St Kilda Railway

 
  bomberswarm2 Junior Train Controller

Having a train to St Kilda would be useful again.

Flinders St > Casino > South Melbourne > Albert Park > St. Kilda

Single Track 3 car trains from platform 11.

- Allows Werribee and Willamstown trains to use Platform 11 in peak hour
- Allows easier access to south Melbourne

Good?
Feasable?

Sponsored advertisement

  mission_ridiculous Station Staff

There's an ill-conceived bar in the way.
  Camster Chief Commissioner

Location: Geelong
Perhaps a spur off this tunnel we are supposed to be getting.

Don't see trains coming back to St.Kilda. The light rail service seems reasonable.
  bomberswarm2 Junior Train Controller

There's an ill-conceived bar in the way.
mission_ridiculous


Well demolishing that makes another benefit of the line!
  Chidda Bang Locomotive Driver

Location: Banned
Could you find a way to connect the St Kilda line into the Clifton Hill loop?
  Gman_86 Chief Commissioner

Location: Melton, where the sparks dare not roam!
Having a train to St Kilda would be useful again.
bomberswarm2

How?

What is wrong with the current setup?

It would seem St Kilda is probably served by more public transport than any other suburb in Melbourne, what makes you think billions of dollars of taxpayers money need to be spent in this part of Melbourne?
  MrToastyy Locomotive Driver

Location: Werribee
It defiantly have lots of patronage during the summer holidays?
  Bogong Chief Commissioner

Location: Essendon Aerodrome circa 1980
As Gman said, this a very daft idea.

The current light rail line that replaced the heavy line:

* Runs much more frequently,
* Goes further (at both ends)
* Gives much better access to the city.
* It's an all round better service!

I can't think of a single advantage of converting it back to a heavy rail system. I bet nobody can name one either.

So next time, before posting a vague dream, think first about:

* The current situation,
* How the dream project would improve it,
* How much the dream would cost, what extra benefits would it give?
* Are there a squillion better ways to spend the money? Contrary to what school kids think, all governments are on a tight budget.
  Braddo Deputy Commissioner

Location: Narre Warren
In my opinion converting the St Kilda line to light rail is one of the biggest mistakes the Victorian Government has ever made.

I'd love to see it returned to heavy rail one day, but it'll never happen.
  Camster Chief Commissioner

Location: Geelong
At the end of the day, the line is mostly still there, and a lot of the historic things like the bridges are too. Different gauge and voltage, but the service is a bit more convenient. You can get the tram from Bourke street to Luna Park and beyond. Could not do that on a train.

I can't see the advantage to converting other lines to light rail, and think the plan to do this in Newcastle is stupid, but the St.Kilda light rail is one that works.
  route14 Chief Commissioner

Although none of the existing lines are suitable for light rail convertion, I have an idea of building a light rail line via the former Inner Circle corridor, branching off route 55 at Royal Park and goes to Rushall Station.  It could be named route 65, the City end could be put into Elizabeth St. terminus, or at Market St. crossover.
  Rodo Chief Commissioner

Location: Southern Riverina
I would say that the old Inner Circle route would be better served by short metro style trains running at 10 minute intervals. many of the minor stops could be non stop for the longer distance trains with at least one more station on the closed section. This would give a much faster run into the city loop and to connecting lines, avoiding congested streets.
  Heihachi_73 Chief Commissioner

Location: Terminating at Ringwood
What about the Outer Circle as well? Surely trams would be a better option for the Alamein line than the current shuttles running every half an hour off-peak; Alamein services are rarely full even in peak for that matter.

The Alamein line currently connects or crosses with trams at Camberwell (72), Riversdale (70) and Burwood (75). Obviously a new tram stop would be needed between Hartwell and Burwood to connect with the 75 though, but the distances between Camberwell, Riversdale, Willison and Hartwell may as well be tram stops to start with. It's anyone's guess where the "up" end of the light rail would finish though - would it turn at Riversdale Rd and follow the 70 to the city or continue towards Camberwell (e.g. the 72 terminus) or follow the old Outer Circle to Deepdene and beyond as a non-city route like the 82?
  route14 Chief Commissioner

I prefer the route 70 option.  The City end could be made at Flinders St. West crossover.  Possibly named route 76 since depot cars of route 70 now have to show 70D.  To connect with route 72 is more difficult because it's not an existing level crossing.
  railblogger Chief Commissioner

Location: At the back of the train, quitely doing exactly what you'd expect.
What about the Outer Circle as well? Surely trams would be a better option for the Alamein line than the current shuttles running every half an hour off-peak; Alamein services are rarely full even in peak for that matter.
Heihachi_73

The Alamein line could be extended to Chadstone SC and Oakliegh, which would probably fill the trains.
  hot-axle-box Junior Train Controller

Why dont they kick the trams out, plan the tunnel from Southern Cross to Montague and join it back up with the old line, giving 3 extra stations already built. and permanent way already there. Then at Albert Park go underground again have a station near St kilda junction and bring it out between Sth Yarra and Hawksburn joining up to the Caulfied through lines. I call it re use. If they want to join the Frankston line up to the Belgrave and Lilydale lines then there will be no need to have 6 tracks between South yarra and Richmond. So instead of paying for great long tunnel, you can have two short tunnels with a reused asset in between.
  LancedDendrite Chief Commissioner

Location: Gheringhap Loop Autonomous Zone
Why dont they kick the trams out, plan the tunnel from Southern Cross to Montague and join it back up with the old line, giving 3 extra stations already built. and permanent way already there. Then at Albert Park go underground again have a station near St kilda junction and bring it out between Sth Yarra and Hawksburn joining up to the Caulfied through lines. I call it re use. If they want to join the Frankston line up to the Belgrave and Lilydale lines then there will be no need to have 6 tracks between South yarra and Richmond. So instead of paying for great long tunnel, you can have two short tunnels with a reused asset in between.
hot-axle-box

I'd like to congratulate you for single-handedly coming up with a Melbourne Metro tunnel proposal that is less grounded in reality than even the Napthine Government's proposal.

It makes no sense from both a civil construction and public transport delivery perspective. Firstly, you're talking about turning a pair of tunnels into 4 tunnels, requiring at worst 4 Tunnel Boring Machines. The northern tunnels are perhaps 2-2.5 kilometres long and has a 1-in-70 gradient going from the south edge of the Yarra River to City Rd, with a similar gradient at the north side of Southern Cross after about 700 metres of reasonably flat gradient. Your second tunnel makes no sense - you want it to effectively do a U-turn from... St Kilda Junction? Towards South Yarra/Hawksburn? After entering the tunnel at the northern end of Albert Park? You appear to be geographically impaired. Go and actually look at the area on Google Maps and think about your proposal again before you come back.

From a public transport perspective, you're proposing to remove a local access service (St Kilda Light Rail) by removing the middle half of its alignment and putting in its place a long distance, high-capacity commuter rail line. Those two service models are very much opposed.
  bomberswarm2 Junior Train Controller


I can't think of a single advantage of converting it back to a heavy rail system. I bet nobody can name one either.



Bogong


Direct Access to Flinders Street Station, without having to change trams and and take an extra 10 minutes.

So next time think before you post.
  Bogong Chief Commissioner

Location: Essendon Aerodrome circa 1980
Direct Access to Flinders Street Station, without having to change trams and and take an extra 10 minutes.

So next time think before you post.
bomberswarm2

Ah. but the number 96 tram that currently uses the route gives direct access to Spencer Street Station, so that counters your line. In fact it also passes major visitor destinations like Jeff's Shed and Crown too. As Spencer St is the base for country trains and buses, it's actually more useful than Flinders St! Smile
  bomberswarm2 Junior Train Controller

Ah. but the number 96 tram that currently uses the route gives direct access to Spencer Street Station, so that counters your line. In fact it also passes major visitor destinations like Jeff's Shed and Crown too. As Spencer St is the base for country trains and buses, it's actually more useful than Flinders St! Smile
Bogong


Uh, still 10 minutes extra to catch one train to Flinders Street! And you said name any one benefit. Now you've gotten desperate, trying to add on all sorts of useless destinations that nobody visits anyway to try and backup your terrible argument. What a joke.
  Bogong Chief Commissioner

Location: Essendon Aerodrome circa 1980
Fair enough bomber. I'll (slightly) modify my argument to:

The No. 96 tram is much better than the old St Kilda train line because:

* It runs more frequently (with shorter wait times for passengers) and
* Has stops all through the city (not just at a single place) and
* because it's longer at both ends and stops near popular destinations that did not exist when the rail line was built in 1857. This allows potential passengers to plan a trip to places like Luna Park, The Espy and Jeff's Shed that would not be possible without a very long walk if the train line still existed. Smile
  railblogger Chief Commissioner

Location: At the back of the train, quitely doing exactly what you'd expect.
Direct Access to Flinders Street Station, without having to change trams and and take an extra 10 minutes.

So next time think before you post.
bomberswarm2

If you don't want to change trams take the number 16.
  LordPhobos Locomotive Driver

Location: Bendigo, Vic
Used to live on the #96, South Melbourne was our nearest stop. Best thing that ever happened on that line in living memory.
We used to get a train every half hour or worse, now it's a tram every 10 mins or so, and the service from Southern Cross station to St Kilda station is 10 minutes - stopping every stop.
people winged about the lack of low floor access when it was first converted, but somehow I don't think that's a problem anymore...

If you wanna put trains back, where is the benefit, as opposed to general nostalgia?
There's an internet full of photos, if that's what you're after as well.
  hot-axle-box Junior Train Controller

I'd like to congratulate you for single-handedly coming up with a Melbourne Metro tunnel proposal that is less grounded in reality than even the Napthine Government's proposal.

It makes no sense from both a civil construction and public transport delivery perspective. Firstly, you're talking about turning a pair of tunnels into 4 tunnels, requiring at worst 4 Tunnel Boring Machines. The northern tunnels are perhaps 2-2.5 kilometres long and has a 1-in-70 gradient going from the south edge of the Yarra River to City Rd, with a similar gradient at the north side of Southern Cross after about 700 metres of reasonably flat gradient. Your second tunnel makes no sense - you want it to effectively do a U-turn from... St Kilda Junction? Towards South Yarra/Hawksburn? After entering the tunnel at the northern end of Albert Park? You appear to be geographically impaired. Go and actually look at the area on Google Maps and think about your proposal again before you come back.

From a public transport perspective, you're proposing to remove a local access service (St Kilda Light Rail) by removing the middle half of its alignment and putting in its place a long distance, high-capacity commuter rail line. Those two service models are very much opposed.
Lance doldrums wrote


In my opinion Light rail should never have gone ahead. Those lines were cut off and the land sold (casino site) by greedy politicians.


Don't quote gradients to me unless you show me your capable of such calculations and planning.  I suggested an idea, I don't personally give a smeg about the project because I think the original tunnel proposal was better. There are quite a few here on Railpage that are planning nazi's and it wrecks the forum especially when a lot of topics get turned into tram talk and boring rants about public transport planning.  And the certain people that act like bullies and condescending twats don't get much respect from me.
  Gman_86 Chief Commissioner

Location: Melton, where the sparks dare not roam!
Seriously, anybody who still thinks that either:
a) The light rail should be converted back to heavy rail (via a tunnel, or any other means possible);
or
b) The Casino should never have been built, and the St Kilda/ Port Melbourne lines should never have been converted in the first place;
is a naive, uneducated fringe dwelling fruitcake, who luckily for the rest of the state of Victoria, has absolutley no power to unleash their ridiculous nutjob ideas.

Seriously, grow up!

Sponsored advertisement

Subscribers: LordPhobos, wurx

Display from:   

Quick Reply

We've disabled Quick Reply for this thread as it was last updated more than six months ago.