>The Sydney subway system was very similar to BART, in that it served the outlying suburbs with high speed surface lines and used subways at the metro-core. But it did use overhead catenary, not the third rail BART uses. Also, I don't remember ever seeing a grade crossing.

I was there in 1/1970, for the same reason. ISTR that is was a 1200 or 1500 v DC opeartion.

I remember the double-deckers but no subway, but that doesn't mean there wasn't one. The things which stick out in my mind were the coal fired steam engines still being used all over town, one for shunting in the main depot; the two signal boxes (interlocking towers) which controlled the main and suburban stations; the double track, electrified wye (Redfern ?) over the hill west of downtown and which had a the most extensive S&F (armstong) plant I've ever seen; the extensive use of wooden passenger cars on the main line trains; the suburban trains running around with all the doors and windows wide open; and the minature S&F (armstrong) plants with operators at many of the outlying suburban stations. There was mechanical interlocking everywhere. No freeways.

With the majority of the homes having terra cotta tile roofs, the lasting impression was that this was what the Bay Area had been like before WWII. Friends who have visited since say there are now freeways all over the place.

>It had a double track subway through downtown, looped around the inner business district. As several lines entered the downtown area, each wyed into the subway loop. While we were there, they were adding additional tracks in the downtown subways loop. On the southweat side, the loop wyed again and merged back in on itself at a very large multi-track Central Station. This is where inter-city trains and express suburban trains could be boarded.

>From there, a very high speed six track mainline departed for the suburbs and beyond. It was a fascinating ride, to be running side by side an express train at 90 plus mph, at least until we had to slow for a station stop.

The free running speeds of the cars I rode was more like 40-50 mph, which is typical for suburban electrifications with many stops. There was electrified main line passenger service, what we now call "long distance", which may have operated at higher speeds.

As I mentioned earlier I don't recall a subway per se, unless it was the tunnel leading to the Sydney Harbour Bridge. I also recall a two level bridge along the waterfront at Circular Quay, which had the trains on the lower deck. On either end of the suburban station there were extensive brick arch flyovers for sorting the trains to and from the various tracks. This was controlled by a small manual signal box (interlocking tower) manned by two levermen, completely out of sight of the entire suburban depot and its plant; the levermen couldn't see the tracks nor trains they were controlling. One had to walk along a catwalk along side the eaves of a building to get to it. The levers were minature S&F levers, but the entire plant was electric.

In order to determine when to throw a switch and clear a signal, the levermen had mohagany boxes with glass windows and paper scrolls inside. Written on the scroll was a listing of the day's events in chronological order, i.e. train 723 shows up on down track 4 at 2:34 PM and goes to depot 6, then train 726 leaves depot 3 for up track 1, and so on. The leverman would then watch the clock and the track model for the 723's TKO to light up on the apporach to the signal for down track 4. It's worth noting here that there was no way for the leverman to know whether this TKO was actually 723 or not, all he could do was assume it was.

When the TKO on down track 4 lit up, he would line 723 to depot 6 and clear the signals. Then he turned the brass crank on the mohagany box to bring up the next event. A complication was that the NSWGR didn't have enough drivers to run all the suburban trains scheduled for each day, so next to the event box, there was an auxiliary event box, which listed events (trains) canceled from those on the main box. He had to crank this too very time a canceled event came an went. These event lists were handwritten on rolls of 12" wide newsprint, so this meant that somewhere else there were a few clerks writing up tomorrow's lists today. The glass on the front of the boxes had a red hairline so the leverman could highlight the next event by turning the handle so the event was sitting right on top of the line, with the next event or two visible below where he could read them and be able to plan ahead.

Traffic was so dense, even midday, that both levermen were so busy throwing levers and turning the cranks on their event boxes they barely had time to say hello when I walked in with my guide. No computers whatsoever. (the train numbers, track ID,s and depot track numbers are fictitious because I don't remember the real ones)

The signal box for the main depot was an interlocking tower in the grand old style -- it had two 50' long machines facing each other, manned by three or four levermen, plus the raised dias at one end where the supervisor sat at his oak desk. As I recall, this was a GRS pistol-grip all-electric installation. Unfortunately, I didn't have a good enough camera with me to take any interior pictures of either of these signal boxes.

>Incidentally, they used a semi-automatic train control system in the suburban territory, not too terribly different than BART's (but I think it was GRS - if memory serves), complete with coded track circuits, cab signaling with few wayside signals, enforced signal compliance, enforced braking, et, al.; except that they did not use an onboard speed servo

This sounds exactly like what was on the SF Bay Bridge, used by the Key System, SN, and SP. On the SFOBB the leading cars had speed pickups so the train control equipment could determine whether the motorman was going too fast. While officially called "Train Control" the details of the apparatus and the way it functioned were almost precisely the same as what was used by the PRR and installed on the GG1s, including the code carrier frequency in the rails. Aside from the cab display, the difference was that on the PRR, a penalty brake application was a full service reduction, while on the SFOBB it was an emergency application.

>The really interesting thing about the Sydney subway, is that with a similar ATC system, similar m.u. cars as BART, and a similar infrastructure, they actually scheduled and routinely achieved the 90 seconds between trains, that BART promised but never managed to deliver. That's 40 trains per hour - per track! I witnessed it myself, each day that I was there.

When all three railroads were running on the SFOBB, the employee timetable gave 90 second headways out of East Bay Terminal (in SF). The Bridge Railway was designed for 90 second headways, a maximum of 10 trains at a time in one director (10 concurrently in in the other), and with a train describer which stored and forwarded train IDs as each train progressed across the bridge. At Rincon Hill in SF, there was a sorting switch which directed the westbound trains between two inbound routes: the SP to the right, the Key and SN to the left. This switch was thrown by the train describer. The train describer information then went on to the tower operator in the terminal tower, where it told him which train ID sign to light up for the people in the waiting room. 90 second headway with no computers.

In other words, we had this stuff too but threw it away.

>The Question - if the New South Wales Government Railway could do it with American train control gear, long before BART ever turned a shovel, why the he!! couldn't BART do it?
>The Answer - Politicians run BART, not railroad professionals!

Amen to both.