By 2030, Melbourne Metro 2 – a tunnel linking Newport to Clifton Hill via Fishermans Bend – could be built, the document said.

This should be treated as a major priority, according to a research paper by Melbourne University's John Stone and RMIT's Ian Woodcock, which was commissioned by the council.

At least someone has worked out we need a lot more than is planned but none of these plans include Doncaster and beyond but the second tunnel includes Newport to Fishermans Bend and beyond I assume.  I would hope that the second tunnel would connect via Victoria Park or Clifton Hill and head east via Doncaster. For this proposal to work we would need to see Geelong Commuters running via Newport and via Tarneit to provide options from the west.

The second airport line (Tunnel 3)  is interesting as we have talked about this on Railpage.  Myself I think we need the Marribynong Line via Highpoint and into the Goods line around Avondale Heights/Keilor East as a second path to the Airport.

Melbourne needs two new rail tunnels by 2035, council says

I cannot fathom why a second line to the airport is a good idea when no-one can conclusively demonstrate the first one stacks up economically.

Some sort of freight tunnel to help with the SG access issue into inner Melbourne would be a better use of funds but still a lot of dollars.

The proposed Northern/Caulfield loop reconfig is substantially cheaper and achieves similar operational benefits ie end to end running, AND it gets the Upfield link into feasible territory... AND you could even call it “Metro 3” to keep the council happy.

I don't think a simple ROI analysis would be enough to justify or sink an airport link. The amount of traffic it would remove from the Tullamarine Freeway would be enough of a reason to build it. Investment return studies aren't always able to factor gains from such eventualities.

The indicative map posted in that article is very similar to the designs I alluded to in my thread some weeks ago.

I don't think you need Metro 2 and Metro 3 going out east. Metro 2 will provide enough space for a Doncaster line. Metro 3, in my opinion, would be better connected with the Frankston line. Then I would convert the light rail into a proper service or built an entirely new line out to Rowville and that could run through to the Craigieburn line. That would mean: Cranbourne/Pakenham-Sunbury/Melton line, Baxter-Airport line, Rowville-Craigieburn line (stopping all stations via South Yarra). If they were sensible they would start the Metro 3 around Caulfield and go from there. Caulfield is then only a junction for the Long Island trains.

I believe that Metro 3 should be Jewell to Burnley via Parkville, Parliament, Jolimont before rising at Burnley and going onto Glen Waverley.

At the same time, extend the Upfield line from Gowrie to Wollert via Epping North (west side) and extend Glen Waverley line to Upper Ferntree Gulley via Knox. Whether the current Belgrave line or this new one continues to Belgrave and the other terminates at UPG depends on which is the most direct into the city.

At least someone has worked out we need a lot more than is planned but none of these plans include Doncaster and beyond but the second tunnel includes Newport to Fishermans Bend and beyond I assume.  I would hope that the second tunnel would connect via Victoria Park or Clifton Hill and head east via Doncaster. For this proposal to work we would need to see Geelong Commuters running via Newport and via Tarneit to provide options from the west.

The second airport line (Tunnel 3)  is interesting as we have talked about this on Railpage.  Myself I think we need the Marribynong Line via Highpoint and into the Goods line around Avondale Heights/Keilor East as a second path to the Airport.

Melbourne needs two new rail tunnels by 2035, council says

Metro 2 Tunnel should stay as it is, it makes alot of sense. Metro 3 is still questionable, there is no confirmed route or previous planning work (Metro 2 has popped up in Doncaster rail study and then the PTV plan mentioned again in Infrastructure Victoria plans, also in the Fisherman's Bend planning scheme). Metro 3 is still very underdeveloped as of yet. Let's start on Metro 2 then consider other upgrades, since Metro Tunnels are super expensive, and Metro 2 basically seperates most of the network.

Although I did stumble across this from this website outlining a future plan, which includes Metro 1, Metro 2 and using Metro 3 to connect Doncaster with the Airport. Although there is mistakes in the plan, the Geelong line isn't electrified huh? its a 2050 plan, and shows two Bendigo line sections, one via airport, one via current alignment. No mention of Quadding the Dandenong corridor. But overall seems too optimistic. It's good planning but is it really gonna happen. https://participate.melbourne.vic.gov.au/transportstrategy/public-transport-network#lg=1&slide=0

I think Metro 2, Clyde, Melton, Airport rail possibly the next rail upgrades we should be looking at. Metro 3 needs much more work before its seen feasible. Metro 3 has to beat, Electrifying the Geelong line, Quadding the Dandenong line and Extending rail out to Wallan, Baxter and Wyndham Vale. These upgrades are more likely to happen than a Metro 3.

"there is mistakes in the plan" GOLD!
BG

"there is mistakes in the plan" GOLD!
BG

You can check it out yourself. It show two Bendigo branches.

Geelong electrification and Dandenong quadding are obvious ones they missed if its a 2050 plan.

2050 electrification to Geelong?  30 years away?  Cannot be serious

It is a good thing that these conversations are taking place. We desperately need more cross city route capacity for heavy rail. Underground is the only option to achieve this.

Metro 2 from Newport to Clifton Hill is a must, and it must include Geelong trains along this route, if that means electrifying all of the way to Waurn Ponds as a part of that project, then so be it.

Metro 3, this is another story. The most important thing is what ever route is chosen for this, it must be achievable in the real world. That is we need to be able to fund it.

Metro 1 is big enough to fund. Metro 2 is likely to cost nearly twice what Metro 1 will cost, amassing those funds will be very difficult indeed.

Just for some perspective, and from memory, the cost of Metro 1 is looking at around about $11 Billion.
Metro 2 would easily come in at somewhere between $15 - $20 Billion, especially when you consider the engineering required to tunnel under the Yarra's mouth.

I wouldn't be too concerned with Metro 3 until Metro 1 is finished, and we are well on our way with Metro 2.

And lets not get another thread bogged down on talk of the railway to the Airport.

https://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/about-council/committees-meetings/meeting-archive/MeetingAgendaItemAttachments/856/15289/AGENDA%20ITEM%206.4.pdf

In the document, I found this concept map that's been updated to include the SRL.

Metro 2 tunnel may happen soon. While Metro 3 still needs some more detailed assessments. Time will tell.
Very nice map.

https://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/about-council/committees-meetings/meeting-archive/MeetingAgendaItemAttachments/856/15289/AGENDA%20ITEM%206.4.pdf

In the document, I found this concept map that's been updated to include the SRL.

Metro 2 tunnel may happen soon. While Metro 3 still needs some more detailed assessments. Time will tell.
Very nice map.

Yes, it is a pretty map. And using Metro 3 to kill a number of birds with one stone - relieving the Dandenong corridor, improving north-west PT access, providing inner-eastern orbital acess - is actually quite a clever idea, even if it is very unlikely at this point in time. (That said, both the City Loop and Metro 1 were concepts advanced in their earliest forms by the City Council, so they do have some form on shaping the transport debate to their own ends.) I'd almost rather see their Metro 3 built after SRL South-East instead of SRL North-East which, the more I look at it, the more questionable it gets.

I don't think a simple ROI analysis would be enough to justify or sink an airport link. The amount of traffic it would remove from the Tullamarine Freeway would be enough of a reason to build it. Investment return studies aren't always able to factor gains from such eventualities.

The indicative map posted in that article is very similar to the designs I alluded to in my thread some weeks ago.

The map in the Age article is old, and a newer one has been published as part of CoM's transport strategy.

https://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/about-council/committees-meetings/meeting-archive/MeetingAgendaItemAttachments/856/15289/AGENDA%20ITEM%206.4.pdf

It appears to have been updated to reflect State gov priorities (SRL, Western suburbs / Geelong/Ballarat extra trackage) and including their own visions, from page 84 in that PDF linked above.  edit: doh didn't see second page of thread before posting.

It does mean the Doncaster and Rowville rail proposals are now kinda dead right?

Doncaster on the SRL and Rowville with light-rail.

It does mean the Doncaster and Rowville rail proposals are now kinda dead right?

This state government has made moves towards killing off both once and for all, by proposing lower-tier radial options (busway and tram extension respectively) and inclusion on the SRL.

For what it’s worth I don’t think that’s necessarily a bad thing. The big problem with both as rail branches was their dependence on building even more expensive trunk and core capacity.

There might have been a busway to Doncaster a long time ago but for the “train or nothing” attitude of the PTUA and their cronies. The Rowville campaigners would probably do well to learn that lesson.

(The early 2000s PTUA held the ridiculously contradictory positions that no extra core capacity (Metro Tunnel/RRL) was necessary because projected growth could be accommodated by “smarter timetabling”, but at the same time extensions to Rowville, Doncaster and the Airport were necessary to massively increase PT usage. There were elements of truth to both positions but the outcome was contributing to 10 years of political dithering which has cost us dearly.)

Don’t really need a Cross City 2, that’s more 2040-2050 Rail vision. Maybe instead of Dandenong it run to Frankston connecting the two or to Rowville.

Good to see future vision

Don’t really need a Cross City 2, that’s more 2040-2050 Rail vision. Maybe instead of Dandenong it run to Frankston connecting the two or to Rowville.

Good to see future vision

They've put it to Dandenong because despite the capacity increases they've invested in so far, growth on the line is still going to outstrip that capacity. The leaked Network Development plan showed Cranbourne and Pakenham becoming separate lines, this seems to be an evolution of that.

Frankston will get its capacity increase through having the city loop to itself, and the City Loop reconfiguration (which seems to be hinted at here, but not brought up by anyone much).

I think the third cross city tunnel is an interesting idea, but I wonder how much of it has come from the council drawing lines on a map, vs the department's non-public updates to the Network Development Plan. Interesting that it seems to have taken over the Alamein line which is probably not the best route for a 21st Century Metro Service.

"there is mistakes in the plan" GOLD!
BG

You can check it out yourself. It show two Bendigo branches.

Geelong electrification and Dandenong quadding are obvious ones they missed if its a 2050 plan.

Why would you want to quad track Dandenong when you could run a second line in from Dandenong via a different alignment for pretty much the same cost?

No one is seriously proposing quad track from Clifton Hill to the city any more, everyone recognises that it's better to run in via a different alignment (eg. MM2)

People have broadly accepted a tunnel from Newport to Southern Cross via Fishermans Bend is better than quad from Newport to Footscray (eg. MM2)

Why do people keep going on about quad to Dandenong?
*bangs head on table*

"there is mistakes in the plan" GOLD!
BG

You can check it out yourself. It show two Bendigo branches.

Geelong electrification and Dandenong quadding are obvious ones they missed if its a 2050 plan.

Why would you want to quad track Dandenong when you could run a second line in from Dandenong via a different alignment for pretty much the same cost?

No one is seriously proposing quad track from Clifton Hill to the city any more, everyone recognises that it's better to run in via a different alignment (eg. MM2)

People have broadly accepted a tunnel from Newport to Southern Cross via Fishermans Bend is better than quad from Newport to Footscray (eg. MM2)

Why do people keep going on about quad to Dandenong?
*bangs head on table*

You want to run the extra tracks where?

Anyways we can all agree that the Dandenong corridor needs the extra capacity, the quadruplicated track could go somewhere else, but where would it go via?

Would it go via Rowville?

Would it go via the Alemain route?

As an elevated structure in the median of the Princes Highway?

Or run it from Dandenong to Ringwood and then Ringwood to Doncaster, and then Doncaster to City?

Why would you want to quad track Dandenong when you could run a second line in from Dandenong via a different alignment for pretty much the same cost?

Not a bad point at all. I will say though that Newport/Clifton Hill quad is essentially prevented by a lack of capacity and space into Flinders St. On the other hand there will still be an operational and unobstructed (and under-utilised) track pair through South Yarra 5/6, Richmond 5/6, Flinders St 6/7 even post-MM1. So even if you run some sort of different route through the south-east you surely wouldn’t bother building more awfully expensive inner-city tunnels.

This analysis:

http://www.snamuts.com/melbourne.html

shows that the Dandenong corridor catchment is essentially a long strip of suburbia proposed up by the railway line and the Monash. If you start deviating from that it strikes me as a fairly inefficient way of increasing train catchment (compared to, for example, a Rowville branch or the SRL south-east). Moreover, the station catchments are quite small so “relieving pressure” by getting people to a new line is just not going to work.

From the above I conclude that the best solution is to deal with the capacity issues directly. The approach would I suppose be similar to the massive expansion of the Sunshine corridor from 2010 to 2030.

There is ample justification for quadding: suburban services running express to Dandenong and thence to Pakenham with Cranbourne/Clyde stopping all stations via MM1 would be one model. Peaks something like 10tph Pakenham + 3 tph Traralgon; 20tph SAS to Dandenong with a sensible number extended to Clyde; and of course my dark horse, 2 tph to South Gippsland.

Even without the last gunzelly bit a decent level of service on this corridor is above what 2 tracks can provide.

2 tph to South Gippsland.

Just reopen the line all the way to Wonthaggi and use it to help build a second desalination plant.