The ALP has announced they will now duplicate the line between Dandenong and Cranbourne presumably due to the operating restricts but I also think this is a reaction to the Coalition election promise we saw a few weeks ago.

The price tag seems awfully high to me?

Delivering Trains Every 10 Minutes On The Cranbourne Line

@bevans we're already discussing this on the Coalition's announcement thread.

https://Railpage.com.au/f-t11386421.htm

Can I politely ask you lock this and we keep the discussion of competing proposals in one place?

The ALP has announced they will now duplicate the line between Dandenong and Cranbourne presumably due to the operating restricts but I also think this is a reaction to the Coalition election promise we saw a few weeks ago.

The price tag seems awfully high to me?

Delivering Trains Every 10 Minutes On The Cranbourne Line

Why can't they INCLUDE the Clyde extension at the same time. Surely it would be much cheaper to do it all under the same contract considering Camms Road crossing should/will go. The Sth Gippsland Hwy, Narre Warren/Cranbourne Road, Broad Oak Drive - which has only be open about 12/18 months - Berwick/Cranbourne Road at Casey Fields, and whatever other crossings to Clyde.

If the crossings are Sky Railed, a new Cranbourne station should be built on the other side of Sth Gippsland Hwy. This of course would create problems for entry to the Cranbourne Stablings. If Sth Gippsland Hwy was road over rail, (by trenching the rail, I know there will be comments re traffic disruptions, but it has been done before, I think the Middleborough Road crossing at Laburnum and Springvale Road at Nunawading was done by the tunnel excavation method without creating traffic problems) this could solve the entry to the stablings. This would mean that a rebuilt Cranbourne station could be either lowered or the tracks come out of the trench to a new Cranbourne station at normal level. The current reservation APPEARS to be wide enough.

The ALP has announced they will now duplicate the line between Dandenong and Cranbourne presumably due to the operating restricts but I also think this is a reaction to the Coalition election promise we saw a few weeks ago.

The price tag seems awfully high to me?

Delivering Trains Every 10 Minutes On The Cranbourne Line

Why can't they INCLUDE the Clyde extension at the same time. Surely it would be much cheaper to do it all under the same contract considering Camms Road crossing should/will go. The Sth Gippsland Hwy, Narre Warren/Cranbourne Road, Broad Oak Drive - which has only be open about 12/18 months - Berwick/Cranbourne Road at Casey Fields, and whatever other crossings to Clyde.

If the crossings are Sky Railed, a new Cranbourne station should be built on the other side of Sth Gippsland Hwy. This of course would create problems for entry to the Cranbourne Stablings. If Sth Gippsland Hwy was road over rail, (by trenching the rail, I know there will be comments re traffic disruptions, but it has been done before, I think the Middleborough Road crossing at Laburnum and Springvale Road at Nunawading was done by the tunnel excavation method without creating traffic problems) this could solve the entry to the stablings. This would mean that a rebuilt Cranbourne station could be either lowered or the tracks come out of the trench to a new Cranbourne station at normal level. The current reservation APPEARS to be wide enough.

They did close Springvale road at Nunawading, it as only for 4 weeks or so though over the chistmas holidays. What they did was build the abutments for the new bridge in excavations in the road, when these were done the road was closed while the new deck was put on and then the ground was excavated under the new deck to provide the cutting for the line. It was still chaos around there for quite while as the number of lanes availible was reduced while the new abutments were being built.

At Cranbourne there's 200 metres of clear track between the stabling yard and the level crossing, that SHOULD be enough to Get the line under the road, with a new station on the other side of the crossing. What ever they do one would assume the will increase the size of the car park, its ALWAYS full.

What ever they do at Cranbourne it most likely will cost a fortune.

woodford

A quick calculation provides a cost per metre of $45,000 to build the second track and associated infrastructure.  Gold Plated?

@bevans we're already discussing this on the Coalition's announcement thread.

https://Railpage.com.au/f-t11386421.htm

Can I politely ask you lock this and we keep the discussion of competing proposals in one place?

If anywhere, it should be in the Melbourne forum.

Rick

A quick calculation provides a cost per metre of $45,000 to build the second track and associated infrastructure.  Gold Plated?

It does seem stupidly expensive.  It makes the RFR seem like an absolute bargain, although it's not exactly comparing apples with apple given how pricey overhead wiring and Metro signalling seems to make it.  i.e. Sunbury electrification was $270 million over existing 15km of double track, only slightly less than whole Bendigo line RFR.

Terrific to see the RRA make a very good point in reference to this new announcement.

https://www.railpage.com.au/news/s/duplication-not-in-daniel-andrews-and-jacinta-allans-lexion-or-vocabulary

how can the Minister state this is the longest single section of track when her party has left long sections of single track between Kyneton and Bendigo?

Her seat is in Bendigo.  People will and are starting to ask questions about this.

how can the Minister state this is the longest single section of track when her party has left long sections of single track between Kyneton and Bendigo?

a) I can't see where the minister made this claim. She may well have, but I'd appreciate someone pointing it out to me.

b) One of these things is not like the other. The patronage growth on this corridor is likely to be nothing short of astronomical in the next decade.

c) I am as critical as anyone of the decision to single north of Kyneton. I am equally frustrated that there is no political will to reinstate it. However, this is "whataboutism", pure and simple. (The tactic was extensively used by the Soviets during the Cold War to draw attention away from their human rights abuses - not relevant here but an interesting history!) It is not a rational contribution to the discussion; it is simply an attention seeking press release no better than the hundreds of comments on any government Facebook post along the lines of "but when will you fix the pothole at my front door Daniel???????"

By all means, let's critique transport policies (and, more importantly, the process of transport policy-making) but this is not the smart way to go about it.

Not forgetting all the extra trains will still remain stuck in the mine numbing slow sequence between Melbourne and Dandenong.

Running time is missing form all the government rhetoric.   We will have a frequent but still slow service which allows you to feel good about yourself because you cant be on time and 'only have t o wait 10 minutes'

Imagine if this money and the Gippsland upgrade money was added to the original Skyrail budget to deliver the quad track scope.......

Not forgetting all the extra trains will still remain stuck in the mine numbing slow sequence between Melbourne and Dandenong.

Running time is missing form all the government rhetoric.   We will have a frequent but still slow service which allows you to feel good about yourself because you cant be on time and 'only have t o wait 10 minutes'

Imagine if this money and the Gippsland upgrade money was added to the original Skyrail budget to deliver the quad track scope.......

I don't understand the second line of this post. Are you referring to the running times between these stations?

If you come to Adelaide, try catching say a 178 bus service from Paradise at about 4PM, or a B12 service from the city in the school holidays, and see what you think. These services have at least 12 minutes of excess time.

Not forgetting all the extra trains will still remain stuck in the mine numbing slow sequence between Melbourne and Dandenong.

Running time is missing form all the government rhetoric.   We will have a frequent but still slow service which allows you to feel good about yourself because you cant be on time and 'only have t o wait 10 minutes'

Imagine if this money and the Gippsland upgrade money was added to the original Skyrail budget to deliver the quad track scope.......

and yet again the run time into Melbourne for the Gippsland region comes up.

Please get it into perspective. The stretch between Flinders St and Pakenham is the 2nd longest of the whole Melbourne to Bairnsdale line (58.1km)

By way of comparison between Metro(some express) MX, V/Line, and theoretical 120kph (rounded).
What could VL save if achieved the max ?

Flinders St to Caulfield  11.8km MX 12min, VL 12min, @120 6min   (VL save 6min)
Caulfield to Dandenong 19.4km  M  28min, VL 25min, @120 10min (VL save 15min)
Dand'ng to Pakenham   26.9km  M  28min, VL 20min, @120 15min  (VL save 5min)
Pakenham to Warragul  41.6km                    VL 35min, @120 21min  (VL save 14min)
Warragul to Traralgon   58.1km                    VL 45min, @120 30min  (VL save 15min)
Traralgon to Sale          48.8km                    VL 35min, @120 25min  (VL save 10min)
Sale to Bairnsdale          68km                      VL 56min, @120 34min  (VL save 22min).

So we could spend
$3-$5 billion, to quad (or tunnel) Dandenong to Caulfiled at unprecedented metro speed, to achieve only 15 minute saving.
$1 billion for additional (high speed express) track Pakenham to Dandenong, to achieve only 5 minutes.
$0 increase speed Flinders to Caulfield. Who knows what Metro1 can do.
BUT
do sweet FA for the speed on the rest of the line where the real collective slowness exists.

And yes I am aware there are some line improvements underway. Save an hour? I'll believe it when I see it.

Maybe the "mind numbness" for the last part of the trip into Melbourne, is how slow the whole trip has already been.

cheers
John

Cranbourne to Clyde extension needs to happen, the Coalition have promised this. Before this can be built, Dandenong to Cranbourne must be duplicated, Labor have now promised this while the Coalition have said they will do this second. Therefore, Labor's proposal is better.

2 new tracks between Caulfield and Dandenong would be the best outcome but neither major party has said anything about doing this.

By way of comparison between Metro(some express) MX, V/Line, and theoretical 120kph (rounded). What could VL save if achieved the max ?
Flinders St to Caulfield 11.8km MX 12min, VL 12min, @120 6min (VL save 6min)
Caulfield to Dandenong 19.4km M 28min, VL 25min, @120 10min (VL save 15min)
Dand'ng to Pakenham 26.9km M 28min, VL 20min, @120 15min (VL save 5min)
Pakenham to Warragul 41.6km VL 35min, @120 21min (VL save 14min)
Warragul to Traralgon 58.1km VL 45min, @120 30min (VL save 15min)
Traralgon to Sale 48.8km VL 35min, @120 25min (VL save 10min)
Sale to Bairnsdale 68km VL 56min, @120 34min (VL save 22min).

All very good, but as I said neither party has shown any interest in doing this. That said, if I were to put this forward as a proposal, I would forget about 120km/h and go for 160km/h, and I would also have made sure the newest EMUs (the HMCTs being built) could acheive that speed.

Why not? It would be a new track build, the line is fairly straight, why not get the best? Imagine having Pakenham or Cranbourne express trains running to the city from Dandenong with just the one stop at Caulfield and a line speed of 160km/h. What would that cut the time down to? What would it cut the Gippsland Vlocity service time to? It would provide a real alternative to driving along the overly congested Monash Freeway.

But as I said, neither political party has shown the slightest interest in doing it, Labor went and built the Skyrail already and gave up the option to build this into that project and the Libs have done nothing but rubbish skyrail on petty grounds all along, so no, it won't happen.

Anyway, service frequency is far more useful than time savings for encouraging people to take public transport, and far less complicated to implement.

The main reason door-to-door public transport journeys take so long in Melbourne is that if the schedule is any more than a single train, excessively long connections are the norm. If your journey involves, say, two buses, or a connecting train on a Sunday morning, you can just about forget ever arriving.

By increasing service frequency you increase peak capacity - at times when train journeys will almost certainly be faster anyway - and decrease off-peak journey times. Everyone wins.

If your journey involves, say, two buses, or a connecting train on a Sunday morning, you can just about forget ever arriving.

Guffaw. Almost sneezed up my Latte!

BG

Cranbourne to Clyde extension needs to happen,...

2 new tracks between Caulfield and Dandenong would be the best outcome but neither major party has said anything about doing this.

By way of comparison between Metro(some express) MX, V/Line, and theoretical 120kph (rounded). What could VL save if achieved the max ?
Flinders St to Caulfield 11.8km MX 12min, VL 12min, @120 6min (VL save 6min)
.......

All very good, but as I said neither party has shown any interest in doing this. That said, if I were to put this forward as a proposal, I would forget about 120km/h and go for 160km/h, and I would also have made sure the newest EMUs (the HMCTs being built) could acheive that speed.

Why not? It would be a new track build, the line is fairly straight, why not get the best? Imagine having Pakenham or Cranbourne express trains running to the city from Dandenong with just the one stop at Caulfield and a line speed of 160km/h. What would that cut the time down to? What would it cut the Gippsland Vlocity service time to? It would provide a real alternative to driving along the overly congested Monash Freeway.

But as I said, neither political party has shown the slightest interest in doing it, Labor went and built the Skyrail already and gave up the option to build this into that project and the Libs have done nothing but rubbish skyrail on petty grounds all along, so no, it won't happen.

120kph is just an easy round number to make a point of comparison.
160kph is what in theory exists already(maximum), but not achieved as an average - per the times for VL that I listed.

The current V/Line best achieved average is about 80kph, so 120 is a big move up.
If you desire an average of 160 then starting point would be at least 200kph.

Quading is spilt milk. You're right Gman it won't happen - at least until some party stumps up the billions required,
and as Sir Humphey Appleby says, make "a very brave decision Minister !"

cheers
John

Question from woodford...........

Between Richmond and Dandenong would it be worth while doing what they have done on the approachs to the Gotthard tunnel. In the 35 kilometres of line approaching from the Swiss side, there is around 20 double crossovers between the two tracks in that distance. In that 35 kilometres, there was something like 18 trains going north and 2 south bound express passes overtook us, I was on a stopping service. The time to get to Goschenen was nothing fantastic, 40 minutes for 35 K's, but the amount of people and goods transferred in that time was very credible. There was no long delays at signals any where, the two overtaking trains occured when we were stopped at stations, we also passed one freight.

I don't think there trying hard enough with transport in Australia.

woodford

Terrific to see the RRA make a very good point in reference to this new announcement.

https://www.railpage.com.au/news/s/duplication-not-in-daniel-andrews-and-jacinta-allans-lexion-or-vocabulary

how can the Minister state this is the longest single section of track when her party has left long sections of single track between Kyneton and Bendigo?

Her seat is in Bendigo.  People will and are starting to ask questions about this.

To be fair to the minister I saw her comments and understood she was referring to the suburban system when she made the comments about the section of single track

At Cranbourne there's 200 metres of clear track between the stabling yard and the level crossing, that SHOULD be enough to Get the line under the road, with a new station on the other side of the crossing. What ever they do one would assume the will increase the size of the car park, its ALWAYS full.

What ever they do at Cranbourne it most likely will cost a fortune.

woodford

I would imagine that after the Cranbourne Line duplication AND Clyde extension are complete, all stabling would be relocated to some point beyond Clyde, where land is cheaper and you can provide a large stabling facility similar to what has happened on other lines.

The existing stabling could then be replaced with a new medium density housing or alternatively an expansion of carparking.

Ross

If train services are going to be every 10 minutes to Cranbourne, does this mean they will have to run as shuttle services connecting with Pakenham trains at Dandenong or will there be enough capacity on the 2 Skyrail Tracks to accommodate 10 minute frequency to Cranbourne, assume similar frequency to Pakenham and also retain paths for express V/Line trains to Traralgon?

Ross

If train services are going to be every 10 minutes to Cranbourne, does this mean they will have to run as shuttle services connecting with Pakenham trains at Dandenong or will there be enough capacity on the 2 Skyrail Tracks to accommodate 10 minute frequency to Cranbourne, assume similar frequency to Pakenham and also retain paths for express V/Line trains to Traralgon?

Ross

Most definitely, a 5 minute frequency from Dandenong to FSS is only 12 TPH. Peak hour frequency is 15TPH Dandenong to FSS. In comparison the City Loop can handle 24 TPH. So an off-peak 5 minute frequency is achievable.

What work needs to be done at Caulfield.

I know there is a speed restriction over the Subway. is there conflict between Dandenong and Frankston services here?

I would imagine that Dandenong might get a fly over to remove conflicts with Cranbourne services.

350 Million for Duplications, 200 Million for junction rationalisation at Dandenong, 50 million for Caulfield improvements?

Dand'ng to Pakenham   26.9km  M  28min, VL 20min, @120 15min  (VL save 5min)

Until relatively recently, every VL ran the Dandy to Pakenham sector in 17 minutes. Most VL services are now timetabled at an average waaay north of 20 minutes.

This just displays the endemic nature of the effect of Metro muscling out VL on that line.

That's progress.

At Cranbourne there's 200 metres of clear track between the stabling yard and the level crossing, that SHOULD be enough to Get the line under the road, with a new station on the other side of the crossing. What ever they do one would assume the will increase the size of the car park, its ALWAYS full.

What ever they do at Cranbourne it most likely will cost a fortune.

woodford
I would imagine that after the Cranbourne Line duplication AND Clyde extension are complete, all stabling would be relocated to some point beyond Clyde, where land is cheaper and you can provide a large stabling facility similar to what has happened on other lines.

The existing stabling could then be replaced with a new medium density housing or alternatively an expansion of carparking.

Ross

There are plans floating out already for stabling to be next to the Inghams chicken farm just on the north side of the track to the east of Clyde, south of Ballarto Road.



This could be pushed back East another km if housing estates are built there given these plans are from a few years ago now.

Page 22 of this pdf: https://vpa-web.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/PSP54-Clyde-Creek-PSP.pdf



Click for big