This is my proposed Rowville rail-line route. The rail-line between Camberwell and Burnley would have to quadruplicated. Camberwell Station would have to be upgraded with an extra platform. A tunnel would run between Alamein and Oakleigh. Then it would join the Dandenong line. East Malvern Station could be left out of the Plan if needed and the tunnel would travel directly to Chadstone.





Then it would follow the alignment in this video




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xb9PKxqpyaY

Won't work.
People in this state don't want tunnels... Oh wait it's Public Transport so everyone will agree to this....

The tunneling is a relatively low distance. This plan combines elements of the old outer circle. You could also extend Tram 3 to service East Malvern station if it is left out.

The line should use the SAME alignment as the old outer-circle.
On google it is only 510 metres from western side of Chadstone shopping centre to Outer-Circle Waverley Rd Station.
Chadstone Shopping Centre can grow westwards towards the outer-circle line.

Ideally the line would continue past Rowville and connect to Ferntree Gully station. That can be done at a later time.

(fixed spelling mistake, thanks Braddo)

Waverley.

This is my proposed Rowville rail-line route. The rail-line between Camberwell and Burnley would have to quadruplicated. Camberwell Station would have to be upgraded with an extra platform. A tunnel would run between Alamein and Oakleigh. Then it would join the Dandenong line. East Malvern Station could be left out of the Plan if needed and the tunnel would travel directly to Chadstone.

Then it would follow the alignment in this video




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xb9PKxqpyaY

If there isn't amplification of the Dandenong corridor between Oakleigh and Huntingdale the I think the idea of grafting more services on the busiest rail corridor in the state is a bad idea.

Michael

The Rowville Line could enter a tunnel north of Huntingdale station. There is a easement corridor next to the tracks between Oakleigh and Huntingdale, I believe there is enough room for extra tracks to run besides the existing tracks. But I could be wrong. The Oakleigh interchange station would probably need to be placed underground. I am not a planning expert this is only a proposal or suggestion, other people know more about the specific details. .

...north of Huntingdale station!?! You mean up end, city, west or north-west of Huntingdale station? And yes there's space for extra tracks along the current line. How ever the amount of space changes from roughly four tracks to three depending on the location of the bike path and the properties that used to back on to a removed siding.

The Rowville Line could enter a tunnel north of Huntingdale station. There is a easement corridor next to the tracks between Oakleigh and Huntingdale, I believe there is enough room for extra tracks to run besides the existing tracks. But I could be wrong. The Oakleigh interchange station would probably need to be placed underground. I am not a planning expert this is only a proposal or suggestion, other people know more about the specific details. .

Following the original Outer-Circle route is a better idea.
Instead of building an expensive train tunnel, all that is required is roads are grade-separated.
The roads can go under the rail line where required.
A lot cheaper I presume.

Following the original Outer-Circle route is a better idea.
Instead of building an expensive train tunnel, all that is required is roads are grade-separated.
The roads can go under the rail line where required.
A lot cheaper I presume.

Not a bad idea.  Has this been considered in any real world planning?

Following the original Outer-Circle route is a better idea.
Instead of building an expensive train tunnel, all that is required is roads are grade-separated.
The roads can go under the rail line where required.
A lot cheaper I presume.

Your presumptions are mostly incorrect:

1. The former Outer Circle railway line reservation south of Alamein towards Oakleigh is almost entirely parkland, road or freeway. You won't go through any of them without either a tunnel or a rather tall viaduct.


2. Grade separation can be just as expensive as tunnels and creates more headaches for both types of transport.


3. Road-under-rail creates lots of headaches for local road access which increase linearly with how much clearance you want to give them. The minimum clearance/'loading gauge' is a garbage truck. Look at what the DoT and VicRoads are dealing with when it comes to the Dandenong corridor grade separations for a better idea.


4. Everything about building a new railway line* is expensive. Doubly so if you're building it in an existing suburban environment.

So you're probably looking at either a tunnel going from Alamein to Monash Uni Clayton or a stonking great viaduct following a few of the roads along the way. There's no other choices for building heavy rail in the area unless you want to put caveats on properties along the alignment and wait a good 30-40 years for the land to be acquired in a peaceable manner.

* Yes, it is new - the last time trains ran through that part of the Outer Circle was 1895, 119 years ago.

So you're probably looking at either a tunnel going from Alamein to Monash Uni Clayton or a stonking great viaduct following a few of the roads along the way

It should travel to Oakleigh not directly to Monash via a tunnel from Alamein, as Oakleigh can become an interchange. Passengers then have options of transferring trains at Oakleigh. The people who conducted the comprehensive study into the Rowville line recommend building a tunnel north of Huntingdale station as I stated. There have not been any detailed studies into extending the Alamein line via Chadstone to Oakeigh to my knowledge. But a tunnel would be needed under the golf course and freeway as you have stated. Chadstone is actually undergoing a $580m facelift with a 10-storey office building fronting Princes Highway and a hotel. You would believe that would include sometype of transport plan with this. Carparking is already quite difficult at Chadstone.

It should travel to Oakleigh not directly to Monash via a tunnel from Alamein, as Oakleigh can become an interchange. Passengers then have options of transferring trains at Oakleigh.

Fair enough, but I was referring to the civil works required along the route, not the alignment itself. In any case, all of your 'alignment maps' that you have produced are not exactly grounded in reality, because at a minimum they'd need to have information on the topography of the areas you'd want to look at. Hell, you haven't even said how long the line will be, approximately.

The people who conducted the comprehensive study into the Rowville line recommend building a tunnel north of Huntingdale station as I stated. There have not been any detailed studies into extending the Alamein line via Chadstone to Oakeigh to my knowledge.

And therefore the two proposals do not overlap much at all. You don't want the latter to go via both Huntingdale and Oakleigh stations as your first map stated.

Chadstone is actually undergoing a $580m facelift with a 10-storey office building fronting Princes Highway and a hotel. You would believe that would include some type of transport plan with this. Carparking is already quite difficult at Chadstone.

And Chadstone does not care for any form of public transport other than buses and even then they only accept them begrudgingly. Chadstone aligns itself towards 'high-end' retail, which serves a demographic that drives (or driven around in, ideally) private cars. I wouldn't expect any support, fiscal or otherwise for a railway that stops at their establishment.

And therefore the two proposals do not overlap much at all. You don't want the latter to go via both Huntingdale and Oakleigh stations as your first map stated.

They do overlap because if you are adding an extra train-line to the Dandenong transport corridor that will cause issues. By redirecting the Rowville line to the Alamein line you are effectively amplifying the number of tracks towards the city. You are also solving the issue of low patronage on the Alamein line. The area surrounding Chadstone such as Oakleigh itself, Monash University all would have the patronage levels/commuters to support heavy rail. Buses are not really sufficient.

As for the other issue I am not a civil engineer and this proposal is rudimentary.

They do overlap because if you are adding an extra train-line to the Dandenong transport corridor that will cause issues. By redirecting the Rowville line to the Alamein line you are effectively amplifying the number of tracks towards the city. You are also solving the issue of low patronage on the Alamein line. The area surrounding Chadstone such as Oakleigh itself, Monash University all would have the patronage levels/commuters to support heavy rail. Buses are not really sufficient.

Firstly, there's a snowball's chance in hell that any railway proposal that serves Monash University will go further east than the Clayton campus itself. It's horrendous value for money - a middle to outer suburban catchment area with an alignment that is either on a viaduct or in a tunnel. Ignore that part of your proposal, start small. You won't get the patronage unless you heavily redevelop the area around the stations into Transit Oriented Development (medium/high density housing + commercial mixed development clusters)

Once that's over and done with, there's no overlap in alignment between the Rowvile Rail proposal and yours. Oakleigh-Monash can have a shorter direct viaduct or pair of tunnels. There is no track amplification at all in your proposal, just an extension of an existing line. The capacity problem becomes shifted towards the Burnley Group instead of the Caulfield Group, because the service frequency will need to be increased from the 4 trains per hour in peak (15 minute frequency) into the city to at least 6 tph (10 minute frequencies). Track amplification from Camberwell towards the CBD is eye-wateringly expensive.

The Rowville, Mulgrave and Waverley areas are no different to any other suburban areas in terms of density. I do not see why the rail-line would not be viable past Monash University.

It revives the  outer circle line linking the South to the East.

The capacity problem becomes shifted towards the Burnley Group instead of the Caulfield Group,

This could be an issue you are correct the Dandenong line with an extra Suburban line added may cause issues. Between Camberwell and Burnley all of the bridges are already configured for a fourth rail-track, if you look there is space for an extra track. Camberwell station could be redeveloped like Box Hill with four platforms and a shopping center above this. There has been a proposal for this before. The Alamein line currently usually terminates at Camberwell and loops back. I do not know how you would configure this so it is more Efficient. The Belgrave/Lilydale line does not have any freight-trains sharing the tracks with suburban trains either which the Dandenong line has so it does not have this added track congestion.

So let me get this right. To write the report on the proposed Rowville line that came out not long ago, the state government employed a bunch of experts in areas like civil engineering, town planning, demographic trends, geology and probably some sort of economist or accountant who worked out the best "bang for bucks". These people were some of the savviest minds in Victoria in these fields.

However the original poster in this thread, ignored all the findings on the easily downloaded report and instead decided to develop their own plan...

Wow! That takes a lot of cynicism about the report and also a vast level of self confidence in his/her own insight and wisdom.

If you are referring to me as the original poster that is not what I did. I incorporated the proposed Rowville plan into my proposal. That is why I posted that video as I said it would just follow that alignment from Huntingdale. I do not believe they contemplated the line running through Chadstone in their study.

Your presumptions are mostly incorrect:

1. The former Outer Circle railway line reservation south of Alamein towards Oakleigh is almost entirely parkland, road or freeway. You won't go through any of them without either a tunnel or a rather tall viaduct.


2. Grade separation can be just as expensive as tunnels and creates more headaches for both types of transport.


3. Road-under-rail creates lots of headaches for local road access which increase linearly with how much clearance you want to give them. The minimum clearance/'loading gauge' is a garbage truck. Look at what the DoT and VicRoads are dealing with when it comes to the Dandenong corridor grade separations for a better idea.


4. Everything about building a new railway line* is expensive. Doubly so if you're building it in an existing suburban environment.

So you're probably looking at either a tunnel going from Alamein to Monash Uni Clayton or a stonking great viaduct following a few of the roads along the way. There's no other choices for building heavy rail in the area unless you want to put caveats on properties along the alignment and wait a good 30-40 years for the land to be acquired in a peaceable manner.

* Yes, it is new - the last time trains ran through that part of the Outer Circle was 1895, 119 years ago.

LancedDendrite is trying to claim option A is more expensive than option B:
A)
Bridge over Gardiners Creek, Golf Course, Freeway, Glen Waverley Line (yes a fairly long bridge)
Bridge over Waverley Rd
Bridge over Dandenong Rd
(I would simply cut Neerim Rd, no bridge or level crossing)
Poath Rd is existing problem due to Dandenong line. For this comparison, include rail under Poath Rd, fixing Dandenong line as well
B)
Tunnel from Alamein to Oakleigh - google straight line is 3.44km, so it would have to be about 4km long

Lanced, if old Outer-Circle is used, it has added benefit of fixing Poath Rd for both Dandenong and new Rowville line.

I don't think Lanced can justify his claim a long tunnel is cheaper.

Here's the best Rowville proposal I've seen.

The Rowville, Mulgrave and Waverley areas are no different to any other suburban areas in terms of density. I do not see why the rail-line would not be viable past Monash University.

Many suburban lines if built today would not be anywhere near viable, some still aren't (Eltham-Hurstbridge).

They only exist because they were built a century ago.

Here's the best Rowville proposal I've seen.




Many suburban lines if built today would not be anywhere near viable, some still aren't (Eltham-Hurstbridge).

They only exist because they were built a century ago.

Where do you live mate how would you like it if they never built your line

Following the original Outer-Circle route is a better idea.
Instead of building an expensive train tunnel, all that is required is roads are grade-separated.
The roads can go under the rail line where required.
A lot cheaper I presume.

A line using the old alignment seems pointless to me as it does not serve any major trip generators and is to far from Chadstone shopping centre.



Going viaEast Malvern then via Chadstone is better, but still no major trip generators at East Malvern.

Better still is a plan I saw some time ago to have the line go from Alamein in a tunnel via Homesglen then Chadstone shopping centre. There is a huge T.A.F.E at Homesglen plus bus connections in Warrigal Road so we have a lot more trip generators

Why are overseas companies lining up to operate Melbournes transport network if it is not viable.

Because the government pays them a mint to do it.  Do you not even understand how that works?

The point of the comment anyway was that capital expenditure and operating expenditure (capex/opex) are not the same thing.

If the question today was should we build a line to Williamstown, the answer would be no.

Where do you live mate how would you like it if they never built your line

Must be school holidays.

LancedDendrite is trying to claim option A is more expensive than option B...
I don't think Lanced can justify his claim a long tunnel is cheaper.

Go back and read that post properly. I didn't say anything about the cost, only about feasibility. Any option you or your fellow artists have discussed is going to be hideously expensive and not worth it.

So you're probably looking at either a tunnel going from Alamein to Monash Uni Clayton or a stonking great viaduct following a few of the roads along the way.

Lanced, if old Outer-Circle is used

The Outer Circle corridor is hundred-year old parkland and is not going to be used for an above-ground railway alignment (elevated or not) at any stage. It's not politically feasible. Your options are a rail over road viaduct or a big tunnel. No ifs, no buts.

To the proponents of the Rowville railway line, Alamein Line extension and suchforth: May I suggest you go to your local library and actually read about the basics of public transport planning and/or civil engineering instead of drawing diagrams over Google Maps screenshots? This discussion has happened plenty of times before, with no new amazing new insights.

The Outer Circle corridor is hundred-year old parkland and is not going to be used for an above-ground railway alignment (elevated or not) at any stage. It's not politically feasible.

Lanced, I have to disagree with the statement "it's not politically feasible".
Is the stupid East-West Road Tunnel "politically feasible"???
A huge number of people are against it, the Libs would build it anyway if they can.
If political party goes to election stating they will build Rowville rail line on old Outer-Circle alignment, and win, then it IS "politically feasible".

A line using the old alignment seems pointless to me as it does not serve any major trip generators and is to [sic] far from Chadstone shopping centre.

The outer-circle line is 510 metres from western edge of Chadstone Shopping centre.
Over time the Chadstone Shopping centre could expand westwards towards Waverley Rd Station on the Outer-Circle line.
There is no doubt a tunnel would provide a more convenient route, but it also costs significantly more.