Sydney Metro Western Sydney Airport: Station Designs Revealed!

[@HappyDays-nk7iq]

Orchard Hills Station looks good. Very unique station design and somewhat fitting and sympathetic with the area. Excellent that there are no multi-storey car parking near the station, rather the station precinct looks very pedestrian friendly, and seem to be completely car-free which is wonderful.

[@HappyDays-nk7iq]

Agree with your sentiments in relation to the services building though.

[@stevenhancock9429]

The station design looks fine, but the catchment area for this station is the suburbs of Caddens, Kingswood, Werrington and the southern areas of Penrith eg Glenmore Park and South Penrith? How are they going to get there if no parking? St Marys is fine as they have adequate transport already, but remember the airport is a 24 hr airport. How do people get to and from the airport? The suburban rail service is not brilliant and safe between 10 pm and 5am. What will Luddenham be used for? Hopefully they will have regular feeder services to the multitude of Warehouses and Distribution centres between Mamre Rd and Wallgrove Rd. I like the idea of the Metro, but it is only half done. Ideal is Tallawong to Schofields to Elara to Ropes Crossing to St Marys. Second, Airport to Leppington. This will be a fantastic option!

[@MichaelTavares]

1:27 I don’t think st Mary’s is over designed, it will be an interchange station for airport passengers going from metro to Sydney Trains, so whilst it may seem over designed now, future patronage should be much greater, and you’d want to build in a future proof way.

[@rodcampbell8509]

I agree. These people are also highly likely to have large bags too hence the 2 lifts.

[@strikerbowls791]

People get taxi's or ubers from airports

[@peterelvery]

Why two lifts and two escalators? Redundancy, redundancy, redundancy! The space is there. Do it now.

[@hazptmedia]

I actually quite like the orchard hills design, probably just me though

[@Beeblebrox6868]

I haven't seen anything about the intent of the Orchard Hills station design, but to me it captures a rural, agricultural feel - like the harvest shed of an orchard, say!

[@Mick_Unfiltered]

I think it’s really nice

[@lachd2261]

I actually like both Orchard Hills and St Mary’s. As for the light issue, the Waterloo station has some dark brown materials but good lighting was able to bring out the best in it, so I’m not worried.

[@TalesOfWar]

The bit at 3:19 reminds me a bit of the Elizabeth line at Paddington Station. In a different colour scheme of course.

[@electro_sykes]

I really wish they could connect this metro line at st Mary’s to metro west at Westmead via a new alignment along the M4. Give western Sydney airport a direct one seat ride to parramatta and eventually the Sydney cbd. Also extend it from aerotropolis to glenfield via leppington/south west link and extend metro west one stop east from hunter street to the city botanic gardens. I also question why many of the stations on the new western Sydney airport line are underground when much of the line is surrounded by underdeveloped areas, would of made more sense to have these stations elevated and Luddenham in my opinion should be built but initially not opened on day one in my opinion due to the lack of development in the surrounding area, however should be opened within 5 years of opening or once the surrounding developments are ready to demand the stations opening. As for orchard hills, it’s a little more developed than Luddenham and is adjacent to the M4 motorway so would be very convenient for drivers to park up and take the metro to the new airport. As for Bradfield (formerly aerotropolis), in my opinion it needs to be designed to accommodate an over station development and shopping centre above it as there is a city planned to be there after all.

[@tasmaniantaswegian]

And how Luddenham station is nowhere near actual Luddenham central.

[@jack2453]

Before you get too down on escalators and lifts at St Marys is that it is expected (hoped?) that lots of the passengers will have luggage - but of course cross platform transfer would be better.

[@TalesOfWar]

Lifts can't be underestimated when it comes to getting around with luggage, or if you have limited mobility (or none at all and are wheelchair bound). One complaint I have at many newer stations here in the UK is that while they do all have lifts, level boarding, lots of space etc, the lifts themselves are rather tiny and often there's only one even at busy stations.

[@AussieBronco]

I love the look, blending into the environment!

[@NathanSmith-cs3yi]

2 lifts for each platform at St Mary's is a great idea. I assume they are predicting a lot of the passengers interchanging at St Mary's are going to have luggage that isn't easy to get up escalators or stairs.

[@lachlantula]

yep, makes perfect sense

[@paulmaynard408]

The lattice walls are good for sunny weather but what about wet weather? Then are the smooth floors just a way of ensuring passenger falls?

[@kierannelson2581]

The two elevators per platform at St Mary's will be able to handle the pulse of airport travellers interchanging from the metro to Sydney Trains. They will also ensure that, with an elevator broken down, service will remain for these passengers as well as those with disabilities. I see this as a good design feature.

[@cityraildude]

@@kierannelson2581 Yea, plus so many people will have luggage

[@Mick_Unfiltered]

I love the orchard hills design, really suits the area, I’m a Claremont meadows local.

[@elisa2hot]

When comparing the new suburban metro stations to those on the North West line, I believe the design teams have done an excellent job, particularly with the elevated stations like Luddenham Station. The key to these stations' aesthetic success will be the execution of high-quality landscaping, similar to what we’ve seen on the North West Metro line. However, I agree that the service buildings are somewhat disappointing. Personally, I would have liked to see more innovative brickwork, akin to what’s been done at Crows Nest metro station. As for Bradfield, it is indeed underwhelming given the ambitious plans for the area. It feels uninspiring, and I think it deserves a fit-out quality similar to that of the Sydney CBD metro stations. Station Design and Natural Light Regarding the open nature of the stations and the lack of substantial walls, I actually appreciate this approach. However, I would love to see more glass incorporated into the overhead canopies to allow natural light to flood the stations. I’m also quite fond of the dark terracotta colour used at St Marys, particularly at the platform level. The success of this design will depend heavily on the use of diffused accent lighting, similar to what’s been effectively implemented in the CBD metro stations. It’s interesting that each station has its unique character, though the design language of the peaked gable roofs seems to be a consistent theme across this line.

[@petitkruger2175]

does anyone know what's happening with the extension of the Leppington rail link to the airport or what the new plans are for that gap?

[@tacitdionysus3220]

AFAIK nothing official as yet, although is was promised for a decision this year sometime. Some possibilities include: (1) - Sydney Trains extended through to the Airport from Glenfield - This option would take up the space set aside for the second metro in from Westmead. It also means services would be limited to available paths between currently running Sydney Trains services through Glenfield - This is not a cheap option, as the tunnels, station boxes and turn backs need to be much larger than with a light or conventional metro. It also substantially fails to meet one of the big intentions of the North South rail line; to connect lots more people who live in the west with quality local employment. (2) - Extend the metro through to Glenfield for a St Marys like connection (the most flexible) or Chatswood like arrangement (nice, but limits Sydney Trains to the remaining two tracks)- it could either involve converting the Leppington to Glenfield tracks to metro, or leaving them as Sydney Trains with a separate metro through to Glenfield (with provision for extension further). -(3) Extend the metro line from Bradfield to Leppington only (with provision to go further at a later date if needed. - This is probably the cheapest option in terms of construction and operation, while maintaining and expanding the existing Sydney Trains services needed at Leppington and Edmondson Park. (4) - Some blend of the above, like Sydney Trains to meet the Metro at either Bradfield or at a junction station at South Bringelly (to split traffic to Narallen/Macarthur and Glenfield). Given the atrocious economy, my bet would be on (3) at first, with extension of the metro past Leppington (and probably past Glenfield) later on. It involves minimal new construction of cheaper and faster infrastructure, while leaviung the SW Link still available for turning back Sydney Trains services, and servicing the quickly growing Edmondson Park and Leppington precincts. Note that the idea of ultimately connecting the three Sydney cities (Harbour, River and Parkland) with a fast rail service would be best achieved by extending the future West Sydney Metro from Westmead to WSA. The planning material for the airport indicates it draws most of its passengers from Western Sydney initially (because its populous and close), but gradually attracts more and more form further East (because fares are cheaper and can expand capacity much more than KSA airport) from the 2040s. Up till then the initial St Marys connection is OK, albeit nobbled a bit by some having to change to slower Sydney Trains. Also keep in mind that the usage of trains of any sort to the airport will probably only represent about 20-25% of total load (that's typical of KSA airport and airports served by rail links worldwide (e.g. at London Heathrow, with a few rail options, its 28%.) If you want to read something official and solid (as opposed to random people like myself yelling from the bleachers) I recommend the 'Western Sydney Rail Scoping Study Outcomes Report' from 2018. Lots of analysis and discussion of strengths and weaknesses of various different approaches in fairly plain language. Last time I looked it was still available online by searching under its title.

[@kaz1578]

If people with luggage are using the lifts I think 2 per platform is good. It also serves people with mobility issues if one lift is out of action.

[@lachlantula]

does orchard hills look like a giant shed or school hall? yes. do i find it charming and like it? Also yes

[@tacitdionysus3220]

As always I tend to play devil's advocate. My preferences for these stations and locales could be summarised as: - They should reflect the vibe and culture of WESTERN Sydney. - I don't want to see "pretty' buildings. Sure they should be elegantly functional and 'get the job done', because that's how things are done in the West; it's a place that is intensely pragmatic, and gets results without any need to show off. - While their interiors should be pleasant, they should enable the outside natural world to reach within, with all its light and colours. You should be able to see and smell the bush, and hear the the bustling ASMR of suburbia, as appropriate to the locale. Its decor should reflect its surroundings and the 'hard-bitten' and hard working attitudes of its denizens. From a more practical point of view: - I have no difficulty with the size of the trains. I've done the numbers and this system alone could meet the airport's needs up to the expected 2060 expansion (and by then a second metro from Westmead should have arrived anyway). - I have no difficulty with the extra lifts at St Marys. It's not just an 'access' thing; but a necessity when a large volume of users will be carrying luggage. - I do not care very much about 'better connecting' with the rest of Sydney'. Fxxk the rest of Sydney. It's had the lion's share of infrastructure for far too long. - Of course such connections should exist. But the West is already more populous than the rest of Sydney, and improving its internal connections are frankly more important - better to create more of its own internal employment and identity, than remain a mere appendix to 'tinsel town' in the East. - Western Sydney is effectively a different city, with a different culture. It will not compete with "Old Sydney' as much as with Brisbane, Melbourne and Adelaide as source of competitive industry and employment. Innovation always come from the edge, not the presumed 'centre'. My major concern with the whole gamut of WS projects is actually Bradfield. My concern is not that it appears a bit behind schedule, but that it might try to create a 'showcase of shallow prettiness' in the midst of highly pragmatic, hard working population centres. Note that: - Bradfield is not all that big. There's been a lot of bragging about its 'Central Park' (with echoes of NYC), but it's only two hectares; a lot smaller than many quite unremarkable suburban parks. - I don't expect Bradfield will have high passenger demand, keeping in mind the airport is surrounded by at least four centres, each with at least 200,000 in population already (Penrith, Blacktown, Liverpool and Camden/Campbelltown). I really can't see too many locals from outside Bradfield going there to shop or for recreation. - I suspect it will be an expensive place to buy or rent; and perhaps atttract residents who mostly use public transport. I suspect more workers at the airport will actually be coming from St Marys, Leppington, Oran Park and Narellan. - The area adjacent to the Bradfield Metro station is also earmarked for the second line metro station. It' interesting to note how the opening of the City Metro extension has awakened many to just how revolutionary such metro systems are. WSA airport and the associated Metro will be even more startling for many. For example: - Unless you work in aviation, it's hard to grasp just how revolutionary WSA is in comparison with the existing KSA. After looking closely at the Airport Layout Maps (10MAP for its opening year and 82MAP for its 2060 status) I'm really impressed with just how clever and functional a design it is. - Few have noticed the WSA Metro is actually an (automated) Light Metro. They represent the leading edge in transport technology. RM Transit recently did a very good clip about them; highly recommend a look. Finally, while I may disagree with some of your views, I really appreciate what you've put into it, and look forward to more. It might be outside your area of interest, but the Western Sydney Freight Line doesn't seem to get much press; albeit it still might be a bit early. Freight is just as important (maybe even more so) than passenger rail Also pleasing to see the number of comments here that respectfully present informed alternative views. It's such a refreshing change from the often mis-informed 'fifty-center' and trolling comments that sometimes dominate KZbin.

[@mt-mg7tt]

Interesting. But RM Transit actually said that HR would've been better than Metro for WSA (and he's very fond of Metros) in terms of linking with the rest of the system..

[@tacitdionysus3220]

@@mt-mg7tt I've got a lot of time for RM Transit, but a view based on the authority of anyone is always weaker than a view based on detailed critical analysis. His views, like mine, vary over time, are subject to influence from opinions from others, and might not always be able to consider all the relevant evidence. For example, I remember him saying way back there should be more closely located stations on the NW Metro. That's a very commonly held view about traditional metro systems, and generally true of them. However, the specific gaps were simply not suitable for stations (for metro or when part of it was HR) They were down in valleys/national park between stations or in a lightly populated area with no commercial centre. The gaps include in Lane Cove River NP, in the valley between Maq Uni and Epping, and the stretch to Cherrybrook. Look at a topographical map and the reasons why there are station gaps there become clear. Apart from that, the whole Metro vs HR is highly contaminated by tacit industrial issues, that are sometimes the key consideration for people on both sides. Add to that is some 'railfan inertia' that manifests as desiring more of what they already know and love. I used to be like that too, but the more I studied the geography, passenger needs, performance, relevant economics and resilience of metros, the more I saw them as better solutions. And, I'm not the only one. There's plenty of overseas discussion (including from RM) about the characteristics of the more recent Light Metro (Like WSA) and Fast Metro permutations. I don't mind if you disagree, or if my current views prove to be wrong. My intent is to get people to think more about the best match of systems to current an future needs. And, I suggest there is just more to it than "Lets always just have more of the same" . In any case there has been some good discussion here and a variety of views have been raised - and that's always a good thing. This time it even seems to outnumber the usual 'everything is sh1t' comments; most of whom are probably 'fifty-centers' or sad trolls.

[@mt-mg7tt]

@@tacitdionysus3220 RM may well change his views, in fact he seems to (I've been watching his stuff for some time). His opinion re the WSA Metro is based on the distances, spacing, and integration with the rest of the network (in particular, making passengers change at St Marys). IMO , if you're having a light Metro for WSA, it (and the NW) should be extended to meet each other at Schofields. I think the link (if ever built as was planned) from Glenfield station should be HR with an exchange to Metro at the WSA (a 'natural' place) (again because of making passengers change on trips to/from WSA and the rest of the rail network at Glenfield, including KSA.

[@mgp1203]

Western Sydney DOES deserve beautiful architecture though.

[@tacitdionysus3220]

@@mgp1203 Couldn't agree more. Moreover, the West IS beautiful. What I believe is the architecture should reflect that. What I fear is supplanting it with someone else's notion of how it should be, or failing to acknowledge it for what it is. I want what architects would call an 'authentic sense of place'. I saw someone post that the ''harbour city of Sydney' is like Marcia Brady, She's surrounded by others in a great family, but it's only her name that people seem to remember. Harbour Sydney is so dazzlingly beautiful in its own natural right (regardless of how we might try to add tinsel), that it can blind us to what is beyond. To reflect harbour city values in Western Sydney architecture would be invalid, no matter how much the "East-Enders" might think it lovely. When you sit at any departure gate in the first WSA terminal, what rivets your attention is a horizon to horizon vista of a World Heritage area. Just letting that in is vastly preferable to, say, modelling the terminal roof to resemble Opera House sails; or insisting that it should be just like Singapore, Shanghai, Dubai or even Las Vegas airport. Having said all that, I haven't yet been offended by what is proposed at WSA and along its Metro. It might not always reflect my first imaginings, but it seems to reflect the place in reasonably functional and appropriate ways.

[@overworlder]

What are all the service buildings for?

[@cabracam666]

@@overworlder ser ice buildings contain all the Track Vent Systems and super heavy equipment required in order to make this to work. It is a super intricate system that gets connected to the atmosphere by service buildings.

[@overworlder]

@@cabracam666 - thanks!

[@gregessex1851]

1:32 - You will need two lifts on the new footbridge. Obviously you have never arrived at an airport transfer station with dozens of people and their large bags, particularly from an international airport.

[@EJH_1138]

Hey, hey Melbourne... hear that? The train line will open WITH the airport🤯

[@JoshButton]

I like the Orchard Hills design. But as a future worker at WSI would be nice if they had parking for Metro use. Otherwise I'll just drive to the terminal.

[@thetrainguy4]

They do

[@dungandonuts]

Nice video, I hadn't seen that much detail before! I reckon the two lifts and escalators at the new concourse at St Mary's is warranted because you're going to have a whole train load of people coming from the airport with luggage wanting to transfer to the T1 line, so avoiding having to carry suitcases up and down stairs is worth it. Agree with the other criticisms though - station designs are a bit meh

[@shawnd-v1660]

I quite like the designs. I think they're trying to make them look like large farm sheds that you would've seen in the area before development. But having the colour seep down onto the platforms isnt a great choice, it just looks a little tackey

[@Cadcare]

On plus 40°C (100°F) days, where do the poor sit?

[@jayfielding1333]

Bro, stairs with luggage? Escalators are needed. Agreed that Orchard Hills looks like a shed - awful. Bradfield is the nicest.

[@thetrainguy4]

Lifts, anyone?

[@raph6931]

@@thetrainguy4 easiest way to slow down everyone's interchange and turn off commuters. I'm sure all mobility affected people using the station will love competing with large crowds of travellers for the lifts

[@Aussie_stu]

1 lift at St Marys station per platform is hardly enough for current capacity let alone future capacity. Adding lifts in necessary and in no way a waste.

[@tedes72]

What about the airport station?

[@thetrainguy4]

They’re not included in these contracts

[@Rtong98]

I love the station design, really fits the parkland city vibe.

[@drivingsydney]

I had a look at the St Mary's western concourse connection. What I don't like is that there is no overpass connection to the multi-storey carpark. The concourse connection is for with paid access only. I agree with you that it is overkill. Escalators at the Sydney Trains platforms is not required.

[@PINEx2]

all of these designs are clearly marked as indicative only in any of the documents ive seen

[@thetrainguy4]

Yes but they're not going to change much

[@radicallyrethinkingrailwaysina]

I dont mind orchard hills

[@BigBlueMan118]

I have to agree on the Point about St Marys having too many escalators and Lifts, i would have preferred that they save Money on that and instead connect the existing overpass to new Metro.

[@HenrySebasitian]

orchard hills is a greenhouse station 😂

[@strikerbowls791]

Just call it Aerotropolis please. Bradfield is so damn boring

[@lachlanmcgowan5712]

If you don't like the station designs, don't worry -- they'll have to rebuild them all substantially when they realise that 3-to-4-car trains are much, much too short for the line they're trying to build.

[@tasmaniantaswegian]

TRUe

[@Soundmaster91]

Wow they def need to rethink the station designs they all look horrible!

[@oufukubinta]

You're right about everything 💯

[@shloidain]

the station designs are about as good as the whole line: a waste of time and money

[@fionndugan8531]

Right because in the new extension only they've transported 1M passengers in 5 days. Oh and yeah I agree because who needs transport for a major airport am I right? 😐

[@Perpetual-sk2ee]

Its almost like they could have extended from Leppington and connected the new airport with the existing with a single service to Central. But why do that when we can waste money on an isolated line that has terrible connectivity to existing airport.

[@jack2453]

​@@fionndugan8531Are you right? Absolutely. Will this provide a decent city-airport connection - Absolutely not.

[@tacitdionysus3220]

@@Perpetual-sk2ee I'm trying to think of any major world city with multiple airports, where ground transport primarily focusses on connecting those airports to each other. People who liven the eastern half of Sydney will continue to use KSA. WSI Airport is mostly to serve people in the already more populous west. Occasionally there will be destinations only served by one airport. More often people will choose to use the a more distant airport to their address because it offers cheaper fares.

[@shloidain]

@@fionndugan8531 you're totally correct about a new metro line through the centre of the city, no arguments from me there what is a waste of resources is: a) building a line that wont allow throughrunning with neither sydney trains nor other sydney metro lines. b) building a bunch of new greenfield housing development right next to an airport with no curfew c) investing in a new airport instead of regional rail infrastructure and HS rail

[@Perpetual-sk2ee]

Terrible aesthetics for those stations, excluding some of St Marys. I get the desire to differentiate it from the existing Metro and Sydney Trains style but these don't really appeal. That reddish brown color is just why. We have a wonderful natural environment they could drawn inspiration from... but why do that I guess

[@oufukubinta]

I work in insurance I've never designed anything in my life but even I could do a better job I reckon

[@Perpetual-sk2ee]

@@oufukubinta With or without drugs?

[@danielmoss895]

There's no such thing as over design.

[@mikethomas4842]

What a waste. For a 2nd airport thats supposed to support millions of travellers the line shouldve been a straight connect to Parramatta through other major centres. Short trip to St Marys , then the slow Sydney Trains to City. Horrible trip. For a city with housing problems not much in the way of supporting high rise.

[@Vaer0]

This guys got no idea what his talking about

[@thetrainguy4]

Thanks