Gippsland Line Upgrade

 
  Carnot Chief Commissioner

I'm hearing lots of complaints about VLine punctuality on Gippsland services in the past week. Was removing third track at Oakleigh a factor?

Ultimately Metro will want all VLine trains to terminate at Pakenham...

Sponsored advertisement

  Gman_86 Chief Commissioner

Location: Melton, where the sparks dare not roam!
I am a bit surprised that Sale still even has a yard. I thought all that was left there was a run-around track for the occasional short termination of Bairnsdale trains.

All that's missing is the turntable.
  Gman_86 Chief Commissioner

Location: Melton, where the sparks dare not roam!
Interesting article in the Latrobe Valley Express of 21 June, which has a front page story about the National
Party candidate for Morwell ‘pricing plans for a dedicated tunnel from Pakenham to Melbourne’, possibly in a separate location.
It’s obviously quite a courageous statement of intent, as their calculator wouldn’t have enough zeros to rack up the eventual price. But it is encouraging to see one of the Coalition partners acknowledging the Gippsland corridor has serious reliability issues, and are at least talking it.
gippslander
I would think that candidate will get a rather rude shock, followed by a resounding thud (the sound of landing back in reality) when the quoted price for a tunnel like that would come back to him/her.

A rail tunnel from Pakenham to Melbourne is about as likely as a railway to the moon.
  mm42 Chief Train Controller

All that is needed is triplication from Sandown Park to Oakleigh, so Gippsland trains can overtake all-stoppers, just as the semi-express trains do currently on the Frankston line. Here, the triplicated section is for 6 stations Moorabbin to Glenhuntly), which at 1 minute per station  is just far enough for a train 3 minutes behind a stopper to overtake and be 3 minutes ahead of the stopper.  Triplicating an equivalent length on the Dandenong line would involve...
- just over 1 km of elevated track near Clayton station, built to the south of the current line where the previous surface line was located
- a short section of either elevated track or rail trench just to the south of the Springvale grade separation
- a new centre express track for non-elevated sections
- rebuilding Huntingdale and Sandown Park stations with side platforms and a centre express track
- elevated sections of the express track would extend a little further than the current elevated tracks, to allow the express track to connect from the south of the current track to the centre position of non-elevated tracks
- reinstating third track through Oakleigh

This would leave 3 stations on the up end of the triplicated section (Carnegie, Murrumbeena and Hughsdale) and 2 on the down end (Noble Park and Yarraman), which with good timetabling are unlikely to delay express trains at off-peak times when there is a 10-minute frequency of stoppers.  At peak times when trains are running every 3 minutes through the Metro 1 tunnel, expresses would require an extra 3 minutes between Carnegie and Hughsdale, but because of high costs for land acquisition building a new elevated line, a cost-benefit analysis of triplicating this section is unlikely to show a positive return.

Part of the business case for partial triplication would need to be enabling outer suburban semi-expresses, most likely all-stoppers from Pakenham to Dandenong, then express to Caulfield.  Speeding up these services would make rail travel more time-competitive with driving, and reduce traffic on the Monash Freeway.
  Nightfire Minister for Railways

Location: Gippsland
All that is needed is triplication from Sandown Park to Oakleigh, so Gippsland trains can overtake all-stoppers, just as the semi-express trains do currently on the Frankston line. Here, the triplicated section is for 6 stations Moorabbin to Glenhuntly), which at 1 minute per station  is just far enough for a train 3 minutes behind a stopper to overtake and be 3 minutes ahead of the stopper.  Triplicating an equivalent length on the Dandenong line would involve...
- just over 1 km of elevated track near Clayton station, built to the south of the current line where the previous surface line was located
- a short section of either elevated track or rail trench just to the south of the Springvale grade separation
- a new centre express track for non-elevated sections
- rebuilding Huntingdale and Sandown Park stations with side platforms and a centre express track
- elevated sections of the express track would extend a little further than the current elevated tracks, to allow the express track to connect from the south of the current track to the centre position of non-elevated tracks
- reinstating third track through Oakleigh

This would leave 3 stations on the up end of the triplicated section (Carnegie, Murrumbeena and Hughsdale) and 2 on the down end (Noble Park and Yarraman), which with good timetabling are unlikely to delay express trains at off-peak times when there is a 10-minute frequency of stoppers.  At peak times when trains are running every 3 minutes through the Metro 1 tunnel, expresses would require an extra 3 minutes between Carnegie and Hughsdale, but because of high costs for land acquisition building a new elevated line, a cost-benefit analysis of triplicating this section is unlikely to show a positive return.

Part of the business case for partial triplication would need to be enabling outer suburban semi-expresses, most likely all-stoppers from Pakenham to Dandenong, then express to Caulfield.  Speeding up these services would make rail travel more time-competitive with driving, and reduce traffic on the Monash Freeway.
mm42
You need quad track not triple track !

Triple track has train balancing troubles.

Quad track Dandenong to Oakleigh.
  jakar Assistant Commissioner

Location: Melbourne
I'm hearing lots of complaints about VLine punctuality on Gippsland services in the past week. Was removing third track at Oakleigh a factor?

Ultimately Metro will want all VLine trains to terminate at Pakenham...
Carnot
Unsurprisingly everyone has quickly realized that simply raising the tracks off the ground still results in V/Lines trains getting stuck behind a stopping all stations Metro service.

Replacing the 3rd track at Oakleigh with a bike path hasn't changed too much as far as I know as overtaking there wasn't all that common. It has of course reduced flexibility, particularly during an incident.

Metro would love to have V/line services terminate at Pakenham, however train services (or lack there off) is a major topic in Gippsland and would cause a lot of grief for whoever was in power at the time at the mere mention of of withdrawing through services. I don't think it would happen particularly with the amount of people commuting from Drouin and Warragul these days.

You know a project is a dud when people are already trying to work out ways to improve it before its even been completed.
  davesvline Chief Commissioner

Location: 1983-1998
Sky rail was about ticking a box for the govt re level crossing removal. Any other benefits that coincided were nice, but the crossings gone was the sole intent.
Oh, but the train service hasn't improved. We'll talk to the respective train operators then, cos the crossings are gone, so it's not our problem.

Slightly off topic....
Went for a trip out to Dandy on Monday to see the line change for myself. IMHO not too bad, but my god is the Dandenong station area an absolute dump.
Needs a Ringwood style make over NOW. Old rusted out track from what used to be the old cattle yard area. Rip all that disused crap up and repurpose the area. Increase the amenity and appeal of the joint.

Back on topic itd be interesting to see what enhancements could assist V/line if any, and I doubt this includes Metro's cop out option either.

Regards
  x31 Chief Commissioner

Location: gallifrey
How can reducing capacity and flexibility on a crowded poorly performing network be a good thing?
  duttonbay Minister for Railways

How can reducing capacity and flexibility on a crowded poorly performing network be a good thing?
x31
In what way has Sky Rail reduced capacity? Removing the level crossings has allowed a higher frequency of trains. Or so it is claimed...
  tazzer96 Deputy Commissioner

Skyrail despite its name is a road project. Not a rail project.  If it was a rail project then all skyrail sections would be at least triple track.

Quad track is ideal, but triple track can work if the triplication is long enough
  AJW Chief Train Controller

Location: Melbourne
"In what way has Sky Rail reduced capacity?"
Oakleigh is an example of reduced capability/capacity.  It was 4 tracks, ie platform 1,2 & 3 and a track between 2 & 3.  We now have overhead stanchions where the third track was and platform 1 is removed and direct access to Haughton Rd is being built.  ie Four to three now two and major cost to triplicate or more.

We are still waiting for increased frequency... Even meeting the current timetable seems too hard.
  kuldalai Chief Commissioner

"In what way has Sky Rail reduced capacity?"
Oakleigh is an example of reduced capability/capacity.  It was 4 tracks, ie platform 1,2 & 3 and a track between 2 & 3.  We now have overhead stanchions where the third track was and platform 1 is removed and direct access to Haughton Rd is being built.  ie Four to three now two and major cost to triplicate or more.

We are still waiting for increased frequency... Even meeting the current timetable seems too hard.
AJW
Have faith the marginal seat express approaches mid November over Sky rail with no level crossings, one sniffs a new Metro tt just before November where all past ills will soon be forgotten , whilst VLP still crawls along behind even more SAS sparks .

We might have removed 9 level crossings, but in doing so we have totally failed to address and indeed made it very more difficult and expensive to provide additional track capacity in the Dandenong Corridor .

Wonderful outcome for road users, SMEG outcome for rail passenger overall .
  Valvegear Dr Beeching

Location: Norda Fittazroy
Wonderful outcome for road users, SMEG outcome for rail passenger overall .
"kuldalai"
Just long-standing Victorian SOP.
  The Vinelander Minister for Railways

Location: Ballan, Victoria on the Ballarat RFR Line
Skyrail despite its name is a road project. Not a rail project.  If it was a rail project then all skyrail sections would be at least triple track.

Quad track is ideal, but triple track can work if the triplication is long enough
tazzer96

Everyone seems to be forgetting Westall...in both UP & DOWN directions.

Mike.
  duttonbay Minister for Railways

"In what way has Sky Rail reduced capacity?"
Oakleigh is an example of reduced capability/capacity.  It was 4 tracks, ie platform 1,2 & 3 and a track between 2 & 3.  We now have overhead stanchions where the third track was and platform 1 is removed and direct access to Haughton Rd is being built.  ie Four to three now two and major cost to triplicate or more.

We are still waiting for increased frequency... Even meeting the current timetable seems too hard.
AJW
I would have said that the changes at Oakleigh reduce flexibility, but not capacity. Were any overtaking moves scheduled there?
  jakar Assistant Commissioner

Location: Melbourne
Skyrail despite its name is a road project. Not a rail project.  If it was a rail project then all skyrail sections would be at least triple track.

Quad track is ideal, but triple track can work if the triplication is long enough

Everyone seems to be forgetting Westall...in both UP & DOWN directions.

Mike.
The Vinelander
Mike,

I'm very tired and may have misinterpreted the context of your post, but I don't think most people have forgotten Westall, its just that its not particularly long or useful which is why it never seems to be mentioned much.

Overtakes do very occasionally occur on the down depending on how generous Metro are feeling at the time. It requires the V/Line service to be as close as possible to the Metro service in front in order to do so though, which can be a bit of a challenge since the preceding station is Clayton which most V/Line services stop at so the Metro service does get ahead a bit.

Overtaking on the UP is more difficult and rare as accessing the bypass track causes conflicts with down services.
  The Vinelander Minister for Railways

Location: Ballan, Victoria on the Ballarat RFR Line
Skyrail despite its name is a road project. Not a rail project.  If it was a rail project then all skyrail sections would be at least triple track.

Quad track is ideal, but triple track can work if the triplication is long enough

Everyone seems to be forgetting Westall...in both UP & DOWN directions.

Mike.
Mike,

I'm very tired and may have misinterpreted the context of your post, but I don't think most people have forgotten Westall, its just that its not particularly long or useful which is why it never seems to be mentioned much.

Overtakes do very occasionally occur on the down depending on how generous Metro are feeling at the time. It requires the V/Line service to be as close as possible to the Metro service in front in order to do so though, which can be a bit of a challenge since the preceding station is Clayton which most V/Line services stop at so the Metro service does get ahead a bit.

Overtaking on the UP is more difficult and rare as accessing the bypass track causes conflicts with down services.
jakar

METRO can get stuffed...

If the Minister says the situation is getting too hot for me to handle with all these complaints, in part due to your insolence of insisting your late trains hold up V/Line express trains then when the scheduling along the SE corridor is next reviewed...if not before as occasionally happens now, then METRO can be strongly encouraged to think a little more imaginatively to enable V/Line services to run through slow/late METRO sparks.

Mike.
  jakar Assistant Commissioner

Location: Melbourne
METRO can get stuffed...
The Vinelander
I don't think you'll find too many people disagreeing with you with that!

I've often thought independent train controllers/signalers wouldn't be a bad idea on shared lines. It would hopefully avoid situations such as pulling into Dandenong station on the up only to find the road has already been set for a yet to arrive stopping all stations up Cranbourne service that you're then forced to crawl behind all the way to Caulfield.
  duttonbay Minister for Railways

METRO can get stuffed...
I don't think you'll find too many people disagreeing with you with that!

I've often thought independent train controllers/signalers wouldn't be a bad idea on shared lines. It would hopefully avoid situations such as pulling into Dandenong station on the up only to find the road has already been set for a yet to arrive stopping all stations up Cranbourne service that you're then forced to crawl behind all the way to Caulfield.
jakar
What happens these days, after Caulfield? Are all trains off the Dandenong line (including Vline) using the local lines with Frankston trains using the through lines?
  duttonbay Minister for Railways

METRO can get stuffed...
I don't think you'll find too many people disagreeing with you with that!

I've often thought independent train controllers/signalers wouldn't be a bad idea on shared lines. It would hopefully avoid situations such as pulling into Dandenong station on the up only to find the road has already been set for a yet to arrive stopping all stations up Cranbourne service that you're then forced to crawl behind all the way to Caulfield.
jakar
What happens these days, after Caulfield? Are all trains off the Dandenong line (including Vline) using the local lines with Frankston trains using the through lines?
  Radioman Chief Train Controller

Hello All,

1 / Oakleigh has effectively been replaced by Westall , which , bearing in mind that Clayton services both the Monash Hospital and Monash University , plus has a stabling Sidings , so local services to Westall instead of Oakleigh is now possible.

2 / Run through of Eastern Pass at Oakleigh was rare due to causing congestion and out of order running from Caulfield .

3 / Caulfield , for Dandenong services will be straight up and down , partly due to the different ( and heavier ) current demand of the HCMT sets.

4 / New time table will have an increased frequency ( already announced ) but running time will remain the same.

Best wishes and regards, Radioman
  vlocity27 Junior Train Controller

Location: Pakenham
With the line being closed for this week can anyone explain why I keep seeing a 6 car PTV Vlocity passing through Traralgon-Morwell area. I've seen it around 4 times now heading towards Melbs way than back again to Tgon way. Driver training?
  jakar Assistant Commissioner

Location: Melbourne
They're just rail / track circuit cleaning trains. Both ways on both lines and loops between Traralgon and Longwarry. No idea why they're 6 car and not 3.
  vlocity27 Junior Train Controller

Location: Pakenham
They're just rail / track circuit cleaning trains. Both ways on both lines and loops between Traralgon and Longwarry. No idea why they're 6 car and not 3.
jakar
Why do they not go any further than Longwarry?
  jakar Assistant Commissioner

Location: Melbourne
They're just rail / track circuit cleaning trains. Both ways on both lines and loops between Traralgon and Longwarry. No idea why they're 6 car and not 3.
Why do they not go any further than Longwarry?
vlocity27
To go further it requires the train to have to enter the next single line section to get behind the Home signal on the UP side of Bunyip (where it goes back to two tracks) in order to return to Traralgon. But as they're doing the works at Pakenham East at the other end of the section, I am assuming that the occo is for the entire section from Pakenham to Bunyip so the train is unable to enter.

Sponsored advertisement

Display from: