

Bradfield must be turning in his grave at the prospect of a line grinding to a halt in the middle of the CBD. The reality is, no one has decided who to pork barrel first - extend it to the south east (ie La Parouse), or Bondi or God forbid, implement the original Eastern suburbs line to the airport and beyond. Not one, but two lines to/from SYD!

and apparently not even enough to complete the study on how and when to extend - that’s the stuff up I was referring to. But an “all stops” Metro from the CBD to WSI would be torture. You need an express service to do some rapid heavy lifting (the gist of the article posted by @justinbrett.

Yes, unbelievable. Yet, so many here are happy with Skybus.

Probably because the proposed rail route was all over the shop and the current bus appears to work. But just think how many buses and cars would be off the roads with a reasonably regular multi carriage train link….?

The Metro is heavy rail without unionised drivers and conductors…

Yep. Hopefully the T4 soon also but all those pesky bendy platforms (Martin Place, what were they thinking…?).

That journo was overthinking it a bit but in the context of getting to the outer fringes, it’s essential to have something that isn’t “all stations”. Anyway who‘s done the Paris RER v metro to long distances knows the differences. Putting aside how grotty the RER is - because it services those who can’t afford to live inside the Perifique.

It would be more humorous if AVV gets a rail connection before MEL. It’s sooo close to existing infrastructure!

Bite the bullet and chuck an elevated train over the Tulla freeway…

Well that is politicians for you. Their term is four years, and not 40.

In terms of "studies" for Metro West extensions, I am happy that they focus on building the Metro West first, which is another 8-10 years to go. Any consultants can produce a "study" report and costings in a short time. They can do this 5-10 years later. No point producing "study" now as the cost would significantly increase over the years.

Is it better to have Express WSI service to key stations and the CBD? Of course! But it would simply not be economical, and the train line would cost a lot more than the airport itself. I mean if it is that cheap to build rail, you may as well start building Melbourne-Sydney-Brisbane High Speed Rail Link.

That's also why they are building this spur line from St Marys. This actually allows them to start building houses along the metro lines, as well as servicing the new airport.

Metro is standard gauge with overhead wires - it's not a true metro/subway "third rail" system. Although I'm having flashbacks to our "Is Elizabeth Line a Tube Line" debate so let's not go there.

The line is mostly above ground, and a heavy rail line from Leppington would probably not go underground at all, except perhaps for the airport itself. There's really no difference in cost to the line itself (per Km) as it's essentially the same track, it's the stations where Metro has the extra costs to enable the automation. I'm also assuming Metro needs CCTV or other sensors on the entire track when above ground.

The point of the article was that choosing rolling stock for inner city lines with frequent stops should be different to suburban lines with vast distances between stations. A Metro "Metropolis" train seats 378, heavy rail Waratah seats 880. Both have significant standing room capacity on top of this, but that's not ideal for a long journey.

Unfortunately, the journalist's piece is too simplistic and does not take into account the financials and constraints of existing infrastructures, as well as that tax payers are paying for all these works.

For CCTV and Sensors, heavy rails still have them, but just different types. In fact, Sydney Trains' Digital Systems Program is a huge program to upgrade all the existing Sydney Trains' signalling systems over many years:

Digital Systems Program | Transport for NSW

The Digital Systems Program will replace signalling and train control technology with modern, internationally proven, intelligent systems.

www.transport.nsw.gov.au

What will most likely happen is that WSI Metro will extend to Leppington and then run parallel with existing Sydney Trains tracks and terminate at Glenfield. This allows WSI passengers to transfer at Glenfield to SYD Airport/East Hills Line to SYD and vice versa. Existing Leppington to Glenfield tracks cannot be converted as Leppington has a huge stabling facility for heavy rail rolling stock and those heavy rail rolling stocks have to go somewhere.

 

[justinbrett]

Unfortunately, the journalist's piece is too simplistic and does not take into account the financials and constraints of existing infrastructures, as well as that tax payers are paying for all these works.

For CCTV and Sensors, heavy rails still have them, but just different types. In fact, Sydney Trains' Digital Systems Program is a huge program to upgrade all the existing Sydney Trains' signalling systems over many years:

I think you're glossing over the fact that both modes are heavy rail, just that one is automated and the other is not. You see plenty of trains in Tokyo that are not automated but have the same kind of infrastructure (eg platform doors)

I don't buy your arguments that "classic" heavy rail costs are significantly more especially when you can guarantee there'll be a hefty station access fee at WSI to fund it all. Sure build it to the new standards but don't let that come at the cost of integration.

 

[kamchatsky]

I think you're glossing over the fact that both modes are heavy rail, just that one is automated and the other is not. You see plenty of trains in Tokyo that are not automated but have the same kind of infrastructure (eg platform doors)

I don't buy your arguments that "classic" heavy rail costs are significantly more especially when you can guarantee there'll be a hefty station access fee at WSI to fund it all. Sure build it to the new standards but don't let that come at the cost of integration.

But integration is the absolute last thing Sydney Trains needs. The current Sydney Trains network is already at capacity. That's why they are building Metro West in parallel to the existing Western line. That's also why they are converting the Bankstown line to the Metro later this year, which will free up capacity on City Circle to handle more trains in the remaining Sydney Trains network. Throwing more trains to existing Sydney Trains network is not the answer. Yes, it may be convenient for tourists, but at the expense of ordinary Sydneysiders who regularly catch the trains.

It is a fact that the current Sydney Trains network is so integrated, that one small issue means a massive impact on the overall ST network:

https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/news/single-sick-staff-member-sends-sydney-trains-network-into-chaos/news-story/0c28a932125aa79e2795f028155d5e7a

That's why building separate <metros/heavy rail/whatever you call it> is far better so that overall disruption is minimal if something goes wrong. That's also why new infrastructures should be as automated as possible.

 

[SYD]

Looks like PER is feeling the heat with WSI coming on line soon!