Should we get an updated PTV network development plan?

 
  True Believers Chief Commissioner

Wasn't the plan to electrify the whole RRL route and turn the Geelong line an electric line in stage 4 of the plan?

The original intention was to seperate regional lines, but these regional rail lines are now serving areas that meant to service the metro rail system.

Sponsored advertisement

  BrentonGolding Chief Commissioner

Location: Maldon Junction
agreed.
My position is (and has been on this thread for a long time) that Bendigo via Clarkefield/Airport/Albion is the solution to get completely away from the Sunbury sparks. Then RRL for Bendigo actually works.

cheers
John
justarider
Mine too John, I am just not sure that is what we are going to get.

BG
  justarider Chief Commissioner

Location: Free at last, free at last
Wasn't the plan to electrify the whole RRL route and turn the Geelong line an electric line in stage 4 of the plan?

The original intention was to seperate regional lines, but these regional rail lines are now serving areas that meant to service the metro rail system.
True Believers
it's the law of unintended consequences.

The new stations on RRL - Wyndham Vale & Tarneit are easily accessible and have good car parking.
Their run time into Melbourne is almost identical to that for Werribee & Hoppers Crossing respectively.

For the local commuters faced with choice between hard to access and park, or easy to park, guess what happens.

Could solve with some very unpopular schedule changes. (ie express most Geelong trains). "That is a brave decision Minister."

A lesson for the next station contemplated. Do NOT build a car park.

regards
John
  True Believers Chief Commissioner
  justarider Chief Commissioner

Location: Free at last, free at last
agreed.
My position is (and has been on this thread for a long time) that Bendigo via Clarkefield/Airport/Albion is the solution to get completely away from the Sunbury sparks. Then RRL for Bendigo actually works.

cheers
John
Mine too John, I am just not sure that is what we are going to get.

BG
BrentonGolding
probably SFA, sorry.

Even Rail Futures have dumped any mention of Clarkefield to the Airport.
https://www.railpage.com.au/news/s/the-melbourne-rail-plan-2019-2050

at least they are consistent in their inconsistency.
PS: nearly wet myself last week when John Hearsch said on radio (when pressed that there is no real estate or median strips to put all his magical trams) - "can just put them up on a skyrail" - it's also in writing in their "plan".

cheers
John
  potatoinmymouth Chief Commissioner

PS: nearly wet myself last week when John Hearsch said on radio (when pressed that there is no real estate or median strips to put all his magical trams) - "can just put them up on a skyrail" - it's also in writing in their "plan".
justarider

Look, I've got a lot of respect for John Hearsch, and I think his corridor studies for Gippsland and the Western District in particular were really sensible, grounded workbased on a thorough understanding of operational requirements and benefits.

Unfortunately, I think a two-man institute simply doesn't have the resources to carry out effective high-level planning. The regional plan was quite good, simply because it proposed modest, incremental upgrades to the existing network, and incorporating the fine-grain stuff from the corridor studies.

But the Melbourne plan is just bonkers. There's no justification of travel needs for most of the routes, and the idea that the "magical trams" or Medium Capacity Transit will somehow have a substantially lower construction cost along entirely new reservations is frankly mad. And $109b and 21 year construction time? Land acquisition will cost all that money by itself.
  True Believers Chief Commissioner

PS: nearly wet myself last week when John Hearsch said on radio (when pressed that there is no real estate or median strips to put all his magical trams) - "can just put them up on a skyrail" - it's also in writing in their "plan".

Look, I've got a lot of respect for John Hearsch, and I think his corridor studies for Gippsland and the Western District in particular were really sensible, grounded workbased on a thorough understanding of operational requirements and benefits.

Unfortunately, I think a two-man institute simply doesn't have the resources to carry out effective high-level planning. The regional plan was quite good, simply because it proposed modest, incremental upgrades to the existing network, and incorporating the fine-grain stuff from the corridor studies.

But the Melbourne plan is just bonkers. There's no justification of travel needs for most of the routes, and the idea that the "magical trams" or Medium Capacity Transit will somehow have a substantially lower construction cost along entirely new reservations is frankly mad. And $109b and 21 year construction time? Land acquisition will cost all that money by itself.
potatoinmymouth

Yeah I agree with you with what you're view on the matter, there are some quite reasonable aspects to the Melbourne plan, especially towards the heavy rail extensions, but the medium capacity transit thing is a little bit "pie in the sky" and dumped into the plan to make it like an alternative to the Suburban rail loop, but it's definitely flawed.

I highly disagree with the super fast south east line in the proposal, just needs some passing loops along the existing corridor would be sufficient. If anything it be better invest in the super fast Geelong line since there is actual is a need to seperate the V-lines off RRL.

Anyways there was nothing about buses in the plan, if you had more frequent buses, bus priority and signalling it would great benefit to Melbourne, our bus network isn't up to scratch. It's complete garbage to be honest, wouldn't be a contest when comparing other bus networks.
  reubstar6 Chief Train Controller

SRL should be built. If they're right about the passenger numbers, that more than justifies the project. I think an expanded Metro 2 with Geelong line works would be more beneficial in the time frame provided for the bypass line (whatever they are calling it). Looks like a decent long-term project, and could probably be used by Gippsland/Leongatha/Stony Point/Mornington services in the future.
  reubstar6 Chief Train Controller

SRL should be built. If they're right about the passenger numbers, that more than justifies the project. I think an expanded Metro 2 with Geelong line works would be more beneficial in the time frame provided for the bypass line (whatever they are calling it). Looks like a decent long-term project, and could probably be used by Gippsland/Leongatha/Stony Point/Mornington services in the future.
  justarider Chief Commissioner

Location: Free at last, free at last
PIMM ,
I really don't  have an opinion at the momemt about the RF plan. It's huge in scope and some parts good, others not so.

The point of my post was that John Hearsch actually said the word "skyrail". That alone consigns (right or wrong) any chance of acceptance into the scrapheap.

cheers
John
  mejhammers1 Chief Commissioner

PS: nearly wet myself last week when John Hearsch said on radio (when pressed that there is no real estate or median strips to put all his magical trams) - "can just put them up on a skyrail" - it's also in writing in their "plan".

Look, I've got a lot of respect for John Hearsch, and I think his corridor studies for Gippsland and the Western District in particular were really sensible, grounded workbased on a thorough understanding of operational requirements and benefits.

Unfortunately, I think a two-man institute simply doesn't have the resources to carry out effective high-level planning. The regional plan was quite good, simply because it proposed modest, incremental upgrades to the existing network, and incorporating the fine-grain stuff from the corridor studies.

But the Melbourne plan is just bonkers. There's no justification of travel needs for most of the routes, and the idea that the "magical trams" or Medium Capacity Transit will somehow have a substantially lower construction cost along entirely new reservations is frankly mad. And $109b and 21 year construction time? Land acquisition will cost all that money by itself.

Yeah I agree with you with what you're view on the matter, there are some quite reasonable aspects to the Melbourne plan, especially towards the heavy rail extensions, but the medium capacity transit thing is a little bit "pie in the sky" and dumped into the plan to make it like an alternative to the Suburban rail loop, but it's definitely flawed.

I highly disagree with the super fast south east line in the proposal, just needs some passing loops along the existing corridor would be sufficient. If anything it be better invest in the super fast Geelong line since there is actual is a need to seperate the V-lines off RRL.

Anyways there was nothing about buses in the plan, if you had more frequent buses, bus priority and signalling it would great benefit to Melbourne, our bus network isn't up to scratch. It's complete garbage to be honest, wouldn't be a contest when comparing other bus networks.
True Believers
I wholly agree with you True Believers. Too many are seduced by the shiny things that the Victorian Government is putting forward. All fixated with heavy rail, with no real plan, just a bunch of thought bubbles put together to seduce the public.

There needs to be a comprehensive Public Transport plan that involves, Metro and Regional Bus, Metro and Regional Rail and Trams. You are being kind that the Melbourne Bus Network isn't up to scratch. It is basically comatose. It is the worst of all of the capital cities. There are far too many bus companies in Melbourne with the majority of operators simply trousering subsidies, with the vast majority of routes running just 2 buses an hour during weekdays and hourly during the weekends, operating under a franchising structure dating from the 1970's. There needs to be a body set up to look after the Melbourne Bus Network and quite frankly it needs to expand.

Our Metro service is nowhere up to the standard or coverage of even Sydney's, operated in the main by Trains dating from the 1980's and are basically life expired or cheap and nasty off the shelf trains. The HCMT will be a welcome relief. The signalling needs replacing and many stations need to be modernised to meet modern standards.

Like NSW I believe that the Interurban network, at least to Geelong should be electrified.

As regards to the tram network, apart from the extra 10 trams presumably ordered to make the 11, 86 and 96 all E Class, the focus has shifted to refurbishing the old trams. The Z and A Class Trams is simply not up to meeting demand. More E class should be built. It is a crying shame that 60% of our tram fleet is not accessible to the disabled. It is disgusting for 2018.

Michael
  potatoinmymouth Chief Commissioner

PS: nearly wet myself last week when John Hearsch said on radio (when pressed that there is no real estate or median strips to put all his magical trams) - "can just put them up on a skyrail" - it's also in writing in their "plan".

Look, I've got a lot of respect for John Hearsch, and I think his corridor studies for Gippsland and the Western District in particular were really sensible, grounded workbased on a thorough understanding of operational requirements and benefits.

Unfortunately, I think a two-man institute simply doesn't have the resources to carry out effective high-level planning. The regional plan was quite good, simply because it proposed modest, incremental upgrades to the existing network, and incorporating the fine-grain stuff from the corridor studies.

But the Melbourne plan is just bonkers. There's no justification of travel needs for most of the routes, and the idea that the "magical trams" or Medium Capacity Transit will somehow have a substantially lower construction cost along entirely new reservations is frankly mad. And $109b and 21 year construction time? Land acquisition will cost all that money by itself.

Yeah I agree with you with what you're view on the matter, there are some quite reasonable aspects to the Melbourne plan, especially towards the heavy rail extensions, but the medium capacity transit thing is a little bit "pie in the sky" and dumped into the plan to make it like an alternative to the Suburban rail loop, but it's definitely flawed.

I highly disagree with the super fast south east line in the proposal, just needs some passing loops along the existing corridor would be sufficient. If anything it be better invest in the super fast Geelong line since there is actual is a need to seperate the V-lines off RRL.

Anyways there was nothing about buses in the plan, if you had more frequent buses, bus priority and signalling it would great benefit to Melbourne, our bus network isn't up to scratch. It's complete garbage to be honest, wouldn't be a contest when comparing other bus networks.
I wholly agree with you True Believers. Too many are seduced by the shiny things that the Victorian Government is putting forward. All fixated with heavy rail, with no real plan, just a bunch of thought bubbles put together to seduce the public.
mejhammers1
Now go back and read the post more carefully. In your rush to criticise the Victorian government you've failed to notice that we're not discussing their proposals.
  mejhammers1 Chief Commissioner

PS: nearly wet myself last week when John Hearsch said on radio (when pressed that there is no real estate or median strips to put all his magical trams) - "can just put them up on a skyrail" - it's also in writing in their "plan".

Look, I've got a lot of respect for John Hearsch, and I think his corridor studies for Gippsland and the Western District in particular were really sensible, grounded workbased on a thorough understanding of operational requirements and benefits.

Unfortunately, I think a two-man institute simply doesn't have the resources to carry out effective high-level planning. The regional plan was quite good, simply because it proposed modest, incremental upgrades to the existing network, and incorporating the fine-grain stuff from the corridor studies.

But the Melbourne plan is just bonkers. There's no justification of travel needs for most of the routes, and the idea that the "magical trams" or Medium Capacity Transit will somehow have a substantially lower construction cost along entirely new reservations is frankly mad. And $109b and 21 year construction time? Land acquisition will cost all that money by itself.

Yeah I agree with you with what you're view on the matter, there are some quite reasonable aspects to the Melbourne plan, especially towards the heavy rail extensions, but the medium capacity transit thing is a little bit "pie in the sky" and dumped into the plan to make it like an alternative to the Suburban rail loop, but it's definitely flawed.

I highly disagree with the super fast south east line in the proposal, just needs some passing loops along the existing corridor would be sufficient. If anything it be better invest in the super fast Geelong line since there is actual is a need to seperate the V-lines off RRL.

Anyways there was nothing about buses in the plan, if you had more frequent buses, bus priority and signalling it would great benefit to Melbourne, our bus network isn't up to scratch. It's complete garbage to be honest, wouldn't be a contest when comparing other bus networks.
I wholly agree with you True Believers. Too many are seduced by the shiny things that the Victorian Government is putting forward. All fixated with heavy rail, with no real plan, just a bunch of thought bubbles put together to seduce the public.
Now go back and read the post more carefully. In your rush to criticise the Victorian government you've failed to notice that we're not discussing their proposals.
potatoinmymouth
My Bad. But you have to ask, the reason why both proposals have been aired now because there is an Election imminent. Id rather fix what transport what is existing first. Super fast rail to Geelong? We cannot even get Albury or Bendigo right.

Michael
  potatoinmymouth Chief Commissioner

PS: nearly wet myself last week when John Hearsch said on radio (when pressed that there is no real estate or median strips to put all his magical trams) - "can just put them up on a skyrail" - it's also in writing in their "plan".

Look, I've got a lot of respect for John Hearsch, and I think his corridor studies for Gippsland and the Western District in particular were really sensible, grounded workbased on a thorough understanding of operational requirements and benefits.

Unfortunately, I think a two-man institute simply doesn't have the resources to carry out effective high-level planning. The regional plan was quite good, simply because it proposed modest, incremental upgrades to the existing network, and incorporating the fine-grain stuff from the corridor studies.

But the Melbourne plan is just bonkers. There's no justification of travel needs for most of the routes, and the idea that the "magical trams" or Medium Capacity Transit will somehow have a substantially lower construction cost along entirely new reservations is frankly mad. And $109b and 21 year construction time? Land acquisition will cost all that money by itself.

Yeah I agree with you with what you're view on the matter, there are some quite reasonable aspects to the Melbourne plan, especially towards the heavy rail extensions, but the medium capacity transit thing is a little bit "pie in the sky" and dumped into the plan to make it like an alternative to the Suburban rail loop, but it's definitely flawed.

I highly disagree with the super fast south east line in the proposal, just needs some passing loops along the existing corridor would be sufficient. If anything it be better invest in the super fast Geelong line since there is actual is a need to seperate the V-lines off RRL.

Anyways there was nothing about buses in the plan, if you had more frequent buses, bus priority and signalling it would great benefit to Melbourne, our bus network isn't up to scratch. It's complete garbage to be honest, wouldn't be a contest when comparing other bus networks.
I wholly agree with you True Believers. Too many are seduced by the shiny things that the Victorian Government is putting forward. All fixated with heavy rail, with no real plan, just a bunch of thought bubbles put together to seduce the public.
Now go back and read the post more carefully. In your rush to criticise the Victorian government you've failed to notice that we're not discussing their proposals.
My Bad. But you have to ask, the reason why both proposals have been aired now because there is an Election imminent. Id rather fix what transport what is existing first. Super fast rail to Geelong? We cannot even get Albury or Bendigo right.

Michael
mejhammers1
Well, election promises are a fact of life in a democracy, and I'd rather know what it is I'm voting for, so I can't share your dismissiveness on that front.

But I do agree we ought to be focusing on improving and expanding existing infrastructure rather than trying to reinvent the wheel. I suspect, and hope, that Geelong Fast Rail is just polly-speak for electrification or city access improvements in one form or another. I also commented above on John Hearsch's corridor studies, and I'd love to see 15-year plans at that level of detail for each of the country lines. I've also posted at length in the past about the governance failure that saw the Regional Network Development Plan fall in a heap at PTV and be completed by the Department, who had neither the resources nor the inclination to finish it in any substantial level of detail.

I think some progress is being made on this front though: 20 years ago Bracks was calling a signalling and track upgrade "fast rail" and getting quite rightly pilloried for his failure to deliver improved travel times; now, at least, the government is happy to advertise that most of their work is duplication and signalling, which seems to be a healthier outcome. More, please!
  True Believers Chief Commissioner

Well there needs to be a healthy balance of upgrading the existing infrastructure and providing the new infrastructure.

Keeping the older fleet of trams, although is an unpopular choice actually increases the overall capacity of the tram network. If you just took out all the high floor trams, you need to build about many more e-class trams to replace. Currently about 14 e-class trams are built per year. In just the span of 5 years, we have introduced 70 e-class trams. 20 more are coming in production between now and 2019, bringing the fleet to 90. This is actually a reasonable rate of production and eventually the high-class fleet will retire in about 10 years time. No-one is suggesting (not even the gov is suggesting so) to slow down the rate of e-class to keep the old trams running as long as possible. But those trams deserve that overdue upgrade that was meant to happen years ago. Remember playing a catch up game with public transport.

As for the Geelong line get a high flashy service, well it's the busiest regional line and is serving metro suburbs. There is a need to seperate the Geelong line of the RRL link and provide an express service. Doesn't mean that the Albury & Bendigo line doesn't deserve any attention, they sure have. The Albury fleet is getting the new designed Velocity trains, Beyond Bendigo there has been signal and track upgrades, and eventually the Bendigo line will be re-duplicated to improve their services.

I am critical about the government's lack of attention on quick easier and less expensive approaches to improving the transport network, such as buses, cycling and other modes. And the lack of an overall multi-modal approach to transport planning. But that's been an issue for many years and I don't think any of us would disagree that this plan should come out ASAP, before government puts money into projects that may not perform well in the economic returns to taxpayers money.

But nevertheless I do believe that this government is quite serious about investing into our transport system, and the number of rail intiatives in this term of government just blows my mind. And because of the public support into rail project and less extent to road projects, I can see a future of pipeline of more rail over road projects in my lifetime. Jacinta has mentioned the magical invisible multi-modal plan somewhere developed in her department, but whether that's true or whether ever comes to public is anyone's guess.
  reubstar6 Chief Train Controller

Below is an outlined "Victorian Rail Plan" put together by Transport for Victoria (TfV), according to tonight's 9News report: (1) - Melbourne Metro 1: South Kensington to South Yarra (Open circa 2025) - Cranbourne line duplication: From Dandenong to Cranbourne - Somerton link: Connecting Upfield Line to Craigieburn and Seymour Lines at Roxburgh Park - Hurstbridge Line upgrade Stage 2: Duplication between Greensborough and Eltham Stage 3 - Melbourne Airport Rail Link: Via a new rail tunnel from Southern Cross to Sunshine - City Loop Reconfiguration: Frankston Line to run via Parliament, Melbourne Central, Flagstaff and West Melbourne to connect with the Craigieburn Line - Burnley Junction Rationalisation: Glen Waverley Line to run via Flinders Street and Southern Cross to connect with the Upfield Line - Melton Electrification: Quadruplication between Sunshine and Melton - Wyndham Vale Electrification: Quadruplication between Sunshine and Wyndham Vale - Waurn Ponds duplication: Between South Geelong and Waurn Ponds - Clyde Extension: Cranbourne line extended to Clyde - Baxter Electrification: Frankston Line extended to Baxter - Mooroolbark to Lilydale Duplication Stage 4 - Melbourne Metro 2 West: New rail tunnel from Newport to Parkville via Fishermans Bend and Southern Cross - Laverton and Williamstown Line Upgrade - Wyndham Vale to Black Forest Road extension: Connects Wyndham Vale line to Werribee - Sunshine to Watergardens Quadruplication - Bendigo Track Upgrade - Shepparton Line Upgrade Stage 2 Stage 5 - Melbourne Metro 2 East: New rail tunnel from Parkville to Clifton Hill via Carlton and Fitzroy - Wollert Extension: Branch line off Mernda Line from Lalor - Geelong Electrification - Regional Rail Link Additional Stations - Barwon South West Line Intercity Upgrade - Gippsland Line Intercity Upgrade - Loddon Mallee Intercity Upgrade Stage 6 - New track pair (Sextuplication): Between South Yarra Portal and Caufield - New track pair : Between Caufield and Huntingdale via Chadstone - Rowville Extension: Branching off Huntingdale via Monash Uni - Track Quadruplication: Between Huntingdale and Dandenong - Track Quadruplication: Between Deer Park and Melton - Track Duplication: Between Bacchus Marsh and Ballarat - New Track Pair: Between Flinders Street and Southern Cross Notice the Suburban Rail Loop isn't included in this plan.
slowcoach
Well here we go, I hope. It contains many interesting points:
- Metro 2 being built in the reverse order it was originally proposed
- Somerton link happening soon
- Watergardens to Albion quadding rather than airport link (very questionable)
- Doncaster.exe was not found
- Intercity upgrades?
- V/line network: Looks like there will be trunk routes with passengers further abroad changing trains at regional centres (reduces gauge conversion needs I guess)
- Original Metro 1 revived
- Proper Rowville line
- Flinders Street to Southern Cross additional track pair (could this be double stacked, then dive under Collins St?)

Coupled with SRL, this seems like a legitimate plan that will do wonders for Melbourne's train network. It would be a miracle if this was all done by 2050, but you never know! Can anyone find some sort of proposed network map?
  True Believers Chief Commissioner

Looks like my question has finally be answered today.

Should we get an updated PTV rail network development?

Well today is the day it happened.
  reubstar6 Chief Train Controller

Well, hopefully they formally release it so I can waste valuable study time scouring through the documents for tiny details like I did (and sometimes still do) with the Network Development Plan.
  justarider Chief Commissioner

Location: Free at last, free at last
Looks like my question has finally be answered today.

Should we get an updated PTV rail network development?

Well today is the day it happened.
True Believers
Unfortunately this leaked plan contradicts some serious points just made by Dan Andrews recently.

eg: Rowville train (not tram), Quad the Dandy to Caulfield line, Caulfield train misses Flinders St/SCS, MM2 silence.
Blows SRL finances out of the water.

Each make for messy questions to the government in lead up to the election.

The document is not the "PTV rail network development" .
PTV may no longer be the authors for the update,
but TfV may have shot themselves in the foot and lose that role, if not there reason to exist.

cheers
John
  Radioman Chief Train Controller

Hello All,

re John Hearsch and the RFI , those published plans are fully costed, as some of the people working on it actually do that for their day job.

The Tram Plan to an extent releases buses for alternate feeder and through services, though the problem with buses is that user numbers are falling on almost every service, the notable exceptions being the long arterial through routes.

The sections of extensions to current tram routes is quite small , but allows for a substantial increase in route options and capacity, for a small capital cost.

The all new tram / light rail routes by contrast , generally are seen to be better value for money compared to heavy rail, but having said that , there is an argument that over time the outer circle underground rail loop will both complement and enhance the above ground rail.

As other contributors have frequently pointed out  , a missed one hour frequency bus means the intending passenger thereafter drives in future .

Passengers that have a choice generally will not use a bus service that does a Cook's Tour and takes up to three times the travel time as driving.

The only solution is more bus routes with a frequent service, but there is some doubt as to whether people will still patronise such an improved service after decades of poor service . arguing that Sydney and Brisbane have better services, and therefore people will use it. This ignores the fact that in both of those cities, the better service is a direct result of tram replacement of the 1950s , therefore there was a knowledge of service that applied.

This is not the case in Melbourne .

Regards, Radioman.
  True Believers Chief Commissioner

Looks like my question has finally be answered today.

Should we get an updated PTV rail network development?

Well today is the day it happened.
Unfortunately this leaked plan contradicts some serious points just made by Dan Andrews recently.

eg: Rowville train (not tram), Quad the Dandy to Caulfield line, Caulfield train misses Flinders St/SCS, MM2 silence.
Blows SRL finances out of the water.

Each make for messy questions to the government in lead up to the election.

The document is not the "PTV rail network development" .
PTV may no longer be the authors for the update,
but TfV may have shot themselves in the foot and lose that role, if not there reason to exist.

cheers
John
justarider
It may not be called the PTV plan, or even completed by the PTV authority. But I still believe it is a continuation of that original PTV rail network plan document.

Yeah there are contradictions, that's cause Dan's team are not working with the Transport for Vic team. Dan team probably gave TfV a role to complete the revised plan, and Dan's team probably worked on thinking of their own plan.

I do believe though both plans can be implemented alongside each other, just makes it extra difficult to tweak both plans together to make one coherent plan.

Anyways the Suburban rail loop is a risky project, transport departments don't go with risky projects. But sometimes the high risky projects can have high rewards at the end of the tunnel. Get it "end of the tunnel". ok silly puns.
  penguin2233 Locomotive Driver

Location: Craigieburn, Melbourne VIC
It may not be called the PTV plan, or even completed by the PTV authority. But I still believe it is a continuation of that original PTV rail network plan document.

Yeah there are contradictions, that's cause Dan's team are not working with the Transport for Vic team. Dan team probably gave TfV a role to complete the revised plan, and Dan's team probably worked on thinking of their own plan.

I do believe though both plans can be implemented alongside each other, just makes it extra difficult to tweak both plans together to make one coherent plan.

Anyways the Suburban rail loop is a risky project, transport departments don't go with risky projects. But sometimes the high risky projects can have high rewards at the end of the tunnel. Get it "end of the tunnel". ok silly puns.
True Believers
The problem is that multiple authorities aren't working together, or there isn't enough communication between them, and so multiple plans are put out. My guess is that Dan's team told TfV to create a plan, but TfV were too slow and Dan's team made their own. The biggest problem is *if* construction starts, who's plan should we go off?
  justarider Chief Commissioner

Location: Free at last, free at last
It may not be called the PTV plan, or even completed by the PTV authority. But I still believe it is a continuation of that original PTV rail network plan document.

Yeah there are contradictions, that's cause Dan's team are not working with the Transport for Vic team. Dan team probably gave TfV a role to complete the revised plan, and Dan's team probably worked on thinking of their own plan.

I do believe though both plans can be implemented alongside each other, just makes it extra difficult to tweak both plans together to make one coherent plan.

Anyways the Suburban rail loop is a risky project, transport departments don't go with risky projects. But sometimes the high risky projects can have high rewards at the end of the tunnel. Get it "end of the tunnel". ok silly puns.
The problem is that multiple authorities aren't working together, or there isn't enough communication between them, and so multiple plans are put out. My guess is that Dan's team told TfV to create a plan, but TfV were too slow and Dan's team made their own. The biggest problem is *if* construction starts, who's plan should we go off?
penguin2233
No doubt the government instructed 2 different authorities  (not department sections anymore) to plan into the future.

TfV came up with an update to the PTV plan - just leaked.
Big Build (or whoever the thought bubble team is this week) came up with SRL.
Lack of communication between the 2 was deliberate, you don't get imaginative designs by just copying old stuff.

The problem with the TfV update is just more same old same old. It continues with the thought of make it bigger, faster and everything will be wonderful.
Where have we heard that before ?  Oh yeah - every Freeway extension that has ever been built in Melbourne.
It hasn't worked for cars in 50 years of trying. Why are rail planners so arrogant to assume their rail equivalent will work.

Melbourne has one big problem for both cars and trains.
All roads/trains lead to the CBD, but that is where only 20% of the people want to go.

Hence we have NE Link (cars) and SRL (trains) to try and allow people to journey where they need to go.
In theory, the more people move around and away from the CBD, than less congestion in/out.

Just theory, and of course the existing crush need a lot of work to ease. So the TfV plan has some merit but it throws a lot of money at the small end of the problems.

The 80/20 rule has been around for over a 100 years, and still planners don't get it.
Spend 20% of your resources targeted at the important issues, yields an 80% benefit.
What we have had for decades is spending 80% of resources that only targets a 20% benefit.

SRL is targeting a massive number of people's transport need (sure $50B is a lot of money)
but the TfV plan will be a marginal improvement overall (still "all change CBD" to go anywhere), and cost a hell of a lot more.

Which plan to choose ? The election will decide.

For mine, go with SRL. The bits of TfV that complement that in a general sense also go ahead. The bits that contradict, get the flick forEVER !  
The real planning part is scheduling all the juggled bits so that the long suffering public can actually feel some benefits as things progress.

cheers
John
  penguin2233 Locomotive Driver

Location: Craigieburn, Melbourne VIC
For people who want to see more of this "leaked" plan, see https://www.danielbowen.com/2018/10/17/rail-plan-leaked/
  reubstar6 Chief Train Controller

Proposed long term network map, excluding SRL, thanks to Daniel Bowen. I wonder why they don't just reroute the Bendigo line via the airport. If they're going to build a direct passenger tunnel, they might as well just send the Bendigo line via the airport and Sunshine. Also the absence of a Doncaster line is questionable, especially when Metro 2 unlocks capacity on the Hurstbridge line.
It will be interesting to see how fast rail to Geelong fits into the plan. I think there will be high speed trains running on express tracks beside the Werribee line, in addition to an extended Werribee line stopping all stations service to Geelong. Also, the idea of running the Rowville line via the new tunnel rather than the existing route is also interesting. I'd have the Cranbourne and Pakenham lines using the new tunnel, with V/lines and Rowville services using the existing route.

Then there's the Stony Point line, which has somehow survived electrification well into the 2050s...

Sponsored advertisement

Subscribers: james.au, penguin2233, reubstar6

Display from:   

Quick Reply

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