Caulfield group to become anticlockwise all day

 
  NimbleJack Station Master

V/Line is the cockroach in Metrol's cake batter. Gippsland trains, with the boundary interface at Pakenham East, irregular stopping patterns, and the mess they stir up between Spencer Street and Richmond, are especially disruptive.

This is why MTM has been pushing to remove V/Line from their eastern network from day one. They'll likely get their wish once the Metro tunnel is operational. The benefit for Gippsland residents will be substantially increased frequency - something V/Line could provide with little alteration to fleet management or rosters.

Gippsland has relatively high intra-regional passenger rail traffic compared with the other four lines. It's a poor area. Higher frequency will be a win for those people, even if most (but not all) city-bound commuters will have to endure a minor break of journey.

It's on the cards. I guess we'll see what happens, won't we?

Sponsored advertisement

  Upven Locomotive Driver

“Minor break in journey” = getting off your packed Vline train in the morning and getting on a packed metro train.

Won’t happen. It provides no benefit to anyone except who, the Chinese company operating metro trains? Get real.
  Lockie91 Chief Train Controller

V/Line is the cockroach in Metrol's cake batter. Gippsland trains, with the boundary interface at Pakenham East, irregular stopping patterns, and the mess they stir up between Spencer Street and Richmond, are especially disruptive.

This is why MTM has been pushing to remove V/Line from their eastern network from day one. They'll likely get their wish once the Metro tunnel is operational. The benefit for Gippsland residents will be substantially increased frequency - something V/Line could provide with little alteration to fleet management or rosters.

Gippsland has relatively high intra-regional passenger rail traffic compared with the other four lines. It's a poor area. Higher frequency will be a win for those people, even if most (but not all) city-bound commuters will have to endure a minor break of journey.

It's on the cards. I guess we'll see what happens, won't we?
NimbleJack
You still haven't explained any benefits that are going to outweigh disrupting peoples journeys.
The vast majority of commuters are travelling into the CBD. An increased frequency between Pakenham and the region isn't going to appease the majority of commuters that will be forced off there comfy V/line train and on to a stopping all stations, overcrowded metro service.

Sets are still going to need to travel to Melbourne for maintenance. I agree the services should terminate at Flinders Street. This is about all you might get. MTM already has there day one service plan for MM1, it includes a 40 minute Gippsland frequency.

Metro's political masters get too choose which leg to pull of the cockroach.
  speedemon08 Mary

Location: I think by now you should have figured it out
V/Line is the cockroach in Metrol's cake batter. Gippsland trains, with the boundary interface at Pakenham East, irregular stopping patterns, and the mess they stir up between Spencer Street and Richmond, are especially disruptive.

This is why MTM has been pushing to remove V/Line from their eastern network from day one. They'll likely get their wish once the Metro tunnel is operational. The benefit for Gippsland residents will be substantially increased frequency - something V/Line could provide with little alteration to fleet management or rosters.

Gippsland has relatively high intra-regional passenger rail traffic compared with the other four lines. It's a poor area. Higher frequency will be a win for those people, even if most (but not all) city-bound commuters will have to endure a minor break of journey.

It's on the cards. I guess we'll see what happens, won't we?
You still haven't explained any benefits that are going to outweigh disrupting peoples journeys.
The vast majority of commuters are travelling into the CBD. An increased frequency between Pakenham and the region isn't going to appease the majority of commuters that will be forced off there comfy V/line train and on to a stopping all stations, overcrowded metro service.

Sets are still going to need to travel to Melbourne for maintenance. I agree the services should terminate at Flinders Street. This is about all you might get. MTM already has there day one service plan for MM1, it includes a 40 minute Gippsland frequency.

Metro's political masters get too choose which leg to pull of the cockroach.
Lockie91
Regular Vline users hate the people getting on at Pakenham every morning too.

You'd do more irrepareable damage to Vline services by terminating at Pakenham and making them change trains.
  route14 Chief Commissioner

Pakenham passengers using V/Line trains is a legacy thing.  For some time after the electrification was extended to Pakenham there was no Sunday electric service.  Stations between Hallam and Pakenham were served solely by two country trains, stopping all stations Pakenham to Oakleigh except General Motors (then known as Holden's Motor Company), then Caulfield and Flinders St.
  Lockie91 Chief Train Controller

Pakenham passengers using V/Line trains is a legacy thing.  For some time after the electrification was extended to Pakenham there was no Sunday electric service.  Stations between Hallam and Pakenham were served solely by two country trains, stopping all stations Pakenham to Oakleigh except General Motors (then known as Holden's Motor Company), then Caulfield and Flinders St.
route14
Reminds me of the fuss people kicked up in Sunbury when their clean V/line trains were taken from them and replaced with dirty metro trains. Government bowed to pressure and 10 years on and V/line services still pick up Sunbury Pax in the peak. Another fine example of popular decisions trumping good policy.

Lockie
  railblogger Chief Commissioner

Location: At the back of the train, quitely doing exactly what you'd expect.
Pakenham passengers using V/Line trains is a legacy thing.  For some time after the electrification was extended to Pakenham there was no Sunday electric service.  Stations between Hallam and Pakenham were served solely by two country trains, stopping all stations Pakenham to Oakleigh except General Motors (then known as Holden's Motor Company), then Caulfield and Flinders St.
Reminds me of the fuss people kicked up in Sunbury when their clean V/line trains were taken from them and replaced with dirty metro trains. Government bowed to pressure and 10 years on and V/line services still pick up Sunbury Pax in the peak. Another fine example of popular decisions trumping good policy.

Lockie
Lockie91
I'm pretty certain the story down Pakenham way came first but I do agree that they should not get special treatment.
  TrackRailroad Train Controller

Location: Frankston Line
V/Line is the cockroach in Metrol's cake batter. Gippsland trains, with the boundary interface at Pakenham East, irregular stopping patterns, and the mess they stir up between Spencer Street and Richmond, are especially disruptive.

This is why MTM has been pushing to remove V/Line from their eastern network from day one. They'll likely get their wish once the Metro tunnel is operational. The benefit for Gippsland residents will be substantially increased frequency - something V/Line could provide with little alteration to fleet management or rosters.

Gippsland has relatively high intra-regional passenger rail traffic compared with the other four lines. It's a poor area. Higher frequency will be a win for those people, even if most (but not all) city-bound commuters will have to endure a minor break of journey.

It's on the cards. I guess we'll see what happens, won't we?
You still haven't explained any benefits that are going to outweigh disrupting peoples journeys.
The vast majority of commuters are travelling into the CBD. An increased frequency between Pakenham and the region isn't going to appease the majority of commuters that will be forced off there comfy V/line train and on to a stopping all stations, overcrowded metro service.

Sets are still going to need to travel to Melbourne for maintenance. I agree the services should terminate at Flinders Street. This is about all you might get. MTM already has there day one service plan for MM1, it includes a 40 minute Gippsland frequency.

Metro's political masters get too choose which leg to pull of the cockroach.
Regular Vline users hate the people getting on at Pakenham every morning too.

You'd do more irrepareable damage to Vline services by terminating at Pakenham and making them change trains.
speedemon08
Are V-Line trains ex Tralagon in the peak extremely overcrowded by the time they reach Pakenham? If not, I don't see the harm in allowing some extra passengers on to the train at Pakenham. If all seats are taken, they would have to stand anyway, so it is not like they are taking away seats from Gippsland commuters. The journey from Pakenham to Flinders Street on metro services are very slow, and the Pakenham line is very busy (and will become increasingly so over the next few decades). Therefore if allowing some passengers to board V-Line trains instead this would reduce crowding on Metro Pakenham lines.

By extension maybe some passengers at Berwick could also use V-Line trains in off peak times to facilitate faster travel to and from the city. At peak times I would imagine there is insufficient capacity on V-Line trains to allow both Pakenham and Berwick passengers to board? I have selected Berwick as it is a relatively important activity centre in the Casey/Cardinia area, with a nearby hospital and education facilities. This would be helpful at least on weekends and off peak times to allow V-line Gippsland trains to stop at Berwick also.
  TrackRailroad Train Controller

Location: Frankston Line

-Frankston out of the loop and then a small boost & a clean up of peak hour. Streamline the cross city group giving Werribee at 10 minute off peak frequency.
-Dandenong, clean up of the peak. Gains trains paths released by removing Frankston. 10 minute service already runs into the night, cant see many if any additional off peak services.

-Clean up of the Ringwood group, 10 minute inter-peak during the week to match the weekend. Belgrave & Lilydale go to every 20 which is all the track allows for beyond Upper Ferntree Gully.
-Glen Waverley possibly to every 10 minutes inter-peak.
-Streamline of the stopping patterns. Alamain may become every 20 minutes all day to allow Ringwood services to Express to Camberwell.

-Hurstbridge will see a clean up and the addition of a couple of extra peak hour services that are available thanks to the Stage 1 upgrade. Paths are still constrained beyond Greensbrough. Until Stage 2 is complete, the line wont go to 10 minutes.

-Mernda will go to every 10 inter peak. Not a lot of room to add additional peak services until the Hurstbridge line is fixed and some sort of upgrade of Clifton junction is done to squeeze some extra paths out of the flat junction.

- Sunbury, every 10 to Watergardens, 20 to Sunbury. Increased services in the evening shoulder peak every 20 to Sunbury before dropping back to every 30 after 9pm.
- Craigieburn goes to every 10 minutes inter-peak, extra shoulder peak services before dropping back to 30 minutes after 9pm.
- Upfield, 2018 timetable saw Upfield being pulled from the northern loop to free up paths for Sunbury & Craigieburn. This is still a possibility as it would allow for extra Sunbury services. Craigieburn might see a couple, but would still be constrained by Platform 1 at North Melbourne. This also saw Upfield services terminate at Southern Cross Platform 8 & 8S, not sure if we will see that in December. Upfield will get s shot in the arm if it is pulled from the loop. It is possible to run services every 10 minutes to Gowie, again it's a maybe, but more likely now as several major LX will be gone by December.
-Werribee gets cleaned up thanks to Frankston being pulled from the loop.

Still yet to see how Metro will handle Dandenong being uni directional and if some Burnley Group services will skip Richmond, and if the Northern Loop will stop doing the 12noon shuffle.

LockieThese changes would be great if implemented. 10 minute daytime frequency to Werribee, Cragieburn, Sunbury, Mernda and Ringwood are long overdue. What about weekends? Most lines run every 20 minutes in the day which is inadequate.

I think Upfield should run direct to Southern Cross and utilise Platform 8 and 8S, which would be great if additional trains can be provided.

Sandringham also warrants every 10 minutes in the day and even with track limitations Hurstbridge line should be able to cater for a 10 minutes off peak to Macleod (which should be extended to Greensborough or Eltham once Stage 2 of the Hurstbridge line upgrade is finished).

In regards to the Ringwood group, I think all Lilydale and Belgrave trains should run express Richmond to Camberwell, and maybe could run a 10 minute service stopping all to Camberwell, with every second Camberwell train extending to Alamein, giving the Alamein branch a 20 minute service. If Camberwell services turn back using Platform 2, and all DOWN trains use Platform 3 and all UP trains use platform 1 this should be possible. The section between Richmond and Camberwell is much busier than between Camberwell and Alamein and needs a more frequent service than every 20 minutes during the day. Hence the suggestion for a 10 minute Camberwell service.

You state a lot of services will reduce frequency to 30 minutes after 9pm. I do hope this is not the case. With many events occuring in the city (not right now but will commence again once covid restrictions are eased), services should really be every 15 to 20 minutes maximum wait time in the early mornings and after 9pm until the last train. This applies to weekends too.
Sydney has services every 10 minutes through to midnight. Melbourne has suffered from poor evening frequencies since the cuts of the 1970 when suburban evening services went from every 10 to every 30. Some lines went to hourly before receiving slight boosts. There has been no wholesale change expect for Dandenong and Sandringham, all other lines the evening timetable has remained unchanged for near 50 years. Currently services drops off around 7pm, 9pm is a good outcome. Every 20 minutes across the network until midnight would be a good outcome. Not sure we will see it though.

Lockie
Lockie91
I would agree that trains at least every 20 minutes from the first to last train would be a good outcome. At least in the short term service frequency in the important shoulder peak 7pm to 10pm needs to be increased on all lines. Many lines drop off to every 30 minutes after 7pm, which is not acceptable for a modern day train system in a major city like Melbourne. Especially with so many events and festivals occuring in the city into the evening.
  route14 Chief Commissioner

The ultimate cause of the conflict between suburban and country passengers is insufficient capacity.  Most inter-City trains in NSW don't have set-down and pick-up restrictions and there is still plenty of room on the trains.  I'm not saying trains should provide enough personal space that everyone has a double or triple seat to themselves, but all seats taken and a few standees should be the reasonable load, under which circumstance there is still spare capacity to pick up Sunbury and Pakenham passengers.
  melbtrip Chief Commissioner

Location: Annoying Orange
The ultimate cause of the conflict between suburban and country passengers is insufficient capacity.  Most inter-City trains in NSW don't have set-down and pick-up restrictions and there is still plenty of room on the trains.  I'm not saying trains should provide enough personal space that everyone has a double or triple seat to themselves, but all seats taken and a few standees should be the reasonable load, under which circumstance there is still spare capacity to pick up Sunbury and Pakenham passengers.
route14
Would it be better to run a two-tier service on the line for an example:

Run V/Line services from Warragul to Traralgon

Electrification the railway line to Warragul

Ist tier :

option A - Warragul stopping all stations to Pakenham and then express to Dandenong and then express to Caulfield and then express to South Yarra and then to Richmond and then stops all stations to Flinders Street.

option B  Warragul stopping all stations to  Dandenong and then stopping at Clayton, Caulfield, South Yarra and then to Richmond and then stops all stations to Flinders Street.

option C - a mix of both a and b

2nd  tier :
option A: Pakenham stopping all stations to the city
option B: Dandenong stopping all stations to the city
option C - a mix of both a and b
  Lockie91 Chief Train Controller

The ultimate cause of the conflict between suburban and country passengers is insufficient capacity.  Most inter-City trains in NSW don't have set-down and pick-up restrictions and there is still plenty of room on the trains.  I'm not saying trains should provide enough personal space that everyone has a double or triple seat to themselves, but all seats taken and a few standees should be the reasonable load, under which circumstance there is still spare capacity to pick up Sunbury and Pakenham passengers.
Would it be better to run a two-tier service on the line for an example:

Run V/Line services from Warragul to Traralgon

Electrification the railway line to Warragul

Ist tier :

option A - Warragul stopping all stations to Pakenham and then express to Dandenong and then express to Caulfield and then express to South Yarra and then to Richmond and then stops all stations to Flinders Street.

option B  Warragul stopping all stations to  Dandenong and then stopping at Clayton, Caulfield, South Yarra and then to Richmond and then stops all stations to Flinders Street.

option C - a mix of both a and b

2nd  tier :
option A: Pakenham stopping all stations to the city
option B: Dandenong stopping all stations to the city
option C - a mix of both a and b
melbtrip
Good in theory, unfortunately you halve the capacity of the line as those express trains take up a train path that could be used by a SAS service.

There is no need to provide additional capacity beyond Pakenham. At most a 20 minute peak frequency is all that is needed from Traralgon, this is what's planned as part of the RRR program. Out of the possible 30 TPH, regional services will at most take up 3 of those paths.

I'd like to see more express running of V/line through the Metro area, this is just not possible with the Dandenong Group.

It will also be a long, long time before Gippsland gets its own dedicated tracks if ever. It is not comparable to RRL, tens of billions will not be spent for 3 - 4 TPH and a handful of freight.

Lockie
  melbtrip Chief Commissioner

Location: Annoying Orange
The ultimate cause of the conflict between suburban and country passengers is insufficient capacity.  Most inter-City trains in NSW don't have set-down and pick-up restrictions and there is still plenty of room on the trains.  I'm not saying trains should provide enough personal space that everyone has a double or triple seat to themselves, but all seats taken and a few standees should be the reasonable load, under which circumstance there is still spare capacity to pick up Sunbury and Pakenham passengers.
Would it be better to run a two-tier service on the line for an example:

Run V/Line services from Warragul to Traralgon

Electrification the railway line to Warragul

Ist tier :

option A - Warragul stopping all stations to Pakenham and then express to Dandenong and then express to Caulfield and then express to South Yarra and then to Richmond and then stops all stations to Flinders Street.

option B  Warragul stopping all stations to  Dandenong and then stopping at Clayton, Caulfield, South Yarra and then to Richmond and then stops all stations to Flinders Street.

option C - a mix of both a and b

2nd  tier :
option A: Pakenham stopping all stations to the city
option B: Dandenong stopping all stations to the city
option C - a mix of both a and b
Good in theory, unfortunately you halve the capacity of the line as those express trains take up a train path that could be used by a SAS service.

There is no need to provide additional capacity beyond Pakenham. At most a 20 minute peak frequency is all that is needed from Traralgon, this is what's planned as part of the RRR program. Out of the possible 30 TPH, regional services will at most take up 3 of those paths.

I'd like to see more express running of V/line through the Metro area, this is just not possible with the Dandenong Group.

It will also be a long, long time before Gippsland gets its own dedicated tracks if ever. It is not comparable to RRL, tens of billions will not be spent for 3 - 4 TPH and a handful of freight.

Lockie
Lockie91

You missed two points I made:

  1. Run V/Line services from Warragul to Traralgon
  2. Electrification the railway line to Warragul

    Not all trains have to go to have goto Warragul and may be every 2 train that goes their.
  trainbrain Chief Commissioner

The ultimate cause of the conflict between suburban and country passengers is insufficient capacity.  Most inter-City trains in NSW don't have set-down and pick-up restrictions and there is still plenty of room on the trains.  I'm not saying trains should provide enough personal space that everyone has a double or triple seat to themselves, but all seats taken and a few standees should be the reasonable load, under which circumstance there is still spare capacity to pick up Sunbury and Pakenham passengers.
Would it be better to run a two-tier service on the line for an example:

Run V/Line services from Warragul to Traralgon

Electrification the railway line to Warragul

Ist tier :

option A - Warragul stopping all stations to Pakenham and then express to Dandenong and then express to Caulfield and then express to South Yarra and then to Richmond and then stops all stations to Flinders Street.

option B  Warragul stopping all stations to  Dandenong and then stopping at Clayton, Caulfield, South Yarra and then to Richmond and then stops all stations to Flinders Street.

option C - a mix of both a and b

2nd  tier :
option A: Pakenham stopping all stations to the city
option B: Dandenong stopping all stations to the city
option C - a mix of both a and b
Good in theory, unfortunately you halve the capacity of the line as those express trains take up a train path that could be used by a SAS service.

There is no need to provide additional capacity beyond Pakenham. At most a 20 minute peak frequency is all that is needed from Traralgon, this is what's planned as part of the RRR program. Out of the possible 30 TPH, regional services will at most take up 3 of those paths.

I'd like to see more express running of V/line through the Metro area, this is just not possible with the Dandenong Group.

It will also be a long, long time before Gippsland gets its own dedicated tracks if ever. It is not comparable to RRL, tens of billions will not be spent for 3 - 4 TPH and a handful of freight.

Lockie

You missed two points I made:

  1. Run V/Line services from Warragul to Traralgon
  2. Electrification the railway line to Warragul

    Not all trains have to go to have goto Warragul and may be every 2 train that goes their.
melbtrip
DUH.................Not all trains have to go to have goto Warragul and may be every 2 train that goes their...........eeerrr DUH please explain?      Double Dutch....................
  melbtrip Chief Commissioner

Location: Annoying Orange
The ultimate cause of the conflict between suburban and country passengers is insufficient capacity.  Most inter-City trains in NSW don't have set-down and pick-up restrictions and there is still plenty of room on the trains.  I'm not saying trains should provide enough personal space that everyone has a double or triple seat to themselves, but all seats taken and a few standees should be the reasonable load, under which circumstance there is still spare capacity to pick up Sunbury and Pakenham passengers.
Would it be better to run a two-tier service on the line for an example:

Run V/Line services from Warragul to Traralgon

Electrification the railway line to Warragul

Ist tier :

option A - Warragul stopping all stations to Pakenham and then express to Dandenong and then express to Caulfield and then express to South Yarra and then to Richmond and then stops all stations to Flinders Street.

option B  Warragul stopping all stations to  Dandenong and then stopping at Clayton, Caulfield, South Yarra and then to Richmond and then stops all stations to Flinders Street.

option C - a mix of both a and b

2nd  tier :
option A: Pakenham stopping all stations to the city
option B: Dandenong stopping all stations to the city
option C - a mix of both a and b
Good in theory, unfortunately you halve the capacity of the line as those express trains take up a train path that could be used by a SAS service.

There is no need to provide additional capacity beyond Pakenham. At most a 20 minute peak frequency is all that is needed from Traralgon, this is what's planned as part of the RRR program. Out of the possible 30 TPH, regional services will at most take up 3 of those paths.

I'd like to see more express running of V/line through the Metro area, this is just not possible with the Dandenong Group.

It will also be a long, long time before Gippsland gets its own dedicated tracks if ever. It is not comparable to RRL, tens of billions will not be spent for 3 - 4 TPH and a handful of freight.

Lockie

You missed two points I made:

  1. Run V/Line services from Warragul to Traralgon
  2. Electrification the railway line to Warragul

    Not all trains have to go to have goto Warragul and may be every 2 train that goes their.
DUH.................Not all trains have to go to have goto Warragul and may be every 2 train that goes their...........eeerrr DUH please explain?      Double Dutch....................
trainbrain
I'm saying every 2nd train can go to Warragul.
  Heihachi_73 Chief Commissioner

Location: Terminating at Ringwood
20 years too late for that, the government had its chance in the late 90s(?) and blew it when the decrepit unmaintained overhead got pulled down by a Comeng (which was apparently doing brake tests at the time), instead of fixing the overhead they just ripped everything out and ran diesels.
  tayser Deputy Commissioner

Location: Melbourne
Phase 1: Quadruplicate from around Officer/Beaconsfield to Clayton on the surface in the spot where it'll be relatively easy/cheap.  Vlines shift on to new track around Officer/Beaconsfield and run all the way to Dandenong by themselves, Pakenham shifts on to the new track pair before/at/around Dandenong.  Cranbourne line becomes the main / existing pair.  All Pakenhams SAS Pak-Dandenong, then express to Clayton, then SAS with Cranbourne trains to Caulfield then express to Anzac/into the MM tunnel. All Cranbournes SAS via Dandenong to the Caulfield then express to Anzac/MM Tunnel stations.  All Vlines express Pak-Dandenong-Clayton.  All Vline trains terminate at Clayton while phase 2 is under construction.  

Phase 2: Quadruplicate (surface) to between Huntingdale/Oakleigh then a tunnel to Chadstone, Caulfield and then straight to Southern Cross which then joins the RRL train pair which Geelong / Traralgon services currently run into.  Pakenhams SAS Pakenham to Dandenong, express to Clayton, Chadstone, Caulfield, Southern Cross, Footscray, Sunshine then head off to the airport / Sunbury.  La Trobe Valley Vlines can through-route to one of the western lines from Sunshine (it'd be great if it were Bendigo - especially if MARL becomes a Bendigo line deviation just as much as a way of getting rail to the airport).

Phase 1 should be timed to open at the same time as SRL phase 1 (which will link Clayton to other destinations) opens.  From Clayton, the SAS to Caulfield and then express to Anzac journey on a metro train will be around ~25min (based on 20 min journey Clayton to Sy using existing stopping pattern) which is a much better (temporary!) scenario for changing trains for Vline / La Trobe Valley passengers.  

After Phase 2, LV Vlines could operate on two simplified patterns:

1. [From Ballarat/Bendigo/Geelong], SX, Caulfield, Chadstone, Clayton, Dandenong, Pakenham then SAS to Warragul & vv.
2. [From Ballarat/Bendigo/Geelong], SX, Caulfield, Chadstone, Clayton, Dandenong, Pakenham, express to Warragul then SAS to Traralgon/Bairnsdale.

3-4 TPH for Vlines and 10 + for Pakenham will fit snugly in a track pair, especially as they're doing the same stopping pattern between the city & Dandenong.

Pakenham/Cranbourne likewise simplified:

1. From Airport/Wyndham Vale, SX, Caulfield, Chadstone, Clayton, Dandenong, SAS to Pakenham.
2. Fram Melton/Sunbury/West Footscray, Sunshine, SAS to Footscray, all MM tunnel stations, Caulfield, SAS to Cranbourne via Dandenong or terminate at Dandenong or Westall if needed.

$0.02.
  tayser Deputy Commissioner

Location: Melbourne
..oh yeah, and the new Vline fleet should be bi-modal, able to use wires where they're available, diesel where they're not.  (And/or a subset of the existing Vlo fleet should be augmented for bi-modal running).
  John.Z Assistant Commissioner

Phase 1: Quadruplicate from around Officer/Beaconsfield to Clayton on the surface in the spot where it'll be relatively easy/cheap.  Vlines shift on to new track around Officer/Beaconsfield and run all the way to Dandenong by themselves, Pakenham shifts on to the new track pair before/at/around Dandenong.  Cranbourne line becomes the main / existing pair.  All Pakenhams SAS Pak-Dandenong, then express to Clayton, then SAS with Cranbourne trains to Caulfield then express to Anzac/into the MM tunnel. All Cranbournes SAS via Dandenong to the Caulfield then express to Anzac/MM Tunnel stations.  All Vlines express Pak-Dandenong-Clayton.  All Vline trains terminate at Clayton while phase 2 is under construction.  

Phase 2: Quadruplicate (surface) to between Huntingdale/Oakleigh then a tunnel to Chadstone, Caulfield and then straight to Southern Cross which then joins the RRL train pair which Geelong / Traralgon services currently run into.  Pakenhams SAS Pakenham to Dandenong, express to Clayton, Chadstone, Caulfield, Southern Cross, Footscray, Sunshine then head off to the airport / Sunbury.  La Trobe Valley Vlines can through-route to one of the western lines from Sunshine (it'd be great if it were Bendigo - especially if MARL becomes a Bendigo line deviation just as much as a way of getting rail to the airport).

Phase 1 should be timed to open at the same time as SRL phase 1 (which will link Clayton to other destinations) opens.  From Clayton, the SAS to Caulfield and then express to Anzac journey on a metro train will be around ~25min (based on 20 min journey Clayton to Sy using existing stopping pattern) which is a much better (temporary!) scenario for changing trains for Vline / La Trobe Valley passengers.  

After Phase 2, LV Vlines could operate on two simplified patterns:

1. [From Ballarat/Bendigo/Geelong], SX, Caulfield, Chadstone, Clayton, Dandenong, Pakenham then SAS to Warragul & vv.
2. [From Ballarat/Bendigo/Geelong], SX, Caulfield, Chadstone, Clayton, Dandenong, Pakenham, express to Warragul then SAS to Traralgon/Bairnsdale.

3-4 TPH for Vlines and 10 + for Pakenham will fit snugly in a track pair, especially as they're doing the same stopping pattern between the city & Dandenong.

Pakenham/Cranbourne likewise simplified:

1. From Airport/Wyndham Vale, SX, Caulfield, Chadstone, Clayton, Dandenong, SAS to Pakenham.
2. Fram Melton/Sunbury/West Footscray, Sunshine, SAS to Footscray, all MM tunnel stations, Caulfield, SAS to Cranbourne via Dandenong or terminate at Dandenong or Westall if needed.

$0.02.
tayser
I know it's too much to ask for a map, but I'm finding it very difficult to follow this plan in text.
  LeroyW Junior Train Controller

Location: Awaiting MM2
I know it's too much to ask for a map, but I'm finding it very difficult to follow this plan in text.
John.Z
From what I can tell it's basically quadding from Pakenham in to somewhere around Oakleigh, then building a dogleg tunnel from there to Chadstone, back around to Caulfield (!) and then straight to Southern Cross (!!), to add another track pair from the South East and Gippsland into the city.

Building a 10.2km direct tunnel from Caulfield to the city seems a bit of a stretch at this point, given the business case for doing the same thing from Sunshine on the other side hasn't got up (and there is far more regional travel coming in from the West than the South East).

It is very similar to what Rail Futures called the 'South-East FastLine' really (Page 81 here: https://www.railfutures.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/15329_MRP2050main_FinalPages.pdf). They want it by 2036, which means in reality it may be never/2066.
  John.Z Assistant Commissioner

From what I can tell it's basically quadding from Pakenham in to somewhere around Oakleigh, then building a dogleg tunnel from there to Chadstone, back around to Caulfield (!) and then straight to Southern Cross (!!), to add another track pair from the South East and Gippsland into the city.

Building a 10.2km direct tunnel from Caulfield to the city seems a bit of a stretch at this point, given the business case for doing the same thing from Sunshine on the other side hasn't got up (and there is far more regional travel coming in from the West than the South East).

It is very similar to what Rail Futures called the 'South-East FastLine' really (Page 81 here: https://www.railfutures.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/15329_MRP2050main_FinalPages.pdf). They want it by 2036, which means in reality it may be never/2066.
LeroyW
thanks for that. I think we can all agree that Quad track from Caulfield to Dandenong (and Caulfield to South Yarra) probably needs to be built at some stage, but I can't see the justification without a Dandenong-Frankston link supported by Freight to the Port of Hastings (on top of the Freight Hub already announced).
  Lockie91 Chief Train Controller

The ultimate cause of the conflict between suburban and country passengers is insufficient capacity.  Most inter-City trains in NSW don't have set-down and pick-up restrictions and there is still plenty of room on the trains.  I'm not saying trains should provide enough personal space that everyone has a double or triple seat to themselves, but all seats taken and a few standees should be the reasonable load, under which circumstance there is still spare capacity to pick up Sunbury and Pakenham passengers.
Would it be better to run a two-tier service on the line for an example:

Run V/Line services from Warragul to Traralgon

Electrification the railway line to Warragul

Ist tier :

option A - Warragul stopping all stations to Pakenham and then express to Dandenong and then express to Caulfield and then express to South Yarra and then to Richmond and then stops all stations to Flinders Street.

option B  Warragul stopping all stations to  Dandenong and then stopping at Clayton, Caulfield, South Yarra and then to Richmond and then stops all stations to Flinders Street.

option C - a mix of both a and b

2nd  tier :
option A: Pakenham stopping all stations to the city
option B: Dandenong stopping all stations to the city
option C - a mix of both a and b
Good in theory, unfortunately you halve the capacity of the line as those express trains take up a train path that could be used by a SAS service.

There is no need to provide additional capacity beyond Pakenham. At most a 20 minute peak frequency is all that is needed from Traralgon, this is what's planned as part of the RRR program. Out of the possible 30 TPH, regional services will at most take up 3 of those paths.

I'd like to see more express running of V/line through the Metro area, this is just not possible with the Dandenong Group.

It will also be a long, long time before Gippsland gets its own dedicated tracks if ever. It is not comparable to RRL, tens of billions will not be spent for 3 - 4 TPH and a handful of freight.

Lockie

You missed two points I made:

  1. Run V/Line services from Warragul to Traralgon
  2. Electrification the railway line to Warragul

    Not all trains have to go to have goto Warragul and may be every 2 train that goes their.
DUH.................Not all trains have to go to have goto Warragul and may be every 2 train that goes their...........eeerrr DUH please explain?      Double Dutch....................
I'm saying every 2nd train can go to Warragul.
melbtrip
I covered these points when I said there is no need for a metro service beyond Pakenham and forcing V/line commuters off one train and on to a crowded metro service is not a solution.
At this current time and for the next 10 years there is no track capacity issue. Until we are close to using all 32 TPH I'm not even sure why this is being discussed.

As for Trainbrain I'm not sure acting like a child is helpful or constructive.

Lockie
  tazzer96 Deputy Commissioner

I covered these points when I said there is no need for a metro service beyond Pakenham and forcing V/line commuters off one train and on to a crowded metro service is not a solution.
At this current time and for the next 10 years there is no track capacity issue. Until we are close to using all 32 TPH I'm not even sure why this is being discussed.

As for Trainbrain I'm not sure acting like a child is helpful or constructive.

Lockie
Lockie91
There is already a track capacity issue.  You have v/line services running at an all stations pace for 50km.  No room for express metro services which is desperately needed.
  tayser Deputy Commissioner

Location: Melbourne
I know it's too much to ask for a map, but I'm finding it very difficult to follow this plan in text.
From what I can tell it's basically quadding from Pakenham in to somewhere around Oakleigh, then building a dogleg tunnel from there to Chadstone, back around to Caulfield (!) and then straight to Southern Cross (!!), to add another track pair from the South East and Gippsland into the city.

Building a 10.2km direct tunnel from Caulfield to the city seems a bit of a stretch at this point, given the business case for doing the same thing from Sunshine on the other side hasn't got up (and there is far more regional travel coming in from the West than the South East).

It is very similar to what Rail Futures called the 'South-East FastLine' really (Page 81 here: https://www.railfutures.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/15329_MRP2050main_FinalPages.pdf). They want it by 2036, which means in reality it may be never/2066.
LeroyW
Close but no cigar, it's a play on NDP from 2018 (especially the Chadstone part).

https://www.flickr.com/photos/danielbowen/44646947024

^ Vlines and Pakenham in the ultimate scenario for the NDP will go back to direct to Flinders St via South Yarra.  And ultimately another track pair is added Caulfield-South Yarra... I'm just taking it further west direct to SX and hooking it directly into one of the western Vline lines / metro lines.

Since that plan was published, the SRL has come into being, and Clayton is the point where it'll intersect: it's a logical point to split a large project up in phases.
  route14 Chief Commissioner

Most peak time Dandenong trains already run express Caulfield to South Yarra so another track pair won't be beneficial unless the top speed is substantially different.

Sponsored advertisement

Display from: