Metro Railways and Level Crossings are not necessarily “natural enemies” – they just don’t fit together very well. It’s a bit like wanting to have a pedestrian crossing on a freeway. Two things happen, or maybe three:

1. It is dangerous for pedestrians to cross the road.
2. The performance (speed) of the freeway is seriously compromised.
3. When trying to avoid performance loss of the freeway, it gets all but impossible for pedestrians to cross.

That’s actually a pretty good analogy. A main feature of metro railways is high frequency of train services. If you have trains coming every two minutes or so, and the same in the other direction, there will be not enough time to block the railway line for crossing car traffic without disrupting the rail services. In Perth, for example, a notorious four-track level crossing close to the city centre will be closed for special events as trains will have to run so often that the crossing would be almost permanently closed for cars anyway.

Metros that are built as metros don’t have level crossings in the first place. Think of underground railways in tunnels – no level crossings, obviously. But what about existing “brownfield” railways to be upgraded to metro-style service? The best way is to get rid of any existing level crossings. This is just happening in large numbers in Melbourne, where the rail network is most notorious for its many level crossings. The more trains are running, the shorter the opening times for car traffic become, so it’s no fun for either party.

Understood that the removal of a level crossing, replacing it which a bridge or underpass, is a costly exercise. But it is probably still less expensive than building an entirely new metro railway without level crossings.

A word on keeping level crossings. Because there are hardly any examples (actually none I can think of) of metro railways with level crossings, suppliers of metro-suitable technology (e.g. CBTC signalling) don’t have experience with integrating level crossings, and they don’t like it and probably don’t do it very well when forced. The best solution here is to simplify the “integration” of level crossings, avoiding complicated interfaces in an attempt to “improve” level crossing operation by means of a signalling technology which was neither conceived nor developed for dealing with level crossings in the first place.

The post Metro Features #3 – Level Crossings appeared first on Docfrank.

Turn up and go

The transition of a historically evolved suburban railway system to a metro-style operation is a major step change which may require a close look (and potential slaughter) of some “holy cows”. One of those cows is a clockface timetable, and the question is, do you really need one for a metro.

I don’t know about you, but I have a lot of things in my head. A lot. The last thing I need on top of that is memorising that my morning train leaves the station at either 6:05, or 6:12, or 6:18, or 6:27, or… And then I’m lost if I slept in and come to my station after 7, not knowing my train times.

But wait, there are printed timetable leaflets, courtesy of a mindful rail operator. Sure, that helps. I need one, for my train line into town, and one for the other train line I change to. And for the other line which some days take me to my project site. And for the feeder bus line bringing me to the station. And for … wait, my bag runneth over!

If I “tell you what I want, what I really really want” is the assurance that I NEVER have to wait longer than five (or four, or three) minutes on the next train, regardless when I get to the station during peak hour. And never more than ten minutes to wait off-peak, including on weekends. That’s all the timetable I need, thank you very much.

This is called “turn up and go”, my friends. It is modern, it is hip, it is cool, it is the future, and it drives old-school timetable planners crazy. But in fact, it is a lot easier on timetable planning as well, as soon as you can let go of the old notion that you have to return to an on-the-minute timetable the moment you get out of peak hour. You don’t, trust me. If people want to read, don’t give them timetables but inspirational quotes for a change, together with a brief and simple explanation how that new “turn up and go” thing works. They will like that much better.

Consistent stopping patterns

The other things worth mentioning regarding metro-style timetables, and another holy cow waiting for the abattoir, is the love for “express trains”. In most cases I have seen, the use of express trains (trains that do not stop at every station) is a nice-sounding spin of the fact that the railway could not afford to buy enough trains.

Operationally, express trains are disruptors to traffic flow. You may have heard me using the conveyor belt analogy before as comparison for an ideal metro operation. All items on the belt (or trains on the metro line) are travelling at roughly the same speed. Imagine an “express item” on a conveyor belt. See? Nonsense.

Buying enough trains to allow for a “timetable” (or turn up and go service) where every train stops at every station is great. Some stations previously missing out from “express services” suddenly have twice the service frequency, imagine that. If I was transport minister, I would milk the living daylights out of that. One station per quarter, over the entire election period, with press, photos amongst very happy councillors, ribbon cutting the whole monty. Positive publicity on a repeatable basis, for the mere costs of 2-3 more trains? No-brainer, right?

Metros are there for connecting people. Express trains with rush past half the stations don’t do that. And in a high capacity operation, they will get stuck behind all-stoppers, guaranteed, and then how much “express” is left?

You want to run express trains, do the same as you would on roads: build an extra lane and you are in business.

The post Metro Features #2 – Timetable appeared first on Docfrank.

The main purpose of a Metro is the efficient transport of passengers on trains. Only logical then to look at requirements for trains first, what they need to feature to support a high performance metro operation.

Quantity over quality?

The obvious requirement for a high capacity train is to maximise the train’s capability for carrying more passengers. Some railways in Australia used to form six-car trains by coupling two three-car sets, or eight-car trains by coupling two four-car sets. The downside of that were the two vacant train cabs in the middle where the two train sets are coupled. Not only could no passengers be fitted in the space needed for the middle cabs, and the coupling, it also does not allow passengers and service personnel to walk the entire length of the trains.

In the future, the increasing patronage numbers will mean that a railway operating six-car trains will want a single six-car formation, without the lost space for middle cabs and coupling between shorter train sets. This alone will lead to a higher number of passengers which can fit in the train, and it also increases safety as service personnel can roam freely along the entire length of the train.

Another way of increasing the passenger capacity of a train is reducing the number of seats. A standing passenger simply has a smaller footprint than a seated one, so the more standing space the train has the more passengers can fit in. Obviously there is a balance to that, because passenger comfort requires passengers to be seated for longer journeys. The ratio of seated vs standing passengers on a train is specific to the railway, its journey time and the railway’s standards for passenger comfort. For example, a 500 metre people mover connecting two airport terminals requires only very little seating provision due to its very short journey time (but lots of space for luggage).

Faster speed transitions

Strong acceleration and braking is another key element of increasing performance of the metro. When the transitions between stopping at stations and travelling at line speed get minimised, the overall journey time decreases and passenger travel is more efficient. When a fast-accelerating train can leave a station quicker, the next train can follow sooner, which reduces the ‘headway’ (time-distance between following trains, measured in seconds) and increases the line capacity measured in the number of trains per hour. (Note that capacity and headway are inverse factors).

The balance required here is that acceleration and braking need to be smooth enough so that passengers are not falling about on the train. An important criterion in this is the “jerk”, which defines the change in acceleration or deceleration (braking is basically a negative acceleration).

Doors are critical

An often underestimated criterion for new trains is the number and width of doors per carriage. With more and wider doors the passenger exchange at stations (passenger leaving the train, plus passengers on the platform boarding the train) can be more efficient. This reduces the need for the train to dwell at the station platform, which again reduces the headway and hence improves line capacity. It baffles me that some new train orders in Australia still come with only two rather narrow doors per carriage (on each side, obviously), and those trains will certainly struggle with any requirements for shorter passenger exchange times in the future.

Not just the number and width of train doors are important, also the walkways for passenger to get to those doors. Larger vestibule areas around doors and rather wide aisles with longitudinal seat layout helps the passenger movement on the train. See my previous caveat around the ratio of seating and standing space on trains. The current B-series trains in Perth provide a good mix of longitudinal seating near doors (also providing priority areas for wheelchairs and prams) and 2×2 seating in the middle of carriages.

Trains need to run

Lastly (at least for this post), a train must be able to run without interruption to be at its maximum efficiency. Downtimes for planned maintenance intervals are prudent, but when in service the trains should provide exceptional service availability.

The post Metro Features #1 – High Capacity Trains appeared first on Docfrank.

Sydney Metro

In Sydney it is an entirely new transport mode, cleanly separated from the existing Sydney Trains network. Sydney Metro will see its first line section from Cudgegong Road in the north west to Chatswood going live for passenger service in May. A line extension to Bankstown is already being built, including a historic first railway tunnel undercrossing Sydney Harbour. A second line from the Sydney city centre to Parramatta is in final business case stage. The business case for the third line from St Mary’s to the new Western Sydney Airport has likewise entered business case development. And in time before the state election tomorrow the incumbent Premier has promised that planning start for four further line extensions which would build a fully interconnected network with sensible interchanges between the Metro lines and with the suburban Sydney Trains network.

Melbourne Metro

In Melbourne, the operator franchisee calls itself Metro Trains Melbourne for a while. The current flagship mega project in Melbourne is called Metro Tunnel Project, and the last published transport plan for Melbourne emphasises the transition of the rail network in Melbourne to a “metro-style system” with high-performance stand-alone lines.

Brisbane Metro

Brisbane pursues its very own version of a Metro. Brisbane Metro will in fact be operated with articulated vehicles on rubber wheels, more an extended bendy-bus than a train. But hey, they love the idea and rubber-wheeled metro trains have been used in Paris for decades.

Perth’s METRONET – No Metro yet

In comparison, Perth has a transport programme called METRONET which seems to clearly indicate the vision or ambition to do something akin to a Metro in Perth. However, the current initiatives of METRONET Stage 1 are mainly focused on expanding the existing network, servicing the enormous sprawl of Perth as one of the least densely populated cities in the world.

The Game-Changing Opportunity for Perth

Despite this, from a Metro perspective, rather underwhelming start of the METRONET initiative, Perth is sitting on a golden opportunity which is unparalleled in Australia. The previous ‘mental fathers’ of METRONET, including former shadow transport minister Ken Travers and Curtin’s Professor Peter Newman, were well aware of the Metro potential of METRONET, so that my assumption was right that the naming of METRONET had a deeper meaning. And I am confident that smart leaders in the current state government in Perth, notably including the Premier Mark McGowan and Transport Minister Rita Saffioti have already thought beyond the current stage 1 of METRONET projects. (Why calling it ‘stage 1’ otherwise?)

Cost Benefit Analysis – Simplicity Style

I have made the following simplified comparison of costs versus benefits of current Metro initiatives in Australia. This comparison is based on Metro being a heavy rail train service with frequencies of more than 20 trains per hour per direction (that’s why Brisbane Metro is excluded), the costs are confirmed published estimates for ongoing projects leading to a Metro service, and the benefits were measured in the length of that Metro operation. Rather crude, but very valid and I think very enlightening too.

Using this method, Sydney Metro will get 66 kilometres of Metro (Cudgegong Road to Bankstown via the city centre) for a combined cost of about $20 billion dollars. Maybe a bit less if they keep delivering their projects under budget, but the ballpark is right regardless. Melbourne will get 63 kilometres of Metro operation (my estimate of the distance between Watergardens and Dandenong) for a combined price of about $14 billion (that’s the Metro Tunnel Project plus the new fleet of High Capacity Metro Trains plus some costs for current upgrade of the Caulfield-Dandenong corridor).

And now Perth. The current line extensions under METRONET Stage 1 will boost the network size from currently 173 kilometres to 250 kilometres. And according to my estimates it would cost them about $4 billion, give or take, to do the following two things as key parts of a future METRONET Stage 2:

1. Expanding their Railcar Programme currently in procurement to double the size of the train fleet across the entire network; and
2. Implement the currently planned Automatic Train Control project (already published part of the METRONET programme) across the network, which together with some other investments in augmenting the traction power supply would allow for running twice as many trains as today across the entire network of 250 kilometres.

The resulting service frequencies would be absolutely comparable with Sydney Metro and Melbourne Metro, and even if that required investment was not $4 billion but five or six it would still only be a fraction of the money that Sydney and Melbourne are forking out for getting their Metro systems.

So, there we go with me championing the bold statement that

Metro for Perth is a Bargain

What do you think? I can’t possibly be the only one seeing this. Knowing the Perth environment a fair bit after living and working here for nearly eight years, I could foresee a lot of “realistic” voices who can explain at length why this would not work, even if nobody can provide real arguments that invalidate my assessment. But who knows. I have a lot of respect for the transport planning of the current state government, their consequence of driving METRONET and their savvy of getting the Federal government on board for co-funding. So maybe, just maybe, this idea will end up getting the go-ahead. And the rail system in Perth would stay the envy of other big Australian cities for decades to come, rather than “Well, Bob, remember twenty years ago when we won all those Canstar awards? I wonder why that suddenly stopped…”

The post Why Metro is a Bargain in Perth appeared first on Docfrank.