Dennis's METRO tweaking of the Rabbit Burrows under Melbourne

 
  waynes Junior Train Controller

Location: Victoria
If a station is not planned for West Werribee how will passengers to/from Werribee, Laverton and Newport arrive from/to Geelong and beyond?  

Will Warrnambool services use the newport or RRL route?

Sponsored advertisement

  Nightfire Minister for Railways

Location: Gippsland
If a station is not planned for West Werribee how will passengers to/from Werribee, Laverton and Newport arrive from/to Geelong and beyond?

Will Warrnambool services use the newport or RRL route?
waynes

PTV plan to provide a bus from Wyndham Vale to Werribee for Geelong line passengers who wish to travel Werribee line Metro services
(Yes this Is a crap plan, But It's just cost cutting)

It would be possible to run a diesel rail car from Geelong to Werribee station, If there was demand for such a service (this could see the minor stations like Little River Corio and North Shore cut from the Melbourne Geelong Inter city runs)

The Werribee line will be extended to Wyndham Vale when the funding becomes available (Wyndham Vale station will become the Interchange station between Metro and V/Line services)

(If you were traveling from Geelong to Newport, you would change at Footscray)

All V/Line services will run via RRL.

BG Freight Is still planed to go via Laverton.
  Mr. Lane Chief Commissioner

I agree that this is all delaying tactics running up to the election. It is designed to make the Metro look like it isn't ready yet. I notice also that Doyle refers to this project as Melbourne Metro One...

With respect to West Werebee there is a long term plan to build a major urban centre just to the West of the existing suburban boundary. This would be different than existing suburban developments out that way in that the area would be designed as a Dandenong style centre with relaxed height restrictions. The intention is to have a major centre of work between Melbourne and Geelong with higher density living and office blocks.

A West Werebee station is to be provided to serve this new development. The station was talked about as being on the Geelong line but also as an extension of the exiting Werebee line. There was some discussion about slewing the Geelong line slightly south to go through this development as the current alignment is to the north of it, but I believe the decision was to provide either a bus or small light rail service from the station into the new development.

This is all long term stuff, but building a West Werebee station was definitely part of this plan.
  bevans Site Admin

Location: Melbourne, Australia
Where do you get this West Werribee service Idea from ?

There are no station planed at West Werribee, the whole area Is farm land.
Nightfire


Thanks for the response NF. I always, rightly or wrongly thought a railway station was being built at or near Werribee West and electrification was planned or delayed to that site.  I guess I was wrong in the short term.  

I think the reason I must have thought there was to be a station was the need for passengers to be able to access Vline Geelong trains from the Newport/Werribee Section of the Geelong line.  Not having this efficirent connecting service and having to use two modes of transport might currently be lost on those who do travel to Geelong from the west.

People out sunshine way will gain and people on the original south west line will not gain.  I am not sure this has been realised in the minds of the people who do travel the other way for work or other reasons.  I can;t imagine it will be popular.

If they did talk about electrification and a station at West Werribee (Thanks to Mr Lane) then why did it not go ahead?  

Travelling on the train recently from Melbourne to Geelong and return there is not much to be observed at West Werribee.

Regards
Brian
  ZH836301 Chief Commissioner

Location: BleakCity
With respect to Wyndham, there's a lot of inaccuracies in this thread, and little fact.

1/  Major urban development is to be at [b]East[/b] Werribee in the DPI/Crown Lands not to the west - this is to be the site of 50,000 jobs

2/  As part of the East Werribee project, an additional railway station is proposed at Derrimut Rd

3/  Development west is limited by the UGB, Lend Lease is building Harpley near the RRL Y-Link

4/  Wyndham council has fluffed about with a station occasionally appearing on planning schemes at Galvin Rd - this has a chance in hell

5/  The proposed station on the RRL south of Wyndham Vale seems to move all over the place in maps, even in official RRL publication - it now seems to sit somewhat north of Black Forest Rd and its status unlikely

6/  Metro services will eventually be extended to Wyndham Vale, until then a bus transfer will be in place
  don_dunstan Dr Beeching

Location: Adelaide proud
They just rebuilt the tram tracks there, that would waste more money and time. Deeper tunnel is better even if it has to be depper than the NWRL in Sydney.
Some rail man

To return to the original topic (Melbourne pretending to be London), I did read in the Age the other day that one of the reasons why cut and cover is suggested as a serious engineering proposition is that no underground line will be built at a depth of greater than 40 metres ("evacuation safety") and therefore the Metro line will probably be forced to go over the loop lines rather than under... adding to Napthine's contention that it will have to be cut and cover.

This is itself raises a whole host of questions, not the least of which (in my mind) is how on earth it's going to get a properly graded dive to get under the Yarra if you can't have a station at a depth of greater than 40 metres, especially right at the interchange with Flinders Street? Surely it will have to dive much deeper than 40 meters if it's going to limbo under the Yarra (or at least right on the supposed 40 metre limit). And that's without even contemplating how to avoid Domain and Burnley CityLink.

If the 40 metre rule is correct then it's going to make this thing more difficult and expensive than it probably needed to be because it may not be permitted to dive under existing infrastructure... assuming that it applies only to stations then maybe slightly more manageable.
  Mr. Lane Chief Commissioner

My bad with respect to the Werebee development, my recollection of the article is clearly wrong! I do remember there being a dispute over the location of the station to serve this area...but clearly this wasn't to do with a WEST Werebee :/
  ZH836301 Chief Commissioner

Location: BleakCity
The Metro stuff is laughable, and seems to be Napthine confusing two entirely different projects (one can only hope).

A/  Footscray to South Yarra (Eddington 'Metro')

B/  Newport/Fishermans Bend to Clifton Hill (identified by Jolimont capacity)

Both are good projects, and increase capacity in different ways.

The first sets the ground for further segregation and gives capacity to the west, but by itself it doesn't really achieve that much.  

The second creates three real metro lines, being Werribee-Eltham via new tunnel, Epping-City Loop, Williamstown-City.

A few more projects are required to convert to a true metro system, but it makes a whole lot more sense than farcical lines like Doncaster and Rowville.

As for now abandoning the South Yarra option and taking the line to Fishermen's Bend instead...well how is that going to help with adding capacity in the Loop? Somehow I thought the Metro project is to provide additional track capacity to take trains from the Caulfield group through the CBD to Sunbury and Werribee? An alternative to the City Loop.
comet4

They both create capacity.  The system is poorly run now.  It can't be poorly run plus a tunnel.

Didn't we build the whole City Loop by tunnelling? (except for the then Museum station site.) Didn't we build the Citylink and Eastlink road tunnels by tunnelling?
comet4

City Loop was tunnelled by TBM (aka deep level) apart from the approaches - Museum was excavated from the surface (cut cover), Flagstaff and Parliament were tunnelled out.

Citylink (apart from the approaches) and Eastlink were mined out (less stable).

Yeah there's no way that a Fisherman's Bend line can really be integrated into the system, unless they do something really crazy-expensive like build a line under the Yarra to Newport or something?

Forget about a deep-level tunnel to Newport, you're looking at tens of billions.
don_dunstan

Like the road tunnel proposal in the same spot to augment the West Gate?  Or the main sewerage trunk built aeons ago?  Excuses.

When you look at it on a map it's obviously designed to facilitate future expansion of housing in the western suburbs.

Talk of diverting the Metro via Fisherman's Bend is completely stupid and is obviously being driven by property spruiks.
don_dunstan

You haven't noticed all the stations (potential and under construction) on the RRL?

It's hilarious how people campaign for services to new outer suburban areas, but are insulted by the idea that services should be provided to new urban areas.


Fisherman's bend is close to the city.  Keep the rail money for the more important areas like Doncaster and Rowville.  Put a  junction on the Port Melbourne tram line and send a new route down Williamstown Rd then into Todd Road over the freeway at a later date.
Plan B

Haha this is classic.  Doncaster and Rowville important areas?  Please.

They're both dead growth low density areas.  And you're saying they need rail more than high density areas in places more likely to use PT?

I did read in the Age the other day that one of the reasons why cut and cover is suggested as a serious engineering proposition is that no underground line will be built at a depth of greater than 40 metres ("evacuation safety")
don_dunstan

This is smeg.  Citylink is 65m below ground level, beneath a river.
  Mr. Lane Chief Commissioner

Melbourne cannot afford...nor does it need, a true metro system. We need a working suburban system that relieves the congestion on the freeways and arterial roads in the peak. Both Doncaster (and beyond) and Rowville would remove traffic from the roads generated through those areas. It makes no difference that they are not growth areas, what matters is that it will free up road capacity. Building tunnels beyond the tunnel that is the subject of discussion in this thread is fanciful, especially if they only have a single line going through them. We just don't have anywhere near that level of patronage.
  Some rail man Junior Train Controller

Location: CIA Headquarters in Washington D.C
This might be a good read of


http://www.railpage.com.au/news/s/melbourne-city-council-to-debate-rail-tunnel-funding
  don_dunstan Dr Beeching

Location: Adelaide proud
This is smeg. Citylink is 65m below ground level, beneath a river.
ZH836301


I'm not sure if this an actual engineering guideline or not; it was just something that Fairfax reported. Maybe it's new policy in the age of terrorism, or perhaps it's just another thing they've thrown into the mix to make it more difficult to build, who knows. I've certainly used stations in other cities much deeper than 40m.

You haven't noticed all the stations (potential and under construction) on the RRL?

It's hilarious how people campaign for services to new outer suburban areas, but are insulted by the idea that services should be provided to new urban areas.

I'm not saying it's a bad thing but my observation is that they're opening up a greenfields line in the outer West while much of the metro area continues to have no service at all. I wasn't sure when it was announced if the Wyndham by-pass link was the most pressing priority... but hey at least it's actually being built unlike Eddington metro which will probably never see fruition. Something Rudd and Brumby actually got done.  I have a feeling we won't be remembering Napthine and Abbott for any rail projects.

Like the road tunnel proposal in the same spot to augment the West Gate? Or the main sewerage trunk built aeons ago? Excuses.

It's a weak excuse. The fact is they're itching to spend money on East-West I & II but a metro line between Newport and Fishermen's Bend? Somehow I think there's going to be all sorts of reasons why it can't be done...

I think your idea about a metro south-west to north-east probably has merit but it's even less probable than Eddington - it does fit in with this crazy Fishermen's Bend Manhattan project so I guess there's always a chance. I think I'm more inclined to agree with Mr Lane on this discussion, that metro lines are probably not the most pressing priority when there's lot of other things that should be looked at first, like capacity on the Dandy line.
  Lad_Porter Chief Commissioner

Location: Yarra Glen
Two interesting letters to the editor in today's Age.  One saying don't build the Metro tunnel;  extra capacity can be found at less cost by installing high capacity signalling and modifying the way the city loop is used.  The other one pointing out that in overseas cities, tunnels and stations go much deeper than 40 metres.  The deepest one mentioned is in Kiev, 105.5 metres under.

You don't have to agree with anything, but the fact remains that this discussion has expanded beyond Railpage and into the general community, where Napthine & Co are more likely to take notice.
  Mr. Lane Chief Commissioner

Can extra capacity realistically be achieved on existing tracks without using moving block signalling? Moving block is hardly a legitimate option for Melbourne, at least on the lines that actually would need it.
  railblogger Chief Commissioner

Location: At the back of the train, quitely doing exactly what you'd expect.
Can extra capacity realistically be achieved on existing tracks without using moving block signalling? Moving block is hardly a legitimate option for Melbourne, at least on the lines that actually would need it.
Mr. Lane

It might be possible, but you'd have to slow trains to a crawl.
  Bullucked Assistant Commissioner

It might be possible, but you'd have to slow trains to a crawl.
railblogger

Easy, put in all the extra signals to increase the frequency, as a result slow the trains to a crawl, say 5-10kph, take the sides off the trains and call them travelators....
OR
No, nothing else anywhere as near as sensible as the above.

PS. Eddingtons tunnel idea was from Caulfield, not South Yarra.
  ZH836301 Chief Commissioner

Location: BleakCity
Melbourne cannot afford...nor does it need, a true metro system. We need a working suburban system that relieves the congestion on the freeways and arterial roads in the peak. Both Doncaster (and beyond) and Rowville would remove traffic from the roads generated through those areas. It makes no difference that they are not growth areas, what matters is that it will free up road capacity. Building tunnels beyond the tunnel that is the subject of discussion in this thread is fanciful, especially if they only have a single line going through them. We just don't have anywhere near that level of patronage.
Mr Lane

This is rubbish.  Dumbcaster and Rowville are nothing projects that achieve zilch.

Look in the News thread regarding Doncaster - it would likely only shift 500 max journeys over the morning peak.

Building a metro system is about using our existing lines to their full potential - not tacking on useless additions to a poorly run system.

I'm not sure if this an actual engineering guideline or not; it was just something that Fairfax reported. Maybe it's new policy in the age of terrorism, or perhaps it's just another thing they've thrown into the mix to make it more difficult to build, who knows. I've certainly used stations in other cities much deeper than 40m.
don_dunstan

It's junk - the recently constructed Mullum Mullum tunnels of Eastlink are up to 53m beneath the surface.

It's a weak excuse. The fact is they're itching to spend money on East-West I & II but a metro line between Newport and Fishermen's Bend? Somehow I think there's going to be all sorts of reasons why it can't be done...
don_dunstan

Stop talking rubbish.

There's proof of it being done (western trunk sewer) and of plans for it being done (West Gate augmentation).
  don_dunstan Dr Beeching

Location: Adelaide proud
It's junk - the recently constructed Mullum Mullum tunnels of Eastlink are up to 53m beneath the surface.
ZH836301

It's possible that they are referring solely to the construction of stations under that level.  Again, I don't know - it was just something referred to in passing in a Fairfax article.

Stop talking rubbish.

There's proof of it being done (western trunk sewer) and of plans for it being done (West Gate augmentation).

I'm not arguing with you, I'm just saying if they're looking for an excuse to not construct it (as they're currently doing with Eddington Metro) then the fact that a Newport-Fisherman's Bend tunnel will be big $$$ could be the excuse they're looking for.  Now if it was a road tunnel we were talking about... I'm sure the purse-strings would suddenly loosen up.
  Lad_Porter Chief Commissioner

Location: Yarra Glen
This is rubbish. Dumbcaster and Rowville are nothing projects that achieve zilch.

Look in the News thread regarding Doncaster - it would likely only shift 500 max journeys over the morning peak.

Building a metro system is about using our existing lines to their full potential - not tacking on useless additions to a poorly run system.


It's junk - the recently constructed Mullum Mullum tunnels of Eastlink are up to 53m beneath the surface.


Stop talking rubbish.

There's proof of it being done (western trunk sewer) and of plans for it being done (West Gate augmentation).
ZH836301

Doncaster and Rowville are not rubbish.  The people living in those areas genuinely want a rail service, and have been clamouring for it for years.  The cost of providing such services far outweighs the benefits, and therefore is not worth doing, but "rubbish" is too dismissive.  

There's no question that a tunnel deeper than 40 metres can be done, and has been.  The reason given for the 40 metre depth limit was to do with safe evacuation of passengers in the event of an emergency.  It's not necessarily a valid reason, but comparison with a road tunnel doesn't really work, and comparison with a sewer tunnel certainly doesn't work.
  railblogger Chief Commissioner

Location: At the back of the train, quitely doing exactly what you'd expect.
Look in the News thread regarding Doncaster - it would likely only shift 500 max journeys over the morning peak.
ZH836301

What if this was done with a decent bus service upgrade?

Such a thing would be required if we are to drastically reduce the number of cars on the road.
  don_dunstan Dr Beeching

Location: Adelaide proud
Haha this is classic. Doncaster and Rowville important areas? Please.

They're both dead growth low density areas. And you're saying they need rail more than high density areas in places more likely to use PT?
ZH836301

This is another particular point on which I agree - I think the opportunity came and went for the Doncaster line and Hamer didn't have the will to build it.  It's going to be way too expensive now that the previously-purchased right of way has been built over.

A much cheaper solution would be either a 4km tram line directly from Box Hill station to Doncaster Westfield or 3.8km to North Balwyn.  We already have a great tram system, the envy of places like Sydney - why not build on it and spend money on extending and speeding that up rather than sink billions into the train system?
  HardSleeper Junior Train Controller

Location: Route 48
This is another particular point on which I agree - I think the opportunity came and went for the Doncaster line and Hamer didn't have the will to build it. It's going to be way too expensive now that the previously-purchased right of way has been built over.

A much cheaper solution would be either a 4km tram line directly from Box Hill station to Doncaster Westfield or 3.8km to North Balwyn. We already have a great tram system, the envy of places like Sydney - why not build on it and spend money on extending and speeding that up rather than sink billions into the train system?
don_dunstan

It already takes an hour by tram to get from North Balwyn to the CBD in peak hour, once you got to Doncaster you'd easily add 20 minutes onto that. There is no way anyone would take the tram when they could take the bus, even with the complete mess that is Hoddle Street. I challenge anyone to go out to the Eastern Freeway in the evening and watch the tailback from Bulleen Road, which frequently extends back to Chandler Hwy, and tell me that a railway line wouldn't be viable. As an aside, I'd also challenge any politician to view the same tailback and try and explain how the East-Waste link is going magically fix the traffic on the Eastern Fwy...
  don_dunstan Dr Beeching

Location: Adelaide proud
It already takes an hour by tram to get from North Balwyn to the CBD in peak hour, once you got to Doncaster you'd easily add 20 minutes onto that. There is no way anyone would take the tram when they could take the bus, even with the complete mess that is Hoddle Street. I challenge anyone to go out to the Eastern Freeway in the evening and watch the tailback from Bulleen Road, which frequently extends back to Chandler Hwy, and tell me that a railway line wouldn't be viable. As an aside, I'd also challenge any politician to view the same tailback and try and explain how the East-Waste link is going magically fix the traffic on the Eastern Fwy...
HardSleeper

I knew that someone was going to mention the congestion/excessive travel time on the 48 which is why I also slipped the word 'faster' in there.

For it to be effective you'd have to find some way of speeding it up between Kew and the city for minimum $$$.

Ted Baillieu went to the 2006 election with a policy to build it that way but I think they got shot down on the extraordinary long travel time.
  ZH836301 Chief Commissioner

Location: BleakCity
I challenge anyone to go out to the Eastern Freeway in the evening and watch the tailback from Bulleen Road, which frequently extends back to Chandler Hwy, and tell me that a railway line wouldn't be viable.
HardSleeper

I'm telling you, a railway is not viable - too expensive, too little new patronage, too little density.

The change would be in the order of 500 journeys to work - insignificant.  The buses are time competitive (with no change) and many already use Ringwood trains.

What if this was done with a decent bus service upgrade?
railblogger

For the same money you could shift many more journeys.  For the same shift, you would need a fraction of the Doncaster line's projected cost.

There's no question that a tunnel deeper than 40 metres can be done, and has been.  The reason given for the 40 metre depth limit was to do with safe evacuation of passengers in the event of an emergency.  It's not necessarily a valid reason, but comparison with a road tunnel doesn't really work, and comparison with a sewer tunnel certainly doesn't work.
Lad_Porter

Road tunnels are much, much more dangerous due to the prescence of liquid fuels and other extremely toxic substances not easily dealt with by fire suppression systems.

Really, safety has nothing to do with depth.  It's more about exit and refuge spacing, smoke extraction and fire detection equipment, and accessibility and emergency planning.
  The Vinelander Minister for Railways

Location: Ballan, Victoria on the Ballarat Line
I'm telling you, a railway is not viable - too expensive, too little new patronage, too little density.

The change would be in the order of 500 journeys to work - insignificant. The buses are time competitive (with no change) and many already use Ringwood trains.


For the same money you could shift many more journeys. For the same shift, you would need a fraction of the Doncaster line's projected cost.


Road tunnels are much, much more dangerous due to the prescence of liquid fuels and other extremely toxic substances not easily dealt with by fire suppression systems.

Really, safety has nothing to do with depth. It's more about exit and refuge spacing, smoke extraction and fire detection equipment, and accessibility and emergency planning.
ZH836301

ZH is really a closet busfan, so it's difficult for ZH to accept trains make faster, higher capacity PT which is unencumbered by road traffic flows. Moreover the suburbs don't end at Doncaster...

BTW it's Denis....NOT Dennis.

Mike.
  railblogger Chief Commissioner

Location: At the back of the train, quitely doing exactly what you'd expect.
For the same money you could shift many more journeys. For the same shift, you would need a fraction of the Doncaster line's projected cost.
ZH836301

Not quite what I meant.

You wrote in another thread that Ringwood station has quite a large number of boardings. Having been there myself, I noticed a few routes with decent loadings - these routes were running at 15 minute frequencies, so I'd say that the high number of boardings could be attributed to the high frequency buses.

What if such frequencies fed not just into the proposed rail link, but into other lines across the network? How high do you think the patronage would be?

Sponsored advertisement

Display from:   

Quick Reply

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