Caulfield group to become anticlockwise all day

 
  kuldalai Chief Commissioner


Seems that there are lots of ideas how to do a re-config.

What am I missing. Has anybody actually put a case for "why ???"

What is the purpose of "straighten out the loop" ?
It guarantees that nobody on the Frankston or Craigeburn lines can stop at FSS or SCS.
EDIT: also pax on Dandenong line, post MM1, cannot stop at SCS(from swap at Caulfield)

So too bad for a big chunk of pax, but good news to the handful (if any) that need to get from Frankston(line) to Craigeburn(line).
Where the hell are those 40,000 supposed to go?

cheers
JohnThe point is that instead of having two lines on each side of the city joining and creating a bottle neck (which reduces paths into the City), you join lines at the City to create through-routes that maintains capacity.

So the thee through-routed pairs become:

Sandringham - Newport
Burnley Local to Upfield
Frankston to Craigieburn

Clifton Loop and Burnley Loop remain, so one of the pairs above goes via the loop.
Sandringham - Newport makes most sense given F-C could sustain HCMTs

Then at Newport, you can separate that into two, Newport Local (Williamstown and Point Cook via Altona) and Newport Express (Werribee/WV and Geelong), with Newport Local going as above and Newport Express going to Clifton Hill via Metro 2 connecting to the Mernda Line.

Then you look at having Burnley Local become full time Glen Waverley with Burnley Express being converted into Box Hill Local, with a Box Hill Express (four tracks Burnley to Box Hill, Local to Box Hill/Alamein/Oakleigh). The Box Hill Express would tunnel from Burnley to create Metro 3, another cross city route, probably to Sunshine to take some pressure of all the lines running through Metro 1 (Airport, Sunbury, Melton, WV)

All of this is to say that through-routing train lines is the most efficient for maximising peak capacity. At 2am it's a waste of money, but between 7a and 10a, 4p and 7p, we need every train we can get going through the core. We have ample track space except for the few single track sections, but in the core we need each sector to have dedicated tracks the whole way through.
so that all means the end game is Quad to Box Hill, MM2, MM3 - yeah that's gunna happen NOT.

In essence the two tunnels (Caulfield and Northern) are going to be exclusive use of Craigeburn and Frankston.

So again, WHY must you have a through-route.
Those existing loops (post MM1) can already service in & out on fully dedicated track, which HCS will bring up to near 30tph.
The only bottleneck being if Metro continue with the practice of parking at FSS, instead of treating it like any normal through station.

# 4 loops as is: Clifton, Ringwood, Craigeburn, Frankston. Probably ending the mid-day reverse shuffle.
# 2 biggies on MM1: Dandenong, Sunbury
# the rest through FSS & SCS, combining Newport & Upfield run to the preferred opposite of Sandringham or Glen Waverley .

On the viaduct that means 4+0+4 tracks maximum. Only 6 atm.
Bit of a squeeze using only 2 for "the rest". It's where a recently mentioned extra pair on the viaduct starts to make more sense than spagetti tunnels.

end foam?
cheers
John
justarider
I will state yet AGAIN !!!  You re-configure the Northern & Caulfiled Loops to create a through Craigieburn - Frankston track pair via Flagstaff - Melbourne Central and Flagstaff as that then enables one to utilize otherwise poorly utilized bits of track (after Metro 1 opening) to create an above ground cross city group  Roxburgh Park - Upfield - Nth Melb - Stn Cross - Flinders St - Burnley - Glen Waverley (effectiovely 40,000 extra pax through CBD per hour. )

If you dont do the above loop re-configuration you end up with Caulfield and Northern loops under-utilized, and deny the low cost option of getting another 40,000 pax through CBD per peak hour.  The Cost/Benefit of doing the Loop Re-configuration will show an excellent rate of return . Its just the way the cards fall, but really only one opportunity to do it with minimal disruption hard on the heels of Metro 1 opening, and then a lot of the works can be pre-constructed if planning starts in 2021/22 . (However if one looks at re-configuring the Burnley & Clifton Hill Loops to make a similar cross city group, the benefits are just not there, so you standardize to one clockwise and other anti-clockwise and maximize train through put.) After City Loop re-configuration next we move onto Metro-2 in two stages 1.  Newport South - Fishermans Bend - Siouthern Cross - Flagstaff - Parkville. Stage -2  Parkville - Fitzroy - Croxton.

Now in the case of Upfield & Glen Waverley only running via Sthn Cross & Flinders St, pax can get used to having to change once in Melbourne, just like pax overseas do . Arrangements at Richmond and North Melbourne can be -reconfigured for cross platform interchange for travellers wishing to travel direct via Sxs & Fss or via Parliament, Melb Central - Flagstaff. Additionally travellers via Melb Central can Interchange via State Library to Metro 1, and longer term at Sxs or Flagstaff to Metro 2.

So potentially on completion of Metro 1 operation can be simplified to :

Metro 1  Sunbury - Arden - State Library - Town Hall - Anzac - Dandenong - Pakenham/Cranbourne
Werribee/Laverton/Williamstown - Southern Cross - Flinders St -Sandringham
Craigieburn - Nth Melb - Flagstaff - Melb Central - Parliament - Richmond - South Yarra - Caulfield - Frankston
Roxburgh Park - Upfield - Southern Cross - Flinders St - Richmond - Burnley - Glen Waverley
Alamein - Flinders Street direct.
Burnley Loop - anti-clockwise all times (Ringwood/Belgrave.Croydon)
Clifton Hill Loop - clockwise all times (Mernda & Hurstbridge)

Sponsored advertisement

  John.Z Assistant Commissioner

so that all means the end game is Quad to Box Hill, MM2, MM3 - yeah that's gunna happen NOT.

In essence the two tunnels (Caulfield and Northern) are going to be exclusive use of Craigeburn and Frankston.

So again, WHY must you have a through-route.
Those existing loops (post MM1) can already service in & out on fully dedicated track, which HCS will bring up to near 30tph.
The only bottleneck being if Metro continue with the practice of parking at FSS, instead of treating it like any normal through station.

# 4 loops as is: Clifton, Ringwood, Craigeburn, Frankston. Probably ending the mid-day reverse shuffle.
# 2 biggies on MM1: Dandenong, Sunbury
# the rest through FSS & SCS, combining Newport & Upfield run to the preferred opposite of Sandringham or Glen Waverley .

On the viaduct that means 4+0+4 tracks maximum. Only 6 atm.
Bit of a squeeze using only 2 for "the rest". It's where a recently mentioned extra pair on the viaduct starts to make more sense than spagetti tunnels.

end foam?
cheers
John
justarider
Please delete the quotes inside quotes. Thanks

From the east you have Burnley Local that needs to turn back on itself, and Frankston which goes around the loop. Now You can get away with Frankston turning around the loop, but Burnley Local having to turnback will limit frequencies in peak.

From the west, you have Craigieburn and Upfield mering at North Melbourne. You could have Upfield terminate at Spencer St and remain segregated, but that's less ideal than it reaching at least Flinders St if not the City Loop. It's not idea for lines to be capacity limited by sharing resources.

By through-routing these four destinations (6 if you include Newport and Sandringham), you increase efficiency for minimal spend.

Ideally:
Frankston - Craigieburn goes over the new viaduct, to allow for HCMTs
Sandringham - Upfield goes via the City Loop
Burnley Local - Newport goes via the middle two viaduct tracks

With Clifton and Burnley Loops still operating in opposite directions (Clifton Clockwise, Burnley anti-clock) all day, every day.

The rest about other metro tunnels and quadruplication is a bit of foam, but at the end of the day everytime the core gets to capacity, we need to spend a bit more to ensure that we're not limited at the out suburbs. (No point duplicating Cranbourne if there isn't enough core capacity for more than 6tph in peak, that's why we had to build Metro 1).

Same goes for when Melton, Airport, WV electrification comes online. Initially, all 3 with Sunbury can fit into Metro 1, but we need to start planning for how we unlock more core capacity to allow for extra trains in the peak.

That's why Metro 2 is a serious idea. The Mernda Line is gridlocked, you can't add any more trains without taking away from Hurstbridge. Short term, the Clifton Hill junction needs fixing/optimising to go from trains every 3.5min to every 2.5 or 3min. Long term, gonna need to separate those lines completely.
  justarider Deputy Commissioner

Location: Free at last, free at last

Seems that there are lots of ideas how to do a re-config.

What am I missing. Has anybody actually put a case for "why ???"

What is the purpose of "straighten out the loop" ?
It guarantees that nobody on the Frankston or Craigeburn lines can stop at FSS or SCS.
EDIT: also pax on Dandenong line, post MM1, cannot stop at SCS(from swap at Caulfield)


end foam?
cheers
John
"justarider"
I will state yet AGAIN !!!  You re-configure the Northern & Caulfiled Loops to create a through Craigieburn - Frankston track pair via Flagstaff - Melbourne Central and Flagstaff as that then enables one to utilize otherwise poorly utilized bits of track (after Metro 1 opening) to create an above ground cross city group  Roxburgh Park - Upfield - Nth Melb - Stn Cross - Flinders St - Burnley - Glen Waverley (effectiovely 40,000 extra pax through CBD per hour. )

"kuldalai"
and again WHY ??

Through from Frankston to Craigieburn gives you a theoretical 30tph both ways = 60tph into the CBD

Frankston into CBD via loop , theoretical 30tph
+
Craigieburn into CBD via loop , theoretical 30tph = 60tph.

SO WHAT IS TO BE GAINED ?  But you loose 2/5 of station connections.

Poorly utilised ?? . Sure the current set up is. Both Frankston and Craigieburn are desperate for more tph, and there will be a dedicated loop for each to fill that need.

Cross city Upfield/Glen Waverley is a no brainer, could be done tomorrow. They also would have pretty clear paths from Richmond to North Melb.
It however does mean both lose their places in the loops.
It that worth the political price? You seem to think so.

cheers
John
  railblogger Chief Commissioner

Location: At the back of the train, quitely doing exactly what you'd expect.
Cross city Upfield/Glen Waverley is a no brainer, could be done tomorrow. They also would have pretty clear paths from Richmond to North Melb.
It however does mean both lose their places in the loops.
It that worth the political price? You seem to think so.
"justarider"

Cross-city Upfield/Glen Waverley could not be done tomorrow because it would need to share tracks with Werribee/Laverton/Williamstown which is already close to capacity in peak hour. Through-routing two of the four loop tunnels would free up two more viaduct tracks which currently (pre-COVID) are playing host to trains that are largely empty and allow such a routing to be created.

Passengers switch at Richmond/North Melbourne for trains to their respective destinations. The political fallout will be minimal as passengers will not have to wait for very long during transfers due to the high frequency.
  John.Z Assistant Commissioner


Cross-city Upfield/Glen Waverley could not be done tomorrow because it would need to share tracks with Werribee/Laverton/Williamstown which is already close to capacity in peak hour. Through-routing two of the four loop tunnels would free up two more viaduct tracks which currently (pre-COVID) are playing host to trains that are largely empty and allow such a routing to be created.

Passengers switch at Richmond/North Melbourne for trains to their respective destinations. The political fallout will be minimal as passengers will not have to wait for very long during transfers due to the high frequency.
railblogger
100%, and is clearly missed by some here. There's always a bit of give and take, but the needs of the majority need to outweigh the needs of the few in this case.

Move Sandringham-Upfield via the City Loop both ways. Both of these lines at 12tph+ in peak will have room for transfers, where as Frankston-Craigieburn less so (also need to keep in mind HCMTs, and which lines would most benefit, which means keeping them outside the city loop).

Burnley Local to Newport can take the middle viaduct pair because of the flyover which will let Craigieburn trains take platforms 5/6 (or 6/7 if they make them islands to give VLine a dedicated North Melbourne platform, ideally platform 3 bi-directional for maximum efficiency of pathing)
  Lockie91 Chief Train Controller

All the foam on here and nobody bothered to check the PTV NDP which has this a very detailed plan and track layout for the city loop reconfiguration. It should be noted that 'Burnley' refers to direct Alamein & Glen Waverley services terminating at FSS. With Lilydale & Belgrave services being 'Ringwood Loop' As stated in the plan:

Page 122:

Constraints in the Northern Group revolve around the need for Craigieburn and Upfield lines to merge in the City Loop, thereby restricting the combined frequency to 24 trains per hour.
On the Burnley Group, the terminating and turning back of Burnley local trains at Flinders Street limits capacity on all Burnley Group local lines.

it can be seen that the loop operation is inefficient because all trains entering the loop will be overloaded. However, by the time they run across the viaduct between Flinders Street and Southern Cross, they will be nearly empty, which is a waste of valuable central area track capacity.

In addition, Burnley local services (the Glen Waverley and Alamein lines) that run direct to and terminate at Flinders Street will be underutilised as many passengers will transfer onto loop services at Richmond, which again is a sub-optimal use of trains and infrastructure.
By comparison, the through lines will have significant train loadings throughout the central area, resulting in a more optimal use of infrastructure.
In summary, the removal of loop operations on the Northern and Caulfield loops and the connection between specific lines on each side of the city will result in the creation of two new Cross-City lines, with capacity for an additional 30 trains per hour in the peak (Craigieburn – more than six trains per hour, Upfield and future Northern lines – more than 18 trains per hour and Burnley local lines – more than six trains per hour).

So....

The issue that is being solved is empty cars running over the viaduct to form a counter peak services, along with even distribution of passengers through the loop and better sterilisation of burnley locals.

By reconfiguring the loop to run Craigieburn - Frankston you essentially create an additional track pair in the core by freeing up the viaduct.

A packed Craigieburn service enters the loop and exits at Richmond to form an empty counter peak service to Frankston and vice versa. (30TPH)

Burnley services that would have been terminating at FSS are now through routed over the viaduct, which is no longer carrying empty cars, to Newport & Werribee. (30TPH)

Sandringham is through routed to Upfield & Wallan. (30TPH)

North Melbourne layout is:
Platform 1 - Bi Directional for regional services
Platfrom 2 & 3 Frankston/Craigieburn
Platform 4 & 5 Newport/Burnley
Platform 6 & 7 Upfield/Sandringham - Requires the construction of a new flyover on the current Melbourne Yard.
RRL (by now sparked) services continue to bypass North Melbourne at terminate at Platform 15 & 16 at SXS.  

There are several other projects that need to be completed alongside the city loop reconfiguration to release the capacity detailed in the plan.

Quad from Burnley to Camberwell is a must to provide additional capacity for the extra local services beyond the core. Construction of the 4th Platform at Camberwell and reconfiguration of the track to shift Ringwood Loop service to the new express tracks. With the eventual quad to Box hill and track reconfigurations to allow burnley locals to terminate on Platforms 1 & 2 at Box Hill.
LX removals at Surry & Mont Albert

Ringwood Loop Express Box Hill - Camberwell - Glenferrie - Burnley - Richmond - Loop.
Burnley Locals Box Hill SAS Flinders Street - SXS - on to Newport.

This allows proper segregation of the two services that currently run on the Ringwood group, but are hopelessly inefficient due to the third track.

https://www.ptv.vic.gov.au/assets/default-site/footer/legal-and-policies/growing-our-rail-network-2018-2025/24c037b717/PTV_Network-Development-Plan_Metropolitan-Rail_2016update.pdf


Lockie
  John.Z Assistant Commissioner

North Melbourne layout is:
Platform 1 - Bi Directional for regional services
Platfrom 2 & 3 Frankston/Craigieburn
Platform 4 & 5 Newport/Burnley
Platform 6 & 7 Upfield/Sandringham - Requires the construction of a new flyover on the current Melbourne Yard.
RRL (by now sparked) services continue to bypass North Melbourne at terminate at Platform 15 & 16 at SXS.  

There are several other projects that need to be completed alongside the city loop reconfiguration to release the capacity detailed in the plan.

Quad from Burnley to Camberwell is a must to provide additional capacity for the extra local services beyond the core. Construction of the 4th Platform at Camberwell and reconfiguration of the track to shift Ringwood Loop service to the new express tracks. With the eventual quad to Box hill and track reconfigurations to allow burnley locals to terminate on Platforms 1 & 2 at Box Hill.
LX removals at Surry & Mont Albert

Ringwood Loop Express Box Hill - Camberwell - Glenferrie - Burnley - Richmond - Loop.
Burnley Locals Box Hill SAS Flinders Street - SXS - on to Newport.

This allows proper segregation of the two services that currently run on the Ringwood group, but are hopelessly inefficient due to the third track.

https://www.ptv.vic.gov.au/assets/default-site/footer/legal-and-policies/growing-our-rail-network-2018-2025/24c037b717/PTV_Network-Development-Plan_Metropolitan-Rail_2016update.pdf


Lockie
Lockie91
I know what the NDP says, but I think it's unwise to limit Frankston-Craigieburn to the City Loop and it's 160m constraint. Both lines could benefit from 10 Car HCMTs. Sandringham to Upfield less so (if they will, it'll be in 40+ years time). Under that plan, no new flyovers need construction. (UP/SAN: 1/2, VL:3, NEWP/GW: 4/5, FRA/CRA: 6/7)

Quadding to Box Hill isn't foam either. Initially, we need to segregate Box Hill Local and Alamein from the Box Hill Express trains in both directions. In the future, the Box Hill Local (and Alamein) would probably need separating from GW trains too, for 6 tracks Burnley to City (the new tracks don't not need to follow the same path into the city however, I'd like them to connect Jolimont to the City Loop directly).
  Lockie91 Chief Train Controller

North Melbourne layout is:
Platform 1 - Bi Directional for regional services
Platfrom 2 & 3 Frankston/Craigieburn
Platform 4 & 5 Newport/Burnley
Platform 6 & 7 Upfield/Sandringham - Requires the construction of a new flyover on the current Melbourne Yard.
RRL (by now sparked) services continue to bypass North Melbourne at terminate at Platform 15 & 16 at SXS.  

There are several other projects that need to be completed alongside the city loop reconfiguration to release the capacity detailed in the plan.

Quad from Burnley to Camberwell is a must to provide additional capacity for the extra local services beyond the core. Construction of the 4th Platform at Camberwell and reconfiguration of the track to shift Ringwood Loop service to the new express tracks. With the eventual quad to Box hill and track reconfigurations to allow burnley locals to terminate on Platforms 1 & 2 at Box Hill.
LX removals at Surry & Mont Albert

Ringwood Loop Express Box Hill - Camberwell - Glenferrie - Burnley - Richmond - Loop.
Burnley Locals Box Hill SAS Flinders Street - SXS - on to Newport.

This allows proper segregation of the two services that currently run on the Ringwood group, but are hopelessly inefficient due to the third track.

https://www.ptv.vic.gov.au/assets/default-site/footer/legal-and-policies/growing-our-rail-network-2018-2025/24c037b717/PTV_Network-Development-Plan_Metropolitan-Rail_2016update.pdf


Lockie
I know what the NDP says, but I think it's unwise to limit Frankston-Craigieburn to the City Loop and it's 160m constraint. Both lines could benefit from 10 Car HCMTs. Sandringham to Upfield less so (if they will, it'll be in 40+ years time). Under that plan, no new flyovers need construction. (UP/SAN: 1/2, VL:3, NEWP/GW: 4/5, FRA/CRA: 6/7)

Quadding to Box Hill isn't foam either. Initially, we need to segregate Box Hill Local and Alamein from the Box Hill Express trains in both directions. In the future, the Box Hill Local (and Alamein) would probably need separating from GW trains too, for 6 tracks Burnley to City (the new tracks don't not need to follow the same path into the city however, I'd like them to connect Jolimont to the City Loop directly).
John.Z

HCMTS (7 car) can fit in the loop, as you will see come December. The fleet plan detailed in the NDP does not have HCMTS servicing this route, Craigieburn - Frankston is to run using Xtraps, most likely to 2.0 version that is currently in planning.

Quadding to Box Hill is not foam, never said it was, nor did PTV. It is very much needed to allow full segregation of the current operations. The question is at what point does the patronage justify the cost. Currently not at all. From Camberwell there is no land available for the construction of a 4th track, this will require acquisitions.

Burnley to Camberwell is doable now, provisions are already in place for this track. If a city loop reconfiguration is announced, I would expect that quadding Burley to Camberwell will also be part of the project. As you need somewhere for those extra Burnley locals to go.

HOWEVER, this is all pre SRL & pre COVID. The PTV plan was pretty much thrown out the window with the SRL. An updated NDP which has the SRL as part of it is desperately needed. COVID has placed a damper on patronage for the time being, giving the government some time to catch up; or sit on their hands and do nothing for 2 years.

Lockie
  John.Z Assistant Commissioner


HCMTS (7 car) can fit in the loop, as you will see come December. The fleet plan detailed in the NDP does not have HCMTS servicing this route, Craigieburn - Frankston is to run using Xtraps, most likely to 2.0 version that is currently in planning.

Quadding to Box Hill is not foam, never said it was, nor did PTV. It is very much needed to allow full segregation of the current operations. The question is at what point does the patronage justify the cost. Currently not at all. From Camberwell there is no land available for the construction of a 4th track, this will require acquisitions.

Burnley to Camberwell is doable now, provisions are already in place for this track. If a city loop reconfiguration is announced, I would expect that quadding Burley to Camberwell will also be part of the project. As you need somewhere for those extra Burnley locals to go.

HOWEVER, this is all pre SRL & pre COVID. The PTV plan was pretty much thrown out the window with the SRL. An updated NDP which has the SRL as part of it is desperately needed. COVID has placed a damper on patronage for the time being, giving the government some time to catch up; or sit on their hands and do nothing for 2 years.

Lockie
Lockie91
HCMTs are 7 car yes, but that's only temporary. Frankston and Craigieburn should be considered for 10 car HCMTs (along with Mernda) as the next way to maximise existing infrastructure.

I think it's time that the government sat down, and drew up a clearways program for the current network. What are the projects that need to be completed to that we can maximise our existing infrastructure. What do we need to continue to segregate lines into their own independent sectors with as little branching as possible.

They need to do so with a clear timeline, link it in with the Level Crossing Program too to minimise disruption. We already lost one chance to do it cheaply (CD9, 2 tracks to 4), we can't continue to let that sort of complacency slide again. There needs to be a clear argument and outcome for each clearway program.
  CraigieburnLineUser Locomotive Fireman


HCMTS (7 car) can fit in the loop, as you will see come December. The fleet plan detailed in the NDP does not have HCMTS servicing this route, Craigieburn - Frankston is to run using Xtraps, most likely to 2.0 version that is currently in planning.

Quadding to Box Hill is not foam, never said it was, nor did PTV. It is very much needed to allow full segregation of the current operations. The question is at what point does the patronage justify the cost. Currently not at all. From Camberwell there is no land available for the construction of a 4th track, this will require acquisitions.

Burnley to Camberwell is doable now, provisions are already in place for this track. If a city loop reconfiguration is announced, I would expect that quadding Burley to Camberwell will also be part of the project. As you need somewhere for those extra Burnley locals to go.

HOWEVER, this is all pre SRL & pre COVID. The PTV plan was pretty much thrown out the window with the SRL. An updated NDP which has the SRL as part of it is desperately needed. COVID has placed a damper on patronage for the time being, giving the government some time to catch up; or sit on their hands and do nothing for 2 years.

LockieHCMTs are 7 car yes, but that's only temporary. Frankston and Craigieburn should be considered for 10 car HCMTs (along with Mernda) as the next way to maximise existing infrastructure.

I think it's time that the government sat down, and drew up a clearways program for the current network. What are the projects that need to be completed to that we can maximise our existing infrastructure. What do we need to continue to segregate lines into their own independent sectors with as little branching as possible.

They need to do so with a clear timeline, link it in with the Level Crossing Program too to minimise disruption. We already lost one chance to do it cheaply (CD9, 2 tracks to 4), we can't continue to let that sort of complacency slide again. There needs to be a clear argument and outcome for each clearway program.
John.Z
With a theoretical 24-30 trains per hour (HCS) each way the Craigieburn-Frankston corridor will not need 10 car HCMTs. We currently have about 9 trains an hour in peak on the Craigieburn line. Yes these are packed and there will be growth out North, but a 330% increase in services should more then provide for 30+ years of growth. You could even throw in another line (eg Flemington extension) and it would handle it fine* but that's discussion for another day

*with a Newmarket redevelopment
  Lockie91 Chief Train Controller


HCMTS (7 car) can fit in the loop, as you will see come December. The fleet plan detailed in the NDP does not have HCMTS servicing this route, Craigieburn - Frankston is to run using Xtraps, most likely to 2.0 version that is currently in planning.

Quadding to Box Hill is not foam, never said it was, nor did PTV. It is very much needed to allow full segregation of the current operations. The question is at what point does the patronage justify the cost. Currently not at all. From Camberwell there is no land available for the construction of a 4th track, this will require acquisitions.

Burnley to Camberwell is doable now, provisions are already in place for this track. If a city loop reconfiguration is announced, I would expect that quadding Burley to Camberwell will also be part of the project. As you need somewhere for those extra Burnley locals to go.

HOWEVER, this is all pre SRL & pre COVID. The PTV plan was pretty much thrown out the window with the SRL. An updated NDP which has the SRL as part of it is desperately needed. COVID has placed a damper on patronage for the time being, giving the government some time to catch up; or sit on their hands and do nothing for 2 years.

LockieHCMTs are 7 car yes, but that's only temporary. Frankston and Craigieburn should be considered for 10 car HCMTs (along with Mernda) as the next way to maximise existing infrastructure.

I think it's time that the government sat down, and drew up a clearways program for the current network. What are the projects that need to be completed to that we can maximise our existing infrastructure. What do we need to continue to segregate lines into their own independent sectors with as little branching as possible.

They need to do so with a clear timeline, link it in with the Level Crossing Program too to minimise disruption. We already lost one chance to do it cheaply (CD9, 2 tracks to 4), we can't continue to let that sort of complacency slide again. There needs to be a clear argument and outcome for each clearway program.
John.Z
I very much doubt we will see any future orders of HCMTs in Melbourne.

The political climate is very different now to when the HCMTs were ordered from CRRC in 2016. China is on the nose, nationalism is back on the rise. With the current recession I very much doubt you will see Andrews announce another order from CRRC, this would be met to raucous opposition from everyone including his own base due to work being done in China that could be done here. Federal Labor yesterday announced their plan if elected, this included emphasis on building rolling stock here. No surprise after Glady's 'we don't know how to build trains' comment.

I suspect that we will see future trains built here in Victoria just like the V/Lo's & E Class Trams. It's easily doable if the government offers a long term contract that gives certainty to the company investing. No company will invest in a large scale manufacturing faciltiy for a short term 20 trains and maybe a few more contract. We need between 200 - 300 sets over the next 20 - 30 years, no reason why the government couldn't do a 30 - 40 year contract with one set a month + maintenance.

Yes, long term plan is needed. We don't know how all SRL and other new projects that have been annouced will play into the wider network.

4 tracks from Dandenong is in the same boat as Box Hill. Needed one day, but when capacity justifies the expense. That is still 20+ years away. The current 3TPH regional and a handful of freight do not yet justify the billion that will be needed.


This thread has gone way off topic. Laughing

Lockie
  CraigieburnLineUser Locomotive Fireman


This thread has gone way off topic. Laughing

Lockie
Lockie91
We are in desperate need of a "network and rolling stock ramblings" thread. Pin it at the top of f-22 and we can get back on topic lol
  John.Z Assistant Commissioner

I very much doubt we will see any future orders of HCMTs in Melbourne.

The political climate is very different now to when the HCMTs were ordered from CRRC in 2016. China is on the nose, nationalism is back on the rise. With the current recession I very much doubt you will see Andrews announce another order from CRRC, this would be met to raucous opposition from everyone including his own base due to work being done in China that could be done here. Federal Labor yesterday announced their plan if elected, this included emphasis on building rolling stock here. No surprise after Glady's 'we don't know how to build trains' comment.

I suspect that we will see future trains built here in Victoria just like the V/Lo's & E Class Trams. It's easily doable if the government offers a long term contract that gives certainty to the company investing. No company will invest in a large scale manufacturing faciltiy for a short term 20 trains and maybe a few more contract. We need between 200 - 300 sets over the next 20 - 30 years, no reason why the government couldn't do a 30 - 40 year contract with one set a month + maintenance.

Yes, long term plan is needed. We don't know how all SRL and other new projects that have been annouced will play into the wider network.

4 tracks from Dandenong is in the same boat as Box Hill. Needed one day, but when capacity justifies the expense. That is still 20+ years away. The current 3TPH regional and a handful of freight do not yet justify the billion that will be needed.


This thread has gone way off topic. Laughing

Lockie
Lockie91
The only thing that comes from China is the Car Body, all of the other components are from Victoria (except for some electronics from Europe).

The X'traps are built exactly the same way. Car body from overseas, fit-out locally with local parts.

I agree that some projects are more long term than others, but they still need to be planned for, and other projects need to be planned for, with the knowledge of its existence, otherwise you waste money demolishing new infrastructure because it wasn't built with any future proofing or forethought.
  Jordy33 Station Staff

I very much doubt we will see any future orders of HCMTs in Melbourne.

The political climate is very different now to when the HCMTs were ordered from CRRC in 2016. China is on the nose, nationalism is back on the rise. With the current recession I very much doubt you will see Andrews announce another order from CRRC, this would be met to raucous opposition from everyone including his own base due to work being done in China that could be done here. Federal Labor yesterday announced their plan if elected, this included emphasis on building rolling stock here. No surprise after Glady's 'we don't know how to build trains' comment.

I suspect that we will see future trains built here in Victoria just like the V/Lo's & E Class Trams. It's easily doable if the government offers a long term contract that gives certainty to the company investing. No company will invest in a large scale manufacturing faciltiy for a short term 20 trains and maybe a few more contract. We need between 200 - 300 sets over the next 20 - 30 years, no reason why the government couldn't do a 30 - 40 year contract with one set a month + maintenance.

Yes, long term plan is needed. We don't know how all SRL and other new projects that have been annouced will play into the wider network.

4 tracks from Dandenong is in the same boat as Box Hill. Needed one day, but when capacity justifies the expense. That is still 20+ years away. The current 3TPH regional and a handful of freight do not yet justify the billion that will be needed.


This thread has gone way off topic. Laughing

Lockie
The only thing that comes from China is the Car Body, all of the other components are from Victoria (except for some electronics from Europe).

The X'traps are built exactly the same way. Car body from overseas, fit-out locally with local parts.

I agree that some projects are more long term than others, but they still need to be planned for, and other projects need to be planned for, with the knowledge of its existence, otherwise you waste money demolishing new infrastructure because it wasn't built with any future proofing or forethought.
John.Z
Yes but HCMT car bodies are built by CRRC, a state owned Chinese company that benefits from slave labour. X’Trap car bodies don’t come from an uncivilised country.
  Lockie91 Chief Train Controller

The only thing that comes from China is the Car Body, all of the other components are from Victoria (except for some electronics from Europe). The X'traps are built exactly the same way. Car body from overseas, fit-out locally with local parts. I agree that some projects are more long term than others, but they still need to be planned for, and other projects need to be planned for, with the knowledge of its existence, otherwise you waste money demolishing new infrastructure because it wasn't built with any future proofing or forethought.
John.Z


I know what is made here and what comes from CRRC and yes the Xtraps are the same.

One thing both these trains sets share is a government behind the eight ball needing a quick off the shelf model to go.

The Xtraps were ordered in 2000 by Connex to fulfil their contract to replace the Hitachi's (the first time). First unit was not delivered until the end of 2002, with the first 11 sets fitted out in France. Some three years from order to first locally fitted out train. The government has been drip feeding Alstom ever since, they do not want to loose the manufacturing capacity.

HCMTs first came about in 2009 in the NDP, but were not ordered until 2015, with a contact singed in 2016. Early works for MM1 started the same year. At the time the Dandenong group was a chronic over crowding. The Andrews government need trains and needed them fast. The first HCMTs were planned to be in service in 2019, 3 years after contract signing. Pakenham east was completed late last year, if we use that as an example of a manufacture facility, HCMTs would have only just started being manufactured. Assuming the design and development phase did not encounter any issues. When they are finally in service, we are likely to see see 10 - 15 sets enter service at the one time.

As I said CRRC is a dirty state owned company, which after COVID19, the anti China movement, Trump and the recent labour issues has been pretty much been struck out for any future orders. A government would be eaten alive if they went and ordered trains from CRRC. We are more likely to see long term construction of Victorian made trains, same as the E-class trams. This is much easier to sell to the voters, then Slave Labour trains made in china. It may be a an off the shelf designed manufactured here, or a completely new set made for Melbourne.

Alstom makes the new generation metro trains
Bombardier makes the new generation Regional electric trains
Bombardier doesn't need to scale up, Alstom would need time to expand it operations in Ballarat.

Yes but HCMT car bodies are built by CRRC, a state owned Chinese company that benefits from slave labour. X’Trap car bodies don’t come from an uncivilised country.
Jordy33

Alstom & Bombardier both have both been accused of using the same labour.

Lockie
  route14 Chief Commissioner

Actually, labour in train manufacturing business get much better welfare than the slave labour in those Cantonese sweat-shop costume factories.
  TOQ-1 Deputy Commissioner

Location: Power Trainger
That Alstom employees in Ballarat have been seconded to Bombardier to work on Vlocity maintenance, which shows that there is some commitment from Government to keep Alstom ticking along long enough until they can get another order.

It is just a shame that the Department doesn't seem able to sell the case for getting a reliable pipeline of rolling stock projects on the go to the decision makers.
  kuldalai Chief Commissioner

That Alstom employees in Ballarat have been seconded to Bombardier to work on Vlocity maintenance, which shows that there is some commitment from Government to keep Alstom ticking along long enough until they can get another order.

It is just a shame that the Department doesn't seem able to sell the case for getting a reliable pipeline of rolling stock projects on the go to the decision makers.
TOQ-1
Ah yes remember 5 years or so back a glossy booklet from DOT the Rollingstock Plan.
- No more ad hoc orders.
- A strategic long term plan and on-going acquisition of trains and trams etc to allow lower prices, manufacturers certainty, better pricing for fleet , on going employment certainty for Alsthom & Bombardier and any new comers  blah ! blah !
- Also new generation regional train and new generation tram to replace A, Z, B-2.

Now 5 years plus  later usual situation continues :

- Still ordereing trains in dribs and drabs viz: V/Locities and Xtraps Generation-2
- Still ordering trams at 10 a year in dribs and drabs when we need minimum 25 p.a. to meet DDA compliance by 2032

Disgracefully after 5 years plus still no spec for either the new generation regional train, or new generation tram .

A little less spin and glossy brochures full of wishy washy motherhood statements and a little more delivery from Governments.
  lkernan Deputy Commissioner

Location: Melbourne
That Alstom employees in Ballarat have been seconded to Bombardier to work on Vlocity maintenance, which shows that there is some commitment from Government to keep Alstom ticking along long enough until they can get another order.
TOQ-1
Considering they are about to become the one company, i'd imagine they'll survive.

https://www.alstom.com/press-releases-news/2020/9/key-milestone-alstoms-acquisition-project-bombardier-transportation
  John.Z Assistant Commissioner

On the next-gen regional train, Hitachi make a great bi-mode train (Class 800/802). Goes 200km/hr and is electric / diesel-electric (popular request here). Would be a good future proofing for HSR services to Geelong/Ballarat/Bendigo.

I'm sure that Alstom/Bombardier could design a similar product for VLine.
  railblogger Chief Commissioner

Location: At the back of the train, quitely doing exactly what you'd expect.
On the next-gen regional train, Hitachi make a great bi-mode train (Class 800/802). Goes 200km/hr and is electric / diesel-electric (popular request here). Would be a good future proofing for HSR services to Geelong/Ballarat/Bendigo.

I'm sure that Alstom/Bombardier could design a similar product for VLine.
John.Z
Perhaps a variant of the Aventra?
  Otter_H Locomotive Fireman

I am a little confused here as people are talking about services running from Frankston to Cragieburn via the city loop involving both the Northern loop and the Caulfield loop. (One for eastbound trains and one for westbound.) Is it possible for both these tunnels to access Richmond (Northern loop) and North Melbourne (Caulfield loop) or are we expecting some extra construction to be undertaken.

Thanks
  CraigieburnLineUser Locomotive Fireman

I am a little confused here as people are talking about services running from Frankston to Cragieburn via the city loop involving both the Northern loop and the Caulfield loop. (One for eastbound trains and one for westbound.) Is it possible for both these tunnels to access Richmond (Northern loop) and North Melbourne (Caulfield loop) or are we expecting some extra construction to be undertaken.

Thanks
Otter_H
It would be extra construction yes. It would involve converting one of the tunnel portals at North Melbourne (Platform 1/2 from the NDP) to access the Caufield tunnel and one portal at Richmond to access the Northern tunnel (Platform 3/4). It would happen after MM1 to allow services to run NM platforms 2/3, platforms 2/3 at loop stations to Richmond 4/5. This is the proposed layout but it doesn't take the revised MM2 (Newport to the City side) into account.

  mejhammers1 Chief Commissioner

That Alstom employees in Ballarat have been seconded to Bombardier to work on Vlocity maintenance, which shows that there is some commitment from Government to keep Alstom ticking along long enough until they can get another order.

It is just a shame that the Department doesn't seem able to sell the case for getting a reliable pipeline of rolling stock projects on the go to the decision makers.
Ah yes remember 5 years or so back a glossy booklet from DOT the Rollingstock Plan.
- No more ad hoc orders.
- A strategic long term plan and on-going acquisition of trains and trams etc to allow lower prices, manufacturers certainty, better pricing for fleet , on going employment certainty for Alsthom & Bombardier and any new comers  blah ! blah !
- Also new generation regional train and new generation tram to replace A, Z, B-2.

Now 5 years plus  later usual situation continues :

- Still ordereing trains in dribs and drabs viz: V/Locities and Xtraps Generation-2
- Still ordering trams at 10 a year in dribs and drabs when we need minimum 25 p.a. to meet DDA compliance by 2032

Disgracefully after 5 years plus still no spec for either the new generation regional train, or new generation tram .

A little less spin and glossy brochures full of wishy washy motherhood statements and a little more delivery from Governments.
kuldalai
Totally agree. The Rolling Stock situation is a bit of a debacle. Here we still have 60 and 70 year old converted carriages still running on V/Line, there are 90 life expired Comeng's running on the Met system and most of our tram network is serviced by old high floor trams. As a result we are

- Refurbishing old N Type Carriages
- Spending $200 Million refurbishing old high floor trams.
- Spending Millions on refurbishing old Comeng Trains

It has also taken this state 18 years to deliver 100 6 car Xtraps into service. In contrast NSW has delivered 103 8 car Waratahs in 9 years. And those Trains are far more sophisticated then the bog standard xtrap.

As regards to Rolling stock, Victoria really needs to pull its finger out.


Michael
  Lockie91 Chief Train Controller

That Alstom employees in Ballarat have been seconded to Bombardier to work on Vlocity maintenance, which shows that there is some commitment from Government to keep Alstom ticking along long enough until they can get another order.

It is just a shame that the Department doesn't seem able to sell the case for getting a reliable pipeline of rolling stock projects on the go to the decision makers.
Ah yes remember 5 years or so back a glossy booklet from DOT the Rollingstock Plan.
- No more ad hoc orders.
- A strategic long term plan and on-going acquisition of trains and trams etc to allow lower prices, manufacturers certainty, better pricing for fleet , on going employment certainty for Alsthom & Bombardier and any new comers  blah ! blah !
- Also new generation regional train and new generation tram to replace A, Z, B-2.

Now 5 years plus  later usual situation continues :

- Still ordereing trains in dribs and drabs viz: V/Locities and Xtraps Generation-2
- Still ordering trams at 10 a year in dribs and drabs when we need minimum 25 p.a. to meet DDA compliance by 2032

Disgracefully after 5 years plus still no spec for either the new generation regional train, or new generation tram .

A little less spin and glossy brochures full of wishy washy motherhood statements and a little more delivery from Governments.
Totally agree. The Rolling Stock situation is a bit of a debacle. Here we still have 60 and 70 year old converted carriages still running on V/Line, there are 90 life expired Comeng's running on the Met system and most of our tram network is serviced by old high floor trams. As a result we are

- Refurbishing old N Type Carriages
- Spending $200 Million refurbishing old high floor trams.
- Spending Millions on refurbishing old Comeng Trains

It has also taken this state 18 years to deliver 100 6 car Xtraps into service. In contrast NSW has delivered 103 8 car Waratahs in 9 years. And those Trains are far more sophisticated then the bog standard xtrap.

As regards to Rolling stock, Victoria really needs to pull its finger out.


Michael
mejhammers1

Those 103 Waratahs came from CRRC, virtually fully fitted out and ready to go.

Both state and federal labor want to boost manufacturing. This is in part why it's taken so long to get a program going here in Victoria. We don't have a manufacture big enough ready to go, Alstom will need a significant boost from the state government to expand its operations to allow it to deliver multiple sets every month. Ordering sets from CRRC isn't an option anymore. It has to be made here. Not just the 'local content' fluff.

With the upcoming budget being all about jobs, I wouldn't be surprised if we finally heard something. Employing a thousand or so workers to build trains and trams is a big win for the government. They are also good long term jobs if the government comes to it senses and does a 20 or 30 year contract.

We still seem too be way off topic. Wonder what else we can cover in this thread. Question

Lockie

Sponsored advertisement

Display from: