Projects & Discussions | Transport and Infrastructure

[Cylix]

Originally Posted by L2

Running empty to Daglish is ridiculous. If they have to go there, then they should take passengers anyway. It's not as if there's no major stations to service (eg Subiaco).

What's the extra cost of running them with passengers? Little bit of brake wear?

I suppose if the train is officially "out of service" it can crawl right behind another train to Daglish without annoying on-board passengers or potentially getting delayed by alighting passengers, giving the train more recovery time to keep to the timetable. If the government really wanted to terminate trains in Perth though they could potentially add a small dock platform at the eastern end of the Perth platforms like at Cockburn for the TCL, the four platforms available for trains mean this can be done without conflicting movements. It would be slightly inconvenient but functional as with a dock platform only every second train would need to continue to Daglish, giving each MEL train ~20 minutes of turnaround time and reducing dead-running on the Freo line.

Since we're fully committed to a MEL via Bayswater route now, if I were a public servant I'd be strongly advocating the Government quadruple as much of the Midland line to Bayswater as is practicable before the MEL opens. The city end may be complex but the East Perth - Bayswater section is relatively simple and wouldn't involve significant engineering works so it should be fairly cheap to implement. The longer the four track section is the more independent the lines are and thus the more robust the network is overall, slightly delayed MID/FAL trains are less likely to cause MEL trains to wait for the line to clear and slightly delayed MEL trains would have the opportunity to "catch-up" to the timetable before merging onto the two track section. Also having 18 tph serve the East Perth - Bayswater stations is excessive given current demand levels and not the most efficient use of resources.

The PTA might also have to make drivers be more strict with departures in peak hour, or even employ dispatchers on the stations to Bayswater in order to maintain the timetable - i.e. no more scrambling to get on after the "doors closing" chime has sounded.

[L2]

Originally Posted by Cylix

I suppose if the train is officially "out of service" it can crawl right behind another train to Daglish without annoying on-board passengers or potentially getting delayed by alighting passengers

I'd say that running through to Daglish would actually increase reliability, simply because when a train is going out of service, something like a sleeping passenger who missed their stop or a lost tourist who have to be removed from the train by staff (both quite common occurrences!) can often delay a train in the platform by 2-3 minutes.

Better off having that delay at Daglish (or Claremont!) than at Perth, when you've got another train right behind with a full load of people wanting to alight there

[In D'Business]

Originally Posted by Cylix

If the government really wanted to terminate trains in Perth though they could potentially add a small dock platform at the eastern end of the Perth platforms like at Cockburn for the TCL, the four platforms available for trains mean this can be done without conflicting movements.

Platforms 6/7 and 8/9 seem to be built to handle 9-car sets. This means that you can cut off half of one end of either platform to make a 3-car-long dock platform, ideally with ability to extend further to 4-car. If the whole platform is extended out to 10 cars, you can fit two extra dock platforms; one on each opposing corner, each being 4-cars long with the main platform being 6-cars long. If not, there seems to be perhaps the tiniest amount of space available beyond platforms 7 and 8 to extend those platforms out. Removing the trees on the Roe St side of the station, re-aligning the shared path and extending the station facade (again!) would perhaps free up space to create a side platform. This may require negotiation with CPP (City of Perth Parking) and their displeasing placement of Citiplace car park, inhibiting further development of Perth Station.

Somewhat solving the city end quadruplication problem, from East Perth there could be a new tunnel running under the existing tracks with underground platforms built at Claisebrook and McIver, as well as underground platforms at Perth roughly aligned with the lifts to/from the underpass up to/down from platform 5. The tunnel could then run down to Kings Park, QEII and Nedlands before resurfacing in the Fremantle Line near Claremont.

[enarc]

Newest had a meeting today and are finalizing their price. Has to be submitted by Christmas with the christmas shutdown will be finalized late jan/early feb

[docker]

Originally Posted by Cylix

Since we're fully committed to a MEL via Bayswater route now, if I were a public servant I'd be strongly advocating the Government quadruple as much of the Midland line to Bayswater as is practicable before the MEL opens. The city end may be complex but the East Perth - Bayswater section is relatively simple and wouldn't involve significant engineering works so it should be fairly cheap to implement. The longer the four track section is the more independent the lines are and thus the more robust the network is overall, slightly delayed MID/FAL trains are less likely to cause MEL trains to wait for the line to clear and slightly delayed MEL trains would have the opportunity to "catch-up" to the timetable before merging onto the two track section. Also having 18 tph serve the East Perth - Bayswater stations is excessive given current demand levels and not the most efficient use of resources.

I would do the opposite. Make sure the Perth to Bayswater section is not duplicated. And run the MEL to Daglish stopping all stations.

Allow there to be bad services, and put the infrastructure budget of duplication into the bank (probably about $1b, when you factor in the Perth to East Perth section).

Then wait for the general public to demand a better service. At this time direct the infrastructure budget that was saved from not doing the track duplication into a brand new corridor being a Morley tunnel (probably total cost around $4b).

If you sink $1b of infrastructure into a track duplication program, no one will ever decide to build a tunnel.

[docker]

Not doing track duplication would also force a Morley Tunnel to be built when the line demand grows from 3 to 4 or 5 with a northern loop along Reid Hey and also with East Wanneroo.

[In D'Business]

And it's the same with freeway widening and upgrades. I've said it on the ATDB and I'll quote it in here:

Originally Posted by Me, on ATDB

It's human nature really.
"I'll go down the freeway today" for thousands of people = freeway congested.
Freeway congested: "I'll take the bus/train instead" or "I'll go on X Road instead" = less freeway traffic.
Freeway congested also means widening.
Widening finshed: "Oh I'll take the freeway again." = freeway congested and the cycle repeats.
The key to long-term traffic relief is having people recognise the cycle and then persist to take alternative transport. That means making public transport attractive to more people, which means improvement of services in either frequency or rerouting to increase catchment area. PT is the only viable solution to relieve congestion, and once there is less congestion, people will leave PT to head back to their cars. This keeps an on-and-off flow of people through PT. This then means that really, freeways should just be left as they are as investing in roads without imposing a toll is just millions of dollars gone again and again. However, a long-term investment into PT can result in a bit of money back and also, if it is designed to match demands 10-15 years later, you don't always have to invest again and again.

[HighgateJohnny]

Is there any update on this proposal?

Originally Posted by HighgateJohnny

A lot easier to make these adjustments with buses than light rail. Although it would have been just as nice to close that section of Riverside Drive altogether.

At Tuesday’s council meeting, COP commissioners approved the Public Transport Authority (PTA)’s concept plans to construct bus lanes between Elizabeth Quay Bus Station and the Point Lewis Rotary to reduce delays on Mounts Bay Road.

As a result, the 950 will be diverted along Riverside Drive.

The PTA has committed to keep the 23, 102 and 107 routes running down Mounts Bay Road to service the community and Mount Hospital.

A PTA spokeswoman said now that the City had approved the concept design, the PTA could proceed with a design consultant.

“Detailed design for the project is expected to be completed by late 2019, at which point we will know the construction timeline,” she said.



Source: https://www.communitynews.com.au/gua...s-busiest-bus/

[Cylix]

Lately I've been noticing a lot more B Series trains on the Armadale and Thornlie Lines while I haven't seen any on the Midland or Fremantle lines recently. I was going to ask if anyone could confirm that but then I remembered the incredibly clunky Railcar Allocation tool still exists. And cccording to the allocation tool it seems that now roughly every second train on the Armadale and Thornlie lines are B Series sets, while the Freo and Midland lines have reverted back to mostly 4-car trains throughout the day after having regular 3-car trains for a while to enable the removal of the skip stop patterns.

Having B series operate on the Armadale/Thornlie lines instead of the Freo/Midland lines is more intuitive as there used to be lots of 2-car services on those lines. But I can't seem to find any information as to why there's been a massive increase in B series sets operating from Claisebrook though, the announcement for the July timetable changes made it seem like only a couple were needed for the new services. Maybe the PTA are putting the A series into a more intensive maintenance schedules or something similar, there does seem to be more A series than usual left at Claisebrook in peak hour.

[NicoPerth92]

Originally Posted by Cylix

Lately I've been noticing a lot more B Series trains on the Armadale and Thornlie Lines while I haven't seen any on the Midland or Fremantle lines recently. I was going to ask if anyone could confirm that but then I remembered the incredibly clunky Railcar Allocation tool still exists. And cccording to the allocation tool it seems that now roughly every second train on the Armadale and Thornlie lines are B Series sets, while the Freo and Midland lines have reverted back to mostly 4-car trains throughout the day after having regular 3-car trains for a while to enable the removal of the skip stop patterns.



Having B series operate on the Armadale/Thornlie lines instead of the Freo/Midland lines is more intuitive as there used to be lots of 2-car services on those lines. But I can't seem to find any information as to why there's been a massive increase in B series sets operating from Claisebrook though, the announcement for the July timetable changes made it seem like only a couple were needed for the new services. Maybe the PTA are putting the A series into a more intensive maintenance schedules or something similar, there does seem to be more A series than usual left at Claisebrook in peak hour.

2 3car sets are allocated to Fremantle Midland currently but are currently not in use
3 3cars are allocated Armadale on weekdays and 6 are allocated on weekends mainly Saturdays
5 3car are allocated to Thornlie on weekdays and 6 are allocated on weekends mainly Saturday

A number of A series cars are off traffic due to a defective bonding adhesive used to bond the windows to the bulkhead it’ll take months to fix the defects they have to go through all 96 of them this is on top of A series cars that are off traffic for scheduled maintenance, bogie swaps, wheel lathes and refurbishments hopefully the defects and problems are fixed before the commencement of the 2020 AFL season B series cars are filling in service gaps on Armadale & Thornlie with 2 extra 4cars on Freo-Midland when available. The A series cars require extra maintenance now as the number of defects increases affecting railcar availability particularly as they begin to age past 30. Another order of B series cars would cover for the shortfall of A series cars until the C series cars arrive in mid to late 2022

[hack404]

Are there any additional B series consists beyond what's been delivered?

[In D'Business]

Not that I know of; 126 is the last B-Set, 127 is meant to be the first C-Set. Don't think Labor are looking at additional short-term B-Series deliveries.

[tayls84]

Is a “short term” B Series set even feasible at a reasonable price?

I would have thought not.

[hack404]

Originally Posted by tayls84

Is a “short term” B Series set even feasible at a reasonable price?

I would have thought not.

I doubt the demand is worth the price.

[eastperthcat]

Northlink Dec Update:

Looks like the Northlink to Muchea will NOT open on time at the end of the year as they had hoped.Took a drive up there this morning and An awful lot of asphalting still remains to be done especially at the northern end with the linkage to Great Northern Highway and the Brand Highway. Bridges look mostly complete.
Certainly the entrance to the Muchea Industrial Park opposite the new road train assembly area is almost finished in stark contrast to the Northlink itself..Maybe theres a shortage of asphalt at the moment. This will slip into next year till end of Jan imo at this rate..

[docker]

With the route for the Ellenbrook line clearly selected by the State Government and there is no taste for a Morley Train Tunnel any time soon, it seems the facebook page has run its course for now. It'll be going quiet for a while, but I'll leave you all with this vision of an expanded rail network as a last hurray for now.

https://www.facebook.com/30140059401...nFZ4&__tn__=-R

[andy61]

More public transport vision in one facebook post than the last decade of WA Government.

[docker]

does anyone know how to share Gif's?

Anyway, here is the vision in a static presentation. Solid lines are existing railway tracks. Numbers are new tracks as part of that stage. Though I realise I missed new tracks between Stirling and Warwick Stations (for duplication) for the green loop when the section to Hilarys is built in stage 7. I also mis-labelled Forrestdale as Lansdale in the south.



I think even if Stage 5 was to be the last stage and 6 and 7 don't happen, that would still be a fantastic result.

[Perlon]

^ Looks good. Suggestions for stage 8:

1. Light rail from Hillarys or Trigg along the coast down to Freo - good for tourists.

2. SOR gap filler - a spoke in the vicinity of Stock Rd (for evenly spread coverage) down to Henderson (big employment centre) or even Rockingham.

3. NOR gap filler - a spoke in the vicinity of Wanneroo Rd/Princess Rd (for evenly spread coverage).

You could join the 2 spokes together in the city centre but not at central (spread the stations around the city centre).

4. Make sure that every sports/tourist hub is connected. The less tourists on the road the better for us locals.

5. Read up on the problems with the circle line in London.....try to avoid those.

[magmamo]

nice proposal docker

think a lot of the inner suburb lines though would be better served as light rail. heavy rail would be too invasive and costly.

also i reckon the extension of the freo line would follow the freight route and connect to the kwinana line to cockburn

if only the government had your foresight