Re: [NSW] State of the Environment

["David Bennetts" <davibenn@ozemail.com.au>]

"Al" <alpout@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
3aa609ab$0$25502$7f31c96c@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au">news:3aa609ab$0$25502$7f31c96c@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au...
> "Chris Downs" <cvdowns@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> 3Fmp6.4613$o4.202321@ozemail.com.au">news:3Fmp6.4613$o4.202321@ozemail.com.au...
> > I don't recall having seen this mentioned on aus.rail (humble apologies
if
> > otherwise).  The NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA) has released
> it's
> > report, "State of the Environment 2000".  Chapter 2 deals with "Human
> > Settlement" and part 5 of the chapter is on transport.  It contains some
> > interesting figures (numbers and graphs) especially on Sydney's
transport,
> > private and public.  Table 2.7's comparison of energy consumption per
> > passenger km is especially interesting for rail in a world context.  The
> link
> > is http://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/soe/2000/download/human_settlement.pdf .
> >
> > Chris
> >
> >
>
> With this caveat, I make the following statements:  I have only looked at
the
> table and the text that followed it, not the whole transport section.
>
> Surprising to see that rail in Sydney comes in significantly lower than
> Melbourne (in terms of energy consumption), considering trams and heavy
rail
> are included in that segment.  Considering that energy consumption is, in
one
> way, related to mass, and the difference in mass between heavy and light
rail
> vehicles, I thought Melbourne would have done better.  Is there another
table
> in there for freight energy consumption?

Wouldn't have thought it that too surprising.  A four car double-deck train
Sydney (off peak) carries a lot more pax than a three car one (Melbourne).
Little difference in weight per carriage.

> What exactly are the "eight new rail lines" planned under Action for
Transport
> 2010 in Sydney's north west and west?  If 8 lines are going in, then
wouldn't
> there be a bit more noise about them?  And the replacement of "rolling
stock,
> buses and ferries"?  Someone's going to be busy writing tenders....

A bit of a con job, refer http://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/act2010/pp14.pdf
for the full detail

The eight lines are:

Sydney Newcastle link ( think it's been there for over a hundred years)
Epping - Castle Hill
Parramatta-Chatswood
Bondi Junction - Bondi Beach
Hurstville - Strathfield
Airport Line (its already there)
Liverpool Y Link (so you can run trains from Liverpool to East Hills line
without reversing)
Sydney - Wollongong link (think that one also has been there for over 100
years)

> And someone should get onto the greenies and get them to kick up more of a
> fuss about the level of freight moved by rail.. "less than 15%".  I
presume
> that the other 85% (or at least a significant proportion of it) goes by
road.
> One way to reduce traffic congestion...and boost rail usage.

I think the greenies already do - just that no-one listens to them.  The
road transport lobby is well-funded and has a lot of industry backing - rail
is a poor cousin.

> Now for the next silly question. How much excess capacity does the Sydney
rail
> network have, for either freight or passenger?

How long's a piece of string?  Depends on how you solve bottleneck problems
at times you can get more freight through, at night for example.   Passenger
trains congested in some areas, but with timetable improvements and better
signalling you can potentially work wonders.

> Just my 2.2 cents worth..

Don't you mean 2.4 cents?  That's what tuppence converted to, way back in
1966!

> Al


Regards


David Bennetts