Well if we must nit pick about the tram connect.
86 tram stop to Clifton Hill = 350m
86 tram stop to Westgarth = 280m

So we are left with very nearby Clifton Hill pax destined for Hurstbridge, and
Up Mernda pax change for down Hurstbridge.

Both those need to be considered. Count them instead of guessing theory.
I did say some hard decisions needed for the greater benefit.
cheers
John

The entire station will be rebuilt no matter how the fly over is factored in. Having a road overpass is going to limit the construction of a traditional fly over.

As for a uni directional stopping pattern for Clifton Hill? Never going to happen. Would be a passenger usability nightmare being able to only alight a service in one direction. Substantial money is going to be invested and major earth works will be required, can't see them skimping to save. The government of the day would be roasted.

Queensland just made a similar decision in relation to Cross River. Opting to spend and extra billion dollars on a more complicated station location that would allow for interchange, over making passengers walk 9 minutes.

As for Ramsden street, if the station is to be sunk and moved in the down direction then paving a road over the top is a minor expense. I imagine there would be plenty of NIMBY's to ensure the road remains open.

Im Not sure how SRL is going to assist people wanting to access the inner areas of Fitzroy and Carlton.

Lockie

Your welcome to continue to pipe-dream half a billion. But that will not happen.
All on the premise of some inconvenience to an unknown number. Count them and then we'll know.

Short estimate of the importance of Ramsden St to LXRA. It's nowhere near the list, the traffic does not justify.

Sure the road overpass limits "traditional fly over". The clearance is an unusually high 4.8m, so a non-traditional approach is worth a look.

PS its been said before, and worth repeating. The down station is Heritage listed, and rightly so. It will not be bulldozed.

John

Interesting Re: Clifton Hill, given not much has been heard from the level crossing removal authority since January on the:

"Signalling and track upgrades will be undertaken at the Clifton Hill junction where the Hurstbridge and Mernda lines meet. These upgrades will allow for more trains to pass through the junction."

as part of the Hurstbridge Line Upgrade Stage 2.

I really am starting to wonder about the extent of what they're planning/ whether it will include any provisioning. (probably not, but hey)

(From: https://levelcrossings.vic.gov.au/media/publications/hurstbridge-line-upgrade-stage-2-community-update-january-2020#)

Interesting Re: Clifton Hill, given not much has been heard from the level crossing removal authority since January on the:

"Signalling and track upgrades will be undertaken at the Clifton Hill junction where the Hurstbridge and Mernda lines meet. These upgrades will allow for more trains to pass through the junction."

as part of the Hurstbridge Line Upgrade Stage 2.

I really am starting to wonder about the extent of what they're planning/ whether it will include any provisioning. (probably not, but hey)

(From: https://levelcrossings.vic.gov.au/media/publications/hurstbridge-line-upgrade-stage-2-community-update-january-2020#)

Thanks Goose.
Been on the back-burner for quite a while.

With a substantial amount of spare space between the station and the diverge, I took this to mean a re-align of the tracks and points to enable a higher speed cross over. With signals to match.
Nothing radical, just more efficient (oops: "efficient" Metro, that is radical)

cheers
John

Putting Ramsden St aside, surely one of the smartest approaches would be to leave the down platform in place (for heritage reasons) and rebuild the up as an island platform closer to the current down alignment. Given the thru track was removed in 2009, there’d be more than enough space with a rejig of the current car park and up station building.  

The middle platform could then be switched in either direction depending on timetabling demands and the junction reconfigured at the down end to avoid up/down conflicts.

As for Ramsden St, being mainly local access I could imagine this being either left as a grade crossing or closed off entirely. There simply isn’t enough padding on either side with the adjacent infrastructure to allow for a simple LXRA removal without sinking the entire junction as @Lockie91 has outlined.

Your welcome to continue to pipe-dream half a billion. But that will not happen. All on the premise of some inconvenience to an unknown number. Count them and then we'll know. Short estimate of the importance of Ramsden St to LXRA. It's nowhere near the list, the traffic does not justify. Sure the road overpass limits "traditional fly over". The clearance is an unusually high 4.8m, so a non-traditional approach is worth a look. PS its been said before, and worth repeating. The down station is Heritage listed, and rightly so. It will not be bulldozed. John

Expensive yes, but there are not many other options. There is zero room to construct traditional flyovers with even more expensive modifications to Heidelberg Road, for which clearance is 4.5m. Vicroads classifies anything under 5m as restricted clearance. Slightly raising the UP Hurstbridge and Sinking the DOWN Mernda is the only feasible option. Raising the UP track without affecting the Merri Creek Bridge or Heidelberg Road will limit the amount the DOWN track needs to be sunk.

Clifton Hill had 980,000 'entries' in the 2013/14 financial year or roughly 3200 weekday 'entries'. Weekend entires only drop off to 2000. Running down Hurstbridge express will effect a few people and put additional pressure on Victoria Park if passengers were to interchange there. As well increasing loadings down Mernda services which are already sardined cans.  I simply can not see the government selling this to the people that use the service. 'To save money we are going to inconvenience a thousand of you' If the system is complicated to use, people won't use it.

I don't really give two hoots about Ramsden Street, it is not on anyones hit list and could be closed. My argument is if the station is to be moved and earth works are required it will most likely be wrapped up into one package.

As for the station, I never said it would be demolished. That simply will not happen with the Heritage protection. A similar approach to what has happened at Mentone could be used here. Construct the D walls right through the current platforms and dig out the current station pit. The buildings could be refurbished and service as a down entrance to the relocated station as well as passenger amenities. A small pedestrian overpass here would maintain pedestrian connectivity to Mayors park.

Could all be done for $500 million, which is what some LXR are costing.

Lockie

One major drawback of MM2 is that it dumps people in the northwest of the CBD, at either Flagstaff or Southern Cross, which for most is about a kilometre short of where they want to go. (It wasn’t that long ago that Flagstaff was closed on weekends.) Most passengers that previously got off at Parliament, Melbourne Central, Flinders Street and Flagstaff will all get off at Flagstaff (see below). Apart from the extra travel time, this creates an unnecessary interchange and puts pressure on City Loop trains and the William and La Trobe Street trams.

To try to maintain something like what passengers already have and reduce the need for unnecessary interchanges, other considerations are:

• Some form of connectivity is required at Clifton Hill for MCG events (not sure about the tennis). If there is no physical connection, Mernda passengers will have to try to board crowded Hurstbridge trains. Alternatively, Metro could run shuttles between Clifton Hill and Flinders Street.
• The route should go via Parkville to enable interchanging with the Sunbury and Dandenong Lines (MM1). Provision for this has been made in the MM1 station design. This would provide access to Anzac (St Kilda Road trams) and Arden as well. It is likely to be a fairly busy station as CBD-bound passengers also change there for Town Hall or State Library, rather than continue to Flagstaff or Southern Cross. Trying to get on a crowded train from Sunbury might be fairly interesting.

Perhaps it should run under Bourke Street, with 3 CBD stations, Parliament, Mall and Southern Cross. However, that would have all sorts of problems with terrain and interchanging with MM1. Platforms 5 & 6 at Parliament would be about 50 m below the surface.

It all seems like a return to the pre-City Loop days when everybody jumped on a tram to Flinders Street or Spencer Street stations.

Expensive yes, but there are not many other options. There is zero room to construct traditional flyovers with even more expensive modifications to Heidelberg Road, for which clearance is 4.5m.
Slightly raising the UP Hurstbridge and Sinking the DOWN Mernda is the only feasible option. Raising the UP track without affecting the Merri Creek Bridge or Heidelberg Road will limit the amount the DOWN track needs to be sunk.

Clifton Hill had 980,000 'entries' in the 2013/14 financial year
As well increasing loadings down Mernda services which are already sardined cans.  I simply can not see the government selling this to the people that use the service. 'To save money we are going to inconvenience a thousand of you' If the system is complicated to use, people won't use it.

I don't really give two hoots about Ramsden Street,

As for the station, I never said it would be demolished.

be done for $500 million, which is what some LXR are costing.

Lockie

I trust my abbreviation of your post doesn't lose its meaning.

Some things we do agree. The existing cross-over is unsustainable, the overpass makes a flyover impossibly tight, Ramsden St LX is not worth it, the down station is worth keeping, a solution is going to be expensive.

I'm just not so sure about dropping the Mernda up line. It already has a decent slide down from Queens Pde, another couple of meters may be just too much, and the Hurstbridge up also has to drop down to meet it.

Whichever way it's diced,  seems aparant that a trench will be needed at the current station location. The cost question: is it all 3 tracks dropping, or just the vacant middle one.

Thanks for the pax number. Trouble with the Miki data is lack of granularity of who goes where.
If a 1000/day aligt for Hurstbridge, then your objection is proven. If it's less than 50 thats a cohort to evaluate acceptable alternatives.

For sardine carriages, the whole point is to generate more trains. The number getting off at Clifton Hill is minor compared to the crush on both lines crying out for relief.

cheers
John

just so my prevoius post becomes visible

I think Metro 2 would be complimented by my idea for Metro 3

Sunshine to Burnley.

Stations:
Sunshine, Braybrook, Maribyrnong, Flemmington, Kensington (and/or Ardern), Flagstaff, Parliament, Jolimont, Burnley

The Sunshine End would connect with Melton and/or WV trains

The Burnley End would connect with local Box Hill (and) Alamein trains (Quad track Burnley to Box Hill).

That way, you could interchange at Flagstaff direct to Parliament without going on the City Loop, it would free up Metro 1 paths for more Sunbury trains and it also helps to increase paths/simplify the GW/Ringwood lines.

All about segregation of paths to allow for more trains in peak (at the same time, off-peak needs a massive increase but we don't need infrastructure for that, just drivers and maintenance budgets)

Ok...

After being a big proponent for MM2 it now feels like it is a very long way off, possibly closer to the "never" basket than the "possible" but here goes.

After looking at all the possibilities, it really seems like you're left with 2 options for the Mernda/Hurstbridge end: tunnel Parkville to Clifton Hill and do the big dogleg back around to Rushall and Merri; massive spend on rebuilding Clifton Hill.

OR

Go with the option proposed by rail futures: Branch the Mernda line at Northcote and tunnel via Fitzroy North and Carlton to Parkville. Then you can run 18TPH from Mernda (3 every 10 minutes) and send every third train to Flinders St via Merri, Rushall and Clifton Hill and the other two down MM2.  Gives you a 5min peak frequency through the tunnel and a 10min "connection" frequency to allow interchange to Hurstbridge and allow passengers to not try and switch onto packed trains to reach Flinders St.

Saves you spending bucket loads on Clifton Hill because the Mernda trains are infrequent enough that you'll probably be ok. You can also then give Hurstbridge people their precious express services as the Mernda services can pick up the city station load easily.

Thoughts?

One major drawback of MM2 is that it dumps people in the northwest of the CBD, at either Flagstaff or Southern Cross, which for most is about a kilometre short of where they want to go. (It wasn’t that long ago that Flagstaff was closed on weekends.) Most passengers that previously got off at Parliament, Melbourne Central, Flinders Street and Flagstaff will all get off at Flagstaff (see below). Apart from the extra travel time, this creates an unnecessary interchange and puts pressure on City Loop trains and the William and La Trobe Street trams.

To try to maintain something like what passengers already have and reduce the need for unnecessary interchanges, other considerations are:

• Some form of connectivity is required at Clifton Hill for MCG events (not sure about the tennis). If there is no physical connection, Mernda passengers will have to try to board crowded Hurstbridge trains. Alternatively, Metro could run shuttles between Clifton Hill and Flinders Street.
• The route should go via Parkville to enable interchanging with the Sunbury and Dandenong Lines (MM1). Provision for this has been made in the MM1 station design. This would provide access to Anzac (St Kilda Road trams) and Arden as well. It is likely to be a fairly busy station as CBD-bound passengers also change there for Town Hall or State Library, rather than continue to Flagstaff or Southern Cross. Trying to get on a crowded train from Sunbury might be fairly interesting.

Perhaps it should run under Bourke Street, with 3 CBD stations, Parliament, Mall and Southern Cross. However, that would have all sorts of problems with terrain and interchanging with MM1. Platforms 5 & 6 at Parliament would be about 50 m below the surface.

It all seems like a return to the pre-City Loop days when everybody jumped on a tram to Flinders Street or Spencer Street stations.

RE being dumped at the west end of the CBD, a significant number of people who currently alight at Melbourne Central then go on to take Trams to Melbourne Uni/Parkville, and Metro II will give those people a one seat ride to there. Given its design, depending on how well the interchange is done, Flagstaff could be a very effective location for inner city interchange. Given the interchange at Parkville too, a change to Melbourne Central or Flinders St can be done from there.

I don't think anyone is suggesting a connection at Clifton Hill is completely out of the question? It is just a matter of how it is done. If the Metro portal isn't constrained by having to rebuild Rushall (either at all, or in the same place) it would be a fairly straightforward underground connection.

RE Access to MCG, it will be interesting to see how they tackle that with regards to Metro I.

The only marginal benefit of having another rail tunnel through the city is more tends to development opportunities and faster travel times across the network. Benefits of capacity would not be captivated until we actually get trains running closer towards the limited capacity at the northern and western branches of the network.

I would assume the metro tunnel 2 concept would have a portal before Clifton hill to remove the bend entirely and then underground platforms at Clifton Hill, then it would turn along Alexander parade and then you could build a nice trench structure in the median with a station at Fitzroy, then going underneath the existing MM1 Parkville station, then terminating at Flagstaff.
Clifton hill - Flagstaff would be likely phase one of the project.

An extension to Fisherman's bend would be phase 2 of the project. And finally extending from Fisherman's bend to Newport would be phase 3.

I'd divide the project into 3 segments, they would be either be delivered simultaneously or separately. Honestly would deliver each segment separately as the demand is clear for it. Once there is a bottleneck at Clifton hill, the phase 1 part would be constructed, then once Fisherman's bend is developed, phase 2 could go ahead and finally once the western end has a bottleneck then phase 3 could go ahead completing the connection.

...

RE being dumped at the west end of the CBD, a significant number of people who currently alight at Melbourne Central then go on to take Trams to Melbourne Uni/Parkville, and Metro II will give those people a one seat ride to there. Given its design, depending on how well the interchange is done, Flagstaff could be a very effective location for inner city interchange. Given the interchange at Parkville too, a change to Melbourne Central or Flinders St can be done from there.

Clifton Hill Group Passengers get better access to the Parkville medical pricent with Metro 1. Interchange at Town Hall for a connection to Parkville. Passengers generally accept interchanges as long as they don't have to walk to far and don't have to wait for a service. This is quite common on other metro services such as the tube.

I would assume the metro tunnel 2 concept would have a portal before Clifton hill to remove the bend entirely and then underground platforms at Clifton Hill, then it would turn along Alexander parade and then you could build a nice trench structure in the median with a station at Fitzroy, then going underneath the existing MM1 Parkville station, then terminating at Flagstaff.

I thought the 'original plan' was for stations in Carlton & North Fitzroy. This may have been the local council jumping on it when it was first imagined.

Any portal before Clifton Hill would remove Rushall.

I'd divide the project into 3 segments, they would be either be delivered simultaneously or separately. Honestly would deliver each segment separately as the demand is clear for it. Once there is a bottleneck at Clifton hill, the phase 1 part would be constructed, then once Fisherman's bend is developed, phase 2 could go ahead and finally once the western end has a bottleneck then phase 3 could go ahead completing the connection.

The idea is very much on the never never, something we are not likely to see for 20 years. I do think a staged construction like you have sugested would be the best wa to go about it and may even bring any construction forward if demand was there.

As I have mentioned, with Doncaster gone and Worlett a very big maybe. The two demand factors driving this proposal are dead in the water.

Lockie

You’re dumping 50+% of your passengers at Flagstaff (although it is far more likely to be Parkville), forcing them to interchange, so that the 10% for Parkville don’t have to. The southeast corner of the CBD is where most action is.

2017-18 FY Passengers
Flinders Street Station              28,160,915
Southern Cross Station            18,613,559
Melbourne Central Station       15,858,745
Parliament Station                     10,198,591
Footscray Station                         5,257,294
Flagstaff Station                           4,748,407

You’re dumping 50+% of your passengers at Flagstaff (although it is far more likely to be Parkville), forcing them to interchange, so that the 10% for Parkville don’t have to. The southeast corner of the CBD is where most action is.

2017-18 FY Passengers
Flinders Street Station              28,160,915
Southern Cross Station            18,613,559
Melbourne Central Station       15,858,745
Parliament Station                     10,198,591
Footscray Station                         5,257,294
Flagstaff Station                           4,748,407

Those figures are in part skewed by the current stopping patterns of services.

For instance all Up Clifton group services run direct to Flinders St followed by Southern Cross, City Loop and back out to Jolimont.

If 50% of those services still ran the other way then you would see greater pax numbers for Parliament, Melbourne Central in particular and Flagstaff as many people would get off at the earlier stop and walk or tram to their final destination rather than stay on the train the extra minutes to get around to FS

There's a mention of MM2 here - it looks like there's a federal bipartisan push to get the Victorian government to build it:

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/plan-to-reboot-victorias-economy-revealed/news-story/1e607859b00c8f68e37364a603bf622e

There's a mention of MM2 here - it looks like there's a federal bipartisan push to get the Victorian government to build it:

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/plan-to-reboot-victorias-economy-revealed/news-story/1e607859b00c8f68e37364a603bf622e

Do you have the article? This is behind a Murdoch paywall

Lockie

There's a mention of MM2 here - it looks like there's a federal bipartisan push to get the Victorian government to build it:

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/plan-to-reboot-victorias-economy-revealed/news-story/1e607859b00c8f68e37364a603bf622e

Do you have the article? This is behind a Murdoch paywall

Lockie

On the skyscrapers forum someone posted out the details there. https://www.skyscrapercity.com/threads/melbourne-general-public-transport-thread.1118473/page-542#post-169466692

An illustration may also help which is shown in the news. It really is just a thought bubble of ideas to how to kickstart the economy with a bunch of various projects. Unlikely to see any action of it taking place.



I would take it as a grain of salt, it's not an endorsed plan from the Victorian government.

There's a mention of MM2 here - it looks like there's a federal bipartisan push to get the Victorian government to build it:

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/plan-to-reboot-victorias-economy-revealed/news-story/1e607859b00c8f68e37364a603bf622e

Do you have the article? This is behind a Murdoch paywall

Lockie

On the skyscrapers forum someone posted out the details there. https://www.skyscrapercity.com/threads/melbourne-general-public-transport-thread.1118473/page-542#post-169466692

An illustration may also help which is shown in the news. It really is just a thought bubble of ideas to how to kickstart the economy with a bunch of various projects. Unlikely to see any action of it taking place.

I would take it as a grain of salt, it's not an endorsed plan from the Victorian government.

The Hun got this from the 'North West Deal'

A think tank run by former ministers, super funds and local councils.

Not any kind of a government policy, just a grab bag of current and former projects that those super funds would love to invest in.

Some of which may never see the light of day. Such as the OMR which was mentioned years ago. The government is yet to purchase land to build it, which alone is in the billions before any works start.

https://www.nwmcitydeal.org.au

The only marginal benefit of having another rail tunnel through the city is more tends to development opportunities and faster travel times across the network. Benefits of capacity would not be captivated until we actually get trains running closer towards the limited capacity at the northern and western branches of the network.

I would assume the metro tunnel 2 concept would have a portal before Clifton hill to remove the bend entirely and then underground platforms at Clifton Hill, then it would turn along Alexander parade and then you could build a nice trench structure in the median with a station at Fitzroy, then going underneath the existing MM1 Parkville station, then terminating at Flagstaff.
Clifton hill - Flagstaff would be likely phase one of the project.

An extension to Fisherman's bend would be phase 2 of the project. And finally extending from Fisherman's bend to Newport would be phase 3.

I'd divide the project into 3 segments, they would be either be delivered simultaneously or separately. Honestly would deliver each segment separately as the demand is clear for it. Once there is a bottleneck at Clifton hill, the phase 1 part would be constructed, then once Fisherman's bend is developed, phase 2 could go ahead and finally once the western end has a bottleneck then phase 3 could go ahead completing the connection.

I think running Metro 2 via Fitzroy and Parkville could be beneficial, as Parkville is a major medical and employment hub and allows easy interchange on Metro 1 into the city itself. Terminating at Flagstaff or another city station is probably better to avoid people having to change trains. However if services are frequent at all times of the day and good quality interchanges are built, people will be happy to interchange between lines. It's about promoting connectivity and allowing destinations to be accessed faster via train, with the hope to reduce car dependency.

I think all services do need to stop at Clifton Hill to allow easy interchanges and facilitate good connections on both the Mernda and Hurstbridge line and to the 86 tram. Journeys need to be as simple as possible.

Thinking about MM2, I don’t think everything stacks up in it’s current form, there could be changes. There would be a significant shakeup to the current plan.

For instance, the creation of an electrified Werribee/Geelong line, a two tiered service running on a same type of EMU (something like a Siemens but at 160kph, stretched and modernised, running on the international standard of electrification).

The two tiers are essentially express (Geelong) and Local (Werribee), with Geelong services only stopping at MM2 stations, Newport and Werribee then SAS to Waurn Ponds (likely, but that’s more a Geelong fast rail debate). Werribee services would be the SAS to Werribee. Williamstown and Altona Loop trains would be only on traditional 1500V.

The key difference that makes my concept unique it what happens to the lines after entering the tunnel. Werribee SAS shall run via the existing MM2 plan to connect with Mernda Line. This would provide roughly 12TPH, which isn’t significant. This isn’t the important section in my opinion. Geelong trains would be routed still to Southern Cross but into their own platforms. Geelong trains would not change ends but connect through to use electrified RRL tracks to Sunshine, the new tracks to Deer Park Junction (future proofing for Ballarat Electrified) Geelong bound trains would travel via existing electrified RRL and on to Geelong. This means a large loop has been created, Melbourne bound trains from Geelong would spilt 50/50 via Sunshine or via Werribee.

Wyndham Vale and Tarneit would not be forgotten,  they shall be served by Geelong runs but also runs originating from Werribee, but running around RRL through to Sunshine, and using the Newport - Sunshine corridor to connect to MM2. Local runs always end back up at Werribee, just using different routes after exiting MM2.

In review, this foamer concept envisions what effectively is 2 loop lines, but very much interconnected with one another. To achieve the 2 giant loops, we connect Werribee with RRL, electrify Sunshine - Newport, electrify RRL completely, build a tunnel connection from underground SSS Geelong platforms to RRL and MM2 (to Newport), and link the huge Werribee ‘loop’ to Mernda Line via MM2.

Initial service pattern for peak would be something such as (to SSS):
- Geelong 6TPH (3 via Sunshine, 3 via MM2 Link)
- Werribee local 12TPH (via MM2)
- RRL supplement (Still connects to Werribee though) 6TPH (via MM2)
- Mernda 18TPH (6 via RRL, 12 via “direct”)

That’s a foamer’s concept to tackle the beast that is the WRP and MM2. MM2 isn’t all about Metro anymore, it’s a regional speed booster.

Thinking about MM2, I don’t think everything stacks up in it’s current form, there could be changes. There would be a significant shakeup to the current plan.

For instance, the creation of an electrified Werribee/Geelong line, a two tiered service running on a same type of EMU (something like a Siemens but at 160kph, stretched and modernised, running on the international standard of electrification).

The two tiers are essentially express (Geelong) and Local (Werribee), with Geelong services only stopping at MM2 stations, Newport and Werribee then SAS to Waurn Ponds (likely, but that’s more a Geelong fast rail debate). Werribee services would be the SAS to Werribee. Williamstown and Altona Loop trains would be only on traditional 1500V.

The key difference that makes my concept unique it what happens to the lines after entering the tunnel. Werribee SAS shall run via the existing MM2 plan to connect with Mernda Line. This would provide roughly 12TPH, which isn’t significant. This isn’t the important section in my opinion. Geelong trains would be routed still to Southern Cross but into their own platforms. Geelong trains would not change ends but connect through to use electrified RRL tracks to Sunshine, the new tracks to Deer Park Junction (future proofing for Ballarat Electrified) Geelong bound trains would travel via existing electrified RRL and on to Geelong. This means a large loop has been created, Melbourne bound trains from Geelong would spilt 50/50 via Sunshine or via Werribee.

Wyndham Vale and Tarneit would not be forgotten,  they shall be served by Geelong runs but also runs originating from Werribee, but running around RRL through to Sunshine, and using the Newport - Sunshine corridor to connect to MM2. Local runs always end back up at Werribee, just using different routes after exiting MM2.

In review, this foamer concept envisions what effectively is 2 loop lines, but very much interconnected with one another. To achieve the 2 giant loops, we connect Werribee with RRL, electrify Sunshine - Newport, electrify RRL completely, build a tunnel connection from underground SSS Geelong platforms to RRL and MM2 (to Newport), and link the huge Werribee ‘loop’ to Mernda Line via MM2.

Initial service pattern for peak would be something such as (to SSS):
- Geelong 6TPH (3 via Sunshine, 3 via MM2 Link)
- Werribee local 12TPH (via MM2)
- RRL supplement (Still connects to Werribee though) 6TPH (via MM2)
- Mernda 18TPH (6 via RRL, 12 via “direct”)

That’s a foamer’s concept to tackle the beast that is the WRP and MM2. MM2 isn’t all about Metro anymore, it’s a regional speed booster.

Points for thinking, and no doubt you'll stir up a bunch of discussion...

There's so many lines on maps out West that it seems like there's nearly infinite ways to join them all up.  The big points I got from the recent MARL, SRL and Geelong 'Fast' rail announcements (I'm not going to call it HSR ) is that:

• $4BN ($2BN from the feds) to get Geelong trains going via Newport again is a huge chunk of money that points to a future solution involving Newport-City.  You would not spend the money on that corridor otherwise (it would go into the WV-Sunshine-City corridor surely instead?)
• The fact that MARL runs into MM1 says that the idea of a Sunshine-City tunnel (or a Footscray-City one) is off the table for the next few decades at least: the messaging is saying 'We have MM1 instead, that will do'
• The fact that MARL is also being considered as a section of the Suburban 'Loop' says to me that there won't be other lines being built out West that don't already follow the existing reservations.

So where does that leave us? Guessing mostly, but it's feeling more like the educated guess is MM2 in some form to solve Geelong: whether that's just to clear train paths on the existing Newport-SCS track so the VLines can shoot along or whether both Geelong and Werribee will use the tunnel it's not clear.  But the pattern of investment does seem to say "MM2 will come one day and will solve the Werribee/Geelong tangle somehow".

I guess one of the main constraints in the west after MM1 is that you can’t fit Sunbury, Airport, Melton and Wyndham Vale lines through MM1. Wyndham Vale line is most likely to be the worst off until MM2 where we could find a solution, a connection to Werribee line would just be a small bandaid on a larger problem.

I don’t expect Geelong trains to run between Newport and SCS via Footscray at all post-MM2.

I guess one of the main constraints in the west after MM1 is that you can’t fit Sunbury, Airport, Melton and Wyndham Vale lines through MM1. Wyndham Vale line is most likely to be the worst off until MM2 where we could find a solution, a connection to Werribee line would just be a small bandaid on a larger problem.

I don’t expect Geelong trains to run between Newport and SCS via Footscray at all post-MM2.

I guess one of the main constraints in the west after MM1 is that you can’t fit Sunbury, Airport, Melton and Wyndham Vale lines through MM1. Wyndham Vale line is most likely to be the worst off until MM2 where we could find a solution, a connection to Werribee line would just be a small bandaid on a larger problem.

I don’t expect Geelong trains to run between Newport and SCS via Footscray at all post-MM2.

Or you could take a more pragmatic (less expensive) approach.

Leave Geelong trains on DMU (or whatever hi-tech, non overhead sparks developes in the never never)
Run Werribee and Altona trains into MM2

Run Vline and Williamstown on the existing Footscray route.
With the much lighter loadings, the few Metro stations get all the trains needed (peak 6tph), and Geelong get plenty of space to run express at full throttle.

cheers
John