Tag: active transport Page 1 of 2

If you’re looking for the official guide you can find it here.

I was encouraged to put together this guide by a mate who recently had cause to take his bike on the train from Sydney to Newcastle and reached out to me to understand the best way to do this. This was pre-Mariyung launch and so I explained that there was a couple of ways to approach this problem but broadly, he had the following options:

Take the XPT – Bad idea – this would require putting your bike in a special cardboard bike box, making a phone call and paying extra money.
Take the V-set – Bad idea – V-Sets have comfy seats and a certain mid-century style but they lack room for bikes. There are bike hooks in one carriage per 4 car set but they can be hard to find in the rush of boarding, are extremely awkward to use and wouldn’t fit his cargo bike anyway.
Take the Oscar – Good idea!

Up until fairly recently Oscars rarely ran north of Wyong but that is no longer the case. Generally, I don’t like spending the 3 hour trip on one because of the narrower and less comfortable seats, but there’s no denying that they have much larger and more usable toilets, wheelchair/pram accessible seating and, crucially, space to park a cargo bike. It’s as simple as wheeling it on and parking it in the vestibule, much as you would on any suburban trainset. Not ideal on trains that are very crowded and have lot of people getting on and off all the time, but perfectly fine for the run up to Newcastle.

The only problem was, how was a layperson like my mate suppose to know all of this AND know before they got the station what kind of rolling stock would be operating the service they were hoping to catch.

Enter ‘The Unofficial Guide to Taking your Bike on the train in NSW’.

At the Station

Before you even think about leaving the house to head on your trip, the first decision you need to make is if you’re going to take your bike with you or leave it at the station. If you’re leaving it at the station, you’ve got three options:

Locking your bike to a standard bike loop – If no bike loops are available, consider a friendly fence post or parking sign. At most stations I wouldn’t recommend doing this overnight.
Locking your bike up in a secure shed – TfNSW have started rolling out secure bike parking. It’s undercover, has 24 hour CCTV and requires swiping a registered opal card to access. I haven’t used these but they seem pretty great and I would definitely give one a go overnight. You can find out where they are and how to register your opal card for access here. I’ve spotted them in the wild at West Ryde and Schofields.
Locking your bike up in a private ‘bike locker’ – These are older and apparently there’s 830 of them across 110 train stations. You might have spotted the big green boxes around and about. These can be privately hired on a month-by-month basis here, which probably isn’t much use unless you’re doing so as part of a regular commute.

Bike Shed and Bike Locker side by side. Credit: TfNSW.

Okay, so you’ve decided to take your bike with you. You’ll be pleased to know that this is free of charge on all Opal accepting train services run by Sydney Trains or NSW Trainlink. Gone are the days of theoretically having to pay a child’s fare for your bike during peak hour!

Next step, getting onto the platform. In days gone by, the CityRail map used to have little wheelchair icons to indicate which stations had a lift (or, presumably, a ramp). That’s gone in the name of legibility so now you’ll have to head to the TfNSW website and look up your train station. Scroll down to accessibility and if it says ‘Lift’ than there is lifted access from the street onto the platform. If not, you’ll probably need to be able to drag your bike up and/or down the stairs but you might get lucky with a ramp (Hi Broadmeadow).

The glorious final iteration of the CityRail network map is cluttered, but you can’t fault it for providing station detail!

Suburban Sydney Trains

If you’re planning on boarding a suburban Sydney Train there really isn’t too much to worry about. Some trains will have slightly more roomy vestibules but all will accommodate you and your bike. There are a couple of standard approaches I’ve witnessed to taking your bike on the train:

Sit in the side facing seats vestibule with your bike in front of you
Stand between the doors holding onto your bike while it rests against a pole
Kickstand the bike upright or secure it to a pole and then sit down in the vestibule

There’s pros and cons to each but I think getting as far away from the doors as possible is going to make your trip more pleasant, particularly if you’re expecting the train to be somewhat crowded.

Sydney Metro

Much the same as taking your bike on Sydney Trains. The first or last doors have some seats that flip up and tend to have a bit more room. Watch out these things can get crammed in peak hour.

Intercity NSW Trains

Okay this is where it gets interesting. The first thing you’ll need to find out is what type of train will be operating your service. The easiest way to do this is to use one of the various trip planning apps. All these apps use the same data feed so just pick one that shows the information you want in a format you like. I personally use and recommend TripView. AnyTrip is also very cool but probably more so for enthusiasts than the casual user. If the trip planning tool you are using doesn’t tell you what kind of train is running your service, pick a different one.

Personally I wouldn’t favour spending three hours on an Oscar, but if you’re travelling with a bike it’s a solid option.

There are about half a dozen different kinds of intercity rolling stock which will affect how you take your bike onboard and how annoying doing so is. You can check out their features and even floorplans on this handy webpage. Here they are in approximate order from worst to best experience:

V-Set (also known as an ‘Intercity train’)

The V-Set is hands down my favourite train. They’re the oldest passenger trains running in NSW dating as far back as 1970 and they ooze mid-century class. I’ve heard them described as the ‘poor-man’s business class’ for the well-padded seats, carpeted walls and coat hooks. Just try to avoid using the bathroom and don’t forget you’ll need to pull the train door open when you’re getting off!

The V-Set might show up in your app of choice as an ‘Intercity train’. They can be found travelling to Newcastle or the Blue Mountains. Expect them to be retired from service by 2026 (although they said that about 2023 and here we are…).

One carriage per 4 cars should have bike hooks. Good luck figuring out which one it is. I haven’t actually used these before but I’ve seen them and it looks hard. Everything on a V-Set is pre-DDA compliance so don’t expect much room to turn around and know that while you’re trying to do anything you’ll be blocking a bunch of other passengers from getting past you.

If I need to ride a V-Set with my bike I usually jump in the first or last door of the train and stay in the vestibule. People can squeeze past as they get on or off the train and there’s no access into the guards compartment so you don’t get through traffic.

Avoid taking your bike on a V-Set if possible and don’t even think about it with a cargo bike, touring bike or anything else oversize.

Endeavour Railcar

The Endeavours can be found on the South Coast Line (south of Kiama), the Hunter Line, the Southern Highlands Line and the Blue Mountains Line if you catch one of two daily Bathurst Bullets in each direction.

Endeavour railcar. Credit: Hugh Llewellyn

These trains lack any seating in the vestibule and have small doors, so they aren’t ideal for bikes. That said, they do have luggage and wheelchair areas that might double as bike parking, but I haven’t used them before so I can’t comment. Thankfully the volumes of passengers getting on and off trips run by endeavours should be very low so if you have to park your bike somewhere it partially blocks people and get up each time the train stops, it shouldn’t be a big deal.

Avoid an Endeavour if you can but don’t fret if you can’t.

Hunter Railcar

The Hunter railcars have been plying the Hunter line for almost 20 years and are basically a single deck diesel version of the millennium trains. They’ve got large doors and side seating in the vestibule. Taking your bike on one of these is basically the same as taking it on a suburban train.

Tick. Just like in Sydney!

OSCAR (also known as an H-Set)

The Outer Suburban Railcars were brought in for shorter distance intercity trips that experience high peak demand and needed larger capacity trains. They were originally designed to run to Wollongong and Wyong but can now be found running as far as Newcastle.

They’re from this century so expect wheelchair accessible toilets, automatic doors and side facing seating in the vestibule. Taking your bike on one of these is basically the same as taking it on a suburban train.

Tick. Just like in Sydney!

Mariyung (also known as a D-Set)

The much-delayed new intercity Mariyung trains take their name from the Dharug word for Emu. It’s a clever pun because not only are emus fast and graceful over long distances, but the 3-letter acronym EMU in railway parlance stands for Electric Multiple Unit, the type of train the Mariyung is.

Since December 2024 the Mariyungs are finally in operation. You can find them plying the route between Sydney and Newcastle and they should be rolled out to the Blue Mountains Line to replace the V-Sets in the coming year/s.

A V-Set and Mariyung (right) at Central Station. Credit: Dan Himbrechts

These trains are the crème of the crop, bringing intercity rail transport in NSW into the 2010s! Expect to find USB-A ports, 240V wall sockets and folding tray tables. Unlike on all the other trains listed here, you’ll actually be able to enjoy those features because the Mariyungs have legit bike racks! You can park your bike just like you’re at the shops, stow your luggage like you’re on a train to the airport (not in Sydney though lol) and sit down in a seat like a normal person.

The Mariyungs are made up of either 4 or 6 car sets which can be grouped together to create 4, 6, 8 or 10 car trains. My understanding is that each 4 or 6 car set will have one carriage with bike parking, so if your train is 8 or 10 cars long it should have two.

This handy side and plan view of the Mariyung ‘B’ type car shows then large exterior bike indicator and the location of the racks right by the doorway.

To spot the bike parking just walk (or ride) alongside the train until you see a larger-than-life size picture of a bike. Board through these doors, put your bike in the rack and you’re good to go.

Now this is living!

Regional NSW Trains

Okay that’s the relatively good news. If you’re heading further afield than the intercity rail network (i.e past Scone, Dungog, Bathurst or Goulburn) you’re going to need to mess with the NSW Trainlink checked luggage rules. These trains require seat reservations to travel on and your bike will need to be booked along as checked luggage. This generally isn’t free and can’t be done online; you’ll need to call up.

There are also draconian rules about how your bike must be packed that seem to be designed to discourage people from bothering to do so.

Be aware that NSW Trainlink staff take these rules seriously. I have seen a person be told off for attempting to take a folded-up Brompton style bike onto the train and place it in the luggage rack.

Yes, it fit in the luggage rack.

Yes, it was smaller and lighter than other luggage in the luggage rack.

No, they did not require assistance from staff, and

No, it did not unduly inconvenience other passengers.

However, the rules state that:

A limit of one (1) bicycle per passenger is permitted.
Reservations are essential.
Bicycles will be stored in the checked luggage area.

The bicycle (including protective containers) must weigh less than 20 kilograms to be accepted. If the bicycle exceeds 20 kilograms in weight, it cannot be accepted.

Push Bicycles:

Bicycles must be contained in a cardboard bicycle box or commercially produced protective bag to protect the bicycle during transport.
Bicycle boxes can be obtained from bicycle retailers or provided upon request.
When packing the bicycle, ensure that no part of it protrudes.
Boxes must not be torn or damaged to ensure the safe transportation of the bicycle.
Maximum dimensions when packed: 135cm long x 80cm high x 24cm wide.
A supplementary charge of $12.10 applies for push bicycles.

Folding Bicycles:

Folding bicycles must be packed in a commercially produced protective cover bag.
Maximum dimensions when folded: 79cm long x 59cm high x 36cm wide.
No additional charges apply for carrying folding bicycles.

The passenger in question didn’t have a commercially produced protective cover bag and hadn’t called up to make a special (free) reservation for their folding bike and so was in breach of the rules.

That said, NSW Trainlink have tacitly acknowledged the current system doesn’t work very well for cyclists. Stage 1 of a trial to allow ‘roll-on’ bikes on the XPT was completed in 2024 and Stage 2 is planned for 2025.

Hopefully in the near future there will be a more legible system, something like a bike rack in the luggage car would work fine, I’m sure.

The future of regional travel

The R-Sets are due to enter service from this year and we can only assume that they will have dedicated bicycle storage facilities for passengers. These trains are intended to replace the Xplorers, XPTs and Endeavour railcars over the coming couple of years.

The Regional Rail project website has a FAQ around bike racks which says:

The new regional intercity trains will have dedicated bike spaces.

The new long and short regional trains have been designed for bicycles to be stored in line with current NSW TrainLink procedures, but these methods will be reviewed before the new regional fleet is introduced. As part of this review process, concept testing is being carried out regarding the feasibility and viability of taking and storing bikes on-board without boxing.

Sounds promising, if not entirely certain. This should mean, in theory, that by 2028 you’ll be able to seamlessly take your bike on any passenger train service in NSW – tourist trains and land cruises notwithstanding, hooray! Bring on the rail trails!

Addendum: Most of the above has been put together from my own experience, if I’ve got anything wrong or you’ve got some better ideas on how to roll onto trains in NSW I’d love to hear about it!

Erskineville Station to be twice as accessible with new southern concourse

By Jed C

On March 24, 2021

In Submissions, Sydney Transport

After years of lobbying from local residents, particularly the Friends of Erko group, it looks like Erskineville Station is finally getting a southern entrance! This is an exciting example of a transport project that punches above its weight. Station upgrades over the last decade have too often focused on accessibility upgrades for lower use suburban and regional stations (perhaps in more marginal seats?) or exorbitantly expensive car parks.

This has left highly congested stations, particularly in the Inner West, with a certain grungy 20th century aesthetic. This no doubt makes train travel more atmospheric, which is very important, but I think most commuters would agree: efficiency > vibe.

What’s so good about a second entrance anyway?

A second entrance is so valuable because it can dramatically increase the size of the walking catchment of the station. A train platform is roughly 200m long. Building a new entrance is like opening a new station for the people that live past the far end of the platform. At stations like Erskineville and Redfern a new concourse can bring the station minutes closer to 100s or even 1000s of extra residents and workers.

It’s a simple idea and not especially glamorous (hello Sydney Metro, helllllllo Westconnex), but it is a great example of the sorts of small improvements that have done more to improve public transport in Sydney in the past decade than all the megaprojects rolled together. But don’t trust me, trust the academics!

Erskineville On Exhibition

The plan for the upgrade of Erskineville is currently on exhibition and can be found here.

There is also a more minor accessibility upgrade planned for Erskineville’s sister station (familial in the sense that they’re both being annexed to the Illawarra Line by Sydney Metro), St Peters. This is on exhibition here.

According to the TfNSW website, feedback for the St Peters upgrade will close on Friday March 26th, while the Erskineville upgrade will close on Friday March 29th. Your guess is as good as mine but I suggest you get in quick!

If you need inspiration, I attach my submission for the two plans below.

One particularly insightful opinion on the upgrades

Regarding the St Peters Station Upgrade:

Proposed key features of the St Peters Station Upgrade map — The 2021 St Peters Station Upgrade design plan courtesy of TfNSW

I am pleased to see this busy and growing station receiving a much needed freshen up. There are a few changes I would suggest to better meet the goals of the upgrade:

1. Expand and include undercover, or even secure, bike parking. Bike hoops are one step on the bike parking hierarchy up from an incidental metal pole. St Peters station has a large catchment that is not within easy walking distance. This area has a high rate of bicycle use. Secure bike parking and an undercover bike parking area at St Peters would be an asset to the community and well used. There is room to build such a facility in the small plaza adjacent to King Street.

2. I’m curious as to why Platforms 1 and 2 have not received any significant increase in covered space compared to Platforms 3 and 4. I understand that only 2 platforms at St Peters station are regularly utilised, and I assume that the final service arrangement after the opening of Sydney Metro Southwest will make Platforms 3 and 4 the most used. However, if money can be spent providing lift service to Platforms 1 and 2 it is clear they will still be used and thus it seems shortsighted to not improve canopy cover in line with this.

3. I notice in the Environmental Factors Review the off-peak bus frequencies are not correctly listed. The 370 and 422 run at an off peak frequency of 15 minutes more often than the stated 30 minute frequency. While most users of St Peters reach the station on foot, some do use the bus interchanges and misrepresenting service frequency in this way could lead planners to neglect to facilitate these important connections. The 370 in particular is a frequent and important crosstown bus route and good connection facilities such as bus stop infrastructure, lighting and wayfinding are important at St Peters.

Regarding the Erskineville Station Upgrade:

Proposed key features of the Erskineville Station Upgrade map — The 2021 Erskineville Station Upgrade design plan courtesy of TfNSW

I am especially pleased to see the hard work from WalkSydney and Friends of Erko has paid off in calling for a southern concourse at Erskineville Station. In dense neighbourhoods such as Erskineville the impact on accessibility of having only a single station entrance at one end of the platform is significant. Placing two station entrances can dramatically increase the walking catchment of a station making it more useful to more members of the communities it is intended to serve. I hope that this knowledge will inform future upgrades and new station footprints for Sydney Trains and Sydney Metro.

There are a few changes I would suggest to better meet the goals of the upgrade:

1. The obvious omission from your proposal is the lack of a connection from the Southern Concourse to George Street. Not only would this provide access for local residents to the station but also facilitate access for kids to Erskineville primary school without needing to travel along busy Swanson Street.

I do not believe that putting a small at-grade concourse entrance would result in a significant loss of green space. Instead, it would result in more people travelling through the park and facilitate greater incidental use. There would remain a large number of pocket parks and larger green spaces throughout the neighbourhood.

2. I am unsure as to why your plan has included the construction of a lift between Platform 1 and the Northern Concourse. As per my feedback at St Peters, I assume that Platform 1 is not likely to be regularly used once Metro Southwest opens. Building this lift would add significantly to the cost of the project. I assume that outside of trackwork and special events the primary function of the lift would be to facilitate access from the shopping strip on Swanson Street to the accessible Southern Concourse. I contend that this access could be provided more cheaply and effectively by upgrading the pedestrian amenity and accessibility of Bridge Street. This would mean that passengers requiring accessible entrance could travel down Bridge Street and up the lift at the Southern concourse, rather than needing to go down the lift onto Platform 1 and back up the lift to the Southern Concourse. This would mean one less lift movement for less mobile passengers. If there is a different reason for the installation of the lift at the northern end of Platform 1, it is not made clear in the proposal. I would then be curious as to why lifts are not being installed at the Northern end of Platforms 2,3 and 4.

3.The placement of the vehicle drop off zone at the dead end of Bridge Street will mean a lot of unnecessary vehicle kilometres travelled along Bridge St, contributing to congestion. A driver dropping a passenger on their way elsewhere will need to travel into and then leave Bridge Street after using the drop off zone. Drop off zones work much more effectively when placed on through routes. I would urge you to consider placing drop off zones on Swanson Street near the intersection of Henderson Street instead. There are ample car parking spaces on both sides of the road that could be changed to no-parking drop off zones. The dead end of Bridge Street could be retained as accessible only parking.

Once again, thankyou for working on these important projects and I hope that listening to the voices of the community through this consultation process will result in even better outcomes.

Submission to the Transport for NSW Haberfield, Ashfield and Leichhardt Local Network Improvements project

By Jed C

On May 15, 2020

In Submissions, Sydney Transport

I put on my angry (former) local resident hat for this one. The scope of the project can be viewed here for the next 10 days and feedback can be sent to ni@rms.nsw.gov.au.

I came across this road widening project as it affects the immediate vicinity of my proposed metro station Leichhardt North. It’s frustrating to see the state government going in, what I see as, the completely wrong direction. Turning inner city communities over to wider highways and faster roads. Cities around the world are going in a different direction and the Covid-19 pandemic could be our chance to do things better. Unfortunately, this project is probably just about ‘shovel ready’ and so, in a horrible twist of so-Sydney irony, the pandemic might actually justify worse pedestrian amenity.

I encourage anyone affected by this project to make a submission. Here’s mine for inspiration:

I’d like to make a submission regarding the Transport for NSW ‘Haberfield, Ashfield and Leichhardt Local Network Improvements’ project. My objection to this project is that it is focused solely on the movement of vehicles and takes no consideration of pedestrians, cyclists, public transport users or urban amenity.

Part of the justification for the Westconnex project was to reduce the volume of surface traffic and allow surface roads to act as neighbourhood assets rather than high volume, high speed traffic corridors. Given this, why is the City West Link being upgraded to handle ever greater volumes of traffic at the expense of local amenity and less harmful modes of transport? And why does this roughly coincide with the opening of the Westconnex M4 East and Rozelle Interchange projects? Wouldn’t this be the time to look at projects to return surface roads to meet community needs?

The benefits of supporting non-automobile based modes of transport are well documented, but I will touch on them briefly. Active and public transport create healthier and happier communities by reducing the impacts of pollution, encouraging incidental exercise and helping people reconnect with place in their neighbourhoods. Absolutely, through transport is essential in a large city, but a 6 lane toll road that duplicates the City West Link is partially complete already.

The planned developments of this project are particularly problematic because of the nature of accessibility in the area. The Inner West is dense mixed use area and the Bay Run is an extremely popular site of recreation.

The Mortley Ave/Timbrell Drive redesign still fails to feature pedestrian crossings on all 4 roads. Instead, to get from the extremely popular walking and biking route on the Bay Run to Haberfield, one would need to cross the intersection 2-3 times instead of just 1. Yes, the northern side of City West Link is the busiest road in that intersection, however a pedestrian crossing there could be timed with the Timbrell-Mortley movement, with a red left hand turn for the Timbrell traffic if pedestrians are present.

Placing the fast movement of vehicles ahead of all else at this intersection discourages people from enjoying the Bay Run, annexes the recreational spaces from the adjacent residential areas and will lead to frustration for pedestrians and cyclists, dramatically increasing the risk of injury or death to our most vulnerable road users.

This is exactly the kind redesign that goes against the spirit of what Westconnex was supposed to achieve for affected communities. Our harbourside surface roads should be made usable for pedestrians and cyclists as well as cars and trucks.

The planned rebuild of the Norton and James Streets intersection is even more disappointing. The total lack of regard for pedestrians is obvious, as the mapping tool on your consultation portal (https://v2.communityanalytics.com.au/tfnsw/iwlocal/map) showing traffic movements through the new mega-intersection doesn’t even feature pedestrian movements.What is most galling about this is that this isn’t a large remote highway interchange, but is immediately adjacent to a light rail station and several important bus corridors in a walkable neighbourhood.

According to the indicative map a pedestrian trying to simply get from the light rail station to the area around Amato’s bottle shop will need to cross 4 sets of lights, rather than the current 2. Do you honestly expect pedestrians to wait patiently, day in, day out for all these lights to change? People will cross against the lights in frustration at being totally designed out of their neigbourhood and, eventually, someone will be killed.

Waiting on barren concrete traffic islands by large highways is extremely unpleasant and can even feel unsafe at night. This redesign deliberately makes the pedestrian environment much less pleasant and safe and will directly result in less people walking, cycling and using public transport in the immediate area. Thus inducing people to use private vehicles and justifying the sorts of decisions that lead to projects like this in the first place.

This intersection redesign will likely ease congestion on City West Link and in the immediate vicinity, however it will induce extra traffic onto all of the affected roads. None of these roads can handle this. Darling Street in Rozelle is extremely congested, particularly on weekends. Norton Street is a low speed shopping street and bus corridor, not a through road for private vehicles. Darley Street leads to congestion hot spots at Parramatta Road and in Lewisham.

I am not a traffic engineer, however it strikes me that reducing the variety of movements through the intersection could relieve traffic somewhat. Norton Street is an asset to the community and a greater focus should be placed on turning this into a bus, cycling and pedestrian route, as well as maintaining local vehicle access.

Perhaps removing the right turn option from City West Link heading south could free up space in the intersection? Cars and trucks could still use Ramsey Street or turn left onto James and then loop onto Balmain Road. Similarly there is a right turn off City West Link heading north, why does this need to be available? There is already a right hand turn at Balmain Road.

It seems to me the most important movements through the intersection are people continuing on City West Link, traffic heading from Darley citybound on City West Link and vice versa, traffic movements from Darley north to James and vice versa, buses on Norton St and pedestrians coming to and from the light rail station. Let’s think creatively about how we can facilitate all these important movements without marginalising people from the space entirely and further ripping this suburb in two.

We cannot build our way out of traffic congestion in the inner west. The last 50 years of road building is a testament to that. How many communities recreational and other transportation needs must be sacrificed in this pursuit?

I hope that the RMS is able to see beyond a blind desire to increase vehicle movements through this intersection to understand the impacts that successive projects of this nature have on the health, accessibility and livelihoods of the affected communities. Please go back to the drawing board on this project and figure out how Westconnex can be used as an opportunity to return surface roads to the neighbourhoods within which they exist.