Sydney has suffered many planning misfortunes and missteps, including the lack of a heavy rail connection to the northern beaches, despite long-standing plans to do so, and the seemingly endless indecision over the location of a “second” major airport (although some may argue that Bankstown airport already fills that role). My personal favourite though would have to be the dismantling of what was the 2nd-most extensive tram system in the British Commonwealth – second only to the London network and many times larger that Melbourne’s. This startling removal of track, electric catenary and associated tram sheds was largely “achieved” by 1961. Tracks were ripped up or submerged under tar; tramcars were sold for scrap or burned; and land and buildings were reused as bus depots or sold.

Why oh why did we ditch light rail? Wikipedia says this: The overcrowded and heaving trams running at a high frequency, in competition with growing private motor car and bus use, created congestion. Competition from the private car, private bus operators and the perception of traffic congestion led to the gradual closure of lines from the 1940s.

Buses, you see, were more flexible in their routing and interfered less with other vehicular traffic. Which was good in theory, but the government-run bus routes largely replicated the tram routes anyway; and as both bus and car traffic grew the road network hit its natural limit as well – stopping everything in its peak-hour tracks.

Now this infrastructure planning miracle was achieved after seeking the input of overseas “experts” and largely executed by Labor governments. Interestingly, again quoting Wikipedia, closure was supported by the NRMA, but generally went against public opinion. Thank you once again, National Roads and Motoring Association. Nothing ever really changes, does it?

All that aside, some tantalising remnants of Sydney’s trams exist, to remind us of our folly. For instance there are tramway remnants along Anzac Parade, through Randwick and Kensington, including reserved track and “bus stops” facing the “wrong way” (ie towards the trams, not the buses) towards La Perouse. There is a tram bridge at Annandale and sheds at Rozelle, Tempe and Newtown, plus recycled tram depots like Randwick bus workshops and a shopping centre at North Sydney. And plenty more, if you look closely enough.

Sydney has suffered many planning misfortunes and missteps, including the lack of a heavy rail connection to the northern beaches, despite long-standing plans to do so, and the seemingly endless indecision over the location of a “second” major airport (although some may argue that Bankstown airport already fills that role). My personal favourite though would have to be the dismantling of what was the 2nd-most extensive tram system in the British Commonwealth – second only to the London network and many times larger that Melbourne’s. This startling removal of track, electric catenary and associated tram sheds was largely “achieved” by 1961. Tracks were ripped up or submerged under tar; tramcars were sold for scrap or burned; and land and buildings were reused as bus depots or sold.

Why oh why did we ditch light rail? Wikipedia says this: The overcrowded and heaving trams running at a high frequency, in competition with growing private motor car and bus use, created congestion. Competition from the private car, private bus operators and the perception of traffic congestion led to the gradual closure of lines from the 1940s.

Buses, you see, were more flexible in their routing and interfered less with other vehicular traffic. Which was good in theory, but the government-run bus routes largely replicated the tram routes anyway; and as both bus and car traffic grew the road network hit its natural limit as well – stopping everything in its peak-hour tracks.

Now this infrastructure planning miracle was achieved after seeking the input of overseas “experts” and largely executed by Labor governments. Interestingly, again quoting Wikipedia, closure was supported by the NRMA, but generally went against public opinion. Thank you once again, National Roads and Motoring Association. Nothing ever really changes, does it?

All that aside, some tantalising remnants of Sydney’s trams exist, to remind us of our folly. For instance there are tramway remnants along Anzac Parade, through Randwick and Kensington, including reserved track and “bus stops” facing the “wrong way” (ie towards the trams, not the buses) towards La Perouse. There is a tram bridge at Annandale and sheds at Rozelle, Tempe and Newtown, plus recycled tram depots like Randwick bus workshops and a shopping centre at North Sydney. And plenty more, if you look closely enough.

Well I plan to do a lot of things, whether I find the time is another matter..

1. I plan to look at disused, discarded or removed railway lines in Sydney (here’s a short list: The line from Richmond across the Nepean and up the mountains; the line from Campbelltown to Camden; the Toongabbie private line to the Associated Blue Metal Company quarry near the CSIRO’s sheep research station at Prospect that survives as an embankment in a field; Widemere, same area but servicing the Sydney and Suburban Blue Metal Quarry Ltd, running from the south eastern side of Prospect Reservoir down to the main railway at Fairfield; and the private zig zag railway at Thornleigh)
2. “Old” roads, like Old Cowpasture Road, now mostly known as the Horsley Drive
3. Disused ferry crossings, like the Georges River crossing at the southern end of Forest Road - still largely intact. Or the ferrymasters’ cottage and remains of the punt infrastructure at the Punt Bridge, East Gosford
   
4. The remains of old bridges, like the original Iron Cove Bridge at Gladesville, still clearly visible, or the burnt out remains of the Lane Cove River Bridge at North Ryde; the original low-level Roseville Bridge, of which the snaking approach roads tell the tale
5. Old tram routes, especially the steam trams such as the line to Parramatta from Castle Hill, or from Redbank Wharf
   
6. And anything else I stumble over.
   

Well I plan to do a lot of things, whether I find the time is another matter..

1. I plan to look at disused, discarded or removed railway lines in Sydney (here’s a short list: The line from Richmond across the Nepean and up the mountains; the line from Campbelltown to Camden; the Toongabbie private line to the Associated Blue Metal Company quarry near the CSIRO’s sheep research station at Prospect that survives as an embankment in a field; Widemere, same area but servicing the Sydney and Suburban Blue Metal Quarry Ltd, running from the south eastern side of Prospect Reservoir down to the main railway at Fairfield; and the private zig zag railway at Thornleigh)
2. “Old” roads, like Old Cowpasture Road, now mostly known as the Horsley Drive
3. Disused ferry crossings, like the Georges River crossing at the southern end of Forest Road - still largely intact. Or the ferrymasters’ cottage and remains of the punt infrastructure at the Punt Bridge, East Gosford
   
4. The remains of old bridges, like the original Iron Cove Bridge at Gladesville, still clearly visible, or the burnt out remains of the Lane Cove River Bridge at North Ryde; the original low-level Roseville Bridge, of which the snaking approach roads tell the tale
5. Old tram routes, especially the steam trams such as the line to Parramatta from Castle Hill, or from Redbank Wharf
   
6. And anything else I stumble over.
   

It seems to be one of those “big ideas” that get put forward now and again. A project of vision that will simultaneously inspire and drive economic prosperity. It also sounds so good. But does it make any sense?

On one level rail must be better than air travel, as lifting a massive weight off the ground is energy-intensive beyond our normal ken. We accept it because we don’t really think about it, but it’s simply the worst way to move things around. It depletes energy resources far quicker than any other form of transport (short of rocketry), dumps greenhouse gases at higher altitudes (where they can do their worst) and imposes immense noise footprints on anyone nearby.

On the other hand air travel is unimpeded by geography, so the path is shorter and has far less impact on what’s below. There is less disturbance to land, landholders and the environment overall. Plants and animals remain blissfully unaware of aircraft passing almost silently, high above them.

So it’s actually not as simple as it seems. We have to do some sums here. Let’s take a fast train proposal from Sydney to Melbourne and peel back some layers. What does a fast train really mean?

Well it’s going to be a new line, or a partially shared line that’s largely quarantined from the existing lines. To achieve fast speeds – and we are looking at 250-300kmh – it will have to be straighter than the existing lines with gentler curves. It will also need to be level, or rise and fall more gradually than current track. So it will need massive viaducts and embankments. And it must not intersect with roads or other, slower rail traffic, so it must go over or under any such obstacle.

So it’s going to duplicate existing track with a higher-quality, impeccably welded, ballasted and maintained track that will displace existing landholders, both suburban and country, as well as probably pass through national parks. These are not insurmountable challenges but they are costs that must be factored into any assessment. We would have to be careful to allow plants and animals to traverse over and under these tracks and maintain our biodiversity. We would have to reimburse farmers and other landholders, or tunnel for extended distances at massive cost.

Indeed I can imagine massive tunneling works at both the Sydney and Melbourne ends, for starters. To put new above-ground track down in populated suburban areas would be impossibly expensive and the noise generated would not be tolerated. If you don’t allow the trains to go near full speed right into the cities then the time advantage is eroded.

So what is the time advantage? Current air travel is roughly 3 hours CBD-to-CBD, but who actually travels that route? Presumably trips start from all over, and siting the fast train terminals would be an opportunity – and a choice. Do you replicate airtravel “convenience” of location and interchange, or site away from existing airports to attract different customers? Indeed are you seeking to reduce airtravel by direct competition, or looking to take cars and trucks off the roads? Depending upon how you answer those (and many other) questions you may end up with an 850km track and a 3.5hour journey time. So you are ‘in the ballpark’ but have an opportunity to be different as well.

Of course if you do manage to cannibalise airtravel you’d incur the wrath of the airlines and the airport owners. So I suspect you’ll end up compromising somewhat.

And then there are the fares. Having built massive new infrastructure – let’s face it, it’s not going to be just a few billion, is it? – you then have to decide how you recover that cost. Let the government (ie you and me) absorb it as a project of national importance? Or charge a fee that actually recovers costs over say 20 or 30 years? Do we privatise the service and let the government carry the can on track costs?

Of course spending money on a fast train means we can’t spend it on existing rail, or education, or hospitals – or anywhere else. That’s opportunity cost for you. We will have to think carefully about what we want here. Indeed, why not invest in improving our existing rail network, for example? Or site a new airport somewhere else in Sydney, to reduce congestion, travel time and cost in getting passengers to the current Sydney Airport?

My point? As seductive as a fast train sounds, we haven’t even started to think about the costs and ramifications yet. Just look at volumes. Air travel between Sydney and Melbourne is roughly 90,000 people a week. If you grab 30% of that market (say 30,000 a week) you are spending umpteen billions to shift a relatively small number of people between 2 places. If the gods smile upon you and you grow the market, you may double that number. It still looks like a bad investment to me, given that you’ll probably rob Peter to pay Paul here anyway. The airlines will compete with you and you will have even fewer people travelling on existing lines. Which will leave us where? With an immense white elephant?

Of course airtravel may just die a natural death anyway, with fuel costs going through the roof. But that doesn’t mean we have to replicate what smaller-by-area and denser-by-population countries such as France and Japan do with their fast train networks. Just for comparison with our 30,000 passengers a week scenario, Japan’s Shinkansen carries around 350,000 passengers per day. I may be totally wrong with my off-the-cuff analysis but I suspect that Australia has no truly compelling economic – let alone environmental – reason to even want to shift that sort of number of people between any 2 cities. But we may want to make some improvements to the rail infrastructure within our cities and improve our commute times between a much larger number of locations. Now there’s a thought.

It’s your money, spend wisely!

It seems to be one of those “big ideas” that get put forward now and again. A project of vision that will simultaneously inspire and drive economic prosperity. It also sounds so good. But does it make any sense?

On one level rail must be better than air travel, as lifting a massive weight off the ground is energy-intensive beyond our normal ken. We accept it because we don’t really think about it, but it’s simply the worst way to move things around. It depletes energy resources far quicker than any other form of transport (short of rocketry), dumps greenhouse gases at higher altitudes (where they can do their worst) and imposes immense noise footprints on anyone nearby.

On the other hand air travel is unimpeded by geography, so the path is shorter and has far less impact on what’s below. There is less disturbance to land, landholders and the environment overall. Plants and animals remain blissfully unaware of aircraft passing almost silently, high above them.

So it’s actually not as simple as it seems. We have to do some sums here. Let’s take a fast train proposal from Sydney to Melbourne and peel back some layers. What does a fast train really mean?

Well it’s going to be a new line, or a partially shared line that’s largely quarantined from the existing lines. To achieve fast speeds – and we are looking at 250-300kmh – it will have to be straighter than the existing lines with gentler curves. It will also need to be level, or rise and fall more gradually than current track. So it will need massive viaducts and embankments. And it must not intersect with roads or other, slower rail traffic, so it must go over or under any such obstacle.

So it’s going to duplicate existing track with a higher-quality, impeccably welded, ballasted and maintained track that will displace existing landholders, both suburban and country, as well as probably pass through national parks. These are not insurmountable challenges but they are costs that must be factored into any assessment. We would have to be careful to allow plants and animals to traverse over and under these tracks and maintain our biodiversity. We would have to reimburse farmers and other landholders, or tunnel for extended distances at massive cost.

Indeed I can imagine massive tunneling works at both the Sydney and Melbourne ends, for starters. To put new above-ground track down in populated suburban areas would be impossibly expensive and the noise generated would not be tolerated. If you don’t allow the trains to go near full speed right into the cities then the time advantage is eroded.

So what is the time advantage? Current air travel is roughly 3 hours CBD-to-CBD, but who actually travels that route? Presumably trips start from all over, and siting the fast train terminals would be an opportunity – and a choice. Do you replicate airtravel “convenience” of location and interchange, or site away from existing airports to attract different customers? Indeed are you seeking to reduce airtravel by direct competition, or looking to take cars and trucks off the roads? Depending upon how you answer those (and many other) questions you may end up with an 850km track and a 3.5hour journey time. So you are ‘in the ballpark’ but have an opportunity to be different as well.

Of course if you do manage to cannibalise airtravel you’d incur the wrath of the airlines and the airport owners. So I suspect you’ll end up compromising somewhat.

And then there are the fares. Having built massive new infrastructure – let’s face it, it’s not going to be just a few billion, is it? – you then have to decide how you recover that cost. Let the government (ie you and me) absorb it as a project of national importance? Or charge a fee that actually recovers costs over say 20 or 30 years? Do we privatise the service and let the government carry the can on track costs?

Of course spending money on a fast train means we can’t spend it on existing rail, or education, or hospitals – or anywhere else. That’s opportunity cost for you. We will have to think carefully about what we want here. Indeed, why not invest in improving our existing rail network, for example? Or site a new airport somewhere else in Sydney, to reduce congestion, travel time and cost in getting passengers to the current Sydney Airport?

My point? As seductive as a fast train sounds, we haven’t even started to think about the costs and ramifications yet. Just look at volumes. Air travel between Sydney and Melbourne is roughly 90,000 people a week. If you grab 30% of that market (say 30,000 a week) you are spending umpteen billions to shift a relatively small number of people between 2 places. If the gods smile upon you and you grow the market, you may double that number. It still looks like a bad investment to me, given that you’ll probably rob Peter to pay Paul here anyway. The airlines will compete with you and you will have even fewer people travelling on existing lines. Which will leave us where? With an immense white elephant?

Of course airtravel may just die a natural death anyway, with fuel costs going through the roof. But that doesn’t mean we have to replicate what smaller-by-area and denser-by-population countries such as France and Japan do with their fast train networks. Just for comparison with our 30,000 passengers a week scenario, Japan’s Shinkansen carries around 350,000 passengers per day. I may be totally wrong with my off-the-cuff analysis but I suspect that Australia has no truly compelling economic – let alone environmental – reason to even want to shift that sort of number of people between any 2 cities. But we may want to make some improvements to the rail infrastructure within our cities and improve our commute times between a much larger number of locations. Now there’s a thought.

It’s your money, spend wisely!

The Sydney Harbour bridge carries train (and bicycle) traffic on its western side. This is a shot of a mixed suburban electric set on the ramp from bridge to tunnel, just short of the tunnel itself. Next stop Wynyard station.

What is less well known is that the eastern side was designed for the same purpose, but for a heavy rail line that was never built. The line would have gone from Wynyard to the northern beaches, however the tide of public opinion (or perhaps political will) turned against infrastructure investment and plans for the line were filed away. However a somewhat less costly option was taken up: trams. As Sydney had an extensive tramway network on both sides of the harbour, it made sense to connect the 2 ‘halves’ as it were and thereby avoid avoid maintenance facility duplication, tram/rail interchanges or even truck transport, whilst also providing a service to commuters.

Of course this impacted ferry use, but not as much as a heavy rail line would have. Manly’s tram network was an isolated one, cut at the Spit, so whilst some commuters would not mind a short (mostly covered) walk over the Spit bridge, many more would still choose the ferry.

So the compromise bought a cheaper but less useful light-rail line but at the price of a ‘proper’ straight-through heavy rail line. A compromise that may still have paid dividends today, except we tore up the tram system by 1961.  Which leaves us with buses and extra roadlanes on the bridge.

The tramline (whilst it lasted) paralleled the rail in many ways, with a tunnel to platforms at Wynyard (now deserted and partially used as car parking), a station at the Milson’s Point side and a flyover bridge to North Sydney. The approach to that bridge is used (again) as car parking .  

The Sydney Harbour bridge carries train (and bicycle) traffic on its western side. This is a shot of a mixed suburban electric set on the ramp from bridge to tunnel, just short of the tunnel itself. Next stop Wynyard station.

What is less well known is that the eastern side was designed for the same purpose, but for a heavy rail line that was never built. The line would have gone from Wynyard to the northern beaches, however the tide of public opinion (or perhaps political will) turned against infrastructure investment and plans for the line were filed away. However a somewhat less costly option was taken up: trams. As Sydney had an extensive tramway network on both sides of the harbour, it made sense to connect the 2 ‘halves’ as it were and thereby avoid avoid maintenance facility duplication, tram/rail interchanges or even truck transport, whilst also providing a service to commuters.

Of course this impacted ferry use, but not as much as a heavy rail line would have. Manly’s tram network was an isolated one, cut at the Spit, so whilst some commuters would not mind a short (mostly covered) walk over the Spit bridge, many more would still choose the ferry.

So the compromise bought a cheaper but less useful light-rail line but at the price of a ‘proper’ straight-through heavy rail line. A compromise that may still have paid dividends today, except we tore up the tram system by 1961.  Which leaves us with buses and extra roadlanes on the bridge.

The tramline (whilst it lasted) paralleled the rail in many ways, with a tunnel to platforms at Wynyard (now deserted and partially used as car parking), a station at the Milson’s Point side and a flyover bridge to North Sydney. The approach to that bridge is used (again) as car parking .