The video posted earlier in this thread answers a lot of the questions people have asked.

* The new platforms at South Yarra and Spencer Street will be underground. The Spencer St platforms will link to Flagstaff, underground all the way. (0.30)

* The airport line will connect to the Cranbourne / Pakenham line (0.45)

* The main goal of the project is to relieve "constrained capacity in the inner core of the urban rail network". (1.30 - 2.35)

* Melbourne's rail network will be made up of six through routed lines, each operating on separate tracks. (2.40 - 3.20)
1. Sunbury / Airport to Cranbourne / Pakenham
2. Frankston to Lilydale / belgrave. Running through new tunnels via Domain and Montague to the loop at Spencer St (bypassing Flinders St)
3. Werribee / Williamstown to Sandringham
4. Craigieburn / Upfield loop line
5. South Morang / Hurstridge loop line
6. Glen Waverley direct line

* This increased capacity will allow for future extensions to places like Rowville, etc. as well as the capacity for more diesel trains between the city and Dandenong (3.25)

. . --oo0oo-- . .

Overall, while it's not perfect, this is a fairly good plan. The concept of largely autonomous lines, each using their own set of tracks is especially appealing as it means that disruptions will be confined to one grouping of lines rather than causing chaos throughout the wider network.

Now watch the short video. Regardless of which "political team" you barrack for, try and watch it with an open mind.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBoLlOv97oA

The video is deliberately misleading.

The schematic (0:40) shows Fisherman's Bend station slightly south of SCS but in reality it's a dog leg out there and back. The through-routing of lines so that it operates more like London tube is a good idea and I'm not arguing against that bit - but as myself (and many others here) have pointed out, the revised Metro route is nothing more than a 21st century Sir Thomas Bent property development stunt with no serious attempt to alleviate congestion on the tram network as the original Eddingtunnel proposal was aimed at.

Have to agree with Nightfire (and others); it's designed to fail and probably won't get off the drawing board anyway.

If they went for the cut and cover option for Swanston St tunnel, surely they would install temporary bridges across the works at each intersection to allow pedestrians and possibly vehicles/trams to cross over, like what they did for the Springvale works (on a much larger scale). Running the new line away from Flinders Street and the eastern side of the city will just create more problems with Pakenham/Cranbourne passengers needing to change at South Yarra to access Flinders Street and all passengers coming from Cranbourne, Frankston, Pakenham, Sandringham, Alamein and Glen Waverley changing at Richmond to access the existing underground stations.
Also disappointing to see that duplication and electrification to Melton still has not been announced.

As was reported by someone else on RP there is very little if anything for the west.  But then again the west has received the RRL project which should make a difference.

The new tunnel will serve Dandenong* Frankston line passengers and in addition to the new stations (at Domain and Montague) it will stop at four of the five city loop stations (bypassing Flinders St). By contrast the original tunnel proposal would have only stopped at two of the city stations (Melb Central and Flinders St.).

Now to me, a train stopping at 80% of the stations in the CBD is likely to be much more valuable than one stopping at only 40%. So whatever the other relative merits of the old plan and the new plan may be, the new plan will be much more useful to the majority of people travelling to the city.

* Edited to correct error pointed out by Railblogger

The new tunnel will serve Dandenong line passengers

Incorrect. It will serve Frankston line passengers.

Media are reporting tonight that the station will be on the cnr of Normanby Rd and Montague Street... which will be useless!

Media are reporting tonight that the station will be on the cnr of Normanby Rd and Montague Street... which will be useless!

It would be better named DFO / Exhibition Centre.

In the middle of nowhere. Gee, what a pack of clowns.

It's a clever design, and I am surprised at the knockers on this forum.  While the Swanston Street route is better from a planning perspective, the engineering challenges are enormous compared with the much easier task of building an underground station in solid ground beneath Wurundjeri Way next to Southern Cross Station.  

Through-routing most of the Burnley group through the City Loop to Southern Cross then via the new tunnel to Montague, Domain, and South Yarra to Frankston facilitates a a key movement that is at present difficult on the rail network - afternoon peak travel from the City Loop to Southern Cross. With RRL services not stopping at North Melbourne, and Sunbury trains no longer going through the loop, there would otherwise be much greater pressure on trams to transport Vline commuters from the eastern part of the CBD to Southern Cross. The new operating pattern introduces all-day connections to the loop stations in both directions.

Removing most Burnley group and Frankston trains from Flinders Street would tend to balance loads better. For example Glen Waverley line passengers changing at Richmond for Loop trains would be approximately balanced by those from other Burnley group trains changing to Glen Waverley trains to Flinders Street.  Furthermore, Flinders Street is now not as strong a focus of the commuter market as it once was, and Southern Cross is becoming much more of a commuter station with the development of Docklands.  

The Airport service would run through Flinders Street Station, which is close to the accommodation and tourist centre of Melbourne, and has a lot of hotels nearby.  The previous plan had the Airport service terminating at Southern Cross.  A key market for an airport rail service is business travelers, who generally travel light and for whom service reliability is the first deciding factor, followed by speed.  

A station at Montague is an attempt at stimulating office development in the area. Google Earth shows that are as mainly light industrial, which would be more amenable to conversion to offices and high-rise apartments than adjacent residential areas.  The current PT on tram 109 only serves travel directly to the CBD. A new station would facilitate travel to other areas.  I would hope there is some way of capturing the increase in land value to fund the new station, which would typically cost about $200m.  It's a more promising location for such development than Arden on the previous route.

In the middle of nowhere. Gee, what a pack of clowns.

Can anyone here provide any reasoning behind the placement of this railway station? On 774 tonight Mulder stated he had received substantial interest in the placement of the railway station.

Surely this is not the only reason?

A station at Montague is an attempt at stimulating office development in the area. Google Earth shows that are as mainly light industrial, which would be more amenable to conversion to offices and high-rise apartments than adjacent residential areas.

Wouldn't it make more sense to link the existing trip generators together - like Melbourne University, RMIT/Melbourne Central, Flinders street, Domain?

Part of the rationale of Eddingtunnel was to absorb some of the peak loads off the tram network, particularly along that spine of St Kilda road and Swanston street at peak times when (as any regular can tell you) it becomes particularly dysfunctional and overcrowded... Montague Street will do absolutely nothing to address that.

Incidentally, the engineering challenges of the Eddingtunnel should have nothing to do with the choice of route, it should be about the capacity to improve amenity of the system.

Can anyone here provide any reasoning behind the placement of this railway station? On 774 tonight Mulder stated he had received substantial interest in the placement of the railway station.

Surely this is not the only reason?

The city side of the West Gate freeway - a block or so away - is pretty much all high rise apartment blocks. Presumably it'd take a stroke of a pen (and the promise of being "close to public transport") to greenlight similar developments on the other side of the freeway right on top of the proposed station. Let the real estate speculation begin!

The South Melbourne tram depot is right on top of the proposed station site too, so whether that means improved tram links to the city or they'll sell off the depot for development and make a fortune remains to be seen.

They took the alternative route because of how much it was going to cost to go the other way.. and to be honest, it's not going to be worth digging up Swanston street even in the long term. Every commuter would suffer for 5+ years if Swanston Street was to be dug up.
I think the way there going about it is pretty good to be honest.

The Cut and Cover Method is a cheap smeg way of tunnelling. A method that was used to build the sub surface lines in London during Victorian and Edwardian times. The Vic Govt is using that method because it is much cheaper and not some lame excuse about having to build tunnels to deep. If they used the Tunnel Boring Machines, then the disruption to Swanston Street would be minimal.

The whole point of the Melbourne Metro Rail Tunnel was to Serve the Parkville District which is the Home of the Children's, Women's and Melbourne Hospitals, the Proposed Cancer Centre and Melbourne University. To relieve the Tram Network on the St Kilda Road Swanston Street spine. And to provide extra capacity to and from the CBD. By going via Fishermen's Bend it would not solve the capacity problems.


Michael

Now to me, a train stopping at 80% of the stations in the CBD is likely to be much more valuable than one stopping at only 40%. So whatever the other relative merits of the old plan and the new plan may be, the new plan will be much more useful to the majority of people travelling to the city.

Totally dodgy logic.

It's a clever design, and I am surprised at the knockers on this forum.

It's not clever.  It's retarded.

Can anyone here provide any reasoning behind the placement of this railway station?

Land spruiking their 'Fishermans Bend' (Port Melbourne to the rest of us) mess.

It's a clever design, and I am surprised at the knockers on this forum. While the Swanston Street route is better from a planning perspective, the engineering challenges are enormous compared with the much easier task of building an underground station in solid ground beneath Wurundjeri Way next to Southern Cross Station.

That's false.

The ground Is very soft around Wurundjeri Way, the West Gate freeway Interchange expansion needed extra deep piling because of the soft ground.

Bottom line Is the ground Is very challenging through the Southbank area.

Can anyone point out how Napthine's rail tunnel will carry 75% more passengers than the Metro tunnel proposal ?

I can only see It carrying less due to no having stations located at major activity presents (CBD & Parkville)

And again no South Yarra - Caulfield solution !

Cut and cover is way cheaper, which is why the Gov chose it to rip up Royal Park instead of going most of the way underground. The MURL was built using TBM's and more conventional digging techniques 40 years ago. Ground conditions are the same now as they were then.

If there was time for a real tender process I'm sure there would be some innovative and cost effective alternatives, but you know, the election waits for no one.....

Rick

Melbourne Central was built by cut and cover .  Rest was done with tunnel boring machines.

It's a clever design, and I am surprised at the knockers on this forum. While the Swanston Street route is better from a planning perspective, the engineering challenges are enormous compared with the much easier task of building an underground station in solid ground beneath Wurundjeri Way next to Southern Cross Station.

Through-routing most of the Burnley group through the City Loop to Southern Cross then via the new tunnel to Montague, Domain, and South Yarra to Frankston facilitates a a key movement that is at present difficult on the rail network - afternoon peak travel from the City Loop to Southern Cross. With RRL services not stopping at North Melbourne, and Sunbury trains no longer going through the loop, there would otherwise be much greater pressure on trams to transport Vline commuters from the eastern part of the CBD to Southern Cross. The new operating pattern introduces all-day connections to the loop stations in both directions.

Removing most Burnley group and Frankston trains from Flinders Street would tend to balance loads better. For example Glen Waverley line passengers changing at Richmond for Loop trains would be approximately balanced by those from other Burnley group trains changing to Glen Waverley trains to Flinders Street. Furthermore, Flinders Street is now not as strong a focus of the commuter market as it once was, and Southern Cross is becoming much more of a commuter station with the development of Docklands.

The Airport service would run through Flinders Street Station, which is close to the accommodation and tourist centre of Melbourne, and has a lot of hotels nearby. The previous plan had the Airport service terminating at Southern Cross. A key market for an airport rail service is business travelers, who generally travel light and for whom service reliability is the first deciding factor, followed by speed.

A station at Montague is an attempt at stimulating office development in the area. Google Earth shows that are as mainly light industrial, which would be more amenable to conversion to offices and high-rise apartments than adjacent residential areas. The current PT on tram 109 only serves travel directly to the CBD. A new station would facilitate travel to other areas. I would hope there is some way of capturing the increase in land value to fund the new station, which would typically cost about $200m. It's a more promising location for such development than Arden on the previous route.

Sigh !!!

When comes to Civil Engineering and especially Rail Projects we in Victoria are in the 4th Division! Seriously. 20 Years ago London Transport had commenced building the Jubilee Line Extension. The JLE crossed the River Thames 4 times, its tunnels go underneath existing Underground lines, whilst they were still operational, also they had to tunnel under sensitive building such as the Houses of Parliament, which have little or no foundations. At one stage the Weight of Waterloo Main line Station was inching downwards towards the tunnel, so had to be propped up by steel struts. And they had to tunnel through the notorious difficult terrain of South East London, but they overcame all these technical hurdles.

So to state that digging a tunnel along the Swanston Street spine is difficult from a engineering point of view in this day and age is quite lame. It was simply done for cost reasons. It is much cheaper to tunnel by Cut and Cover, hence the Disruption to Swanston Street and hence moving it to Fishermen's Bend.


Michael

Will all Western Suburbs inbound Metro trains now be routed through the new tunnel and not the city loop?

When finished  1.  Werribee/Laverton/Williamstown - Southern Cross  - Flinders St (Direct) -  Sandringham and vice versa.

2.  Craigieburn/ Upfield - Northern Loop - return Craigieburn/Upfield.

3.  Sunbury/Melton/Airport - Southern Cross - Southern Cross - Flinders St (Direct) - Dandenong - Pakenham / Cranbourne .  

4.  New tunnel is from Southern Cross to South Yarra with underground plats at Southern Cross, Montague  (NOT at Fishermans Bend as Government claims), and South Yarra.  New tunnel is two tracks  operating as  Lilydale / Belgrave - Ringwood - (Alamen) - via existing City Loop to Southern Cross then through new tunnel to South Yarra - then to Caulfield and Frankston and vice versa. So new tunnel section is two parallel  tracks  (Southern Cross to South Yarra). The existing Caulfield and Burnley tunnels in the existing loop have altered connections at Southern Cross and Richmond to effectively create a two tarck loop railway from Ringwood to Frankston .

5. Clifton Hill Group  -  Hurstbridge & South Morang  (Mernda) as now .

6.  Glen Waverley -  Flinders  St  direct .    So six (6)  track group independent railways in the end .

I'm thinking that Southern Cross will require underground platforms with the new line then splitting underground just north of the station. i.e. Towards North Melb, and into the loop.

Would the some of the old underground walkways at Southern Cross be used for pedestrian access?

The new line at  Southern Cross will be underground as two platforms  . Line comes from Frankston as two tracks underground at South Yarra, then via Domain and Montague to underground platforms  17/18 at Southern Cross then connects into existing City loop one track connected to the existing Burnley Loop and the other to the existing Caulfield Loop .  It does not head towards North Melbourne .

The video is deliberately misleading.

The schematic (0:40) shows Fisherman's Bend station slightly south of SCS but in reality it's a dog leg out there and back. The through-routing of lines so that it operates more like London tube is a good idea and I'm not arguing against that bit - but as myself (and many others here) have pointed out, the revised Metro route is nothing more than a 21st century Sir Thomas Bent property development stunt with no serious attempt to alleviate congestion on the tram network as the original Eddingtunnel proposal was aimed at.

Have to agree with Nightfire (and others); it's designed to fail and probably won't get off the drawing board anyway.

The route is NOT via Fishermans Bend as we know it . It is Southern Cross, Montague, Domain, South Yarra.
Government has been caned all day over this PR stuff up  when Montague is no where Fishermans Bend which is over 3kms away in no mans land .

Media are reporting tonight that the station will be on the cnr of Normanby Rd and Montague Street... which will be useless!

Why would it be useless .  Interchange with Port Melbourne light rail, not far from Southbank and Crown and lot of apartments in that area .

That's false.

The ground Is very soft around Wurundjeri Way, the West Gate freeway Interchange expansion needed extra deep piling because of the soft ground.

Bottom line Is the ground Is very challenging through the Southbank area.

Can anyone point out how Napthine's rail tunnel will carry 75% more passengers than the Metro tunnel proposal ?

I can only see It carrying less due to no having stations located at major activity presents (CBD & Parkville)

And again no South Yarra - Caulfield solution !

Governments claim is that Melbourne Rail Link will carry  35,000 pax per hour as against  30,000 per hour for the original Metro proposal .   5000 more pax is  16.6 %  more pax.  Me thinks they are counting in Airport pax now. So not really apples for apples comparison.

Domain will be a very major station for Interchange to trams along St Kilda Rd in both directions .  Also Domain offers a new option to travellers from the  Frankston and Ringwood lines.

There is a South Yarra - Caulfield solution .  One track pair for  Dandenong trains, and one track pair for Frankston trains both fitted with latest technology  moving block signalling which will allow for a dramatic increase in trains scheduled per hour .

Whilst as usual the Government has poorly explained or sold this new route ,  one finds it difficult to hear all the knockers here.

Sir Rod Eddington who developed the original route proposal when asked today about the change of route said what was more important was that something was going to be done to free up the inner core and provide similar additional capacity as his original proposal . He saw the route change as no big deal .  

With Swanston St  (just like the Bendigo line single tracking) the disruption thing was used as a smokescreen when the tunnel could have been built by cut and cover a block at a time. But the Government deliberately created the vision of Swanston St dug up from the University to Flinders St as a bombsite trench /great wall because it did not favour that route cost wise .

They have said so themselves  for the same money $  8 - 11bn they get extra rail capacity through the CBD of 30,000 per hour, plus the railway to the Airport .  

Melbournians need to get used to cities of similar Overseas size where travellers change several  times to complete their journey .
The new 6 group operation and interchanges at  Richmond,  Southern Cross, Domain , Flinders St, North Melbourne etc offer so many new travel options  for rail travellers .  Then there are the interchange options between train and tram especially at  Flinders St, Southern Cross and Domain .  

Also realize that when this is all up and running it will all be high frequency turn up and travel timetabling, so interchanging between lines will be much quicker .

The next challenge for the Government is additional Suburban trains to carry the additional capacity of 30,000 extra pax per peak hour, and just as importantly more and longer trams to accommodate existing chronic overcrowd situations plus extra tram journeys generated by the extra rail pax connecting and free CBD travel .

Governments claim is that Melbourne Rail Link will carry 35,000 pax per hour as against 30,000 per hour for the original Metro proposal . 5000 more pax is 16.6 % more pax. Me thinks they are counting in Airport pax now. So not really apples for apples comparison.

The claim the Spin Doctor Napthine was singing out this morning (like a stuffed record) on 3AW was 35 000 passengers per hour on his proposed solution and 19 - 20 000 passengers per hour for the Melbourne Metro proposal !

What happens to the 9 carriage train proposal ?

There is a South Yarra - Caulfield solution . One track pair for Dandenong trains, and one track pair for Frankston trains both fitted with latest technology moving block signalling which will allow for a dramatic increase in trains scheduled per hour .

Other than the signalling upgrade, that Is just what we have now, but 4 pairs of tracks coming In from the city to South Yarra and 3 pairs leaving, that's a bottle neck !

Why can't the pair of tracks (that are to be superseded by the tunnel) have It's signalling enhanced ? or will this pair of tracks for what will become the South East Regional Rail Link ? If so there needs to be amplification of the CMATHS corridor to match up with quading  the Caulfield - Dandenong line.

Remembering a train stopping at all stations at high frequency sets the average speed of the line, no wiz bang signalling system can change this fact, bottom line express trains along the CMATHS corridor will not be possible.