City Rail Link Project in Auckland, New Zealand

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

sprinterguy

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
10,593
Location
Macclesfield
You mean like Crossrail then? Not to mention the huge amount of investment that is going into beefing up the Thameslink service, London's existing heavy rail Cross-city link, at the same time.
 

jopsuk

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2008
Messages
12,507
The two aren't comparabale. Auckland is a small city with a very small railway network- by my estimate they have less than 150 passenger carriages (DMU and hauled) plus a handful of locomotives running on their entire suburban network, which is a mere 75 miles long. The operation is really rather tiny
 

RogerLocker

Member
Joined
23 Jul 2012
Messages
10
Yes I guess so but the interlinking of city rail does not seem as efficient as it could be considering huge investment.
 

jopsuk

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2008
Messages
12,507
The Auckland project is short, with much of the project using cheaper cut-and-cover. Any new line across London has to go deep, and has to be long.

There's also the problem of "where exactly do you serve"- "central " London is a huge area- and "which routes do you link up"- there is a plethora of routes fanning out from North and South of the Thames (obviously east and west are being linked!). The Auckland project does not have these difficulties.
 

RogerLocker

Member
Joined
23 Jul 2012
Messages
10
I certainly agree that the auckland project is much shorter and less extensive than what would need to be implemented within the London underground.

Regarding which areas do you serve, well it would make sense to start with the areas most heavily populated with unsuffuicient transport links. There's already such a big problem with capacity control on some of our major stations, so why not start there?
 

Deerfold

Established Member
Joined
26 Nov 2009
Messages
10,614
Location
Yorkshire
I certainly agree that the auckland project is much shorter and less extensive than what would need to be implemented within the London underground.

Regarding which areas do you serve, well it would make sense to start with the areas most heavily populated with unsuffuicient transport links. There's already such a big problem with capacity control on some of our major stations, so why not start there?

Which "Some" did you mean? North/South through St Pancras is about to go to 24 tph with Crossrail about to Link Paddington & Liverpool Street with a similar frequency.

And they're rather bigger than the 3-car trains being talked about here.
 

jopsuk

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2008
Messages
12,507
Roger, you must have some idea of what London can learn from Auckland yourself or you wouldn't have posted this thread. Care to give an example of something in this project that isn't being done in some way by London?
 

RogerLocker

Member
Joined
23 Jul 2012
Messages
10
It's hard to compare the two as their requirements are different, but firstly they are using two sliding plug-type doorways on each side with weather and sound proof seal, I don't think we're utilising this technology on our underground as well as these guys.

And the capacity per car is 120 people with a lot more space. I think with the over capacity of london underground cars they could take a lot away from the design and structure of these cars.
 

sprinterguy

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
10,593
Location
Macclesfield
And the capacity per car is 120 people with a lot more space. I think with the over capacity of london underground cars they could take a lot away from the design and structure of these cars.
The Auckland service will be heavy rail, while the London Underground is a Metro operation. There really is little of the Auckland operation that could be applied to the Underground: Adopting heavy rail precepts for a Metro service that operates at a very high frequency and carries a very high number of passengers would not work, as the door arrangement on heavy rail rolling stock is not optimised for dealing with the volume of passengers that are experienced on the tube and would impact on station dwell times.

In my opinion the new S-stock trains that are being introduced on the LU sub-surface lines are perfectly adapted to the role they are expected to fulfil.
 

jopsuk

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2008
Messages
12,507
It's hard to compare the two as their requirements are different, but firstly they are using two sliding plug-type doorways on each side with weather and sound proof seal, I don't think we're utilising this technology on our underground as well as these guys.
The deep tube lines especially are running trains at intervals of less than two minutes. They go to lengths to shave seconds off dwell time. Plug doors are slow. They're fine on infrequent stop services (thus why all the suburban Networkers, the Turbostars, Desiros and most Electrostars use them) but straight sliding doors are that much quicker that it makes an actual difference. Two doors also wouldn't be enough
And the capacity per car is 120 people with a lot more space. I think with the over capacity of london underground cars they could take a lot away from the design and structure of these cars.

120 will be mainly standing. How many do you reckon get crammed into each shorter cariage of a London Underground train?
 

RogerLocker

Member
Joined
23 Jul 2012
Messages
10
The deep tube lines especially are running trains at intervals of less than two minutes. They go to lengths to shave seconds off dwell time. Plug doors are slow. They're fine on infrequent stop services (thus why all the suburban Networkers, the Turbostars, Desiros and most Electrostars use them) but straight sliding doors are that much quicker that it makes an actual difference. Two doors also wouldn't be enough


120 will be mainly standing. How many do you reckon get crammed into each shorter cariage of a London Underground train?

How do you know they would be mainly standing? I'm not sure how many would get crammed into a carriage on the london underground, but I wouldn't say it would surpass 120
 

Wolfie

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2010
Messages
2,477
How do you know they would be mainly standing? I'm not sure how many would get crammed into a carriage on the london underground, but I wouldn't say it would surpass 120

The London underground, particularly the deep lines (the tube), are rammed in rush hour. So much so that all that is missing from the trains is a large key on the outside (so they would properly look like sardine cans!<(). If all you are proposing is seeking ways to ram even more people on.....well, I suggest Japan might be a better inspiration.....

Q: Have you looked at the respective carriage sizes of the two systems and pro-rata'd the capacity?
 

sprinterguy

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
10,593
Location
Macclesfield
How do you know they would be mainly standing? I'm not sure how many would get crammed into a carriage on the london underground, but I wouldn't say it would surpass 120
The suggested seating layout for the new EMUs to be utilised on the Auckland City Rail link features a mix of longitudinal and 2+2 seating. The chosen seating layout for the trains is still being consulted on, but the present mock-ups suggest a seated capacity of around 76 seats per carriage:
http://www.aucklandtransport.govt.n...rent-projects/Rail/Documents/mockup_three.pdf

This means that just over a third of the capacity of each carriage will be made up of standing passengers if they are intended to accomodate 120 passengers per carriage, which is a ratio that is pretty much standard across commuter EMU designs.

It's probably true that you can't accomodate 120 passengers in a single tube carriage, but the carriages of a tube train are considerably shorter than that of heavy rail stock: A six-carriage C-stock tube train is approximately 90 metres in length (15m carriage length), while the three carriage EMUs destined for New Zealand are likely to be around 70 metres long (23m carriage length).

Tube trains feature a "Metro" style interior that is optimised for standing passengers, so that the number of standing passengers compared to seated passengers is far, far higher than you would find on a standard commuter train. For example, each 3-car Auckland unit is expected to accomodate a total of 375 passengers, seated and standing. So a pair of units would allow for a maximum capacity of 750 passengers, and would be around 140 metres in length. Meanwhile, the new Bombardier S8 stock that is being introduced on some of the LU surface lines is 127.6 metres in length, and provides capacity for 1226 passengers, only 306 of which would be seated.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top