IF the project stays as planned with its 13 intermediate stations, the average distance between stations will be 6.5 km (90 km / 14 segments). It would seem that this would make double-decker trains a consideration.

If trains can average 60 kph, it will take about 3 hours to complete the 180 km round trip. To maintain a 5-min headway will require about 38 trains, not counting reserves (180 min / 5 min + 1 at each terminus). A 10-min headway would require about 20 and 4-min about 47. An average speed of 50 kph would require 44, 23 and 54 respectively.

As you said this is just one case, however it appears there’s plenty of park on the south side of the freeway and, if the bridge crossed at the minimum height, it would start going into the side of the hill on the north side before it reached the property line, although some properties would need to be acquired. Hopefully by the time the project gets to the detailed design stage it will have built up enough momentum that these are minor issues.

The project needs to avoid the steep gradient issues created in Sydney’s Epping – Chatswood Rail Link when a political decision was made to tunnel under the Lane Cove River rather than cross it by bridge. A few eggs will have to be broken.

and we have our first controversy!

"there’s plenty of park on the south side ..."  just so happens to be one of the few remaining fragments of the original creeklands left after the freeway bulldozed the whole valley.

If you think the stink raised in the 90s was bad, just try to touch what was fought for very hard and loud.
It is Government toppling stuff. It was one of those things that began the end for Jeff Kennett.

I don't have an answer either, just highlight the problem.
All I can say is that it would be madness to try and get a train to go up that hill - the highest in Melbourne.
Better to run flat, even if that is a long way down. (How deep is Parliament Station ?)

cheers
John

No attempt to go up the hill, just even out the grades and reduce the depth of the station at Doncaster. The battle will probably have long been fought with the NE Link (road).

"up that hill" was a bit flipant,, I wanted to impart that the Sydney experience must be learned.

fair enough trying to ease the gradient and reduce depth. Just that scaring the natives is not what this plan wants to do.

There will be a way around this. The smartest builders will be kept thinking.

PS: Parliament Station 40 meters deep. Doncaster Hill 120 meters.  A big difference to be resolved.

cheers
John

Thanks, saves me looking up the depths. The additional 4 - 6 lanes added to the Eastern Freeway by the NE Link, particularly the section between Station Street/Tram Road and Middleborough/Wetherby Roads, will probably cause more of a controversy. Anyway remains to be seen.

Did some depth looking up.

Try Google map journey planner. If you pick the bicycle route, it gives you all the elevations for that route.
Box hill 118m , freeway 57m , shoppingtown 125m - about 80m differential to solve

Deepest station is in Kiev 105m - doable but the escalator takes 5 minutes. Actually looks good, Parliament on steriods.

Bun fight about NE road will be interesting.

Cheers
John

IF the project stays as planned with its 13 intermediate stations, the average distance between stations will be 6.5 km (90 km / 14 segments). It would seem that this would make double-decker trains a consideration.

If trains can average 60 kph, it will take about 3 hours to complete the 180 km round trip. To maintain a 5-min headway will require about 38 trains, not counting reserves (180 min / 5 min + 1 at each terminus). A 10-min headway would require about 20 and 4-min about 47. An average speed of 50 kph would require 44, 23 and 54 respectively.

Work backwards from 400k - which is how many passengers expected to use the line when it's complete, according to the government.

Let's say ~100-150k x 2 peak hours (200k-300k in total across both peaks) with the remainder of those passengers at other times.

The gov has also said they expect the loads to be 60/40 (60% of total traffic in one direction, 40% in the other) depending on the peak.

In a three hour morning peak: 100k-150k / 3 / 2 (expected range of passengers across each peak, divide by 3 hours, then divide by two to get two directions)  33k-50k in both directions in the peak.  Divide by two you get 16.5k-25k passengers per direction per hour.

The trains will need to be a) very frequent and b) "large" to cater for those kinds of loads - i.e capacity around the 1000 mark per train and be anywhere between 15-20+ trains per hour in peak hours.

I dare say it'll be a system with very similar characteristics as the Sydney metro - 6 car trains (1100 total passengers with about 350 seated) scalable to 8 car trains and ~1500 passengers per train - and here's hoping it is a totally independent, driverless and automated system.

Deepest station is in Kiev 105m - doable but the escalator takes 5 minutes. Actually looks good, Parliament on steriods.

Cheers
John

Been there, didn't know it was deepest when using it but all I can see is that its a F'n long way down/up. We arrived by train as it has a famous monistry near by and you cannot see the top from bottom. It wasn't until we were half way and we were thinking, how deep is this station (due to station under a hill and need for railway to go under the river).

Yes it can be done, but really should be avoided.

Work backwards from 400k - which is how many passengers expected to use the line when it's complete, according to the government.

Let's say ~100-150k x 2 peak hours (200k-300k in total across both peaks) with the remainder of those passengers at other times.

The gov has also said they expect the loads to be 60/40 (60% of total traffic in one direction, 40% in the other) depending on the peak.

In a three hour morning peak: 100k-150k / 3 / 2 (expected range of passengers across each peak, divide by 3 hours, then divide by two to get two directions)  33k-50k in both directions in the peak.  Divide by two you get 16.5k-25k passengers per direction per hour.

The trains will need to be a) very frequent and b) "large" to cater for those kinds of loads - i.e capacity around the 1000 mark per train and be anywhere between 15-20+ trains per hour in peak hours.

I dare say it'll be a system with very similar characteristics as the Sydney metro - 6 car trains (1100 total passengers with about 350 seated) scalable to 8 car trains and ~1500 passengers per train - and here's hoping it is a totally independent, driverless and automated system.

There will also be turnover of passengers in each direction as many passengers will only travel a few stations. Thus the 33k-50k can be discounted by the turnover factor. Given the hubs at Monash and Glen Waverley, this factor could well be 2 or 3.

BrianW

…………………………………………………………………………….

In a three hour morning peak: 100k-150k / 3 / 2 (expected range of passengers across each peak, divide by 3 hours, then divide by two to get two directions)  33k-50k in both directions in the peak.  Divide by two you get 16.5k-25k passengers per direction per hour.

…………………………………………………………………..

As mentioned above, most journeys on the link will be short, say less than 30 minutes, which equates to at least 2 trips per hour. Broadly speaking, on a 90 minute trip from Cheltenham to Werribee one seat on a link train could be occupied by three or four passengers whereas a seat on a radial train will only be occupied by the one passenger, eg a passenger travelling from Bayswater to the City. Dividing the 16.5 – 25k passengers per direction per hour by 2 gives roughly 8 – 12k per hour. A 5-min headway of 1000-passenger trains would provide adequate capacity. Calculating passenger loads for the link seems far more complex than for the ‘in in the AM and out in the PM’ radial system and is probably what some, albeit a miniscule amount, of the cost of developing a detailed business case is for.

PS: Good luck getting a seat on either.

"up that hill" was a bit flipant,, I wanted to impart that the Sydney experience must be learned.

fair enough trying to ease the gradient and reduce depth. Just that scaring the natives is not what this plan wants to do.

There will be a way around this. The smartest builders will be kept thinking.

PS: Parliament Station 40 meters deep. Doncaster Hill 120 meters.  A big difference to be resolved.

cheers
John

There is another possible solution for the steep gradient directly south of Doncaster Westfield.

Redesign the loop so it stops at Blackburn, not Box Hill.
Then the train line can go south easterly direction from Doncaster and drop below the freeway just east of Middleborough Rd.

Blackburn is a better location for the junction, for everyone further east (Ringwood etc).

I support this project, there are so many questions that would need to be looked at while planning this out they are as follows:

So is high capacity signalling going to be used along the whole section of SRL?
Will they use semi-automatic operation, or look into fully driverless operations?
How long are the new rolling stock will be? How many seats? How many doors?
Now where is the new stabling going to be located? Will it be underground or above ground?
Would it make more sense to start on all sections by 2022 date?
And it'll likely take 15-20 years to get the construction completed. How many boring machines would it require?
And where are the locations for the boring machines to lifted into? And what properties would need to be taken to allow the boring machines lifted done in the sections?
And how deep are these stations going to be? And how would the stations be modified to allow the new connections?
Is every station in the new SRL getting fit with screen doors?
How frequent is the service? Every 2 minutes?

Also despite supporting there are a few fair criticisms. It's an early announcement just before the election. Infrastructure Victoria was set out to take politics out of infrastructure, but didn't have this in their plans, but I have to say Infrastructure Victoria put East West Link "needs more investigation", but no mention of circle rail line. Just shows Infrastructure Victoria has the short term/medium term stuff, but nothing like really long term. Even the metro 2 proposal, they said "also needs more investigation", putting it at the same standard as east west link. Even though east west link is already known as a poor solution, they didn't negate it in their options. I don't like Infrastructure Victoria way it decides which projects work or not, it didn't support Doncaster rail and it was 50% supportive of Rowville rail, where it choses to go the more economical sound option improving existing network of buses. Although Labor kinda neglects all the smaller improvements like all the whole network of buses and road pricing. I think a mixture of long term and short term needs to happen.

Also despite Labor investing heavily into transport projects (that being heavy rail and roads mostly), there is obviously a lack of a co-ordinated transport plan. This is a problem, since the government of the day could just make random pledges of projects that might not stack up economically at the election to gain popularity. It's definitely a concern that needs addressing. Also neglecting the smaller improvements, such as buses and cycling. Buses & cycling get quite a small portion in the budget compared with rail and roads. Which is kinda sad since it's cheaper and it is widespread. You can improve a whole network of buses and cycling paths over the whole metropolitan Melbourne and wouldn't cost that much.

As usual the opposition has nothing of substance when it comes to any type of infrastructure. Guess what they criticise Labor for? Skyrail, which isn't a issue, purely Nimbism. Also criticise about cancelling East West Link, which is purely a political project that wasn't for the public interest at all. And what else, oh yeah saying Labor neglects regional rail, oh I forgot they actually were the ones that had the guts to start the regional revival rail project. Yeah why don't the opposition actually make valid criticism of the lack of co-ordinate transport planning and create their own, oh wait I forgot they did? Yeah I remember they created PTV to do that in 2010 the only thing that came out was The PTV metropolitan rail plan, which they never followed through on. Remember they changed the route for Metro rail and cancelled Doncaster/Rowville rail links.

"up that hill" was a bit flipant,, I wanted to impart that the Sydney experience must be learned.

fair enough trying to ease the gradient and reduce depth. Just that scaring the natives is not what this plan wants to do.

There will be a way around this. The smartest builders will be kept thinking.

PS: Parliament Station 40 meters deep. Doncaster Hill 120 meters.  A big difference to be resolved.

cheers
John

Emergency services people will (ought to) be concerned about a deep underground station. Nearly impossible to evacuate crowds quickly enough in an emergency that stops rail traffic, even if there is no fire and all lifts remain working.

Yeah I remember they created PTV to do that in 2010 the only thing that came out was The PTV metropolitan rail plan, which they never followed through on.

If I could have an investigation into one aspect of the last 10 years of transport governance in Victoria I’d want it to look at what the hell happened to PTV.

They started with the metro rail plan in a blaze of glory and were never seen again. Like its detail or not, that plan was the most comprehensive and coherent vision created in a long time. This outfit looked like the goods - maybe we’d finally have progress

Then at the end of 2014 (note: before the change of government) the Auditor-General found that the tram, bus and regional plans were “progressing slowly” - bureaucrat speak for “no one knows what to do about them”. In other words, PTV had stopped carrying out one of its raisons d’être, and no one seemed to care.

The incoming Labor government lost patience and handed the regional plan over to the Department to finish. That plan is a pathetic shadow of the metro one and contains virtually no concrete suggestions for improvement, just vague motherhood statements (like increasing fresh local produce on long-distance trains, without mentioning N set catering replacements). I don’t think it was deliberately castrated, just a rush job to try and save face.

Shortly afterward Labor created Transport for Victoria, a statutory body incorporating the Department’s transport functions and the planning functions of PTV, leaving PTV as a glorified timetable printer.

What the hell happened?

...
fair enough trying to ease the gradient and reduce depth. Just that scaring the natives is not what this plan wants to do.
...
PS: Parliament Station 40 meters deep. Doncaster Hill 120 meters.  A big difference to be resolved.
.

There is another possible solution for the steep gradient directly south of Doncaster Westfield.

Redesign the loop so it stops at Blackburn, not Box Hill.
Then the train line can go south easterly direction from Doncaster and drop below the freeway just east of Middleborough Rd.

Blackburn is a better location for the junction, for everyone further east (Ringwood etc).

Emergency services people will (ought to) be concerned about a deep underground station. Nearly impossible to evacuate crowds quickly enough in an emergency that stops rail traffic, even if there is no fire and all lifts remain working.

Tom & Lock. both right of course.

went past Blackburn & Box Hill yesterday and noted not much difference in choice.
Problem is all stations Box Hill, Laburnham, Blackburn, Nunawading sort of run on top of a ridge; each go downhill for about 2km to the freeway.

2km @ 2% gradient only gives a drop of 40meters. Not going to be enough for any of them to get under the freeway, without already starting about 50m underground.

Box Hill on the SRL brings Deakin Uni(Burwood) into contention. The other stations are getting too far out to accommodate Burwood as well (except may Laburnham - howls of derision).

@kitchgp did suggest crossing the freeway above grade, to overcome depth. Might end up there.
However only 40m in 2km still bites hard. The portal might end up half way up the hill on both sides, lots of missing houses and that would be a skyrail.

BUT that's not the worst of it. Then there is Banyule Flats. It is only 20m above sea.
The train has to get under that AND under the NE road tunnel. (level crossing in tunnel - I said that stupidity first)
So from Doncaster Hill 120m need to get to Banyule 0m. It's looking like the Scenic Railway at Luna Park.

Box hill 118m , freeway 57m , shoppingtown 125m - about 80m differential to solve
Deepest station is in Kiev 105m - doable but the escalator takes 5 minutes.

Sort of leaves us with forgetting about Doncaster & Heidelberg completely, or go very deep for stations.

Then we have passenger safety and comfort a big issue to resolve.

I did mention that Kiev is 105m deep. Their get-out clause is that the track is actually at the bottom of a hill, and I'm guessing a low side escape to the river. (they don't put sensitive stuff like that on google).

For Doncaster (and Box Hill ?), pedestrian escape either 15 story climb up stairs, or a 2 km walk to portal in the hillside. DOUBLE OUCH ! Power failure is truly scary for the infirm.

The $300M price tag on the Business Case is starting to look cheap to sort these issues out.

cheers
John

Why not go from Glen Waverley via tunnel out and run above ground down the middle or to the side of EastLink, to Ringwood as the next junction, it is the split spot on the BelgraveLilydale, then follow the freeway tunnels and down the middle of the Eastern freeway to Doncaster then swing north. Bigger loop but the ability to build parts at ground level will reduce costs. The big tunnel would follow the freeway tunnels. (At the same time complete the triplication to Ringwood, it is already to Blackburn, and Laburnum has the space, Nunawading and the Easlink bridge are the two bottle necks.)

Opinion piece in "The Age" and how Metro 2 fits into this:

https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/what-will-happen-to-melbourne-metro-2-the-other-planned-underground-rail-line-20180902-p5019k.html

Why not go from Glen Waverley via tunnel out and run above ground down the middle or to the side of EastLink, to Ringwood as the next junction, it is the split spot on the BelgraveLilydale, then follow the freeway tunnels and down the middle of the Eastern freeway to Doncaster then swing north. Bigger loop but the ability to build parts at ground level will reduce costs. The big tunnel would follow the freeway tunnels. (At the same time complete the triplication to Ringwood, it is already to Blackburn, and Laburnum has the space, Nunawading and the Easlink bridge are the two bottle necks.)

welcome aboard @Malleeboy

the problems that arise from your suggestion fall into the dangerous ground of politics and broken promises.

"...you promised it would be all underground"  
"...you promised no housing demolition"
"...you promised it would go to Deakin Uni Burwood"
"...you promised it would go to Box Hill"
"...you said the NE road link couldn't go underground at Ringwood, liar liar pants on fire"
"...the train is now going down the middle of freeway, why can't it keep going into the city"

The technical issues pale into insignificance compared to these.

Ringwood vs Box Hill is mostly about placement in the middle zone of suburbs.

Ringwood makes a bit easier for those coming inward from say FTG to join the loop, but
discourages those in say Camberwell from coming outwards to join the loop.
Box Hill is the sweet spot to attract both.

Metro had their chances to set aside room for 3 Ringwood tracks, and decided that not (ever) needed.
If building the 3 tracks, then need to rebuild again 3 NEW stations, plus the 5 crossings LXRA just did, plus the Eastlink crossing.

When peak hour really gets going, the Ringwood UP is 3~5 minute service.  Evening down is 4 minutes. Good compared.
Express is after Blackburn(3rd track), which also starts an extra route of Stop All Station.
There is scope for better, the bottleneck is nearer Burnley. The 3rd line at Laburnum is not needed yet, although provided for.

a good suggestion but...  For what it's worth Ringwood + Eastland is an attractive stopping point, if only....

cheers
John

The technical issues pale into insignificance compared to these.

Truer words have never been spoke.

When the best a parliamentary opposition can come up with in response to a plan like this is a whatabout cry of “Skyrail!” one is reminded that this will not be a fight of lofty ideas but one of petty whinging.

Ringwood vs Box Hill is mostly about placement in the middle zone of suburbs. Ringwood makes a bit easier for those coming inward from say FTG to join the loop, but discourages those in say Camberwell from coming outwards to join the loop. Box Hill is the sweet spot to attract both.

Another big plus side in Box Hill over Ringwood or Blackburn is that Box Hill is quickly becoming a major destination in its own right.

@True believers Thank for that comprehensive appraisal. You are right. There does not seem to be any plan whatsoever. Projects are announced at the whim of the Government and the opposition' plan is truly pathetic.

It seems that the Melbourne Metro 2 project which is needed has been relegated for this farce of a project. A project that can be handled by expanding and restructuring the Bus Network in the short term.

The problem is with this state is that all these grandiose plans are announced and nothing gets done.

Michael

Washington Park station on the Portland Light Rail is 79m underground, considering the exit to the station is on top of a hill 210m high and the centre of Portland is 3.4 k's away and nearly at sea level implies the line climbs a 1 in 30 grade in a tunnel just to get up to the station.As to safety look at what they have done in the Gotthard base tunnel (Slightly pressurised the emergency exit passages with above ground fans to make sure the exits would always be clear of any smoke).

woodford

The problem is with this state is that all these grandiose plans are announced and nothing gets done.

This is the one criticism no longer available. Have you been for a drive or a train ride lately? The entire bloody state is a construction zone.

Actually I think you have completely misread the tone of TB’s post. There are a lot of questions to be answered, and that’s why Labor has promised $300m to answer them should they win the election.

Why are you so emphatically opposed to this idea?

The problem is with this state is that all these grandiose plans are announced and nothing gets done.

This is the one criticism no longer available. Have you been for a drive or a train ride lately? The entire bloody state is a construction zone.

Actually I think you have completely misread the tone of TB’s post. There are a lot of questions to be answered, and that’s why Labor has promised $300m to answer them should they win the election.

Why are you so emphatically opposed to this idea?

I'm assuming mejhammer believes either it would either suck up funding on other projects and not looking at tweaking the existing network and other minor projects. Or improvement in other areas of transport. Although I wouldn't think this project means the end of all other projects, it complements the network and economically it could stack up. Though it was definitely too early to be announced, since the concrete plans were not in place. As I said before it looks like a blank promise which is what mejhammer believes, since a co-ordinated plan isn't in place as of yet. I mean that's why some people are critical and uncertain about this project. It's a risky project but not a bad one either.

@potatoinmymouth Because the project is unplanned has relegated MM2 and it could be met in the Short term by expanding the Bus Network.

Sorry I do not share your enthusiasm but the existing network needs to be fixed. Where is the plan on updating metrol for e.g.? What about re-duplicating the Bendigo line. $300 Million to plan for this ad-hoc project. Small worthwhile projects could be undertaken for that sort of money.

Whilst lauding what the ALP has done our network still has major issues. Much of the system is still running life expired stock leading to breakdown and still after 10 years we cannot get the Albury corridor functioning with an acceptable level of reliablity.

Michael