:D :guns1:

http://www.vicsig.net/suburban/siemens/whole-train.gif

http://www.vicsig.net/index.php?page=suburban&section=siemens

In Service Timetable (Correct as at Sat 9th Aug 2003)

Monday - Friday (excluding public holidays)
8.00 empty cars from Newport to Flinders Street (7086)
8.43 down Pakenham (4023)
10.10 up Pakenham (4642)
11.32 down Pakenham (4037)
13.10 up Pakenham (4006)
14.21 empty cars from Flinders Street to Newport (7087)


Note: Launched on 21.3, entered service on 3.4, withdrawn 11.4. Due to re-enter service on Sunday 10th August as a 3 car set on the 8.12 down Pakenham and 9.30 up Pakenham before resuming the above timetable as a 6 car set on Monday 11th August.

As at 1.4 revenue running is permitted on the Pakenham, Cranbourne and Sandringham lines.
Test running is permitted on the Frankston and Werribee lines.
Running is not authorised for Upfield, Sydneham or Broadmeadows.
(M>Train network only).

Undoubtedly more M>Train Hitachi's will disappear and be replaced by these machines quicker, as they've had extra time to train more drivers and fix braking problems

:banana:

7 X'Trapolis sets running now:

http://www.vicsig.net/suburban/xtrapolis/whole-train.gif

http://www.vicsig.net/index.php?page=suburban&section=xtrapolis

In Service Timetable (Correct as at AUgust 1st 2003)

Monday - Friday (excluding public holidays) commencing May 19th (cycles 1 & 2), June 2nd (cycle 3), June 11th (cycle 4), July 2nd (cycle 5), July 28th (cycle 6), August 4th (cycle 7). Cycle 6 suspended after Fri.1.Aug (replaced with cycle 7).
Cycle 1
Morning Run:
05.05 up Ringwood
06.00 down Belgrave
07.13 up Belgrave
08.23 down Blackburn (extended to Ringwood)

Afternoon Run:
14.37 empty cars Ringwood to Flinders Street
15.12 down Belgrave
16.29 up Belgrave
17.31 down Lilydale
18.38 up Lilydale
19.50 down Ringwood

Cycle 2
Morning Run:
05.47 Ringwood to Belgrave
06.24 up Belgrave
07.35 down Blackburn
08.11 up Blackburn
08.46 down Blackburn
09.23 up Blackburn
10.04 empty cars Flinders Street to Ringwood

Afternoon Run:
14.38 empty cars Ringwood to Flinders Street
15.14 down Alamein
15.59 up Alamein
16.30 down Belgrave
17.48 empty cars Belgrave to Ringwood

Cycle 3
Morning Run:
06.16 Ringwood - Belgrave
06.56 up Belgrave
08.06 down Blackburn
08.43 up Blackburn
09.17 down Belgrave
10.29 empty cars Belgrave - Ringwood

Afternoon Run:
15.17 up Ringwood
16.01 down Alamein
16.43 up Alamein
17.13 down Mooroolbark
18.11 empty cars Mooroolbark - Ringwood

Cycle 4
Morning Run:
06.38 up Ringwood
07.31 down Lilydale
08.35 up Lilydale
09.40 down Lilydale
10.39 up Lilydale
11.50 down Belgrave

Afternoon Run:
13.17 up Belgrave
14.30 down Lilydale
15.39 up Lilydale
16.36 down Lilydale
17.47 up Lilydale
18.42 empty cars City Circle Train
19.01 down Ringwood

Cycle 5
Morning Run:
07.31 empty cars Upper Ferntree Gully - Belgrave
07.55 up Belgrave
09.04 empty cars Flinders Street - Burnley Sidings

Afternoon Run:
16.57 empty cars Burnley Sidings - Flinders Street
17.10 down Belgrave
18.24 empty cars Belgrave to Upper Ferntree Gully

Cycle 6 (Suspended)
Morning Run:
06.46 empty cars Upper Ferntree Gully - Belgrave
07.05 up Belgrave
08.16 down Alamein
08.52 up Alamein
09.23 empty cars Flinders Street - Burnley Sidings

Afternoon Run:
14.09 empty cars Burnley Sidings - Flinders Street
14.23 down Alamein
15.09 up Alamein
15.41 down Glen Waverley
16.41 up Glen Waverley
17.20 down Alamein
17.53 up Alamein
18.24 down Belgrave
19.46 empty cars Belgrave - Upper Ferntree Gully

Cycle 7
Morning Run:
04.55 empty cars Upper Ferntree Gully - Belgrave
05.12 up Belgrave
06.30 down Lilydale
07.42 up Lilydale
08.44 down Lilydale
09.43 up Lilydale
10.50 down Belgrave

Afternoon Run:
12.17 up Belgrave
13.27 down Lilydale
14.39 up Lilydale
15.36 down Lilydale
16.39 up Lilydale
17.33 down Upper Ferntree Gully


Note: At various times transposials and other events effect the operation of trains. Cycle 3 commenced from Monday 2nd June 2003. Cycle 4 commenced from Wednesday 11th June 2003. Cycle 5 commenced from Wednesday 2nd July 2003. Cycle 6 commenced from Monday 28th July 2003. Cycle 7 commenced from Monday 4th August 2003.

:banana:

Tays.. What's the total stock of each set once they are all running in a couple of years and those shite Hitachi's are outa there??

Cheers

Dean - Melbourne

I spoke to acoulpe of drivers at Flinders Street on thursday and they said they hate both the new trains and to look forward to some "incidents".
They claimed Connex ones are very hard to control and drive and over techinical and the Siemens braking systems are absolute shit with only 4 settings compared to 7 on the Hitachi and Comeg ones this apparently makes the Siemens models hard to stop smoothly.

They also reckoned that the old Hitachis are the best and easiest to drive.

Originally posted by Dean
Tays.. What's the total stock of each set once they are all running in a couple of years and those shite Hitachi's are outa there??

Cheers

Dean - Melbourne

Dunno, I think there are 100, or 150 Hitachi sets they have to replace ?

The VicSig.net pages for both have info on which sets have been delievered: http://www.vicsig.net/index.php?page=suburban&section=xtrapolis
http://www.vicsig.net/index.php?page=suburban&section=siemens

Look at the amount of Siemens sets there are and compare to the amount in service (1! well 2 x 3 cars)

Billy: the drivers may have the opinion they're crap, but from a passenger's point of view, they shit all over the Hitachis (and Comeng's!)

I like the new Connex, but that siemens train is ugly! Eispecially from the side. Why did they get them anyway? I thought they were a German subway train?

Siemens are M>Trains, and yes, Siemens are a German company, dunno where you got German subway train from.

Another sign of the times is that the Melbourne half-fleet replacement program will probably be operationally complete before the Millenium replacement program!

sorry i meant I liked the Connex train.

I was looking at siemens trains on a website and that one looks alot like the German subway trains. Ill see if i can find a pic

Originally posted by tayser
Dunno, I think there are 100, or 150 Hitachi sets they have to replace ?

The VicSig.net pages for both have info on which sets have been delievered: http://www.vicsig.net/index.php?page=suburban&section=xtrapolis
http://www.vicsig.net/index.php?page=suburban&section=siemens

Look at the amount of Siemens sets there are and compare to the amount in service (1! well 2 x 3 cars)

Billy: the drivers may have the opinion they're crap, but from a passenger's point of view, they shit all over the Hitachis (and Comeng's!)
Im just repoerting what they said to me.
They did agree that they were good for the passengers and very modern and advanced but I was surprised how much they disliked driving them.They also thought the Siemens were along way from being ready for full service.

Also apparently the 5-car Combino's have started arriving in the city as well,

pic of an Amsterdam 5-car Combino:
http://mercurio.iet.unipi.it/pix/nl/trams/Amsterdam/Combino/2030.jpg

The 5-car Combino's look like trains. I wish we had those instead. I think our new trains look like old USSR trains. Give us the new Sydney trains any day. They at least look a hell of a lot better, even though there are problems with them.

New trains everywhere always seem to have teething problems, at least the problems with these trains are relatively minor. They are both based on proven technologies with the only minor problems being adapting them to local requirements. So we get reliable, modern trains will all of the features you could expect without all of the problems and extra expense associated with a whole new design.

The risk of introducing flashy new designs which look cool is just not worth it, our public transport system has enough problems without having to rely on the Hitachi's for another 10 years :-)

Well there was a 6-car Siemens, complete with M>Train "hosts", on the 10:10UP Pakenham today.

Now just get em to stay on the rails! :D

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/08/15/1060936056368.html

Taking a different track
By Andrew Heasley
Transport Reporter
August 16, 2003



Trams could be given priority over cars under a bold State Government concept to speed up tram travel.

VicRoads is considering pulling up tram tracks from the centre of the road and re-laying them along the kerb. The concept would have cars confined to the centre lanes, freeing up space for trams to run unhindered.

But faster, unimpeded tram travel would come at the expense of on-street parking, which would be removed along busy shopping strips.

VicRoads has identified six locations along Yarra Trams' showcase Port Melbourne-Box Hill Route 109 where these, and other, track treatments would see trams gaining priority over cars and at intersections.

Transport Minister Peter Batchelor said yesterday: "What we're trying to do is to give trams . . . help getting through all the traffic congestion."

As a gauge of the Government's seriousness, VicRoads recently advertised for consultants to assess the likely impact on tram and car journey times, congestion and traffic diversion to other roads, the design and positioning of tram stops, and the location of tram tracks and changes to parking.

A dozen consulting firms responded to the tender.

"Various proposals have been put forward and we need to get VicRoads to test the impact of those before we start a consultation process," Mr Batchelor said. The concept proposes that trams would run adjacent to the car-free kerb along Richmond's busy Victoria Street shopping strip, through Kew Junction and outside Balwyn's shops on Whitehorse Road. Cars would be permanently banned from on-street parking on these stretches.

Elsewhere on the route, tracks would be shifted less than a metre closer to the kerb, with the tram stops extended outwards to meet the tram, easing access for the disabled. Cars would then wait on the tracks behind trams as passengers alighted or boarded. From Kew to Balwyn cars would merge with trams on the tracks.

The ideas drew a mixed reaction yesterday.

"That could have a dramatic impact on shopping patterns," said Opposition transport spokesman Terry Mulder.

Richmond Asian Business Association president Pham Toan said Victoria Street's shopkeepers were worried that banning cars from parking outside their shops could ruin their livelihoods. City of Yarra Mayor Greg Barber warned that clearways, such as those on nearby Johnston Street, had created "traffic sewers".

One of the most enthusiastic supporters of the idea, perhaps surprisingly, was the RACV.

The motoring club's public policy manager, Ken Ogden, said it was a chance to update a 1920s model of commuting to one fit for the 21st century.

"The biggest challenge Melbourne's going to face in the next 20 to 30 years . . . is going to be how to manage our existing arterial road space," Dr Ogden said.

In this case, the roads for Route 109 had been identified as public transport's priority. But in return, other roads in the area must be reworked to benefit motorists, he said.

Residential parking was a "crunch issue" and the delivery of goods to shops had to be resolved, Dr Ogden said.

The tender process ran aground late yesterday after Boroondara Council, alerted by The Age's inquiries, contacted VicRoads to voice concerns that the tender would leapfrog a Government commitment to widely consult the community on the proposal. Mayor Judith Voce said: "Boroondara pointed out its concerns . . . this might be seen to be pre-empting the community consultation process."

VicRoads project manager Russell Bittner confirmed the tender had been put on hold, but a consultant would be appointed to develop the traffic model once discussions began.

I like it.
The current setup where tram passengers have to step out onto the roadway (and in rushhour, clearway lanes) is far from optimal. Curb tram/buslanes and tramstop outcrops are good.
Make a clear distiction between auto throughways and transit routes.

Getting rid of any kurb side car parking is very very wrong! Commercial shopping strips rely on kurb side parking and removing that and replacing it with tram tracks is very stupid. Trams need to be fitted with cameras to catch drivers speeding past stationary trams letting off passengers and catching drivers holding up trams whilst truning right. More fairways and longer clearways are the key, not moving tram tracks or extending footpaths out to meet tracks.

Like I have said before, the new tram stops in Box Hill are very silly. The reverse needs to happen, where the tram tracks meet the kurb not the other way around. And it doesn't need to happen at every tram stop, just the major ones.

I hate curbside parking with a passion, but australian cities just wouldn't survive without them....

Aussie Steve: That's what they said before they closed Rundle Mall to traffic. Considering you can only fit one or two cars in the length of the average shop, it's not exactly much.

Besides, a few levels of parking around the ground floor would make any future retail-scraper those few metres higher! :D

Any reason why they can't have trams on the left then parallel parking to the right of the trams?

I hate how the trams leave you in the middle of the road esp. in the city, when its packed its very dangerous, they even have police near the flinders station it gets to packed, there's so many people crammed in the middle of the road with crazy victiorian drivers zooming by, then, when you cross on a green man the cars still come at you on a red light, crosssing melbourne's roads is bloody crazy/scary, it seems the motor vehicle rules, at major perth CBD interscection all cars are on a red light so you can double cross, and also when threre's a green man you have fully right of way

Originally posted by chrisaus
I hate how the trams leave you in the middle of the road esp. in the city, when its packed its very dangerous, they even have police near the flinders station it gets to packed, there's so many people crammed in the middle of the road with crazy victiorian drivers zooming by, then, when you cross on a green man the cars still come at you on a red light, crosssing melbourne's roads is bloody crazy/scary, it seems the motor vehicle rules, at major perth CBD interscection all cars are on a red light so you can double cross, and also when threre's a green man you have fully right of way

What get a laugh out of, is all the interstate visitors bitching about traffic conditions in Melbourne where these same people, if their cities hadn't been stupid enough to get rid of their trams in the first place, would most likely have IDENTICAL traffic conditions..... And all Tram stops in the city have barriers, which if you're completely thick in the head (talking generally), are there for you to wait for traffic to stop at intersections, where tram stops are, so then you can cross safely. It's your own stupid fault if you try to dash for it across to the footpath as far as I'm concerned.

tays

the funniest thing is the tram in the mall !!!! the first time I almost got run down because I didn't expect them to run up the mall, must be very entertaining for locals, oh and the fire balls they scared the living shit out of me standing under poles then suddenly giant fireballs start coming out:D ahh melbourne, always fun:cool:

Originally posted by tayser
It's your own stupid fault if you try to dash for it across to the footpath as far as I'm concerned.


haa?
I did wait for the green man, but cars still go through the intersections, they musn't be on a red light, rather go if there are no pedestians or something, I think the interesection on the crn of flinders/specer or something was like that was like that

Pedestrians have right of way here if the green man is on.

The tram stops at Flinders and Spencer Streets have barriers, and their not that busy there anyway.

prob busy cause i was there during aus open/school holidays....

chrisaus: What does this mean?
http://home.iprimus.com.au/adamtre/nogreenarrow.gif

:colgate:

Originally posted by AtD
chrisaus: What does this mean?
http://home.iprimus.com.au/adamtre/nogreenarrow.gif

:colgate:

I'm not Chirsaus but,
Through traffic have protected phase.
Left & Right turns are under Permitted phases where any oncoming traffic (esp for turning right) have right of way.

BTW, get rid of kerbside parking. It really holds up traffic and is inefficient. 100 m of road only provides parking for what is essentially 30 customers. I pretty sure an offstreet parking and decent public transport will more than make up for lost parking places.

@chrisaus - there is one city in Australia that survives quite well without Street Parking, Canberra! only two precincts - Kingston and Manuka really have street parking - and ever then you're better off parking in a lot somewhere!

If they want to put the trams to the kerb - I think this will improve safety, better than having passengers get off in the middle of the road, that goes against everything we were taught as kids about road safety!

However - if they are going to do it - then the Govt should fund and build FREE multistorey carparks in the immediate vicinity of these shopping streets, no if's ands or buts.

Not to mention you'll now overtake trams on the right instead of the left. The fast lane would actually be a faster lane! :) No hook turns either.

smeghead: My point was turning traffic gives way to pedestrians too, even if they have to wait in the middle of the intersection.

http://metropolis.tayser.net/misc/siemens1808031.jpg

rounding a bend:

http://metropolis.tayser.net/misc/siemens1808032.jpg

Carraige joins, was freaking noisy (to be expected)

http://metropolis.tayser.net/misc/siemens1808033.jpg

Entering Richmond

http://metropolis.tayser.net/misc/siemens1808034.jpg

She's checking out Eureka, I'm sure of it ;)

http://metropolis.tayser.net/misc/siemens1808035.jpg

Why do all the new trains and trams have such hard arsed and uncomfortable seats?

So you can't cut them with a blade. Slashing as in cutting the seat :colgate: is high on the vandalism list.

What an X'Trap -sounds- like:

http://www.lexicon.net/met/trains/sounds/854M-depNWG.mp3

(right click, save target as)

http://metropolis.tayser.net/misc/siemens2808031.jpg

I think those Siemens trains need to have something painted on the side.. The single band of stripes can hardly be noticed, side on I think the Comengs look better than the Siemens.

Still, I still haven't been on one, ever since the Siemens have come back the only trains that seem to pull up for me are Hitachi's.

The crash this morning! Are these 2 trams heading for the junk yard? I hope not!

http://www.theage.com.au/ffxImage/urlpicture_id_1062403490187_2003/09/02/hoddles2.jpg

http://www.theage.com.au/ffxImage/urlpicture_id_1062403490195_2003/09/02/hoddles6,1.jpg

http://www.theage.com.au/ffxImage/urlpicture_id_1062403491065_2003/09/02/hoddles1,0.jpg

Lucky I caught the bus after that one - that was a morning 301 heading from the Pines Shopping Centre to the City via the Eastern Freeway. I was in the 304 following behind it and as a result was delayed for more than an hour to get into the city - diverted via Johnson(sp?) street Collingwood as Hoddle St was closed.

No, not Dallas Area Rapid Transit or whatever the hell it is in the US ;)

from the NCCC Draft Strategy report (DOI webiste)

http://metropolis.tayser.net/misc/dart.jpg

A light rail or busway solution would run from a new underground bus/tram interchange at Doncaster Hill,in a dedicated right of way along Doncaster Road, then in the median of the Eastern Freeway from Doncaster Road to Alexandra Parade, requiring widening of the Freeway from Bulleen Road to Doncaster Road. Fromthere, it would run along Alexandra Parade (in a dedicated right of way, and probably taking a traffic lane in each direction) to Nicholson Street, where it would join tram route 96 into the City. As shown in Figure 6-2, another option would be to turn into Elgin Street and Swanston Street to serve Melbourne University more directly, then into the city along Swanston Street. High-speed vehicles would be used to provide competitive overall journey times compared with car travel (and also to travel along the freeway at noticeably higher speeds than cars).

A heavy rail solution would run underground from Doncaster Hill to the Eastern Freeway at Bulleen Road, following the freeway median from there to the Clifton Hill railway overpass. At this point it would turn south, leaving the median to join the Clifton Hill line north of Victoria Park station. Doncaster train services would then enter the city using the city loop (service patterns would need to be worked up in detail).

A hybrid solution would combine features of the heavy and light rail options, running from Doncaster Hill along Doncaster Road and into the Freeway reserve (as per the bus and light rail options), then joining the Clifton Hill line at Victoria Park to run into the CBD using the city loop. The hybrid solution would require specially-designed vehicles capable of running in an on-road situation

With all options, the primary objective would be to provide a competitive edge, with shorter overall journey times than car travel, and much-improved reliability, capacity and passenger amenity than the present bus services. This means that DART will need to be fully segregated from road traffic throughout its length. An integral part of DART would be the redesign of bus services in the Doncaster corridor to improve their coverage and provide effective feeder services to and from the rapid transit system, including an effective bus/DART passenger interchange at Doncaster Hill.

Before any commitment is made to DART, a full feasibility study is needed into the options available, the potential benefits and costs. In the meantime, any land needed for future options should be protected.

____

regardless of any decision on the above, Freeway Tunnels have been CANNED. wooo ;)

The best option IMO would be the heavy rail option. They should also make a provision for the line to be extended further east and eventually into Ringwood and heading down to Frankston.

Light Rail... good idea but too cheap if you know what I mean. Less exciting than a train, but no doubt Mr Bracks will decide to take the cheapest option which will be buses, and busways :(

Light rail is way overrated and doesn't really work for long distances. So its either heavy rail or busway. Light rail sounds like a nicer long term option.

Exceprt from:
Ways busways fail
Author: Peter Newman
Date: 06 June 2001

Parallels with Perth

I was closely involved with the process of decision-making over the Perth Northern Suburbs Rapid Transit System. After considerable community pressure for a rail system down the corridor of 150,000 people, the government conducted a Rapid Transit study. The consultant chosen had had considerable links to Busways and the Adelaide O-Bahn and not without surprise recommended that. I should add that surveys of the public preferred rail (even if it had much reduced service frequencies and involved transfers, compared to a busway).

I was asked to review this study and did so with an international panel. We found significant problems :

a) The busway had included in it considerably increased freeway capacity which had been hidden in the total costs and in the publicity which was all about public transport.

b) No discussion was made of the bus congestion problem in the CBD which remains a major problem in all busway cities. This is due to the inability of large numbers of people to quickly vacate and enter buses like they do trains (a factor of at least 10 times slower).

c) The problem of 'transfers' from bus to rail was a fetish in objecting to rail without any real supporting evidence from the many cities worldwide where this occurs in 'Hub and Spoke' bus feed-in systems to rail.

d) We challenged their overall costings as they vastly overstated running costs for rail.

The government took our advice and built the rail services down the middle of the Mitchell Freeway to the northern sub-centre of Joondalup. The following results challenge some of the assertions given to the public from Queensland Transport and the consultant's report.

Heavy rail is considered by many to be very expensive in capital costs, however the Northern Suburbs line cost $230 million for a 33 km system (total costs). This is $7 million per km and is cheaper than most busway proposals.

The experts said it would be a high running cost option, however the Northern Suburbs line is almost breaking even in running costs. The current mythology says heavy rail running costs are high and busway is low. This is wrong and is reflected in the data presented above which shows rail-based cities having much higher transit cost recovery. One train driver can carry six hundred or more passengers using a very much more efficient technology in fuel use, compared to one bus driver carrying 60 people (or a maximum of 120 in an articulated bus) that is ten times less fuel efficient. If trains carry too many extra staff and don't run at capacity it is not the fault of the mode.

The experts who view transfers as a problem predicted a loss in patronage when the bus-only corridor was forced into a Hub and Spoke bus-rail corridor. However, there was a 40% increase in patronage in the first year and it has continued to rise and is now carrying the equivalent of six lanes of traffic.

No-one expected the rail service to attract people out of their cars as Perth is so 'low density' and car facilities are so good. However, 25% of the new patronage came from cars and it continues to be its source for growth.

This Northern Suburbs line is a small island of success in Perth. It is now being extended further north and a 1 billion dollar rail service has been announced for the southern suburbs. It does suggest that Brisbane has potential to build new rail lines as part of its suburban service.

You won't get any argument re: Heavy rail expansion throughout Metro Melbourne from me!

However, re: article above, although highly successful in Perth etc, it doesn't take much to realise the costs are -always- going to be much more in Melbourne as opposed to Perth or Brisbane.

The way lines are constructed, the vehicles they carry, and the service types differ greatly.

The track alone would be more expensive - a Melbourne rail allignment would probably be 1/3 wider than a Perth / Brisbane one [adding to capital costs]. Operationally speaking infrastructure would have to be re-worked on the Clifton Hill Group so as services on Epping / Hurstbridge wouldn't be drastically affected and capacity found in the loop. And the trains Melbourne uses are larger, carry more people and in turn are more expensive.

Don't get me wrong, I want it! But these are all the points that'll be weeded through and no doubt highlighted in a further analysis.

To tell you the truth, I'm keen to see what they have in mind for a Hybrid solution... would be a weird looking vehicle!

Are trams classified as light rail in Melbourne? because they would work quite effectively and efficiently in this area. Buses on the other hand have smaller capacities, run less and add to congestion in this part of the inner city.

And the heavy rail is a good idea because Melbourne would benefit from a larger network.

How about a new railway line from Eastern Freeway to Melbourne Central? :)
One study I've got suggests buswyas are the most efficient at in terms of carrying capacity. Alot of people have agradge against buses because they tend to have too many stops and aren't as comfortable for passengers. Plus there's emissions, noise. Buses usually get second priority to cars as opposed to rail.

Benefits of Busways:
1. Buses can pick people up from points closer to their trip origin and drop them off closer to their final destination with fewer transfers. Unlike Rail, buses can be programmed to use local streets at either end of their run on a specialized right of way;
2. Buses can always bypass another disabled bus so breakdowns are less disruptive than rail where disabled vehicles must be pushed all the way to a siding before another rail car can pass;
3. Buses can easily be operated in express or non-stop mode whereas (except for rare cases like the four-track Lexington Avenue subway in New York) each train or trolley must stop at every station, so the proportion of unneeded stops is higher than for buses;
4. Bus vehicles come in many different sizes and configurations and can be tailored more closely to the special needs of the customers, whereas rail provides a one-size fits all formula;
5. There is a much shorter lead time on buying extra buses so it is easier to match capacity to demand; and
6. Buses and the lanes on which they operate have more alternate uses if things don’t work out.

Comparing Capacity (Rail vs Bus)
Another distortion that regularly appears is the claim that bus has limited capacity compared to rail. In Seattle rail enthusiasts at transit planning agency Sound Transit are proposing that an operating bus tunnel downtown be converted to light rail use with the claim this mode change will increase its capacity. In fact it will almost certainly reduce capacity, for the reasons discussed below, as well as cost a lot of money.

Rail advocates constantly cite false capacity numbers. Numbers quoted in the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) for the Virginia Hampton Roads Third Crossing are typical. That study claims that a busway has a capacity of 4,000 to 12,000-passenger spaces/hour/lane or 1.5 to 4.6 equivalent conventional highway lanes (ECHL). By contrast light rail capacity is cited at 6,000 to 20,000/passengers/hour or 2.3 to 7.7 equivalent highway lanes and rapid (heavy) rail 10,000 to 72,000 or 3.8 to 27.7 equivalent highway lanes.6

The DEIS figure for busway capacity is so low because it quotes the maximum throughput of buses as 60 to 90 per hour. That corresponds to a headway of 40 to 60 seconds between buses (see table). According to Professor Vukan Vuchic, a veteran academic from the University of Pennsylvania that is widely cited in transit feasibility studies, this DEIS citation is a misleadingly selective use of quite complex findings. He says that the 60 to 90 buses/hour (headways averaging 40 to 60 seconds) refers to a situation in which there are no special bus terminals, and little capability of buses to pass at stops. So the constrained design of the stops, not the busway itself, is the limiting factor. Vuchic says it is possible to run buses safely at 6 to 8 second headways or 450 to 600 buses per hour per lane. If the buses carry 60 seats, that’s a seated capacity of 27,000 to 36,000/hour.

Thomas Rubin, a California based consultant and former senior transit agency official in Los Angeles, says spacing of buses at 264 feet on 3-second headways at 60 mph is safe. That would yield 1200 buses/hour and passenger flows of up to 70,000/lane/hour. This is the huge capacity that could be achieved with busways. However, Rubin notes there are not many places where this huge capacity is needed. He also challenges the notion of heavy rail systems being capable of running at one-minute headways. The shortest headways in U.S. rail systems are achieved by the San Francisco Bay Area’s BART, at 2 minutes and 40 seconds. Boston, Philadelphia and San Francisco run trolleys at 60-second headways, but only at low speed. The Transportation Research Board’s highway capacity manual recognizes a bus in a traffic stream as the equivalent of two cars so the capacity of an expressway lane commonly rated at 2,300 car equivalents/lane/hour will be able to handle 1,150 buses/lane/hour and at 40 to 120 passenger spaces per bus this puts busway capacity at 46,000 to 138,000 passengers/lane/hour—about six times the capacity of light
rail and about twice that of heavy rail. Vuchic thinks this puts an inadequate stopping distance between vehicles and that properly trained drivers will operate at 6 to 8-second headways. But that is a 7.5-fold increase in capacity over what is claimed for a busway by the DEIS consultants. And it is in the same range of
capacity as heavy rail and well above light rail.

Extracted from:
P o l i c y U p d a t e 1 6 F e b r u a r y 8 , 2 0 0 2
Busway vs. Rail Capacity: Separating Myth from Fact
BY PETER SAMUEL
Peter Samuel is an Adjunct Scholar of Reason Public Policy Institute and is the Editor of TOLL ROADS
NEWSLETTER. This policy brief was adapted from TOLL ROADS NEWSLETTER Number 56, October
2001, p. 22. Author Peter Samuel can be contacted at 301-631-1148, tollroads@aol.com.

I'll post an extract on the case FOR light/heavy rail over buses when I can be buggered to scan it.

Improving Tansit: The Bus/Light Rail Debate. Despite light rail's advantages and its rapid adoption in many cities around the world, a major and sometimes bitter debate frequently occurs in auto-oriented, bus-only cities contemplating the use of light rail technology for the first time. This debate turns on whether a better bus system (achieved through busways), or a rail system, is the best, most cost-effective way to improve transit.
On the bus side, it is argued that buses are more appropriate for the less dense, less centralized urban form of Auto Cities, have more flexibility to cater to passenger needs in low-density environments, and are much cheaper. Part of this argument is that people do not like to transfer between modes, which is what often needs to happen in low-density settings if people are to use a new light rail system (or any rail system). The argument is essentially that, for a much lower investment, buses can achieve similar improvements in travel time and thus can be just as successful, if not more successful, than a light rail system. But is this simple analysis really how competition between transit and the automobile works, and is it equal to the task of winning the wider sustainability argument and helping to build a more sustainable city?
The answer would appear to be no. Cities that have taken out old tram systems have found that the replacement bus services experience a big decline in patronage, and many cities that have attempted to win car users with busways have failed. Even Ottawa, the most extensive busway city in the Western world, has had declining transit use since it opted for busways. In San Diego the data show that many people have Left their cats to use the new LRT system, something that the previous bus system was unable to do despite busways, and something that most Californians thought could never happen. In the northern corridor, where a line-haul busway service operates and park-and-ride facilities are provided, the utilization rates are about 50 percent that of the park-and-ride stations on the LRT lines. Mills (1989) states that:
one-third of the people who ride our system each day come to it in their cars and park at the Lots at our stations . . . surveys further show that most of those people, when asked how they would get to work if the light rail line did not exist, say they would drive the rest of the way. (p. 5)

The reality is that there are many factors that influence people’s choice of transportation. However, these rarely figure in the transportation planner’s models when it is predicted that a busway will be able to attract as many or more passengers as a new rail Line. This is why there are now so many places around the world where new rail lines outperform the buses they replace (e.g., see case study on Perth Later in this chapter), and are far more successful in patronage than any standard models are able to predict.

These other factors that favor rail over buses include:
• Greater comfort and convenience (both vehicles and stations/stops), particularly because passengers are more likely to get a seat on light rail; availability of a seat substantially decreases the cost that passengers attach to travel time
(Algers, Hansen, and Tegner, 1975).
• Better schedule reliability (Jessiman and Kocur, 1975).
• Reliable transfers between modes—a number of authors show that modal transfers are nowhere near the negative factor they have been made out to be, especially rail-to-rail or bus-to-rail, though bus-to-bus is not viewed favorably because of frequently poor reliability (Algers, Hansen, and Tegner, 1975; Vuchic, 1981). PeopLe appear relatively happy to make a transfer that enables them to take advantage of what they see as a superior mode.
• Greater inherent passenger appeal of the vehicles and stops, including width of aisles, smoothness, odor (diesel fumes and particuLates are now seen to be a health issue: Hamer, 1997; Pearce, 1997), engine noise, all-weather reliability and weather protection at stops, and other environmental factors (Tennyson, 1985).
• The ‘Sparks Effect”—incteased passenger appeal of an electric system over a diesel system, observed in all new tail electric systems. This is due to a combination of factors but includes the inherently faster acceleration and deceleration of the electric drive system in electric trains. The sparks effect is so consistently found that it is frequently built into passenger estimates at about 20 percent over other transit patronage.
• Route understandability of light rail versus buses; light rail has tracks and overhead wires that clearly indicate where it goes and station stops that are generally far more obvious than bus stops.
• The permanence of light rail lines versus the flexibility of buses. Vuchic (1989) states that:
a strong image and identity of rail transit caused by the simplicity of its services and permanence of its lines, represents a major element of passenger convenience. The strong recognition contributes greatly to the large passenger attracting ability of rail transit.
• Attraction of real estate development that can significantly alter the medium to long-term picture of patronage potential and financial performance of transit (Henry, 1989). Paaswell and Berechman (1982) explain it this way;..Buses take people to where activities are and can- follow the movement of activities over a wide geographic pattern. On a rapid transit line, there is a more active land use/transportation relationship. Large numbers of people are concentrated at specific spots, and activities become linked to the stops. Transit induces changes in station areas that often would not occur if no transit were there.

One of the key reasons why transit is seen by developers as offering excellent land use opportunities is that it “conserves the use of prime real estate for greater commercial and economic activity, rather than for the siorage of automobiles” (Elms, 1989, p. 113).
The induced land use effects of new rail systems are especially important but unfortunately”.., professionally accepted ridership forecasting processes typically do not take them into account” (Henry, 1989, p. 175). Busways and their associated bus stations tend to have a stigma attached to them in the minds of the development community. The factors that most discourage residential and commercial development around bus stations are insufficient speed and service, poorly understood routes and service, and the image of a bus station as being noisy, polluted,~or with other environmental problems (Henry, 1989). A bus system is also perceived as representing a lower level of public commitment to transit and one whose permanence is not guaranteed because of the ease with which services can be altered or rerouted (Austin Department of Planning and Growth Management, 1986).
The better potential of light rail to attract development also provides the possibility for governments to participate in joint development and value capture opportunities (e.g., see Keefer, 1985; Cervero, Hall, and Landis, 1992). These mechanisms are capable of yielding up-front capital contributions from the private sector for stations and other infrastructure, and ongoing nonfare revenue from leasing of air rights, property rents, station connection fees, and other methods, as well as returning to the public purse some of the windfall gains that can accrue to the private sector from public investment in transit, such as the rezoning of adjacent land to higher-value land uses.
The essential attractiveness of joint development and value capture opportunities is in their potential to provide a win-win situation. The benefits can work three ways:
• The transit authority/government gains in shared capital costs of new transit projects, additional nonfare operating revenue from leased lands, and a more efficient transit operatiqn with a higher fare-box recovery ratio, especially higher off-peak and reverse direction patronage in peaks through high-density centers along the lines. Local governments benefit from a higher tax base and revitalization of the local area, including more local job opportunities.
• The developer/land owner gets a much higher value use from the land through density bonuses and rezoning advantages, easy accessibility for the development’s work force from all over the city, and a guaranteed, captive clientele for businesses located around the station.
• The community gains in cheaper, quicker access to a wider range of employment opportunities, services, and housing, much better standards of urban and environmental design around stations and vital focal points for convenient urban facilities for the local population. Far greater choice becomes possible for those with and without cars.

pages 155-160
Sustainability and Cities
Peter Newman & Jeffrey Kenworthy
Island Press 1999

Originally posted by Fabian
Are trams classified as light rail in Melbourne? because they would work quite effectively and efficiently in this area. Buses on the other hand have smaller capacities, run less and add to congestion in this part of the inner city.

And the heavy rail is a good idea because Melbourne would benefit from a larger network.

Trams are classed light rail, but I don't think you understand the Doncaster problem. I live in this area, and commute to the city 5 days a week. Despite close proximity to the CBD, it can take an hour in peak time on a bus, due to lack of rail, and the bus services that feed the 'nearest' rail services are very poor.

In contrast, our lucky neighbours in Box Hill have a <15 minute trip to the heart of the CBD (underground loop) during and around peak times with express trains.

Trams are not the ideal solution for solving this problem. It would still be good to see a tram loop constructed from Balwyn and back around to Box Hill (where trams have also recently been extended), and this has been discussed a few times here (and in the local papers), but this is a secondary priority.

What is needed is a completely new rail line, that runs underground from Doncaster shoppingtown to the Eastern freeway, then along the centre of the freeway (a reservation still exists for a railway line). At Hoddle St, this is where people are undecided. Either they suggest it joins the Clifton Hill loop, or continues underground via Melbourne University etc to the CBD (most likely more expensive).

I believe that a two stage development should occur.

This should start with a hybrid system which has a heavy rail from Doncaster to the end of the eastern, terminating at a new interchange station between clifton hill and victoria park (maybe as a replacement to both of these) on the Epping/Hurstbridge line. A light rail would continue directly from the same platform (of the new doncaster line) down Alexandra parade via Melb. Uni into the city. Passengers could then choose a train or light rail to continue into the city.

The second stage (more expensive and thus less likely to occur in the near future) would be a heavy rail tunnel under the same path as the light rail as a replacement. This tunnel (which has been proposed elsewhere in this forum) would travel via Melbourne Uni, Melb. Central, Flinders st, southbank, and then down st kilda road to the Junction. This tunnel would offset the need for additional capacity in the Loop as either the epping or hurstbridge to the east and upfield line to the north could be diverted down a north south route through the city thus freeing up capacity in the loop.

I believe that it would be a better option than running the heavy rail south from clifton hill along the existing line, as it does not address problems with loop capacity, and it makes it more expensive if the tunnel via Melb uni to realign it all.

Also (not exactly related but anyway) in regards to city loop capacity, they should make two alternative routes through the city running half the lines through the loop and the other half through flinders and spencer streets, and rather than terminating the service in the city centre they should continue straight through to a corrensponding line on the other side. Therefore, for instance, a service beginning in Dandenong would terminate in Broadmeadows (with the added benefit of bringing families together : ) ) This would make Richmond and North Melbourne the point of transfer for the alternative route through the city (which happens already with people who dont want to travel all the way through the loop to get to Flinders street).

They do this in so many other cities, and it would make the system a little easier to navigate by changing 12 separate rail lines (I've grouped the lines that split close to the end like Belgrave/Lilydale) into 6 cross city lines. It would also free up space in the city by not having trains sitting at Flinders street for 10 minutes before they depart as they do now.

Originally posted by OSJ

This should start with a hybrid system which has a heavy rail from Doncaster to the end of the eastern, terminating at a new interchange station between clifton hill and victoria park (maybe as a replacement to both of these) on the Epping/Hurstbridge line. A light rail would continue directly from the same platform (of the new doncaster line) down Alexandra parade via Melb. Uni into the city. Passengers could then choose a train or light rail to continue into the city.


If you ask me, it doesn't sound like such a good idea. Just think of how bad it would be with 600+ people transferring from a Doncaster train then trying to cram into an already crowded Epping/Hurstbridge train. Likewise if you were expecting most people to take trams, you'd need a hell of a lot of trams waiting.


The second stage (more expensive and thus less likely to occur in the near future) would be a heavy rail tunnel under the same path as the light rail as a replacement. This tunnel (which has been proposed elsewhere in this forum) would travel via Melbourne Uni, Melb. Central, Flinders st, southbank, and then down st kilda road to the Junction. This tunnel would offset the need for additional capacity in the Loop as either the epping or hurstbridge to the east and upfield line to the north could be diverted down a north south route through the city thus freeing up capacity in the loop.


I don't believe that the loop is at capacity, besides there is plenty of Flinders St direct capacity. I don't think we can justify the expense of a project like this.


Also (not exactly related but anyway) in regards to city loop capacity, they should make two alternative routes through the city running half the lines through the loop and the other half through flinders and spencer streets, and rather than terminating the service in the city centre they should continue straight through to a corrensponding line on the other side. Therefore, for instance, a service beginning in Dandenong would terminate in Broadmeadows

This, on the other hand should be done. I think Sandringham trains used to be throughrouted to Williamstown? There is plenty of Flinders St direct capacity that remains unused and also by through routing you avoid issues of trains having to shunt.

Originally posted by austux

This, on the other hand should be done. I think Sandringham trains used to be throughrouted to Williamstown? There is plenty of Flinders St direct capacity that remains unused and also by through routing you avoid issues of trains having to shunt.

This "metro-ising" of lines is what I'd like to see with Doncaster & U/Ground lines under Swanston Street, then back out to Caulfield group, so you'd be able to route all Cranbourne trains [say for instance] to Doncaster, creating one long metro-line, in and out of the city. Thereby having all Cranbourne / Doncaster services stoppers, then having all Pakenham services express (if you understand the jist of what I'm trying to say) - 1 hour stopping all is far too long!

$0.02

Originally posted by OSJ
I believe that a two stage development should occur.

This should start with a hybrid system which has a heavy rail from Doncaster to the end of the eastern, terminating at a new interchange station between clifton hill and victoria park (maybe as a replacement to both of these) on the Epping/Hurstbridge line. A light rail would continue directly from the same platform (of the new doncaster line) down Alexandra parade via Melb. Uni into the city. Passengers could then choose a train or light rail to continue into the city.

I wouldn't mind seeing this if we were talking about buses using the existing shoulder bus lanes as an interim solution, building a bus interchange on the old yard at Vic Park, provided extra services are run from the Vic Park shunt or the centre track at Clifton Hill.. Given bus congestion issues, load/unload times in the CBD etc, the transfer woild probably save time over present trips, not to mention reducing operating costs by about 1/3 or allowing 1/3 higher frequencies for the same cost..

The second stage (more expensive and thus less likely to occur in the near future) would be a heavy rail tunnel under the same path as the light rail as a replacement. This tunnel (which has been proposed elsewhere in this forum) would travel via Melbourne Uni, Melb. Central, Flinders st, southbank, and then down st kilda road to the Junction. This tunnel would offset the need for additional capacity in the Loop as either the epping or hurstbridge to the east and upfield line to the north could be diverted down a north south route through the city thus freeing up capacity in the loop.

Actually, the Clifton Hill loop is the least congested of the four loops.. It could handle about four times the number of trains that it presently sees, albeit it would have to run permanently in clockwise mode if you wanted to run more than double what is presently run..

Also, the Northern group would not need any help wrt removal of the Upfield line if the Werribee and Williamstown services were isolated from all other lines from North Melbourne and were through routed to Sandringham via the new viaduct..

Also (not exactly related but anyway) in regards to city loop capacity, they should make two alternative routes through the city running half the lines through the loop and the other half through flinders and spencer streets, and rather than terminating the service in the city centre they should continue straight through to a corrensponding line on the other side. Therefore, for instance, a service beginning in Dandenong would terminate in Broadmeadows (with the added benefit of bringing families together : ) ) This would make Richmond and North Melbourne the point of transfer for the alternative route through the city (which happens already with people who dont want to travel all the way through the loop to get to Flinders street).

Yeah, but I wouldn't suggest it for anything other than Sandy Line <-> Newport unless some additional track was built..

Even still, remember that the Clifton Hill and Burnley groups couldn't do this at all.. Trains exiting out of the Clifton Hill group would conflict with the Burnley Group, and both would conflict with the Northern group at or near Flinders Street..

If you want to through route anything other than Sandy<->Newport, the next option would be Frankston<->Broady.. You'd need either another track pair FSS-SSS or rebuilds at South Yarra and North Melbourne to run it effectively, as the last thing you want is to have to cross half of the trains across the other half at grade, which would happen.. The rebuilds would involve flyovers or underpasses to bring the up Frankston underneath the down Sandringham at or just north of South Yarra, and the up Broady across the down Newport at the Kensington Flyover..

It would also free up space in the city by not having trains sitting at Flinders street for 10 minutes before they depart as they do now.

While I agree the stupid placement of recovery time in the middle of a bottleneck needs to be abolished,, with recovery time and cleaning time shifted to suburban terminuses, this can be done as part of any timetable rewrite, without reference to any of the above service routing realignments..

Thanks for all the comments.

Just a couple of questions on some things said -
(also could someone explain how to quote)

Austux said-
If you ask me, it doesn't sound like such a good idea. Just think of how bad it would be with 600+ people transferring from a Doncaster train then trying to cram into an already crowded Epping/Hurstbridge train. Likewise if you were expecting most people to take trams, you'd need a hell of a lot of trams waiting.

I currently do just that here in London, my line (hammersmith and city) ends close to the inner city in a T-junction with two other lines and a major bus interchange. Here you have a train which is 3/4 full every 5-10 minutes emptying with most people transferring onto either another line or a bus. I agree though, its not ideal

Austex also said re loop capacity -

I don't believe that the loop is at capacity, besides there is plenty of Flinders St direct capacity. I don't think we can justify the expense of a project like this.

I read in this forum or the age a couple of months ago that they were discussing the need to build an extra level to the loop as it is nearing capacity (bringing it up to 6 tracks from the current 4). I know that a tunnel would be expensive but we need to start spending money. The inner north is completely lacking fast PT options (trams are just too slow over long distances). Maybe a more reasonable approach in the short term would be to terminate the underground line at Melbourne central.

Put simply though the Government's aim is to get 20% of all trips in Melbourne onto PT by 2020 (up from the current 9%) and you are not going to get that without spending large sums of money, especially considering that we are in catch up mode. Consider how much has been spent on PT verses roads over the last half century, and I am sure that even now the PT budget wouldnt be even 10% of what's been spent on new and improved roads. We've committed billions of $$, both public and private over the last 10-15 years on new/improved roads (western ring road, City link, Geelong, and now scorsby) maybe if we spent that kind of money on PT in the next 10-15 years we wont need to go and widen/upgrade all the roads we've just built in 20 years, which is what will be necessary if we don't.

Thanks.

I think EV put out something along those lines (or was it something the govt put in 2020?), though not sure that it's really justified. They probably didn't take into account that it was only originally intended to have 60% of trains go through the loop, with the remaining 40% continuing direct to Flinders St.

That said I agree with you that something needs to be done about public transport. Though obviously you have to draw the line somewhere as to where priority should be. By blowing the PT budget on additional city loop capacity/other inner city tunnels, you support the myth that PT is only for central city commuters. You'd also be increasing the gap between the level of service those in the inner city get and those in the outer suburbs get, while doing nothing to fix the problems in the outer. I think you'll find that the tram service to Melbourne Uni, et al to be quite acceptable.

The things we should be concentrating on include the Rowville line, Doncaster line, airport link, as well as major bus improvements (e.g. implementing Bus Plan) and increased priority for trams. Bus transport is probably the area with the biggest weakness in Melbourne, meaning that public transport can be next to useless if you don't live in an area accessible by train/tram. Then of course, as far as bureaucrats go, if they look at a project like the Doncaster line, proposing a tunnel in the inner city is only going to give them bait to write the whole project off as being unfeasable (something we've already seen with the airport rail link, they chose the most expensive option then said that it's not feasable).

Originally posted by OSJ
Just a couple of questions on some things said -
(also could someone explain how to quote)

Hit the quote button, it will bring up the whole message quoted as one big chunk, and you can put your comments at the end..

If you want to thread your comments in there, using square brackets (between P and \) put quote and /quote tags around whatever text segments you want to quote.

Also, note that for some unknown reason, this YABB forum automatically puts quoted text in bold (b tags) so you may just want to remove the b and the /b if you don't want your entire reply to be in bold text.

Hit Preview if you're not sure whether it will come out properly or not, and just keep trying..

Austex also said re loop capacity -

I don't believe that the loop is at capacity, besides there is plenty of Flinders St direct capacity. I don't think we can justify the expense of a project like this.

I read in this forum or the age a couple of months ago that they were discussing the need to build an extra level to the loop as it is nearing capacity (bringing it up to 6 tracks from the current 4). I know that a tunnel would be expensive but we need to start spending money. The inner north is completely lacking fast PT options (trams are just too slow over long distances). Maybe a more reasonable approach in the short term would be to terminate the underground line at Melbourne central.

Put simply though the Government's aim is to get 20% of all trips in Melbourne onto PT by 2020 (up from the current 9%) and you are not going to get that without spending large sums of money, especially considering that we are in catch up mode. Consider how much has been spent on PT verses roads over the last half century, and I am sure that even now the PT budget wouldnt be even 10% of what's been spent on new and improved roads. We've committed billions of $$, both public and private over the last 10-15 years on new/improved roads (western ring road, City link, Geelong, and now scorsby) maybe if we spent that kind of money on PT in the next 10-15 years we wont need to go and widen/upgrade all the roads we've just built in 20 years, which is what will be necessary if we don't.

If you want to raise patronage to 20%, the big gain has to be in off peak, and in peak travel to locations other than the CBD.. If you focus just on the need for peak hour CBD commuters, you will never get that extra 11% since there simply aren't that many extra people who need to get into the CBD at peak hour.. Already over half of the market uses PT, so if you were to assume that everybody who works in the CBD in business hours was to get PT, the silly "motorised trips" figure couldn't possibly rise above 15% if nothing else changed..

Now, if you left peak hour basically as is, putting in a bit of extra capacity where required, and spent the billions of dollars bringing PT to the people and to more communities, you might actually get somewhere..

Plenty of kids and teens don't get buses to sports games after school, or to the nearby rail station, or the shops, local entertainment venues, and they certainly don't have any services to get them around their part of town on weekends.. Our bus services seem to be designed entirely around the needs of elderly people, who don't go out much at night or on weekends..

Plenty of teens and young adults can't get home late at night on PT..

Plenty of young adults find a need to live somewhere where they aren't tied down to debts, trying to save their pennies, and that means you have to live in the inner city where you can save on the expense of a car, because that's the only place where PT can actually sustain a lifestyle (though not a very good one).. If PT was good in more parts of town, the real estate market might not be so confused..

The technological revolution has resulted in plenty of mothers finding themselves freed from the kitchen and chained to the wheel.. A decent PT system that their kids could rely on, coupled with monthly tickets, would unchain those mothers from the wheel who want to do so (perhaps up to 50%), who could decide to get jobs, earn money, spend money, and boost the economy.. They could decide to stay home, and maybe kids would get better nutrition, as well as the exercise gained from walking home from the bus stop on the nearby main road..

Church amalgamations, past and future, will isolate a lot of elderly people from their religious services.. Dwindling congregations make it inevitable.. However, in just about all of Melbourne, there are no bus services on Sundays.. People who used to walk to their local church will find they have no church and no bus.. Perhaps Sunday bus services in suburbia could even help the elderly onto PT more..

Tram stops may go (http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,7470866%255E2862,00.html)
By JOHN MASANAUSKAS, transport reporter
Herald Sun (www.heraldsun.com.au)
6 October 2003

DOZENS of tram stops could be abolished to speed up trams and cause motorists fewer delays.

The State Government's Tram Plan calls for a review of all suburban stops located within 200m of each other.
Private operator Yarra Trams has also identified stops in the CBD that could go.

These include corner stops on Collins and Bourke Sts between King and Spencer Sts, to be replaced by sheltered super stops in the middle of each block.

Similar changes could be made on Flinders St between Russell and Exhibition Sts.

The layout of Melbourne's 1740 tram stops has been virtually unchanged since the network was built more than a century ago.

A draft copy of the Government's tramways blueprint for the next 30 years, seen by the Herald Sun, says about 22 per cent of stops are within 200m of the next.

Average distances between stops are 250m, compared with up to 500m in Europe.

The report says reasons to cut the number of stops include:

SHORTER trip times.

LESS delay for motorists.

OPPORTUNITIES to improve safety and conditions at fewer stops.

LOWER costs in complying with disability anti-discrimination laws.

The report calls for a review of all stops within 200m of the next, except in the CBD, to assess if they should be combined.

It says local factors and urban design and heritage issues would have to be considered and extensive community consultation would be necessary.

It didn't name any stops, but the Herald Sun has identified several that could be reviewed.

They include two stops outbound on route 3 on Carlisle St, St Kilda, between Chapel St and St Kilda Rd; route 86 city-bound on High St, Northcote, near Clarke St; and route 70 city-bound on Riversdale Rd, Camberwell, between Nicholsdale and Through roads.

Tram Plan recommendations are not binding on the Government and no decisions to cut stops have been made.

Yarra Trams chief executive officer Hubert Guyot said the changes could make trams more competitive with cars.

Mr Guyot said replacing some CBD corner stops with mid-block superstops would help trams get priority at intersections.

"If you have no stop at the lights, then when the tram leaves the mid-block stop it can have a green light at the next intersection," he said.

But Public Transport Users Association president Daniel Bowen said M>Tram's closure of the Swanston St stop outside St Paul's Cathedral was bad planning and hadn't led to tram priority at the Flinders St intersection.

He said the PTUA preferred higher traffic priority for trams rather than fewer stops.
___________________________________
I think this is a great idea. I can think of a few (not many) tram stops that can be moved, amalgamated or removed all together. I might write my suggestions down on paper and send them in to the State Government.

Originally posted by Aussie Steve
Tram stops may go (http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,7470866%255E2862,00.html)
By JOHN MASANAUSKAS, transport reporter
Herald Sun (www.heraldsun.com.au)
6 October 2003

DOZENS of tram stops could be abolished to speed up trams and cause motorists fewer delays.

-snip-

These include corner stops on Collins and Bourke Sts between King and Spencer Sts, to be replaced by sheltered super stops in the middle of each block.

Over my dead body!!

The first stop on Bourke Street eastbound is the interchange stop for people transferring from train to tram at Spencer Street Station FFS!

It should be moved back to Spencer Street now that it's no longer a shunting location, not put in concrete and with the King Street stop (important for people who work on King Street) abolished..

Similar changes could be made on Flinders St between Russell and Exhibition Sts.

If anything, Flinders Street is the proof that mid block stops are confusing as hell.. Melburnians expect tram stops to be at intersections and get a little stroppy when they're not, but on Flinders Street, they are all over the place, so people don't use the trams as much for local travel on Flinders Street..

The layout of Melbourne's 1740 tram stops has been virtually unchanged since the network was built more than a century ago.

And it works!

The report says reasons to cut the number of stops include:

SHORTER trip times.

Wrong! Trip times would be extended because people would have to walk further, and walking takes longer than any time savings for the tram itself.. Doubly so for the elderly..

Also, if you're walking past a closed tram stop and a tram drives past, you then have to wait 6-30 minutes for the next tram, which is added to the individual's trip time..
LESS delay for motorists.

OPPORTUNITIES to improve safety and conditions at fewer stops.

More of those horrid fenced off super stops that force you to walk around and around just to get in and out of the stop, making you miss the tram more often than before

LOWER costs in complying with disability anti-discrimination laws.

Stupid laws that never should have been brought in in the first place.. It's far cheaper to give people who need accessible transport x number of free taxi vouchers a week than to buy more and more overpriced low floor wank-o-trams, not to mention modified stops..

If they must make stops accessible, why not make it so that if tram stops are less than 200m together, only put an accessible stop every 250m or so..

The report calls for a review of all stops within 200m of the next, except in the CBD, to assess if they should be combined.

So tram stops at Spencer Street Station and plans to make them more useful for rail passengers by moving them closer to the station/spencer street itself, are not threatened?

Mr Guyot said replacing some CBD corner stops with mid-block superstops would help trams get priority at intersections.

"If you have no stop at the lights, then when the tram leaves the mid-block stop it can have a green light at the next intersection," he said.

And yet where it's been done, priority has not been implemented, and the lights are still phased to make cars faster at the expense of trams.. As a result, trams now stop at the red light and then again at the tram stop.. This is the case regularly at Collins Street westbound at Spring and Swanston (granted Spring has been departure side for a long time), Swanston southbound at St Pauls Cathedral, Nicholson Street at Johnston Street, Route 86 north of Summerhill Village (been on them stopped at red lights enough times), Royal Parade between Brunswick and Park (my local stop) and most other places where departure side or mid block stops already exist..

The so called benefits of them are a result of reprogramming the traffic lights, which can be done without moving the stop anyway by simply holding a green for the tram when a tram is at the stop until such time as the tram leaves or until a longer than present timeout..

I have a few suggestions and here they are:
Get rid of the tram stop on Batman Ave, just south of Flinders Street. Build 2 new super stops on Flinders Street, just west of Batman Ave to service the Batman Ave tram and Flinders St trams all in one hit
Get rid of the tram stop on Swanston St, just of Victoria St. Get rid of the tram stop on Swanston St, just south of Franklin St. Build 2 new super stops on Swanston St between Victoria & Franklin Sts to service all north-south trams in one hit
Get rid of the tram stop on High St, just east of St Kilda Rd. Get rid of the tram stop on St Kilda Rd, just south of High St. Build 2 new super stops on St Kilda Rd, just north of High St to service all trams along St Kilda Rd & High St in one hit
Get rid of the tram stop on Commercial Rd, just east of St Kilda Rd. Get rid of the tram stop on St Kilda Rd, just south of Commercial Rd. Build 2 new super stops on St Kilda Rd, just north of Commercial Rd to service all trams along St Kilda Rd & Commercial Rd in one hit
Get rid of the tram stop on Domain Rd, just east of St Kilda Rd. The Domain interchange is just 10 metres away!
Get rid of the tram stop on Park St, just west of St Kilda Rd. The Domain interchange is just 10 metres away!

Should I keep going???

Sent this letter into the Herald Sun this morning. N.B. it's in a concise form in hope of getting published so that's why it lacks detail (could have probably written it a bit better as well but didn't have too much time):

Closing tramstops is not a way to improve tram travel times, as suggested by the government.

The bulk of time wasted by trams is spent waiting at traffic lights, rather than tram stops. Closing and relocating stops does nothing to guarantee traffic light priority. Swanston St is a perfect example of this. By moving stops away from intersections you only inconvenience passengers who need to transfer between trams.

Traffic priority without closing stops is the only solution to improve travel time for passengers. Relocating and closing stops does nothing but save a small amount of time for a finite number of motorists.

Originally posted by MrPC

Plenty of kids and teens don't get buses to sports games after school, or to the nearby rail station, or the shops, local entertainment venues, and they certainly don't have any services to get them around their part of town on weekends.. Our bus services seem to be designed entirely around the needs of elderly people, who don't go out much at night or on weekends..


Is it really designed around the needs of the elderly or is this just the way it has evolved since the 1950s? Where going to bed before 8pm was the norm and unions had so much power that it would have been impossible to run services on what was then more widely accepted to be a religious holiday. That and the fact htat elderly are about the only people using buses during school hours since they are about the only captive users around at that time.

Originally posted by Aussie Steve
I have a few suggestions and here they are:
Get rid of the tram stop on Batman Ave, just south of Flinders Street. Build 2 new super stops on Flinders Street, just west of Batman Ave to service the Batman Ave tram and Flinders St trams all in one hit

Agreed there, though I wouldn't mind seeing the eastbound stop on Batman Ave left.. Few people ever wait there, there's no light at the far side so there's no delays, and if there's a tourist in that area who needs to go to the tennis centre, it's easier to send them to that stop where all trams go there instead of the approach side stop where there are two other routes, plus MCG-Spencer Street shuttles to confuse the matter..

Get rid of the tram stop on Swanston St, just of Victoria St. Get rid of the tram stop on Swanston St, just south of Franklin St. Build 2 new super stops on Swanston St between Victoria & Franklin Sts to service all north-south trams in one hit

That would leave a block unserved.. Maybe you could get away with it if you moved stop 4 southbound south of Queensbury Street..

Get rid of the tram stop on High St, just east of St Kilda Rd. Get rid of the tram stop on St Kilda Rd, just south of High St. Build 2 new super stops on St Kilda Rd, just north of High St to service all trams along St Kilda Rd & High St in one hit

Again, that would leave a whole block unserved.. Maybe if they also moved stop 28 west of Punt Road in both directions it might be OK..

Get rid of the tram stop on Commercial Rd, just east of St Kilda Rd. Get rid of the tram stop on St Kilda Rd, just south of Commercial Rd. Build 2 new super stops on St Kilda Rd, just north of Commercial Rd to service all trams along St Kilda Rd & Commercial Rd in one hit

Same deal..

Get rid of the tram stop on Domain Rd, just east of St Kilda Rd. The Domain interchange is just 10 metres away!

Very bad idea.. People running for a tram will find the tram is leaving right as the green ped light activates.. You'll add $InsertServiceFrequency (8-30 minutes) to the trips of a lot of people with such a dumb move..

Get rid of the tram stop on Park St, just west of St Kilda Rd. The Domain interchange is just 10 metres away!

Same deal.. I'm sure it's on the operators radar, but it'd be a very dumb move from a pedestrians perspective.. Sure, it may help the tram companies run a little smoother, but remember the trams aren't running for the tram companies, they're running to serve passengers..

Originally posted by austux
Is it really designed around the needs of the elderly or is this just the way it has evolved since the 1950s? Where going to bed before 8pm was the norm and unions had so much power that it would have been impossible to run services on what was then more widely accepted to be a religious holiday. That and the fact htat elderly are about the only people using buses during school hours since they are about the only captive users around at that time.

Today's elderly were young adults or middle aged in the 1950s.. The needs and habits of that group of people haven't changed terribly much, just the services were never expanded to meet the varying travel requirements of subsequent generations.. Actually, they kept getting cut back, but those who were already using them could accept that, it just made it even harder to get new users..

Oh for goodness sake! I am only asking people to walk an extra 10 metres!!!! to save maybe 3 minutes!!

Sounds good to me.
It;'ll speed up services, but its not all that must be done.

ALL trams and buses MUST have right of way over cars. Why should 50 people have to wait to turn a corner while cars stacked with 1 person get to go.

Bus + Tram priority!

Originally posted by Aussie Steve
Oh for goodness sake! I am only asking people to walk an extra 10 metres!!!! to save maybe 3 minutes!!

Those ten metres make all the difference.. Getting those ten metres is done at the same time as the tram does, when the tram gets a green, and the peds get a little green man.. The peds are slower than trams are, so they'll inevitably miss the trams, and go back to driving..

If the problem is too many people using public transport delaying the trams when they get on and off, well, they'll stop using public transport, so from the operator's perspective, problem solved.. Of course, there has been no social good in driving people away from trams out of frustration..

Meanwhile, the tram will be sped up by no more than 50 seconds, probably average 35 seconds where there's a green, none at all when there's a red.. Where on earth did you get that 3 minute figure from?

Originally posted by austux

The things we should be concentrating on include the Rowville line, Doncaster line, airport link, as well as major bus improvements (e.g. implementing Bus Plan) and increased priority for trams. Bus transport is probably the area with the biggest weakness in Melbourne, meaning that public transport can be next to useless if you don't live in an area accessible by train/tram. Then of course, as far as bureaucrats go, if they look at a project like the Doncaster line, proposing a tunnel in the inner city is only going to give them bait to write the whole project off as being unfeasable (something we've already seen with the airport rail link, they chose the most expensive option then said that it's not feasable).

I agree fully with all of that. I think that the problem is in regards to PT funding we unfortunately need to learn again how to crawl before we can walk, so to speak, and we need to have a good decade of funding the most desperate areas to get public perceptions of PT back into the positive. This means project which are safe from potential cost blowouts and other disasters such as bus improvements and increased services.

On the other hand I do think that a few star projects would be good PR because I think that non-PT users see the system as poorer than it is. The quality of stations, reductions in vandelism and reliability have improved significantly in the last 10 years, but I think this is lost on many people. The exception to this (and the most talked about by unions and the media) is staff reductions, especially conductors on trams. But this is another perceptual thing. In the two years of using PT before moving here to London about a year ago I never once had a problem buying tickets. I've seen quite a few metro systems and Melbournes tickets and timetables etc are no harder to understand, and most other systems expect you to buy tickets from machines. I just don't see the problem. I would rather pay less for my ticket than pay people to sit around all day helping the odd person who can't work the machines out.

About off peak timetables that's very true I lived in the Dandenongs as a teenager and we used to go out to knox city and the last bus in any direction on a weekend was 9pm I think. This meant that my mum would have to do a round trip of over an hour to pick us up. That's the kind of situation that could easily be avoid with just a little more service provision.

It's been revealed by the PTUA (http://www.ptua.org.au/) that the escalators at Museum station on the corner of Swanston and Latrobe streets will be closed. Thus forcing passengers to go into the shopping centre and down a narrow set of escalators near the shot tower from level two (Swanston St) to level one, before going down another set of escalators to the station concourse. Then of course there is a third, or depending which way you go, a fourth set of escalators to the platform!

It seems that the government and developers have tried to keep this quiet to avoid public scutinisation but thanks to the PTUA they have failed. What a disgrace!

If true it is a disgrace it is afterall a PUBLIC transport terminal with abuilding above it . The travelling public's convienience should always come first!

What about the Elizabeth Street entry, and LaTrobe Street (northern footpath side) entries ?

Yes, I've always said that it's a design flaw with Box Hill Central. It's shocking when you're in a hurry to get a train and the shoppers drift slowly through the centre as though they have all day (and they probably do have all day!). Funny, these same shoppers don't seem to appreciate it when people such as myself run through the centre while pushing and shoving through 'em all. But at least the centre security don't interrogate people running, though obviously do somewhat understand that it's a transport hub.

As for Melbourne Central, I won't be in a hurry to patronise any of their stores again. In fact if they try making it hard for me to get to the station there, in many cases where I need to go to the centre of the CBD (and I'm planning to study there soon), I'll probably end up using Parliament station instead because it'll be more convenient, even if tram frequencies aren't so high. Then I'll never be near Melbourne Central and it'll be guaranteed that they'll never get any of my patronage in their stores.

I was there the other day and it was a bloody long walk to get out of the place and it was past a whole lot of new shops.

From memory that entrance from Swanston St,is quite seperate from the shopping centre.And its a long way down or up those escalators.Is this the state government pandering to greedy shopowners?.If this is correct,it stinks to high heaven,and smells of more stupidity from the grey minded suits people:moods:

Originally posted by tayser
What about the Elizabeth Street entry, and LaTrobe Street (northern footpath side) entries ?

As far as I know they'll remain untampered. Interestingly I used to know the [former] owner of House. Originally upset by the fact that they were moved out of the shopping centre and to the present location, they were pleasantly surprised with the inrease of business from commuters.

However, that never justifies the use of a maze through shops where it'll inconvenience passengers.


Originally posted by kota16
From memory that entrance from Swanston St,is quite seperate from the shopping centre.And its a long way down or up those escalators.Is this the state government pandering to greedy shopowners?.If this is correct,it stinks to high heaven,and smells of more stupidity from the grey minded suits people:moods:


I suspect that either the government overlooked it, there was money involved or the DoI/Vicroads bureaucrats were glad to allow reduced competition for their precious roads.

wtf they can't close the entrance, they'll be hammered by the public if this gets out. I really hope this isn't true because it would be a great inconvenience. Personally I can't see it happen, how can they substitute the four escalators at the entrance for the two inside the centre - I’m not gonna wait for til the sun comes down to use the bloody escalators! :bleep:What are they thinking? :bash:

I am not convinced that this is fact. I want to see some evidence that they will close this entrance before I make any statements.

With regards to the Elizabeth Street entrance, that has not changed at all. You still need to walk the same distance to get to the exit from the platforms.

Originally posted by Aussie Steve
I am not convinced that this is fact. I want to see some evidence that they will close this entrance before I make any statements.


Well you could look at the plans, though not sure how you best go about that. Otherwise, it was on Triple M news this morning and the PTUA is adamant that this is the case and they wouldn't have taken it to the news without it (the unfortunately none of the major newspapers seemed to have picked it up :moods: ).

You could try contacting Lend Lease:
http://www.lendlease.com.au/
http://www.melbournecentral.com.au/llretail/melbournecentral/main.nsf/all/gen_contact?opendocument

Herald Sun
Edition 1 - FIRSTTUE 14 OCT 2003, Page 005
Train travellers' woes escalate

THOUSANDS of travellers will be affected by the closure of a key station entrance at one of the city's busiest transport interchanges.
Escalators that directly connect Melbourne Central station and Swanston St will be removed under a redevelopment of an adjoining shopping centre.
Train passengers wanting to catch trams or have direct access to the city will be detoured through the middle of the centre.
Public Transport Users Association president Daniel Bowen said yesterday the ``secret plan'' was all about greed.
``Tens of thousands transfer from trains on to Swanston St trams every day, and rather than have people flow smoothly through to complete their trip, the shopping centre wants to grab their money on the way,'' he said.
Mr Bowen said the move undermined the new Metlink initiative, which involves the public transport operators combining to improve interchange information.
Melbourne Central shopping centre spokesman Ben Dodwell said train patrons would be ``slightly redirected''.

Caption: Change:Melbourne Central station.
Illus: Photo
Section: NEWS

I just saw the plans - they appear to have the main eastern exit from the station (4 escalators) relocated to half way between the shot tower and La Trobe Street..

I couldn't see any escalators around La Trobe/Swanston going down, though there appears to be one pair going up to and down from the first level shops right on the street corner.. We therefore know where their priorities for tram passengers lie..

http://www.ptua.org.au/media/2003/october13.shtml

Media Release
12/10/2003
Developer greed sabotages transport interchange

Government asleep at wheel

Secret plans reveal the imminent destruction of a vital piece of Melbourne's public transport, passenger advocates said today.

The Public Transport Users Association branded as "overwhelmingly stupid" Melbourne Central's plans to force train users to detour through the shopping centre to reach Swanston Street trams.

Under the plan, which has not been publicised, commuters would be forced to detour through the middle of the shopping centre, and use two separate sets of escalators to reach the street, instead of the direct path and one escalator used currently.

"This is purely about greed", said PTUA president Daniel Bowen. "This is one of Melbourne's most popular train/tram interchanges. Tens of thousands transfer from trains onto Swanston Street trams every day, and rather than have people flow smoothly through to complete their trip, the shopping centre wants to grab their money on the way. No wonder they haven't told anybody about it."

In June the public transport operators launched Metlink, an initiative designed to promote different transport modes together as one system. Improved signage, particularly for interchange locations, is to be rolled out across the network. "This change undermines Metlink", said Mr Bowen. "By making people walk in a maze around the shopping centre to change from tram to train, it not only inconveniences people, it discourages them from using public transport.

"The government is quite rightly promoting public transport usage, yet they've allowed this retrograde step to occur. It never should have got planning approval."

Mr Bowen called on Transport Minister Batchelor to take action, and said it was not too late to reverse the decision. "So far the old entrance, which has served commuters for more than twenty years, is still open", he said, "and it should remain open."

Contacts:
PTUA Office 9650 7898

Crazy.

It's only going to make the shopping centre more congested and tougher to navigate to reach the station but I guess the retailers will be happy that more people will walk by their shops.

Originally posted by austux

As for Melbourne Central, I won't be in a hurry to patronise any of their stores again. In fact if they try making it hard for me to get to the station there, in many cases where I need to go to the centre of the CBD (and I'm planning to study there soon), I'll probably end up using Parliament station instead because it'll be more convenient, even if tram frequencies aren't so high. Then I'll never be near Melbourne Central and it'll be guaranteed that they'll never get any of my patronage in their stores.

'Taint the stores fault. Sounds like you're overreacting a bit as well - I doubt you ever patronised MC in the first place, so you're 1 less customer that never existed in the first place...

This is the station exit I use to get to RMIT. I'm sure the exit on the Northern side of Latrobe St will remain so it sounds like a great deal of tossing over nothing. Besides, using the North Latrobe st exit means I only have to cross 1 road (Swanston), instead of two.

Originally posted by jquirke
'Taint the stores fault. Sounds like you're overreacting a bit as well - I doubt you ever patronised MC in the first place, so you're 1 less customer that never existed in the first place...


Sure I have, especially when Diamaru was there. Sure it ain't the stores' fault, however, if they all complain then surely Lend Lease wouldn't get away with it. You're forgetting the thounsands of passengers who'd be in the same situation, however. In fact quite often I used those escalators as a quick way up to the food court once I got off the train. As well as that, it may sound like I said that I'm trying to punish the retailers, however, my main intention would be to take the most convenient route to my destination.


This is the station exit I use to get to RMIT. I'm sure the exit on the Northern side of Latrobe St will remain so it sounds like a great deal of tossing over nothing. Besides, using the North Latrobe st exit means I only have to cross 1 road (Swanston), instead of two.

How about the huge number of people transferring to trams? Not to mention that the Latrobe St entrance is pissweak compared to the main one. I don't think it'll cope with the same number of passengers.

Daniel Bowen of the PTUA is also a pretty well known Aussie blogger.
visit his site www.toxiccustard.com

It may have been 1979 or 1980,that station was opened as Museum by Queen Elizabeth during a visit to Melbourne,at a plaza above that main entrance,on Swanston St.It was years later that the shopping centre was completed,to fit with the station development.To close this off is an absolute nonsense,and akin to closing the main entrance to Flinders St Railway Station.:rant:

Yep, Daniel is also a regular poster to melb.general (http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Train+travellers&hl=en&lr=lang_en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=slrnbomsa8.1ba.i-hate-spammers%40amalthea.dark.net&rnum=1) . All those peeved off about this, I suggest you get too it writing letters to the newspapers (http://www.ptua.org.au/help/) (plus MX (email) (talk@mxnet.com.au) /(web) (http://www.mxnet.com.au/html/mx_front5.html) is a good one) as Daniel suggests when his post finally shows up in google groups.

I was also thinking that if they want to do something useful, they should build a passage under the Swanston/Latrobe St intersection and have an RMIT entrance with direct access to the south-bound Swanston St trams. Probably should also direct access to Bowen St to create easy access to the other parts of the RMIT campus. Of course the chances of this happening are one in a million!

Plans for Melbourne Central (with explanatory pointers) are now online

http://www.ptua.org.au/campaigns/melbCentralStn.shtml

http://www.ptua.org.au/images/melbCentralStn_1.jpg

http://www.ptua.org.au/images/melbCentralStn_2.jpg

Originally posted by austux
Yep, Daniel is also a regular poster to melb.general (http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Train+travellers&hl=en&lr=lang_en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=slrnbomsa8.1ba.i-hate-spammers%40amalthea.dark.net&rnum=1) . All those peeved off about this, I suggest you get too it writing letters to the newspapers (http://www.ptua.org.au/help/) (plus MX (email) (talk@mxnet.com.au) /(web) (http://www.mxnet.com.au/html/mx_front5.html) is a good one) as Daniel suggests when his post finally shows up in google groups.

I was also thinking that if they want to do something useful, they should build a passage under the Swanston/Latrobe St intersection and have an RMIT entrance with direct access to the south-bound Swanston St trams. Probably should also direct access to Bowen St to create easy access to the other parts of the RMIT campus. Of course the chances of this happening are one in a million!

I would love to see an entrance on the Swanston/Latrobe block of the SHIT campus. The university generates a very large volume of pedestrian traffic using all 4 "pathways" of the intersection (depending on whatever the light sequences have to be). This always leads to a large crowd on each of the 4 street corners waiting to cross. Not to mention the UniMelb students disembarking the city-bound Swanston street trams.

Originally posted by kota16
It may have been 1979 or 1980,that station was opened as Museum by Queen Elizabeth during a visit to Melbourne,at a plaza above that main entrance,on Swanston St.It was years later that the shopping centre was completed,to fit with the station development.To close this off is an absolute nonsense,and akin to closing the main entrance to Flinders St Railway Station.:rant:

Going back to this.... I don't think that Elizabeth Square was very long lived. It was mostly vacant space as a result of diverting Latrobe St to build Museum station.

Well i'll be another one of those people who just say STUPID!!!!

How many people who go to Melb uni or whatever, (like me hopefylly) will just get off the train go up one set of esculators (or 2 i think) and be straight there instead of walking a mile around!
But that has already been said....I say we all write to the papers about this one!

Do I smell a sense of sarcasm there about the papers, kasper?

I've written to the papers, though *if* it gets published, I wouldn't expect to be any sooner than tomorrow considering my timing and deadlines.

Jeremy,Whatever about the rest of the development,those escalators and entrance were there from day one.Its good that you are alert to this,shows that you are civic minded and take into consideration what is good for the entire community.A thread on this issue has been posted at Railpage Forum,under the Victorian section.Maybe you can add a bit there too. Go to www.railpage.org.au/forums/index.php

Yep, they sure have, those escalators have been there for 20 years and they should remain as well! I always thought it was a great thing about that original MC development not requiring you to go all over the shopping centre just to get into the station.

I understand that the State Goverment controls the site where the steps and escalators at Swanston Street are; either outright or by easement. The only way that they could be closed is by the State Government selling those rights to the owner of Melbourne Central. I find it hard to believe that they would do such a thing.

Originally posted by Daffy
I understand that the State Goverment controls the site where the steps and escalators at Swanston Street are; either outright or by easement. The only way that they could be closed is by the State Government selling those rights to the owner of Melbourne Central. I find it hard to believe that they would do such a thing.

The Planning Minister or her office signed off on the plans months ago.. It's already happened.. Mary Delahunty was simply asleep at the wheel..

I think the government leases the station to M>Train who in turn have sublet it to Land Lease/Melbourne Central who in turn had to apply to have their plans approved.

http://www.ptua.org.au/media/2003/october17.shtml

Media Release
17/10/2003
Melbourne Central Closure Study Flawed, Say Users

Melbourne Central have used flawed assumptions to justify closing the busiest exit of the city's second busiest train station, say the Public Transport Users Association (PTUA).

Secret plans revealed earlier this week by the PTUA showed Melbourne Central is about to close the direct escalator link between Swanston Street and the station, instead forcing pedestrians to detour halfway through the shopping centre.

The PTUA has now learned that pedestrian movement studies used to support the plan assume that commuters with destinations north of the centre will suddenly switch to using the La Trobe Street exit.

"There is no basis for this", said PTUA president Daniel Bowen. "They have ignored the fact that thousands of people using the exit they want to close are changing onto trams. In fact so many people change to Swanston Street trams that every peak hour M>Tram provide attendants for crowd control. Melbourne Central have completely ignored the implications for transport users."

Mr Bowen said the study admitted it ignored tram users, the study stating: "The assessment has focussed on internal access however linkages external to the site will influence the success of the centre. Links to trams at Swanston Street will require further investigation."

The study also admitted that the planned three escalators to street level would be insufficient to cope with expected demand, ensuring a delay for people transferring from trains to trams.

"They've put obstacles all the way along the path that thousands will use every day", said Mr Bowen. "There aren't enough escalators, and the corridors they intend to coral people through are too narrow. It's going to be slow going during peak hour - and a nightmare for anyone in a wheelchair or travelling against the peak flow."

Mr Bowen called on Transport Minister Peter Batchelor and Planning Minister Mary Delahunty to intervene immediately to protect the current direct station access to Swanston Street. "This change is a disaster for public transport. It must be stopped. The existing exit must be kept open", he concluded.

Contacts:
PTUA Office 9650 7898

Good work Jeremy.Just shows how many of our pollies live in cocoons,and have no idea about comings and goings in the real world.Can you also post same information on Railpage forum. Cheers.:)

P.S. There's a quick survey/poll (http://www.ptua.org.au/surveys/melbournecentral.shtml) on the PTUA website if anyone would like to participate.

From Vicsig.net:

http://www.vicsig.net/suburban/siemens/20031027-fss-siemens-stripes-2.jpg

back to Hitachi-like livery?

Not for long you would think if Connex get all of the Melbourne suburban train system.
Two of these ugly mothers(six carriages each) are currently parked at St Albans Station only the front carriage is painted in the M Train colours and I still think these are worse than the old Hitachis to look at.

I think it's worth noting that even if $InsertEntityName does take over the entire system that the fleet won't suddenly all get painted into the one livery.

Heck, the day before the melb rail system was sold the Comengs didn't all have the same livery.

It'll probably take a good decade to get them looking the same, at which time it'll probably have been on-sold or re-nationalised anyway, and another livery change will start.

Take the Combinos - Trams 3501-3504 were released in M>Tram livery but all Combinos since then have been in a similar livery but without the M>Tram logos. Will 3501-3504 get re-painted just because M>Tram no longer exists? Nope.. Heck, there are still stickers all through, and even on the side of the M>Tram fleet that refer to Swanston Trams, and worse, "The Met".

Interesting reply from the department to critics.
http://www.theage.com.au/letters/

What's being spent on public transport?

Your editorial (28/10) claims the Victorian Government is spending only $42.1 million in 2003-04 on public transport. I do not know where you get this figure, although I note it is often quoted in spite of continued corrections. The real figure is well over $1 billion - or over $3 million a day.

I assume The Age arrives at the low figure by ignoring the huge ongoing commitment to public transport as recurrent expenditure. It is the nature of the different modes that road spending comes up as capital expenditure, while the bulk of public transport costs are recurrent.

The $42.1 million cited in your editorial wouldn't even pay for the 100 low-floor, air-conditioned buses being introduced each year.
Carlo Carli,
parliamentary secretary for infrastructure

From Crikey
http://www.crikey.com.au/whistleblower/2003/10/30-0006.html

Lend Lease, greed and Melbourne 2030
Sean Stephen, train commuter and economist
30 October 2003


Open, responsible and accountable government in Victoria suffered a blow late this month when it was discovered, almost too late, that the Bracks government had put the interests of a major property developer well above those of the people it promised to serve. Not only that, but it was prepared to ignore one of its major policy platforms, the much heralded Melbourne 2030 metropolitan strategy, in order to do so.

The corner of Swanston and La Trobe Streets in central Melbourne is one of the more vibrant intersections of the CBD. The State Library stands proudly on one corner, the RMIT University sits on the north eastern side of the intersection, a Hungry Jacks that always seems to be busy is on the north west and then there is the Melbourne Central shopping centre, currently being redeveloped by Lend Lease, with its distinct and heritage listed shot tower. Beneath the shopping centre is located the Melbourne Central train station, used by thousands of people each day on their way to and from destinations across Melbourne.

Many of these people are taking advantage of the excellent train-tram public transport interchange on Swanston Street that allows easy transfer from one mode of public transport to the other with a minimum of delay and fuss. Such is the popularity of this interchange with workers and university students from RMIT and Melbourne University just a kilometre or so up Swanston Street, that M-Tram, the private operator of Melbourne’s tram system employs (yes that’s right, actually employs!!!) three attendants to help control the hordes of people trying to change from train to tram every day.

For a government with the commitment to public transport that it claims it has in its Melbourne 2030 document, the Bracks government should see this as a genuine success story. Repeatedly in the Melbourne 2030 strategy, the need to integrate the train, tram and bus public transport networks is given lip service. The governments own multi-million dollar "Transit Cities" program aims to "improve public transport usage and the integration of transport services" (p.54). One could be forgiven for thinking that in this new age of enlightenment under the Melbourne 2030 policy, such a long standing, successful and popular public transport interchange as that on the corner of La Trobe and Swanston Street would be safe from destruction at the hands of developer greed. Right??… Wrong!!!!!!

Plans only very recently unveiled by Lend Lease after a shameful process of trying (probably with the duplicity of the Victorian government) to hide the plans from public transport users, show that on November 5, the popular Swanston Street entrance to Melbourne Central Train Station would be permanently closed. In its place, the entrance to the train station will be relocated directly in the middle of the new Melbourne Central Shopping Centre. Commuters wishing to change to or from trams in Swanston Street will be forced to walk through a maze of shops and malls, including one bottleneck just 1.8 metres wide, in order to continue their journey. The whole design completely ignores the convenience and interests of the thousands of people using the train station each day and is simply driven by greed and the desire to push as many people through the shopping centre as possible. The good people at Lend Lease have even managed a way to make wheelchair and disabled access more difficult.

In the world of Melbourne 2030, that the Bracks government generally, but Minister for Transport Peter Batchelor and Minister for Planning Mary Delahunty more specifically, have allowed this to happen is simply scandalous. It raises serious questions as to the governments commitment to any of the principles outlined in the much vaunted Melbourne 2030 Metropolitan Strategy and goes to the heart of the governments own credibility.

The Melbourne 2030 document directly states that "integrated transport plans be prepared for all new major residential, commercial and industrial developments, and develop guidelines for developers and councils that emphasise sustainable transport outcomes" (p 152). It appears that in reality the only transport plan considered in this case was how to dump as many people in the middle of the Melbourne Central Shopping Centre as possible and make it as difficult as possible for these people to leave.

What are more ironic are the claims of Melbourne 2030 to promote "public participation and scrutiny" (p.165). Without the sharp eye and attention to detail of the volunteers at Melbourne’s Public Transport Users Association (PTUA), the Bracks government and Lend Lease would have quietly destroyed the important public asset that is the current hassle free interchange, with absolutely no community consultation at all. The first most commuters (myself included) knew of plans to close the existing entrance, was being handed a flyer by a PTUA volunteer at 8am on a morning last week.

It is difficult to see where Melbourne 2030 can go from here. The Bracks government has been proclaiming for a year its absolute commitment to the process contained within it. Yet it now seems that the Victorian Government has tripped at the first hurdle. And not a particularly big hurdle at that.

Lets hope the public outrage at this stupid decision forces the Govt and Lend Lease to change the design before it is too late.

it's too late now!:rant:

It's not too late until the escalators are removed.. That'll happen on or after November 5..

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/11/01/1067597199331.html

Transport deal edges closer
By Kirsty Simpson
State reporter
November 2, 2003

http://www.theage.com.au/ffxImage/urlpicture_id_1067597207440_2003/11/01/trains,0.jpg

Most of M>Train's new state-of the art Siemens trains remained idle at the Newport workshops last week eight months after they were unveiled.
Picture: Ken Irwin


New contracts to run Melbourne's train and tram services will be signed within months, in an arrangement that will create a single train company and a single tram company.

The State Government indicated last week that negotiations were reaching a crucial phase, with the Government and the bidders now debating the size of the subsidy required to run the business. The system is believed to be costing the state about $500 million a year at present.

The Bracks Government has played down earlier expectations that the contracts would be signed by Christmas, with a spokeswoman for Transport Minister Peter Batchelor saying it was more likely the contracts would be finalised before the end of next March.

It is almost 12 months since National Express, the former operator of half of Melbourne's trams and trains, handed the M>Tram and M>Train businesses back to the Government. National Express pulled out of the system last December after losing money on the contracts despite Government bail-outs. Accounting firm KPMG was appointed receiver and the Government began negotiating the sale of the two businesses.

The only bidders for the new contracts are Melbourne's two other local transport operators, French-owned Connex and Yarra Trams. They are expected to buy M>Train and M>Tram respectively to create a single train company under Connex and single tram company under Yarra. This is the Stage Government's preferred option.

Under the original Kennett contracts, the cost to government was forecast to reduce over time as the private operators cut costs and encouraged more passengers to move to public transport.

National Express originally won the rights to run M>Tram and M>Train in 1999 when the Kennett Government privatised Melbourne's public transport system, but complained ticketing problems and a dramatic over-estimate of passenger increases meant it lost money on the business.

The State Government was then forced to bail out National Express with $105 million early last year, while an extra $47 million was given to Connex trains and Yarra Trams last December. The Government also paid National Express's creditors $20 million.

Sources said that while the Government would always have to subsidise the system, it might be able to slightly reduce the subsidies in the long term, but disruptions such as the building of Spencer Street station might mean higher costs initially.

Other details still to be settled include the level of maintenance required. The Government is believed to have told operators it would not allow any decline in levels of service under the rewritten contracts.

Melbourne University transport lecturer Paul Mees has accused the Government of failing to negotiate an improvement of service levels, saying "operators are already being let out of commitments on overcrowding by failing to put on extra services".

Rail crime shame
THE Pakenham train line is the worst crime hot spot on the public transport network, police figures reveal.

More than 5200 offences have been recorded on the M>Train line during the past three years, with car-related thefts, property damage and assaults topping the list.
Frankston is next with 3578 offences, followed by Lilydale (2871), Sydenham (2288) and Hurstbridge (1825).

About 1990 offences were reported at Flinders St station, including 262 assaults. There were also 627 incidents at Spencer St station.

The popular Puffing Billy service had 19 offences, including one sexual assault.

There were almost 2000 incidents reported on the country train system.

The figures, obtained by the Herald Sun under Freedom of Information laws provide the most comprehensive picture yet of where crime occurs on the rail network.

They show that more than 30,300 incidents were reported from 2000-03.

These included more than 7000 cars stolen from station car parks, 1885 assaults and about 300 sexual assaults, including 15 rapes.

The only murder reported during that time was on the Frankston line, in August 2000.

Police and transport unions yesterday called for the hiring of more staff to help build confidence in the rail network.

Police Association state secretary Senior Sergeant Paul Mullett said the alarming figures painted a dim picture for commuter safety.

"No wonder people are loathe to travel on the train system when they're scared about their cars being stolen or themselves being assaulted at stations or on trains," he said.

But the State Government said crime on the system was falling and 100 extra train patrollers would improve safety on the network.

Crime on the entire public transport network fell 4 per cent in 2002-03, compared with the previous year.

Pakenham is by far the worst line, with 1539 incidents reported in 2000-01, 1823 a year later and 1820 in 2002-03. Over the 3-year period, Pakenham commuters suffered more than 1200 car-related thefts, 304 assaults, 158 robberies and 35 sexual assaults.

On a positive note, the number of car thefts, assaults, robberies and other thefts on the line fell in the last financial year.

Of the 3578 crime reports on the Frankston line, 747 involved stolen vehicles, 616 related to car break-ins and about 400 to property damage.

There were 24 sexual assaults, including one rape, and 120 drug-related offences.

Lilydale, a Connex line, had more than 1300 car-related thefts and 25 sex assaults, including four rapes.

The number of stolen vehicles rose from 233 in 2001-02 to 323 last year.

M>Train spokeswoman Simone Gandur said crime figures on the Pakenham and Frankston lines reflected high patronage growth in those areas.

Ms Gandur said the company had been working hard with police, the Government and unions to focus on hot spots, including a CrimeStoppers trial on the Frankston line.

She said the high number of property damage offences were partly because of much greater reporting of incidents, however minor.

Rail, Tram and Bus Union state secretary Trevor Dobbyn said the extent of crime was not surprising when 60 per cent of metropolitan stations were unsupervised.

Mr Dobbyn called on Connex, which is negotiating to run the entire Melbourne train network, to re-open stations by hiring more staff.

"We welcome the Government's safety improvements, but now it's up to Connex to show it cares about passenger safety," he said.

Connex has declined to comment on its plans pending the outcome of its re-franchising talks with the Government.

Tim Mitchell, a spokesman for Transport Minister Peter Batchelor, said safety would be improved with 100 extra train patrollers funded from big fare increases from January 1.

Mr Mitchell said the officers would ride all trains after 9pm and also patrol stations.

He said transit police operations had also been boosted, but the Police Association said the Government has been slow in delivering an extra 600 officers promised for its second term.
http://heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,8096181%255E2862,00.html

How about posting something Negative about WA for a change =TROLL

OMG!! The Pakenham line is tayser's line, isn't it? I reckon he's responsible for many of the reported crimes. That's how he's financing his trip to Sydney. Joking is a way of coping.

...and they are only the RECORDED figures. They would of course be much higher for unreported P.T. crime.

Seriously, this is always tragic. Public transport should have 0% crime and be the safest haven for everyone (in an ideal world). It's expensive enough to travel yet not safe with often questionable service/s.

Sydney is putting on so many more safety people on the train system by the end of next year. A necessity yet @ tax payers unfortunate expense while these shitbags and junkies should be the ones who pay - BIG TIME.

Anyone up for starting a vigilante network across Australia? I hate these evil pricks praying on people's fears and attacking the weaker and more vulnerable. They are desperate cowards.

I'm there!! :guns1: :guns1: :guns1:

rofl @ barney & muse.

chris: stop reading the Herald Sun, your life will be worth living if you read something else.

hrm there's an idea, banning posting HUN articles.....!

:banana2:

This should get the rail lovers hearts beating faster LOL
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/12/07/1070732074694.html

Alarm on bid for Victorian rail freight
By Philip Hopkins
December 8, 2003



The competition watchdog is investigating the sale of Freight Australia amid fears that Pacific National could create a rail and freight monopoly if it wins control of the Victorian-based rail operator.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission is having a close look at the sale but is believed not to have any firm views. The sale of Freight Australia has not been formally discussed by the mergers panel or the commissioners.

The ACCC must tackle a variety of issues in relation to the sale, including a definition of the market, whether road freight will be an adequate competitor and the nature of the access regime.

Pacific National, the joint venture between Toll Holdings and Patrick, is leading the fight to buy Freight Australia. The other contenders are believed to be the nation's largest rail operator, Queensland Rail, the Perth-based Australian Railroad Group and merchant bank Babcock & Brown.

Many in the freight sector fear a PN victory would hand control of rail in east and south-east Australia to one operator.

PN is effectively the only rail company on the north-south rail track between Melbourne and Brisbane and it also runs the country NSW rail freight service.

Its hand will be strengthened by the Commonwealth-NSW deal announced on Saturday under which $870 million will be spent on rail infrastructure.

Pacific National controls the key intermodal terminals along the north-south line and, while the line is theoretically open to new operators, almost all available track access is taken by existing services at key times.

Rail, however, has only 21 per cent of the total freight moved between Melbourne and Brisbane, with road taking the rest. Rail's share of Melbourne-Sydney freight traffic is even less at 10 per cent.

PN's 50 per cent shareholder Toll has also gained control of the Tasmanian rail network through its acquisition of New Zealand's Tranz Rail.

Although Tranz Rail owns only 27.5 per cent of TasRail, Toll's managing director, Paul Little, has indicated he wants to buy the lot.

Thus industry players say acquisition of Freight Australia, which controls rail freight in country Victoria, would virtually tie up rail along the east coast for one company if Pacific National won the bid.

Freight Australia's terminal at North Dynon in Melbourne would also play a crucial role for new players. PN owns the more modern interstate terminal next door and would therefore control both major terminals in Melbourne.

Queensland Rail is based in the northern state, but has expanded into NSW using open access rights. ARG's operations are centred on Western Australia, South Australia and the Northern Territory, where it is a key player in the new Adelaide-to-Darwin freight operation.

However, industry fears go beyond rail, pointing to the dominance of PN's shareholders in the logistics chain.

Toll and Patrick both carry freight on their own ships across Bass Strait to and from Tasmania, where there is fierce competition with ANL and TT-Line.

Toll and Patrick both run stevedoring operations for shipping services to Tasmania from Melbourne and Patrick is one of two stevedores in Melbourne serving the international market.

Finally, Toll is also a leading player in road freight. According to one industry observer, this would make PN effectively a vertically integrated operation that competed against some of its own customers.

"In the past, railways have virtually been a wholesaler," he said. "Now, rail would be a wholesaler as well as a retailer and competitor."

Industry sources also support the buyback of the Victorian rail track from Freight Australia by the Victorian Government as part of the sale process.

Freight Australia and the Government have been locked in a bitter dispute over the access regime governing the track. This has stymied investment in the rail network and the Government's plans to standardise much of the track.

Many would prefer the Victorian network to operate under the successful open-access regime of the Australian Rail Track Corporation, which controls the interstate track.

The Freight Australia sale also has implications for regional Victoria because rail plays a key role in the development of the regional economy and ports. "What would happen if a dominant player thought it was not worth running a train to Mildura?" one observer asked.

When the ACCC was originally considering the sale two years ago of National Rail and Freight Corp - in what became Pacific National - the chairman at the time, Allan Fels, did not oppose any of the three shortlisted bidders, which included Freight Australia. He ruled that "a substantial lessening of competition would be unlikely" no matter which consortium was selected.

This is great news,and my guess is that ARG is in there with a good chance to be buy Freight Australia.ARG is tied up with the builder of the Darwin rail line,and would see the merit in standardising many freight lines in Victoria to connect over the border of SA and NSW.Rail now carries 80% of freight traffic between Adelaide and Perth,and with improved tracks more will transfer to rail between Melbourne,Sydney and Brisbane.;)

Originally posted by bearbrass
Not for long you would think if Connex get all of the Melbourne suburban train system.
Two of these ugly mothers(six carriages each) are currently parked at St Albans Station only the front carriage is painted in the M Train colours and I still think these are worse than the old Hitachis to look at.
Agree. But Connex livery is not too bad - they'd have to replace that crap white (dick) head with something yellow or dark grey, then paste their corporate blue all over. They look shite.

Geelong rail upgrade
BUSES will replace passenger train services on the Geelong railway line for the next month.

The line will be closed to passenger services from tomorrow until February 11 to allow for a major upgrade of 50km of track as part of the regional fast rail project.
The upgrade will include installation of 74,000 concrete sleepers and improvement of level crossings.

Details of the coach services will be available at railway stations, on the Internet at www.vline.com.au or by phoning 136 196.
http://heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,8307126%255E2862,00.html

Can anyone confirm if Lonsdale Street ever had trams?

I saw a pic once of the cnr of Swanston and Lonsdale streets on WalkingMelbourne (can't find it anymore :( ) and wondered if I was looking at a tram, or a bus that looks like a tram on Lonsdale Street (this pic looked 80 or 90 years old btw )

cheers

Originally posted by tayser
Can anyone confirm if Lonsdale Street ever had trams?

I saw a pic once of the cnr of Swanston and Lonsdale streets on WalkingMelbourne (can't find it anymore :( ) and wondered if I was looking at a tram, or a bus that looks like a tram on Lonsdale Street (this pic looked 80 or 90 years old btw )

I think that the Lonsdale Street cable trams ended up on Rathdowne Street.. Prior to the 30s, we had about 1/3 more inner city tram route kms as we do now.. Johnston/Elgin Street to Kew Junction, Rathdowne Street, Holden Street, Port Melbourne, lotsa places reallly..

When the network was electrified, we lost those routes.. It's why I'm completely cold fish on the network being lowfloorised/platformised.. Chances are we will lose quite a few routes whose upgrade to super stops/DDA are not economically justified..

from vicsig.net

http://www.vicsig.net/infrastructure/rfr-geelong/20040105-lara-rail-slew-cw.jpg

http://www.vicsig.net/infrastructure/rfr-geelong/20040105-lara-rail-slew-down-end-cw.jpg

http://www.vicsig.net/infrastructure/rfr-geelong/20040105-littleriver-5-cw.jpg

http://www.vicsig.net/infrastructure/rfr-geelong/20040105-littleriver-1-cw.jpg

all from the Lara area

after the RFR project Geelong line's been completed, Geelong will probably have to be one of the most connected regional cities in the country! (well if you include Gold Coast as aregional...)

2 x BG track (spec'd 160kph)1 x SG track, and the new 6 lane Princes FWY West.

food for thought, preparing Geelong for a boom? ;)

Originally posted by tayser
after the RFR project Geelong line's been completed, Geelong will probably have to be one of the most connected regional cities in the country! (well if you include Gold Coast as aregional...)

2 x BG track (spec'd 160kph)1 x SG track, and the new 6 lane Princes FWY West.

food for thought, preparing Geelong for a boom? ;)

Naah, the Gold Coast has a better rail service than Geelong.. There are 30 trains/day on the Gold Coast line, Geelong has 25, and the Gold Coast line services are more predictable during the day being half hourly instead of a completely random (approximately hourly) schemozzle..

The only real advantage over the Gold Coast is that the Geelong rail service actually goes within 1km (though at the outer edges of 1km) of important pedestrian destinations within Geelong proper..

The Gold Coast rail has earned the nickname Bombay Express. Becuase while the service is half hourly the train is always overcrowded and unless you get on at Robina you will not get a seat during peak hour. The service is going to be upgraded by the QLD government to 15 minute intervals.

The pity is that the sleepers being installed should have been gauge convertable,for just a little bit extra.In another decade another Vic Govt might decide to finally complete standardisation.Seems a few Victorians are rather shortsighted!.

The D2's are here ;)

from vicsig.net

http://www.vicsig.net/trams/combino/20031002-d2.5002-stkj-ab.jpg

http://www.vicsig.net/trams/photos/20031120-d2.5002-d2.5001-glenferrie3-b.jpg

http://www.vicsig.net/trams/photos/20031120-d2.5002-glenferrie-b.jpg

lol:

http://www.vicsig.net/trams/photos/20031120-d2.5001-d2.5002-kooyong-b.jpg

(If you have trouble trying to see the difference, these trams have 5 sections whereas the other Combino's have 3 :) )

Are the Eurotrams under operation?

Originally posted by Matixvolta
Are the Eurotrams under operation?

No unfortunately. The tram was only here for test purposes to show it off to the Government.

Bombardier (I just recently learnt how to say this properly: "Bom-bar-dee-ay") like to get into bed with governments all over the world, especially the Canadian government (Bombardier = Québecois), just hope they have an intimate get together with Vic.Gov ;)

http://www.vicsig.net/trams/eurotram/20030307-city-eurotram-1.jpg

http://www.vicsig.net/trams/eurotram/20030120-jli-eurotram-018.jpg

^^ they were taken this time last year, they did exhi-runs for the AusOpen.

Who here actually rode on the EuroTram? Does anyone remember how enjoyable it was to sit down for long periods on its rock hard plastic seating? Oh, those would go down *so* well on our long, slow street tram routes in Melbourne..

And let's not forget the slow sliding doors that were designed for networks with 1/2 to 1/3 the number of stops/km that we have..

The EuroTram is an LRV, not a street tram, and it shouldn't be revered undeservedly..

lol you're never happy are you MrPC? ;)

the rail link to GC is pretty average because the station is ages out from the surfers paradise hotel precint, once you get there you have to make more connections. it was easyer to get a bus from brisbane airport to surfers for me

Originally posted by tayser
lol you're never happy are you MrPC? ;)

Is it wrong to expect that new investments actually be a *gasp* improvement on what we already have?

What's the land usage like in the 1km or so around the GC line stations? Any chance of adding in social/entertainment zonings and moving or creating a 2nd 'in' precinct further inland?

And what about potential other sites along the line where a station could be added and the area developed?

create a SEQ rail thread please.

I like the high up trams where you can see over the traffic. I'm not dragging a baby and pram around though.

http://www.lexicon.net/met/trains/rollingstock/flmtsie.jpg

http://www.vicsig.net/suburban/siemens/20030308-nps-siemens-11-4-1.jpg

http://www.vicsig.net/suburban/siemens/20030403-rch-722m.jpg

New Connex Livery:

http://www.vicsig.net/suburban/photos/20030330-rwd-854m-182m-696m.jpg

http://www.vicsig.net/suburban/xtrapolis/20030516-wer-876mtm-2.jpg

I reckon these long trams would be great on services like St Kilda, 96, RMIT Uni, 86 and Knox. I think the 109 will be good too but much traffic work will be needed. (Tram stops suitable for LRV's etc). I shudder though when I think about 96 & 86 in peak hours through Bourke street mall.... Now that¡¯s a challenge if you want to run one of these...I saw one on route #1.. 14/01 at 3pm on Nickelson street passing the cemetery (TESTING) its long but I believe they have a selective use...If commissioned It would free up some B class trams for my route 57 or 55 which is never B'd up, never Air conditioned and I never get a seat! I can only hope! Oh and as for removing tram stops. In the North Melbourne section of 57 you could remove half the stops between Alexandra Pde and Victoria markets without having any Influence on Pedestrian times. Stops are abundant and one is only 25 meters from the last and 35 meters to the next.. lol The North Melbourne section is the slowest and it¡¯s not necessarily because of traffic lights. Trams in this section get priority before and after light cycles. In any case I hope the seats are soft and in high numbers compared to the Euro trams.



The tram from Bombadier ( Grey and Yellow) looks great and totally Melbourne 21 st Century.

Looks are too deceptive these days..

New & Modern = No seats & the few that they have are uncomfortable for more than a few minutes with very little padding.. They are also flimsy, not faring as well in crashes as steel or even wooden trams did, meaning you have to buy more of them..

Real Trams can last for 60-70 years if they're kept in good condition, and can be progressively upgraded if required.. Doing so is often cheaper than buying something new and throwing out good, useful hardware that's nowhere near the end of its useful life..

I just don't see any justification for spending hundreds of millions of dollars on new, inferior, uncomfortable trams with far fewer seats relative to older trams of the same length..

just had to post this somewhere:

http://images.fotopic.net/?id=1545418&outx=980&oq=0

http://images.fotopic.net/?id=1489663&outx=980&oq=0

http://images.fotopic.net/?id=1570008&outx=980&oq=0

http://images.fotopic.net/?id=2149606&outx=980&oq=0
:guns1:

The photo of the X'trap in the loop is awesome! Wonder how it was taken - someone get a cab ride or just jump on the tracks???

Well the Siemens are a good train internally (shame they cant put some quality paint on them) and the X'traps are great too but I'm gonna miss the Hitachis:
http://images.fotopic.net/?id=2309370&outx=600&oq=0
http://images.fotopic.net/?id=2309369&outx=600&oq=0
http://images.fotopic.net/?id=2482826&outx=600&oq=0
http://images.fotopic.net/?id=2309441&outx=600&oq=0

The Govt would be waiting for Connex to take over and then all the trains will be in the same colour which are of course the old Victorian Railways blue and yellow. .

Originally posted by barneybuck
The Govt would be waiting for Connex to take over and then all the trains will be in the same colour which are of course the old Victorian Railways blue and yellow. .

Umm, the M>Hitachis are still in Met green and gold, yet M> have had them for, what, five years? Ditto the Z1s, Z2s, most of the Z3s and As, most of the M>B2s, and a few remaining YT B2s..

Trains, trams and buses don't just instantly change colour when the operator's name changes.. It's a long and drawn out process that generally has to work into fleet refurbishment on the grounds that it's not easily justifiable to pull revenue vehicles from a transport fleet merely to change the colour scheme..

Originally posted by MelbourneCity
The photo of the X'trap in the loop is awesome! Wonder how it was taken - someone get a cab ride or just jump on the tracks???

"Rod" @ his own site, "Rod's Railpage" (http://rodsrailpage.fotopic.net/) I think is a driver, there's some absolute purlas on his own site ;)

Originally posted by MelbourneCity
Well the Siemens are a good train internally (shame they cant put some quality paint on them) and the X'traps are great too but I'm gonna miss the Hitachis:


I am SO NOT going to miss the Hitachis... irrespective of their positive points, the negatives far out way the positives right now (mainly passenger comfort is where they score very low compared to Comeng & X'Trap / Siemens) IMO.

Waaaayyyyyyyyyy past their use by.

*runs for the hills* :happy:

You do know that if it's accepted that trains are to be scrapped around age 35, as the dept thinks is appropriate, that means the Comengs will go in about 5-10 years..

Letting them get away with scrapping the Hitachis would set a rather dangerous and highly expensive precedent.. Every 12yrs or so avg, they'll scrap a third of the fleet, and there's a risk that they'll not buy enough new trains to cover the loss, or that we'll be stuck with duds that will take years to come in and passengers will have to put up with years worth of deferred maintenance etc etc..

Just like now, M>passengers are putting up with deferred maintenance and refurbishment on the Hitachis as the Siemens trains are being delayed but M> decided they didn't want to do much maintenance on the Hitachis on the grounds that the Siemens trains are on the way..

Rail work hits rare trees
THOUSANDS of rare river red gums are being chopped down to feed an upgrade of Victoria's railway network.

Environment groups estimate 500,000 new sleepers are being brought across the border from drought-ravaged forests just north of the Murray River.
The Bracks Government has come under attack from groups on both sides of the border, who have accused it of exploiting New South Wales forests for its own benefit.

But the Government claimed there was no alternative to using wooden sleepers.

An estimated 250,000 to 500,000 sleepers need to be cut to replace rotting or damaged track supports on lines to Bairnsdale, Mildura, Ararat and Leongatha.

Up to 41,000 will also be needed for the Regional Fast Rail project to the Latrobe Valley.

The Victorian National Parks Association said the State Government should be accountable for what it sources from interstate forests.

"The Victorian Government is contributing to bio-diversity loss, land clearing and poor water quality in New South Wales by sourcing these sleepers from this area," association acting director Nick Roberts said.

"We wouldn't be accepting it coming out of Victoria, so why would we accept it coming from New South Wales . . . it's the same ecosystem whether it's north or south of the border.

"We have an out-of-state, out-of-mind attitude," he said.

The association claimed the sleepers, taken from trees up to 100 years old, were environmentally and economically unsustainable.

"The sleepers' estimated lifespan is five to 20 years," Mr Roberts said.

"It's poor economics . . . in the long term it will cost the state dearly."

His NSW counterpart Andrew Cox said sleeper harvesting along the Murray was unsustainable.

"I've seen some of the clear-felling sites . . . I was shocked and concerned about some of the environmental practices there," he said.

A spokeswoman for Acting Transport Minister Marsha Thomson said there was no alternative to using red gum sleepers for Victoria's railway upgrade, but the issue was being researched.

"In recognition of diminishing hardwood resources, there is quite a lot of research and development taking place in Australia and overseas of developing either plastic or different profile concrete sleepers that can be interspersed with timber sleepers," she said.

Ms Thomson was unable to confirm the number of sleepers needed for the upgrade, but said about 50,000 were required for the Bairnsdale and Ararat lines.

State Forests of NSW said clear-felling was forbidden in native forests but large groups of trees could be removed to encourage regeneration of vegetation.

Retired logger Murray Tuck, however, said forestry along the New South Wales side of the border was fast becoming unsustainable.

Mr Tuck, who grew up in the forests around Barham, said it was not just sleepers being sent south of the border.

"There's a lot being cut that shouldn't come down for firewood . . . 99 per cent of it goes to Melbourne," he said
http://heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,8526500%255E2862,00.html

Who cares? so long as they are not coming from Victoria.:okay:

Its about time some of the bureaucrats in Victoria stopped aping the Irish or English and realised the state is joined on to the rest of Australia.Victoria has to 'get with it'.But this has not happened with a future plan to intergrate with SA and NSW rail tracks.Little wonder that Victoria is held to blame for many of the problems in interstate transport network.:moods:

Originally posted by barneybuck
Who cares? so long as they are not coming from Victoria.:okay:

ur a real *******

Why aren't they using concrete?

Originally posted by hornetfig
Why aren't they using concrete?

Plenty of good reasons..

Concrete sleepers can't be mixed with other kinds of sleepers on the same stretch of track.. We're only taking about passenger trains here, and possibly light freights, the line doesn't need to be up to taking large numbers of fully laden freights day in, day out, so they're only replacing 1 in every 3 or 4 sleepers..

That way, every third or fourth sleeper has a positive tie to the rails, which is all you really need for light trains, and the rest of the sleepers may or may not be securely fastened but they are certainly there for load bearing..

If the fastened sleeper has a different profile to the others, the rail will begin deforming, the ride quality will go to hell, the fasteners may buckle, and lots of other bad stuff can happen..

You should see the mess that happened at Thirlmere when they ignored the directions that came with the sleepers and did a 1:4 replacement with termite resistant steel sleepers.. It wasn't pretty.. They ended up with at least one broken rail and lots of other issues..

Oh, and also, concrete sleepers are expensive - particularly when you compare the cost of replacing every sleeper with a concrete one to a 1:3 or 1:4 program buying 1/4 of the number of timber sleepers.. Unless you have a few hundred million to blow on line reopenings.. But that money is far better spent elsewhere, and the trees can be replaced..

Originally posted by MrPC
Plenty of good reasons..
But that money is far better spent elsewhere, and the trees can be replaced..

oh yeah heres Mr Enviromentalist of the year

Who cares? so long as they are not coming from Victoria.
your a real dickhead arent ya. Im just glad not all victorians are as self centred as your selves. Your proably one of the people that believe melbourne is as good as sydney arent ya? lol

Originally posted by SydneyDude
ur a real *******

You fall for it everytime mate.:D

Originally posted by TOCC
[your a real dickhead arent ya. Im just glad not all victorians are as self centred as your selves. Your proably one of the people that believe melbourne is as good as sydney arent ya? lol [/B]

No the difference is I KNOW Melbourne is better than Sydney and please continue the compliments it suits you.:toilet:

Originally posted by MrPC
Concrete sleepers can't be mixed with other kinds of sleepers on the same stretch of track..

Next material on the list is steel. Oddly unused on Australian railways but almost identical properties to wooden ones and can be mixed with wood. Remember, that as far as the hard woods required for sleepers go, you'd better replant the areas cleared for these sleepers so that the replacement trees will be mature enough to yield replacements for the sleepers currently being laid...


on another note: shoo trolls, shoo.

Originally posted by barneybuck
You fall for it everytime mate.:D

So are you sitting infront of your computer screen with a smug little grin on your face feelin real proud?

Making snide remarks like that for the sheer 'pleasure' of workin up other forumers (well thats what you say ur doin anyway) is really sad. :baaa: ur a real silly billy barney! :bash:

Anyway, Ill go now, sorry to disturb the thread..

Originally posted by MrPC
Plenty of good reasons..

.

Oh, and also, concrete sleepers are expensive - particularly when you compare the cost of replacing every sleeper with a concrete one to a 1:3 or 1:4 program buying 1/4 of the number of timber sleepers.. Unless you have a few hundred million to blow on line reopenings.. But that money is far better spent elsewhere, and the trees can be replaced.. At the border of Vic/SA near Serviceton is the start of cement sleepers that run all the way to Perth and Darwin.What has been suggested is that Victoria should be laying gauge convertable sleepers for its fast rail projects,with a view they could be converted at a later time.It is folly to say its a waste of money,when for every $1 spent on rail there is $20 spent on roads.Anyone who has travelled on the Overland between Melbourne and Adelaide can tell you that there is a difference in ride quality as soon as you cross into SA.Any money spent on track infrastructure is not wasted.After all its about building a better nation.

Originally posted by kota16
At the border of Vic/SA near Serviceton is the start of cement sleepers that run all the way to Perth and Darwin.

Umm, I believe they start further east than that.. Back when the MEL-ADE line was converted to SG, they relaid very long stretches in SG only concrete sleepers, having converted the track machines to accept BG input, but resleeper as SG..

What has been suggested is that Victoria should be laying gauge convertable sleepers for its fast rail projects,

This has nothing at all to do with fast rail.. This is about resleepering for regional line reopenings, a totally separate project to fast rail..

Anyway, the ship has sailed on fast rail, the sleepers has been made already, they are not about to just throw them out, place an order for new ones, relay the sections already laid with BG only sleepers and push all other aspects of the project back 6 months while they wait for the new convertible sleepers to be delivered.. It's way too late.. The right people made the right noises back when this could be fixed, the Govvy didn't care, the Govvy still doesn't care, and it's not going to change..

Anyone who has travelled on the Overland between Melbourne and Adelaide can tell you that there is a difference in ride quality as soon as you cross into SA.Any money spent on track infrastructure is not wasted.After all its about building a better nation.

That's debateable, since the entire line is run by ARTC, it's not a State thing anymore, and hasn't been for yonkers (not in this case anyway).. Also, the line from Newport to North Geelong is almost new, having been built back when Keating did the whole SG thing, and very long stretches were resleepered between Gheringhap and Adelaide on both sides of the border as part of the project..

Adelaide to Kalgoorlie is a different matter though, AN did do a very good job when rebuilding that, and it still shows.. AN were also quite conciencious when building Tarcoola to Alice Springs and the branch to meet the NSW system at Broken Hill..

A lot of previous track conversions is now 'water under the bridge' as so to speak,as it happened ar various times under various regimes.The cement sleeper inserts between Maroona and Gheringhap happened only a few years back,long after the track had been altered.The point that is trying to be made here,is that there is a 'don't care attitude' by the present powers that be in Victoria,and that the goal of having Ballarat and Bendigo part of the National Capitals Rail Network is going nowhere,due to shortsighted nit wits who are in the drivers seat in Victoria.It seems they can not see past the end of their noses,let alone a few years ahead.WAKE UP AUSTRALIA!>(

Just a question. With docklands having a predicted day time population of 50000 people, was heavy rail ever considered? Is the couple of tram lines enough for this amount of people, especially considering vehicle access will be limited.

Also, looking at some of the ideas for north south links I had the idea (pie in the sky so don't knock it's current viability) of a southern and western loop. This would go from south yarra - st kilda road - southbank (crn kingsway and sturt st) - south melb. market - port melb cricket ground - yarras edge/vicharbour - waterfront/newquay - north melbourne.

The southbank station could be an interchange with the doncaster line via Melbourne uni with the south and port melbourne stations linking with the light rail. The yarras edge station could be built directly under the river so that it could be accessed from both yarras edge and vic harbour.

You could link one of the eastern lines (pakenham or cranbourne) with one of the western lines that come through north melbourne to do this.

What do you think?

PS: PS anyone who can host images and wants to show a map of this please feel free.

Originally posted by OSJ
Just a question. With docklands having a predicted day time population of 50000 people, was heavy rail ever considered? Is the couple of tram lines enough for this amount of people, especially considering vehicle access will be limited.

Let's see.. Capacity wise they have:

Route 86 (to Bourke Street): ~1500 people/hr at 8' freq at 200 people/tram
Route 35 Inner (to Flinders Street, 9am-6pm only, to 9pm Thu-Sat in DST): ~500 people/hr at 12' freq at 100 people/tram
Route 35 Outer (to LaTrobe Street, 9am-6pm only, to 9pm Thu-Sat in DST): ~500 people/hr at 12' freq at 100 people/tram
Route 48 (to Filnders Street): ~500 people/hr at 12' freq at 100 people/tram
Route 30 (To Latrobe Street, Off Peak Only): ~500 people/hr at 12' freq at 100 people/tram
Route 30 (To Flinders/Market, Off Peak Only): ~500 people/hr at 12' freq at 100 people/tram

And Spencer Street Station is a 10 minute walk from Victoria Harbour if you want to get to the suburbs..

There will also be Route 11, every 8 minutes, moving ~750 people/hr, in a few years..

So yes, there will be issues, but I doubt that travel demand will peak significantly in a place like Docklands, as it won't really be a dormatory for 9-5 workers (you'd work overtime if you had a mortgage like that, wouldn't you?), and besides, due to the short distances involved, they can add in extra services with only a few additional trams and drivers.. Particularly considering the present misuse of the Southbank Ws..

50k people wouldn't warrant it. Just look at Swanston Street right now - Collins Street West will practically be the same in that it will be the spine of docklands and the main connecting point to the CBD (Swanno is now the spine of the CBD and the connecting point to Southbank etc)

Not to mention that the West End of the cbd will be the new focus on the CBD during and after the construction & completion of Docklands (West End will become the centre of the CBD) - we're probably likely to see Trams on King or Lonsdale Street before any heavy rail u/ground in Docklands.

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,8713852%255E2862,00.html

Docklands tram boost
John Masanauskas, transport reporter
18feb04

PUBLIC transport services to Docklands will be boosted with a $7.5 million tramline extension.

Residents, workers and visitors to the booming New Quay precinct will be able to catch trams up Docklands Drive.
The new track will carry modern and heritage trams, including an extended W-class service from La Trobe and Brunswick streets.

It will also feature the extension of route 48 from North Balwyn.

Transport Minister Peter Batchelor said yesterday the 1km extension should be finished this year.


"New Quay and Docklands have quickly become a hot spot for business and leisure activities, and the extension will provide better public transport access for both Melburnians and visitors to the city," he said.

The new line will go from the Harbour Esplanade and La Trobe St corner and finish to the west of Sudholtz St on Docklands Drive. It will include four wheelchair-accessible platform stops and real-time passenger information.

Yarra Trams, which is to take over the entire metropolitan tram network, will design and construct the $7.5 million extension.

It will be funded by the Department of Infrastructure and VicUrban -- the body formed from the merger of the Docklands Authority and the Urban and Regional Land Corporation.

Docklands tram services started in January last year when the free City Circle route was extended to Harbour Esplanade.

The idea dates to options considered by the Kennett government.

Mr Batchelor said Yarra Trams had an excellent record for such projects, including the Box Hill tramline extension.

I still think that a tram line along Dudley St past the market and onto Victoria Pde would have been a better route.

CONNEX AWARDED MELBOURNE TRAIN CONTRACT (http://www.connexmelbourne.com.au/news_connex/PDF/current/current_191_190204.pdf)

The Chairman of Connex Group Australia, Mr Bob Annells, today welcomed the Victorian Government's decision to award Connex the contract to operate the combined Melbourne train business.

"We are naturally delighted with today’s announcement and extremely proud that the Victorian Government has entrusted us with the entire Melbourne train network, for at least the next five years," Mr Annells said.

"We are confident that the partnership we have entered with the Victorian Government is based on a sustainable model, will achieve the Government's public transport objectives and also meet our commercial needs."

After more than 12 months of working with Government on the new contractual arrangements to ensure that a sustainable partnership model emerged, Connex will take control of the entire metropolitan train network on 18 April 2004.

"We now face the task of integrating two separate businesses to operate as a unified train network for Melbourne," he said.

"Challenges certainly lie ahead but we have the experience, knowledge and vision to consolidate the network for the long-term benefit of Melbourne commuters. Connex has prepared a detailed strategy to deliver an enhanced service for our current and future customers (see fact sheet following). "Building upon our very significant
achievements and the lessons that we have learnt since 1999, we will undertake initiatives aimed primarily at enhancing the staff presence on the train network, particularly after dark and integrating the operations of two train businesses," Mr Annells said.

Our plans will be rolled out over the coming months and with the support of Government, employees and unions, we are confident that our plans can be implemented.

"We believe the long-term prospects for public transport in Melbourne are very healthy and we look forward to playing a vital role in the years ahead," he said.

Connex is one of the world’s leading private operators in the passenger transport sector, providing urban, suburban, inter-city and regional passenger services on buses, trains, trams and ferries. The Melbourne operation will be the biggest commuter rail network operated by Connex anywhere in the world.

Connex Group Australia operates in Melbourne (trains), Sydney (Monorail, Light Rail, buses) and Noumea (buses). Connex is also set to become the operator of Auckland's commuter train network in July 2004. Connex is the transport division of Veolia Environnement, the world's leading environmental services company.

Hurrah Finally. THis is how the break up of public transport should have been done years ago. Im glad connex are getting the rest as they run what they have really well. Connex compared to the old MET is soooo much better its not funny. They can actually run the system properly now.

Any extra staff is always good, I'd just like to see Bracksy commit to a short to medium term plan of staffing all stations by a set date & boost frequencies on all services like the PTUA rep said on the ABC report.

step in right direction (although not much of one?)

tays

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/02/19/1077072772280.html

$2.3bn public transport bail-out
February 19, 2004

Victorian taxpayers will pay two private operators $2.3 billion over the next five years to run Melbourne's trains and trams.

Under the deal announced by Premier Steve Bracks today, Yarra Trams will be the sole operator of tram services while Connex runs the metropolitan trains.

Mr Bracks defended the agreement to pay an additional $1 billion to the operators on top of the $1.3 billion already earmarked under the existing arrangement.

"We were living in a fool's paradise somehow expecting that you could run a public transport system and not pay for it," he said.

Mr Bracks said it would cost a similar amount for the public sector to run the system but the private operators would do better: "because of their continuity, because of their performance, because of the risk they'll be assuming."

Under the new deal Connex will be paid $345 million annually and Yarra Trams will get $112 million each year when the contracts begin in mid-April.

The new deal will result in 100 extra railway staff, 30 more stations staffed during the morning peak and 20 more on weekday afternoons.

Fifty additional tram system staff will be recruited and trams will run until 2am at New Year under the deal.

Transport Minister Peter Batchelor said the arrangements offered financial security and dealt with a "funding black hole" of $200 million per year under franchises set up by the previous government.

The two operators will take over the remainder of the train and tram system left in government hands after National Express pulled out in December 2002 after losses.

Had the government not pitched in the extra $1 billion, Yarra Trams and Connex would also have gone broke "and it would have led to chaos and disruption", Mr Batchelor said.

The new deal won scant praise from Public Transport Users Association president Daniel Bowen who said it offered a "small improvement" for commuters.

"But we're not seeing the sort of changes that are really going to encourage a lot more people to use the public transport system," Mr Bowen said.

"We would like to have seen a much better improvement to frequencies, level of service on trains and trams and more staff on to the system."

Rail, Tram and Bus Union state secretary Trevor Dobbyn was more optimistic, describing the extra staff and stations as a "big step forward".

"Forty-five down, 75 stations to go and we know the public want to see all of those stations reopened and restaffed," Mr Dobbyn said.

State opposition leader Robert Doyle attacked the decision to give the two private operators an additional $1 billion funding over five years.

"We've just paid out $1 billion for something we already have," he said.

Mr Doyle said the government should have held the two operators to existing franchise contracts requiring them to boost patronage and he said the transport arrangements should have been put up for open tender.

- AAP

I see Doyle is whingeing from the sidelines again.
What would he have the Govt do?
No transport Co in its right mind would have tendered for these failed businesses without massive govt hand outs.
Afterall Doyle was part of the Kennett Govts stuff up in the first place- remember the $350 million squandered on the useless ticket machines by our Jeff?
No Public transport system around the world runs at a profit so why would Victoria be any different. The companies that originally signed off on these contracts were overly optomistic or just plain stupid or both.
This new deal is probabily as good as it will ever be- thats if you want a PT system at all.

how much of the spending will go towards capital works for the system?
what will be the role of the additional staff?

Tram, train subsidy doubles
http://www.theage.com.au/ffxImage/urlpicture_id_1077072779591_2004/02/19/20TAN_TRAIN.jpg
The cost of paying private operators to run Melbourne's trains and trams for the next five years has almost doubled to $2.3 billion under new public transport deals that the State Government announced yesterday.

Premier Steve Bracks said the new contracts provided an extra $1.03 billion to keep Yarra Trams and Connex afloat as they take over the M>Tram and M>Train business vacated by National Express.

The Premier defended the subsidy jump. "This is something which needed fixing," he said. "We found something I think we all suspected for some time - that the public transport system was not viable."

The former Kennett government's transport contracts, which had subsidies that tapered to nil after 10 years, were like "living in a fool's paradise, somehow expecting that you could run a public transport system and not pay for it", Mr Bracks said.

Mr Bracks said he now accepted full responsibility for any problems that may unfold under the agreements.

"These are our contracts. We accept total responsibility," he said. "We are going in with our eyes open."

Former premier Jeff Kennett said last night the deal was outrageous and unnecessary.

"To think Victoria is spending $2.3 billion over the next five years is just ludicrous," he said. The new contracts should be released so the public could see if the companies had been given hidden concessions, he said.

Train company Connex will be paid an average of $345 million a year for five years to run all metropolitan trains. This is an increase of $165 million a year.

Yarra Trams will be paid an average of $112 million a year for five years to run all Melbourne's trams - a $36 million a year rise.

The combined subsidies are up $201 million a year for the next five years, from $256 million to $457 million a year.

The new agreements take effect on April 18.

Transport Minister Peter Batchelor said the public could be assured the deals were good value for money, despite the absence of any competitive bidding, because the companies had to open their books for Government scrutiny and were benchmarked against international standards.

Some staff could be made redundant, but job losses were likely to be confined to administrative staff, Mr Batchelor said.

The Rail, Tram and Bus Union warned that it would not accept job losses.

Mr Bracks said the extra billion dollars required would not affect the state's budget because provision had been made for it in the decision to pay for the Mitcham-Frankston freeway with tolls.

Five-year terms were settled on because they bridged the introduction of a new ticketing system due after the present ticketing contract expired in 2006.

Both contracts can be extended by the Government for a further 18 months.

The new contracts retain the previous performance bonus/penalty incentives, but additionally offer the companies financial protection against any dramatic slump in patronage and, conversely, offer the Government a share of any higher-than-expected revenue growth.

The magnitude of the bonuses and penalties have been eased for Connex until June 2006, when the transition phase will be over.

The State Government will focus on strategic transport planning, timetable co-ordination, the new ticket system and safety regulation under the new division of responsibilities. It will spend $30 million in two years fixing traffic bottlenecks that impede trams' progress.

The new contracts were not strictly "franchises" any more, but were a hybrid, with a service contract that resulted in a "partnership" with the Government, Mr Batchelor said.

The Department of Infrastructure's evaluation showed it cost about the same to run the system in public hands as it did to pay private operators, he said.

What tipped the balance in favour of pursuing privatisation were the demonstrable improvements Connex and Yarra Trams had introduced, and the absence of clamour for public sector retention, Mr Batchelor said.

Melbourne University transport expert Paul Mees said the minister's comments were extraordinary.

"It's a rip-off... The Government has even admitted it could have taken (public transport) back into public hands without spending any more money," he said.

Opposition Leader Robert Doyle said the Government's inability to manage the public transport system had cost taxpayers $1 billion more than was necessary. He said Labor was a "soft touch" for sophisticated companies. It should have made Connex and Yarra Trams abide by the contracts signed in 1999.

The Government has let Connex off its former requirement to redevelop Flinders Street Station.
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/02/19/1077072779093.html
Coastal councils to ask for $5bn to cope with population boom
Three Victorian councils are part of a coalition of councils planning to lobby state and federal governments for an estimated $5 billion they say is needed to pay for infrastructure and essential services in booming coastal regions.

Bass Coast, Surf Coast and Greater Geelong council chief executives have attended a summit on the Sunshine Coast, where the Sea Change Task Force said the money was needed to pay for roads, water and sewerage projects over the next 15 years. They are among 27 councils across the country claiming that continued growth will stretch communities to breaking point without extra money.

Bass Coast chief executive Allan Bawden said there was a range of factors behind the surge to the beach. "Some of these coastal areas are much more accessible... people can live by the beach and still run businesses in Melbourne," he said.

Surf Coast Shire chief executive Peter Bollen said the influx of people to the region was expected to continue at between 5 and 6 per cent a year. "We're experiencing similar levels of growth to what's been going on in Queensland for the past 15 years," he said.

Taskforce chairman and Maroochy Shire Council chief executive Kelvin Spiller said infrastructure was only part of the problem. He estimated that the demand for health, education and emergency services in the next 15 years could equal infrastructure costs. He said taxation systems should be changed to give local governments a greater share of the tax from rising property values.

"Federal and state governments collect most of the taxes associated with development (but) they do not allocate it to meet the specific needs of people who live in these communities," Mr Spiller said.

Municipal Association of Victoria president Brad Matheson called on the State Government to involve all non-metropolitan councils "as a matter of priority" in developing a rural and regional strategy to complement Melbourne 2030, the Government's strategy for developing high-density urban housing
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/02/19/1077072778772.html

A favorable editorial from the HUN for once.


http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,8731953%255E24218,00.html

Back on the rails?

20feb04

THOSE who doubted privatisation of Melbourne's public transport has failed to live up to the promises made for it now have a $2.3 billion answer.

This is what it will cost taxpayers over the next five years to get back on the rails.
It is $1 billion more than it would have cost under the now failed contracts negotiated by the Kennett Government.

The annual cost to taxpayers of keeping the trains and trams running will rise from $256 million to $457 million which, significantly, is almost as much as before the advent of the vaunted privatisation era.

The latest impost on taxpayers follows a 10 per cent rise in fares in January.

From the outset, many doubted the practicality of privatising a public utility that in very few cities of the world operates without taxpayer subsidies.

They urged the Government to take it back – putting service to the travelling public ahead of profit.

But the Government has renegotiated contracts with the two surviving operators.

To make the medicine taste better, there will be 200 extra staff on stations, trains and trams. Passengers will hail the move to have most trains carry security officers after 9pm.

Hopefully these incentives will be sufficient to lure back disenchanted travellers.

Efficient public transport is a crucial part of urban life.

The sooner they start marketing and rebranding and changing signage to Metlink the better - consistency is important. Ticketing problems must be fixed and 2007 is a long wait before we get to use the technology that we already have installed (like hong kong's octopus smartcard ticketing system). The extra $$$ pumped in is great, but it's to subsidise their running expenses. It's not for capital works or new acquisitions. Extra staff is not necessarily essential if the system is run efficiently, but of course it's better to have more staff.

It will be soon March,and only two years to the opening of the Commonwealth Games,so the metro mess is to be sorted out.But that is only Melbourne,the rest of the state has to be restructured to restore some sanity to country travel.:moods:

I use public transport regularly especially the M-Train lines and the only gripe I have is over crowding and the recent 30c ticket rise. Now my ticket cost three dollars. I dont have alot to whine about my train is every 20 minutes, cheap to use and my station is usually manned. I do agree with Blabbyboy signage does need to be adhered to as they now heavely advertise the Metlink Brand in the past year I think since the launch only the Alamein Line and City Loop Stations have been rebranded Metlink. I suppose our problems aren't as bad as Sin Cities are at the moment.

Geelong Mainline track reconstruction:

http://images.fotopic.net/?id=2680624&outx=980&oq=0

http://images.fotopic.net/?id=2680631&outx=980&oq=0

http://images.fotopic.net/?id=2680626&outx=980&oq=0

Anyone know how many loops there are on the SG line (left) between Melbourne & Geelong?

http://images.fotopic.net/?id=2680640&outx=980&oq=0

can't wait for the VLocity 160s :guns1:

Just letting you all know the roadworks have finally begun for the Vermont south tram extension from east burwood. They have started tearing up the intersection at vermont south shopping centre, its expected to be finished late 2005....i think

Good stuff - I wonder if they'll get the funds together by the time Vermont South is finished and start building out to Knox after V. South completion?

What's the likelihood of a tram line down Springvale Road from Nunawadding via Glen Waverley / Brandon Park and onto Springvale?

NEW TRAMS/trains SUK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

interms of seating/confort they are the worst and i think they should be totally redesigned they are rock hard just like the new train seats heads need to roll.......

uh?

Originally posted by MrPC
Looks are too deceptive these days..

New & Modern = No seats & the few that they have are uncomfortable for more than a few minutes with very little padding.. They are also flimsy, not faring as well in crashes as steel or even wooden trams did, meaning you have to buy more of them..

Real Trams can last for 60-70 years if they're kept in good condition, and can be progressively upgraded if required.. Doing so is often cheaper than buying something new and throwing out good, useful hardware that's nowhere near the end of its useful life..

I just don't see any justification for spending hundreds of millions of dollars on new, inferior, uncomfortable trams with far fewer seats relative to older trams of the same length..



I HEAR U javascript:smilie(':guns1:')


The government needs to get a clue....
cause i been riding trains/trams for donkeys and the new ones look really good but they are not comfortable and are badly designedjavascript:smilie(':bash:')


i just figure out how to use the smilesjavascript:smilie(':colgate:')


why are my smiles like that?

IM SORRY!!!!

use "Preview Reply" button, or I'll just remove all that crap in future.

Originally posted by tayser
What's the likelihood of a tram line down Springvale Road from Nunawadding via Glen Waverley / Brandon Park and onto Springvale?

Would be very costly and interesting to see tays! I live a few minutes from Brandon Park SC and seeing trams venture down here would be a sight.

I drove east along Whitehorse Rd the other day and was shocked to see the tramline had been extended to Box Hill Central!! That's what happens when you haven't been down that way for years :D Looked bloody good though. Maybe they could apply the same to Springvale Rd.

Now wouldn't this be great above Parliament Station?

http://www.gtimages.com.au/images/portfolio/big_parliament_station.jpg

Originally posted by Aussie Steve
Now wouldn't this be great above Parliament Station?

http://www.gtimages.com.au/images/portfolio/big_parliament_station.jpg

u have a share in it ?:eat:

Faulty doors send new trains off rails
COMMUTERS could be in for a sweltering ride home today after faulty doors forced new trains off the rails again.

The temperature is expected to hit 37C today, which could worsen the problem by knocking older airconditioned trains out of service.
Last night, 38 new Siemens trains were idle while passengers were forced onto 30-year-old steel saunas.

Ten were in service before drivers found that doors could open while the train was moving.

They were withdrawn from service soon after the discovery on Tuesday afternoon.

M>Train managing director Alan Chaplin said the company was working with Siemens to solve the problem. "We regret any short-term inconvenience this might cause to our customers," he said.

"Our schedulers are working to minimise delays or cancellations that the withdrawal may have on peak services."

Siemens spokeswoman Leah Waymark said drivers were able to release the door locks when travelling at 2km/h or less, allowing passengers to press the button and open the doors.

The new X'Trapolis trains operated by Connex are not affected.

Siemens trains have been dogged by technical and industrial problems since they were launched a year ago by Premier Steve Bracks.

The trains -- which were initially found to be too wide for some platforms and bridges -- were removed from service last October because of brake problems.

With the modern Siemens out of action, more old-style Hitachi trains will come into service.

Late yesterday, when it was 31C outside, the Herald Sun stepped onto the 5.17 to Sandringham -- a Hitachi train -- where the temperature was 32C.

By Richmond, it was 33C and built up to 34C by Windsor, but stuffy conditions caused passengers the most discomfort.

On the way back, the Herald Sun caught the 5.31 from Windsor, an air-conditioned Comeng train: the temperature dipped as low as 20C.

The 20-year-old Comeng trains are unable to handle temperatures above the mid-30s and are often withdrawn from service in hot weather to be replaced by Hitachis.

Opposition transport spokesman Terry Mulder said the public would lose further confidence in the transport system after the latest service withdrawal.

"The trains have been riddled with problems from day one and (Transport Minister) Peter Batchelor has to take responsibility."

Mr Batchelor would not be drawn on questions about the reliability of the Siemens trains.

Spokeswoman Kate Leonard said Mr Batchelor was keeping up with developments.

"The problem is now being assessed by M>Train, with the trains to be returned to service as soon as possible," Ms Leonard said.

M>Train, Siemens and the State Government would not say when the trains were expected to resume service.
http://heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,8859828%255E2862,00.html

As has been said if it smells like shit and looks like shit then it is shit and so are these Seimens lemons.
Its no wonder National Express went broke and on top of it bought a heap of crap trains.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/04/16/1082055646021.html

New operators promise a new beginning
By Selma Milovanovic
Transport Reporter
April 17, 2004


Connex and Yarra Trams have vowed to revitalise Melbourne's public transport by upgrading services and safety during a five-year, $2.3 billion contract with the State Government.

The companies, which have run half of Melbourne's metropolitan train and tram networks respectively for four years, will tomorrow take over lines run by the M>Train and M>Tram businesses, which National Express abandoned in December 2002.

M>Train and M>Tram continued to operate under Government-appointed managers after National Express walked away from its contracts.

Connex Group Australia chairman Bob Annells said his company was committed to combating a serious shortage of drivers and to increasing the number of roving patrols and station staff to improve safety.

"Now the pressure starts," Mr Annells said. "We are taking over a business that has had problems. The moment we put a Connex sign on trains we are taking over, they become our problem.

"The travelling public don't care what the reasons are for train cancellations, nor should they. At the end of the day they demand a high-standard system and unless we deliver it, our reputation will suffer."

Yarra Trams chief executive Hubert Guyot said an improved tram system and better customer service were the key to attracting people to trams.

"We want to revitalise services in Melbourne... and have an impact on Melbourne society," Mr Guyot said.

"We want the commuters to understand this is their sys-tem. We are just here to operate it, maintain it, improve it and hopefully be here for the long term."

Under the new contracts, the Government will provide an extra $1.03 billion to keep Connex and Yarra Trams afloat. Connex will get an average of $345 million a year over five years - a $165 million a year increase. Yarra Trams will get about $112 million a year, a $36 million rise.


'We are just here to operate it, maintain it, improve it and hopefully be here for the long term.'
- HUBERT GUYOT, Yarra Trams chief executive

Connex will introduce 100 more front-line staff. The company said that by strategically placing staff on lines and stations where such staff were needed most, 80 per cent of commuters would travel through a staffed station. In addition, two staff would patrol all trains running after 9pm.

The Rail, Tram and Bus Union (RTBU) criticised Connex's view that staffing all stations was not a solution.

"What price do you put on people's safety?" asked union state president Marc Marotta. "We'd very much like to see all the platforms manned."

Transport Minister Peter Batchelor said the Government had responded to calls for increased safety, "but we're doing it in a responsible way that won't add such a financial burden of forcing prices up".

Mr Annells said intensive driver training and a controversial new train fleet - which needs modifying because of incompatibility - would be completed over 12 to 18 months.

Yarra Trams has hired 50 more customer service staff and plans to increase frequency of inter-peak services from 12 to 10 minutes. The company and VicRoads will link control centres in a bid to introduce a tram priority system.

Rail, Tram and Bus Union tram division secretary Lou Di Gregorio said that as long as Yarra Trams was committed to improving services, "we would come very close to having one of the best tram systems in the world over the next five years".



http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/04/16/1082055646029.html

Down Frankston way it's a popular line
By Selma Milovanovic, Rachel Wells
April 17, 2004

http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2004/04/16/17FRANKSTON,0.jpg

Commuters board a city-bound train this week. M>Train has plans to improve security and combat vandalism on the Frankston line.
Picture: Mario Borg

It's 8.43am at Frankston railway station this Thursday as an old train rolls in. The passengers push the windows down when they get on. It's already hot and the carriages are not air-conditioned for the hour-long trip to the city.

But old trains are not their main concern, the passengers say.

The Frankston line, which Connex will take over from M>Train tomorrow, had more train cancellations last month than any other metropolitan train line. In March, 3.7 per cent of Frankston line trains did not run. The shortage of drivers was blamed for most cancellations.

"Trains get cancelled often... and I just look to the heavens like everybody does," says Mark Simpson, of Patterson Lakes. He travels from Carrum to Malvern each day during the morning peak. "If I was working I'd be really frustrated," he says.

Ross Mackay, of Seaford, usually drives to work in Malvern, partly because of the frequent train cancellations.

"There is nothing worse than getting to a station like Caulfield and being jammed up against the wall and more people are trying to pile in," he says.

Safety is also uppermost in people's minds this Thursday. Some commuters are not aware Connex is taking over their line, but they hope for staff on every station and increased train patrols - the Frankston line has one of the highest crime rates on the metropolitan rail network.

In the three years to December, 3578 offences were reported on the Frankston line, second only to Pakenham's 5262 offences. Offences included theft, property damage, assaults, drugs and sexual assaults.

Councils, community groups and schools along the Frankston line hope Connex will improve safety and service.

Glen Eira City Council community relations director Paul Burke says: "There is a nostalgic cry for the return of the girl and the guy in the peak cap and uniform.

"It makes people feel safer, and if they feel safe they are going to use public transport."

Driver Training Starts On Bairnsdale Line Today
Peter Batchelor - Minister for Transport (including Ports) Minister for Major Projects Manager of Government Business in the Legislative Assembly

Media Statement - 19 April 2004

The training of V/Line drivers on the new Bairnsdale railway line has commenced, the Minister for Transport, Peter Batchelor announced today.

Mr Batchelor said the track works were now complete, the line had received safety approval, and an announcement regarding the return of passenger services would be made very soon.

"After a ten year absence, the return of rail services will be a truly historic occasion for Bairnsdale and the wider East Gippsland region," Mr Batchelor said.

"Passenger trains will provide the community with a better, more comfortable and more accessible way to travel. It will also mean a boost for tourism and jobs."

Mr Batchelor said the Government was conducting a railway crossing safety campaign to coincide with the driver training and the imminent return of passenger rail services to the region.

"It's important that people are aware that more trains are operating on the line over the next couple of weeks, and of the need to adopt safe behaviour near the line."

The rail crossing safety campaign consists of print, radio and television advertisements.

"The message in the advertising campaign is clear. Don't put your life on the line. Stop. Look. Listen," Mr Batchelor said. "It's vital that all members of the community – motorists, cyclists and pedestrians - adopted safe behaviour near rail crossings. "While the incidence of rail crossing accidents is small, rail crossing injuries are very serious and usually fatal."

The Department of Infrastructure will continue to conduct its rail crossing education program in local primary schools throughout the region.

Department of Infrastructure Education Officer Mary Catus-Wood said the program taught children safe behaviour practices through interactive role-plays. "Rail safety information is also sent home with the children, so that parent are able to reinforce the safety messages within the family," Ms Catus-Wood said. The upgrade of the Bairnsdale line has involved replacing sleepers and the welding of rail joints on 69 km of track, refurbishing of the 500 metre Avon River railway bridge, and the safety upgrading of seventeen level crossings.

For further information on the Rail Crossing Safety Campaign, please contact (03) 9655 8989. For further information on the school railway safety lessons, contact Mary Catus-Wood on (03) 9655 6695. "The return of country passenger rail services and the Regional Fast Rail projects mark the biggest upgrade of regional rail in 120 years," Mr Batchelor said.

"The projects are part of the State Government's Linking Victoria strategy – a $5 billion blueprint to achieve a better, integrated transport system to grow the entire State and better link regional communities with Melbourne."

moved to vic forum!
cheers

Anyone know how many loops there are on the SG line (left) between Melbourne & Geelong?

I guess this is a rather late reply, but the answer is one: at Manor. The SCT sidings just east of Laverton could also be used as a loop, but that's not what they're intended for.

Ta Yardmaster: what about BG loops on Deer Park - Ballarat and SG loops on Melbourne - Albury?

Sorry, I'll have to get back to you on that one, Tayser: while I frequently travel from Geelong by train, that's not sop for Ballarat or Albury. I have the data, but it's been "archived".

Time for some re-construction of a different kind.

Collins Street between Queen Street and the new superstop on the western side of King Street was closed off. Funnily enough - it must have been some really random upgrading, because I've never noticed any problems when on a tram in this area (i.e bumpy ride or what not)

http://www.thehoddlegrid.net/projects/updates/infrastructure/tram/collinstram2706041.jpg

http://www.thehoddlegrid.net/projects/updates/infrastructure/tram/collinstram2706042.jpg

http://www.thehoddlegrid.net/projects/updates/infrastructure/tram/collinstram2706043.jpg

not often you see heavy equipment such as this "parked" on Collins Street

http://www.thehoddlegrid.net/projects/updates/infrastructure/tram/collinstram2706044.jpg

And two for silvermb ;)

http://www.thehoddlegrid.net/projects/updates/infrastructure/tram/collinstram2706045.jpg

http://www.thehoddlegrid.net/projects/updates/infrastructure/tram/collinstram2706046.jpg

This has been posted before, however, I'd never seen the diagram before:

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/08/15/1060936056368.html

Taking a different track
By Andrew Heasley
Transport Reporter
August 16, 2003

Trams could be given priority over cars under a bold State Government concept
to speed up tram travel.

VicRoads is considering pulling up tram tracks from the centre of the road and
re-laying them along the kerb. The concept would have cars confined to the
centre lanes, freeing up space for trams to run unhindered.

But faster, unimpeded tram travel would come at the expense of on-street
parking, which would be removed along busy shopping strips.

VicRoads has identified six locations along Yarra Trams' showcase Port
Melbourne-Box Hill Route 109 where these, and other, track treatments would see
trams gaining priority over cars and at intersections.

Transport Minister Peter Batchelor said yesterday: "What we're trying to do is
to give trams . . . help getting through all the traffic congestion."

As a gauge of the Government's seriousness, VicRoads recently advertised for
consultants to assess the likely impact on tram and car journey times,
congestion and traffic diversion to other roads, the design and positioning of
tram stops, and the location of tram tracks and changes to parking.

A dozen consulting firms responded to the tender.

"Various proposals have been put forward and we need to get VicRoads to test
the impact of those before we start a consultation process," Mr Batchelor said.
The concept proposes that trams would run adjacent to the car-free kerb along
Richmond's busy Victoria Street shopping strip, through Kew Junction and
outside Balwyn's shops on Whitehorse Road. Cars would be permanently banned
from on-street parking on these stretches.

Elsewhere on the route, tracks would be shifted less than a metre closer to the
kerb, with the tram stops extended outwards to meet the tram, easing access for
the disabled. Cars would then wait on the tracks behind trams as passengers
alighted or boarded. From Kew to Balwyn cars would merge with trams on the
tracks.

The ideas drew a mixed reaction yesterday.

"That could have a dramatic impact on shopping patterns," said Opposition
transport spokesman Terry Mulder.

Richmond Asian Business Association president Pham Toan said Victoria Street's
shopkeepers were worried that banning cars from parking outside their shops
could ruin their livelihoods. City of Yarra Mayor Greg Barber warned that
clearways, such as those on nearby Johnston Street, had created "traffic
sewers".

One of the most enthusiastic supporters of the idea, perhaps surprisingly, was
the RACV.

The motoring club's public policy manager, Ken Ogden, said it was a chance to
update a 1920s model of commuting to one fit for the 21st century.

"The biggest challenge Melbourne's going to face in the next 20 to 30 years . .
. is going to be how to manage our existing arterial road space," Dr Ogden
said.

In this case, the roads for Route 109 had been identified as public transport's
priority. But in return, other roads in the area must be reworked to benefit
motorists, he said.

Residential parking was a "crunch issue" and the delivery of goods to shops had
to be resolved, Dr Ogden said.

The tender process ran aground late yesterday after Boroondara Council, alerted
by The Age's inquiries, contacted VicRoads to voice concerns that the tender
would leapfrog a Government commitment to widely consult the community on the
proposal. Mayor Judith Voce said: "Boroondara pointed out its concerns . . .
this might be seen to be pre-empting the community consultation process."

VicRoads project manager Russell Bittner confirmed the tender had been put on
hold, but a consultant would be appointed to develop the traffic model once
discussions began.

scan from the paper:

http://www.myweb.net.au/tdu/msg/msg10401%5CRoute109-s.jpg

thoughts?

I like 2, 4 & 5 but not moving the tram tracks from the centre of the road to the kerb. On street parking is essential.

Nice photo's tayser. got caught up in this sat morning. Do you reckon that cutting up tram lines and a whole street and replacing it all in a weekend was random?? Fair Dinkum, there would have been a bit more to it than that. When I went past Sunday afternoon about 5pm after work, there would have been over 40 concrete trucks in the CBD.

I will be impressed when they start to dig up Bourke Street to redevelop the Mall and surrounds. I was alive in Melbourne in the late 1960's to remember the entire length of Glenhuntly Road being dug up and the wooden cobbles that used to be pile driven between the tracks were all dug up and new lines were laid. In turn cement was laid around the new lines. It was curious how they built small wooden bridges (mini arches) that were set over certain portions of the unfinhed track that enabled cars to cros from one side of the unfinished line to the other.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/07/30/1091080439338.html

Smartcards promise savings to commuters
By Bridie Smith
July 31, 2004

A card that will help commuters travel on the cheapest fare will regulate access to Victoria's transport network from 2007, Transport Minister Peter Batchelor said yesterday.

The Smartcard, which can be topped up like a pre-paid phone card, will be introduced to regional Victoria and then to the metropolitan network.

Announcing a two-month call for tenders yesterday, Mr Batchelor said the Smartcard would save travellers money by automatically selecting the cheapest fare.

"It assumes at the outset of the daily travel that you will choose the cheapest fare and it allows you to change your mind," Mr Batchelor said.

For example, if a commuter buys a daily ticket but uses it only once, they will be charged only for a two-hour fare.

Mr Batchelor said the decision not to renew the contract for the troubled OneLink Metcard system was not an admission of failure, although he acknowledged the present system suffered "transitional problems" and that fare evasion cost the network about $50 million a year. "The (Smartcard) system is not designed to solve fare evasion across the network. It's designed to make (travel) easier and more convenient, and by doing that it will be more acceptable and it will reduce fare evasion," he said.

Mr Batchelor said the new ticketing model, which will be based on the same fare structure, would rule out problems with vandalism and theft from ticket machines.

It is expected that inspector numbers will be maintained as the tickets, which have a lifespan of about three to four years, will be checked by hand-held scanners.

However, the Public Transport Users Association questioned the introduction of yet another ticketing system after about $400 million had been spent on Metcard.

Spokesman Daniel Bowen said he was concerned the Smartcard would be another "messy, long implementation costing a small fortune".

Mr Bowen also said the Government should not expect a new system would solve fare evasion and vandalism and it would be better to spend money on more staff.

"The only way to fix fare evasion is to put more staff on the system so people expect to get their tickets checked on most trips," Mr Bowen said. "No matter how good the Smartcard is, it's not going to be able to make sure people are buying tickets."

Opposition Leader Robert Doyle adopted a wait-and-see approach.

"I am prepared to give this a go. If this can reduce fare evasion, if it can make it easier for people to purchase tickets on public transport then let's see if it works," he said.

those new elevated tram stops are great! the more the better imo

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/07/30/1091080439338.html

Smartcards promise savings to commuters
By Bridie Smith
July 31, 2004

A card that will help commuters travel on the cheapest fare will regulate access to Victoria's transport network from 2007, Transport Minister Peter Batchelor said yesterday.

The Smartcard, which can be topped up like a pre-paid phone card, will be introduced to regional Victoria and then to the metropolitan network.


Is there an undertone of the Australia Card here?

If these smartcards are supposed to have a life of a few years, presumably you will have to idenitfy yourself to get one - and certainly to replenish them with credit or debit cards. There could easily be a central database to store all scan events, and that means you can be tracked like a Fedex parcel,

This is a government's wet dream.

lol. Big Brother is watching :)

But then again, the same concept applies to City Link.

lol. Big Brother is watching :)

But then again, the same concept applies to City Link.

Yes!

But the government knows that the really dangerous people - the ones you really need to worry about - are the ones who catch trains - or even worse - buses :-)

well, i think alot of you would of heard it already, i know it is not really a building or anything, seeming that it is for the Public Transport system. (Please move this to the right spot if you dont like it here)

This is from the age site.
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/05/25/1053801274845.html?oneclick=true

The much-maligned Metcard system will operate for four more years on Melbourne's trains and trams before being upgraded.

Transport Minister Peter Batchelor confirmed yesterday that work had started on a multimillion-dollar program to introduce smartcards to Melbourne's public transport system, but it would not come in until 2007.

A total of $3.9 million was allocated in this year's budget to begin the work.

Victoria is tied to the contract signed by the Kennett government with OneLink until 2007. OneLink supplies paper Metcard tickets, railway station ticket barriers, vending machines and green reader boxes on trams and buses.

Smartcards would go far towards eliminating "a whole host of problems in our present ticketing system", Mr Batchelor said. Not least the fare evasion costing the state millions of dollars every month.
he cards are likely to be embraced by banks and retailers to become electronic small change "purses" for items such as newspapers, coffee, parking fees, dry cleaning and cigarettes.

"It will be the way of the future, replacing a lot of small change in your pocket or purse," Mr Batchelor said.

Smartcards are microcomputer chips embedded in a credit card-sized piece of plastic. They can store information, including electronic cash. As transport tickets, they would automatically pay the required fare.

The latest card readers do not require the card to be taken out of a pocket or purse. In Hong Kong, some commuters have their smartcards in wristwatches or jewellery.

Smartcards also can be used to store information, such as details of allergies and health risks, authority to enter secure areas, club memberships or driver's licence details.

Mr Batchelor said that "designing the contract specifications to make sure the next generation ticketing system for Melbourne gets it right" would take the four years left in the Metcard contract.

Modern automatic teller machines in Melbourne are equipped to handle smartcard technology, but will be supplemented by kiosks in railway stations and other venues

Mr Batchelor said the system also would cater for infrequent transport users, allowing them to store $50 or so on a smartcard.

He conceded the cost of the replacement system was "in the ballpark" of the $400 million NSW was to spend.

He did not rule out that the contract might go to Metcard system supplier ERG. OneLink is a division of Perth-based ERG, which built the Hong Kong system and won the contract for the NSW transport system.

so yeah, what do you guys think about it?
they could be used for other things, like the buying milk or bread at the local corner store.

if you want more info on them, read here at The Age's site. http://www.theage.com.au/yoursay2/2003/05/26/index3.html

thanks.
Drunkill

well, i think alot of you would of heard it already, i know it is not really a building or anything, seeming that it is for the Public Transport system. (Please move this to the right spot if you dont like it here)

This is from the age site.
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/05/25/1053801274845.html?oneclick=true



so yeah, what do you guys think about it?
they could be used for other things, like the buying milk or bread at the local corner store.

if you want more info on them, read here at The Age's site. http://www.theage.com.au/yoursay2/2003/05/26/index3.html

thanks.
Drunkill


its all smart card crap make fares cheaper my ass...

they already raised them by 20% and they said privatising it would make it cheaper...

oh, sorry about me posting that in the new thread, i did not see this one, and tayser already posted a bit about it.

well i think they have a good bit, and a bad bit. Eg: for the good bit, you can get into stations and out of them in large crowds. have you ever been to the footy at Telstra dome, and then you are trying to get into Spencer street station after the game, thousands of people going accross that bridge, well with the smart cards, you just walk down the stairs/escalators and your in, already bought.

bad thing, if it auto pays for you, it will buy you a dodgy ticket, the way i see it, is that once you walk into the gate, it checks you, and when oyu walk out, it pays the fare you took, so just say i went for awhile, it might auto buy a 2 hour consession ticket.
good thing, no more long lines, or slowing down while trying to valadate your ticket. bad thing, if it had all personall stuff on it... hackers and whatnot could get into the main server computer or whatever, and get alot of info, like Credit card nubmers (seeming you have to pay with your credit card) addresses, and other stuff.

if it were to go ahead, i would only like the smart cards for the public transport system, not for buying goods. and if it were going to go in, you could buy your certain ticket still, like a yearly ticket, or monthly ticket, and it would not pay for the right fare, because you have already paid.

It may not be perfect but is hella better than the current metcard system. Trying to buy tickets without change on trams, or broken train station machines is a pain in the behind. At least this way it's all automated, and rushing to catch that train that is pullin up to the station all the easier. And there will be more space without the metcard machine on trams. I'm all for it :)
stu

And with the extra money it's supposed to save Victorian taxpayers (lol good one Bachelor! not) - they can invest in more staff at stations, on trams and trains...

ha, I know I'm dreaming.

The failed Metcard ticketing system has to be the biggest mistake that Kennett made and to think this pathetic system cost $400 MILLION of our money!
I wonder if he had shares in the WA company that foisted this mess on Victoria?

thoughts on the new Comeng ex-M>Train now Connex livery?

http://images2.fotopic.net/?iid=y3vz65&outx=980&oq=0

looking good nice pic ;)

thing that gets me is compound interest fare rises

Fark me, Connex hires good graphic artists - MTrain was just daggy, but Connex corp colours are just coolness, baby! Now can they please start REBRANDING the WHOLE NETWORK in a CONSISTENT way? Why are they still using Connex and not Metlink?! How long will they take to rebrand all the trains (all 4 types)?! Will they get around to it at all, since they're losing money on the lack of train drivers?!

1. Smartcard is old news. 2007 is too far away, by which time it would be old technology despite the fact that our current system has the technology incorporated into it. That seriously pisses me off.

2. Tram track realignments is old news too - the question is, apart from tram 109 along Whitehorse Rd, have any of those changes been implemented?

3. Tays, tram track maintenance on Collins St is a continuation of similar works done a few months ago along the Paris end of Collins St. What I didn't like was the use of bitumen to pave the outside part of the track (i.e. the non-concrete bit which joins the car lanes and which has cats eyes stuck into them) - wasn't done properly IMHO and it looks funny. You literally have to walk on Collins between Russell & Exhibition to see what I mean.

http://www.yarratrams.com.au/news/news_listing/current/article.asp?id=206

Yarra Trams is coming to Docklands Drive
20/08/2004

“Absolutely awesome,” was Linda Patching’s reaction to the news from Yarra Trams that the Docklands Drive tram extension is due for completion at the end of this year.

As President of the Docklands Chamber of Commerce, Linda welcomes the new tram service as a benefit to residents, businesses and visitors.

That view is shared by Wendy Gersh, the President of the Docklands Community Association.

“It’s wonderful news,” said Wendy.

“The new tram will be great for us because we won’t have to walk so far and it will be fantastic for visitors because it will bring them right to the heart of the action,” she said.

The $7.5 million extension to Melbourne’s tram network will link the New Quay and Waterfront City precincts with the CBD and greater Melbourne.

The project is being jointly developed by Yarra Trams with the Department of Infrastructure, which provided $5 million in funding and VicUrban which contributed $2.5 million.

It involves the construction of approximately one kilometre of dual tram track from La Trobe Street along Harbour Esplanade and down Docklands Drive to Central City Studios.

Yarra Trams will extend route 48 (North Balwyn to Docklands via Flinders Street) and route 30 (St Vincent’s Plaza to Flinders Street via Docklands) to operate on the new Docklands Drive tramline.

Real-time passenger information will be displayed at one of the two platforms being constructed near Saint Mangos Lane. In addition, a new platform will be installed on Harbour Esplanade near Central Pier. A second stop is proposed for Docklands Drive at Waterfront City.

It is expected that construction will commence in August and be completed by the end of this year.

New Quay resident, 93-year-old Len Reddoch says he’s been looking forward to this new tram because it will save him a walk when he’s heading into the city or to Brunswick by tram to do his shopping.

Linda Patching said: “I thought we were lucky to have a tram just around the corner, but soon it will be right on our doorstep.”

“That’s fabulous news for retailers and restaurateurs as well as for the people who already rely on the existing tram service,” she said.

Yarra Trams CEO, Hubert Guyot said: “This project demonstrates Yarra Trams’ commitment to providing a world class tram system for Melburnians and for national and international visitors to this great city.”

The Minister for Transport, Peter Batchelor said it was vital for the continued development and ongoing success of the Docklands that efficient public transport was made available to the thousands of people visiting the precinct each day.

"The extension of the tramline goes a long way to delivering appropriate public transport solutions and meeting the needs of people living, working and visiting the waterfront development," Mr Batchelor said.


For further information please visit www.yarratrams.com.au or call the Yarra Trams customer feedback line on 1800 800 166 between 6am and 10pm every day.

Details of metropolitan tram and train extensions can be found on the Linking Victoria website at www.linkingvictoria.vic.gov.au

http://www.metlinkmelbourne.com.au/images/maps/metro_tram_citycenter.gif

Hopefully the extended #30 will get more activity at somewhat dreary La Trobe Street - Flagstaff will also be a real option for Docklands now (they just need to build a superstop outside the Commonwealth Law Courts).

Next: Collins West & Bourke West. :banana:

It's a pity that that map presents the impression you can still travel right around the City Loop by train: no wonder even Melbournites get confused.

FROM THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT

DATE: Wednesday, September 1, 2004

WORK BEGINS ON DOCKLANDS DRIVE TRAM EXTENSION

The Minister for Transport, Peter Batchelor, today turned the first sod to mark the start of construction works on the Docklands Drive tram extension into New Quay.

Mr Batchelor said the extension of tram services into Melbourne's new waterfront development would provide better public transport access for the thousands of people living, working and visiting the area.

The $7.5 million project will extend tram route 30 (La Trobe Street – St Vincent's Plaza) and tram route 48 (North Balwyn to Docklands via Flinders Street) by nearly a kilometre, from the Harbour Esplanade and La Trobe Street intersection, north along Harbour Esplanade to the Dudley Street and Docklands Drive intersection, then along Docklands Drive to west of Sudholtz Street.

Waterfront City developers ING Real Estate and Lewis Land Group JV and MAB Docklands have contributed $2.5 million to the project, with the Bracks Government funding the remaining $5 million.

"The new tramline will include four wheelchair accessible platform stops featuring contrasting tactile tiles, stainless steel handrail and cable-style fencing. Passengers will also benefit from a passenger information unit displaying real-time information," Mr Batchelor said.

"In addition, the design of the new track will allow for dual operation, meaning that all types of trams, including modern, W-class and heritage trams, will be able to operate along the extension.

Melbourne's Docklands currently has approximately 3,500 residents and 5000 workers. It's expected to eventually become the destination of 20 million people each year, home to 20,000 people and a workplace for 25,000.

Mr Batchelor said the Bracks Government was ensuring the area was well serviced by public transport, in line with its Melbourne 2030 plan, to provide for the transport needs of growth areas.

Construction of the Collins Street tram extension across Collins Street Bridge was completed in November 2002, with construction of the Docklands tram loop connecting Flinders Street, Harbour Esplanade and La Trobe Street completed shortly after.

"To provide residents, visitors and workers with easy access to the area, Yarra Trams has already extended routes 30, 48 and 86 into the Docklands, and the City Circle tram operates through the area every 10 minutes."

The project is being managed by Yarra Trams. Rail and track constructors, Coleman Rail, have been appointed to build the extension, which is expected will be completed by the end of the year.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/09/12/1094927436486.html

Rivals jostle for transport fare go
By Ian Porter
September 13, 2004

The Victorian public transport ticketing incumbent ERG is facing a battle to retain the business and might have to defend its intellectual property against an international customer and rival.

The tender has a high profile in the fare collection world and sources indicate that it has attracted interest from more than 100 companies.

The tender process was last week put back a month, to October 22, after some tenderers asked for more time to meet the sophisticated specifications set down in the tender brief.

The Government has asked that tenderers not only bid for the whole system, but also design "open architecture" systems and make separate bids for specific parts - trams, trains, buses and back office.

Among those expected to bid are Downer EDI, US company Cubic and local defence contractor ADI, which is owned 50 per cent by the French defence and electronics group Thales.

Thales recently won a EUR120 million ($A210 million) contract to install a national smartcard system in the Netherlands in partnership with the Hong Kong transport
operator MTR Corporation, which will handle the back-office work.

The back-office systems are crucial as they divide the proceeds among various transport operators covered by the ticketing system.

If Thales and MTR do bid, ERG would be anxious to see what technology MTR was bringing to the deal, ERG chief executive Allan Sullivan said on Friday.

"We supplied the entire smartcard system in Hong Kong and we still do the maintenance," Dr Sullivan said.

He indicated that ERG would take a strong stand if it believed MTR was selling on the system ERG had supplied in Hong Kong.

"I am not sure what they have taken to Holland. They have no right, from an intellectual property point of view, to take the Hong Kong system to Holland.

"We'd be very interested to know what technology their system is based on."

ERG's arch rival Cubic is expected to bid too, even though it had its reputation trashed in 2003 when it lost a court case against the NSW transport authority after the Sydney contract was awarded to ERG.

A NSW judge found the Cubic consortium had acted dishonestly and had been prepared to derail the whole ticketing project rather than let ERG win it.

Downer EDI is also expected to mount a strong challenge as it has already won a bid in Western Australia to provide the ticketing system across all of Perth's public transport systems.

The Victorian tender differs from the original contract won by ERG's OneLink consortium with Mayne Group and Fujitsu in that it will be funded and owned by the State Government this time, not the operator.

The successful tenderers will have to put up a bond of $30 million to cover delays in the supply phase and $10 million to cover problems in the operation stage.

ERG may gain a tendering advantage in that it jointly owns the current system and may be able to keep costs down by salvaging some parts of it for the new tender.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/09/25/1095961912279.html

Rowville push on public transport
By Mark Russell
September 26, 2004

More than 1000 people are expected at a meeting this week to demand better public transport in Melbourne's outer east.

The meeting, at Rowville on Thursday night, has been organised by the Knox City Council to pressure state and federal governments into confronting the public transport needs of more than 150,000 residents.

The council and the Public Transport Users Association want a rail line from Huntingdale station to Rowville, and a tram extension from Vermont South to Knox City shopping centre.

A $40,000 feasibility study found that one peak-hour train on a Rowville rail line could replace a five-kilometre line of cars on Wellington Road, and cut 30 minutes off the trip to the city.

Thursday's meeting will be held at the Rowville Community Centre at 7pm.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/10/01/1096527934100.html

Knox wants train and tram promises back on track
By Andrew Webster
October 2, 2004

Knox City Council will lobby the state and federal governments in a bid to resolve the poor public transport situation in one of Melbourne's fastest-growing areas.

The lack of train, tram and bus services in the outer east is the focus of a renewed campaign which had stalled since the toll fees row erupted last year over the Scoresby freeway.

But locals in the fast-growing suburbs of Rowville, Ferntree Gully and Knox now say they want long-promised plans to build train and tram links honoured.

Knox Council has completed a $40,000 feasibility study for a heavy rail line extension, to be built along the Wellington Road median strip, linking Rowville into the suburban network at Huntingdale.

It is running a $20,000 publicity campaign aimed at persuading the Federal Government to earmark at least some of the $420 million it has withheld from the Scoresby project to fund the Rowville link.

The study, by transport consultant and former Monash University professor Bill Russell, projected up to 2500 passengers would use the line during peak hours.

About 120,000 people live along the Wellington Road corridor, and more than 25,000 students attend Monash University's Clayton campus.

Public Transport Users Association secretary Tony Morton said the line has been promised by various governments since at least 1969.

"Monash University and Waverley Park (football stadium) were both planned in the context of having that future train line there, which never eventuated," he said.

Knox Council says it also wants the State Government to fulfil a 1999 Labor election promise for a 10-kilometre extension to the 75 tram route from its current terminus at Blackburn Road to Knox City shopping centre.

The Government says that in 2005 it will complete a five-kilometre tram extension to Vermont South and a bus shuttle service to Knox City at a cost of $42.6 million. A spokeswoman said the service would be "a vast improvement".

But Knox councillor Adam Gill says that will still leave local people who don't have access to cars, dependent solely on local bus services, which run infrequently and mostly stop at 7pm.

The result, he said, is social isolation and, as people are forced to use cars, ever increasing traffic congestion.

"The people of the outer east are the forgotten people and we deserve better," Cr Gill said.

According to Dr Russell, Knox has an unusually high population of the young and elderly, both groups that have limited access to private cars.



http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/10/01/1096527934105.html

Carrying a ticket of many colours
By Suzanne Carbone
October 2, 2004

http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2004/10/01/02ROWVILLE_wideweb__430x206.jpg

A passenger waits at a bus stop on Wellington Road, Rowville.
Photo: Nic Kocher

"There must be a Rowville station," says the customer service attendant at Spencer Street Station, fumbling with maps and a Melway, when asked how to get to the outer-eastern suburb. "Rowville station? Rowville station?" he muses. Then he mumbles "Wantirna" and his assistant points to Altona. Not quite, but we're getting close.

There is no Rowville station, and that is the point. There is a Glen Waverley station, and just as well. The road to Rowville is a 40-minute train ride and a connecting 30-minute bus trip through Metlink's multicoloured zones one, two and three with a $12.30 daily ticket. It's not every day you venture through yellow, a tinge of blue, and the red ether, but when you see road signs saying Scoresby this way and Emerald that way, you know the CBD is far behind.

Here I am, waiting for the 9.52am train to Glen Waverley. The television monitor tells me the train will arrive in two minutes (will it? won't it?). "NOW" flashes up, signalling I have won the rail equivalent of a game-show prize because my train has arrived on time.

The Connex silver rattler arrives, and there is no Sheena Easton to perk me up, but the consolation is a pudgy youth at Richmond station who throws a pretzel at the window. I'd rather have salt and wheat fragmenting than stone any day. The Burke and Wills intersection past Gardiner station reinforces that I am an adventurer trudging through red earth, even if it is only the red of zone three.

I arrive at Glen Waverley at 10.32am and study the 754 bus timetable. The ace Ventura bus driver emerges with a timetable leaflet, unknowingly becoming the face of the company's slogan: "Providing dependable, friendly bus services whilst actively improving air quality."

I am out of luck for the Rowville Express because peak hour has passed, but cheer myself that it's the journey, not the destination. We depart in the low-floor bus at 10.44am, just me and my driver. I am chauffeured with perky Fox FM music, recalling the days when "3XY Rocked Rowville", through the multicultural combo of Asian restaurants and David Jones at The Glen.

Then we pass through the maroon and brown brick-veneer magnificence of Wheelers Hill, a suburb that challenges Reservoir for balustrade supremacy and one that could double as the set of Neighbours.

I leave the City of Monash and am welcomed to the City of Knox. I am in Rowville: population 30,297, part of the safe federal Liberal seat of Aston, anti-Scoresby freeway tolls, and land that was a cattle run in the 1870s before housing sprawled in the 1980s. That's a long wait for a train. Rowville is a melting pot of La Porchetta cheese and Peking Land dumplings, like Carlton but with display homes. The bus reaches its final stop, the Stud Park Shopping Centre, at 11.11am.

While waiting for the 11.44am return, real estate ads tempt me with an "Affordable slice of heaven" and "Scoresby's hidden treasure" but I resist, venturing into the Grand Variety Centre to see what Rob "Millsy" Mills is worth on a poster in zone three: $10. I resist, again.

Sunday jaunts to Rowville are best rescheduled to Saturday or weekdays because there is no bus, so you'll have to make your own way to Wendy's for that Mega Choc Shake.

ON THE ROAD TO ROWVILLE

· NEAREST STATION Glen Waverley, bus route 754

· MINIMUM TOTAL JOURNEY TIME TO CBD 66 minutes

· TYPICAL TOTAL JOURNEY TIME 83 minutes

· PEAK-HOUR ROAD 60 minutes (via Monash Freeway)

· PROPOSED DIRECT RAIL LINE 30 minutes <-- :eek:

There was a tram line proposed in the 30's (maybe later) for Wellington road, it would go from oakleigh, down to brighton, then up though St kilda into the city, but it was never made, it was ment to go on the median all the way up north road.

Trains are better and faster then trams.

I still think the City of Knox should be pushing for the extension of the Alamein Line via East Malvern, Chadstone, Oakleigh and Huntingdale to Monash and Rowville.

Trains are better and faster then trains.


So, should I take a train or a... train?

:P

"There must be a Rowville station," says the customer service attendant at Spencer Street Station, fumbling with maps and a Melway, when asked how to get to the outer-eastern suburb. "Rowville station? Rowville station?" he muses. Then he mumbles "Wantirna" and his assistant points to Altona. Not quite, but we're getting close.
How do these people get hired? I mean seriously, you'd expect a customer service assistant at a major station to know where the railways actually went, as a bare minimum.

Safety fear at train stations (http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,10961430%255E2862,00.html)
Herald Sun (www.heraldsun.com.au)
Ashley Gardiner, transport reporter
4 Oct 2004

MELBOURNE'S underground City Loop train stations do not meet fire safety standards, the State Government has been told.

As passenger numbers grow, better exits may be needed for swift tunnel emergency evacuations.
The warning was issued in the draft $1 billion-plus Melbourne Metropolitan Train Plan, seen by the Herald Sun.

Rail, Tram and Bus Union secretary Trevor Dobbyn said any safety shortcomings would need to be urgently rectified to protect passengers and workers.

Both Connex and the State Government said the report was out of date and declared the City Loop to be safe.

The plan also outlines about 100 projects to drive people out of their cars and onto public transport, including:

TRAINS every 15 minutes from 6am to 10pm.

NEW lines and stations in the outer suburbs.

EXTRA tracks on existing lines to handle express services.

FEWER trains through the City Loop.

CHEAPER fares during off-peak times.

ELECTRIC trains to Baxter, Melton and Sunbury.

MODERN open-plan stations so passengers feel safer.

REPLACEMENT of level crossings with overpasses.

The booming northern, southeastern and western suburbs would provide the bulk of new passengers.

Dandenong, instead of Frankston, trains would run express from Caulfield to South Yarra to allow for the Latrobe Valley fast rail.

The report also claims platforms at Richmond station are too small to handle more passengers and expansion will be necessary.

It says more eastern trains would terminate at Flinders St. Similarly, more northern and western trains would finish at Spencer St.

New train lines would run to Epping North and Mernda, north of Epping. All Alamein line trains would terminate at Camberwell. The report also canvasses other ideas to increase passenger capacity, including less seats for more standing room and double-deck trains. It warns that, if nothing is done, overcrowding will increase and passenger satisfaction will plunge.

Of the 96 key strategies, only half are costed, totalling just over $1 billion so far. Department of Infrastructure spokeswoman Kate De Clercq said the plan was no longer current.

She said the City Loop stations met all fire and life safety standards.

"The systems are subject to regular compliance inspections by fire authorities and audit by the public transport safety regulator," Ms De Clercq said.

Connex maintained the stations met established standards, spokesman Andrew Cassidy said.

"The safety of our customers and staff is always our highest priority, and this is reflected in the high safety standards we've adopted," Mr Cassidy said.

Extra gates had been installed at Flagstaff and Parliament to get passengers out more quickly, he said.

Metropolitan Fire Brigade deputy chief fire officer Keith Adamson said he was not aware of any concerns about the Loop.

"There might be a problem because of increased (passenger) numbers," Mr Adamson said. "If there is an issue, the Government will talk to us."

Why would they electrify the line to Baxter and not all the way to Hastings? Sunbury has a population of 30,000 and the populaton of Somerville/Hastings in 37,000. Unless they are looking at reintroducing train services to Mornington.

Safety fear at train stations (http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,10961430%255E2862,00.html)
Herald Sun (www.heraldsun.com.au)
Ashley Gardiner, transport reporter
4 Oct 2004

MELBOURNE'S underground City Loop train stations do not meet fire safety standards, the State Government has been told.

As passenger numbers grow, better exits may be needed for swift tunnel emergency evacuations.
The warning was issued in the draft $1 billion-plus Melbourne Metropolitan Train Plan, seen by the Herald Sun.



I the new melbourne central station is the worst considering its brand new
and is $$$ over saftey

"NOT DEEMED TO SATISFY"

;)

The plan also outlines about 100 projects to drive people out of their cars and onto public transport, including:
FEWER trains through the City Loop.


ha? yeh thats a great solution to the problem...

trains every 15 minutes from 6am to 10pm will do it, i reckon - it will drive people to public transport, but it will also make connex/state govt go bust!

The plan also outlines about 100 projects to drive people out of their cars and onto public transport, including:
FEWER trains through the City Loop.


ha? yeh thats a great solution to the problem...

It's not neccessarily a bad thing, as some trains could be throughrouted without going through the Loop, which would provide a service that's sort of lacking. The Loop was never designed to carry as many trains as it does anyway, and some of the tunnels are nearing capacity.

Dandenong, instead of Frankston, trains would run express from Caulfield to South Yarra to allow for the Latrobe Valley fast rail.


*seal clap* - Pakenham and Cranbourne line trains running every 15 minutes would make the headways 7.5 minutes between Dandenong and Caulfield on just two tracks (GREAT for anyone living between there) but - a Vline would still be plagued with problems like getting stuck behind an all stations service between Dandenong and Caulfield, Quadruplication is the only way Vlines will be able to keep their stopping patterns with increased frequencies on met services!

And dare I say it that the 15 minute frequency on all lines is not in that $1 billion costing!

Less City Loop services: hell yes, Sandringham and Williamstown should be merged into one long metro line with 10 minute frequencies and continue on that pattern 7 days a week.

Best of all though, at least the HUN has got a hold of these public transport plans that have been drawn up ans we've been waiting to see for 2 frikking years.

gah.

Yes i support the quad tracks for there.

*seal clap* - Pakenham and Cranbourne line trains running every 15 minutes would make the headways 7.5 minutes between Dandenong and Caulfield on just two tracks (GREAT for anyone living between there) but - a Vline would still be plagued with problems like getting stuck behind an all stations service between Dandenong and Caulfield, Quadruplication is the only way Vlines will be able to keep their stopping patterns with increased frequencies on met services!

And dare I say it that the 15 minute frequency on all lines is not in that $1 billion costing!

Less City Loop services: hell yes, Sandringham and Williamstown should be merged into one long metro line with 10 minute frequencies and continue on that pattern 7 days a week.

Best of all though, at least the HUN has got a hold of these public transport plans that have been drawn up ans we've been waiting to see for 2 frikking years.

gah.
Tayser before the city loop the Sandringham and Dandenong trains both ran to Williamstown and back.

i read that artical, fire stairs for loop stations, who needs them :P Although, we need some of the other stuff, overpasses for the roads. And also more trains.

I would prefer to see all trains go through the loop. We need to build 2 more tunnels under the existing loop for additional services.

Too wasteful - trains just need to be frequent enough on the Caulfield group so you can change seemlessly at Richmond. There's massive amounts of capacity left at FSS for direct services, it just needs to be utilised!

Flinders Street:

Platform 1 Central & 1 West - Epping / Hurstbridge (Doncaster) - loop & direct
Platform 2 & 3 - Belgrave / Lilydale / Glen Waverley - loop
Platform 4 & 5 - Broadmeadows / Werribee - loop
Platform 6 & 7 - Pakenham / Frankston - loop
Platform 8 & 9 - Cranbourne / Dandenong / Moordialloc / Ringwood / Upper Ferntree Gully - some Glen Waverley - direct
Platform 10 & 11 - Bayside Metro (Williamstown / Sandringham) - direct / loop viaduct

^^ would require some Flyovers at Richmond junction (2 x track into the Burnley group local)

Spencer Street:

Platforms 1 - 7 - Country / Interstate
Platforms 8 North & 8 South - Upfield & Sydenham - some country - direct
Platform 9 - Epping / Hurstbridge (Doncaster) - loop / FSS
Platform 10 - Belgrave / Lilydale / Glen Waverley - loop / FSS
Platform 11 - Broadmeadows / Werribee - direct / FSS
Platform 12 - Pakenham / Frankston - loop / FSS
Platform 13 & 14 - Bayside Metro (Sandringham / Williamstown) - direct / loop viaduct

^^ I'm not 100% familiar with Spencer Street, but I think that configuration can be accomodated already? Bayside metro would probably need 2 x more tracks between North Melbourne & Newport.

Gday ,

We also need a 3rd track to be built from Box Hill to Ringwood to cater for better express services on the Lilydale and Belgrave lines ! Stopping all stations from Box Hill to Lilydale and /or Belgrave in Peak Hour is Ridiculous !

Cheers

Lozza :bowtie:

Three only caters for peak services which are sufficient as they are loz and do absolutely nothing for the rest of the time (again, wasteful) - Ringwood, Dandenong and Moordialloc need 4 tracks so there's express and stopper services throughout the day, not just peaks.

Yeah Tays, point taken , but keep in mind that the majority of travellers are travelling into the city between 6 and 9 am , and then , back home from the city between 4-7pm , so the Lilydale and Belgrave lines need at least 3 tracks to Ringwood , not just to Box Hill.

I agree with you , 4 tracks would be even better, but at least get 3 out to ringwood in the first instance. then, you can improve on that later on.

Cheers

Lozza :bowtie:

PS~ i don't think having express trains to just box hill and not out to ringwood is a sufficient service at the moment. Box hill is less than 1/2 way to belgrave and lilydale ! Having 3 tracks to Ringwood ( 2/3 of the way home ) is much better !

hey why isnt this thread in Transport section?

because it's a thread related to Public Transport projects in Victoria.

But then why do we have a thread in the Transportation section about the Douglas Arterial Road in Townsville? Should that be under 'QLD' or 'Transportation'?

well if they want it in there, they can have it in there. The fact of the matter is articles & threads were being started hear so I've merged them all and have moved the main thread in here - where it'll see far more traffic.

So if you don't mind, if it's not public transport related, don't post at all - likewise goes for the Eureka thread & Q1, some smoke stacks and god knows what else.

well if they want it in there, they can have it in there. The fact of the matter is articles & threads were being started hear so I've merged them all and have moved the main thread in here - where it'll see far more traffic.

So if you don't mind, if it's not public transport related, don't post at all - likewise goes for the Eureka thread & Q1, some smoke stacks and god knows what else.
i agree with this!

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/10/21/1098316787998.html

Smartcard could be just the ticket to ride

http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2004/10/21/22TRAM_ent-lead__200x255.jpg
Get on board, Melbourne - the future beckons. Tenders will close today for the right to install and operate a new public transport ticket system.

The 10-year contract, due to begin in 2007, is expected to dramatically change the way passengers pay for train, tram and bus travel.

At its centre will be a smartcard - a reusable, rechargeable debit card that can be used to pay for travel on the public transport network.

Unlike Metcards, smartcards do not rely on magnetic strip scanning. Instead a microchip is picked up by a reader, making the validation process faster and easing queues at station entry points.

Commuters will also be able to farewell morning fumbles through the handbag for that elusive ticket. Smartcards can be read through a wallet, purse or pocket.

The technology is installed in many public transport networks worldwide. In Australia, Perth will become the first city to adopt a smartcard system mid-next year. Sydney and Brisbane have already awarded contracts to install and run similar systems.

The Victorian tender process is highly confidential but The Age believes that a number of international companies with smartcard experience have already expressed interest in the project.

One almost certain to bid is Melbourne's current ticketing operator, OneLink, or its controlling company, Perth-based ERG.

OneLink won the right to introduce and run the Metcard system in 1997. The nine-year contract, worth an estimated $330 million is due to expire in March 2007.

But the introduction of Metcard was plagued with difficulties, resulting in fierce public criticism for OneLink and the Kennett government. The consortium's handling of the previous system may be a sticking point in any bid for the new contract.

Advocates of the system say it will make public transport much simpler.Last February, ERG won a keenly fought tender process to introduce smartcards on Sydney's public transport system after rival bidder Cubic Transportation unsuccessfully took court action against the NSW Government.

But ERG has also lost recent tenders, including an embarrassing failure in its home town of Perth. The Perth system will be introduced by a partnership between Australian company Downer EDI and British engineering firm Wayfarer, who are also potential bidders for the Melbourne system.

Stiff competition is also expected to come from US-based Cubic, which won the battle last year to provide a smartcard system in Brisbane. The company is behind the system used in Singapore and also runs ticketing systems across North America.

Advocates of the system say it will make public transport much simpler. Melbourne commuters will be able to buy disposable cards or rechargeable ones that will hold up to $250 in credit.

Users will "tag on" when they enter a tram, train or bus and "tag off" when they leave. A sophisticated computer program will then automatically calculate the cheapest fare for the journey. The cards will also be used for V/Line services.

The system will be able to work retrospectively. For example, if someone makes several trips in a day, the single trip charges would then be replaced by a daily ticket fee.

But some critics say the new system does nothing to tackle the problem of fare evasion that has dogged the city's transport network since the introduction of Metcard. They believe the requirement that users validate the card twice on each journey will encourage fare evasion.

Public Transport Users Association Secretary Tony Morton said overseas experience showed smart cards worked well for train-only systems where entry and exit points could be controlled.

"But in systems like ours where we've got the trams that people can just walk on to whenever they like . . . the only way to keep fare evasion at reasonable levels is to ensure that the average user of the system is going to have contact with staff who will look at their ticket," he said.

Opposition transport spokesman Terry Mulder agreed. "You can't tackle the problem of fare evasion unless something is done with the infrastructure at tram stops and train stations to ensure that you can't move beyond a point until you have registered payment," he said.

It's very hard to police ticketing on trams. In practically any city in Europe it is possible to travel on trams for free. The only way is with inspectors, but they are also uncommon. What Melbourne really needs to do is enclose the train stations more. In Paris, the gates are nearly impossible to enter without a ticket as they are so high, so even at unmanned stations you can't jump them, which is what happens pretty much everywhere in Melbourne.

They should also increase the difference between single trip, daily and weekly tickets to monthly or more ones so that in the end most people will just buy a monthly because of savings. This would also not put infrequent users off, as they tend to travel in circumstances where it's necessary or the alternatives are too unattractive - tourists, football etc. Discounts should also be given for upfront payments, or keeping high values on the cards, as having money in the system benefits it.

how about just employing more people to man the stations and check tickets on trams?

I thought trams where free:D well it felt that way didn't see one person buy a ticket in 3 days, though they might have had all day ticket? I think your supposed to validate your ticket everytime though... I got an all day ticket got heaps trams never validated it, no one said anything, though with the entry point up the backs its not easy to police unlike perth buses where you only get on at the front and validate your ticket or present a ticket to the driver, i remember someone on their mobile on my trip before last telling their mates they are having a crackdown so it sounds rare, perth trains are fine though, we are getting ticket gates soon, but there are regular ticket checks, if you take a train daily weekdays you can expect to be checked atleast 3-4 times, by the end of the year we are supposed to have transit guards on every single train so we can expect ticket checks every time, the City loops seemed okay for fare evation though it wouldn't be hard to jump those barriers

Prahran Train Station is now manned every morning and the only thing they do is say goodmorning to you. Why bother paying peopel to do just that? What a waste of money. If they sold tickets or gave out train time tabels or checked tickets from the peopel arrive then that woudl be good, but otherwise, they do nothing except say "Goodmorning"!

they got them at balaclava as well they do seem to check tickets...
they also have them at the mcg city bound in the morning which is quite strange...

Prahran Train Station is now manned every morning and the only thing they do is say goodmorning to you. Why bother paying peopel to do just that? What a waste of money. If they sold tickets or gave out train time tabels or checked tickets from the peopel arrive then that woudl be good, but otherwise, they do nothing except say "Goodmorning"!I'm sure they do other things behind the scenes....and I'm sure they would give you a timetable if you asked. I think it's really noice Kimmy that they great you - just smile back @ them and reply with a goodmorning. Easy!!

Also @ Gllenhuntly in the morning and somtimes the afternoon, i have seen them working, 4 people busted so far that i have seen, yep fines to them.

what if they have no ID, or just do a runner, or refuse details how do customer services people enforce the people who have no tickets, if someone buys a ticket them i dought they will sit there giving their real details to get a fine? major perth station have CSA's though they just help the public, help wheel chairs, disabled people, announce train services etc etc... any one who needs help just have to make a booking and a CSA will meet them at any station and help them get of the train and interchange to bus services etc.. they have no role at all in fare evasion

how about just employing more people to man the stations and check tickets on trams?

No I think this is the wrong approach. London has most of it's inner city stations manned, but it is never possible to check tickets properly when you have a couple of hundred people trying to file through the gates. Also, at some stations they open the disabled gate at peak hours with one guy checking. They basically have alot of people standing around doing very little (and funnily enough the most expensive tickets in the world) The busses, unbelievably, still rely on the driver checking tickets other than smart cards - my cousin on holiday here got around for half a day accidently showing an entry ticket to Madame Toussauds!!

In Paris, you don't see many workers because the system has much more secure infrastructure. The ticket gates are quite high - you can't just jump them like you see kids doing in Melbourne, and the exit gates are full height and don't require a ticket, because entry to the system is so well protected.

My solution to the problem would be as follows:

-Spend 10-15 years enclosing all the stations properly, particularly in the inner city, making it necessary to put a ticket/smart card through the machines for entry.

-Have automatic counters/motion sensors checking if non-fair payers are entering by jumping, crossing the tracks etc, so that security could follow fair evaders directly using cctv from a centralised point.

-Have a centralised good quality customer service centre so that if someone needed help or information at any station they could simply press a button - eg. if the machine didn't work, they required travel advice or if they had alot of luggage then the gate could be opened. This would be much more efficient than putting someone at every station all day.

-Have teams of security/service people and cleaners stationed at every, say, 5th station, manning a section of each line. This is more efficient. And means that if someone set off an alarm at the central control by jumping the barriers, they could be followed on cctv and picked up a few stations down the line. Also, you could advertise a texting system, if the carriage you're travelling on is overly dirty (someone vomited for instance) or has anti-social passengers. Thus just send a text and the problem would be responded to within the next couple of stations. A more direct approach.

The main point is that manning all stations is expensive and unnecessary, as the vast majority of travellers don't require travel and ticket information, whereas security and cleaning staff can't be expected to provide other forms of customer service.

The above ideas means that the problems such as security, fair evasion and cleanliness would be more directly (thus efficiently) treated, and the customer service would be delivered also through more efficient means by centralised it.

There is almost no point having someone to provide ticket information and check tickets at an outer suburban station station late at night where it's rarely needed, especially if they're not going to stop someone attacking you for instance.

Also, fair evasion through going into more zones than paid for will be elimated with the smart cards, because if you don't bleep yourself out of the system you have to pay the full distance - as long as the people entering the system are well monitored.

whilst I don't disagree - going by what's been said in that the existing infrastructure that was employed as part of Metcard is going to (probably?) be used again, if we were to move to a more system-reliant fare system, you'd still need someone to be there to fix any gate / system problems or they'd just be doing what happens now: leave one gate open for anyone and everyone to just walk through.

And it's not people who are jumping the gates that we have now that is the problem - it's the lack of ANY gate whatsoever (i.e. just a validator) in the vast majority of stations throughout the network that is the problem.

they say 85% of patronage will be covered with perth's new fare gates, though they will be only at about 20 stations, at the moment we have none, but with our transit guards (railway police) they can throw people of trains, do names checks & make arrests so they can deal with people who don't buy tickets, and though sometimes annoying do ticket checks on a big percentage of services, ive notice pretty much everyone now has a ticket compared to in the past when there were hardly any checks, sydney has copied perth and formed a simlilar force maybe melbourne should follow, its a PTA (public transport authoirty) force, but under the police act they have police powers and they liase with the state police transit unit (PTU) to stamp out all anti social behaviour, they ride on every train out of central after 7pm in pairs and by years end they say a trainsit guard will ride EVERY train, and because currently perths trians are small 2-4 cars (soon 2-6 cars) they are easy to patrol
http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid140/p7a2610bae0c223e75a658ca4aaf0efae/f6ec1447.jpg

No I think this is the wrong approach. London has most of it's inner city stations manned, but it is never possible to check tickets properly when you have a couple of hundred people trying to file through the gates. Also, at some stations they open the disabled gate at peak hours with one guy checking. They basically have alot of people standing around doing very little (and funnily enough the most expensive tickets in the world) The busses, unbelievably, still rely on the driver checking tickets other than smart cards - my cousin on holiday here got around for half a day accidently showing an entry ticket to Madame Toussauds!!

In Paris, you don't see many workers because the system has much more secure infrastructure. The ticket gates are quite high - you can't just jump them like you see kids doing in Melbourne, and the exit gates are full height and don't require a ticket, because entry to the system is so well protected.

My solution to the problem would be as follows:

-Spend 10-15 years enclosing all the stations properly, particularly in the inner city, making it necessary to put a ticket/smart card through the machines for entry.

-Have automatic counters/motion sensors checking if non-fair payers are entering by jumping, crossing the tracks etc, so that security could follow fair evaders directly using cctv from a centralised point.

-Have a centralised good quality customer service centre so that if someone needed help or information at any station they could simply press a button - eg. if the machine didn't work, they required travel advice or if they had alot of luggage then the gate could be opened. This would be much more efficient than putting someone at every station all day.

-Have teams of security/service people and cleaners stationed at every, say, 5th station, manning a section of each line. This is more efficient. And means that if someone set off an alarm at the central control by jumping the barriers, they could be followed on cctv and picked up a few stations down the line. Also, you could advertise a texting system, if the carriage you're travelling on is overly dirty (someone vomited for instance) or has anti-social passengers. Thus just send a text and the problem would be responded to within the next couple of stations. A more direct approach.

The main point is that manning all stations is expensive and unnecessary, as the vast majority of travellers don't require travel and ticket information, whereas security and cleaning staff can't be expected to provide other forms of customer service.

The above ideas means that the problems such as security, fair evasion and cleanliness would be more directly (thus efficiently) treated, and the customer service would be delivered also through more efficient means by centralised it.

There is almost no point having someone to provide ticket information and check tickets at an outer suburban station station late at night where it's rarely needed, especially if they're not going to stop someone attacking you for instance.

Also, fair evasion through going into more zones than paid for will be elimated with the smart cards, because if you don't bleep yourself out of the system you have to pay the full distance - as long as the people entering the system are well monitored.

yeah employing staff at dead stations would be a waste, perth the tickets are checked early on after central then people getting of at all stops have been checked, if more people get on then they are checked...
the cameras wouldn't be easy to monitor though... perth has 1200 across the metro rail system with the new 6 car sets having about 20 cameras onboard, from next year they will be monitered 24 hours unlike now just being used for footage of offences, manning CCTV in the city of perth has prooved successful where it provides evidence etc.. for many arrests and offences...
perth has help buttons at all stations to what are directly linked to base so you can get help and info at unmaned station and they can radio a mobile patrol for assistance, perth has alot of the measures you mention and alot are coming in with the $1.6billion upgrade to perths metro rail system, but perth's system is alot smaller so it would be a heap easyer to upgrade systems than melbourne's what would be a much bigger task, probably also relates to the govt budget and how commited they are...can't comment much else relating to melbourne's sytem as last time I only used to loop what wasn't to bad.. i remember seeing tram guys in the mall thinking what the hell is their role lol they were just standing there..
http://home.iprimus.com.au/alanfuller/images/nightcrossing.jpg

perths smartcards...
http://www.pta.wa.gov.au/scripts/viewoverview_contact.asp?NID=1264

Work has started on the tramline extension along Burwood Highway in b/w Springvale Rd and Vermont South shopping centre. There has been a crane there all week placing jersey barriers along the right hand sides of the road to isolate the centre for tram track installation and associated works. If you are driving here, remember the speed limit for here and all major works zones is 40kmh, plenty of opportunity for an ambitious copper to make a name for him/herself in this area alone.

whilst I don't disagree - going by what's been said in that the existing infrastructure that was employed as part of Metcard is going to (probably?) be used again, if we were to move to a more system-reliant fare system, you'd still need someone to be there to fix any gate / system problems or they'd just be doing what happens now: leave one gate open for anyone and everyone to just walk through.
Yeah I agree. Putting validators only was stupid. Although, I guess that's not too much to replace. I did see the last time I was in Melbourne a public display at Flinders street on the new system (for 2007) and they had some other gate types as part of it. They did have higher ones with much more substantial barriers. Although I know what you mean. Even in London the gates get left open half the time.

Breakdown problems should reduce with smartcards, as (if it's done properly) top ups will be able to be done over the phone, meaning ticket machines will only be for infrequent users or tourists. So less excuses. And better security monitoring of stations (and my idea for security manning sections of line) may help reduce vandalism based breakdowns. In any case, a system like london's where the disabled access gate is openable when the others done work would aleviate that. If the gate or ticket didn't work a central control person could activate the disabled gate. I'm sure something could be worked out anyway. The rest of the world doesn't rely so heavily on manned stations.

And it's not people who are jumping the gates that we have now that is the problem - it's the lack of ANY gate whatsoever (i.e. just a validator) in the vast majority of stations throughout the network that is the problem.

I have seen plenty of kids jump the barriers even in city stations late at night. They're not that high.