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.

My compliments to mm 42 on an excellent post that pulls all the pieces together nicely.

May I add, that as the growth of the network and its usage increases, not all trains would have been able to stop at Flinders Street anyway due to congestion. Plus the fact that Flinders Street is struggling to cope with the number of passengers who use it in peak hour already. The new rail plan alleviates this problem.

Duncs

One thing that Is fore sure Is a Melbourne Airport train needs to access Southern Cross (on Spencer Street) Station as this station has the most public transport connections that any other station In the State by a long shot.

Just curious, how many years did the murl affect the CBD? What kind of impact did it have?

I don't see closing Swanston street for two years as a don't build the Melbourne Metro. Short term pain for long term gain?

As far as I can see the Melbourne Rail Link could potentially supplement the Melbourne Metro anyway.

I would still prefer the metro to be built first.


I do like the idea of fishermans bend station. If you build it they will come.

The changed priority to Southern Cross as the primary interchange makes sense. I can only see Southern Cross increasing its share of CBD traffic. Docklands is going through massive development with all the new bank buildings.

With less services running through the city loop could we see the reintroduction of the city circle? Or would interchanges to trains on other line be better use of the space and still allow access to all stations?

Just keeps growing...

http://mobile.news.com.au/national/victoria/light-rail-loop-for-120000-people-expected-to-live-and-work-between-south-melbourne-and-fishermans-bend-is-the-next-big-plan/story-fnii5sms-1226909488139

Just keeps growing...

http://mobile.news.com.au/national/victoria/light-rail-loop-for-120000-people-expected-to-live-and-work-between-south-melbourne-and-fishermans-bend-is-the-next-big-plan/story-fnii5sms-1226909488139

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 .

The early versions of this (when they initially discussed a 'new' proposal for Melbourne Metro some months ago) had it swinging wildly out there but the graphic announced in the budget and discussions today show (as you say) what they actually mean by 'Fisherman's Bend' is 'South Melbourne'. Even Napthine appeared confused about this today when questioned...

I stand by what I (and others here) have said: It needs to help alleviate peak-hour congestion along the main tram spine of Melbourne, St Kilda Rd/Swanston St, or it's not worth building. Also, Parkville is where all the major hospitals and Melbourne Uni are - where are the comparable trip generators in South Melbourne?

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?

They really would need to look at the opening up of new tram routes down that area for it to work.

Its a dead pocket into the new greenfields area for PT.

I rather the orginal master plan for PT.. the train from Clifton hill to Fishermansbend.. then the metro tunnel, which could be changed to run frankston -> domain, cbd south, cbd north, Parkville -> then out..

Covers everything.

They really would need to look at the opening up of new tram routes down that area for it to work.

Its a dead pocket into the new greenfields area for PT.

I rather the orginal master plan for PT.. the train from Clifton hill to Fishermansbend.. then the metro tunnel, which could be changed to run frankston -> domain, cbd south, cbd north, Parkville -> then out..

Covers everything.

I rather my express trains back on the Hurstbridge Line between Clifton Hill and Jolimont.

Overall I think the new metro tunnel is good one- by allowing the Airport train having a connection at Southern Cross station.

Now they should make North Melbourne loop go one direction full time - that is Nth Melb - Flagstaff - Melbourne Central - Parliament - Flinders Street and then to Southern Cross

The Melbourne Rail Link will deliver:

• 7.5 km tunnels from Southern Cross to South Yarra;


• new underground stations at Fishermans Bend and Domain;


• new underground platforms at Southern Cross and South Yarra Stations;


• new and upgraded train-tram interchanges at Southern Cross, Montague, Domain and South Yarra Stations


• a rail link to Melbourne Airport (which is needed) .

The question is - how hard would to create a new tunnel from the new new station (Montague) to Fishermans Bend ?

I am going to say it: this is a BETTER plan than the Melbourne Metro. It will be cheaper, lower risk and actually solves even more capacity problems by taking Glen Waverly trains out of the City Loop, Ringwood and beyond trains off the Southern Cross-Flinders Street viaduct and running Airport trains via Southern Cross AND Flinders Street. It isn't a Metro, but it is a congestion buster. It is a better way to use existing infrastructure whilst also still allowing most passengers access to most City Loop stations.

It basically solves all of the capacity problems the Metro was intended to solve, other than perhaps the capacity of the Swanston Street trams: which could be solved by actually buying trams of an appropriate size and upgrading further the tram infrastructure.

The Albion -  Southern Cross - Flinders St - South Yarra - Dandenong track pair is to have higher capacity  moving block signalling.
This type of signalling does better accommodate a mix of stopping and express trains by separating trains by the safe stopping distance that moves  (thus moving block signalling) rather than by a fixed distance for all train types as now.

The Dandenong line Metro project already announced includes this high capacity signalling, 25 new trains, and grade separations .

Just curious, how many years did the murl affect the CBD? What kind of impact did it have?

I don't see closing Swanston street for two years as a don't build the Melbourne Metro. Short term pain for long term gain?

As far as I can see the Melbourne Rail Link could potentially supplement the Melbourne Metro anyway.

I would still prefer the Metro to be built first.


I do like the idea of Fishermans Bend station. If you build it they will come.

The changed priority to Southern Cross as the primary interchange makes sense. I can only see Southern Cross increasing its share of CBD traffic. Docklands is going through massive development with all the new bank buildings.

With less services running through the City Loop could we see the reintroduction of the City Circle? Or would interchanges to trains on other line be better use of the space and still allow access to all stations?

The new station is nowhere near Fishermans Bend it is actually at Montague, where  apartments are springing up like weeds.
(Government is in damage control over this PR stuff up.)

MURLA took around 8 years to construct, with the block in Latrobe Street between Elizabeth & Swanston Sts probably closed in total for 2 years as Melbourne Central was built by cut and cover .

The Clifton Hill  -  City Circle is one of four loops .  It carries the trains as a captive circle  Hurstbridge/South Morang lines through that Loop and returning to Hurstbridge / South Morang .  Any spare capacity in this loop is more likely to be swallowed up by trains on that group as services are extended to Mernda.

The early versions of this (when they initially discussed a 'new' proposal for Melbourne Metro some months ago) had it swinging wildly out there but the graphic announced in the budget and discussions today show (as you say) what they actually mean by 'Fisherman's Bend' is 'South Melbourne'. Even Napthine appeared confused about this today when questioned...

I stand by what I (and others here) have said: It needs to help alleviate peak-hour congestion along the main tram spine of Melbourne, St Kilda Rd/Swanston St, or it's not worth building. Also, Parkville is where all the major hospitals and Melbourne Uni are - where are the comparable trip generators in South Melbourne?

We are getting confused with the Metropolitan Rail Development Plan released in early 2013 which looked forward 30 years plus.
As such that plan had Metro Rail down Swanston Street, and at a later stage a new underground link from Clifton Hill to take the  (Blue  Hills) Docaster line across down Latrobe St as a fifth tunnel on Murl to Southern Cross then down into the true heart of Fishermans  Bend to the are near the old Willy ferry .  

Napthine and Mulder are badly advised and not on top of their brief, that is why they get blown out of the water with avoidable PR stuff ups like trying to sell a station at Montague is in Fishermans Bend which is over 3 kms away .

I rather my express trains back on the Hurstbridge Line between Clifton Hill and Jolimont.

Overall I think the new metro tunnel is good one- by allowing the Airport train having a connection at Southern Cross station.

Now they should make North Melbourne loop go one direction full time - that is Nth Melb - Flagstaff - Melbourne Central - Parliament - Flinders Street and then to Southern Cross

The Melbourne Rail Link will deliver:

• 7.5 km tunnels from Southern Cross to South Yarra;


• new underground stations at Fishermans Bend and Domain;


• new underground platforms at Southern Cross and South Yarra Stations;


• new and upgraded train-tram interchanges at Southern Cross, Montague, Domain and South Yarra Stations


• a rail link to Melbourne Airport (which is needed) .

The question is - how hard would to create a new tunnel from the new new station (Montague) to Fishermans Bend ?

In the short term it will be a tram loop from Montague into the heart of Fishermans Bend.  The Rail plan long term proposes Doncaster - Clifton Hill - Melbourne Central - Flagstaff - Southern Cross -  Fishermans Bend new underground tunnel .

Nobody has offered up why this precinct needs a station over Parkville.

The station is useless for most of the area (duplicates Montague) and the originally planned Collins St tram extension from Docklands would give faster journey times.

It's just BS.

Nobody has offered up why this precinct needs a station over Parkville.

The station is useless for most of the area (duplicates Montague) and the originally planned Collins St tram extension from Docklands would give faster journey times.

It's just BS.

I totally agree. For a suburb that could end up being another dead area like Docklands became since the wheel was out of action for so long.

Im still in favour of the old route, which ever street it takes... and the long term plan released last year.

There are some very interesting views from both sides onwhat I’ll call in this post M1 the original Metro concept and M2 the Government announced concept.

I have to be blunt and say this revamp is/was driven byoverwhelmingly cost and then perhaps the disruption and challenging construction problems around Flinders street which no one should underestimate how difficult they would be.

What we have to think of first and foremost is the life of amajor undertaking like this.  It’s notthere for 100 years it’s essentially there forever.   Yes M1 is more expensive so get over it anddon’t compromise as Melbourne seems to on ANYTHING in public transport.  I don’t that say that lightly.  Lets get the very best long term outcome.   And there IS a way to deliver it cheaper.

Two years of construction disruption is nothing in thescheme of this and there are ways to do that without killing the City.   Go to the world’s busiest station atShinjuku (Tokyo) and see how they have kept that going whilst building an entirely new set of Metro Lines under it which you can actually watch through viewing windows. It’s staggering and yet millions of people are moving through that station and its precinct everyday WITHOUT disruption.

Putting aside cost and so called disruption.   Why do I stick with M1

It’s all about people’s travel patterns, current growth anddemand pressures and future demand.

The Original alignment has significantly more benefits thanthe new SX route.  Firstly it links theMelton/Bacchus Marsh/Sunbury Metro lines into a high capacity railway free of complex track interchanges into and through the City via Parkville, Melbourne Central and then Flinders Street.   Weknow Parkville and top end of Melbourne Central are all medical and educational precincts that attract/generate huge numbers and they WILL remain as those establishments keep growing as they will.
Many customers now have to travel into the City transfer at NthMelbourne or Flinders Street or Melbourne Central to then go back out to those precincts.  That imposes loading on manyexisting services in the CBD.

So M1 is about directness and elimination of transfers andadded capacity.

M2  avoids all thosegenerators/attractors and in doing so forces people to interchange at SX ONLY requiring 1 if not 2 transfers to get to that precinct.  NO GAIN and even worse for the passenger thantoday.

M1 helps FREE UP the inner City segments of the Essendon,Upfield and Footscray/Sunshine Lines so that those existing lines get as a result a major capacity increase due to that shift, so there’s a second major benefit.

M1 provides in addition to directness significantly fasteroverall travel times because of directness, less stops and ZERO transfers.

Capacity:  A 9 carMetro train designed to hi capacity specification will uplift 1350 to 1500 pax comfortably and quickly.  So on a newdirect railway with modern signaling you can get 30 trains per hour EACH WAY.  That’s up to 45,000 and with crush50,000  pax per hour.

The already developed inner area of the M1 alignmentcombined with the fast growth of the west and north says you need that type of capacity almost now whereas as the M2 area will not be developed until much later.   (It will need a high capacitytransit scheme most definitely).

My view would be if cashflow is a problem and it is buildMet 1 on the original alignment to Flinders Street with a series of turnbacks (crossovers) provided by building part of the second stage beyond to be defacto stabling/turnround and strive to deliver that by being REAL SMART and using the highly experienced teams out of RRL as it winds down to have that ready by say 2020.

Is that possible? I believe it is???  The former Labor Government continued withthe current Government have had a dedicated Metro Project Development team in place for nigh on 4 years.   The scope,engineering challenges, staging options are pretty much there.   So you spend the rest of this year settingup tenders etc and seek from existing RRL contractors what are referred to as a contractor’s proposal that says they will complete the design and go into build so that starts through the end of 2015.

The rates for building and final design costs you would getin going to market as RRL winds down will be staggering because of project continuity.

Turning to Southbank/ Fishermen’s Bend etc proper seriouslythink about the proposal in the 100 Year rail Plan of servicing that with a new cross river railway from Newport serving the entire South Bank and then linking into the City.   In the early developmentphases of the Bend seriously as is already on the drawing board and announced use light rail and then put your second cross rail link in at the time that light rail and the development of the area says heavy rail is needed.

From a project continuity perspective building Stage 2 of M1from Flinders Street beyon again keeps project continuity alive and companies will sign up for that and rate you accordingly.

It is then after completion of M1 through to South Yarrathat the timing then would appear right for the heavy rail solution for Southbank, the Bend and a second cross river connection to Newport.

Such a huge area will need a rail station and tram extensions, no matter which crowd is in government, there's no way around that.

But there won't be anything there for 30 years, and besides the new station isn't even where that development will be, only where no doubt a few speculative Liberal donors want to construct developments. St Kilda Road trams are packed now.

London is building a rail tunnel from one side of the city to the other, is London divided like the Berlin Wall? New York is building a new subway line down the east side of Manhattan, is Manhattan divided like the Berlin Wall?

And I guess PTVs Network Development plan developed by engineers and transport planners is only good for a paperweight now it's been comprehensively ignored by a country vet. Welcome to Melbourne.

If this rail plan goes ahead ! a second tunnel route would be needed right ?

This could go from Clifton Hill to Newport West, with stations at Fitzroy, Carlton, Parkville, Melbourne Central (well overdrew for a name change) Flinders Street, Domain, South Melbourne, Port Melbourne, Fisherman's Bend, Newport (underground) trains routed from Wyndham Vale through to Mernda.

Parkville to Domain the first section, than Parkville to Clifton Hill, followed by progressive extension from Domain to Newport West.

Honestly, neither Liberal, nor Labour, nor National and certainly not the Green Party are in the least bit indebted to developers or builders. And it's misinformed (or possibly deliberately misleading) to imply that any of them are.

For at least 20 years, any politician that smelt even slightly of that sort of thing would have been exposed and publicly humiliated, both in the media and by their political opponents.

The only dodgy thing in the building industry is one of the more militant building unions using a drug dealing bikie gang as enforcers and standover merchants. But, to it's credit, the Labour Party has distanced itself from this sort of thing and not even the Libs seriously believe that the dodginess of an ALP affiliated union is transferred to the parliamentary Labour Party.

So unless you are a certifiable conspiracy theorist (complete with tin foil hat), please STOP implying that political parties in Victoria are corrupt.

The new plan is just political bloody-mindedness...pure and simple.

The Metro proposal, good as it is, was Labor's baby, so the Libs had to change it.

Both Napthine and Guy have failed to convince that the new plan is better. A new station at Montague (not Fishermens Bend) is no substitute for one in the hospital/university precinct at Parkville. If I lived near Montague, would I be taking a train to the city? I think I would walk!

The interchange possibilities at Melbourne Central and Flinders Street were a major attraction of the Metro plan. That's what happens on the metros of the great cities of the world like London, Moscow, Tokyo, New York etc.

And would we really have to dig up Swanston Street? Its the 21st century for God's sake.......other countries can tunnel huge distances and depths without that sort of disruption.

No amount to Liberal spin convinces me that this plan is better than the previous one.

Hmmmmmmmmmm...................................

A couple of points,
A good number of posts have stated they are only taking this option to save money. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm......... one of the electorate's great winghes is the amount of taxes that are paid, now the government tries to find a reasonable cheaper option. What do we get moaning. The government cannot get money out of thin air, if we wish for better services no matter in what form _____WE______ have to pay for them.


The greatest problem that needs to be fixed in the network is not decongesting some tram routes or providing access to areas like Montague and Fishermans bend but to increase the availible time slots in the centre of the network, this plan possibly does this. New lines to Rowville, Doncaster, the airport, extensions to Mernda, Baccus Marsh, Donnybrook or anywhere else cannot be built until extra capacity in the centre of the network can be created. One can build extra lines and stations latter, the extra traffic capacity in the centre of the network has been required for sometime, it needs to be built NOW.

woodford

It isn't reasonable, it reduces the cost slightly, but decreases the BCR much more.

If they wanted to save money they'd ditch the East West Link - the rail tunnel is pocket change in comparison.

If you want capacity now, you'd build the original proposal now - not waste another four years planning this new brainfart.

Sorry everyone ITS a great plan for playing trains not for BETTER moving people where they want to go.  It's a GREAT plan for forcing people to have to make transfers in order to get to where they need to go. I've been in Victoria for over 12 years and it without doubt has a transport system focused on trains and trams and devising all sorts of ways to move those around the system rather than how to move people to where they want to go and to do that with the least level of inconvenience.  You only have read this thread to see how that is ingrained in peoples thinking.

Sorry everyone ITS a great plan for playing trains not for BETTER moving people where they want to go. It's a GREAT plan for forcing people to have to make transfers in order to get to where they need to go. I've been in Victoria for over 12 years and it without doubt has a transport system focused on trains and trams and devising all sorts of ways to move those around the system rather than how to move people to where they want to go and to do that with the least level of inconvenience. You only have read this thread to see how that is ingrained in peoples thinking.

Some random musings over this....................

Important Note: Melbournes rail system both train and tram was effectively built to its current state by the late 1930'to 1950's. The city has grown to be around at least 6 times the population with almost no improvement in rail transport, how can it ever effectively transport the cities entire population............................................

Hmmmmmmm, Just a question how can one ever get from say Fawkner to Ringwood or Frankston or Collingwood or Newport without changing trains. The Melbourne heavy rail network is city centric, while it would be great to have a fast rail system that would get one anywhere it would very likely cost a fortune we do not have.

Now I have never been to Britain but look at the rail system there. In England itself one can get to within 10 miles of anywhere (MUCH closer than that in London) but I would assume one cannot do that WITHOUT changing trains a good number of times.

One cannot build a public transport system that will cover ALL travel possibilities.

Another point is the current state governement is very marginal, given the attitude around Aus to major the parties this will likely be a pattern around the place for sometime to come. Such weakness in the governments power makes it almost impossible to do anything controversial such as spending large sums or bulldozing city blocks. What is usually done under these conditions is the people in power wait for a major crisis to grow until the answer for its cure is obvious to nearly all so fund allocation then is nowhere near the problem it currently is.

In the end as cost of travel changes the people and the city will change to suit the money thats availible. Such changes have occured through out history and such a change is almost never without pain.

woodford