2018 State Election / Transport

 
  potatoinmymouth Chief Commissioner

Guy has ruled out Skyrail on radio this morning.

I can only see that coming back to bite him on the bum one way or another.

Sponsored advertisement

  reubstar6 Chief Train Controller

$19 billion is probably barely enough to build a proper bypass on the Gippsland line that isn't Skyrail, let alone upgrade the rest of the regional network!
  skitz Chief Commissioner

I can only see Skyrail 2 (parallel to current Skyrail) being the solution for fixing Gippsland services.  Who jumped up and down about the original Skyrail?
Carnot
Be an interesting play on words here.  Is expanding the existing skyrail sections to four tracks expanding them?   Or is introducing addition length of skyrail expanding them?

The original argument was to sink the line or leave it at grade and go over.

It does not matter now, its all there.   The issues need solutions.
  Carnot Minister for Railways

Guy has ruled out Skyrail on radio this morning.

I can only see that coming back to bite him on the bum one way or another.
potatoinmymouth
Good grief!  Perhaps he's going to build a track from Glen Waverley to Dandenong and run Gippland trains on that?  i.e. Run it down the middle of Eastlink?  The mind boggles!
  bevans Site Admin

Location: Melbourne, Australia
Guy has ruled out Skyrail on radio this morning.

I can only see that coming back to bite him on the bum one way or another.
potatoinmymouth

He is not going to skyrail anything located in a blue ribbon liberal seat. Smile
  Carnot Minister for Railways

Digging deeper into the press releases:

"This project builds on the previously announced business case for dedicated regional rail lines from Pakenham to Caulfield by funding the design and construction of those lines."

It just gets weird now.  What's he thinking?
  potatoinmymouth Chief Commissioner

Digging deeper into the press releases: "This project builds on the previously announced business case for dedicated regional rail lines from Pakenham to Caulfield by funding the design and construction of those lines." It just gets weird now. What's he thinking?
Carnot

There is no thinking, there is no plan.

This isn’t a bad idea, but it’s a high-level policy ambition dressed up as a concrete plan.

Unfortunately both parties are guilty of forgetting this distinction, as it’s much easier to hit the headlines and get the retweets with “$19 billion plan to fix country rail” than “program of bipartisan staged investment over the next 20 years to improve reliability, punctuality and travel time on all major rail corridors”; much easier to say “$50b plan to build suburban loop” than “30-year plan to incorporate airport link into new network of orbital lines, restructuring urban transport to reduce pressure on radial transport”.

As others have said, $19b will just about pay for some sort of Pakenham-South Yarra link, but the facts don’t matter, just trying to grab as many votes as possible from country areas. The MO is exactly the same as it was at the 2010 election: some vague lines on maps, a few headline grabbing projects, and a promise to manage the budget better than Labor.

The last part is key as it provides a get-out-of-jail-free card to not actually start anything.

Yes, the lead time on transport is long compared to the election cycle. But it’s worth remembering that in 4 years, the Liberals couldn’t even get their pet East West Link off the ground, let alone everything else they promised. In the same timeframe, Labor have managed to actually start digging not one but two tunnel projects, proving it is at least possible to design and start building from scratch in four years.

I don’t believe there is inherently anything about the Liberal Party or the Labor Party that causes this, unlike some of the rusted-on acolytes you see commenting on political Facebook posts. It’s entirely possible in other states the situation is the opposite, and in Victoria Kennett stands out as a great example of a recent Liberal premier doing what he said on the tin.

Ultimately, what creates a good government is the people in it, and given the Liberal Party of Victoria is essentially composed of the same people it was in 2014, I think it is entirely reasonable to say that their behaviour will not be very different.
  jakar Assistant Commissioner

Location: Melbourne
justarider I started to comment in this thread due to your assertions that 'Traralgon's behind sparks is the least of the lines problems' and that travel times have 'nothing to do with Metro', but now you go on to say this

Metro trains do have to do a lot of stop/start which isn't a good mix for expresses. So spend the money on a new express track.
justarider
in reference to the section between Dandenong and Pakenham where the track speed is higher (115 as opposed to a paltry 80) and the stations a lot more spaced out and where sparks generally cause the least impact to V/Lines services! Does the same principal not apply west of Dandenong where the services are impacted the most? Its not a coincidence that the last down train to Traralgon is the quickest....

BUT of course, then it would be all those pesky cars at 12 LX making the train slow down.  
justarider
I've put this bit in bold and capitals not to be snarky but so people read it as it seems to be getting repeated more and more recently, but TRAINS DO NOT SLOW DOWN FOR LEVEL CROSSINGS. If that was the case there would be very little 160km/h running anywhere in the state.

But then dismiss each as "a few seconds" "don't really affect" - well the accumulation of all those things does add up to a resulting rubbish average speed. Taking the most innocent sounding "restrictive curve... 140kph". It is not just the 20kph difference around the curve, it is the slow down time approaching and the acceleration afterward. 20kph difference for about 4km is 12 minutes lost, an exaggeration I admit, but do you see the point.
justarider
I'll explain why I dismiss it and why your paper based theory of upgrades and times etc does not translate into the real world.

The first of the two 140 curves on the south line is not far out on the down side of Pakenham (underneath the freeway bridge), there's several different ways you can depart Pakenham but each way you can go flat out and not achieve 140 by the curve, which makes it irrelevant.

Coming in on the UP you're normally coming in on a top yellow or less which means you've had to slow to 100 for the timing board or if it hasn't stepped up you have to slow to 40 (or stop) before the curve, which again makes it irrelevant. Even if you get a rare top green at the home stick before the curve the track speed drops to 115 not long afterwards so you haven't lost much/any time by somehow eliminating that curve.

Again for the second 140 curve between Garfield and Bunyip, you can go flatout from Garfield and not make 140 by the curve, making it irrelevant. If you come express on the UP through Bunyip you will need to slow down for it but as the braking point for Garfield is just out of the corner you have not lost much/any time.

Its a similar situation between Longwarry and Drouin. Leaving Longwarry on the down it's flatout on the south line which requires a slight notch back before the 1st 100km/h curve where it's straight back into 6th notch just to maintain 100km/h up the 1 in 50 gradient. It slightly flattens out twice up the hill but for the most part it's 5th/6th notch until the top where there's a short straight into a 100 curve then a 90. The 100 curve is slightly restrictive but as the start of the 90 curve is the braking point for Drouin you would only be saving literally a second or two if you increased the speed on those curves as you would be doing 90 at the same location anyway.

Its similar situation between Drouin and Warragul but I've gone on long enough and no doubt bored everyone to death.

My point being to @justarider is that yes, minimal improvements can be made in the Pakenham to Warragul section, but unless you can eliminate the terrain or abolish most of the stations your theoretical time savings in comparison to what could be achieved by dedicated lines at a decent speed through the metropolitan area are simply never going to be accomplished.

*edited for a slight wording change and a spelling mistake, no doubt there's still many more!
  Adogs Chief Train Controller

In all the effort put into sprinkling glitter on Guy's thought bubbles by the Herald Sun etc, there has been no mention that the latest opinion poll was 53-47 in favour of the ALP, and is trending further in that direction.  The only time most people heard about state polling in the entire of the last 4 years was the brief moment when the Libs were in front, mid-2017, when the media suddenly made a lot of noise about it.  Other than that, literally every other poll has shown Andrews getting back by a comfortable margin.

For Guy to win, he would have to flip nearly 10 Labor seats.  The regional seats he's throwing cash at are all already safe Lib/Nat territory - it's meat for the base and they aren't going to win him an election.  The marginal Labor seats they'd need to be looking at winning are in the suburbs - seats like Carrum, Mordialloc and Frankston, then ones like Yan Yean etc.  In spite of the NoSkyRail noise etc, local polling in Carrum for example hasn't changed much from the last election.  Plus he'd have to claw back Prahran from the Greens.  It's not likely.  

Labor will possibly lose Brunswick and Richmond to the Greens, but that isn't going to help Guy's cause either.
  damooops Junior Train Controller

Location: The Revenue Raising State
jakar
"in reference to the section between Dandenong and Pakenham where the track speed is higher (115 as opposed to a paltry 80) and the stations a lot more spaced out and where sparks generally cause the least impact to V/Lines services! Does the same principal not apply west of Dandenong where the services are impacted the most? Its not a coincidence that the last down train to Traralgon is the quickest....snip"

G'day Jakar.
I think the problem between Pakenham and Dandenong is firstly the signal spacing is currently much further apart, and the fact most V/line services end up following a suburban train from Pakenham once they see it is running 3 or more minutes late from Bunyip, without factoring in the fat built into the timetable between Nar Nar Goon and Pakenham where given a good run, trains can make up 3 to 5 minutes.
Cheers all.
  justarider Deputy Commissioner

Location: Free at last, free at last
justarider I started to comment in this thread due to your assertions that 'Traralgon's behind sparks is the least of the lines problems' and that travel times have 'nothing to do with Metro', but now you go on to say this

Metro trains do have to do a lot of stop/start which isn't a good mix for expresses. So spend the money on a new express track.
in reference to the section between Dandenong and Pakenham ...
Does the same principal not apply west of Dandenong where the services are impacted the most? .........

......but TRAINS DO NOT SLOW DOWN FOR LEVEL CROSSINGS. .

....well the accumulation of all those things does add up to a resulting rubbish average speed. ....
I'll explain why I dismiss it and why your paper based theory of upgrades and times etc does not translate into the real world.

......

Its similar situation between Drouin and Warragul but I've gone on long enough and no doubt bored everyone to death.

My point being to @justarider is that yes, minimal improvements can be made in the Pakenham to Warragul section, but unless you can eliminate the terrain or abolish most of the stations your theoretical time savings in comparison to what could be achieved by dedicated lines at a decent speed through the metropolitan area are simply never going to be accomplished.

*edited for a slight wording change and a spelling mistake, no doubt there's still many more!
jakar
thanks for the time taken @jakar to read my comments carefully and your reply. Not boring, it is enlightening the complexity that you have detailed. I have reduced down the text on your post for brevity only, I trust that I have not distorted your meaning. Your full post can be read a bit further back.

A few observations, and maybe we can close this down for now. The whole Bairnsdale discussion is going to continue for a long time and my contribution here doesn't in the end amount to a hill of beans.

You conflation of my comment about Dandenong-Traralgon (sparks least of problem)
with my comment Dandenong-Pakenham (new track to avoid sparks) is a bit tough.
I don't dispute that sparks are part of the problem. Dandy-Pak'ham is a small part that can be specifically addressed,
Beyond Pakenham, nothing to do with Metro.

The game change yesterday (LNP promise of 200kph trains) modifies the issue somewhat. The expectation has now been raised for 200kph travel. Doesn't matter whether LNP win or lose, the expectation is now out there and will not go away.

Dandenong-Pakenham
At the present 115kph, V/line can actually achieve a 16 minute run for some occasional times during the day. Not too shabby, but it needs to be achieved every run.
To achieve something like 160kph or 200kph, even if there were no Metro in the way, means a re-build or a new track. Safer bet to just do a new exclusive track at the appropriate rating - smarter to go even higher for future proofing.

Your information about LX speeds helps to keep costs down. Whether no speed restriction for LX continues @ 200kph is a discussion for another time.

Pakenham-Warragul
You highlighted a comprehensive list of smallish problems that all add up to a large delay.
40kph, 90kph, 100kph, 140kph - 1:50 grade - stations

"eliminate the terrain" is what the design of track endeavors to do. This section was designed 141 years ago, at a time where speed expectations were a lot less, and the construction methods rudimentary. Upgrades over the years are still based on that initial design. A new survey would certainly help.
In general, the terrain is gentle compared to some of the horrors rail engineers have overcome.

I'm sure with your detailed understanding of that track that you are aware what/where massive changes can be done given the necessary funds to achieve. If more powerful engines are required (especially for 200+ kph) then that is one of the design options in the mix.
Continual speed up/down is no longer an efficient way to drive a train, Europe and Asia has shown what can be done to provide relatively straight and flat tracks. We can not afford those costs, but can learn some of the lessons.

Stations despite what the LNP expresses plan contemplates, are kind of necessary. By-pass of major town is not going to be acceptable. Hence to achieve an average 200kph (or whatever), then the improvements need to push the maximum speed even higher. The super charged next generation of V/lo probably won't cut it, but that is also a discussion for elsewhere.

City-Dandenong
The big point of contention that just won't go away. My concern is the cost.
Sure we could save 30+ minutes but the only politically acceptable method is tunnel.

Taking the wild estimates for SRL as a guide, 90km for $50B = $500M per km (including stations). That gives a ball park
Dandy-Caulfield 20Km = $10B
Caulfield-CBD    12km = $6B (or maybe $3B at ground level)
A lot fewer stations reduces the cost, but then V/lo in a tunnel is smokey.
Needs lots of ventilation or use diesel/electric - either/both will cost big.

Even a miserly guess of $10B-$12B is way beyond justification for just Regional. Would also need Metro to share.
Metro express at 200kph , would love to see that, but.... rolling stock, safety, OHS, blah blah blah.

I think I've covered all, and taken my thought train as far as it will go without reaching the heights of ridiculousness.

cheers
John
  Crossover Train Controller

Location: St. Albans Victoria
In all the effort put into sprinkling glitter on Guy's thought bubbles by the Herald Sun etc, there has been no mention that the latest opinion poll was 53-47 in favour of the ALP, and is trending further in that direction.  The only time most people heard about state polling in the entire of the last 4 years was the brief moment when the Libs were in front, mid-2017, when the media suddenly made a lot of noise about it.  Other than that, literally every other poll has shown Andrews getting back by a comfortable margin.

For Guy to win, he would have to flip nearly 10 Labor seats.  The regional seats he's throwing cash at are all already safe Lib/Nat territory - it's meat for the base and they aren't going to win him an election.  The marginal Labor seats they'd need to be looking at winning are in the suburbs - seats like Carrum, Mordialloc and Frankston, then ones like Yan Yean etc.  In spite of the NoSkyRail noise etc, local polling in Carrum for example hasn't changed much from the last election.  Plus he'd have to claw back Prahran from the Greens.  It's not likely.  

Labor will possibly lose Brunswick and Richmond to the Greens, but that isn't going to help Guy's cause either.
Adogs
I seem to remember a certain party of which Mr Guy was a member saying they would build lines to Avalon, Rowville , Doncaster last time round . I believe we are still waiting for these projects to commence .
Can anyone really believe the Libs are serious this time !
  Rossco T Chief Train Controller

Location: Camberwell, Victoria
I seem to remember a certain party of which Mr Guy was a member saying they would build lines to Avalon, Rowville , Doncaster last time round . I believe we are still waiting for these projects to commence .
Can anyone really believe the Libs are serious this time !
Crossover

The funny thing is, if you go back to the election commitments of the then Liberal opposition in 2010 they never actually made a written commitment to build Doncaster, Rowville and Airport Rail, rather their commitment was only to undertake studies.  However, they gave the impression that the studies would lead to the rail links being built.

Big mistake!

If the Libs can learn one thing from the many mistakes they made in their 2010 to 2014 term it is don't promise "studies" into things you have no intention of actually building.

Whilst the commitment was only to undertake studies, this is not what the public remembers, most people incorrectly recall that they made commitments to actually build these rail lines, playing right into the Government's hands that the libs can't be trusted with what they say.

This is one reason why Dan Andrew's Level Crossing Removal commitment worked so well, he didn't just promise to study them, his promise was to build them and that is exactly what he went on to do, removing 29 level crossings in less than 4 years which is quite an achievement...

Ross
  justarider Deputy Commissioner

Location: Free at last, free at last
On a completely different track leading to the election
https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/free-travel-expanded-for-homeless-and-disadvantaged-victorians-20181005-p50825.html

Making life a little bit easier for those that just cannot afford PT fares.
It will also make the job a lot more pleasant for Authorised Officers - no longer have to hassle people who just can't pay.

A simple solution that will improve the service at little cost. Now all that is needed is for Martin Foley to give an extra grant to those community groups to cover the reduced cost. Simple generous things at election time do get noticed.

cheers
John
  BigShunter Chief Commissioner

Location: St Clair. S.A.
Labor government plans to provide Horsham, Stawell and Halls Gap with more bus services
THE Labor government has promised to expand coach services for Horsham, Stawell and Halls Gap.

An allocation of $195,000 will extend the Wimmera Community Transport pilot for Horsham, Kaniva and Edenhope residents.

A second daily return coach service between Halls Gap and Stawell will be added to the network from next year. The new service will leave Halls Gap mid-morning and return mid-afternoon.

A new mini bus service will be added to the Horsham town bus network, which will include a ramp to provide access for people with a disability, prams or shopping trolley. The Centre for Participation will contribute $55,000 towards the service.

The pilot is part of the Labor Government’s Flexible Local Transport Solutions Program.


Pinched from The Ararat Adevtiser;

https://www.araratadvertiser.com.au/story/5688682/labor-plans-to-provide-horsham-stawell-and-halls-gap-with-more-bus-services/?cs=1516

BigShunter.
  TOQ-1 Deputy Commissioner

Location: Power Trainger
The Halls Gap coaches don't make much sense to me seeing as the trains go to Ararat. It means that people need to change twice if coming from Melbourne, and makes day trips look much harder. It's probably a historical holdover of Stawell being the 'Gateway to the Grampians', something which I would imagine they are very reluctant to let go of.

Maybe the coaches should do a loop Ararat - Halls Gap - Stawell - Ararat and back again.
  historian Deputy Commissioner

This is one reason why Dan Andrew's Level Crossing Removal commitment worked so well, he didn't just promise to study them, his promise was to build them and that is exactly what he went on to do, removing 29 level crossings in less than 4 years which is quite an achievement...
Rossco T

I quite agree, but I would point out an interesting counterpoint.

The government was able to remove so many level crossings in one term because it didn't undertake a study process, or effectively do any consultation on the general idea.

The approved way of building infrastructure is to first study the problem (congestion, in this case) and come up with possible solutions. The community should be engaged to determine which solutions are preferred, and cost/benefit analyses undertaken. When 'the best' solution has been identified, the government can then begin the job. Done properly, of course, this takes a substantial amount of time.

In this case, the government simply announced a policy (and a detailed list) in opposition, and then got on with the job when in government.

So which is it? Should the government be
* Praised for actually achieving the provision of a significant amount of infrastructure
* Criticized for not following the process and hence not being able to demonstrate achieving the 'best' outcome

This is a really serious question: it is the fundamental tension underneath all of the major infrastructure announcements in this election.
  potatoinmymouth Chief Commissioner

Not exactly transport related but certainly relevant insofar as it seems to be partly a product of the political success of the level crossings.

https://www.theage.com.au/politics/victoria/labor-promises-785-new-kinders-for-victoria-20181009-p508k4.html

Labor promise 785 kinders across the state. This bears many of the hallmarks of the level crossing program: big picture “plan” (or at least, something which can be advertised as one), measurable outcomes, relatively straightforward management of bureaucracy and contractors and so on, and very flexible in terms of the amount of pork to be delivered to a given locality.

This is obviously the success the 55 grade separated intersection policy is attempting to emulate, but it’s clear Labor have gained the confidence from four years of government to go even bigger.

To tie it back to transport a little, a pattern seems to be developing whereby the stated policies of both parties are a balance of “big-ticket” projects like the Metro Tunnel, the EWL, the SRL, airport rail, and so on; and policies combining smaller individual projects into bigger and more comprehensive announceables, like the level crossings, the Regional Rail Revival, the Fast Rail, and so forth.

Will this bear fruit? It’s hard to say, although in terms of efficiency with resources it’s probably superior to the previous approach of ad hoc Spakfilla projects between the occasional Big Bazoonga (a couple of level crossings here, a station car park there). But it still lacks any semblance of rational long-term integrated planning, and, taking the SkyRoad policy as the obvious example, could cause substantial damage to the goal of a sustainable and efficient transport network.
  hbedriver Chief Train Controller

Referring to Historian's comments above;

Labour came to power promising to remove level crossings, but more so NOT to build a freeway. It could be argued that the public had a choice between one mob promising to build a freeway, or the other mob promising level crossing removals. Despite what some federal politicians claimed at the time, it was clear which the public chose.

At best the freeway option would have made life apparently better for a portion of the wider City. It seemed that the promised level crossing removals would improve road traffic flow around much of Melbourne.

I suspect that a lot of voters felt annoyed that the previous Government made that late contract to build a freeway, and particularly including those penalty clauses, so late in their term, and when it appeared likely that they would lose Government. And then, knowing all about the penalty clauses, they still voted against it.

Mind you, it is nice that the Opposition is having a bidding war against the Government for rail spending. This is a very nice change after decades of reduction of spending (by both parties, it must be said).
  BigShunter Chief Commissioner

Location: St Clair. S.A.
This is one reason why Dan Andrew's Level Crossing Removal commitment worked so well, he didn't just promise to study them, his promise was to build them and that is exactly what he went on to do, removing 29 level crossings in less than 4 years which is quite an achievement...

I quite agree, but I would point out an interesting counterpoint.

The government was able to remove so many level crossings in one term because it didn't undertake a study process, or effectively do any consultation on the general idea.

The approved way of building infrastructure is to first study the problem (congestion, in this case) and come up with possible solutions. The community should be engaged to determine which solutions are preferred, and cost/benefit analyses undertaken. When 'the best' solution has been identified, the government can then begin the job. Done properly, of course, this takes a substantial amount of time.

In this case, the government simply announced a policy (and a detailed list) in opposition, and then got on with the job when in government.

So which is it? Should the government be
* Praised for actually achieving the provision of a significant amount of infrastructure
* Criticized for not following the process and hence not being able to demonstrate achieving the 'best' outcome

This is a really serious question: it is the fundamental tension underneath all of the major infrastructure announcements in this election.
historian
Interesting observation, historian, a government that consults 101 different groups as well as pandering to all kinds of minority people or a govt, that says, this is what we are going to do and go BANG, get on with the job and get it done.

The level crossing removal is hardly a new concept, so doing case studies as well as all of who ha mentioned above, for each crossing would seem absolutely ridiculous but they seem to love the process.

A government is elected to lead and get projects done, I'd prefer the pull rank and wham bam, thank you ma'am, approach, instead of 3 years consulting richardheads  and trying to keep them happy and still nothing gets done.

It's like the 3rd umpire approach, complicating a simple issue, call a decision and stand by it, job done.

BigShunter.
  kitchgp Chief Commissioner

Juxtapose the Level Crossing Removal project with the four years of inaction by the preceding State LNP government. Even in opposition they seem to have not done much for the last four years, hence the last minute scramble with projects such as the Regional Rail Plan. There’s not much hope when the party’s leader says “This is about 6 hours old give me a chance, Nicole” six weeks out from an election. These policies should have been announced at least six months ago.
  The Vinelander Minister for Railways

Location: Ballan, Victoria on the Ballarat RFR Line
There’s not much hope when the party’s leader says “This is about 6 hours old give me a chance, Nicole” six weeks out from an election. These policies should have been announced at least six months ago.
kitchgp

A good pick up Kitchgp...

Perhaps not announced six months ago, however some deep planning in the Opposition's election policy formulation may have given it more credibility AND not come across as a 6 hour thought bubble which is apparently, according to Mr Guy exactly what it was.

Mike.
  BigShunter Chief Commissioner

Location: St Clair. S.A.
Mind you, it is nice that the Opposition is having a bidding war against the Government for rail spending. This is a very nice change after decades of reduction of spending (by both parties, it must be said).
hbedriver
Absolutely correct hbedriver, although I'm not too sure Dan and his crew are to worried about Matty's troupe, they ( LNP ) have pulled out some vale idea's but I think most people will recognise a lot of it is unachievable.

It's a bit like being threatened by Humphrey B Bear.............  Razz

However, they have pulled out one of the old favorites, the train to Mildura and this gets back to what I wrote somewhere in this place, how long will it be until a govt is Pressured into returning the train, there ? And with Matty's crew having plenty to say on the subject, it is keeping the pot simmering.

Weather the LNP get into office or not your correct, the bidding war ( over rail projects ) is great to see, at long last.

BigShunter.
  The Vinelander Minister for Railways

Location: Ballan, Victoria on the Ballarat RFR Line
Tenders let for Warrnambool line upgrade...

https://www.premier.vic.gov.au/warrnambool-and-geelong-line-upgrades-out-to-market/


M.
  reubstar6 Chief Train Controller

Having just looked over the Warrnambool upgrade new item, I couldn't help but notice another "paving the way for V/locity trains"  in the announcement. To me this could mean one of two things. Either the government will just keep building V/locity trains to gradually replace the N Class fleet, or they will begin electrification of some of the shorter V/line routes. Could this be a potential election promise from Labor in the coming days or even perhaps in the lead up to the 2022 state election? Obviously we have already heard of commitments from Labor to electrify to Melton and Wyndham Vale (not promises yet), but I think it may be possible that we will see Geelong electrification come into the frame. With the increased service demand from Melbourne to Geelong, it would make sense. Furthermore, the Liberals have started to suggest a Geelong Metro type of system, which is good because Geelong is growing. Perhaps the following would occur:

Present to 2025:
-Melton electrification
-Wyndham Vale electrification
2025-2030
-Wyndham Vale-Waurn Ponds electrification
2030 onwards
-Metro 2
-Geelong high speed line via Metro 2
-Stopping all stations/Geelong local services.
This would be a logical progression of work on the line, with V/locity trains being reallocated onto long-distance lines.

Sponsored advertisement

Display from:   

Quick Reply

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