20 years ago- the 1992 CityRail timetable

In January 1992, CityRail introduced a new timetable. The timetable was the most significant alteration to suburban and intercity working for some time, and was not without controversy.

The goals of the timetable were to provide a better service from outer suburban areas to the city, at some expense to inner suburbs and a reduction in pre peak hour services in the mornings. Secondly, the timetable introduced a reduction in single deck "red rattler" services with their confinement to the Inner West and Bankstown line services prior to their complete withdrawal shortly after. 8-car length single deck trains were discontinued, with the only single deck cars left being those matched with double deck Tulloch trailers in W-sets.

The Richmond line, which was fully electrified the year before, saw the first through-running of services between Richmond and the city (initially only 4 cars trains until the power supply was upgraded later in the year to support 8-car trains). The two car L Sets that operated Richmond- Riverstone shuttles were replaced with 4-cars sets.

Other features of the new timetable were:
- Cowan was no longer the northern boundary of suburban services, with Northern line services terminating one station south at Berowra
- Sandown line services officially withdrawn (they actually stopped running in December 1991).
- the withdrawal of most through Southern Highlands services to Central, most services now operated as shuttles south of Campbelltown in a similar manner to today
- withdrawal of Kingsgrove as a terminating location for trains, not to be reinstated until quadruplication was completed
- withdrawal of Chatswood as a train terminating location
- cancellation of local 2-car Newcastle- Fassifern services
- reduction of single deck U-sets from most Central Coast / Newcastle services
- loss of the separate Saturday and Sunday timetables , now grouped together as 'Weekends'
- reduction in weekend Eastern Suburbs line frequency from 10 to 15 minutes.
- a 10% reduction in the number of train sets needed to operate the timetable.


CountryLink timetables were also modified but there were only timing changes.

The physical timetables had a newer look, with glossy full colour covers and a new map on the reverse. Below is the Campbelltown via Liverpool line as an example.

Note that the map has lost the Royal National Park and Sandown branches.

In the middle of the timetable was a further pair of glossy pages, with a guide to station facilities in the middle, and some passenger info on the reverse.

The actual timetable itself was in a similar layout to previously.

Monday maps- the original Nightride map

Nightride was introduced in 1989 as a bus service to replace late night / early morning train services.  The publicised rationale was to free up tracks for maintenance etc, hover the real reasons were cost savings and to save the trains from vomit, graffiti and other damage.

Here is the map of the original services. The current map is below for comparison.

Monday maps- Clearways

Here is a map of what the CityRail network might look like post-clearways, with the commissioning of the Kingsgrove- Revesby Quad, and the Lidcombe and Homebush turn-backs.

Monday maps- Railways of Australia

Here is an unusual map from 'Railways of Australis', a marketing collaboration of all the State Government- owned country passenger rail services, from the 1980s.

Monday maps- 1996 CityRail map

In 1996, The Cumberland Line opened. A new map was commissioned, with the new line of course, but also some other additions. The under-construction Airport line is added, as is a fairly poor attempt at representing the light rail line, then being built as far as Wentworth Park but marked as going to Pyrmont on the map. Note also the angle of the Carlingford line towards the Northern line to accommodate the proposed Chatswood- Parramatta line, and a gap between stations on the Western line to accommodate a proposed Nepean University station. Also Wolli Creek is marked as North Arncliffe.

All up, an improvement on the 1989 map.

Timetable Tuesday- 1996 Cumberland line 2

As promised last week, here is the timetable.

Weekdays southbound.

Weekdays northbound

Weekends southbound

Weekends northbound

Monday maps- first CityRail map

When CityRail was formed in 1989, a new map shortly followed. Here is the full network map, with the suburban network as a cutout. I hate it, microscopic text, ambiguous junctions, the bus services aren't diagrammatically represented.....

It wasn't to change until the Cumberland line opened in 1996.

Thursday ephemera

Here is an ad for Channel 9 that appeared on the back of the 1996 CityRail timetables.

Mortdale Maintenance Centre

A decade or so ago, CityRail hosted open days at it's depots. Here is a brochure picked up at one of them providing information about Mortdale maintenance centre. A V set is up on the hoist, despite being maintained at Flemington.

Timetable Tuesday- 1996 Cumberland line

In 1996, the 'Y Link' between Merrylands and Harris Park opened and the Cumberland Line was born. And a proper service it was too, not just the present few services a day. Here is the inaugural timetable. The cover and information pages are below, I'll post the actual timetable soon.

Monday maps- Sydney System

Here is a map of the suburban and interurban system from the 1980s.

Tangara- 21st Century travel years ahead of its time

It won't be long before the first of the Tangaras are 30 years old. With the arrival of the Waratah trains, its interesting to reflect on the promotion of the Tangaras when they were about to be introduced, in particular the championing of the Australian made components. A contrast to today when the partially Chinese built Waratahs are almost embarrassingly slipped into service.

A word from our leader (the other Barry)....

The mockup, note the desto....

Some bits ended up looking a bit different....

Companies were proud to be associated- BHP, Mitsubishi Electric Australia and of course Goninan. 

Heres a pic of the stainless steel construction....

And finally propaganda from the government on how well they are doing, note the Maldon-Dombarton line.

Wednesday essay- Light rail in Sydney

Randwick council has recently decided to get behind light rail between the city and it's council area. There's no such thing as a new idea, here's an article I dug up from 1991 which has some historical interest as it predates the airport line and other misadventures.....

In the last issue of UNIKEN it was reported that the University, in a bid to alleviate the student accommodation crisis, intended to press ahead with plans to build units on two vacant sites at Mulwarree and Prince Streets, near the Kensington campus. These sites are part of the old tramway route to Randwick and Coogee and supporters of light rail want to retain them as a corridor for their proposed scheme.

UNSW is planning to build on a section of the old tramway corridor, which it owns (Prince and Mulwarree Streets). This development will provide needed accommodation for University students; however, due to lack of foresight in the design of the buildings, the development is currently irreconcilable with a plan for a light rail system which could use the old tram reservations to reach Randwick and Coogee.

Building on the transport corridor may prove to be the single most important factor that will condemn UNSW students and staff to reliance on rubber tubes and the internal combustion engine for their commuting needs to the University. The main campus of the University of NSW is located on the eastern seaboard of Sydney, away from the population and growth centres of Sydney.

It is possible that the lack of easy accessibility of this campus by public transport will adversely affect our competitiveness for both students and staff. The University will be the .principal beneficiary of a light rail development in the Eastern Suburbs (served by the Anzac Parade and Coogee lines) and therefore it should look at its long term interests and should not rush to build an uncompromising structure that block the corridor. The University can build accommodation for 230 students on the Mulwarree site without affecting the light rail route, by simple rearranging the wings of the proposed buildings. The proposed development for 90 beds on Prince Street can only be reconciled with light rail if it allows the ground floor to be converted to light rail corridor. If this proves too expensive, the University could delay the Prince Street development until the prospects of light rail for Sydney are clarified over the next few years.

The Property and Works Department currently gives as an excuse for their uncompromising stand the possibility of light rail following the Alison Road route. Unfortunately, on Alison Road light rail will have to phase in with cars (one of the reasons for removing the trams in the first place was that they interfered with cars) and will no longer travel through a dense residential development.

Here I wish to describe a proposal for light rail in the South-Eastern suburbs of Sydney and then a mirror image of this system for the Northern and North-Westem suburbs. The multiple interfaces between the light rail and heavy rail systems displayed in the accompanying map indicate that our University will be significantly better accessible by public transport from nearly all areas of Sydney and surrounding towns. The present proposal shows how this system will service the airport better than the expensive ($200 million) dedicated heavy rail line from Central Station to the airport. Finally, it shows how this North to South axis will relieve pressure at Wynyard and Town Hall and will thus diminish the need for the expensive $350 million "Metro West proposal." While only the South-Eastern suburbs proposal has been costed at some detail ($100 million, including the airport link), it is expected that the whole of the proposed scheme for Sydney will cost less than $550 million (the aggregate cost of the heavy rail link to the airport and the Metro West project).

Light rail is enjoying expansion around the world at an unprecedented rate. According to the International Union of Public Transport it is now the fastest growing form of tracked transport in the world. In the UK 48 cities are considering the introduction or have already introduced light rail. In California, light rail systems have been introduced in San Diego, Los Angeles, San Jose and Sacramento. Here in Australia, Adelaide has had one light rail line to Glenelg for decades and more recently Melbourne has converted two lightly patronised rail services from St Kilda and South Melbourne to light rail. However, it is here in Sydney where light rail has its greatest potential. This is because Sydney has the rights of way and the potential passenger volumes for a highly successful light rail system. As all transport operators know only too well, it is volume that counts when it comes to providing public transport. Higher density of development and the concentration of high traffic generating establishments, especially offices, shops, universities and hospitals enable better public transport to be provided

and the better it is, the more people will find it an acceptable alternative to driving a car.

Potential for Light Rail in Sydney

Sydney is in a unique position to introduce light rail now. In the South Eastern suburbs there are some 15 kilometres of former tramway reservations which serve some of the most densely populated suburbs in Sydney as well as the airport, University of NSW, hospitals, racecourse and southern beaches. In addition, there is an unused tunnel almost a kilometre long that runs north/south through the city under Macquarie Street and Hyde Park. This tunnel includes the unused station platforms at St James. And there is the former Randwick tramway workshops site ideally placed as a workshop and running shed for a 25km light rail system in Sydney's south-eastern suburbs. As can be seen from the accompanying map, the opening of the Harbour Tunnel next year presents a one-off opportunity to regain the former tramway across the Harbour Bridge and link this to the south-eastern suburbs network. This route, connecting as it would the CBD with North Sydney, would become the nucleus of two major light rail corridors north of the harbour. These are: the corridor to the northern beaches via Mosman and The Spit and the corridor to Western Sydney (North Sydney, Gore Hill, Ryde, Epping, Carlingford, Parramatta) via the Epping Highway.

Opening of the Harbour Tunnel and the Gore Hill Freeway

The opening of the Harbour tunnel provides a convenient goal for decision making on the first stage of the light rail system. In conjunction with the tunnel, a new freeway will be opened to Gore Hill where it will link with the Pacific Highway and the Epping Road corridor. In doing so, it will relieve the Pacific Highway from Gore Hill to North Sydney thereby enabling the provision of an on-street light rail line to serve this major strip of office employment. Thus, the first stage of a light rail system in Sydney should capitalise on the current road and tunnel works to get a line from Gore Hill via Crows Nest, North Sydney and the Harbour Bridge, then across to the Conservatorium and a short underground link to the St James tunnels. From here it will proceed to Randwick, where the depot and workshops would be sited, the UNSW and the rest of the South Eastern suburbs.

Servicing the airport and obviating the need for the Metro West (City) proposal

The light rail system will service the airport with a direct connection to Sydenham Station and an indirect connection through Anzac Parade and UNSW to the city and then North Shore. Additional benefits of this north/south link include the improved access to the eastern side of the city (viz Martin Place, St James and Museum) from the North Shore, which is currently only conveniently connected to Town Hall and Wynyard. The converse movement from Museum, St James and Martin Place to the North Shore employment areas is even more important because it removes the congestion currently caused by interchanging passengers at Town Hall and Wynyard stations by transferring these movements to St James (where the interchange from the Bankstown, East Hills and Campbelltown lines would be cross platform) and Martin Place. This objective could defer the need for the very expensive ($350 million) Metro West proposal of the SRA which offers little in the way of transport improvements to the suburbs.

Other opportunities for light rail in Sydney

A number of politicians and prominent people in the community have asked why not promote light rail in the Western suburbs where the need for improved public transport is perceived to be the greatest. The answer to that is twofold: 1) Light rail transit's viability depends on passenger volume which in turn depends on relatively high density development; 2) it must be possible to obtain corridors, where they are needed, cheaply. Unfortunately there is nowhere in Sydney's West where either, let alone both, of these criteria are met. The Department of Planning has done some excellent work in preserving the opportunity for a major transport corridor from Hoxton Park to Parramatta and on up to the Hills district. This is a very far sighted plan and as Parramatta develops into a major employment area (like the lower North Shore now) light rail will become a very real possibility. However, much of the corridor has yet to be acquired and on the Baulkham Hills leg which is the most heavily trafficked route at present, leading as it does to the rapidly developing North West sector, land acquisition costs could be as high as $30 million per kilometre. Current bus passenger volumes are of the order of 1,000 per hour compared with 5,000 in the south-eastern suburbs where virtually no property has to be acquired. Further, the civil engineering formations and drainage patterns for the former tramway system in the southeast are still intact.

LA versus Sydney

It is coincidental that the last electric line in what was at one stage a huge rail network in LA was closed down in 1961,the last year trams ran in Sydney. The last line to close was to Long. Beach. Last August, the Long Beach-Los Angeles line was re-opened at a cost of $900 million (US) for an expected 15/20,000 passengers per day. We estimate our South-eastern system here in Sydney would carry at least 4 times this number of passengers at a cost of around $100 million for construction and another $100 million or so for rolling stock (which would probably be leased). John Dunn, an international authority on rail car designs, has reported that his overseas colleagues are surprised to learn that Sydney has unused potential public transport corridors and is not establishing a light rail system. Cities overseas use their corridors and attempt to procure more; the irony and anachronism of the situation in Sydney is that the State Transit Authority is now selling both tramway reservations and tram workshops in Randwick. Greenpeace (who has written to UNSW opposing the planned unit development) consider transport the area where saving in greenhouse gas emissions will cause the least dislocation. Planning for transport is planning for the future of Sydney and assisting in the construction of a sustainable society on the planet. I am not expecting that the University will concern itself with the habitability of the planet. I am suggesting that the self-interest of the University will be incomparably better served by the light rail system than by taking full advantage of a segment of the corridor as a building site at this time.

UNIKEN, 22 March 1991-11