The point is that if at the moment we run 13 trains out to Ringwood, and Ringwood and its sub regions are not expected to grow significantly as a result of there being no growth areas out there
The problem is that as far as I can tell, a lot of those growth expectations assume out, not up. They make no allowance for thirty-storey residential apartments, or moving from our standard of about 12 residents per acre to a hundred or more residents per acre.
As far as I am aware, these growth expectations do. Proof: There is NOWHERE to go out. The only way IS up. How can you project growth any other way?
What about north of Lilydale, east of Bayswater and between Dandenong Creek and Eastlink? (The last one might be a flood plain, but that hasn't stopped anyone in the past).
Besides, when we talk building up, are we talking eight stories, or thirty, or sixty?
Taller buildings and more people per square and cubic kilometre are things we'll just have to learn to live with.
The only other way is DOWN (if that is the case, then you would have negative growth).
Well, you could build houses underground. Apparently that's done in deserts as a form of cheap airconditioning.
Still, let's assume that with a value of 55,000 people in 15 years and linear growth, by 2050 there will be about 650,000 residents in the Ringwood and surrounding areas.
You've made the wrong assumption. It would be logarithmic growth. We have an ageing population. There is nowhere to build. It would be at the very last stage of logarithmic growth.
I wouldn't be surprised if the ageing population trend starts to reverse sometime in the next decade or two.
Which nobody wants these days anyways
Deducting half for children and another few thousand for other reasons,
(You want to make overarching generalisations, then I will too!)
Each train carries around 1,000 people, or with proper Metro rollingstock, 2,000.
9 car solution increases that.
But it also wastes money that would be better spent on providing a higher quality of service.
That's a requirement of around 25 trains per hour from each direction... That's more than enough to prevent the running of a non-commuter express service, running Ringwood - Box Hill - Richmond - Flinders Street, from running on the same tracks in peak hour. And that's where the requirement for the extra two tracks comes from.
Erm... mathematically it doesn't.
To borrow from another thread - that's like arguing that there's no difference between a level crossing and a road intersection, when each has 30 minutes per hour of traffic in each direction.
In practice that isn't true, because the level crossing's wait period would be grouped into a small number of long delays whereas the intersection has a high number of short periods of delays.
You should really stop arguing about timetables until you learn the trade, lest you make yourself look even more foolish.
You say that Parramatta has taken decades to get to 90,000 jobs; I can only assume that either not enough investment was made (or it wasn't fast enough), or the promotion strategies weren't strong enough, or people in Sydney are more willing to accept a longer commute than I consider reasonable.
Parramatta is the ONLY viable and logical example there is!
If Parramatta can't get more than 90,000 jobs, there is no way that Dandenong, Frankston, Ringwood, etc, could exceed that in a shorter space of time.
I'm sure there are overseas examples.
And even if there aren't, all the more reason to become a world-leader.
By the way, you didn't address my theories as to why Parramatta hasn't grown fast enough.
Even if all of the above fails in terms of tunneling costs a little project scope alternative for you.
A tunnel over such a huge length will be very expensive, there's no doubt about it, and you've admitted as such.
If you have that many people using the system, then you can justify tunnelling, because the farebox revenue would exceed your capacity increase.
Once you deduct finances relating to housing and look only at a pure transportation perspective, name six commuter passenger transport systems worldwide that generate a profit.
If you went for a 9 car solution, you increase capacity by 50%, much more than the 10% proected growth with minimal infrastructure required. Extrapolate this, and you have flexibility to reduce stopping all station services for express services if you wish.
I've been told that in a recent (i.e. last decade or so) timetable, Cityrail replaced a four-carriage train every 7 or 8 minutes with an 8-carriage train every 15 minutes, and claimed that the service was the same so people had no right to complain. That seems to align with what you're suggesting, which I consider completely unreasonable.
No, the point is you don't need to increase peak frequency from the current if you use 9 cars. I wasn't removing anything. I was saying you could extend platforms and leave the Belgrave/Lilydale lines to rot on their old timetable for the next 50 years, and you would have already provided more than enough capacity!
Do you honestly think that there won't be a service cut if such capacity were provided?
You've always had a problem with understanding the effect a single express train has on the headways between two stopping trains (or viceversa). Remind me to show you my paper train graph for the Caulfield/Northern group sometime.
I know the effect of an express train between two stopping trains. I just work around it with minimal infrastructure, you go for the more expensive, and less likely to happen option.
No, you ignore or misunderstand the problem, and therefore your proposals would - safeworking aside - have trains slamming into each other every ten minutes.
Bit of a hint, that's kinda bad for business.
But hey, you won't listen to me. So why don't you try to write a timetable? You need capacity for