Study of a Proposed RAIL RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM JOHANNESBURG F. Gordon Maxwell, C .Be .,T .D

0 S7S' LONDON TRANSPORT EXECUTIVE in association with MOTT, HAY AND ANDERSON, Consulting Engineers Study of a Proposed RAIL RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM for JOHANNESBURG by F. Gordon Maxwell, c .b.e .,t .d „ d .l ., M. Inst. T., former Operating Manager (Railways), London Transport with Mott, Hay and Anderson January 1971 LONDON TRANSPORT EXECUTIVE in association with MOTT, HAY AND ANDERSON, Consulting Engineers Study of a Proposed RAIL RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM for JOHANNESBURG by F. Gordon Maxwell, c .b.e .,t .d ., d .l ., M. Inst. T., former Operating Manager (Railways), London Transport with Mott, Hay and Anderson / f i t January 1971 The City of Johannesburg LONDON TRANSPORT 55 BROADWAY WESTMINSTER 01-222 5600 LO N D O N SW I TRAVEL ENQUIRIES: 01-222 1234 EXTENSION OUR 935 YOUR 31st January 1971 Sir In accordance with the Acting City Engineer's letter to me of 6th August 1970, London Transport, in association with Messrs. Mott, Hay & Anderson, have carried out a study of the proposed rail rapid transit system for Johannesburg. I now have pleasure in forwarding herewith the report of the study, prepared by Mr. F. Gordon Maxwell on behalf of the Executive, in collaboration with the Consulting Engineers. If there are any specific or continuing problems in connection with this important project on which the City Council may feel that London Transport could give further advice, I am sure that the Executive would be happy to provide it. I am asked by the two Consultants who visited Johannesburg in connection with this study to express to you their gratitude for the kindness and hospitality with which they were received in South Africa. I remain, Sir Yours respectfully P. E. Garbutt Director of Transportation Policy Mr. B. L. Loffell, City Engineer, City of Johannesburg, P.O. Box 4323, Johannesburg, South Africa. 609/022 (9) STUDY OF A PROPOSED RAIL RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM FOR JOHANNESBURG CONTENTS Section Page 1. Terms of reference, and objects of the 1 Transportation Study Plan 2. Summary of conclusions and recommendations 4 3. Principles governing selection of routes and 7 location of stations and depots 4. Future extensions 15 5. Type of system advocated 20 6. Stations - spacing, design and platform lengths 24 7. Grades and curvature 28 8. Facilities for reversing and holding trains 3 0 9. Stabling, maintenance and overhaul of trains 35 10. Tunnel size, linings, drainage and construction 38 problems 11. Gauge of track 45 12. Rolling stock - design and characteristics 46 13. Signalling and control of train movement 50 14. Traffic control 54 15. Power supply and distribution 58 16. Ventilation, cooling and air flow 62 17. Fares and fare collection 66 18. Car parking 75 19. Rules and regulations 79 20. Training 80 21. Establishment of corporate appearance 82 22. Traffic assessments 83 23. Timetables 86 24. Staff conditions of service - disciplinary, 90 negotiating and consultative procedure 25. Staff structure and control of establishment 91 26. Financial out-turn 98 27. Form of controlling authority 104 28. Timing of programme, including recruitment 109 and training Appendices A . Terms of reference B. Route and station location C. Programme signalling and control of movement of trains D. Specimen timetables E. Acknowledgements F. Bibliography Figures 1. Longitudinal section - Braamfontein to Rosettenville 2. Longitudinal section - Hillbrow branch 3. Longitudinal section - Richmond branch 4. Longitudinal section - East-West Line 5. Braamfontein station layout 6. Trojan depot 7. Tunnel cross sections 8. Interchange station, Van der Bij1 Square 9. Rolling stock 10. Plan showing system in 1985 ) 11. Plan showing phases of construction^ (in pocket) 12. Plan showing possible extensions ) 1 1. Terms of reference, and objects of the Transportation Study Plan 1.1. Terms of reference The terms of reference for the Consultants are recorded in Appendix A to this report. 1.2. Objects of the Plan The objects of the Plan are set out in p.12, Sec. 1.2.1. in Vol. 2 of the Greater Johannesburg Area Transportation Study of January 1970. They are: 1.2.1. To ease the intolerable congestion in peak hours on the main approaches to the Central Area, in particular from the northern sub urbs; it was also requested that consider ation be given to SANDTON. 1.2.2. To speed the distribution of workers within the Central Area, where the street layout of about 12 blocks to the kilometre imposes unacceptable delays on both public and private road vehicles. 1.2.3. To reduce the present street accident rate. 1.2.4. To enable on-street bus terminals to be reduced, if not dispensed with. In addition:- 1.2.5. A further object was included in the City's terms of reference for the Consultants, namely that the cost of interest on capital and debt amortisation should be analysed; the fares charged on the system were required to be such as should pay the whole of its annual operating costs. 1.2.6. At the first conference with the City representatives the difficulty of catering for all race groups in terms of the Government policy became apparent. The requirements for separate facilities (e.g. duplicate entrances, exits and trains, etc.) on the close station spacing necessary in Bus queue at on-street terminal in evening rush hour 3 the congested city centre would make the design of a rail rapid transit system impracticable. Accordingly, while it should be practicable to design a system for the carriage of non-whites as well as whites, neglecting separate facilities (and this could greatly affect the financial out turn), all figures and references in this report relate to whites only. 1.3. For convenience, it is here mentioned that all prices, fares and wages quoted are at January 1971 levels. Any conversions from sterling have been made at R1.70 to the £. 1.4. In general,dimensions and distances have been quoted in this report in metric measures, but in appropriate cases the imperial equivalent has also beeen shown in brackets. Imperial measures have also been used where they are still the accepted basis of calculation in South Africa e.g. for fare tables. 4 2. Summary of conclusions and recommendations 2.1. It is the finding of the present study that a rail rapid transit system in Johannesburg will be fully justified by the serious and deteriorating traffic situation in the city; that it will be well patronised; and that it must materially relieve street traffic congestion and reduce street accidents in and around the Central Area (Sec.22). 2.2. It is estimated that the proposed rail transit system would cover its working expenses but would only partially meet the interest and capital redemption charges. It is, however, to be hoped that, as in many other cities, much or all of the capital cost of the system would be met by the local, provincial and/or central governments, in recognition of the great community benefits to be derived from the project; many of these social benefits can now be assessed by cost-benefit techniques. Moreover, con struction of a rail transit system may permit major modifications and savings in the uncommitted parts of the Johannesburg motorways programme. In addition, the rail transit system should, on the basis of experience elsewhere, substantially increase property values and release great property development potential along its route (Sec. 26). 2.3. It is proposed that the initial system should consist of a north-south line (splitting into two branches at its northern end) and an east-west line, the two lines inter secting in the heart of the Central Area. The trunk sections of the two lines would follow the alignments of RISSIK STREET and COMMISSIONER STREET respectively. The route length of the system would be 22.65 km (14 miles). It would be mainly - though not wholly - in tunnel, and would be of conventional 1.435m-gauge steel-on-steel "duorail" type, as adopted on the vast majority of urban transit systems around the world. Although the system could be built more quickly, it is recommended that it be constructed in four stages, opening between 1977 and 1985 in order to ease the burden on resources and finance while still keeping abreast of the build-up in traffic demand (Secs. 3, 5, 11, 28). 5 2.4. The proposed system would be built to the best technical standards and would incorporate such modern features as automatic train operation and automatic fare collection. Stations would be conveniently sited, with easy subway access wherever possible; major Central Area stations would serve the main shopping area, the S.A.R. main-line station, the CARLTON CENTRE, and the VAN DER BIJL SQUARE bus station. The trains would be of attractive design, with good riding qualities; they would be of lightweight construction and the cars would be wider, higher and longer than those currently used on the deep-level tube lines in Londonn; this would be made possible by larger- diameter (4.5 m) tunnels. Current supply would be by third- rail, the power being obtained from the City's Generating Department (Secs. 6, 10, 12-15). 2.5. The initial system is designed to be capable of expansion after 1985 if necessary or desirable; similarly, the stations would be designed to take longer trains later if that should become necessary. Even with expansion of the system after 1985, no line would extend more than about 6.5 km (4 miles) from the City Centre; in this and other particulars the network would conform to principles evolved from the experience of established metropolitan railway systems elsewhere. Servicing facilities would include rolling stock depots at TROJAN and MAYFAIR, and overhaul shops at TROJAN; the latter would also be the site of the training school and possibly also the rail transit administrative offices (Secs.

Load more