"Sorry, Sir Rod, your rail tunnel plan is just loopy"

cooch · Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2008 3:21 pm

Paul Mees raises some pursuasive analysis in regard to Melbourne's city loop capcity.

So why can't we double our current PEAK trains into the city with the current city loop as Paul Mees suggests? If nobody can provide a proper logical answer then do we not we as Melburnians have to seriously question Eddingtion and his $9b cross city tunnel?

I am interested in well researched contributions, not baseless personal attacks on Paul or Rod.

Your contributions will be appreciated by all melbournians.

fogcv · Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2008 4:02 pm

Also, here is the Connex Timetabling Department viewpoint, as written up in the same edition of The Age.

It looks like they are going for more western suburbs trains over the viaduct to Flinders Street Station, together with a re-announcement of the Clifton Hill Loop change to permanent clockwise operation.

The Age: Finding a way through the railway labyrinth

Kerpal · Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2008 4:51 pm

Here's a cheap East-West link ...

Remove Werribee and Frankston trains from the loop. Split the Werribee and Altona lines. Split the Frankston service into two-tiers.

Through-route all Werribee/Altona/Williamstown trains to Frankston and Sandringham.

We now have a link between North Melbourne and Richmond, the major East and West interchange stations.

Job done ... gimme $9bn. Smile

richiebogie · Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2008 7:01 pm

Sir Rod was commisioned to investigate improved East West links and not improvement to public transport generally. However his later recommendations do appear to be an attempt to extend his report to cover this.

The Eddington report seems to find that there are track capacity deficiencies between Caulfield and Footscray, and that this is the most urgent priority for Melbourne's rail infrastructure.

However a thought experiment suggests that the highest priority constraint lies elsewhere.

Eg. If all trains were "stopping all stations", then subject to loading and signalling improvements, we could have them run up to 3 minutes apart on each available track.

Also we can get more capacity by using Kerpal's suggestion to have more 'through trains' at Flinders St connecting Caulfield to Footscray.

Recall there are 6 tracks in the viaducts running directly between Flinders St and Southern Cross Station.

The inner 4 service the loop. The outer 2 bypass the loop.

By having more trains utilise the outer 2 viaducts without terminating at Flinders St, we free up platforms at Flinders St for more terminating services from Richmond, and free up capacity in the loop for more services overall.

The biggest problem then is that express trains from Bairnsdale, Packenham, Seymour, Bendigo, Ballarat and Geelong all require 'stopping all stations' trains to be spaced further apart than demand dictates.

This can be avoided if there is quadruplicated track at well calculated sections beyond Caulfield and Footscray to enable expresses to overtake stopping all station trains without cutting their frequency.

Sydney has large sections of quad track in the outer suburbs.

Along with a shortage of trains and drivers, the lack of separate express and stopping-all-stations tracks in 2 directions in outer suburbs appears to be the main capacity constraint in Melbourne's rail system at present which should be addressed before adding more inner city tunnels.

gazz · Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2008 7:06 pm

This article really got me thinking about the huge obsession of some with expensive tunnels. I think all the money (if there is going to be some!) is better spent above the ground to increase the efficiency of entry and exits to the loop and at least out to the key inner-suburban stations where lines branch. The loop has way more capacity left in it - let me illustrate:

Travellers in the pm peak, first think of all the times you go to your loop platform and see "4 minutes", 5 minutes" or more on the screen. This is spare capacity!

Now, compare this with the times when there have been delays and you end up with four trains in sucession - when one train is just out of sight and the chime goes for the next train which crawls in on the orange signal (i.e. minimum headway). Have you noticed how many passengers get moved over a period of about six to eight minutes? It's quite impressive really. Imagine if the whole peak hour went like that?

The bottleneck is what happens to the trains when they exit - expresses get caught behind stoppers, trains have to cross lines creating delays etc. If that was all sorted out, together with updated signalling, we wouldn't need another rail tunnel servicing the CBD for quite some time.

Speed · Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2008 7:37 pm

Grade-separating tracks around Richmond so that trains could easily switch lines without crossing the paths of other trains would help to avoid disruptions in inner-regions and to reduce delays. It would be cheaper than a tunnel from Caulfield to the Northern Group.

However, it would still attract protests on the grounds that it was an inner-city enhancement rather than an outer-suburb one. Those against improvements to existing rail corridors would still oppose it. Mees would still launch personal attacks on Eddington.

There are also merits to adding more railway-stations near inner-city commercial-centres.

EvanC · Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2008 11:13 pm

I like his logic...

It is quite clear that the most significant problems with the system lie at its core - the city loop and Flinders Street. Obvious infrastructure contraints mean that we soon will simply not be able to put more trains (thus more passengers) through these places). Capacity can go a little further still - some changes are already happening (eg; taking Werribee out of the loop), and others may have to be considered (eg; double deck trains - something I'm generally not a fan of), although none without their disadvantages (sacrifices will likely have to be made in some cases).

But anyway, Mees' solution... More passengers! Extend the lines and the services to attract still more people! And the problem in the city? There is no problem, it's all a lie!

It's almost like he's talking about a different city, with a different transport problem. What a moron.

fogcv · Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 8:23 am

OJ · Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 9:41 am

cooch · Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 9:52 am

EvanC, you quote:

mjja · Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 10:50 am

The problem is not ACCESS in to Flinders Street (which as Mees says is not yet at capacity) but PLATFORMS at Flinders Street. You can easily funnel a train every two minutes down a track, but you can't stop a train, pick up passengers, have some slack time to allow for late running, change drivers, etc in that time. That's why if you ever travel in to Flinders Street in evening peak you get stuck under the Exhibition Street bridge for ages waiting for a platform. Overcrowding has made it worse, of course.

My guesstimate (based on personal observation, passenger psychology and basic physics) is that if we run a train every two minutes we need two to three platforms to put them on - which means we need about 20 platforms at Flinders Street. And that's only for through lines (including ones that go via the City Loop) - any that go in and back out (like the Blackameins) will need even longer.

My personal idea is that we need to extend the platforms so they can fix two six-car sets. Then we install a scissors crossover half way down, and the trains behind can get around the one in front using the middle track that exists between every pair of platforms except 3 and 4. Signalling would be something to look at, but it's a lot easier to tackle that than to try any other way of adding serious capacity to a heritage listed station jammed between the CBD and the river.

Happy Gunzelling and remember, "Go by rail!"

Michael Angelico
President, Smart Passengers Inc
(My opinions are my own unless specifically stated.)

tranzitjim · Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 11:22 am

OJ · Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 11:38 am

fogcv · Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 1:07 pm

fullofrubbish · Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 3:42 pm

Great comments Mjja & OJ. If only it was reasoned argument like this that got into the papers instead of current rubbish. With all this in mind, how would this list of dot points look as a possible solution to the current crisis developing:

-Flinders street no longer main dwell and driver change centre, shift to outer end of lines
-If this will not give free up the 2 minute frequency into flinders street and out again, possible selective platform extensions to hold 2 X 6car sets as mjja suggested
-Signalling upgrades to allow this to happen
-Through running of services of direct services to reduce stop time and space taken up around the flinders street platforms/precints for reversing
-Untagling conflicting movements between Southern Cross & NME
-Targetted track and signal upgrades to deal with express/SAS issues outside of direct inner city (i.e West Footscray to Sunshine), (i.e places like Oakleigh & Westall along Pakenham line)

In my belief, these changes would allow the network to run closer to its full capacity, and instead of spending all of $9 billion on one tunnel, have cash left over for line extensions (eg Mernda) and electrifications (Sunbury/Melton), AND new trains to run in the freed up capacity.

If anything, the current crisis needs a bigger a big rethink on operational practises with smaller targeted infrastructure improvements, rather than keeping our inefficient operational practises and spending HUGE amounts on new infrastructure.