Well, I have finally done it! I have drawn my proposed improvements to Melbourne's train system.

I would be interested to read what others think of this.

Just a hint, if a train station is in red it means its new as is the train line.

http://img.imageshack.us/img4/3666/NewTrainSystem.jpg

Good work Aussie Steve.

What the Melbourne train system is lacking at the moment is cross-suburban lines, which means that someone travelliing from Belgrave to Frankston would have to travel into the city and out again (a very long journey). I remember a few years ago there was some talk about connecting the Glen Waverly line to Ferntree Gully (via Waverley Park).

I also beleive that a line out to the airport is needed, although it may have the same problem as Brisbane and Sydney where it is under used.

:cheers:

Excellent work, especially linking shopping centres such as Chadstone, Highpoint etc.
The Doncaster line from what I can remember from living in Melbourne is desperately needed. As for the airport connection I think regular express services into the city for a realistic price could work. The Brisbane airport line is ok if your on your own, if your in a group it is more cost effective to share a taxi.

Also I don't understand why they don't electrify the line to Geelong and include this as part of Metlink, not a country Vline service like it presently is.

Good to see someone else also shares my idea of electrification of the Jacana-Albion line as well as the massive Ringwood-Frankston line as well as a Peninsula line.
I'd extend the Peninsula line to Portsea.
I'd probably line the Doncaster line to the Ringwood line to serve Templestowe and then run trains City-Doncaster-Ringwood-Knox-Dandenong-Frankston-Portsea.
Faster Peninsula expresses could run City-Sth Yarra-Caulfield-Sthland-Frankston then stopping all to Portsea.

MAhuahuah :guns1: it's rubbing off on more people now.

I'll be back later to have a closer look A. Steve! ;)

looks insanely cool to begin with though ;)

Monash students from Zone 1 (who can already use Zone 1 tickets on the buses from Huntingdale) would probably be annoyed, but that's probably an oversight. And why only two stations between Huntingdale and Rowville?

The Brooklyn line seems to be a tad wasteful, all that work for a measley one station.

I'm still not keen on a Scoresby line, when there's still not even a useful bus service down Stud Road, and the Springvale Road route leaves a lot to be desired in terms of operating hours, traffic light priority and frequency. Typically a rail service should be left in the planning stage until a parallel bus is running every 5 minutes and isn't coping, such as Huntingdale-Monash (which may as well continue to Rowville).

Oh, and your Scoresby line has only 4 stations north of Dandenong and none between Dandenong and Frankston - surely if you're going to the huge whopping effort of building a rail line, you may as well try and serve the areas that it runs through.

Zone 1 should be extended to Box Hill, but that's hardly a new line pipedream.

And in general, the network looks tangled. Sydney is about to spend billions distangling its network, because trains run more efficiently and can therefore run more frequently and effectively move crowds if each track pair only serves one service configuration. Footscray-Tottenham-Sunshine-East Keilor looks particularly worrying, with Brooklyn, Melton, Sunbury, Airport and Broady services. Exactly how frequent do you want to make these services?

Ditto west of Heathmont. If you really really want to put in a Scoresby line, you need to through route it from somewhere and not try and run three service patterns between Ringwood and the City. Eg isolate the Lilydale line and run Lilydale-Frankston/Belgrave-City or Doncaster Line-Frankston and leave Belgrave and Lilydale as they are. That or maybe build a turnback west of Ringwood.

Electrify the line to Geelong goddam it - then again maybe not - I've tried both: Train from Lara to Spencer St takes 45 mins, train from Laverton to Spencer St takes 45 mins - so maybe they should keep Geelong separate LOL!

Electifying Geelong would bring no substantial benefit as it'd be downgrading the speed of service they'll be getting in a year or two - quadruplication / triplication between Werribee & the city would be of more benefit (if you take both projects and assess side by side). More track / capacity in the metro area = ability for country trains to get out to the country fast.

http://metropolis.tayser.net/pipedreams/rail/westernburbs.png

The black lines are dedicated express tracks for country & suburban express services.

If you put that sort of project up against just one single rail line electrification, the benefits would be far greater in dedicated country access to SSS.

If the new RFR trains will do 160kph between Lara and Werribee, Ballarat - Deer Park (or Bacchus Marsh?), Bendigo - Sunbury - and given dedicated access lines to SSS (mixed with express suburban services) you'd speed up the travel times from GEX, BXG and BXT even more.

I'm very much all for converting the Alamein line into the Rowville line via Chadstone - likewise extending Glen Waverley to Upper Gully via Knox.

Yeah I was a victim of making loops look good on a map - but let's face Shazza and Bazza from Wantirna dont really want to go to Dandy, Franga or Ringwood - they're either City or......... Knox. This is blue ribbon suburban hell remember - buses would suffice. Yet the radial lines would probably see the largest pax growth, given a good feeder system (yes yes shut up MrPC :D :D :D).

Glen Waverley line goes u/ground just before the current station, they flatten the current G. Waverley station (and redevelop on top) send it hurtling down the hill (u/ground) and re-sufacing on the High Street Road corridor on the eastern side of Dandy creek (2k long tunnel, or thereabouts), station at Wantirna South (High Street Road / Cathies lane) back underground where the current Mitcham - Franga FWY allignment is, heading north following stud road then east under knox SC, then following Burwood HWY allignment for 500m, resurfacing next to the HWY, back underground at FTG Rd / Burwood HWY intersection ("Mountain Gate" station u/ground), re-surfacing at Upper Gully station. duplicate Upper Gully - Belgrave, and add another platform at Belgrave and you run two services: Belgrave express (all stations Belgrave - Ringwood, express Ringwood - Mitcham - Balckburn - Box Hill - Surrey Hills - Camberwell - Glenferrie - Richmond) and Belgrave via Glen Waverley (All stations Belgrave - Upper Gully, All stations Upper Gully - Flinders Street via Glen Waverley and Burnley)

Roweville line: tunnel under old allignment, 2 more platforms at East MAlvern, station at Chadstone, surfacing UP side of Oakleigh, 6 track from Oakleigh to Huntingdale, 1k tunnel to get around the Huntingdale mess, resurfacing other side of Prices HWY, station at Monash Clayton, following Wellington Road allignment (northern side), station at Springvale Road, following Wellington Road, new bridges over the Monash FWY, station at Waverley Park, following Wellington Road, to just before Stud Road, underground at Stud Road, line heads north and terminates at Stud Park SC.

on both lines, it's perfect as you have the classic suburban grid intersecting with the rail lines - major route for feeder buses to interact with the stations.

w00t! :D

tayser, I love your 2 suggestions. I will make changes to the above map next week and see how we go from then on. This is a great discussion. Great ideas and great solutions. And yeh, you are right about a north-south rail line in the outer eastern suburbs. Its not needed, so long as the bus service is improved!

Actually - in terms of an orbital rail line: why not a tram line?

Not specifically between Ringwood - Dandy - Franga, but Springvale road?

If you take A. Steve's map into account (and the Springvale Road station I mentioned on a possible Rowville line)/

1st phase: Springvale Station - Nunawadding Station. Trams interface with Springvale Station, head north through the Junction, interface with the Springvale Road station, cut through the Brandon Park area (SC and Office park area), interface with Glen Waverley Station, cut through the Burwood HWY Office Park area & interface with the #75 Tram at Burwood highway), interface with Forest Hill Chase SC and Nunawadding station (massive potential for growth).

2nd Phase: Nunawadding station - Doncaster Station. Trams continue on from Nunawadding station up Springvale Road, curve to the west and follow Doncaster Road all the way to Shoppingtown where it interfaces with Doncaster u/ground station @ shoppingtown. Not as large potential for passengers, but it creates a path from the Eastern burbs direct to Doncaster (and secondarily, Box Hill).

3rd Phase: Springvale Station - Edithvale Station. From Springvale Station it follows Springvale Road the whole way, going past Keysborough, Hailebury, Greens Road, Frankston FWY and Edithvale. Again not as much potential as phase one, but it's creating nice fast & frequent paths between multiple train lines (if you take all of them into account it could potential link 6 Train lines!)

by "interface" I mean a tram & bus station whereby the trams are just under the surface, and have easy access to the train platforms above - or something like they have in Toronto - buses literally drop you off on the subway platform!

:guns1:

Going nuts now!

http://metropolis.tayser.net/pipedreams/rail/seprincipalPT.jpg

New rail lines in red:

Doncaster Line up the Eastern FWY, to Doncaster Shoppingtown (Stations: Burke Road, Bulleen Road, Thompsons Road, Eastern FWY & Doncaster Road, Shoppingtown)
Glen Waverley Extension via High Street Road and Burwood Highway (Stations: Glen Waverley, Cathies Lane, Knox SC, Mountain Gate, Upper Gully)
Rowville Line via old outer suburban loop corridor, Caulfield Group and Wellington road (Stations: Alamein, East Malvern, Chadstone SC, Oakleigh, Huntingdale, Monash Clayton, Springvale / Wellington Roads, Waverley Park, Stud Park SC)

Springvale Road line & 3 phase as listed above.

Warrigal Road Tram line (possibility), justification: the route goes past the big shopping Centres, the road is a massive employment corridor, goes past Holmesglen Institute & Glen Waverley line, links in with Deakin University & the #75 route, Surrey Hill Train station & Burnley group lines, links with Doncaster Train line and Springvale Road tram line - possibility to extend along MAnningham Roads, Bell Street and meet with Airport West tram. Could potentially link 9 train lines (lol!)

Green lines: principal grid bus routes.
examples:
Templestowe Lower - Moordialloc via Doncaster, Elgar Road, Deakin University, Jordanville, Huntingdale, Old Dandenong Road
Frankston - Southland via Cranbourne, Berwick, Endeavour Hills, Dandenong, Noble Park, Springvale Road, Warrigal Road
Cranbourne - Donvale via Hallam, Stud Park SC, Knox, Mitcham, Mitcham Road, Reynolds Road

Yeah I was a victim of making loops look good on a map - but let's face Shazza and Bazza from Wantirna dont really want to go to Dandy, Franga or Ringwood - they're either City or......... Knox.

I agree it's not viable now but give it 10 more years of growth in the main centres and it will be more viable. Think of what's on that alignment. You have 3 major suburban cities, one of the biggest shopping centres and some smaller ones and plenty of industrial employment areas around the dandenong creek. Like the scorsby freeway was years ago, the alignment for a rail line should be determined and set aside now. 20 years ago the land would have been 80% undeveloped, now it's around 50% (broad guesses of course) In 10-15 more years when the line will be viable, the cost of purchases and tunnels etc will make it even more prohibitive. Imagine with your Glen Waverley extension plan, if that alignment (which is pretty obvious) had of been set aside 10-15 years ago. Most of the development in its path has only occured recently.

It always gets said when discussing rail line extensions, that if it's not feasible now forget about it, yet with freeways, their alignments are determined decades before they are built (eg. A Healsville freeway is on the Melways, and no doubt will be "desperately needed" in 15 years.

Finally, Shazza and Bazza from Wantirna WORK in Ringwood, Franga or Dandy, but give it 10 years or so, and they probably won't be able to afford the parking in centres like these.

THESE THINGS SHOULD HAVE BEEN PLANNED YESTERDAY!!


Roweville line: tunnel under old allignment, 2 more platforms at East MAlvern, station at Chadstone, surfacing UP side of Oakleigh..

I am also a fan of this and think that Bracks would be prudent to force gandel to pay for some of the proposed works as pay off for allowing the expansion. The thing is that for Rowville to proceed via Caulfield, the same amount of works would be required to the existing line between Oakleigh and Caulfield. This way you get much more for your money, and more importantly a station at Chadstone (which has over 30 million people walk through it's doors every year) with direct access to the Belgrave, Glen Waverley and Dandenong corridors. One thing I disagree with though is going through East Malvern. Holmesglen is better because it has a TAFE with limited parking, so you have an instant market. The line would cross the Golf Course and intersect towards the western end of Holmesglen station platform, bridge over the freeway and the go underground for the last half a kilometre to the eastern side of Chadstone (where most of the proposed expansion is).

I agree it's not viable now but give it 10 more years of growth in the main centres and it will be more viable. Think of what's on that alignment. You have 3 major suburban cities, one of the biggest shopping centres and some smaller ones and plenty of industrial employment areas around the dandenong creek.

Isn't that putting the cart before the horse? You put down a line (irrespective of whether it's North-South or East-West), and then rezone land around the stations to build shopping centres and employment centres.

One thing I disagree with though is going through East Malvern. Holmesglen is better because it has a TAFE with limited parking, so you have an instant market. The line would cross the Golf Course and intersect towards the western end of Holmesglen station platform, bridge over the freeway and the go underground for the last half a kilometre to the eastern side of Chadstone (where most of the proposed expansion is).

Wouldn't it be cheaper to move the TAFE than try and build an eastern alignment from Alamein to Holmesglen? The reservation to East Malvern has been left intact and could be reactivated very cheaply. It'd probably cost at least twice as much to go via Holmesglen.

the reason there is no link to the airport is.......... :grouphug:




- the state government dont want to piss of taxi drivers and bus people
that make a killing this translates into petrol = almost 30 cents in the dollar for the government + rego + insurance companies + there other bosum buddies transurban if they where to do it they would charge 10 buks so they are unprofitable and do not undercut cause the government would rather have 20% of a $30 taxifare than 10% of 10buks plain and simple


i think i better run now.... :runaway:

Anyone seen/has pics of the new Connex-labelled Siemens trains? (what are they called again?)

http://www.vicsig.net/suburban/siemens/20040416-wer-716m-connex-tdr.jpg
Siemens Train 716M-2508T-715M in Connex Livery on a test run at Werribee
16th April 2004
Photo: ThunderdownunderRail

Doesn't look too bad - better than the black fronts of the connex comengs

Ok, a new up-dated route map.
The red train lines & stations are new and do not represent metcard zones.

http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/3666/NewTrainSystem.jpg

What do you think now?

Wouldn't this be a great train system to get around suburban Melbourne?

Wouldn't it be cheaper to move the TAFE than try and build an eastern alignment from Alamein to Holmesglen? The reservation to East Malvern has been left intact and could be reactivated very cheaply. It'd probably cost at least twice as much to go via Holmesglen.

Take a look at a map www.street-directory.com.au and you will see that it is a much longer distance to go via East Malvern to Chadstone. Also, if you know the area, the rail alignment is now a thickly forested bike/walking path, and I think you would have alot of problems with residents to get it reinstated as a rail line, and in any case to get from the alignment to oakleigh via chadstone (which is the point of the exercise) it would take a long tunnel up dandenong road from the original alignment. The Holmesglen option would only require a short tunnel in the Alamein to Chadstone section between the freeway and the shopping centre. The rest could be done with cuttings and bridges. The first section from Alamein to Holmesglen would require a bridge over the golf course (as it's in a valley), a cutting where the station would be at the western end of the tafe, another brige over the Monash (which is also in a cutting and then a tunnel of around half a kilometre or less arriving in perfect alignment with the eastern end of Chadstone (which is where the proposed expansion is) then continuing as a tunnel through to Oakleigh. I still believe that this would be the cheapest way between Alamein and Oakleigh that goes via Chadstone.

I love it when people like having trains move around 90 degree bends and plumit underground at 90 degree angles!

The only solution woudl be to place the Alamein line from Ashburton to Oakleigh underground. There is no way you can build a bridge over the creek, golf course, freeway and railway without it ebing overly ugly and far too expensive. It will also be impossible to have an at-grade train line anywhere past the esting Alamein train station, so in fact, everything must be underground.

And since we are talking about underground, the Glen Waverley Line from Heyington to East Malvern should be underground with no level crossings!

You've just given me an idea A. Steve:

"The boronia experiment"

Try and think of how many different stations could have "The Boronia treatment" done to them:

- sinking rail lines under roads
- sinking a station with them
- bus bays practically placed on top of the station (just up the stairs!)
- initial works for sinking whole sections of lines (yeah no-one would want to sink a while line, but when you think about it, multiple "Boronia Treatments" could make way for that very thing)

Off the top of my head:

Nunawadding, Glenhuntly, Springvale, Clayton, Noble Park, Blackburn, Mitcham and Hallam are the most obvious to me.

Anyone remember how much the "Boronia Experiment" (:D) cost?

A quick google search says it was $28 million, in 1998-99 dollars.

It was before my time at the PTUA though, so I don't know the specifics, though I have been told that what Boronia became was a result of lobbying against another horrendous Huntingdale/Oakleigh/Burnley/Clifton Hill style bridge.

I love it when people like having trains move around 90 degree bends and plumit underground at 90 degree angles!

The only solution woudl be to place the Alamein line from Ashburton to Oakleigh underground. There is no way you can build a bridge over the creek, golf course, freeway and railway without it ebing overly ugly and far too expensive. It will also be impossible to have an at-grade train line anywhere past the esting Alamein train station, so in fact, everything must be underground.


As I said look at a map. The most direct line between alamein and oakleigh VIA Chadstone would be closer to Holmesglen than E.Malvern, especially as the most logical location for a station is the eastern end. Also, if you know the area, the golf course sits at least 10 metres below the level of the old train line (which looks like it was previously bridged over the creek) and the holmeglen line. To go below this with a tunnel would require a rollercoaster style dip under the creek. The way I suggested it would involve a relatively level line which would be bridged at least over the creek. Fair enough over the freeway might be easier just to tunnel. As with the ugliness of bridges think outside the box a bit. While I know australia doesn't put much effort into the design side of engineering (look at the bolte, the standard concrete piers on the webb bridge or the new Charles Grimes Bridge, which lets face it, is a standard bridge with interesting decoration), a well done bridge could be completely sound proofed and quite beautiful, and doesn't need to be a huntingdale road style flyover. Also, a realignment of parts of the course is more than possible (as it was done already 15 years ago when the SE carpark went through).

PS: Don't worry, i've finished my "Level 1 - Introduction to woodwork" course, so i have no vested interest in having a new station at the TAFE ;)

Yes, however the old formation is still there from Alamein to East Malvern, and that could be reactivated with very little work. The Golf Course section may need some screens or trees to prevent golf balls bouncing off trains, but that's no big deal.

It would save a few km's of tunneling to try and get the line from Ashburton through to Holmesglen, and would also mean the stop at Alamein wouldn't need to be abolished.

Presumably once it reaches East Malvern, it'd then duck under the freeway, have an underground station for interchange with the GWY line, then proceed underground to Chadstone.

http://www.vicsig.net/suburban/siemens/20040416-wer-716m-connex-tdr.jpg
still looks crap, no matter HOW you paint it!

atleast it looks better than before.

To resurrect this thread, here's my new pipedream map: The only other line I was going to put in, but am to lazy to, is a Ringwood - Dandenong cross-suburban (via Heathmont, Knox on the GW extension, & Stud Park on the Rowville). What is here though is the Cross City Line - Donvale to Frankston via Melbourne Uni/Swanston St/St Kilda/Sandringham...
There are around 70 something new or included (ex-greater metro) stations. Note some like Cremorne, Melbourne Park, and Kew Junction - tear down the VicRoads HQ! :bash:
http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid119/pff091707fa33fb02c0feb7a559f994a2/f87ba7f1.jpg.orig.jpg

insane and loving it :D

There are a few planned developmenst which are still missing. Firstly there will be two more stations on the Pakenham line, one between Beaconsfield and Officer and the Pakenham Lakeside station.

There will be a new line built to the New Aurora estate in Epping North as well as the South Morang Line.

There is a station planned near Caroline Springs between Rockbank and Deer Park.

There should also be a station built to serve the Dandenong Industrial area between Dandenong and Lynbrook.

The Stony Point Line should be realigned to go under Karingal Hub and electrified.

A few maps of proposed routes:

http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/7656/Doncaster.JPG

I love the map Hypernovean especially the Donvale/Cross City Line. If we are into building major new lines I think that instead of using the Sunshine/Broadmeadows freight line for services to east Keilor a new line should extend from the Showgrounds station over some spectacular tunnel/bridge/tunnel combinations to service Highpoint west, Avondale Heights, East Keilor and Tullamarine. Instead of using the level crossing blighted Broadmeadows or Upfield lines the new line could then continue to melbourne Airport. The only level crossing needing replacement would be the one at Kensington and extra tracks could also run from Newmarket to cover the increased services.

La Trobe spur line, never going to happen! At least the way it is on your map.

La Trobe is nowhere near between Watsonia and Greensborough stations - at all!

The only possable route would be the old Mont Park line, coming off Macleod. This used to service the Mont Park/Larundel Hospitals (see my thread about this), but it was dismantled in the 1960's sometime (even though the two platform Mont Park station still sits in the middle of Gresswell Park, rotting away..)

This route has since been built on by homes near Macleod station in the 1970's, making it impossable to access. The third platform at Macleod (used for terminating trains), is the old through platform to Mont Park.

This problem was "solved" with the extention of tram 86 from Preston to La Trobe University up Plenty Road, Bundoora in the 1980's (and extended again from La Trobe to Bundoora RMIT in 1995).

If you really want a line to LaTrobe, my suggestion would be the Outer Circle.

Extend it north from East Camberwell along or under the old alignment, run it underneath Alphington Park/Miller St, change trains at Alphington for City/Hurstbridge, alongside Darebin Creek to Northland, then up to LtU, and maybe onto Keon Park.

You'd need to outright bribe an awful lot of NIMBYs to get it through though.

Fortunately, it's not a priority. It'd probably be easier to move the university than to get heavy rail into that part of town.

A few maps of proposed routes:

http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/7656/Doncaster.JPG

Which routes would form these new lines such as Barkers Rd and Burwood Rd?

If your proposal is to divert 75 to Burwood Rd, it may not be necessary as this area is already served by the railway line. As for Bakers Rd, which route would these services originate from? If you're going to go that way, you might as well head up Canterbury Rd for some way as well, maybe as far as Heathmont.

Though if I were planning a bus services for Canterbury Rd with tram like services, I'd probably start it at Camberwell station and run it through to Heathmont. So don't know if running it as a tram service should mean running it from Camberwell station as well (or if connecting with Canterbury would suffice).

See New & Improved Melbourne Tram Network

I was wondering when they were going to go public with those plans.. Though it's weird they are saying that passengers in Carlisle Street have not had a tram to the city since the 1950s. Do they plan to go back in time and abolish Route 3? :-)

Click for a big (1meg) version

http://www.thehoddlegrid.net/dump/innerse_small.jpg (http://www.thehoddlegrid.net/dump/innerse.jpg)

Stage 1: Quadruplication Burnley - Camberwell, Tunnel from Ashburton - Oakleigh, Burnley Group to Caulfield Group flyovers (eventually used for direct FSS access later on), Build Rowville line, New Camberwell station: 2 x island & 1 x side terminating platform
- services remain as are.

Stage 2: Quadruplication Caulfield - Huntingdale (Close Oakleigh - Caulfield temporarily), 'Speedification' (:D) of Alamein, remove all stations, rebuild in locations as above.
- Lilydale / Belgrave services stop all to Camberwell, express Camberwell - Richmond on new express track, [burnley] loop
- Pakenham / Cranbourne services stop all (peak expresses) to Richmond via Oakleigh & Camberwell, run on local track Camberwell - Richmond, switch to Caulfield group tracks at Richmond, [caulfield] loop
- V/Line / Freight via Oakleigh and Camberwell, use express track between Camberwell and Richmond, cross to Caulfield group, direct to FSS / SSS.

Stage 3: Reopen Oakleigh-Caulfield, sextuplicate Oakleigh - Huntingdale, Quadruplication Huntingdale - Dandenong, Quadruplication Camberwell - Box Hill, Designate outer two tracks between Caulfield and South Yarra as express, shave back platforms, soften curves and down and up ends of Malvern, Armadale, Toorak and Hawksburn for 100kph speeds, Dual guage Loop viaduct, local tracks FSS - Dandenong
- Pakenham services express Dandenong, Springvale, Clayton, Oakleigh, Caulfield, South Yarra, Richmond, loop - 15'
- Cranbourne services stop all, direct to FSS (peak services from Camberwell to Cranbourne) - 20'
- Dandenong services stop all, direct to FSS - 20'
- Rowville services stop all via Oakleigh & Camberwell, direct to FSS (peak express via Caulfield) - 15'
- Belgrave services stop all to Box Hill, Express Box Hill, Camberwell, Richmond, loop - 15'
- Lilydale services stop all to Box Hill, Express Box Hill, Surrey Hills, Camberwell, Glenferrie, Burnley, Richmond, loop - 15'
- Glen Waverley services stop all to Richmond, loop - 10'
- Ringwood services stop all to Richmond, direct to FSS via direct access flyovers - 15'
- Box Hill services stop all to Richmond, direct to FSS via direct access flyovers - 15'

In light of the announcement of triple track to Dandenong:


http://www.thehoddlegrid.net/dump/cfd-wes.PNG
http://www.thehoddlegrid.net/dump/wes-hal.PNG

Stations & misc. changes:

Capital Letters / Blocks = Metropolitan mandatory stop.
V/Line mandatory stops: Spencer Street, Flinders Street, Caulfield, Clayton, Dandenong and Pakenham.
In off peak times, passengers at Pakenham, Dandenong, Clayton and Caulfield can board V/line trains if the journey terminates in the metropolitan network.

Services:

Pakenham Line - FSS via loop.
M-F 5am-10pm: 15" stop all to Caulfield, express Caulfield - South Yarra, all to Flinders Street via loop (7am-9:30am: 10" all up trains express Dandenong-SY stopping at mandatory stops, 4:30pm-6:30pm: 10" all down trains express SY-Dandenong stopping at mandatory stops)
M-F 10m-1am: 30" stop all
Sat & Sun 6am-10pm: 20" stop all
Sat & Sun 10pm-1am: 30" stop all

Cranbourne Line - direct to FSS.
M-F 5am-10pm: 20" stop all
M-F 10pm-1am: 30" stop all
Sat & Sun 6am-1am: 30" stop all

Dandenong Line - direct to FSS.
M-F 7am-9:30am: 20" stop all
M-F 4:30pm-6:30pm: 20" stop all
M-F 10pm-1am: 30" stop all
Sat & Sun. 10pm-1am: 30" stop all

Frankston Line - FSS via loop, 3rd track extended to Mordialloc.
M-F 5am-10pm: 15" stop all to Caulfield, express Caulfield - South Yarra, then all to FSS via loop (7am-9:30am: 10" all up trains stop all to Mordialloc, then express Mordialloc-Moorabbin-Caulfield-South Yarra. 4:30pm-6:30pm: 10" all down trains express South Yarra- Caulfield-Moorabbin-Mordialloc then all to Frankston)
M-F 10pm-1am: 20" stop all
Sat. & Sun 6am-1am: 20" stop all

Mordialloc Line - direct to FSS
M-F 5am-10pm: 15" stop all.
M-F 10pm-1am: 20" stop all
Sat & Sun 6am-1am: 20" stop all.

In short:
Everyone in the metro along this line gets a service increase (except Frankston beyond Mordialloc & Pakenham and Cranbourne branches after 10pm)

Gippsland Line 6am-midnight - direct to SSS via FSS.
Hourly service to Traralgon stopping at Mandatory stops in metro, then all stations to Traralgon, except:
- every 4th train stops at all the mandatory stops in the metro, however expresses Pakenham-Warragul-Moe-Morewell-Traralgon then continues to Sale & Bairnesdale & vice versa.
- express train is trailed by an all stations service which originates at Pakenham to Traralgon & vice versa from Traralgon to Spencer Street.

:)

(i didnt want to start a thread) i know this has nothing to do with train maps but in the city loop what tunnles are the platform numbers the only one i know is the northern loop is platform 3. also is the city circle tunnle used and is there any way to access the tunnles from street level

thank you

Clifton Hill (& City Circle): 1
Caulfield: 2
Northern: 3
Burnley: 4

FSS:

Epping / Hurstbridge: 1
Lilydale / Belgrave / Glen Waverley / Alamein / Ringwood: 2, 3, (4)
Broadmeadows / Upfield / Sydenham / Weribbee: (4), 5
Pakenham / Cranbourne / Frankston / Dandenong / Mordialloc: 6, 7
Sandringham / Williamstown / Flemington Racecourse / Showgrounds: 8, 9
Terminating services / Vline (Flemington Racecourse / Showgrounds ?): 10 / (11?)

I always forget the setup on platforms 8 and above at FSS.

thanks tayser. so theres still no way to access the tunnles from street level

I've read somewhere there are access points up around the Casselden area and on the Spencer Street side of Flagstaff station - they could be like your average sewer manhole, or they could be completely hidden from view, but they do exist.

One that is clearly visible is just beyond Richmond junction, on the Caulfield & Burnley loops, where the Pakenham ramp merges with the Frankston ramp underground, about 50m beyond (towards Parliament) there's a subterranean access point (on the surface it looks like a 1970s classroom portable! (obviously smaller) which appears to link both loops, I've been on a train which stopped directly opposite the manhole into the tubes and noted the large amount of graffiti in there - so I'd say at least some people have found it.

homeless people probably live down there hehe

i was on the frankston train heading towards the loop (caulfield loop) and just before is stoped at flagstaff i could see a big man hole with a very bright light coming out if it. i think the light could be coming from the street so tayser you are correct with the spencer st side but i think this was more on la trobe st

at each end of each station there's a cross-connect, I've never seen people in it, but it's probably there for emergency or maintenance purposes.

doubt it would be light from the street, the tunnels are directly beneath La Trobe Street and there's no potholes in La Trobe street that big! ;)

Plan 2030: a scheme set for failure
The Age
March 31, 2005

The planning model for Melbourne won't stop the sprawl or the cars, writes Kenneth Davidson.

Think Melbourne 2030. Think rattlesnake. The rattlesnake mesmerises its prey with the noise made by its tail. This allows its fangs at the business end to bite and paralyse its prey.

Melbourne's 192-page planning document, released with fanfare by the Bracks Government in 2002, provides a similar diversion while the real players in the development process - VicRoads, the developers and owners of the big shopping malls - get on with the job of carving up Melbourne.

The job of the Government is to pacify the mob when it gets a bit restive, especially when nasty things happen in its backyard.

To call the process "Planning Los Angeles-style" is to bastardise the word planning. It is more in the nature of "Development Dallas" mode, which at least makes a virtue of its frontier, laissez-faire approach.

The rattle that can be heard in the planning debate is the dispute involving those who say Melburnians, in contrast with Sydneysiders, don't want and won't live in high-rise apartments and, even as elderly empty-nesters, want to remain in their free-standing houses on their quarter-acre block.

Ergo, Melbourne's future is a choice between suburban sprawl connected with a network of freeways or high-rise apartments connected by public transport and, given a democratic choice, Melburnians have a clear preference for the sprawl.

Not so. Even the McMansion developments in the outer suburbs are built on plots close in size to an eighth of an acre and it is possible to construct a viable public transport system that connects those developments.

As shown in Perth, and Vancouver in Canada, public transport liberates families from the tyranny of needing two cars. Melburnians aren't even offered a choice. Out Epping way, in new suburbs such as Aurora, the freeway, in the form of the half-billion-dollar Craigieburn bypass, is being built in anticipation of demand.

How does this fit with Melbourne 2030's stated aim to double public transport's share of mechanised transport from the present 9 per cent to 20 per cent in 2020?

The central idea in Melbourne 2030 is to concentrate development around the existing heavy rail network, connected by buses to the immediate catchment area.

This means Melburnians can shop, conduct basic commercial activities and commute to the CBD and other centres on the rail network for work or more specialised activities, without having to use a car.

But if the Government is serious about this, why, of Melbourne 2030's 25 designated principal activity centres, have 10 been included that can be reached only by car (or the totally inadequate bus service)?

It seems that the simple answer is that they are already big and may as well be allowed to maintain their momentum and get bigger, even if their further development will be at the expense of older, local shopping centres that were originally developed around access to heavy rail.

While the "realists" and the "idealists" have been banging on about the relevance of Melbourne 2030 to Melbourne's development, the Gandel Group, which owns the Chadstone shopping centre, has been going through the approval process to expand the complex into the 3.6-hectare site it bought from the Catholic University.

This will involve the building of an additional 1400 car parking places and a widening of Warrigal Road (which provides access from the Monash Freeway and the Princes Highway) from four to eight lanes.

The previous planning minister, Mary Delahunty, set up a panel to examine the proposal. This panel said the development would not jeopardise other traders or commercial centres nearby, although it "might not be an optimum outcome" in terms of Melbourne 2030.

Because Chadstone is not a growth centre, it is axiomatic that surrounding shopping centres already on railway stations such as Oakleigh will be adversely affected by the development.

The proposal is now in the hands of the new Planning Minister, Rob Hulls, who is expected to approve it. The only victory of sorts by the myriad critics of the development (residents, traders and councils) has been the recommendation that the development include a feasibility study of an underground rail link between Alamein and Oakleigh through Chadstone and an extension of the Waverley Road tram line to Chadstone.

These proposals can be brushed aside on the grounds that there are any number of extensions and upgrades to the existing urban rail network that would have a higher priority.

At least the proposals have the virtue of reminding people of the criteria that should determine designated activity centres.

In stark contrast, Sydney has enjoyed a pro-active planning regime that has ensured that from the beginning of mall development in the 1960s, virtually all regional shopping malls were opened in designated, rail-based centres such as Parramatta and Bankstown.

It is a policy that is supported by mall owners. Sydney activity centre development is a virtuous circle, Melbourne's is a vicious spiral.

The difference? A modicum of intelligence to appreciate the problem and, above all, political vision, leadership and gumption which, dare one say it, Melbourne appears to lack by comparison with Sydney, despite Sydney's reputation for corruption.

Kenneth Davidson is an Age writer.
kdlv@ozemail.com.au

hey did ne one see the murder investigation show, sensing murder last night. it was on a murder at Kananook station in 1990. they never found the killer or the body.

What do people think of this Tram Plan?

INNER CITY
Current:
http://img139.exs.cx/img139/6115/currentmetrotramcitycenter8in.th.gif (http://img139.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img139&image=currentmetrotramcitycenter8in.gif)

Proposed:
http://img139.exs.cx/img139/7507/proposedmetrotramcitycenter0hv.th.gif (http://img139.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img139&image=proposedmetrotramcitycenter0hv.gif)

SUBRUBAN
Current:
http://img139.exs.cx/img139/3114/currentmetrotrammapfullscale9j.th.gif (http://img139.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img139&image=currentmetrotrammapfullscale9j.gif)

Proposed:
http://img139.exs.cx/img139/5331/proposedmetrotrammapfullscale3.th.gif (http://img139.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img139&image=proposedmetrotrammapfullscale3.gif)

One thing that really ought to be done with trams, assuming nothing important will ever happen with heavy rail under St Kilda Road, is to streamline route numbers. In a city with three dozen tram routes, there's absolutely no good reason to have three digit route numbers. And when we're so close to having it already, fix St Kilda road while we're at it.

Route 1: What's now Route 67
Route 2: What's now Route 3 (or possibly 16)
Route 3: What's now Route 16 (or possibly still 3)
Route 4: What's now Route 64
Routes 5 & 6: Same as now
Route 7: What's now Route 72
Route 8: Same as now
Route 9: What's now Route 1

Since Route 9 only runs a few times a day now, that could be easily rebadged.

Suddenly there'd be some logic to where routes turn off St Kilda Road, Routes 8 and 9 (the highest route numbers) would be those that keep going north of the Uni. Every other route would peel off St Kilda road in numerical order. "You want Arthur Street? Take trams 1 thru 7 (or 31 thru 37)"

Of course, it'd need to be phased in. Perhaps renumber the 82 and then stick an 8 in front of each of the above numbers for the first few years. Or renumber the 35, maybe also the 30, and use 3's. Or have a letter added to tram desto rolls. N for New perhaps.

Plan 2030: a scheme set for failure
The Age
March 31, 2005

The planning model for Melbourne won't stop the sprawl or the cars, writes Kenneth Davidson.

As shown in Perth, and Vancouver in Canada, public transport liberates families from the tyranny of needing two cars. Melburnians aren't even offered a choice. Out Epping way, in new suburbs such as Aurora, the freeway, in the form of the half-billion-dollar Craigieburn bypass, is being built in anticipation of demand.

Kenneth Davidson is an Age writer.
kdlv@ozemail.com.au

The guy should live in Vancouver for a while. I lived in Port Moody, and all outer suburbs, Richmond, Surrey, Coquitlam etc, they're hardly at all serviced by the patheticly limited TWO elevated train lines. The buses are no better than Melbourne's buses, aside from the system being electric through a large portion of the city which is cool. Anyway, this guy is just making stuff up if he uses Vancouver as an example of good PT planning. It's a city of two million that's just as dependent on cars as Melbourne is. Try to drive from Langley to the city and it'll take two hours in peak time along the trans-canada over the Port Mann bridge. Want PT as an alternative to that? Hahaha, start dreaming.

And then this author tries to sell the Craigieburn bypass as something built only to service new suburbs in the north. What a tosser, completely ignoring its purpose of moving thousands of trucks and cars away from street frontage on the Hume Hwy.

..And then this author tries to sell the Craigieburn bypass as something built only to service new suburbs in the north. What a tosser, completely ignoring its purpose of moving thousands of trucks and cars away from street frontage on the Hume Hwy.

Your completely right, a good connected freeway network, which doesn't have missing gaps is a necessity. I lived in Austria, where you can get very easily between different cities and even different parts of one city with very good freeways.

The DIFFERENCE is that they are ALL user pays. Firstly the registration is two tiered so that you can pay for driving just on local roads or on the freeways as well. I think that the difference for a local is about €100 per year. Foreigners or visitors or locals who haven't paid can buy a short term pass. They then have on top of this specific tolls for certain toll roads, tunnels etc until they're paid off exactly like citylink, westgate bridge etc.

By making this system user pays they then have the money for decent PT. In Graz where I lived there were seven cross city tram lines that ran from 6am to midnight (not to mention all the buses). This is in a city only about 15% bigger than Geelong!! All these lines were on a 7-10minute timetable going out to a maximum 15 minutes late at night or early in the morning.

Basically why, if I use the PT system to get to work, should I subsidise your freeways, which contrary to popular believe, freeways DON'T maintain themselves, once they're built (think all the sh*t being spun around putting tolls on roads we've already paid for with citylink)

I really want to know what happened to the Outer Loop train line...when was it removed and WHY! i think it used to go through carlton etc...and will they ever rebuild it?

The Outer Circle never went through Carlton. It ran from Fairfield to Oakleigh. It was designed in the era where the Government owned the line past Oakleigh but everything further in was privately owned, and there was a street level tramway (no viaduct at all) between Flinders and Spencer Street stations. The Government wanted to be able to get its trains around the private network onto what's now the Hurstbridge line (govt owned) and from there down to Clifton Hill or Collingwood (now Victoria Park), and then around the Inner Circle line.

The Inner Circle line ran from Rushall to Royal Park, linking the (then) dead end line at Clifton Hill/Collingwood (Vic Park) to the City. It wasn't a great use for convenient passenger access, but remember this part of the network was always a government operation.

When I walk to a Lygon Street tram from my home, I would walk past what was North Carlton station. It's a community/child care centre now. Also, most of the level crossings en route are still there, and one of them (Amess St) was relaid just two years ago.

Will the inner circle be rebuilt? Nope. Why would they want to? Why would they need to? And if the option existed, wouldn't there be far better things to spend the money on?

Will the outer circle be rebuilt? Hmm, it could have its advantages, particularly if extended to Northland and/or LaTrobe Uni at the northern end. Plus it'd be nice to finally see the Chandler Highway closed down. One less road crossing over the Yarra would be a plus for the environment.

Yes, Vancouver's SkyTrain isn't the best example of urban transit but it is expanding rapidly.
I must confess I don't understand the Australian transit systems at all.
I know what a tram is, Toronto has the most streetcar linage in NA.
But there is also the commuter trains and buses, regular buses and 70km of subway.
The TTC which serves only 2.6 million has the subways which alone carry a whopping one million passengers a day.
What is this "citylink" and other stuff. Is it just commuter rail? Where are the subways?
I understand Sydney/Melbourne and most Australian cities are quite spread out.
One thing that surprises me is when I see pic of the Aus cities and outside downtown there are very few skyscrapers. In Toronto there are 1650 completed skyscrapers over 10 stories with 60 under construction.
Does everyone in Aus live in single detached?
Sucks that Melbourne transit only runs til 12midnight, Toronto's is 24hrs.
What's the storey with transit down there? Are Aus cities like American ones?
Please explain.

What is this "citylink" and other stuff. Is it just commuter rail? Where are the subways?

If you're referring to Citylink in Melbourne, Citylink is a tollway system opened in the late 90s that connects the 3 main freeways within Melbourne: the Westgate Freeway (and evetually Princes Freeway) heading out southwest to Geelong, the Tullamarine Freeway heading northwest to the airport, and the Monash Freeway that head south-east to an area called Dandenong (eventually becoming the Princes Freeway going out further to Traralgon).

There are no subways as such (based on NYC and Paris' models anyway). The closest you will get are the underground loops in Sydney and Melbourne that are integrated with their respective networks (the City Circle and City Loop, respectively).

I understand Sydney/Melbourne and most Australian cities are quite spread out.

They are indeed. Sydney and Melbourne are about 800-900km apart, while Sydney and Brisbane have about 1000km between them (not sure of exact figures, so anyone please feel free to correct me). The other major cities such as Adelaide, Perth and Darwin are further out towards the west. Because of the distance involved, the most popular form of transport (aside from the highways and freeways that connect the various cities) is, I think, air travel.

One thing that surprises me is when I see pic of the Aus cities and outside downtown there are very few skyscrapers. In Toronto there are 1650 completed skyscrapers over 10 stories with 60 under construction.

Very few compared to Toronto, yes, but still a shitload. Sydney and Melbourne would be the densest cities in the world in terms of skyscrapers and the area they occupy. Brisbane is slowly getting there.

Does everyone in Aus live in single detached?

Ummmm no :). I personally live in a two storey terrace house myself, but you'll find that a lot of people who live closer to the city tend to live more in studio or 1/2 bedroom apartments (due to the population density involved).

Sucks that Melbourne transit only runs til 12midnight, Toronto's is 24hrs.

Sydney's is not 24 hours either unfortunately (except for a few buses that drive around at the wee hours of the morning).

What's the storey with transit down there? Are Aus cities like American ones? Please explain.

As I am not an expert on American transit, I cannot begin to compare the two. However, someone one on this forum should be able to help you out with that :).

Sydney's is not 24 hours either unfortunately (except for a few buses that drive around at the wee hours of the morning).

This was, supposedly, a conscious move to improve security. Replace the trains between 1am and 4:30am with "Nightride" buses. It potentially improves frequencies over what a train might run at during those hours.

This was, supposedly, a conscious move to improve security. Replace the trains between 1am and 4:30am with "Nightride" buses. It potentially improves frequencies over what a train might run at during those hours.

Same situation in Melbourne, although not very effective. London also doesn't have 24 hour trains. They stop just after midnight, and you have to get around with night buses. I'm pretty sure Paris, and not to mention most other European cities don't have 24 hour trains.

In London, they are talking about it, but it's the only time they have to do maintenance work, and if you could see the state of the system which dates back to the middle of the 19th century, you'd see it's pretty necessary

Sorry, I should have been more specific. When I said how Australian cities seem to be spread out I meant the metro areas themselves not distance between major cities.
If one is waiting for a train, are these commuter trains, how often do they run, are they the only rapid transit means in Mel/Syd.
PS..I don't include the tonka-toy that goes around downtown Sydney.

Our rail networks are a hybrid of both metro and commuter rail. Inner city sections of the line are more metro like while outer suburb lines are more commuter like.

As for frequency of services, it's just crap. Half-hourly off peak. It's doubled that at peak, and the major interchange stations get good frequencies. It's all very inconsistent and patchy because Railcorp cant be bothered setting fixed stopping patterns.

Yikes! Waiting half an hour for a citytrain, that really sucks.

Sorry, I should have been more specific. When I said how Australian cities seem to be spread out I meant the metro areas themselves not distance between major cities.
If one is waiting for a train, are these commuter trains, how often do they run, are they the only rapid transit means in Mel/Syd.
PS..I don't include the tonka-toy that goes around downtown Sydney.
Melbourne also has a Huge Tram network and many buses run through the suburbs.

the frequency of trains in Melbourne are not really as bad as in Sydney,in Melbourne it's usually 15-20 minutes off Peak and between 5-20 minutes during the peak.

It's all very inconsistent and patchy because Railcorp cant be bothered setting fixed stopping patterns.

yet...

although if you read the alterations to the proposed new timetable you can see odd stops being added back in again already.

Damn CityRail, why are you bowing to public pressure from the noisy few? What about the silent majority?!

What i found funny was that the illawarra line recieved no changes, yet got the second highest number of submissions.

All those people who want to save a minute or two by cramming into the express train, although some changes were needed, apparently some stations (like maquarie fields) had a 40minute gap between trains in Peak hour.

offtopic news in a way. But their replacing old wooden sleepers on the frankstone-cranbourne-pakenham-dandinong lines inbetween Richmond and Caulfield... they should rip up one track at a time, replace it with higherspeed rail, and cement sleepers. would cost more, but it would save money in the long run, also improve speeds.

i dont know if the work goes further down the lines towards dandinong because i'm on the franga line.

offtopic news in a way. But their replacing old wooden sleepers on the frankstone-cranbourne-pakenham-dandinong lines inbetween Richmond and Caulfield... they should rip up one track at a time, replace it with higherspeed rail, and cement sleepers. would cost more, but it would save money in the long run, also improve speeds.

i dont know if the work goes further down the lines towards dandinong because i'm on the franga line.

It did go down a pretty fair distance between Richmond and Caulfield. There were shitloads at South Yarra on the weekend. But yeah, I agree, they really need to concrete-sleeper those tracks ASAP. I saw some sleepers at South Yarra that had literally *disintegrated* over time, and were actually no longer there (only a gap where the sleeper used to be). I was scared, very scared.

I recall notices about track works on sections of the Cranbourne/Pakenham line to Dandenong.

Transport lobby shows roads rage (http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Transport-lobby-shows-roads-rage/2005/06/01/1117568257201.html)
[The Age (www.theage.com.au)
By Lorna Edwards
2 June 2005

Railway lines to Doncaster and Rowville and an extension of tram lines to Knox and Doncaster would ease the city's growing traffic congestion more than huge road projects, public transport advocates said yesterday.

Environment and public transport groups said a plan to rebuild Melbourne's transport infrastructure, unveiled this week by the Committee for Melbourne, was too focused on roads and ignored public transport needs.

Public Transport Users Association president Daniel Bowen said yesterday that transport infrastructure priorities should include:
Train lines to Doncaster and Rowville, a line extension to South Morang and electrification of the Sunbury line.
Rail line duplication of single tracks such as the Hurstbridge and Epping lines.
Tram line extensions to Knox and Doncaster.
The elimination of level crossings at Nunawading, Mitcham and Kooyong.
Increased frequency and hours of operation for bus services to the middle and outer suburbs.

Environment Victoria and the Greens believe that the city's traffic problems would be eased only by improving public transport and that more freeway extensions would increase road congestion.

The Committee for Melbourne, a powerful lobby group of Victorian business leaders, argues for several huge projects aimed to ease city traffic congestion by 2015.

Proposals include a new bridge to ease congestion on the West Gate Bridge, linking the Eastern and Tullamarine freeways, completing Melbourne's ring road by linking the EastLink from Ringwood to Greensborough, and running more bus services to outer suburbs.

Mr Bowen said the committee's focus on building roads was misguided.

"The Committee for Melbourne appears to have fallen for the myth that more roads relieve traffic congestion. They don't," he said.

Environment Victoria said it supported the committee's recommendation to boost bus services, but the city's transport priorities should all focus on public transport.

i have a plan for melbourne's train system but no web site to display it on so if anyone would like a copy to display on their web site and link it to this forum could they advertise their interest on this forum. i did like the plan proposed but it is still a radial system my plan seeks to get rid of most of the dead ends in the system so it is convient for user going to the city as well as other places it all so includes areas that are not served by fast efficient transport like melbourne university, southland, st kilda, port melbourne, highpoint, airport, latrobe university, northlands, doncaster, st kilda road, kew, my email is supwitchall@hotmail.com if any one would like me to email them a map of my plan

^Use something like ( www.imageshack.us ) to display it.

[IMG]http://img123.imageshack.us/img123/7458/melbournetraindaretodream1ky.th.gif

Transport lobby shows roads rage (http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Transport-lobby-shows-roads-rage/2005/06/01/1117568257201.html)
[The Age (www.theage.com.au)
By Lorna Edwards
2 June 2005

Railway lines to Doncaster and Rowville and an extension of tram lines to Knox and Doncaster would ease the city's growing traffic congestion more than huge road projects, public transport advocates said yesterday.

Environment and public transport groups said a plan to rebuild Melbourne's transport infrastructure, unveiled this week by the Committee for Melbourne, was too focused on roads and ignored public transport needs.

Public Transport Users Association president Daniel Bowen said yesterday that transport infrastructure priorities should include:
Train lines to Doncaster and Rowville, a line extension to South Morang and electrification of the Sunbury line.
Rail line duplication of single tracks such as the Hurstbridge and Epping lines.
Tram line extensions to Knox and Doncaster.
The elimination of level crossings at Nunawading, Mitcham and Kooyong.
Increased frequency and hours of operation for bus services to the middle and outer suburbs.

Environment Victoria and the Greens believe that the city's traffic problems would be eased only by improving public transport and that more freeway extensions would increase road congestion.

The Committee for Melbourne, a powerful lobby group of Victorian business leaders, argues for several huge projects aimed to ease city traffic congestion by 2015.

Proposals include a new bridge to ease congestion on the West Gate Bridge, linking the Eastern and Tullamarine freeways, completing Melbourne's ring road by linking the EastLink from Ringwood to Greensborough, and running more bus services to outer suburbs.

Mr Bowen said the committee's focus on building roads was misguided.

"The Committee for Melbourne appears to have fallen for the myth that more roads relieve traffic congestion. They don't," he said.

Environment Victoria said it supported the committee's recommendation to boost bus services, but the city's transport priorities should all focus on public transport.
Bracks isn't even commited to building ANY of those road proposals :bash:

they promised, promised but done fuck all over the last 7 years.

Melbourne also has a Huge Tram network and many buses run through the suburbs.

the frequency of trains in Melbourne are not really as bad as in Sydney,in Melbourne it's usually 15-20 minutes off Peak and between 5-20 minutes during the peak.


hardly any lines in sydney have 30 minute frequency

I frequently use the eastern suburbs and north shore line - and never have to wait more than 10 minutes
Also when i was last at strathfield (west) - there was a train every 5-10 minutes

30 minute frequencies exist on just over half the stations on the Illawarra Line. Arncliffe, Banksia, Carlton, Allawah, Oatley, Como, Loftus, Engadine, Heathcote, Waterfall, Kirrawee, Gymea, Miranda, Caringbah, Woolooware and Cronulla to be precise.

Ditto Holsworthy.

Ditto the Main Northern line, and the Riverstone line.

hardly any lines in sydney have 30 minute frequency

I frequently use the eastern suburbs and north shore line - and never have to wait more than 10 minutes
Also when i was last at strathfield (west) - there was a train every 5-10 minutes

That's a biased sample.

The North Shore Line and ESR get the best frequencies on the network. Those lines actually resemble metro rail moreso than commuter rail.

As for the Strathfield thing, well if you're at CityRail's 11th busiest station (out of 302), you damn well expect decent frequencies. Go one station west of Strathfield, to Homebush and check out their frequencies.

when i was living in melbourne my closet station was hawksburn - now the frequency there was terrible

although i dont think public transport in either city is that great - i would have to say sydney has a slight edge

Frequencies of the various off peak services

Penrith trains = 30min
Blue Mountains = 60min
Waterfall = 30min
Sutherland = 30min
Cronulla =30min
East Hills = 15min
South Coast = 60min
Campbelltown/Macarthur via East Hills = 30min
Campbelltown via Fairfield = 30min
Liverpool via Regents Park = 30min
Bankstown - City via Regents Park = 30min
Ashfield - City Circle = 30min
Liverpool/Bankstown via Sydenham = 15min
Hornsby - North Sydney = 30min
Wyong - Sydney Terminal = 60min
Newcastle - Sydney Terminal = 60min
Clyde - Carlingford = 60min
Richmond - North Shore Line = 30min/60min in certain timeperiods

CityRail only has superior service to melbourne at major stations such as Strathfield, where you have multiple lines converging. There are only five line sections where all stations recieve a service greater than every 30min of which three are amaglamation of services - the ESR, North Shore and Inner West. Bankstown/Liverpool and East Hills recieve a 15min service, where the trains stop all stations.

This is in comparison to Melbourne, where all the stations recieve the same off peak level of service, whilst in Sydney, as above, only a small fraction does, even though many more areas are deserving of higher service levels.

This is how Melbourne can be said to have a 15-20min off peak frequency whilst Sydney has a 30min off peak frequency.

when i was living in melbourne my closet station was hawksburn - now the frequency there was terrible

although i dont think public transport in either city is that great - i would have to say sydney has a slight edge

I'd kill for Hawksburn's frequency. A train at a minimum of every 15 minutes between 7am and midnight.

An example of poor frequency in Melbourne would be the stations beyond Dandenong, where the line splits and so does the frequency. Apart from the morning and evening peaks, you're looking at 30 minutes during the day and one hour at night.

trams are not time compeditive with cars and therefore will only attract passengers that are in no particular hurry to get anywhere. heavy rail is affordable when compared to new freeways and it offers a real alternative to private car useage

Trams attract plenty of passengers that are in a hurry. Do people going to work not count as being in a hurry? Or are the ones that are in a hurry the ones who got held up on the freeway parking lot and are now late for work?

On road like Nicholson St the car is faster but only very marginally. It's common to take the tram down in the morning and see the same car out the window for a big part of the way. Besides tram speeds would improve if they were given priority at the intersections.

trams are not time compeditive with cars and therefore will only attract passengers that are in no particular hurry to get anywhere. heavy rail is affordable when compared to new freeways and it offers a real alternative to private car useage

Excuse me? do you even ride public transport?

I'm a 20 year old student with deadlines and classes to take, I live in Carlton North and take the 96 tram every day and believe me, myself and my fellow commuters would heavily dispute this. We are in a hurry. I can't afford to run a car so the tram is my only option.

People don't ride trams over trains for leisure, my nearest station is Clifton Hill which is too far out of the way, and the nearest buses is on Rathdowne Street and Princes street which take me in the wrong directions.

Heavly rail and trams do not and should not compete with one another, they should compliment each other. Heavy rail to commute to outer suburbs and trams to fill in the mid to inner suburbs for their respective commutes.

because you are so time consious would you be prepared to walk 250m to a tram route that was much faster with 2 times more trams running on it? and yes i do ride both trams and trains because i do not have a car and i have lived overseas where public transport actualy works well, so i feel i can make an informed judgement about why melbourne's system is not satisfactory. I was not saying that i think "all people who ride PT have nothing better to do" but rather that is the perpection of those that don't ride pubic transport

because you are so time consious would you be prepared to walk 250m to a tram route that was much faster with 2 times more trams running on it?

Absolutely not. Both routes are justified on their own merits in this case. Brunswick Street is simply too important a destination to remove the service, and the existing services down Nicholson Street are already full from the section of the route that you stupidly proposed shutting down.

If anything, Brunswick Street trams ought to be sped up, without removing the trams. That means getting rid of the through traffic.

From all of these posts, it's quite evident that all of us (except for melbourne Engineer) are lazy bastards who won't walk an inch further than we have to. :D

So all plans for the PT system (be they real plans, or just a vision) need to take that into account.

There are two threads here with almost the same content in them...

From all of these posts, it's quite evident that all of us (except for melbourne Engineer) are lazy bastards who won't walk an inch further than we have to. :D

So all plans for the PT system (be they real plans, or just a vision) need to take that into account.

I will post my plans ... but that may take a few weeks. Not to realize the plans, but to convert them to the contemporary venacular.

How about this new underground route for the Glen Waverly line:

(Red line/Black squares - railway; spray paint - possible tram extensions)

http://www.railpage.com.au/modules/gallery/albums/ZH836301/glen_waverly_stonnington.sized.jpg

Given that the line needs a complete overhaul to remove those five level crossings, it would be well worth spending the extra money to create this.

The benefits would be huge:

-The stations can now function much better as activity centres located away from the freeway with more room to move, decreased noise pollution and being located at more prominant locations

-Massive speed increases due to the removal of the tram level crossings and a straightening of the curves

-Removal of an unnecessary station

-Stations would connect much better with trams


The only drawback I can see is the removal of parking, but considering it is such an urban area, and little car parking presently exists anyway, it is no great issue.

Cost shouldn't be too much of a problem as it should only be calculated as the extra cost of this plan, over the other option of removing the five level crossings by lowering the current line and rebuilding the stations using the existing alignment.

Another major advantage to this plan is that it can largely be undertaken without massive delays and bustitutions to Glen Waverly line users.

The old alignment can be preserved, or better, sold off to help reduce the costs even futher.

:rofl:

I like the theory of your plan but unfortunately I can't see it happening. I also think you underestimate the cost. You are talking about a 4-5km (or more) tunnel here, either two seperate tunnels or a very large double track one. Cut and cover method is out of the question meaning it would have to be bored. I think you'd be looking at a price tag of hundreds of millions if not more than a billion dollars.

I don't know the roads there well but I presume tram lines can be extended without too much trouble.

It would be built as two seperate tunnels - cheaper.

I can't really see it costing that much - Citylink tunnels would have an area maybe 9 times that of a standard railway tube and they didn't cost an astronomical amount to build.

The other option - grade seperating all 5 level crossings and rebuilding stations, would be just as costly as this plan, a plan with much greater benefits.

Below I have some stats lifted from a 2002 report to the DOI which concerned the proposed Eastern Freeway tunnel through Carlton area. There is a section in it that costed a heavy rail alternative. Bear in mind these prices are from 2001 so you probably have to increase them by 5 years worth of inflation.

Underground Station (each) $50 million
Overhead (per metre) $800
Signalling (per metre) $800
Single rail tunnel (per km) $20 million
Substations (each) $1.5 million

For the basis of this I will assume that the length is four kilometres. The tunnel goes off the map that you provided so I don't know how much further you intended it to run.

Two tunnels each four kilometres long: $160 million
Overhead for eight kilometres: $6.4 million
Signalling for eight kilometres: $6.4 million
Four underground stations: $200 million
Substations: $3 million.

I believe also that in this situation the cost estimate of each station would be higher than quoted above because the locations would be much more difficult to excavate then the median strip of Alexander Parade would be. I don't know how many substations would be required so I assumed it would be at least two, one for each tunnel. Grand total of approximately $375 million which would probably round up closer to $400 million in todays dollars. So I was a little bit off on my billion dollar guess but still quiet expensive. And that it just a ballpark figure, there would be other factors to consider which might add to the cost such as relocating and/or providing utility lines. Also unfortunately our government doesn't have the best history of delivering large projects within budget either.

I need to find some articles or reports that price estimate the grade seperations of that line to compare. Don't get me wrong though, I think it's an awesome proposal but I don't think the powers that be would consider it feasible. I think we are more likely to see the existing alignment sunk a bit and the air rights sold above.