Perth's headways are as close as 4-5 minutes on the north-south line and
new signalling will enable them to run even closer. There are actually no
express trains, with one exception, because there's no need for them as the
journey times on the all stops trains are very quick, faster than
semi-express services in other states (same with Sydney Metro). The
exception is the Armadale line which, because it also carries Thornlie
services, the trains to Armadale skip most of the stops served by the
Thornlie trains.

You have to bear in mind in terms of service frequencies that, because of
Perth's general low level of public transport use, the potential capacity
of the rail system is grossly under-utilised. It has the design capacity of
a fully utilised metro, but until many many more Perth people use the
trains, there's no point running the trains more frequently. It's a sort of
metro-in-waiting to unleash its full potential but does operate like one
nevertheless. Until then, typical frequencies are 10-15 minutes which is
pretty good I think. The rebirth of the rail system did initially produce a
great rise in patronage, but it has leveled off in the past few years. The
present government's habit of extending the motorways alongside, every time
they extend a rail line, can't help. The trains are the fastest way to get
around Perth, but Sandgropers seem to prefer sitting in gridlock on a
motorway while they watch trains streaking past them at up to 130 km/h.
Weirdos imho.

There is actually a slight unravelling of the metro concept of line
separation in the offing, with the new Ellenbrook and Airport lines being
added to the Midland line as branches. In principle, they should have
separate tracks all the way into Perth but they have obviously decided not
to do this for now (lack of easement width?). So Airport and Ellenbrook
trains will run in between Midland trains, which shouldn't be a problem
with the new signalling.

The Fremantle line is a severe test because of its very close station
spacings (some less than 1 km iirc), but it still comes out ahead. I have
in the past done a number of side by side comparisons with interstate
systems based on a common length of line and same or similar number of
intermediate stops. Looking at a 13 km segment of lines with closely spaced
stops, I chose Perth-Mosman Park on the Fremantle line (13.5 km, 11 stops,
21 minutes, average 38 km/h) and, while I didn't look at the Sandringham
line, another closely-matched example was Jacana-North Melbourne (13.7 km,
10 stops, 24 minutes, 34 km/h). I note on the Sandringham line it is 13.3
km with 9 intermediate stops from Flinders Street to Middle Brighton and
that it takes 21 minutes, but note that there are two less stops. A closer
comparison in Perth might be from Perth to Beckenham on the Armadale line
(13.8 km, 9 stops, 19 minutes, 43 km/h).

My own view is that the Melbourne "Metro" is rather unfairly maligned
because its general performance is better than Sydney's. A similar
comparison in Sydney is the Bankstown line between Sydenham and Bankstown
(13.4 km, 9 stops, 25 minutes, 32 km/h). The upcoming conversion of this
line into part of the Sydney Metro system will bring it up a Perth standard
(13.4 km, 9 stops, 21 minutes, 38 km/h).

These are all relatively small differences over shorter distances with a
high concentration of stops. However, the real advantage of the rapid
transit/metro method comes over longer distances where we find, for
example, 10 minute advantages over the same distance and number of stops.
For example, Rouse Hill-Chatswood on the Sydney Metro (33 km, 10 stops, 35
minutes, 57 km/h) or Perth-Clarkson (33 km, 9 stops, 33 minutes, 59 km/h),
compared with say Cronulla-Redfern in Sydney (33 km, 8 stops, 43 minutes,
46 km/h) or Ferntree Gully-Parliament in Melbourne (33 km, 10 stops, 43
minutes, 46 km/h).

Moving further out to a 47 km stretch, we find all-stops rapid transit
beating even express suburban trains by nearly 15 minutes.
Tallawong-Central (upcoming) on Sydney Metro (47 km, 17 stops, 52 minutes,
54 km/h) or Clarkson-Murdoch in Perth (47 km, 13 stops, 49 minutes, 57
km/h), compared with Riverstone-Central (semi-express) in Sydney (47 km, 17
stops, 64 minutes, 44 km/h) or Macarthur-Central Semi-express) in Sydney
(47 km, 15 stops, 60 minutes, 47 km/h) - I haven't looked at a Melbourne
example here.

So you can see that the rapid transit model does bring faster journey times
for commuters, as well as the scope for greater frequency and greater
capacity. The reason there aren't more rapid transit systems is I guess
that so many cities have inherited legacy suburban systems and have to make
the best of those and have limited opportunity for conversion. The new
outer circle line in Melbourne is, as I understand, to be an automated
rapid transit line, like Sydney Metro, and that will be something to look
forward to.

Tony P

On Sunday, 5 June 2022 at 23:37:18 UTC+10danie...@... wrote:

> Thanks Tony.

>

> I'm still not sure how Perth meets those criteria (and I appreciate there

> are shades of grey, and yes you're right, everyone has a different

> definition!).

>

> Perth's rail headways are mostly 15-30 minutes, not exactly high frequency

> except in peak. Not all trains stop all stops, a number of lines have

> express services.

>

> Is it fast? A quick comparison of the Fremantle line to Melbourne's

> Sandringham line (which of course is run by an operator with the name

> "Metro" but is really a suburban rail line) indicates similar length and

> average speed (37.4 km/h vs 35.8 km/h). Obviously Perth has some faster

> lines along the freeways.

>

> Interesting paper, thanks for that.

>

> But I'm afraid I'm not seeing what makes it a "metro".

>

>

> On Sun, 5 Jun 2022 at 22:51, TP histor...@...> wrote:

>

>> Perth and Sydney Metro systems are rapid transit systems. This article

>> explores the concept in some detail.

>>

>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_transit

>>

>> There are variations in detail and in names given to the system but the

>> common factors include high capacity, close headways, stopping at all stops

>> and very quick journey times. The conversion of the Perth system to a metro

>> (rapid transit) system is described in this paper by its principal creator.

>>

>>

>> https://cotma.org.au/documents/perth_2018/The%20story%20of%20electric%20trains%20coming%20to%20Perth%20-%20Alan%20Cotton.pdf

>>

>> Suburban or commuter rail is a different beast, although there are

>> naturally overlapping characteristics. Be warned, 1,001 different railway

>> enthusiasts will come up with 1,001 different arguments to challenge these

>> definitions, which is fair enough because there are inevitably grey edges

>> according to the requirements of different individual cities. However, the

>> basic concepts are distinct.

>>

>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commuter_rail

>>

>> Tony P

>>

>> On Sunday, 5 June 2022 at 22:26:47 UTC+10danie...@... wrote:

>>

>>> Hey Tony, I'm interested to know how you classify a "metro" vs a

>>> "suburban rail system", and thus how Perth has transitioned from one to the

>>> other?

>>>

>>> I still think of Perth's network as suburban rail, along with Melbourne,

>>> Adelaide, Brisbane and Sydney Trains. Sydney Metro is clearly different.

>>>

>>>

>>> On Thu, 2 Jun 2022 at 14:21, TP histor...@...> wrote:

>>>

>>>> It is pretty much the same as other metros I've used, but probably best

>>>> to compare it with other automated metros. It doesn't quite have the

>>>> acceleration and deceleration of Prague but I think not many would! It's

>>>> more comfortable than most, more like Perth which was lucky enough to

>>>> replace its entire suburban system with a metro system. Sydney and Perth

>>>> metros are evenly matched for performance given the same parameters

>>>> (station spacing, number of stops).

>>>>

>>>> However, in situations like Sydney where there are two different types

>>>> of system running side by side doing the same job, the comparison is valid.

>>>> The metro smokes the suburban system on every criterion: speed and journey

>>>> time, capacity, frequency, reliability and customer satisfaction. A better

>>>> opportunity to compare will of course be when that line opens through to

>>>> Bankstown and the other lines start opening, particularly Metro West.

>>>> Melbourne will have its turn before too long.

>>>>

>>>> Tony P

>>>>

>>>> On Thursday, 2 June 2022 at 13:13:25 UTC+10eme...@... wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> The other point is that metro operations should ideally be compared to

>>>>> other metro systems.

>>>>>

>>>>> How does Sydney compare to Paris, Washington, Prague, for example?

>>>>>

>>>>> If it's worse than these, explanations must be sought. If, otoh, it

>>>>> is better, then let's not be worried.

>>>>>

>>>>> I'm also more concerned that in cities like Melbourne and Sydney, the

>>>>> rail system is trying to do the work that metros do elsewhere. Or, in the

>>>>> case of Adelaide, heavy rail is trying to do the work of trams on several

>>>>> routes. Using the wrong mode for the job always means inefficiencies that

>>>>> can be used to scrap that mode.

>>>>>

>>>>

>>>> --

>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups

>> "TramsDownUnder" group.

>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an

>> email totramsdownunde...@....

>>

> To view this discussion on the web visit

>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tramsdownunder/a4c1c567-f383-4d95-9f46-d186247f537cn%40googlegroups.com

>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tramsdownunder/a4c1c567-f383-4d95-9f46-d186247f537cn%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer

>> .

>>

>