Caulfield group to become anticlockwise all day

 
  trainbrain Chief Commissioner

Lockie me acting like a child, people that post on here  should speak plain English rather than what I passed a cheek in tongue comment. But that is ok if anyone has a shot at me, I can take it..................have a closer look at what I had a go at......the sentence speaks for itself.

Sponsored advertisement

  John.Z Assistant 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.
route14
It's middle of the road when it comes to need (1. City to Caulfield, 2. Caulfield to Dandenong, 3. Dandenong to Pakenham), it will come down to TPH and how many you can squeeze between South Yarra and Caulfield, which will eventually become a bottleneck if a new track pair Caulfield-Dandenong is built.
  tayser Deputy Commissioner

Location: Melbourne
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.
route14
Did you look at the map and the amount of peak frequencies each track pair are likely to have?  

10 Pakenham + 18 Clyde (and Rowville - which isn't likely to go ahead) + 3 La Trobe Valley = 31 TPH... minus 6-8TPH for a no Rowville scenario, we're still at 23 TPH.... and on one track pair (i.e the Caulfield-South Yarra/MM1 tunnel pair) mixing vline express and SAS Caulfield-Dandenongs?  I don't think so - there'll be a need for another pair... and blimey, that's what the map shows.
  justarider Deputy Commissioner

Location: Free at last, free at last
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.
Did you look at the map and the amount of peak frequencies each track pair are likely to have?  

10 Pakenham + 18 Clyde (and Rowville - which isn't likely to go ahead) + 3 La Trobe Valley = 31 TPH... minus 6-8TPH for a no Rowville scenario, we're still at 23 TPH.... and on one track pair (i.e the Caulfield-South Yarra/MM1 tunnel pair) mixing vline express and SAS Caulfield-Dandenongs?  I don't think so - there'll be a need for another pair... and blimey, that's what the map shows.
tayser
O get over it.

All this foam so that 3tph from Gippsland can have an express. Saving what ? 30min?
Come back when those pax are prepared to pay $100+ for the luxury.

When/if Metro stump up for their own express from Dandy, than maybe Vline could tag along.
Don't hold your breath, much bigger issues for Metro in the next 20 years.
  John.Z Assistant Commissioner

O get over it.

All this foam so that 3tph from Gippsland can have an express. Saving what ? 30min?
Come back when those pax are prepared to pay $100+ for the luxury.

When/if Metro stump up for their own express from Dandy, than maybe Vline could tag along.
Don't hold your breath, much bigger issues for Metro in the next 20 years.
justarider
No. It's to allow express trains from the Dandenong to Pakenahm section (and VLine) to run Caulfield-Dandenong, allowing Cranbourne/Clyde to SAS between Caulfield and Dandenong (as well as Freight, and any train that could potentially run Frankston-Dandenong in 50 years time including Port freight and Mornington/Hastings)
  justarider Deputy Commissioner

Location: Free at last, free at last
O get over it.

All this foam so that 3tph from Gippsland can have an express. Saving what ? 30min?
Come back when those pax are prepared to pay $100+ for the luxury.

When/if Metro stump up for their own express from Dandy, than maybe Vline could tag along.
Don't hold your breath, much bigger issues for Metro in the next 20 years.
No. It's to allow express trains from the Dandenong to Pakenahm section (and VLine) to run Caulfield-Dandenong, allowing Cranbourne/Clyde to SAS between Caulfield and Dandenong (as well as Freight, and any train that could potentially run Frankston-Dandenong in 50 years time including Port freight and Mornington/Hastings)
John.Z
If a new port ever happens then that is a discussion for that Business case. Definitely in the probably never ever.

As for building 20km of new tracks, squeezing/smashing stations along the way - its a big ask, and nowhere near the benefits of other more pressing tasks.
Frankily it would be easier, less disruptive and no more expensive to do a tunnel.

Not that I'm inviting foam on that $5-10B boondoggle. Its doable but just as unlikely.
  John.Z Assistant Commissioner

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.
tayser
I always found it odd that so many lines were put SXS to FSS on that plan, but on twitter something has come up







Looks like someone has actually drawn some sensible lines for future proofing of a 4th track pair/new viaduct.
  tayser Deputy Commissioner

Location: Melbourne
O get over it.

All this foam so that 3tph from Gippsland can have an express. Saving what ? 30min?
Come back when those pax are prepared to pay $100+ for the luxury.

When/if Metro stump up for their own express from Dandy, than maybe Vline could tag along.
Don't hold your breath, much bigger issues for Metro in the next 20 years.
No. It's to allow express trains from the Dandenong to Pakenahm section (and VLine) to run Caulfield-Dandenong, allowing Cranbourne/Clyde to SAS between Caulfield and Dandenong (as well as Freight, and any train that could potentially run Frankston-Dandenong in 50 years time including Port freight and Mornington/Hastings)
If a new port ever happens then that is a discussion for that Business case. Definitely in the probably never ever.

As for building 20km of new tracks, squeezing/smashing stations along the way - its a big ask, and nowhere near the benefits of other more pressing tasks.
Frankily it would be easier, less disruptive and no more expensive to do a tunnel.

Not that I'm inviting foam on that $5-10B boondoggle. Its doable but just as unlikely.
justarider
There won't be any getting over it... the NDPs are the closest thing we have that are distinct non-foamer like.  And yeah, there'll be higher priorities, but go back to the map I referenced, it's an ultimate plan/scenario, not necessarily prioritising projects in the short-medium term.
  justarider Deputy Commissioner

Location: Free at last, free at last
There won't be any getting over it... the NDPs are the closest thing we have that are distinct non-foamer like.  And yeah, there'll be higher priorities, but go back to the map I referenced, it's an ultimate plan/scenario, not necessarily prioritising projects in the short-medium term.
tayser
I don't has as much faith as you in a diagram that has no status, and has as many holes as swiss cheese.

Just because the PTV diagrams show multiple routes on a line, that usually means shared track, not separate.
Eg Sunbury/Bendigo , Melton/Ballarat
so why assume Dandy/Gippsland any different.

Also a couple of absolute shockers drawn that have no hope of happening
Eg Airport is just a Sunshine shuttle. Warrnambool is a Geelong terminus. Chaddy/ Rowville - say no more!

cheers
John
  doyle Assistant Commissioner

Interesting blog post from Daniel Bowen today



Cross city changes Frankston Sandringham Werribee Williamstown direct, is this through routing? Dandenong anti clockwise all day


Is written as Rumour
  TOQ-1 Deputy Commissioner

Location: Power Trainger
Interesting blog post from Daniel Bowen today



Cross city changes Frankston Sandringham Werribee Williamstown direct, is this through routing? Dandenong anti clockwise all day


Is written as Rumour

doyle
Frankston will run through to Werribee/Laverton/Williamstown with the balance terminating at Flinders St.

The references to Sandringham relate to the weekends where it currently joins the Caulfield Loop. This practice will stop and it will run to Flinders St all the time. I would not expect to see any through-routing as part of normal operations for Sandringham trains.

These rumours are fairly consistent with what has been mentioned for years, with a few extra details about Northern Group drivers changing at North Melbourne to take that out of Flinders St.

Hopefully the HCMTs will be ready to go by December so they can be part of the new timetable.
  route14 Chief Commissioner

I've always been curious about the benefit of the driver change at Flinders Street or wherever where there is no storage yard, as I have with the Tram Hub at Bourke & William Sts.  Trains have to run out of yards and run into them at ends of runs, so inevitably some drivers will be signing on at suburban yards, be relieved at FSS and travel back to yard as passenger, or v.v. with the driver relieving another at FSS and run the train in at the end of the shift.
  TrackRailroad Train Controller

Location: Frankston Line
Interesting blog post from Daniel Bowen today



Cross city changes Frankston Sandringham Werribee Williamstown direct, is this through routing? Dandenong anti clockwise all day


Is written as Rumour

doyle
I agree with taking Frankston and Werribee/ Williamstown out of the loop, this will increase capacity for more Dandenong lines and Cragieburn/Sunbury services through the loop, which is beneficial given the latter lines are over crowded and will grow more significantly due to being located at growth areas at the end of their respective lines.

I think that the Northern line should run clockwise all the time to enable travel from Parliament to Flinders Street. An issue could be at afternoon/ evening peak times that all Frankston, Dandenong and Sandringham line passengers need to take Burnley group trains from the loop stations and interchange at Richmond, which could result in major overcrowding. Currently and in the short term due to the pandemic and reduced travel demand, this is manageable.

I think Northern group bound passengers at the loop stations in the afternoon/evening peak could take an anti clockwise Caulfield group  train and interchange to Southern Cross and this would be manageable. The result should be more reliable services.

Does anyone know if the timetable change is officially confirmed? Additional off peak trains both in the day and early morning, late evening would also be great, but I don't think this is part of this timetable change?
  Lockie91 Chief Train Controller

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.
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.
tayser
This not an offical plan, stop pushing it around as if it has been endorsed. It was leaked to Channel 9 and picked up by Daniel Bowen who went through how some of the proposed changes would play out. There is no context to the leaked document, it could have be one of a dozen different scenarios that PTV was developing. All of this was done without the knowledge that SRL was being planned by Development Victoria. Even if it was on the cusp of being released by PTV it is all null and void now thanks to the SRL.

A new timetable has also been suggested by Daniel Bowen for December when serval operational changes will come into effect. One would hope that PTV & DPC meet the legislative requirement and release a network wide development plan as required under the transport integration act. They are only serval years overdue.

Lockie
  Lockie91 Chief Train Controller

I've always been curious about the benefit of the driver change at Flinders Street or wherever where there is no storage yard, as I have with the Tram Hub at Bourke & William Sts.  Trains have to run out of yards and run into them at ends of runs, so inevitably some drivers will be signing on at suburban yards, be relieved at FSS and travel back to yard as passenger, or v.v. with the driver relieving another at FSS and run the train in at the end of the shift.
route14
You can thank the RTBU for this archaic practice. For a decade now Metro has wanted to break drivers up into Network Groups and move driver change overs to stations outside of the core and to the end of the lines.

As close as it has come is to break the network in three, the old connex and hillside groups. As well as having a central group to help minimise knock on delays caused by drivers having to change services. Currently all drivers must change at Flinders Street, instead of remaining on the train and continuing the service to the next terminus.

The RTBU wont give this up, they don't have a lot to hold over Metro anymore.

Lockie
  railblogger Chief Commissioner

Location: At the back of the train, quitely doing exactly what you'd expect.
I agree with taking Frankston and Werribee/ Williamstown out of the loop, this will increase capacity for more Dandenong lines and Cragieburn/Sunbury services through the loop, which is beneficial given the latter lines are over crowded and will grow more significantly due to being located at growth areas at the end of their respective lines.
TrackRailroad
The Werribee and Frankston lines are also quite busy as well. In fact all the lines you mentioned will get a capacity increase.
  Heihachi_73 Chief Commissioner

Location: Terminating at Ringwood
As for building 20km of new tracks, squeezing/smashing stations along the way - its a big ask
justarider
It's been done before. It wasn't that long ago that the line north of Keon Park was single track and ended at Epping.
  justarider Deputy Commissioner

Location: Free at last, free at last
As for building 20km of new tracks, squeezing/smashing stations along the way - its a big ask
It's been done before. It wasn't that long ago that the line north of Keon Park was single track and ended at Epping.
Heihachi_73
Hardly equivalent.
Keon Park down was always a reserve adequate for the expansion.
Dandenong not mushroom inside.

cheers
John
  TrackRailroad Train Controller

Location: Frankston Line
I agree with taking Frankston and Werribee/ Williamstown out of the loop, this will increase capacity for more Dandenong lines and Cragieburn/Sunbury services through the loop, which is beneficial given the latter lines are over crowded and will grow more significantly due to being located at growth areas at the end of their respective lines.
The Werribee and Frankston lines are also quite busy as well. In fact all the lines you mentioned will get a capacity increase.
railblogger
Sure I appreciate that, of course Werribee and Frankston lines are still busy just to my knowledge not to the same extent as the Pakenham/Cranbourne, Cragieburn or Sunbury lines. Overall the timetable change should reduce delays by minimizing conflict between different lines.
  railblogger Chief Commissioner

Location: At the back of the train, quitely doing exactly what you'd expect.
I agree with taking Frankston and Werribee/ Williamstown out of the loop, this will increase capacity for more Dandenong lines and Cragieburn/Sunbury services through the loop, which is beneficial given the latter lines are over crowded and will grow more significantly due to being located at growth areas at the end of their respective lines.
The Werribee and Frankston lines are also quite busy as well. In fact all the lines you mentioned will get a capacity increase.
Sure I appreciate that, of course Werribee and Frankston lines are still busy just to my knowledge not to the same extent as the Pakenham/Cranbourne, Cragieburn or Sunbury lines. Overall the timetable change should reduce delays by minimizing conflict between different lines.
TrackRailroad
They're not that far behind as I understand it.
  doyle Assistant Commissioner

I hope the loop changes are reflected on the map, with say small directional arrows
  Lockie91 Chief Train Controller

I hope the loop changes are reflected on the map, with say small directional arrows
doyle
Unlikely, the changes will make it easy to use the loop as directions will be fixed.

As it stands now you would assume you could travel between Southern Cross or Richmond and the City Loop at anytime of day.

Lockie
  doyle Assistant Commissioner

I'm not quite sure about the future loop arrangements if someone could help me out would be much appreciated

This is how I'm seeing it, Is this right?

Clifton Hill  clockwise (current)
Caulfied clockwise
Northern anticlockwise
Burnley anticlockwise
And Cross city

And will Flagstaff, Melbourne Central and Parliament platforms be
1 & 3 clockwise
2 & 4 anticlockwise
  mike49 Locomotive Fireman

I'm not quite sure about the future loop arrangements if someone could help me out would be much appreciated

This is how I'm seeing it, Is this right?

Clifton Hill  clockwise (current)
Caulfied clockwise
Northern anticlockwise
Burnley anticlockwise
And Cross city

And will Flagstaff, Melbourne Central and Parliament platforms be
1 & 3 clockwise
2 & 4 anticlockwise
doyle
Could be wrong but I wouldn't expect any change to the Northern & Burnley groups which would continue to change direction in the middle of the day on weekdays as they do now.
  CraigieburnLineUser Locomotive Fireman

I'm not quite sure about the future loop arrangements if someone could help me out would be much appreciated

This is how I'm seeing it, Is this right?

Clifton Hill  clockwise (current)
Caulfied clockwise
Northern anticlockwise
Burnley anticlockwise
And Cross city

And will Flagstaff, Melbourne Central and Parliament platforms be
1 & 3 clockwise
2 & 4 anticlockwise
Could be wrong but I wouldn't expect any change to the Northern & Burnley groups which would continue to change direction in the middle of the day on weekdays as they do now.
mike49
Both Burnley and Northern loops will change in the middle of the day still. This will lead to this arrangement throughout the day (as long as I have everything thought out correctly)

Morning:
Clifton Hill - Clockwise (Jolli-FSS-SXS...)
Caufield - Anticlockwise (Rich-Parl-MC...)
Northern - Clockwise (NthM-Flag-MC...)
Burnley - Anticlockwise (Rich-Parl-MC...)
Cross City - Direct

Afternoon:
Clifton Hill - Clockwise (Jolli-FSS-SXS...)
Caufield - Anticlockwise (Rich-Parl-MC...)
Northern - Anticlockwise (NthM-SXS-FSS...)
Burnley - Clockwise (Rich-FSS-SXS...)
Cross City - Direct

Good thing is now you can get to all locations in the city by train at all times of day. It may not be the fastest (Parl to FSS in the afternoon) but its possible.

I've seen people here mention about changing the Northern loop clockwise all day - there is a bit of merit in this. It would however create an analogue of the Parl to FSS trip under the new timetable.

Of course the remedy to this is the city loop untangling post MM1 to turn platforms 2 and 3 in the loop to a running pair Nth Melb to Richmond. Hopefully that comes sooner rather than later for operational legibility reasons

Sponsored advertisement

Display from: