| home |
|
| news |
|
| discussions |
|
| content |
|
| site |
|
|
| technical support | Need Help? Lodge a support ticket!
Note: This is for technical support only. General questions about railways should be posted to the Forums.donation 
Please Donate!photo comp Have YOU voted yet on Photo of the Month?
Click Here!
Voting Closes 31/7search |
| |
| Author |
Message |
mjja
Sir Nigel Gresley
Joined: Jan 13, 2003
Last Visited: Apr 27, 2009
Location: Mount Waverley, Melbourne
contact
|
post
|
|
| mjja |
|
|
Posted: Tue May 02, 2006 5:26 pm
|
|
In case anyone's not sick of this thread yet, here's my proposed timetable for the Caulfield group: www.gobyrail.net/dngtt.html
Happy Gunzelling and remember, "Go by rail!"
Michael Angelico
President, Smart Passengers Inc
(My opinions are my own unless specifically stated.)
|
|
 |
savethehumans
Chief Train Controller
Joined: Mar 21, 2005
Last Visited: Jul 20, 2006
Location: Melbourne 3004
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 02, 2006 7:36 pm
|
Nice bit of defamation on your website there..
Anyway, I don't have to spend an hour or two of my off time to plan a WTT when plain and simple facts are:
- That world's best practice on a double track railway is 20tph if you include expresses and can be higher without
- That the line in question barely manages 11tph at the moment
- That the benchmark for a double track railway (international best practice) is that it can move 30,000 people per hour
- That the Dandenong line moves 35,000 people per track per day
- That capacity issues are therefore a cover for the announcement and oversight of whopping big infrastructure projects, presumably desired because some people want to compensate for their failings in the genital department or to say they're doing something for PT in the leadup to the next election when in fact they plan to do little or nothing and just managed to find a billion dollars under their couch and haven't got a smegging clue how to best spend it (or both)
- That there are far more pressing needs for a billion taxpayer dollars
- That even with a third track, there is no guarantee of extra services being run
- That even if extra services are run, the station catchments are limited by the decline of Melbourne's bus services in the last few decades, creating an artificial patronage ceiling, by the number of nearby car spaces, and the dearth of station sites between Dandenong and Pakenham
- That most of the current problems would go away outright with an increase in shoulder peak, off peak and evening services to spread the loading over a longer time window
- That the project will probably involve 10 years worth of rolling closures and bustitutions given how incompetent this government is when managing infrastructure projects
- That 10 years worth of rolling closures will infuriate passengers and drive patronage way down, which would incidentally also fix the problem with current crowding levels
- That this project would collectively take up the entire DoI's attention for 10 years and you can kiss goodbye any hope for South Morang, Sunbury, East Doncaster, Monash/Rowville, tram extensions to rail stations or actual destination terminuses, or bus improvements
- That a billion dollars could deliver most of the last point and combined they would do far more good
Knowing all this I don't feel the need to write a timetable for you to pick to pieces (like I could do to yours), when that's the experts job. Knowing international benchmarks and how far we fall short of them is sufficient for the general public. Other people can be paid to do the nitty gritty.
|
|
|
Riccardo
Minister for Railways
Joined: Aug 20, 2003
Last Visited: Jun 29, 2009
Location: Elsewhere
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 02, 2006 8:29 pm
|
Time to write a critique of
http://www.gobyrail.net/moveoverptua.html
which is riddled with opinion passing as fact, non-sequiturs and exaggeration.
Just need a website to stick it on. Whaddayareckon, mjja?
If you need to get in touch, drop a comment at the Transport Textbook or on my blog.
|
|
|
sueglossy
Deputy Commissioner
Joined: Apr 17, 2006
Last Visited: Oct 22, 2008
Location: Preston
contact
|
post
|
|
|
|
mjja
Sir Nigel Gresley
Joined: Jan 13, 2003
Last Visited: Apr 27, 2009
Location: Mount Waverley, Melbourne
contact
|
post
|
|
| mjja |
|
|
Posted: Wed May 03, 2006 3:17 pm
|
| savethehumans wrote: | | Nice bit of defamation on your website there.. |
Glad you like it, I might put up some more.
| savethehumans wrote: | Anyway, I don't have to spend an hour or two of my off time to plan a WTT when plain and simple facts are:
- That world's best practice on a double track railway is 20tph if you include expresses and can be higher without |
With stations at what spacing, with what acceleration and top speed?
| savethehumans wrote: | | - That the line in question barely manages 11tph at the moment |
Like I said it's 40% full and there will be V/line services on top of that. Also, there's room for expansion when traffic levels make it worth investing in more trains and drivers.
| savethehumans wrote: | | - That the benchmark for a double track railway (international best practice) is that it can move 30,000 people per hour |
At what station spacing etc as above?
| savethehumans wrote: | | - That the Dandenong line moves 35,000 people per track per day |
The freeway and the lack of expresses might have something to do with that.
| savethehumans wrote: | | - That capacity issues are therefore a cover for the announcement and oversight of whopping big infrastructure projects, presumably desired because some people want to compensate for their failings in the genital department or to say they're doing something for PT in the leadup to the next election when in fact they plan to do little or nothing and just managed to find a billion dollars under their couch and haven't got a smegging clue how to best spend it (or both) |
That capacity issues are EXACTLY the issue and that your objections are easily shot down by someone even with only a gunzel's knowledge of rail (half way between a layman and a railway professional).
| savethehumans wrote: | | - That there are far more pressing needs for a billion taxpayer dollars |
Of course, there always are. All these schools and hospitals. What of it? Transport needs some investment too.
| savethehumans wrote: | | - That even with a third track, there is no guarantee of extra services being run |
No, but without a third track there's a guarantee they won't be run.
| savethehumans wrote: | | - That even if extra services are run, the station catchments are limited by the decline of Melbourne's bus services in the last few decades, creating an artificial patronage ceiling, by the number of nearby car spaces, and the dearth of station sites between Dandenong and Pakenham |
As opposed to upgrading the buses and having an artificial patronage ceiling set by the capacity of the track.
| savethehumans wrote: | | - That most of the current problems would go away outright with an increase in shoulder peak, off peak and evening services to spread the loading over a longer time window |
Some but not enough to make a difference to the freeway.
| savethehumans wrote: | | - That the project will probably involve 10 years worth of rolling closures and bustitutions given how incompetent this government is when managing infrastructure projects |
But after 10 years we'll be better off - which we wouldn't be if there was no investment.
| savethehumans wrote: | | - That 10 years worth of rolling closures will infuriate passengers and drive patronage way down, which would incidentally also fix the problem with current crowding levels |
10 years worth of nil investment would do the same.
| savethehumans wrote: | | - That this project would collectively take up the entire DoI's attention for 10 years and you can kiss goodbye any hope for South Morang, Sunbury, East Doncaster, Monash/Rowville, tram extensions to rail stations or actual destination terminuses, or bus improvements |
As petrol prices increase that won't be true.
| savethehumans wrote: | | - That a billion dollars could deliver most of the last point and combined they would do far more good |
Even with the DoI's magnificent record of project management?
| savethehumans wrote: | | Knowing all this I don't feel the need to write a timetable for you to pick to pieces (like I could do to yours), |
You could??? Can I pay you to do it?
| savethehumans wrote: | | when that's the experts job. |
The experts no doubt will. I know some of them.
| savethehumans wrote: | | Knowing international benchmarks and how far we fall short of them is sufficient for the general public. Other people can be paid to do the nitty gritty. |
Knowing the conditions under which the international benchmarks were made is important too. And that's something you simply don't believe - not that you've answered me when I say so.
Happy Gunzelling and remember, "Go by rail!"
Michael Angelico
President, Smart Passengers Inc
(My opinions are my own unless specifically stated.)
|
|
|
mjja
Sir Nigel Gresley
Joined: Jan 13, 2003
Last Visited: Apr 27, 2009
Location: Mount Waverley, Melbourne
contact
|
post
|
|
| mjja |
|
|
Posted: Wed May 03, 2006 3:20 pm
|
| Riccardo wrote: | Time to write a critique of
http://www.gobyrail.net/moveoverptua.html
which is riddled with opinion passing as fact, non-sequiturs and exaggeration.
Just need a website to stick it on. Whaddayareckon, mjja? |
Are you talking about Move Over PTUA or It's Time to Move? If the former you're stealing my thunder because that's exactly what I said about the latter.
BTW Railpage Australia™ is a web site and I'm happy to defend my thesis at any time.
Happy Gunzelling and remember, "Go by rail!"
Michael Angelico
President, Smart Passengers Inc
(My opinions are my own unless specifically stated.)
|
|
|
savethehumans
Chief Train Controller
Joined: Mar 21, 2005
Last Visited: Jul 20, 2006
Location: Melbourne 3004
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 09, 2006 12:09 pm
|
| mjja wrote: | | savethehumans wrote: | | What's particularly different about the section Oakleigh-Pakenham than the section Oakleigh-Melbourne that would reduce capacity? |
He didn't say there was anything troublesome - he just said they didn't run as many trains there. Sort of like we don't run as many trains to Pakenham as Dandenong. |
I know that, however the bottleneck or confining characteristic of a line is the section that has the least capacity. I'd define that as Caulfield-Oakleigh, which is incidentally the section that in the past has had a higher service level than the entire line gets now.
| mjja wrote: | | savethehumans wrote: | | If anything the fact that a larger number of trains were running Melbourne-Oakleigh then vs today suggests that the less troublesome section further out (greater distances between stations plus a junction at Dandenong that cuts a few traisn out of the mixture) could handle roughly the same number of trains as the section further in used to under ordinary circumstances. And even if it can't, or shouldn't, it doesn't have to. The yard and centre platform at Oakleigh is still there. |
Dandenong wasn't a suburban junction until the 1990s. |
Irrelevant
| mjja wrote: | | And in case you're wondering, the presence of a goods yard doesn't help very much when you have a spark full of passengers and you're running late and getting in the way of the next train. |
Care to elaborate?
| mjja wrote: | | savethehumans wrote: | | Run alternating limited expresses in as far as Oakleigh. When on time they proceed express and catch up with the previous stopper near town. When not the train that would have formed the stopper is despatched from Oakleigh Yard to maintain the pattern, and the express becomes the stopper, while the driver reads out a lecture over the PA about holding doors open or whatever caused the delay as everyone arrives into town five minutes or so later than scheduled. |
Wonderful, just change the stopping pattern of the train at a moment's notice. The pax will love it. One of the top five rules of customer service is what's known as the Law of Least Astonishment - in any situation, do whatever would least astonish the customer. So if you have a timetable, you STICK WITH IT. |
Actually, I'm thinking of revising Train 3 so that it's all stations OAK-FSS. That way when a late running 2 (or hypothetically a 1) is transposed and is run by the set that's just been released from OAK yard or just arrived from the opposite direction, the late runners get to be all stations direct to FSS. Whenever it's the drivers fault the passengers get to flip the driver off. Whenever it's a passengers fault the driver gets to make a lecture saying something like "Please let's all thank the person in Car 3 that held the doors open, everyone will be about 6 minutes late today. This train will now stop all stations from Oakleigh to Flinders Street, and will no longer be running via the City Loop. Change at Richmond for the next service."
(Incidentally the sort of delay that would come from turning an express OAK-CFD then all to SYR into an all to FSS would not be that substantial, and using the 3 as a transposition tool for a late running 2 would keep everything running relatively smoothly during a delay even with little ir no slack in the timetable)
| mjja wrote: | | And BTW, in case you're going to say you put on the timetable "late running trains will skip stations to get back on time", this is a sure way to make people lose confidence in the ability of the system to get them where they want to go. |
No, actually late running trains would stop at more stations, allowing for a train that would have formed the all stations to take its place and become the express. It'd be relatively empty but would pick up just about all waiting passengers at CFD and would allow the outbound service to leave on time.
| mjja wrote: | | savethehumans wrote: | Train 1: ex-PKM running limited stops DNG-OAK (express DNG-SPG) then express OAK-CFD-SYR (maybe OAK-CFD-MAL-SYR) catching up with train 3 on the previous rotation (see below)
Train 2: ex-CBE (or DNG, depending on CBE paths) running different limited stops DNG-OAK (express SPG-OAK) therefore it's running in such a way that it's riding the cautions right behind train 1 as it approaches OAK. It runs express to CFD right behind Train 1 but then stops all stations to SYR |
Recipe for disaster - it'll run late all the way and to the pax, it'll be just like it's a stopper. Remember the Need For Speed - people won't ride the trains if they feel it's taking ages to get from A to B. |
As each train starts to hit the cautions the train in front hits an express running section so the problem goes away. It'll be faster than now, and faster than almost every other line in Melbourne gets. What more can DNG line dwellers reasonably expect from the public purse?
| mjja wrote: | | savethehumans wrote: | | Train 3: ex-OAK, it's just terminated and is waiting to depart/return in the centre platform as Train 2 passes on the side, or it could be a fresh set emerging from the yard. It follows on a caution behind Train 2 stopping all stations to MAL then express to SYR |
On the other track I presume? |
Not necessarily, I'm expecting to keep FKN and DNG line services on their own tracks except for V/Lines and maybe (maybe) freights. CFD signalling is a nightmare last I checked so short of a full rebuild and/or grade separation of the junction (to preserve U-D-U-D) or of the centre tracks further in (to allow U-U-D-D), I'd expect this timetable would use that functionality sparingly and only when needed. Presumably about 15-20 times a day.
The cash needed to resignal and/or build the flyovers doesn't need to be spent until the line reaches capacity again, presumably starting in 15-20 years if you assume Peak Oil hasn't hit. At that stage freeing up the trackage CFD-RMD for U-U-D-D operations would allow for another decade or two before you'd want to add another 2 tracks CFD-RMD and eventually quad track CFD-DNG.
| mjja wrote: | | savethehumans wrote: | | Train 1 (next rotation) would catch up around CFD/MAL and would be immediately behind train 3 as both run express to SYR |
Waste of resources - two expresses too close together. |
Maybe, maybe not. Expresses running close together is actually good as it saves on train paths. Between stoppers ex OAK and ex CTM, that's presumably 2 services every 10 minutes for the three minor stations between MAL-SYR. Three if Train 3 becomes all stations OAK-FSS and the CTM stoppers continue to stop there (there might be merit in having all trains on the FKN track pair as expresses, particularly when having VLP services using that pair for overtaking). 2 or 3 per 10' would be quite sufficient.
| mjja wrote: | | savethehumans wrote: | | This rotation would take about 9-10 minutes and would allow about 18-20 trains an hour on the line, with the typical station getting 6 trains an hour and major stations 12-18. One of the three pattterns would terminate at Flinders Street or be through routed, the other two could proceed through the loop and still leave another 12 paths for FKN line services. |
You've forgotten the matter of platform occupancy at Flinders St. Either you'll have no catch-up time, or you'll have trains waiting between Richmond and Flinders St for ages. No fun for the pax. |
There can be up to 7 mins recovery allowing current lazy operations/low speeds and a 9-10' headway depending how the timetable is written, which is more than ample. 5' headways have been achieved in the past (12tph/platform). And besides, with Train 2 being transposed as the stopper at the first hint of late running, and with such a gap DNG-OAK between 2 and the following 1, there's little risk of something snowballing throughout peak hour.
| mjja wrote: | | savethehumans wrote: | | Travel times for all station pairs would be faster than now except for minor station to minor station on two adjacent sections of limited express running DNG-CFD which would require a ~3-6 minute step back (non-adjacent section minor stn to minor stn trips would have the step back as well but faster running times would negate the transfer/step back delay). |
Faster than today's stoppers, anyway. Speaking as a passenger, I'm not sure I'd want them in place of my beloved SYR-CFD-OAK expresses. |
You mean like Train 1 would be, every 10 minutes peak and every 15 off peak?
| mjja wrote: | | savethehumans wrote: | | Fix the bus zones and service frequencies/capacities so that trips from Oakleigh to Monash Uni (via the Highway to the south side and via FTG road to the north side) are in the Zone 1/2 overlap and the loadings at Huntingdale should reduce a fair bit, assuming train 1 stops there and train 2 is expressing and is almost riding the cautions behind it at that stage, Indeed, with quad track Oakleigh-Huntingdale and a branch to Monash you could make Train 3 a Monash (Rowville) line service. |
Yep, sounds good - but there's your $1bn gone. |
A Monash Branch would be $80-100m, further extension to rowville maybe $250m-400m depending on how much disruption to motorists you want to create (more disruption = dig a trench in the median, less = elevated trackage). The buses need to be fixed anyway. Citywide yes it'd be ½-1b over 5 years until extra revenue catches up to the marginal cost of the extra services, however that would benefit far more people (particularly off peak, nights and weekends) than a 3rd track to Dandenong would benefit.
| mjja wrote: | | savethehumans wrote: | | As for this being a 10 minute pattern, it could shift to a 15 during the day allowing four paths for V/Line or Freight. And if the freight needs more than a 5 minute window, there's scope for the subsequent three train rotation to be up to 5 minutes late (therefore allowing 4 paths an hour in theory but 2 in practice) without messing things up elsewhere too much. |
Well, without making the lateness cascade all day. There's still going to be some annoyed passengers. |
Up to 6 minutes is considered on time AFAIK. Besides, the trains that can possibly run late are the ones that terminate at FSS anyway as the loop services will get transposed when late. If we're talking about services during the day, there's no lack of spare platforms to stick the train that'd otherwise be stuck at a red stick til the driver gets out of the john. And if there's a rostered break at Caulfield coinciding with that arrival, another driver would take another train out of the yard on time regardless of the arrival, or he'd do a quick relay driver switch on the train that'd ordinarily spend a few mins there while the driver changes ends. Presumably there'd be a step back in place every run or every 2nd run on Train 3 for toilet breaks and the like.
(Same can be done at Dandenong, presumably consistently, for 1's and 2's)
| mjja wrote: | | savethehumans wrote: | | Ideally such a path would have the train clear Pakenham perhaps three minutes before a spark departs (therefore 12 minutes after the previous) allowing a clear run to DNG, and assuming it kept the same average speed as a spark it'd follow behind train 2 (presumably at low speed to match the spark avg, though not necessarily riding its brakes). The option exists whether it'd slip between trains 2 and 3 at Oakleigh (making train 3 run a few minutes late whenever there is a freight, or maybe having that as a permanent window) or whether the freight path has the train stopped outside or at Oakleigh waiting to jump behind train 3 and have the 5 minute window that turns the 10 minute pattern into a 15 minute pattern between 3 and 1. Ideally the latter as it means passengers transferring off a train about to become express at Oakleigh have shorter waits most/all of the time. Having a freight scheduled to be stopped at signals for 5 minutes is no particular loss, it presumably waits far longer on single track sections further out when crossing. If it were a VLP, then definitely have train 3 leave OAK a few mins late. Fortunately there's only a dozen of those a day. |
And are you going to timetable all this or just accept that certain trains are ALWAYS going to run late? |
It'll be in the NSP. Whether an offset for each run gets inserted into the public TT is another question. Probably not, and yes, certain runs would become consistently late, but it's not worth pushing the times around in the public TT by more than a minute or two (if at all) when if the VLP runs late it has to get behind the spark and it's better that the spark be allowed to leave on time in that case.
| mjja wrote: | | savethehumans wrote: | | That'd make the wait at Dandenong and Springvale 12-3-12-3 etc off peak, and while that's not ideal it's superior to now and 12 minutes between services is comparable to most of the ex-M>Tram tram routes. Minor stations would be 15 off peak, same as now. Oakleigh would have 2-2-1½-9½-2-2-1½-9½ minute waits (scheduled as 2-2-1-10 on the public tt), again tram-like. Presumably most of the buses that originate & terminate there could be timed to arrive 7 minutes after 3 therefore allowing 3-6½ minutes walk from the bus stop to the platform and a bit of late running recovery, and the buses would then get 10 minutes recovery and loading time and depart around 2 minutes after train 3 on the next rotation. |
What about trains running the other way? Lots of people miss that, but my timetable addresses it. |
I've not gone into that much depth however it would work in much the same pattern, in reverse. Exact timings would be doable but I've not got the time just now, and that's the experts job anyway.
| mjja wrote: | | savethehumans wrote: | | Since there's only one up VLP during the morning peak, a 3 minute bump in the schedule is also forgiveable, it just means that at Pakenham around 7.24am and Dandenong around 7.42am the pattern would have a mysterious 3 minute gap, or maybe a 5-6 minute gap if you want to add a 2nd VLP and have them both scheduled to arrive at PKM at about the same time, the first one a stopper other an express, with the express slipping in front if the stopper is late. Just slip them in before a Train 1 departure and they'll get a fairly good run through to Oakleigh, and they could be shifted across to the FKN line tracks at CFD so they don't follow Train 2 all stations CFD-SYR. If the 15 minute gap between sparks at PKM is a problem, you could schedule the Train 2's in such a way that one of the DNG starters actually follows the delayed Train 1 out of the yard at PKM and begins collecting passengers at say Officer or Berwick. |
This is getting as convoluted as the current timetable. |
It'd be a one off for peak hour, perhaps twice a day.
| mjja wrote: | | savethehumans wrote: | | In the opposite direction trains would run to the pattern 2-3-1-spare. That makes the spare path behind an express as far as Oakleigh, slow Oakleigh to Springvale (if the train behind 1 is a VLP it'd be forgiveable to delay spark 1 by a few minutes and have it either try to recover time through to PKM or just take the late arrival out of the recovery time, allowing the VLP that's now riding cautions to overtake via the through goods at Westall by shifting spark 1 off to the middle platform at DNG), but a freight would be riding at a fairly low average speed all the way to Pakenham, with spark 2 maybe catching up to it around SPG but then running all SPG-DNG so it won't matter. |
Freights are long, so a spark riding the cautions is going to ride them further back than you think. |
5 minutes should suffice in addition to the other gaps in front of and behind the sparks.
| mjja wrote: | | savethehumans wrote: | 1: exp SYR-MAL-CFD-OAK and SPG-DNG, all to PKM
2: all SYR-CFD, exp CFD-OAK-SPG, all SPG-DNG, terminating DNG or continuing to CBE alternating until duplication
3: exp SYR-MAL, all to OAK
Presumably either the 1's or 3's (probably the 3's) would be the ones that run direct to and from FSS (pfm 6?) either during peak hour or all day to ensure there are enough loop paths for both the DNG and FKN lines through the caulfield loop. I'd guess the loop services would use 7 (on a first in first out basis with a 20-30 second stop, same as Spencer Street or the loop stations), OAK stoppers 6, FKN stoppers 8, SHM terminators 12 and 13, leaving 9&10 for through routings between the SHM line and Williamstown/Broadmeadows, plus the occasional VLP. |
Platform 7 isn't long enough to hold two trains unless they're 3-car sets. And you need some catch-up time or punctuality will be shot to pieces. |
I don't need to run two trains on Platform 7, one will do, same as at SSS, MCE etc. As for catch up time, stick that at Dandenong for the 1's and 2's. Not only is it a convenient spot (better than FSS for that purpose) it also allows for VLP overtaking movements while only delaying a spark by say 2-3 minutes longer than the timetabled stop. That plus a delay in the yard at the suburban terminus would do nicely.
| mjja wrote: | | savethehumans wrote: | | Reinstating 11 wouldn't hurt even if it weren't connected at the west end as it'd allow two SHM services to arrive on the same double length platform, with the driver of the first service getting straight out and walking two train lengths to the east end, taking over the train behind the moment it arrived and departing as soon as passengers have unloaded from that, while the driver that took in the 2nd train walks to the cab he just did a close-in stop behind and he'd take that out as soon as the signals cleared. Off peak 11 would work nicely for SHM on its own with a lower frequency and no relay drivers and that'd still leave 9&10 for through routing and V/Line services. |
Lateness will cascade. |
That's acknowledged, however it's still achievable. The timetables need to be more fluid regardless.
| mjja wrote: | | savethehumans wrote: | | How's that? It's just a rough working of an idea I've been looking into for the last few weeks. It's a step short of a timetable but not much. |
To summarise all the interjections, it lacks:
1) Contingency plans - if something goes wrong, you're up the creek |
I was quite clear in the original post on this plan about the use of transpositions to make a 3 at OKL an express to take over the late running 2 (or 1, not that a 1 has any real reason to run late since it has nothing in front of it for about ten minutes except maybe a VLP or a freight)
| mjja wrote: | | 2) Speed - nobody gets a super express |
Neither does anyone on the Broadmeadows line, or the Sandringham line, or the Epping line. Poor diddums.
| mjja wrote: | | 3) Scaleability - there's nothing to spare for when patronage grows |
CFD-RMD U-U-D-D
| mjja wrote: | | 4) Customer appeal - even if they aren't actually inconvenienced, the psychological negatives will be enough to put people off until petrol gets to $10/l |
Doubt it, since it's still an improvement
| mjja wrote: | | 5) Efficiency - you have trains bunched together and long gaps. |
That's the idea.
| mjja wrote: | | savethehumans wrote: | | And since Train 3 is the one that will be spending a few minutes at FSS anyway, there's no big deal. |
A few better be five or six if it's going to get out on time. |
Correct, not that it'll matter thanks to the transpositions.
| mjja wrote: | | savethehumans wrote: | | Since the VLP is scheduled in the working timetable you can work in driver step backs to allow for driver rest time and changing ends more quickly at the right times. |
That means having an extra driver in the mix. Not a good use of scant resources (if you don't mind calling people a resource). |
You have to work extra drivers into the mix regardless to account for breaks and such. Just schedule the actual breaks around the VLP breaks. I don't want to see a situation where an entire train sits around doing nothing just beacuse you need the driver to sit around doing nothing. Drivers can get out of the way, trains usually can't.
| mjja wrote: | | savethehumans wrote: | | Besides, a billion taxpayer dollars on a project that will deliver few or no discernable outcomes |
Don't you like my timetable with five minute services and half an hour travel time to Dandenong??? |
It'd be nice but it's far too costly, and most of what you've offered in it is unnecessary.
| mjja wrote: | | You've gone from "It's not guaranteed to give benefits" to "It's not going to be any good at all". Little jump in logic there. |
Minor. As each day passes my opinion of the Bracks Government drops.
| mjja wrote: | | savethehumans wrote: | | will stymie investment in PT for decades, much like the City Loop did. It's arguable (and indeed fact) that the reason for building the City Loop (congestion at FSS) became irrelevant by the time the loop was completed as patronage dropped almost in half during that time instead of substantially increasing. |
Not that one again...
Let me say it again. THE CITY LOOP DIDN'T KILL THE PATRONAGE! |
It just happened to coincide. Economic collapse will just happen to coincide when peak oil hits. There'll be lots of extra demand off peak for daily chores but peak demand should flatten and collapse. Capacity issues will mostly go away. Not everyone can be paper pushers in CBD office blocks.
| mjja wrote: | | savethehumans wrote: | | As suburbia is expected to decline in value, relevance and the economy will likely collapse when peak oil bites, a 3rd track will be useless as the volumes of people won't be there. Services to areas that currently have none (in practice) will be the most important thing, but asking for more after they just spent a billion will be met with far too much skepticism. |
Are you saying all those new houses out that way will be empty??? Come off it. |
Not all of them, but a fair few, yes. And the occupied ones won't have much need for express travel to the CBD during the height of peak hour.
It's happened before. Entire suburbs were built around the Outer Circle line, which laid mostly empty because completion happened to coincide with the 1890 depression.
|
|
|
M_Train
Chief Train Controller
Joined: Nov 17, 2005
Last Visited: Sep 14, 2008
Location: Mulgrave, Melbourne, Victoria
contact
|
post
|
|
| M_Train |
|
|
Posted: Tue May 09, 2006 1:02 pm
|
Did I just read one of the longest posts on Railpage Australia™ ever? 
Anyhow I think as the bare minimum there should be a two-teir service:
One running FFS via loop, Richmond, South Yarra, Caulfield, Oakleigh than stopping all stations to Dandenong, Cranbourne or Pakenham
And one running stopping all stations DIRECT to Oakleigh
Also it would be nice to have all stopping trains on the Caufield group use platforms 3 and 4 between South Yarra and Caufield and all experss trains using platforms 1 and 2.
Last edited by M_Train on Tue May 09, 2006 1:19 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
ninthnotch
Dr Beeching
Joined: May 25, 2003
Last Visited: May 16, 2007
Location: Not here. Try another castle.
contact
|
post
|
|
| ninthnotch |
|
|
Posted: Tue May 09, 2006 1:18 pm
|
Note - apologies that I didn't use three-letter station abbreviations. I don't need to show off or look like I know about the metro rail network, so I don't use them. They are the 1337-speak of immature gunzels.
| savethehumans wrote: | | I'd define that as Caulfield-Oakleigh, which is incidentally the section that in the past has had a higher service level than the entire line gets now. |
There was 67 down services through Oakleigh Mon-Thu and 68 Fri services in April 1941. Off-peak frequency to Oakleigh is 20 minutes, to Dandenong - hourly. Peak averages at appx 8-10 minutes to Oakleigh, 20-30 minutes avg beyond.
Of those, 30 ran through to Dandenong. 3 of these were express services (one was a 17:45 departure running express Flinders St-Caulfield, at 17:54 express Richmond-Caulfield and at 18:20 express from South Yarra to Caulfield. No trains ran express down side of Oakleigh).
On the up Mon-Fri there were 68 up services Mon-Fri. Again, 30 up servcies exist, same off-peak and peak frequency as the down (i.e. no empty car/non-PSR balance running)
There are many more express services than the down, it's alsmost as if savethehumans with his obcession with express services has done the up trains and mjja the down.
There are 4 expresses; the 06:35 and 07:39 up Dandenongs run express Caulfield-Richmond, the 06:54 up skips Carnegie, then runs express Caulfield-Richmond, and the 08:00 up Dandenong runs express Oakleigh-Caulfield-Flinders St.
However there are some caveats: - Westall, Sandown Park and Yarraman are yet to exist as stations that take regular passengers).
- This is a wartime timetable. I am unaware what cuts to services this would have done, but I'm pretty sure this would have been reduced in December when Japan entered WWII.
- As mentioned by mjja, this timetable would take into account that at Toorak, Malvern, Murrumbeena, Oakleigh, Spring Vale, Noble Park and Dandenong all received roadside goods services, and while trains shunted onto the main line for various loads, the srevices could have been held, and some allowance woiuld have been made.
- The line beyond Oakleigh was Double Line Block. Longer sections, two-position signals and areas such as on the down side of Oakleigh, Clayton, Spring Vale and Noble Park that would have been unsignalled whatsoever.
If someone wants to tally the services now to Dandenong and beyond, feel free.
That's an attention-getter!
|
|
|
EvanC
Chief Plonker
Joined: Apr 26, 2005
Last Visited: Nov 26, 2008
Location: Seymour/Bayswater, Victoria
contact
|
post
|
|
| EvanC |
|
|
Posted: Tue May 09, 2006 5:18 pm
|
| ninthnotch wrote: | | Note - apologies that I didn't use three-letter station abbreviations. I don't need to show off or look like I know about the metro rail network, so I don't use them. They are the 1337-speak of immature gunzels. |
I think it's moreso laziness 
|
|
|
psr85
Chief Commissioner
Joined: Mar 02, 2005
Last Visited: Mar 23, 2008
Location: Sandringham Line, Melbourne
contact
|
post
|
|
|
|
mjja
Sir Nigel Gresley
Joined: Jan 13, 2003
Last Visited: Apr 27, 2009
Location: Mount Waverley, Melbourne
contact
|
post
|
|
| mjja |
|
|
Posted: Tue May 09, 2006 6:20 pm
|
| savethehumans wrote: | | mjja wrote: | | savethehumans wrote: | | What's particularly different about the section Oakleigh-Pakenham than the section Oakleigh-Melbourne that would reduce capacity? |
He didn't say there was anything troublesome - he just said they didn't run as many trains there. Sort of like we don't run as many trains to Pakenham as Dandenong. |
I know that, however the bottleneck or confining characteristic of a line is the section that has the least capacity. I'd define that as Caulfield-Oakleigh, which is incidentally the section that in the past has had a higher service level than the entire line gets now. |
OK - so how, infrastructure-wise, is that section a bottleneck?
| savethehumans wrote: | | mjja wrote: | | savethehumans wrote: | | If anything the fact that a larger number of trains were running Melbourne-Oakleigh then vs today suggests that the less troublesome section further out (greater distances between stations plus a junction at Dandenong that cuts a few traisn out of the mixture) could handle roughly the same number of trains as the section further in used to under ordinary circumstances. And even if it can't, or shouldn't, it doesn't have to. The yard and centre platform at Oakleigh is still there. |
Dandenong wasn't a suburban junction until the 1990s. |
Irrelevant |
So why did you mention it?
| savethehumans wrote: | | mjja wrote: | | And in case you're wondering, the presence of a goods yard doesn't help very much when you have a spark full of passengers and you're running late and getting in the way of the next train. |
Care to elaborate? |
Your statement seemed to indicate that the fact that Dandenong had a yard would mean that a train which otherwise would be held up at a red signal could find a platform. My point is that that's not necessarily true.
| savethehumans wrote: | | mjja wrote: | | Wonderful, just change the stopping pattern of the train at a moment's notice. The pax will love it. One of the top five rules of customer service is what's known as the Law of Least Astonishment - in any situation, do whatever would least astonish the customer. So if you have a timetable, you STICK WITH IT. |
Actually, I'm thinking of revising Train 3 so that it's all stations OAK-FSS. That way when a late running 2 (or hypothetically a 1) is transposed and is run by the set that's just been released from OAK yard or just arrived from the opposite direction, the late runners get to be all stations direct to FSS. Whenever it's the drivers fault the passengers get to flip the driver off. Whenever it's a passengers fault the driver gets to make a lecture saying something like "Please let's all thank the person in Car 3 that held the doors open, everyone will be about 6 minutes late today. This train will now stop all stations from Oakleigh to Flinders Street, and will no longer be running via the City Loop. Change at Richmond for the next service."
(Incidentally the sort of delay that would come from turning an express OAK-CFD then all to SYR into an all to FSS would not be that substantial, and using the 3 as a transposition tool for a late running 2 would keep everything running relatively smoothly during a delay even with little ir no slack in the timetable) |
This is still going to drive passengers away from the system. Look at the backlash in mX about trains running direct instead of via the loop - people hate it. Three tracks means problems like this can be vastly reduced. Your proposal means we'll still have them even at today's levels of patronage - don't even try aiming to reduce road traffic.
| savethehumans wrote: | | mjja wrote: | | And BTW, in case you're going to say you put on the timetable "late running trains will skip stations to get back on time", this is a sure way to make people lose confidence in the ability of the system to get them where they want to go. |
No, actually late running trains would stop at more stations, allowing for a train that would have formed the all stations to take its place and become the express. It'd be relatively empty but would pick up just about all waiting passengers at CFD and would allow the outbound service to leave on time. |
If you're building that sort of capability into the timetable you're wasting drivers and trains. If not then the changeover is going to mean something runs very late.
Also you might have compatibility considerations - either you spend the cash to make every train compatible with every line and train every driver to run every train and every line, or you have to plan for that changeover when you schedule the trains every afternoon. Neither are impossible, but it's getting complicated again.
| savethehumans wrote: | | mjja wrote: | | savethehumans wrote: | Train 1: ex-PKM running limited stops DNG-OAK (express DNG-SPG) then express OAK-CFD-SYR (maybe OAK-CFD-MAL-SYR) catching up with train 3 on the previous rotation (see below)
Train 2: ex-CBE (or DNG, depending on CBE paths) running different limited stops DNG-OAK (express SPG-OAK) therefore it's running in such a way that it's riding the cautions right behind train 1 as it approaches OAK. It runs express to CFD right behind Train 1 but then stops all stations to SYR |
Recipe for disaster - it'll run late all the way and to the pax, it'll be just like it's a stopper. Remember the Need For Speed - people won't ride the trains if they feel it's taking ages to get from A to B. |
As each train starts to hit the cautions the train in front hits an express running section so the problem goes away. It'll be faster than now, and faster than almost every other line in Melbourne gets. What more can DNG line dwellers reasonably expect from the public purse? |
No, I mean if there's a delay anywhere, like passengers holding doors. Lectures over the PA will work for the first few weeks and then people will get used to them and just ignore them the same as they do the door alarm today.
As for what they can expect, that's not the question. We HAVE to get them off the freeway somehow or we'll choke. Waiting for peak oil (if it comes) isn't exactly a good way of doing things.
| savethehumans wrote: | | mjja wrote: | | savethehumans wrote: | | Train 3: ex-OAK, it's just terminated and is waiting to depart/return in the centre platform as Train 2 passes on the side, or it could be a fresh set emerging from the yard. It follows on a caution behind Train 2 stopping all stations to MAL then express to SYR |
On the other track I presume? |
Not necessarily, I'm expecting to keep FKN and DNG line services on their own tracks except for V/Lines and maybe (maybe) freights. CFD signalling is a nightmare last I checked so short of a full rebuild and/or grade separation of the junction (to preserve U-D-U-D) or of the centre tracks further in (to allow U-U-D-D), I'd expect this timetable would use that functionality sparingly and only when needed. Presumably about 15-20 times a day. |
Then you've got another case of a stopper holding up a spark. Put some dummy running times into a spreadsheet and you'll see.
| savethehumans wrote: | | The cash needed to resignal and/or build the flyovers doesn't need to be spent until the line reaches capacity again, presumably starting in 15-20 years if you assume Peak Oil hasn't hit. At that stage freeing up the trackage CFD-RMD for U-U-D-D operations would allow for another decade or two before you'd want to add another 2 tracks CFD-RMD and eventually quad track CFD-DNG. |
Let me tell you, by your plan, it's at capacity now. Not while things go right maybe, but as soon as someone holds the doors it'll burst at the seams.
| savethehumans wrote: | | mjja wrote: | | savethehumans wrote: | | Train 1 (next rotation) would catch up around CFD/MAL and would be immediately behind train 3 as both run express to SYR |
Waste of resources - two expresses too close together. |
Maybe, maybe not. Expresses running close together is actually good as it saves on train paths. Between stoppers ex OAK and ex CTM, that's presumably 2 services every 10 minutes for the three minor stations between MAL-SYR. Three if Train 3 becomes all stations OAK-FSS and the CTM stoppers continue to stop there (there might be merit in having all trains on the FKN track pair as expresses, particularly when having VLP services using that pair for overtaking). 2 or 3 per 10' would be quite sufficient. |
Saving paths is fine, but who wants to miss the second service and wait for the next cycle? Admittedly it's only 7min but people will get annoyed by the inconsistency.
I definitely think there's merit in having two tracks for expresses and two for stoppers. That way the two fast ones can be upgraded for higher speed too, giving added benefit.
| savethehumans wrote: | | mjja wrote: | | savethehumans wrote: | | This rotation would take about 9-10 minutes and would allow about 18-20 trains an hour on the line, with the typical station getting 6 trains an hour and major stations 12-18. One of the three pattterns would terminate at Flinders Street or be through routed, the other two could proceed through the loop and still leave another 12 paths for FKN line services. |
You've forgotten the matter of platform occupancy at Flinders St. Either you'll have no catch-up time, or you'll have trains waiting between Richmond and Flinders St for ages. No fun for the pax. |
There can be up to 7 mins recovery allowing current lazy operations/low speeds and a 9-10' headway depending how the timetable is written, which is more than ample. 5' headways have been achieved in the past (12tph/platform). And besides, with Train 2 being transposed as the stopper at the first hint of late running, and with such a gap DNG-OAK between 2 and the following 1, there's little risk of something snowballing throughout peak hour. |
5min headways is OK but you have to make sure they arrive at Richmond 5min apart and not 3-3-9. Do up your running times in a spreadsheet, I'm pretty sure you've got them uneven.
| savethehumans wrote: | | mjja wrote: | | savethehumans wrote: | | Travel times for all station pairs would be faster than now except for minor station to minor station on two adjacent sections of limited express running DNG-CFD which would require a ~3-6 minute step back (non-adjacent section minor stn to minor stn trips would have the step back as well but faster running times would negate the transfer/step back delay). |
Faster than today's stoppers, anyway. Speaking as a passenger, I'm not sure I'd want them in place of my beloved SYR-CFD-OAK expresses. |
You mean like Train 1 would be, every 10 minutes peak and every 15 off peak? |
Yes but don't transpose it with train 2 or I'll buy a car. And make sure it doesn't stop all signals from Toorak because it's stuck behind train 3.
| savethehumans wrote: | | mjja wrote: | | savethehumans wrote: | | Fix the bus zones and service frequencies/capacities so that trips from Oakleigh to Monash Uni (via the Highway to the south side and via FTG road to the north side) are in the Zone 1/2 overlap and the loadings at Huntingdale should reduce a fair bit, assuming train 1 stops there and train 2 is expressing and is almost riding the cautions behind it at that stage, Indeed, with quad track Oakleigh-Huntingdale and a branch to Monash you could make Train 3 a Monash (Rowville) line service. |
Yep, sounds good - but there's your $1bn gone. |
A Monash Branch would be $80-100m, further extension to rowville maybe $250m-400m depending on how much disruption to motorists you want to create (more disruption = dig a trench in the median, less = elevated trackage). The buses need to be fixed anyway. Citywide yes it'd be ½-1b over 5 years until extra revenue catches up to the marginal cost of the extra services, however that would benefit far more people (particularly off peak, nights and weekends) than a 3rd track to Dandenong would benefit. |
Ahem. OK, here's $120m, build me a Monash line and keep the change. What, you want to revise your estimate?
If you're building out in the desert it might be that, but here we don't get bargains.
| savethehumans wrote: | | mjja wrote: | | savethehumans wrote: | | As for this being a 10 minute pattern, it could shift to a 15 during the day allowing four paths for V/Line or Freight. And if the freight needs more than a 5 minute window, there's scope for the subsequent three train rotation to be up to 5 minutes late (therefore allowing 4 paths an hour in theory but 2 in practice) without messing things up elsewhere too much. |
Well, without making the lateness cascade all day. There's still going to be some annoyed passengers. |
Up to 6 minutes is considered on time AFAIK. Besides, the trains that can possibly run late are the ones that terminate at FSS anyway as the loop services will get transposed when late. If we're talking about services during the day, there's no lack of spare platforms to stick the train that'd otherwise be stuck at a red stick til the driver gets out of the john. And if there's a rostered break at Caulfield coinciding with that arrival, another driver would take another train out of the yard on time regardless of the arrival, or he'd do a quick relay driver switch on the train that'd ordinarily spend a few mins there while the driver changes ends. Presumably there'd be a step back in place every run or every 2nd run on Train 3 for toilet breaks and the like.
(Same can be done at Dandenong, presumably consistently, for 1's and 2's) |
This assumes that there are drivers waiting around doing nothing, and that all drivers can run all trains. Money draining out of the coffers here.
| savethehumans wrote: | | mjja wrote: | | And are you going to timetable all this or just accept that certain trains are ALWAYS going to run late? |
It'll be in the NSP. Whether an offset for each run gets inserted into the public TT is another question. Probably not, and yes, certain runs would become consistently late, but it's not worth pushing the times around in the public TT by more than a minute or two (if at all) when if the VLP runs late it has to get behind the spark and it's better that the spark be allowed to leave on time in that case. |
Passengers get very cynical about that sort of thing.
| savethehumans wrote: | | mjja wrote: | | savethehumans wrote: | | That'd make the wait at Dandenong and Springvale 12-3-12-3 etc off peak, and while that's not ideal it's superior to now and 12 minutes between services is comparable to most of the ex-M>Tram tram routes. Minor stations would be 15 off peak, same as now. Oakleigh would have 2-2-1½-9½-2-2-1½-9½ minute waits (scheduled as 2-2-1-10 on the public tt), again tram-like. Presumably most of the buses that originate & terminate there could be timed to arrive 7 minutes after 3 therefore allowing 3-6½ minutes walk from the bus stop to the platform and a bit of late running recovery, and the buses would then get 10 minutes recovery and loading time and depart around 2 minutes after train 3 on the next rotation. |
What about trains running the other way? Lots of people miss that, but my timetable addresses it. |
I've not gone into that much depth however it would work in much the same pattern, in reverse. Exact timings would be doable but I've not got the time just now, and that's the experts job anyway. |
You talk as if the issues have been addressed and it's all hack-work from here. It's not. The fine details can take the last 80% of the time.
| savethehumans wrote: | | mjja wrote: | | savethehumans wrote: | 1: exp SYR-MAL-CFD-OAK and SPG-DNG, all to PKM
2: all SYR-CFD, exp CFD-OAK-SPG, all SPG-DNG, terminating DNG or continuing to CBE alternating until duplication
3: exp SYR-MAL, all to OAK
Presumably either the 1's or 3's (probably the 3's) would be the ones that run direct to and from FSS (pfm 6?) either during peak hour or all day to ensure there are enough loop paths for both the DNG and FKN lines through the caulfield loop. I'd guess the loop services would use 7 (on a first in first out basis with a 20-30 second stop, same as Spencer Street or the loop stations), OAK stoppers 6, FKN stoppers 8, SHM terminators 12 and 13, leaving 9&10 for through routings between the SHM line and Williamstown/Broadmeadows, plus the occasional VLP. |
Platform 7 isn't long enough to hold two trains unless they're 3-car sets. And you need some catch-up time or punctuality will be shot to pieces. |
I don't need to run two trains on Platform 7, one will do, same as at SSS, MCE etc. As for catch up time, stick that at Dandenong for the 1's and 2's. Not only is it a convenient spot (better than FSS for that purpose) it also allows for VLP overtaking movements while only delaying a spark by say 2-3 minutes longer than the timetabled stop. That plus a delay in the yard at the suburban terminus would do nicely. |
Riiiight... OK, it's workable, but it eliminates the advantage of having time at FSS, which is that a train has to be VERY late before it's late at the Loop stations where people are getting on. It irons out all the bugs just in time for the rush.
| savethehumans wrote: | | mjja wrote: | | savethehumans wrote: | | Reinstating 11 wouldn't hurt even if it weren't connected at the west end as it'd allow two SHM services to arrive on the same double length platform, with the driver of the first service getting straight out and walking two train lengths to the east end, taking over the train behind the moment it arrived and departing as soon as passengers have unloaded from that, while the driver that took in the 2nd train walks to the cab he just did a close-in stop behind and he'd take that out as soon as the signals cleared. Off peak 11 would work nicely for SHM on its own with a lower frequency and no relay drivers and that'd still leave 9&10 for through routing and V/Line services. |
Lateness will cascade. |
That's acknowledged, however it's still achievable. The timetables need to be more fluid regardless. |
If it's fluid it's not a timetable! It's just a general idea of how we sort of want to run. For a public transport system in this day of "seconds are valuable" that's not going to be good enough.
| savethehumans wrote: | | mjja wrote: | | savethehumans wrote: | | How's that? It's just a rough working of an idea I've been looking into for the last few weeks. It's a step short of a timetable but not much. |
To summarise all the interjections, it lacks:
1) Contingency plans - if something goes wrong, you're up the creek |
I was quite clear in the original post on this plan about the use of transpositions to make a 3 at OKL an express to take over the late running 2 (or 1, not that a 1 has any real reason to run late since it has nothing in front of it for about ten minutes except maybe a VLP or a freight) |
That doesn't adequately cover the contingency. It just moves it to somewhere else, unless you have resources idle most of the time.
| savethehumans wrote: | | mjja wrote: | | 2) Speed - nobody gets a super express |
Neither does anyone on the Broadmeadows line, or the Sandringham line, or the Epping line. Poor diddums. |
And do they like it? No. And the Dandy line is rather long, so the negatives of not having them are more marked.
| savethehumans wrote: | | mjja wrote: | | 3) Scaleability - there's nothing to spare for when patronage grows |
CFD-RMD U-U-D-D |
And then stopping past CFD? That's all you could do.
| savethehumans wrote: | | mjja wrote: | | 4) Customer appeal - even if they aren't actually inconvenienced, the psychological negatives will be enough to put people off until petrol gets to $10/l |
Doubt it, since it's still an improvement |
I would dispute that. It may be an improvement in frequency, but certainly not in useability or speed.
| savethehumans wrote: | | mjja wrote: | | 5) Efficiency - you have trains bunched together and long gaps. |
That's the idea. |
Yes but not a good idea, as I said above.
| savethehumans wrote: | | mjja wrote: | | savethehumans wrote: | | Since the VLP is scheduled in the working timetable you can work in driver step backs to allow for driver rest time and changing ends more quickly at the right times. |
That means having an extra driver in the mix. Not a good use of scant resources (if you don't mind calling people a resource). |
You have to work extra drivers into the mix regardless to account for breaks and such. Just schedule the actual breaks around the VLP breaks. I don't want to see a situation where an entire train sits around doing nothing just beacuse you need the driver to sit around doing nothing. Drivers can get out of the way, trains usually can't. |
Some extra drivers yes. But this would be a whole lot more.
| savethehumans wrote: | | mjja wrote: | | savethehumans wrote: | | Besides, a billion taxpayer dollars on a project that will deliver few or no discernable outcomes |
Don't you like my timetable with five minute services and half an hour travel time to Dandenong??? |
It'd be nice but it's far too costly, and most of what you've offered in it is unnecessary. |
In the early 20th Century John Forrest was advocating the building of the trans-continental railway. The other side said it would cost a million pounds which was too much. "What's a million?" said John - in other words, IT HAS TO BE DONE or the country will suffer. And now we have a highly efficient railway (by Australian mainline standards) with ever climbing market share. At the time it would have seemed costly and unnecessary. Today it seems neither.
In the same way, I have to say "What's a billion?" - the thing to do is to get this done properly so a high quality, scaleable service can be built which will allow for growth and an increase in market share without becoming overburdened.
Happy Gunzelling and remember, "Go by rail!"
Michael Angelico
President, Smart Passengers Inc
(My opinions are my own unless specifically stated.)
|
|
|
mjja
Sir Nigel Gresley
Joined: Jan 13, 2003
Last Visited: Apr 27, 2009
Location: Mount Waverley, Melbourne
contact
|
post
|
|
| mjja |
|
|
Posted: Tue May 09, 2006 6:27 pm
|
| savethehumans wrote: | | mjja wrote: | | You've gone from "It's not guaranteed to give benefits" to "It's not going to be any good at all". Little jump in logic there. |
Minor. As each day passes my opinion of the Bracks Government drops. |
But the Bracks government won't be in power for the ENTIRE lifetime of the line. It's going to last a few years remember.
| savethehumans wrote: | | mjja wrote: | | savethehumans wrote: | | will stymie investment in PT for decades, much like the City Loop did. It's arguable (and indeed fact) that the reason for building the City Loop (congestion at FSS) became irrelevant by the time the loop was completed as patronage dropped almost in half during that time instead of substantially increasing. |
Not that one again...
Let me say it again. THE CITY LOOP DIDN'T KILL THE PATRONAGE! |
It just happened to coincide. Economic collapse will just happen to coincide when peak oil hits. There'll be lots of extra demand off peak for daily chores but peak demand should flatten and collapse. Capacity issues will mostly go away. Not everyone can be paper pushers in CBD office blocks. |
And once oil and the economy have collapsed there won't be anyone driving cars will there?
Capacity issues are NOT going to go away.
| savethehumans wrote: | | mjja wrote: | | savethehumans wrote: | | As suburbia is expected to decline in value, relevance and the economy will likely collapse when peak oil bites, a 3rd track will be useless as the volumes of people won't be there. Services to areas that currently have none (in practice) will be the most important thing, but asking for more after they just spent a billion will be met with far too much skepticism. |
Are you saying all those new houses out that way will be empty??? Come off it. |
Not all of them, but a fair few, yes. And the occupied ones won't have much need for express travel to the CBD during the height of peak hour.
It's happened before. Entire suburbs were built around the Outer Circle line, which laid mostly empty because completion happened to coincide with the 1890 depression. |
That's because there was transport elsewhere and because there were no cars. Today if we don't provide good public transport people will all buy cars and demand a freeway extension.
Happy Gunzelling and remember, "Go by rail!"
Michael Angelico
President, Smart Passengers Inc
(My opinions are my own unless specifically stated.)
|
|
|
mjja
Sir Nigel Gresley
Joined: Jan 13, 2003
Last Visited: Apr 27, 2009
Location: Mount Waverley, Melbourne
contact
|
post
|
|
|
|
mjja
Sir Nigel Gresley
Joined: Jan 13, 2003
Last Visited: Apr 27, 2009
Location: Mount Waverley, Melbourne
contact
|
post
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT + 10 Hours
|
You cannot post new threads in this forum
You cannot reply to threads in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB 2.0.6 © 2001 phpBB Group
Theme images and concept © 2004 by Michael Greenhill and Railpage, All Rights Reserved.
Version 2.0.6 of PHP-Nuke Port by Tom Nitzschner © 2002 www.toms-home.com
|
|
