Better Melbourne Train Network?

 
  True Believers Chief Commissioner

Here are some maps I have made:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1gnnrASqXqh-ThSKR5z4Zeawk5b8&usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/open?id=12W3vjWdXoodgp1Uf2wZHeTXdK2M&usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1xPqAEEFFFq7p4zUwx9ILZLJ2zBg&usp=sharing
What do you guys think? Remove stations? Remove lines? Add stations? Add lines? Post what you think below!
Nice, I tried mapping out some key information, yes I didn't put all the current stations onto the map. Anyways different line upgrades and expansions are a different colour. Black=Current lines and stations, Blue=New stations on Existing lines

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1o8tKElQlAaY0JoZ3QMDZKSeYhj8&usp=sharing
I dont get the obsession to branch out from Oakleigh for the Knox or whatever line....
Just run it North South from Dandenong to Bayswater, and use the Cranbourne line to change trains at Dandenong

Oh, and reform the outer circle line and the inner circle into one line. Also possible in part via supposed Doncaster line, Oh and get rid of that curve near merri to something a little less severe.

And maybe a cross connection between Dandenong and the Frankston lines somewhere
So your pushing an outer and inner ring rail line. Yes but that would be highly expensive to provide compared with current bus links.

The only possible rail ring line would be the inner portion. It would be like a 30+ year project and take many years to build:
If there were to be one I made a map for it: Some of it uses old alignment from previous rail ring routes in the past. https://drive.google.com/open?id=1KOyFShQHLI0W0RUVXCc4kXRkvNc&usp=sharing

Sponsored advertisement

  Mr Gus Meister Junior Train Controller

Here are some maps I have made:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1gnnrASqXqh-ThSKR5z4Zeawk5b8&usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/open?id=12W3vjWdXoodgp1Uf2wZHeTXdK2M&usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1xPqAEEFFFq7p4zUwx9ILZLJ2zBg&usp=sharing
What do you guys think? Remove stations? Remove lines? Add stations? Add lines? Post what you think below!
Nice, I tried mapping out some key information, yes I didn't put all the current stations onto the map. Anyways different line upgrades and expansions are a different colour. Black=Current lines and stations, Blue=New stations on Existing lines

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1o8tKElQlAaY0JoZ3QMDZKSeYhj8&usp=sharing
I dont get the obsession to branch out from Oakleigh for the Knox or whatever line....
Just run it North South from Dandenong to Bayswater, and use the Cranbourne line to change trains at Dandenong

Oh, and reform the outer circle line and the inner circle into one line. Also possible in part via supposed Doncaster line, Oh and get rid of that curve near merri to something a little less severe.

And maybe a cross connection between Dandenong and the Frankston lines somewhere
So your pushing an outer and inner ring rail line. Yes but that would be highly expensive to provide compared with current bus links.

The only possible rail ring line would be the inner portion. It would be like a 30+ year project and take many years to build:
If there were to be one I made a map for it: Some of it uses old alignment from previous rail ring routes in the past. https://drive.google.com/open?id=1KOyFShQHLI0W0RUVXCc4kXRkvNc&usp=sharing
James974
Ok, I made it just one ring line now with the Mernda line. The Doncaster line now follows the Hustrbridge line from North Richmond and goes around to Flinders Street, where it tunnels under and goes to Southbank station and continues as per usual. Thanks for giving me that map though! Here is the new map: https://earth.app.goo.gl/?apn=com.google.earth&ibi=com.google.b612&isi=293622097&ius=googleearth&link=https%3a%2f%2fearth.google.com%2fweb%2f%40-37.82188232,144.96125661,3.7394122a,2502.48039651d,35y,15.9622955h,24.81589509t,-0r
  ZH836301 Chief Commissioner

Location: BleakCity
Foamy rubbish.
  The Vinelander Minister for Railways

Location: Ballan, Victoria on the Ballarat Line
Foamy rubbish.
ZH836301

It's always such a positive to have ZH's constructive comments...
  True Believers Chief Commissioner

Foamy rubbish.

It's always such a positive to have ZH's constructive comments...
The Vinelander
At least its honest. This topic is quite outlandish and over the top dreamy and open minded. Not everyone likes that kinda mindset. I know Im overanalysing it, but its the best of both worlds for me, be imaginative but be in the constraints of reality and how they're a limited spending spree and only some projects will ever be built. And yes politics plays a role to go for the easy option, which happens more than 90% of the time.
  Mr Gus Meister Junior Train Controller

Yeah, it's a bit unrealistic... I totally agree.
  ZH836301 Chief Commissioner

Location: BleakCity
Foamy rubbish.

It's always such a positive to have ZH's constructive comments...
The Vinelander
There's a big difference between well thought out solutions to actual transport problems and foam.

Some of these make Melbourne's meandering spaghetti bus network look like a well thought, structured masterpiece.
  railblogger Chief Commissioner

Location: At the back of the train, quitely doing exactly what you'd expect.
Foamy rubbish.

It's always such a positive to have ZH's constructive comments...
There's a big difference between well thought out solutions to actual transport problems and foam.

Some of these make Melbourne's meandering spaghetti bus network look like a well thought, structured masterpiece.
ZH836301
Which is why he asked for constructive feedback.
  True Believers Chief Commissioner

Foamy rubbish.

It's always such a positive to have ZH's constructive comments...
There's a big difference between well thought out solutions to actual transport problems and foam.

Some of these make Melbourne's meandering spaghetti bus network look like a well thought, structured masterpiece.
ZH836301
To be honest not like your ideas are masterpieces either, you just wanna close every rail line that lacks enough patronage without considering why the rail lines are unsuccessful. Improving the rail line to get the extra demand, is more effective use of money than downgrading the service. Just my opinion. Your ideas do have some sense in them, but they are awfully expensive as this transport foam, so yeah not like I'm different. I always like the nice looking option that is quick fast and overpriced, but it is a matter of what others think. Honestly I never really take my proposals seriously, I like to poke fun at it and think if there was unlimited possibilities which ones could happen realistically. As for the Airport line, I consider all options like tunnelling and elevating the rail, but could happen. Many cities made that mistake overestimating the demand and losing the money off the project. Just wait and see how our rail network will form, will be interesting how much our suggestion turn out to be nothing like what actually happens.
  Mr Gus Meister Junior Train Controller

Foamy rubbish.

It's always such a positive to have ZH's constructive comments...
There's a big difference between well thought out solutions to actual transport problems and foam.

Some of these make Melbourne's meandering spaghetti bus network look like a well thought, structured masterpiece.
To be honest not like your ideas are masterpieces either, you just wanna close every rail line that lacks enough patronage without considering why the rail lines are unsuccessful. Improving the rail line to get the extra demand, is more effective use of money than downgrading the service. Just my opinion. Your ideas do have some sense in them, but they are awfully expensive as this transport foam, so yeah not like I'm different. I always like the nice looking option that is quick fast and overpriced, but it is a matter of what others think. Honestly I never really take my proposals seriously, I like to poke fun at it and think if there was unlimited possibilities which ones could happen realistically. As for the Airport line, I consider all options like tunnelling and elevating the rail, but could happen. Many cities made that mistake overestimating the demand and losing the money off the project. Just wait and see how our rail network will form, will be interesting how much our suggestion turn out to be nothing like what actually happens.
James974
Yeah, I totally understand and I also think that my ideas are a bit over the top and unrealistic. I will wait and see how everything will shape up, and I think this might be the end of this thread.
  ZH836301 Chief Commissioner

Location: BleakCity
To be honest not like your ideas are masterpieces either, you just wanna close every rail line that lacks enough patronage without considering why the rail lines are unsuccessful.
James974
The difference is there are actually arguments and justifications for such thoughts rather than just lines drawn on a map.

For example, closing Altona branch:

*Removes three low patronage stations and increases efficiency of operations
*Saves ~10min travel time each way for 95% of residents beyond Newport
*Increased efficiency allows for increase in frequency, further reducing travel time
*Elimination of requirement to duplicate and grade separate at great cost

Now compare that to something like the line shown that meanders about the southeastern sandbelt.

What arguments and justifications could possibly exist for that?
  True Believers Chief Commissioner

To be honest not like your ideas are masterpieces either, you just wanna close every rail line that lacks enough patronage without considering why the rail lines are unsuccessful.
The difference is there are actually arguments and justifications for such thoughts rather than just lines drawn on a map.

For example, closing Altona branch:

*Removes three low patronage stations and increases efficiency of operations
*Saves ~10min travel time each way for 95% of residents beyond Newport
*Increased efficiency allows for increase in frequency, further reducing travel time
*Elimination of requirement to duplicate and grade separate at great cost

Now compare that to something like the line shown that meanders about the southeastern sandbelt.

What arguments and justifications could possibly exist for that?
ZH836301
I understand where you are coming from, if just removed the line and prioritised more busier lines instead.
But money has already been set aside for upgrading lines such as the Altona line. Although services low patronage stations is partly due to the low densification of areas that don't have a decent train service.

Yes these branches that lack in patronage restricted growth on a successful line, that's true. The issue here is that turning into a bus service or light rail complicates things further, the extra rolling stock for trams/buses, where all the extra trains go and how much money that was wasted already half way upgrading infrastructure that lies in these corridors. For example the Upfield corridor tends be more favourable to keep than like the Altona line, since it can be extended. So why can't the Altona line be extended? Or the Alamein line via Chadstone? That stuff tends to fall under the category fantasy, but a rail link from Upfield to Airport is feasible somehow. What determines this. How low does the patronage needs to be for the rail line to be determined to be unworthy to keep running? Is there any stats on this kind of stuff, if there is let me know.

Cause as far as I am concerned, there is a bias thought that when a rail line gets built it wouldn't make sense to remove. Like how in the 1950s thought that cars would be more demanding than tram so ripped all the trams lines in cities realising what a mistake it was later.
  railblogger Chief Commissioner

Location: At the back of the train, quitely doing exactly what you'd expect.
To be honest not like your ideas are masterpieces either, you just wanna close every rail line that lacks enough patronage without considering why the rail lines are unsuccessful.
The difference is there are actually arguments and justifications for such thoughts rather than just lines drawn on a map.

For example, closing Altona branch:

*Removes three low patronage stations and increases efficiency of operations
*Saves ~10min travel time each way for 95% of residents beyond Newport
*Increased efficiency allows for increase in frequency, further reducing travel time
*Elimination of requirement to duplicate and grade separate at great cost

Now compare that to something like the line shown that meanders about the southeastern sandbelt.

What arguments and justifications could possibly exist for that?
I understand where you are coming from, if just removed the line and prioritised more busier lines instead.
But money has already been set aside for upgrading lines such as the Altona line. Although services low patronage stations is partly due to the low densification of areas that don't have a decent train service.

Yes these branches that lack in patronage restricted growth on a successful line, that's true. The issue here is that turning into a bus service or light rail complicates things further, the extra rolling stock for trams/buses, where all the extra trains go and how much money that was wasted already half way upgrading infrastructure that lies in these corridors. For example the Upfield corridor tends be more favourable to keep than like the Altona line, since it can be extended. So why can't the Altona line be extended? Or the Alamein line via Chadstone? That stuff tends to fall under the category fantasy, but a rail link from Upfield to Airport is feasible somehow. What determines this. How low does the patronage needs to be for the rail line to be determined to be unworthy to keep running? Is there any stats on this kind of stuff, if there is let me know.

Cause as far as I am concerned, there is a bias thought that when a rail line gets built it wouldn't make sense to remove. Like how in the 1950s thought that cars would be more demanding than tram so ripped all the trams lines in cities realising what a mistake it was later.
James974
https://www.ptv.vic.gov.au/about-ptv/ptv-data-and-reports/research-and-statistics/

I would like to add that it is actually possible to increase the patronage to justifiable levels through increasing the service frequency, re-jigging/increasing the frequency of connecting services as well as greater densification of the surrounding area.

London Overground is a perfect example of what can be achieved.
  The Vinelander Minister for Railways

Location: Ballan, Victoria on the Ballarat Line
To be honest not like your ideas are masterpieces either, you just wanna close every rail line that lacks enough patronage without considering why the rail lines are unsuccessful.
The difference is there are actually arguments and justifications for such thoughts rather than just lines drawn on a map.

For example, closing Altona branch:
ZH836301

To use ZH's usual brevity...

Never going to happen, political suicide...end of.
  stooge spark Chief Train Controller

Location: My House
Foamy rubbish.

It's always such a positive to have ZH's constructive comments...
There's a big difference between well thought out solutions to actual transport problems and foam.

Some of these make Melbourne's meandering spaghetti bus network look like a well thought, structured masterpiece.
ZH836301
Assuming your ideas are much better is nothing short of stupid.
You are the one who suggested closing down Thomastown, a station that not only is incredibly useful and serves its area well, but is one of the busiest of its line, suggesting that the section between Sunshine and Werribee needs way more stations then it actually needs, Re-routing the airport line via Upfield, despite the fact that there are much better options, and to top it all off, using statistics that are sometimes outdated, and still passing it off as if they are facts, not to mention lots of people telling you that closing a station would never happen because of politics.
  stooge spark Chief Train Controller

Location: My House
Foamy rubbish.

It's always such a positive to have ZH's constructive comments...
There's a big difference between well thought out solutions to actual transport problems and foam.

Some of these make Melbourne's meandering spaghetti bus network look like a well thought, structured masterpiece.
Assuming your ideas are much better is nothing short of stupid.
You are the one who suggested closing down Thomastown, a station that not only is incredibly useful and serves its area well, but is one of the busiest of its line, suggesting that the section between Sunshine and Werribee needs way more stations then it actually needs, Re-routing the airport line via Upfield, despite the fact that there are much better options, and to top it all off, using statistics that are sometimes outdated, and still passing it off as if they are facts, not to mention lots of people telling you that closing a station would never happen because of politics.
  stooge spark Chief Train Controller

Location: My House
Foamy rubbish.

It's always such a positive to have ZH's constructive comments...
There's a big difference between well thought out solutions to actual transport problems and foam.

Some of these make Melbourne's meandering spaghetti bus network look like a well thought, structured masterpiece.
Assuming your ideas are much better is nothing short of stupid.
You are the one who suggested closing down Thomastown, a station that not only is incredibly useful and serves its area well, but is one of the busiest of its line, suggesting that the section between Sunshine and Werribee needs way more stations then it actually needs, Re-routing the airport line via Upfield, despite the fact that there are much better options, and to top it all off, using statistics that are sometimes outdated, and still passing it off as if they are facts, not to mention lots of people telling you that closing a station would never happen because of politics.
  True Believers Chief Commissioner

A map  made in the 1940s for a better rail network. 40 years later the city loop was built,

Sponsored advertisement

Display from:   

Quick Reply

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