Seems like a decent idea but why is it underground? Surely skyrail is the cheaper and faster solution.

Not sure if you're serious or not......?

I know 4D was a big white elephant, but maybe what this new SRL needs is Double Decker trains. If they are trying to get cars off the roads, you could/would get TWICE as many cars off the road. (but Daniel Andrews is too stupid to think about this)

Also, they said it connects to all suburban lines, where's the connection to Sandringham? and doesn't a "loop" connect both ends, so would the plan be tunnel UNDER Port Phillip Bay? otherwise the terminuses would be confusing unless you constructed a balloonish arrangement at each end of the line. maybe the Airport line could help in planning

Seems like a decent idea but why is it underground? Surely skyrail is the cheaper and faster solution.

Parts are going to be above ground  in the western suburbs, Through the Eastern suburbs it is significantly cheaper to tunnel than to a build Skyrail

I know 4D was a big white elephant, but maybe what this new SRL needs is Double Decker trains. If they are trying to get cars off the roads, you could/would get TWICE as many cars off the road. (but Daniel Andrews is too stupid to think about this)

Also, they said it connects to all suburban lines, where's the connection to Sandringham? and doesn't a "loop" connect both ends, so would the plan be tunnel UNDER Port Phillip Bay? otherwise the terminuses would be confusing unless you constructed a balloonish arrangement at each end of the line. maybe the Airport line could help in planning

"Loop" sounds good in media reports. You don't want to be saying a tongue twister on the radio. "Suburban Rail Line". Also SRL makes me think of "Southern Rail Loop".

To answer your other question, they might build it for "double-decker" certified but not run double-deckers for the moment. A new double-decker means more money spent on a new train that could be spent improving the current network.Also, what if the whole double-decker thing is a flip-flop, this is undergrounf remember, so if it fails, the whole thing needs to be bulldozed and rebuilt according to single-decker specs. Hopefully the tunnels are high enough and space for the required infrastructure for double-decker exists. If not, then no double-deckers on the SRL until they adapt it to double-decker specs.

And the airport alignment could help. Maybe splitting 2 ways at Broadmeadows to go to Airport or Weribee?

and doesn't a "loop" connect both ends, so would the plan be tunnel UNDER Port Phillip Bay? otherwise the terminuses would be confusing unless you constructed a balloonish arrangement at each end of the line. maybe the Airport line could help in planning

Can't quite tell if you're serious or not... we have a Ring Road that isn't a ring, why not a Loop Rail that isn't a loop ?

As far as terminating, won't the train just stop at the end of the "loop" and then head back in the other direction, like every other rail line in existence?

LOOP can have many meanings.

I'm thing more along the lines of a lasso to tie up stray cows.

Libs want MARL to be Broady to Airport - SRL does
Libs want Doncaster Rail - SRL does
Libs want Rowville train - now the tram/SRL makes sense.
Libs want to bleat about Skyrail - SRL is not.  (Neil Mitchel really embarrassed himself this week)
Libs want to bleat about property acquisition - SRL goes under. (might just make exception at MG's house, but that would be mean)

Now that's a loop around Libs neck to tie them up for years. Brilliant politics! SRL might even happen eventually.

cheers
John

Seems like a decent idea but why is it underground? Surely skyrail is the cheaper and faster solution.

The areas covered by the project, particularly around Box Hill are very densely housed with no real open areas, Stream easments are rare and generaly do not run in the required direction. Also it being quite undulating terrain, particularly between Box hill and Broademedows does not help either. An elevated line anywhere near Box Hill would upset an AWFULL LOT of people, hence the tunnel.

Note: A line between Boxhill and Cheltenham cuts through slightly left of the centre of a VERY large suburban sprawl the east side of which has little access tor rail transport and all main roads both north south (Stud rd, Springvale rd, etc) and east west (Canterbury rd, Wellington rd, etc) are packed for most of the day, the areas been crying out for a north south rail line for at least 30 years.

woodford

Seems like a decent idea but why is it underground? Surely skyrail is the cheaper and faster solution.

The areas covered by the project, particularly around Box Hill are very densely housed with no real open areas, Stream easments are rare and generaly do not run in the required direction. Also it being quite undulating terrain, particularly between Box hill and Broademedows does not help either. An elevated line anywhere near Box Hill would upset an AWFULL LOT of people, hence the tunnel.

Note: A line between Boxhill and Cheltenham cuts through slightly left of the centre of a VERY large suburban sprawl the east side of which has little access tor rail transport and all main roads both north south (Stud rd, Springvale rd, etc) and east west (Canterbury rd, Wellington rd, etc) are packed for most of the day, the areas been crying out for a north south rail line for at least 30 years.

woodford

see http://hotrails.net/resources/cost-estimates/ for rough estimates.

about $62M per km for tunnel. Sounds a lot but ....
about $40M per km for land acquisition + bridges + major earthworks/drain/rivers/services + re-location + disruption

skyrail can save a lot of the earthworks, but extra for pier & beam.

and then start to think about the track on top.

all up ,much the same . The people cost (re-location, anger, elections etc) adds the most.

PS: the undulating terrain will mean some very deep tunnels.
eg (Doncaster Hill, which might have to get under the Eastern Freeway)
No difference to construct the tunnel, but a very tall elevator to the surface.

cheers
John

Its not going to be Skyrail, forget that idea, its just not being considered. The line from Cheltenham to the Airport will be underground. End of story.

As for whether or not its driverless, I would suggest there is a good chance that it will be. This may upset the unions, but not anywhere near as much as if they were to introduce driverless trains on an existing service (therefore taking away jobs that already exist) and it would be a lot simpler to introduce driverless trains here. All new line, new stations, new signalling system, new rollingstock, new everything.

The fact is, there is no reason why - from a rail perspective - any of this line would interact with any existing railway. It could quite possibly be built as a completely independent railway, running underground on Standard Gauge tracks, collecting power from a 3rd rail, using driverless, double or single deck trains*.

There is no need for it to interact with the existing suburban network at all. So long as a passenger can get off a Metro or V/Line train at Clayton, go down the escalator to the ground level, go down another escalator to the underground and board a train to Monash Uni or Box Hill then it is doing a good job.

*As for whether to go double deck or single deck, I think it is too early for that, we don't even know if this is actually going to happen. All I will say is this, for the tunnels to provide enough clearance for double deck trains, they will need to be bigger, this will add significant cost.

Whats the point of a high speed orbital rail? Chances are, this train is already quicker even with extra stations than bus connections and going in and out of the city.

I think your missing the point. This is not just designed to give people a faster alternative than the local bus network, or catching a train into the city, then back out on another line.

No, this is designed to get people out of their cars. To provide a better alternative to the person who right now has no other option but to drive their own car from one suburb to another. That is what makes this plan a winner.

Despite what some people on this forum may think, the average person out there doesn't accept the proposition of taking public transport from A to B if it takes 90 minutes when they know it will take 25 minutes in their car. Now, if public transport is more like 30 minutes, and its fairly frequent, and its reliable, then they will consider it.

This is the sort of transport planning Melbourne needs.

Whats the point of a high speed orbital rail? Chances are, this train is already quicker even with extra stations than bus connections and going in and out of the city.

I think your missing the point. This is not just designed to give people a faster alternative than the local bus network, or catching a train into the city, then back out on another line.

No, this is designed to get people out of their cars. To provide a better alternative to the person who right now has no other option but to drive their own car from one suburb to another. That is what makes this plan a winner.

Despite what some people on this forum may think, the average person out there doesn't accept the proposition of taking public transport from A to B if it takes 90 minutes when they know it will take 25 minutes in their car. Now, if public transport is more like 30 minutes, and its fairly frequent, and its reliable, then they will consider it.

This is the sort of transport planning Melbourne needs.

If we can get more cars off the roads that means the major roads that the buses use can be freed up, then they can introduce more frequent services. However my concern atm is that we still have train services that don't meet up with buses!! There is going to be a debate on where to spend money here, should we fix the current network first or build all the big projects and fix them along the way?

I know 4D was a big white elephant, but maybe what this new SRL needs is Double Decker trains. If they are trying to get cars off the roads, you could/would get TWICE as many cars off the road. (but Daniel Andrews is too stupid to think about this)

Also, they said it connects to all suburban lines, where's the connection to Sandringham? and doesn't a "loop" connect both ends, so would the plan be tunnel UNDER Port Phillip Bay? otherwise the terminuses would be confusing unless you constructed a balloonish arrangement at each end of the line. maybe the Airport line could help in planning

Double decks work when you have a need to move lots of population, but you're not stopping at high frequency (station stops 2km, preferrably 4 to 5km).

The SRL seems to follow this model more closely (less stations, but high demand due to its station locations). Should be considered, but if they're planning on using HCMTs, probably not worthwhile.

Crossrail has longer station spacing then a typical metro, but they too have opted for single deck 220m trains. The extra cost of the station boxes outweigh the extra dwell time from having less doors on a DD than a SD.

Having spent time in Berlin, I've seen first hand the benefit of having an orbital line linking the other lines in the system.

Has anyone used the name "Outer Circle" yet?

Peter

Bill Shorten likened it too the Outer Circle the morning it was announced when he was being interviewed by Jon Faine on ABC Melbourne (774) .

An aspect that hasn't been appreciated by posts to date is how the new line is not just designed to accommodate current demand, but to generate new public transport demand is to walkable mini-CBD's at the university campuses. We have seen this in Sydney, that after building the Epping-Chatsworth underground line, it opened up North Ryde as a desirable location for tech offices, many of whom travel by rail. In Melbourne, university campuses such as Monash Clayton and Latrobe Bundoora could be developed more intensively without political backlash, so long as it didn't generate additional vehicle traffic. At one of Melbourne's smallest campuses, Swinburne Hawthorn has a multi storey office building that it partially leases out to other tenants. Other campuses could do the same if there were good rail access.

If Melbourne doesn't develop this way, with sub-centres easily accessed by rail, new employment would be in suburban office parks accessible only by car, or in the CBD, where the one-way nature of the main commute leads to poor utilisation of the rail fleet.  For comparison, Sydney is polycentric, with subcentres with high rail modal share such as North Ryde, North Sydney and Parramatta.

Has anyone used the name "Outer Circle" yet?

Peter

Bill Shorten likened it too the Outer Circle the morning it was announced when he was being interviewed by Jon Faine on ABC Melbourne (774) .

He said he grew up near Hughesdale so knew of the outer circle line.


I'm not sure about double decker trains, isn't the dwell time being longer a negative for a proper metro service? Longer dwell time due to two levels trying to clear the landing area at the doors outweighs a future possible 4 minute service interval (in 2050+)

Added to the cost and time of a larger tunnel during construction.

Hopefully the project won’t be dragged down by the IMBYs adding extra stations. One or two may be acceptable and logical.

IMBY = In (or under) My BackYard.

Bevans if you think about it they chose Monash right between Rowville and Chadstone.

Guess what's connecting those two together?
Light-rail you guessed it.

When you combine the orbital rail line and light-rail proposal it makes so such sense.
I don't think this is workable.  Public Transport solutions these days should be designed for high productivity pairs.  People will want to go to and from Chadstone SS for more than shopping.  Dinning and cinema etc.

If I had to take the bus, train and train to the shopping centre I would probably drive.

Conversely, Is the Doncaster station planned to be at the Shopping Centre?

I agree Monash is required.  Are we missing a heavy rail link between Monash and another line?

Chadstone, like Southland which now has a station, should be considered as a workplace destination for hundreds of commuters that are employed there rather than a place where Aunty Doris can drag her shopping jeep around. If a change of service (light rail from adjacent station) is provided, it will suffice. I'll leave the 'dinning' up to you.


[$0.02] The proposal makes sense to me, but I am imagining that a dedicated fleet will need to be built, featuring decent luggage carrying capability, since it will service the airport. It then stands to reason that it will be a glorified shuttle service which does not (for example) originate from Frankston and diverge onto the new route.

Driverless trains would not be an issue for me. Theme park rides, etc. [/$0.02]

Bevans if you think about it they chose Monash right between Rowville and Chadstone.

Guess what's connecting those two together?
Light-rail you guessed it.

When you combine the orbital rail line and light-rail proposal it makes so such sense.
I don't think this is workable.  Public Transport solutions these days should be designed for high productivity pairs.  People will want to go to and from Chadstone SS for more than shopping.  Dinning and cinema etc.

If I had to take the bus, train and train to the shopping centre I would probably drive.

Conversely, Is the Doncaster station planned to be at the Shopping Centre?

I agree Monash is required.  Are we missing a heavy rail link between Monash and another line?Chadstone, like Southland which now has a station, should be considered as a workplace destination for hundreds of commuters that are employed there rather than a place where Aunty Doris can drag her shopping jeep around. If a change of service (light rail from adjacent station) is provided, it will suffice. I'll leave the 'dinning' up to you.


[$0.02] The proposal makes sense to me, but I am imagining that a dedicated fleet will need to be built, featuring decent luggage carrying capability, since it will service the airport. It then stands to reason that it will be a glorified shuttle service which does not (for example) originate from Frankston and diverge onto the new route.

Driverless trains would not be an issue for me. Theme park rides, etc. [/$0.02]

Chadstone has currently 10000 free car parks I think. With the current population growth I would expect the amount of people going to Chadstone would be through the roof. The curent bus system is not reaching its full potential due to traffic and we don't curently have a train station near Chadstone. A intergrated underground with the entrance inside Chadstone would be the best option IMO.

What is the height difference of a single vs double deck train?
And then, what is the difference in height requirement of the tunnel (factoring in width)?

What is the height difference of a single vs double deck train?
And then, what is the difference in height requirement of the tunnel (factoring in width)?

Enough to warrant a new TBM. Making a DD tunnel means a new TBM for the unsual dimensions, and if they are going to reuse the TBM from MM1 then it makes sense to make it single-deck

The City Loop takes double-decker trains.

Light bulb moment!

It occurred to me that all the discussion has concentrated on the eastern end of SRL.

What seems missing in discussion is - what about the airport .?

We've all been under the dillusion that MARL is a complementary part, but that's not what the SRL pictures and description show.

According to the lastest "plan", the airport link will go to Sunshine (like MARL) but then goes off westwards.
MEANING, passengers from airport to CBD will have to change train.

Its even more likely for separate lines if SRL is driverless.
No way could it get mixed in with the rest of Metro - unless that is the devious  plan all along, make all MM1 ATO

Now we have the answers to how MARL will inter-connect to MM1 or some other path to Melbourne.
Those problems are solved because MARL doesn't go to Melbourne at all.

I'm not always against train change at logical hubs, but is this the greeting we want to give Melbourne  visitors?

My head really hurts. Bex please.

cheers
John

Given the SRL report’s hesitancy on the Werribee connection (understandable - a bit of a problem getting trains to go in that direction at Sunshine!) I wouldn’t be surprised if the full business case recommends end-to-end Southern Cross to Cheltenham via Airport using dedicated rollingstock and alignment, and then at a later stage sparking the RRL one way or another.

Tulla-CBD connectivity is a bigger deal than Sunshine-Werribee.

Light bulb moment!

It occurred to me that all the discussion has concentrated on the eastern end of SRL.

What seems missing in discussion is - what about the airport .?

We've all been under the dillusion that MARL is a complementary part, but that's not what the SRL pictures and description show.

According to the lastest "plan", the airport link will go to Sunshine (like MARL) but then goes off westwards.
MEANING, passengers from airport to CBD will have to change train.

Its even more likely for separate lines if SRL is driverless.
No way could it get mixed in with the rest of Metro - unless that is the devious  plan all along, make all MM1 ATO

Now we have the answers to how MARL will inter-connect to MM1 or some other path to Melbourne.
Those problems are solved because MARL doesn't go to Melbourne at all.

I'm not always against train change at logical hubs, but is this the greeting we want to give Melbourne  visitors?

My head really hurts. Bex please.

cheers
John

I assume, with the potential 10 billion (5 from state, 5 from feds) earmarked for Airport rail that they'll just overbuild it to work with the future metro loop (despite both beginning construction at the same time if the government stays in power)

2 new tracks from southern cross to sunshine, 4 new tracks from sunshine to airport; airport rail uses existing (by then) HCMTs to run a dedicated airport rail line while the metro duplicates that service on another pair of tracks between the airport and sunshine (interchange) then continues to werribee, while also servicing the rest of the suburban loop to the east of the airport.

I assume, with the potential 10 billion (5 from state, 5 from feds) earmarked for Airport rail that they'll just overbuild it to work with the future metro loop (despite both beginning construction at the same time if the government stays in power)

2 new tracks from southern cross to sunshine, 4 new tracks from sunshine to airport; airport rail uses existing (by then) HCMTs to run a dedicated airport rail line while the metro duplicates that service on another pair of tracks between the airport and sunshine (interchange) then continues to werribee, while also servicing the rest of the suburban loop to the east of the airport.

2 independent pax lines( 2 track each), running alongside each other, sharing nothing - between Airport and Sunshine.
Plus the SG/BG freight corridor for Inland Rail and Albury pax.

That truly is overbuild. Never know - maybe.