I know that there are older threads in the forum that include speculation about expansion of the Perth suburban network, but here I would like to enquire about real plans for the development of the two main new suburban lines. Firstly I'm interested in the potential for expansion of the existing stations.

As pointed out by thewaratahtrain in the thread about Transperth EDI / Bombardier EMU sets, the recently announced Aubin Grove station on the Mandurah line is to be built with 230m long platforms. The Treasurer and Transport Minister is reported in the West Australian as saying this will be the first 230m platform on the Mandurah line. "It's building for the future because it means we'll be able to take nine carriages in one rail set." ( http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/wa/14469011/libs-copycats-on-station-plan/ )

A few measurements of some existing Joondalup and Mandurah line platforms and available space for extending them (using Google Earth) would suggest that they and the track alignments may have been designed with the potential for future extension to suit eight or nine car sets. Can anyone on the forum confirm if that is the case? If so it shows a refreshing amount of foresight dating back to the design of the Joondalup line more than twenty years ago. However my sceptical side finds it difficult to imagine this happening within the next twenty years and there is no mention of it in the draft Public Transport for Perth in 2031 report.

Which brings us back to why would they choose to build one new station at the longer length now? (Admittedly "now" probably means two years or so until it opens.) I can think of a few possibilities. a) Extension of the others is not such a long term plan so perhaps it is prudent to make all new stations longer from now. b) Someone in the PTA has decided that even if it is only a long term proposition there is a cost benefit in building the longer platform now instead of staging. c) Someone in the PTA is hoping that building one long platform will raise public interest and demand for the other stations to be extended and longer sets introduced. d) It is a political decision and the current government want to portray themselves as more forward looking in public transport.

Can anyone in the know shine some light on this? And does anyone know what provisions for expansion were designed into the Esplanade and Perth Underground stations? I'm hoping for more than my own level of speculation.

I think the joondalup/butler line has been designed with serious expansion in mind, I mean the stations were originally designed to carry four car sets and then were extended to carry six car sets, I did find a link on the tenders wa website for a further extension to yanchep and even further north possibly Geraldton, I'll look for it and post it, anyway the problem with Perth underground, esplanade & subiaco is extensions they'd be the most costly for it and Perth underground can barely hold a complete six car set part of the drivers cabin sticks off the platform, the government have the money we know that, what's puzzled me about Perth having nine car sets is it's the first australian city to have this, sydney have 8 car double deckers, and Melbourne still only six and looking at nine car sets, I think barnetts seen the expected population growth and gone oh smeg, I think we will see more public transport projects and promises coming up.

https://www.tenders.wa.gov.au/watenders/contract/view.do?id=71766&returnUrl=%252Fcontract%252Flist.do%253F%2524%257Brequest.queryString%257D


Here's the link to the yanchep rail master plan + an open contract for the concept design of ALKIMOS STATION which has now closed

https://www.tenders.wa.gov.au/watenders/contract/view.do?id=71835&returnUrl=%252Fcontract%252Flist.do%253F%2524%257Brequest.queryString%257D

... I did find a link on the tenders wa website for a further extension to yanchep and even further north possibly Geraldton...

The future rail corridor has been planned for quite some time to go as far as the Moore River to the north of Perth, but I haven't seen if there have been extensions to that for a while, will have to check.

The need for nine car trains is a while off I would think - better to increase the frequency of the six car trains before laying cash down for extending the train lengths. I would rather have a six car train every few minutes than one nine car train every 10+ minutes.

Agree there Bulbous, considering Butler will come online in a couple of years the current train order most likely still won't be enough to run all 6-car trains at current frequencies, plus it should be easy to bump up frequencies to every 4 or even 3 minutes in the inner section if the express running is cancelled (I remember reading that signalling target headways were something like 2.5 minutes on the Joondalup line and 2 minutes on the inner section of the Mandurah line). After all trains were more frequent before the Mandurah Line came onboard... and that was with every train terminating at the two platforms in Perth, whereas every second train now uses the Cockburn turnback.

The track layouts at Russell/ Gibbs, Rowley Rd and Anketell Rd were all designed to allow for future stations without affecting the track or overheads. Putting in 9 car platforms will require interruptive modifications which are not justified as there is no way that Perth Lower and Esplanade can be extended to 9 cars. I trust someone will clarify this in time. Stakehill Road, Paganoni Road and Gordon Rd also allow for stations.
To the north, the current plans are to the three stations in Yanchep as per the plan for the corridor where the railway is defined, including a depot at Yanchep. The railway is generally leading the freeway and driving development rather than catching up later.
The line between Leederville and Joondalup was designed for later extension to 6 cars which is why it was done without unduly impacting the railway.

Moore river would be an excellent extension that would be a nice trip actually, I don't think we still currently need nine car trains just yet but definitely in the future we will.

It's really stupid how Perth underground, subiaco & esplanade weren't designed with future expansion in mind and can't be extended, this network is great but at the same terribly flawed

Moore river would be an excellent extension that would be a nice trip actually, I don't think we still currently need nine car trains just yet but definitely in the future we will.

I'm sure it would be pleasant, but could a 25km line be justified to acreage blocks of non-commuters. Any suggestions where to go? Woodridge, Guilderton, Gabbadah?
Two Rocks would be the only realistic extension, only 7-8km further on.

Perth Underground cannot be extended north as a vicious curve starts right off the platform, south you are building a cavern under high rise, it will not happen
Esplanade ditto swap south and north.
Rockingham has sharp curves at each end now and cannot be extended.
No station on either line has been future proofed for 9 cars

A 9 car service would need them all extending. Definitely in the future we won't.

It took long enough for Grant St and Loch St to be done to allow 4 cars on Freo.

There was a review of alternatives into Perth looking at coming along the freeway to Parliament and into the main station or the tunnel option as it is now. The freeway option would have allowed 9 cars. The Minister chose the tunnel.

... I did find a link on the tenders wa website for a further extension to yanchep and even further north possibly Geraldton...

The future rail corridor has been planned for quite some time to go as far as the Moore River to the north of Perth, but I haven't seen if there have been extensions to that for a while, will have to check. The need for nine car trains is a while off I would think - better to increase the frequency of the six car trains before laying cash down for extending the train lengths. I would rather have a six car train every few minutes than one nine car train every 10+ minutes.

Some land in the area of Pipidinny & Beonaddy roads was purchased some decades ago for the progressive extension of the Nothern Suburbs Railway. The South bank of the Moore River is the Northern Limit of the Metropolitain Region Scheme

But why would they go to all this trouble of building a 230m nine car platform if we will never need it?

Moore river would be an excellent extension that would be a nice trip actually, I don't think we still currently need nine car trains just yet but definitely in the future we will.

I'm sure it would be pleasant, but could a 25km line be justified to acreage blocks of non-commuters. Any suggestions where to go? Woodridge, Guilderton, Gabbadah?
Two Rocks would be the only realistic extension, only 7-8km further on.

Perth Underground cannot be extended north as a vicious curve starts right off the platform, south you are building a cavern under high rise, it will not happen
Esplanade ditto swap south and north.
Rockingham has sharp curves at each end now and cannot be extended.
No station on either line has been future proofed for 9 cars

A 9 car service would need them all extending. Definitely in the future we won't.

It took long enough for Grant St and Loch St to be done to allow 4 cars on Freo.

There was a review of alternatives into Perth looking at coming along the freeway to Parliament and into the main station or the tunnel option as it is now. The freeway option would have allowed 9 cars. The Minister chose the tunnel.

I agree about the limit really being Two Rocks in the near-to-mid-term, as the distance for anything like Lancelin or further is not worth a rail line.


The sections of the underground line in Perth where the stations are were cut-and-cover construction, with a huge open room to the east side of the Mandurah-bound platform (behind the station walls) which is there as it followed the old footprint of the King Kong building above (we were calling it the Ballroom when in maintenance down there). The bored sections were hard enough to drive through the city with all of the subsurface support for the surrounding buildings crossing the path of the boring machines, and all of which needed replacement or mitigation in some way to avoid movement to the surrounding buildings. The construction needed to extend through those conditions would be far too costly for the possible payoff. There is no chance of extending the Perth underground platforms to nine cars, and luckily there is no need. With six car trains every 2 or 2.5 minutes through there, you would be hard pressed to fill that number of seats right now, let alone the standing room in the future.


Rockingham I still believe would have been better with the "detour" route via the shopping centre and south via Read Street/Warnbro Sound Ave, but the extra costs for the undergrounding there was a push too far at the time. Shame though, as the construction through there would have been a breeze (even with the traffic management nightmare).


I think the right route into Perth Station was taken though, via the Esplanade rather than via the Freeway/Parliament. My big issue was that the route to the north should have been a larger curve out of the underground station to a stop in the west end of Northbridge, and then daylighting near the west portal of the freeway tunnel and up into the median of the freeway there - remove three tight curves and slow running through the west end of the city/Roe Street tunnel and add a station in Northbridge at the same time. The big problem (according to the PTA mainly) was that they wanted the crossovers maintained west of Perth Station to allow for rolling stock transfer (partially) and to allow for direct running football trains (this was the bigger issue scarily enough!). This cross-over mess has now meant that the City Link project can only sink one block of rail line before coming above ground, rather than sinking the whole way to the freeway.


Anyway, enough of my ranting.....  

Pretty good post mate.

This cross-over mess has now meant that the City Link project can only sink one block of rail line before coming above ground, rather than sinking the whole way to the freeway.

I am curious why the crossover couldn't have been sunk? I mean, the Joondalup Line has to rise up then back down again - why not have your crossover in a trench and then the Fremantle line rises up to cross Sutherland Street? is there any engineering reason this could not occur?

(As a historical aside, earlier plans for sinking the rail line in the 60s and 70s envisaged the closure of Sutherland Street completely due to the lowering of the rail line through there. The freeway was designed to handle the traffic that would have otherwise used Sutherland Street)

I looked at this a few years ago. Shift the Freo to the bus road, shift the Joondalup across and have a simple connection. Close Roe St, dig a hole 300m long and 20m wide, install the crossovers, break into the mouth of the tunnels from Mandurah and connect into the box, build a part cut and cover, part thrustbore tunnel under the freeway to connect at the Roe St tunnel curve start, dive the Freo down from the station and up towards Sutherland St. Easy, only a few hundred million and a couple of years massive disruption to road and rail.
I suggest roofing over the crossovers with shop fronts on Roe St, wide boulevards crossing Roe St and the railway from James St and landscaping the box out of sight. Much cheaper and less disruptive.

Pretty good post mate.

This cross-over mess has now meant that the City Link project can only sink one block of rail line before coming above ground, rather than sinking the whole way to the freeway.

I am curious why the crossover couldn't have been sunk? I mean, the Joondalup Line has to rise up then back down again - why not have your crossover in a trench and then the Fremantle line rises up to cross Sutherland Street? is there any engineering reason this could not occur?

(As a historical aside, earlier plans for sinking the rail line in the 60s and 70s envisaged the closure of Sutherland Street completely due to the lowering of the rail line through there. The freeway was designed to handle the traffic that would have otherwise used Sutherland Street)

I understand it was in an offer made at the time to the PTA/Govt. and it was rejected as the cost was too high - would have had to rework the Joondalup dive structure to the west under the freeway, which would have closed the Joondalup line for some time south of Leederville (but at the time it would have been closed south of Stirling due to lack of cross-overs/signalling). Bascially it was suggested that the current City Link works be undertaken at the same time (except with the cross-overs now underground and the Joondalup-Mandurah line not surfacing between the Esplanade and the north side of Roe Street Tunnel, and the Fremantle line sunk from the end of the platforms at Perth through to the freeway), but the budget was not able to stretch far enough at the time to carry out these works. I believe the extra budget was in the region of $300m, so a lot less than currently planned for more work. However, there were significant disruptions planned to the Joondalup line and the Fremantle line, and none of the preworks behind the old Entertainment Centre were yet ready to move forward (bus lane removal to allow for slewed tracks, etc).

Re Sutherland Street - the climb up from underground level at the freeway to the top of the grade near Loftus Street would have been interesting for the DD's and old DMU's to handle - it would almost have had to be cut and covered from the freeway through to the end of West Leederville station to have a suitable grade back then?

Thanks again thewaratahtrain and to others who have since responded.

I did already know about the Yanchep extension of the Joondalup line, it has been discussed in one form or another for quite a while, but it is probably worth having a record of where that stands at the moment in this thread. Another recent reliable publicly available source for that is the Public Transport for Perth in 2031 report. It recommends that extension as a Stage 1 (ie by 2020) priority "extension of the Northern Suburbs Railway from Butler to Yanchep with stations at Alkimos, Eglinton and Yanchep (13.8kms)" As for the Mandurah line the same report mentions "new stations and interchange facilities on the Mandurah line at Success and Karnup." That is the recently announced Aubin Grove and a station to serve the future Keralup development and nearby growing suburban catchment. But before going further into plans for extending the lines or adding stations I was interested in this notion of platforms for nine-car sets arising from the quote that thewaratahtrain found.

@ Bulbous - A rail corridor as far as Moore River? That is seriously a long way. I know the MRS plan shows something going beyond Two Rocks (it disappears at the edge of the map), are there easily accessible documents showing the further extension? I imagine the alignment has changed a lot over the years. I completely agree that the short term goal should be an increase in frequency of six-car sets on these lines before considering nines (if they are even possible,) and I would have thought that was the priority of the PTA. (One of the positive comments from the Federal Govt Understanding Australia’s Railways report is that the frequency of off-peak services in Perth has contributed to the success of the system.) That is partly why I was so surprised to hear of this long platform being built now. Also the PTA Annual Report for 2010/11 suggests that the existing Joondalup line infrastructure has the capacity to take up to 20 six-car sets an hour in peak periods (this matches your comment mouse), up from around twelve sets an hour at peak now. So again, building a nine car platform now sounds a little premature.

@ 62440 - You mention several of the probable future stations on the Mandurah line, I think that the one you refer to as Russell/ Gibbs is the announced Aubin Grove and the one at Paganoni Rd is referred to as Karnup in a couple of recent government reports. Rowley Rd, Ankatell Rd and South Perth are all clear candidates for future stations from both rumours and aerial photos. Stakehill Rd and Gordon Rds are less obvious (planned stations without island platforms are not as clear on Google Earth!) I would be interested if you know if there is any documentation to confirm all of these.

But premature or not, the potential for expansion to nine-car sets is what is interesting me at the moment given the recent quote from Troy Buswell regarding Aubin Grove. I would still love to know if there is anyone who was directly involved in the planning and design of these lines and their stations who can comment on the possible provision for longer platforms, or if there is documentation in the public domain to the same effect. 62440 and waratah have both highlighted the apparent problem with the Perth Underground and the Esplanade which I'm sure we can all see, but it still leaves me wondering if there is something planned that we can’t see. Otherwise why would they be building a platform to suit a nine-car set now? That is the big mystery of the moment.

And @ Bulbous again (this thread is being added to before I have time to finish considering a response) thanks for your firsthand insight into the Perth Underground construction. Just as you mentioned a void that was built that Joe Public can’t see now, I was wondering if there was some design provision made for platform extension that is less than obvious.

@ drwaddles, Bulbous & 62440 - The crossover mess? Now we could be getting into the short-sightedness of not spending a bit more to keep the Joondalup - Mandurah connection below ground from the start and allow for future lowering of the Freo line. 62440 is right, obviously too late and costly to change now, and building over it is I believe what is proposed as part of the Perth City Link project. I could rant on but that could be going off topic. I'm just thankful that a change in government at the time helped to find the cash to bring the Mandurah line over the Narrows Bridge instead of going via Kenwick.

And finally since I have only made a couple of posts on here prior to starting this thread, I feel that I should apologise for my interest in quotable sources for information. I've been lurking here for a several years now and I've seen many unfounded rumours come and go. I enjoy speculation as much as the next person, but sometimes it is good to sort the reality from the dreams. Although of course dreams do have their benefits. Now I need to send this before i fall further behind in reading comments.

@ Bulbous - A rail corridor as far as Moore River? That is seriously a long way. I know the MRS plan shows something going beyond Two Rocks (it disappears at the edge of the map), are there easily accessible documents showing the further extension? I imagine the alignment has changed a lot over the years. I completely agree that the short term goal should be an increase in frequency of six-car sets on these lines before considering nines (if they are even possible,) and I would have thought that was the priority of the PTA. (One of the positive comments from the Federal Govt Understanding Australia’s Railways report is that the frequency of off-peak services in Perth has contributed to the success of the system.) That is partly why I was so surprised to hear of this long platform being built now. Also the PTA Annual Report for 2010/11 suggests that the existing Joondalup line infrastructure has the capacity to take up to 20 six-car sets an hour in peak periods (this matches your comment mouse), up from around twelve sets an hour at peak now. So again, building a nine car platform now sounds a little premature.

I did have access to some documents quite some time ago regarding the Moore River limits, more along the lines of a detailed scoping document for the alignment, but have not been able to find it for some time now (HDD crashes do that to you in the long run).

Increased frequency is much better than increased length for the trains on the system - just turn up and go. There may be other reasons to go with the longer platform now (maybe ghosts of South West Express past), but I would hope the end goal is more trains, not longer trains.

@ 62440 - You mention several of the probable future stations on the Mandurah line, I think that the one you refer to as Russell/ Gibbs is the announced Aubin Grove and the one at Paganoni Rd is referred to as Karnup in a couple of recent government reports. Rowley Rd, Ankatell Rd and South Perth are all clear candidates for future stations from both rumours and aerial photos. Stakehill Rd and Gordon Rds are less obvious (planned stations without island platforms are not as clear on Google Earth!) I would be interested if you know if there is any documentation to confirm all of these.

The station at Gordon Road was marked on all of our detailed plans for the Mandurah Entrance Road project - will see if I can find some scans of the setup and post them here. Access was via the Gordon Road bridge, to outside platforms (like Canning Bridge).

And @ Bulbous again (this thread is being added to before I have time to finish considering a response) thanks for your firsthand insight into the Perth Underground construction. Just as you mentioned a void that was built that Joe Public can’t see now, I was wondering if there was some design provision made for platform extension that is less than obvious.

Nope - the tunnel to the north veers to the left right away, with the carriages turning sharply right at the end of the platform. That end wall is the outer wall of the station box, with bored tunnel sections right behind it. The tunnel to the south is the same setup, but with eased curvature leaving the station box. There are all sorts of underground anchors for the surrounding buildings, so it is not as simple as just excavating behind the wall for extended platforms. Bored tunnel concrete sections also rely on the ground pressures around the bore to maintain their alignment and strength - changes to this weaken the structure. Hence the worries over the base of the dive structure for the Fremantle line being withing 1m of the top of the bored tunnel sections - reduced ground pressure above the tunnel during construction allows the tunnel to deform in cross section unless steps are taken to control this deformation.

Although there were other options aired during the works, remember that the Government did do the right thing and bring the line up the freeway, and there is only so far the budget can stretch. It is just a shame that there wasn't quite enough money (or will to appropriate that money) at the time to avoid these issues now.

The South bank of the Moore River is the Northern Limit of the Metropolitain Region Scheme

The MRS doesn't go that far - it goes to the northern boundary of the City of Wanneroo/southern boundary of the shire of Gingin, i.e. a couple of kilometres north of Breakwater Drive.

----

There is no rail corridor set aside in the Gingin Town Planning Scheme No. 8 or the draft Town Planning Scheme No. 9 as the land is all zoned for rural type uses. Generally the transport corridors are established when the land is rezoned for urban/future urban which won't happen for a long time. A tentative alignment may have been identified by the PTA for their own internal planning but I'm not sure.

wasnt there talk a couple of years ago about extending the mandurah line through to bunbury?

wasnt there talk a couple of years ago about extending the mandurah line through to bunbury?

There was talks of extending it to Bunbury, some reason failed through.... doesnt seem possible now unless they decide to tear up Mandurah Road adjendant to Mandurah station.

wasnt there talk a couple of years ago about extending the mandurah line through to bunbury?

Some patronage forecasting work was done which compared the two routes (existing or via Mandurah) and the Mandurah route came out on top. I don't think anything else has happened (publically) but it was never anything more than long range investigation work anyway. No funding, no timeframe.

The South bank of the Moore River is the Northern Limit of the Metropolitain Region Scheme

The MRS doesn't go that far - it goes to the northern boundary of the City of Wanneroo/southern boundary of the shire of Gingin, i.e. a couple of kilometres north of Breakwater Drive.

----

There is no rail corridor set aside in the Gingin Town Planning Scheme No. 8 or the draft Town Planning Scheme No. 9 as the land is all zoned for rural type uses. Generally the transport corridors are established when the land is rezoned for urban/future urban which won't happen for a long time. A tentative alignment may have been identified by the PTA for their own internal planning but I'm not sure.

I think a railway to Moore River is quite unlikely and there is no current plans to extend Perth to Moore River. Infact there is a proposed large conservation and recreation reverse north of Two Rocks and the Save Moore River campian is quite vocal.

wasnt there talk a couple of years ago about extending the mandurah line through to bunbury?

There was talks of extending it to Bunbury, some reason failed through.... doesnt seem possible now unless they decide to tear up Mandurah Road adjendant to Mandurah station.

No problem going to Bunbury - A junction at some point beyond Rockingham, if not continuing down the Freeway from Anketell, with every second or third train alternating to either branch would work well enough.

As pointed out by thewaratahtrain in the thread about Transperth EDI / Bombardier EMU sets, the recently announced Aubin Grove station on the Mandurah line is to be built with 230m long platforms. The Treasurer and Transport Minister is reported in the West Australian as saying this will be the first 230m platform on the Mandurah line. "It's building for the future because it means we'll be able to take nine carriages in one rail set." ( http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/wa/14469011/libs-copycats-on-station-plan/ )

Just goes to show that there is not many votes in Guildford!

Aside from not being able to get their Pub rebuilt, they still have a rotting timber edged, non wheel chair access compliant platform!

and why is it that the Midland line bicycle sheds dont have a pretty blue Bike on their roofs like everywhere else?

But yes lets have a 9 car platform that wont be able to be used for yonks


 


NR100 askedthis question in another thread
.How the hell can we have a 9 car train when Aubin Grove is the only one planned to be 230 metres long, or will the platform extentions be done intime!



You Cant!

All the platforms need to be of 9 car length - That would include the underground stations and yes that would take plenty of $$$ due to narrow minded planning!

Whats more - if the B series are retrofitted (as is intended) with the PDS (Platform Detection System) that is currently fitted to the A series then you most definately need the platforms to be of 9 car length to open the doors.

The only way around this would be to redesign the PDS to only open the doors that are on a platform - this would then allow you to have a car or 2 deliberately off either end of the platforms enabling you to run bigger train sets into all stations.

But you would then need to re-train the Sheep to travel in the middle sections of the train as we used to do when a train was stopping at a short platform. The benefit gained with the B series is that you can wander through 3 cars if you found yourself at either end.
Im pretty sure the Footy crowd would never figure this out! Here we go here we go here we go - awww are we there yet!

But guess what ?

The PDS is poorly designed and has only been set up to prevent "ALL" doors from opening if even just one door is "half" off a platform surface area - and sometimes it doesnt work even with all the doors on a platform.

The libs cant build a couple of Km's of railway in a short space of time nevermind want to buy enough cars to sustain multiple 9 car sets so dont be fooled by election promises that they will withdraw from after the event. "Ellenbrook comes to mind".

More sets of Cars for Higher frequency 6 car sets is the short term answer as previously mentioned and even this would likely require some better signalling infrastucture.

wasnt there talk a couple of years ago about extending the mandurah line through to bunbury?

A study was carried out 10 years ago on the potential improvements to the service to Bunbury using the existing line or a new line. The Minister wanted the ultimate to be one hour Perth Bunbury. 186km. Stopping at intermediate stations. Yeah right.
Suggested alternatives included using the Mandurah line to Lakelands, then following the new freeway median, finally using the existing trackbed round the port to come into the old central station. Another option was connecting Lakelands to Pinjarra. The same report suggested reopening Picton to Busselton with a later extension to Dunsborough and Margaret River.
I suspect you would be struggling to find a copy of the report.

Stakehill Road station was proposed by a land developer at their own cost, but I understand this offer was rejected.

If the connection between Thornlie and Cockburn were to be constructed as planned originally, this could be the link between the systems, reducing the need for the Perth Yard crossovers.

The whole Yanchep to Mandurah design basis is 150m platforms, Perth is slightly shorter than that.