North East line improvements

 
  woodford Chief Commissioner

Note: Extending Passing lane 2 to the Wallan loop would liberate the 80kph points at the north end of passing lane 2, these could be used at Wallan.

woodford

Sponsored advertisement

  hbedriver Chief Train Controller

Importantly, extending McIntyre and Wallan into Passing Lanes with 80km/h diverges allows existing signals for trains entering loop to become higher speed. They are currently only 15km/h; the 80km/h arrangements would allow for trains to come in at a decent speed. Trains using these Loops now encounter substantial delays; these relatively small extensions would see major improvement to overall transit times. VLP trains use both loops frequently and it knocks them around considerably; I assume other operators would be just as happy to see them improved.
  cootanee Chief Commissioner

Location: North of the border!
As far as the SG line is concerned, back in 2008 ARTC was talking about it being potentially duplicated all the way in to Tottenham as part of their Interstate and Hunter Valley Rail Infrastructure Strategy.  I think they're on the way to doing this (sort of by stealth) with the construction of passing lanes.  A few more passing lanes and they'll have it!.  ...
james.au
ARTC also proposed 20 km passing lanes but ended up cutting them back to 7 due to lack of funds. Given that federal grants to ARTC have pretty much dried up, they'll have to find the funds for any infrastructure improvements.
  james.au Minister for Railways

Location: Sydney, NSW
Sorry, mate. Single Line Cross. (VLP refers to V/Line Pass; XPT refers to a worm from NSW). Hope that covers it all.
hbedriver
Thanks!  I had VLP, but my understanding of XPT was way off Wink !
  Trainplanner Chief Commissioner

Location: Along the Line
LaceDendrite, Woodford and others are pretty much on the money in regards to what has to be done from Seymour south to accommodate increased train numbers on the SG that would come about with gauge standardization of the Murray Valley Lines together with a much needed ramp up on the Shepparton Line service.    Whilst it may look bullish now, the tonneage forecasts ARTC were working on around 2008 proposed that by 2013-2016, a full duplication south of Seymour undertaken by linking together the passing lanes/crossing loops in some sections.   For others it was proposed and still could likely be that the Broad Gauge up main would become the ARTC second main beyond Wallan in certain sections and it was for this reason that the BG up main was not (for a period of time) relaid with concrete sleepers but used timber sleepers to facilitate gauge conversion.   For sure the numbers of trains currently on the SG is low but the forecasters still say the freight transport task will still grow quite incredibly going forward, so this is just a tiny lull in what is otherwise an ever increasing task going forward.

The idea for the broad gauge was and still is that it be electrified to Wallan with installation of stabling for Metro sets and a new set of platforms to facilitate transfer of passengers between V/Line and Metro services.   North of Wallan the broad gauge would be singled in places where no second track currently exists on the SG to be the second main.   And some sections of the BG would revert to single line working with crossing loops at stations or where double SG track already applies the broad gauge would have effectively passing lanes as well.

Gauge converting and pushing all the Shepparton services over to standard gauge means the Seymour Line would then handle all stops broad gauge services only from Wallan to Seymour as donnybrook becomes part of the MET and the track capacity to handle a 30 minute frequency in either direction plus more frequent following services in the peak flow direction is also possible.   As part of these works the Seymour Line would finally get CTC or equivalent signaling which is currently well over due and limits the frequency of trains which is a problem today.

South of basically Craigieburn/Somerton is a problem now and will be going forward for V/Line/Met and SG passenger services.   The Met side is saturated in the peak.  V/Line either can’t get increased paths on BG and all paths are reasonably slow and problematic in the peak.   On the SG the route for passenger trains is extremely long and extremely slow and with increased freight movements won’t get better, so the following is an option rather than trying to ram increased track capacity via Jacana and through Tottenham and the flyover which would still result in a relatively lengthy trip and be hugely expensive to provide in terms of land take and construction..    

This is to dual gauge from Somerton to Upfield to North Melbourne.   The Upfield Line has lots of capacity including at peak and interpeak and to add roughly 8 Shepparton trips each way plus 4 V/Line Albury and 2 XPT services each way per day on this corridor is really nothing.   During peak periods you would only need to accommodate 1 V/Line up service in the morning to arrive SX before 0820/0825 and in the PM peak you would have a Shep down service around 1600, 1700 ish.  Line speed maybe restricted to 80km/hr the route is very direct and whilst slow it would deliver a consistent timetable with a consistent journey time for additional trips as the MET service is a consistent all stops service.   So in this regard you schedule the regional service ahead of the Met in either reduction and set the run time so that it runs at consistent speed (albeit slow) to avoid signal by signal stopping in catching the service ahead noting that Met is on a 15 to 20 minute frequency.   I’m sure our more analytical rail pagers can work out what they maybe as I’m doing this on my mobile.

Whether of any potential benefit it maybe possible to increase line speed modestly in the outer sections of the Upfield Line as SG services are not impacted by the 80km/hr limit affecting BG services on dual gauge track

I’m not currently able to access Vicsig to get an idea of distance and a possible journey time.   Whilst there is a bit of a concern about the impact between Nth Melbourne and SX during peak periods, it by the same toke frees up train paths on the Broadie Line with Sheppartons off it and of course takes SG trains off the Nth Melburne Flyover.

Construction wise like to be extremely less costly than quadruplication of the SG and relaying the Upfield Line with new dual gauge sleepers gives this line an improvement in track quality as well.
  woodford Chief Commissioner

One does not really need to know distances for journey times on the Western suburb lines into SC as the times are largely dictated by the time taken to do the last 6 to 8 kilometres into Southern Cross. The Seymour services take around 12 minutes to get to the grain silos in Kensington and are regularly held for 5 minutes at the signals near Arden st. Like wise the SG Albury service will arrive at the signals at West Footsray near the Bunbury st tunnel from Broadmedows in around 12 to 15 minutes and will be held there for anything from 5 to 15 minutes. As one of the Seymour local drivers said to me this track layout into Southern Cross has not fundamentally altered in 80 years, inspite of the large increases in  traffic.

I do not know what the effect of the new paths in from Footscray is as these SHOULD have relieved the situation a lilttle. I would not be surprised though if these were not being used in the best possible way.

woodford
  woodford Chief Commissioner

Note: The albury service CAN get from Broadmedows to adjacent to North Melbourne in 22 minutes no problems, so they CAN do it.

woodford
  woodford Chief Commissioner

As far as the SG line is concerned, back in 2008 ARTC was talking about it being potentially duplicated all the way in to Tottenham as part of their Interstate and Hunter Valley Rail Infrastructure Strategy.  I think they're on the way to doing this (sort of by stealth) with the construction of passing lanes.  A few more passing lanes and they'll have it!.  ...
ARTC also proposed 20 km passing lanes but ended up cutting them back to 7 due to lack of funds. Given that federal grants to ARTC have pretty much dried up, they'll have to find the funds for any infrastructure improvements.
cootanee
One thing both the electorate and the pollies (particularly the liberal party) NEED/MUST understand is that they MUST in the end spend REALLY significant amount of funds in infrastructure or the economy WILL SERIOUSLY go backwards, ITS THAT SIMPLE.

excuse the shouting, it IS important,

woodford
  woodford Chief Commissioner

Sorry about this but REALLY offtopic (but GREAT) so far today we have had 53mm of rain, last week we had around 30mm and there is another possible 20mm tomorrow, One can already see the grass coming up in the paddocks, REALLY EXCELLENT.

woodford.
  freightgate Minister for Railways

Location: Albury, New South Wales
Plenty of rail up here today.
  Nightfire Minister for Railways

Location: Gippsland
As far as the SG line is concerned, back in 2008 ARTC was talking about it being potentially duplicated all the way in to Tottenham as part of their Interstate and Hunter Valley Rail Infrastructure Strategy.  I think they're on the way to doing this (sort of by stealth) with the construction of passing lanes.  A few more passing lanes and they'll have it!.  ...
ARTC also proposed 20 km passing lanes but ended up cutting them back to 7 due to lack of funds. Given that federal grants to ARTC have pretty much dried up, they'll have to find the funds for any infrastructure improvements.
One thing both the electorate and the pollies (particularly the liberal party) NEED/MUST understand is that they MUST in the end spend REALLY significant amount of funds in infrastructure or the economy WILL SERIOUSLY go backwards, ITS THAT SIMPLE.

excuse the shouting, it IS important,

woodford
woodford
Duplicate SG Broadmeadows to Broadford !

The up broad gauge track form the down end of Broadford to Goulburn River flood plain causeway at Dysart could be sacrificed for standard gauge conversion with a long section of double broad gauge track running from the up end of the Tallarook passing lane to the down end of Tallarook station

Move that optic fibre cable (or what ever It Is) that runs through Broadmeadows Station so the second standard gauge platform can go In.

Extending the double SG line from Tottenham along the former formation of the Sunshine crossing loop could easily be done !
Busting an additional SG easement through Sunshine and Albion may prove a challenge ?
  mm42 Chief Train Controller

Dual-guaging the Upfield line wouldn't come cheaply, and there would be further costs in dual-guaging points through North Melbourne and into Southern Cross. Would it not be cheaper to purchase variable-guage bogies from CAF, where they now have built variable-guage bogies for over 600 carriages for high-speed trains on the Spanish network ?  For the 4 trains each of 4 carriages on the Albury service, this is only 32 bogies. If the cost of dual-guaging is $32m, V/line could afford to spend up to $1m extra per bogie for variable-guage capabilities, and the cost is likely to be well below this, while the cost of dual guaging well above this.

Variable guage trains could change guage at either Roxborough Park or Seymour. A change at Roxborough Park would suit peak direction trains, because there would be fewer hold-ups on the single standard guage line as far as Seymour.  A change at Seymour would suit counterpeak services, because they could use the dual broad guage track.

Other advantages of variable-guage capabilities for a portion of the next long-distance train order include the following
- greater flexibility of passenger operations when standard-guaging sections of the freight network (eg Shepparton)
- Albury trains would be part of a larger pool of long-distance trains in which variable-guage trains may occasionally be used on broad guage lines, thereby allowing higher fleet utilisation rates
  TOQ-1 Deputy Commissioner

Location: Power Trainger
As far as the SG line is concerned, back in 2008 ARTC was talking about it being potentially duplicated all the way in to Tottenham as part of their Interstate and Hunter Valley Rail Infrastructure Strategy.  I think they're on the way to doing this (sort of by stealth) with the construction of passing lanes.  A few more passing lanes and they'll have it!.  ...
ARTC also proposed 20 km passing lanes but ended up cutting them back to 7 due to lack of funds. Given that federal grants to ARTC have pretty much dried up, they'll have to find the funds for any infrastructure improvements.
One thing both the electorate and the pollies (particularly the liberal party) NEED/MUST understand is that they MUST in the end spend REALLY significant amount of funds in infrastructure or the economy WILL SERIOUSLY go backwards, ITS THAT SIMPLE.

excuse the shouting, it IS important,

woodford
Duplicate SG Broadmeadows to Broadford !

The up broad gauge track form the down end of Broadford to Goulburn River flood plain causeway at Dysart could be sacrificed for standard gauge conversion with a long section of double broad gauge track running from the up end of the Tallarook passing lane to the down end of Tallarook station

Move that optic fibre cable (or what ever It Is) that runs through Broadmeadows Station so the second standard gauge platform can go In.

Extending the double SG line from Tottenham along the former formation of the Sunshine crossing loop could easily be done !
Busting an additional SG easement through Sunshine and Albion may prove a challenge ?
Nightfire
Sunshine Station was rebuilt with more than enough room for a second SG track. The northbound Hampshire Road bridge would need to be rebuilt and probably raised. The Anderson Road bridge was built with space for extra track decks when it was grade separated for RRL, tracks would just need to be slewed. The Ballarat Rd bridge would have to be rebuilt or extended, I don't think there's enough space between Albion and the bridge to slew the suburban tracks to the west to where there is space available. St Albans Road would also have to be rebuilt, unless you swap the BG pair for a pair of SG.
  Nightfire Minister for Railways

Location: Gippsland

St Albans Road would also have to be rebuilt.
TOQ-1
It would be good the ease this junction curve out to a greater radius to rise the speed limit from 70 km/h to at least 100 km/h

Requiring a new St Albans Road over bridge.
  Inland_Sailor Junior Train Controller

With the coming of Inland Rail Project, what are the likely improvement to the N.E. corridor that ARTC will need to make for this project to reach it's desired outcome? Are the suggestions in this thread consistent with this projects outcomes?
  LancedDendrite Chief Commissioner

Location: Gheringhap Loop Autonomous Zone
Duplicate SG Broadmeadows to Broadford!

The up broad gauge track from the down end of Broadford to Goulburn River flood plain causeway at Dysart could be sacrificed for standard gauge conversion with a long section of double broad gauge track running from the up end of the Tallarook passing lane to the down end of Tallarook station
Nightfire
Thinking about the works required in more detail...

Short-term works (i.e before Tocumwal line standardisation) or Business-As-Usual works:
  • Grade-separated BG link between Upfield and Somerton/Roxburgh Park. Choice of BG quadding Roxburgh Park - Craigieburn or slot into existing duplicated BG track. Included because planning funding is in 2016 Victorian budget
  • Link Donnybrook passing lane with Wallan Loop to create 15 km SG passing lane (6.67 km of new SG track)

SG duplication works Wallan - Seymour:
  • Either conversion of Up BG line Wallan-Heathcote Junction or new SG track along same length, extending Donnybrook-Wallan passing lane by 6km (optional, can be deferred varying on predicted SG traffic volumes and/or V/Line BG operational requirements)
  • Retention of single SG line between Heathcote and Wandong, retaining a ~1.5km passing lane for BG traffic. Long-term plan for new-build SG passing loop in this section to complete SG duplication
  • Conversion of Up BG line Wandong-Kilmore East
  • BG track around Kilmore East station modified to provide a passing loop the length of the current Kilmore East SG passing lane
  • End of Kilmore East SG passing lane either flows into new SG track to Up end of Broadford station OR converted Up BG line. In both cases, Broadford remains duplicated BG + single SG at the station. Possible modification of Up side platform at Broadford to create bi-directional DG platform for Shepparton pass
  • Up BG line converted from Down end of Broadford station to Up end of Tallarook SG passing lane
  • Down end of Tallarook SG passing lane lengthened so that it flows into converted Up BG line once it's passed Tallarook station
  • Tallarook-Seymour becomes single-line BG through conversion of Up BG line to the end of current BG duplication at around Dysart
  • Seymour BG terminates at Seymour Rail Heritage Centre with tracks running through Seymour station Platform 3 only. Platform 2 converted to SG.

BG track past Seymour could be either removed or converted to become a dedicated Tocumwal line track depending on operation requirements.
  woodford Chief Commissioner

LancedDendrite said................

"Seymour BG terminates at Seymour Rail Heritage Centre with tracks running through Seymour station Platform 3 only. Platform 2 converted to SG."

This will cause serious problems for all, particularly for new and infrequent users, as the walk from the only availible car parking area (Goulburn st) to platform 3 via the ticket office is OVER 600 metres (Note 1).

Note 1: At Seymour the existing car park is full by 0700, so you end up having to park in Goulburn st, the walk from there to platform 3 is no joke for most people, particularly if as is usual you are late for the train.

woodford
  LancedDendrite Chief Commissioner

Location: Gheringhap Loop Autonomous Zone
This will cause serious problems for all, particularly for new and infrequent users, as the walk from the only available car parking area (Goulburn st) to platform 3 via the ticket office is OVER 600 metres (Note 1).

Note 1: At Seymour the existing car park is full by 0700, so you end up having to park in Goulburn st, the walk from there to platform 3 is no joke for most people, particularly if as is usual you are late for the train.
woodford
Under the Wallan-Seymour modifications I was proposing, BG services at Seymour would only be interurbans so you just have to use Myki instead of consulting with the ticket office. Long-distance Shepparton and Albury services (and by inference, express Melbourne-bound services) would always depart from platforms 1 & 2, where the booking office is.
Is it really that much more of a problem than the arrangement today?

Sunshine Station was rebuilt with more than enough room for a second SG track. The northbound Hampshire Road bridge would need to be rebuilt and probably raised.

The Anderson Road bridge was built with space for extra track decks when it was grade separated for RRL, tracks would just need to be slewed.

The Ballarat Rd bridge would have to be rebuilt or extended, I don't think there's enough space between Albion and the bridge to slew the suburban tracks to the west to where there is space available. St Albans Road would also have to be rebuilt, unless you swap the BG pair for a pair of SG.
TOQ-1
An additional SG track on the northern/eastern side of Sunshine Station would need to use space presently occupied by the bike path, with the tracks themselves below-grade relative to the current SG track there. The northern-most Hampshire Rd bridge can't be raised any higher as it terminates at a nearby roundabout. The Hampshire Rd north-side abutment would need to be demolished and rebuilt, likely requiring extensive modifications or partial road over-bridge deck replacement in that section.

Anderson Road bridge is fine for a new deck between the SG and BG tracks.

Albion station would need a complete rebuild (I daresay it deserves one regardless) and slewing of platform-adjacent tracks towards the west. There's space for at least another track underneath Ballarat Rd that way (there's a disused line/siding underneath it as well), possibly more depending on how you rebuild the station. One option might be to rebuild the platforms 75m further south-east of their current location, make them a bit narrower and move the station facilities onto a concourse above (or below) the platform. It's a big job on the scale of recent level crossing removals but has little tangible benefit until the Albion-Jacana freight line is fully gauge-converted.

Then there's the prospect of Melbourne Airport Rail Link, which also throws a spanner in the works at both Ballarat Rd and St Albans Rd. Getting an extra two tracks for MARL under Ballarat Rd is going to be a bit of a squeeze even if you rebuild the platform further away from the bridge. St Albans Rd overbridge would need replacement and the approaches made steeper to deal with the extra width and to possibly make the eastern (SG) tracks double-stack compatible.

There's plenty of room between Tottenham Jct and Sunshine for an extra SG track. Of course, given that accessing Southern Cross is the problem, works around South Dynon to provide dedicated North Melbourne Flyover access tracks might be a good thing to consider as well.
Or just be done with it and provide duplicated dual gauge track Somerton-Upfield-North Melbourne-Southern Cross, as Woodford discussed.
  TOQ-1 Deputy Commissioner

Location: Power Trainger

Sunshine Station was rebuilt with more than enough room for a second SG track. The northbound Hampshire Road bridge would need to be rebuilt and probably raised.

The Anderson Road bridge was built with space for extra track decks when it was grade separated for RRL, tracks would just need to be slewed.

The Ballarat Rd bridge would have to be rebuilt or extended, I don't think there's enough space between Albion and the bridge to slew the suburban tracks to the west to where there is space available. St Albans Road would also have to be rebuilt, unless you swap the BG pair for a pair of SG.
An additional SG track on the northern/eastern side of Sunshine Station would need to use space presently occupied by the bike path, with the tracks themselves below-grade relative to the current SG track there. The northern-most Hampshire Rd bridge can't be raised any higher as it terminates at a nearby roundabout. The Hampshire Rd north-side abutment would need to be demolished and rebuilt, likely requiring extensive modifications or partial road over-bridge deck replacement in that section.

Anderson Road bridge is fine for a new deck between the SG and BG tracks.

Albion station would need a complete rebuild (I daresay it deserves one regardless) and slewing of platform-adjacent tracks towards the west. There's space for at least another track underneath Ballarat Rd that way (there's a disused line/siding underneath it as well), possibly more depending on how you rebuild the station. One option might be to rebuild the platforms 75m further south-east of their current location, make them a bit narrower and move the station facilities onto a concourse above (or below) the platform. It's a big job on the scale of recent level crossing removals but has little tangible benefit until the Albion-Jacana freight line is fully gauge-converted.

Then there's the prospect of Melbourne Airport Rail Link, which also throws a spanner in the works at both Ballarat Rd and St Albans Rd. Getting an extra two tracks for MARL under Ballarat Rd is going to be a bit of a squeeze even if you rebuild the platform further away from the bridge. St Albans Rd overbridge would need replacement and the approaches made steeper to deal with the extra width and to possibly make the eastern (SG) tracks double-stack compatible.

There's plenty of room between Tottenham Jct and Sunshine for an extra SG track. Of course, given that accessing Southern Cross is the problem, works around South Dynon to provide dedicated North Melbourne Flyover access tracks might be a good thing to consider as well.
Or just be done with it and provide duplicated dual gauge track Somerton-Upfield-North Melbourne-Southern Cross, as Woodford discussed.
LancedDendrite
There's about 14m between Platform 1 at Sunshine and the existing Fence line. The current SG track would just need to be slewed, and two tracks would fit in nicely.
Both Hamshire Road Bridges, north and south bound will likely need to be rebuilt or extensively modified for Melton Electrification, this should have been done as part of the RRL.

Albion might be better off moving to the North of Ballarat Road, rather than closer to Sunshine? The Airport line flyovers, whether they are from the Metro lines or the RRL lines, could be a 'fly under' instead, going under the lines and St Albans Road.
  Trainplanner Chief Commissioner

Location: Along the Line
Whilst it is quite possible to duplicate from Wallan all the way through to Tottenham on the SG, the biggest issue confronting a reasonably significant increase in passenger train numbers is from Tottenham through Dynon and into SX across the flyover.   If you shift all NE and Goulburn Valley passenger trains to SG you have 2 XPT each way per day.  4 (that is the plan) V/Line Albury each way per day and an upgraded Shepparton which would be around 8 services each way per day which is one of the operating scenarios modelled in the Goulburn Valley Gauge Standardization report.   So that's a total of 28 SG sectors per day. 14 each way.   So yes double tracking to Tottenham is not a problem but from there in are you going to build a new tunnel and bridge to get through Footscray and across the river and then try an unravel the existing complex track arrangements to get to the flyover and then compete for slots on a very busy flyover???   As of right now PN and others frequently occupy the mainline for shunts and making up freight trains etc.   This is not compatible with a much more frequent passenger service going forward both in terms of reliability, capacity and still with a much longer journey into the City.

That's why dual gauging the Upfield Line does have some merit. I don't know how many dual gauge turnouts would be needed from just north of North Melbourne on the Upfield line and then to plug into the SG at SX as well as at the Somerton end.   But lets be generous and say there are 6 pairs of turnouts (that 12 turnouts) at $2.5 million each with signalling (someone will have better numbers than me).   We then need to dual gauge the running lines and based on the Murray Basin unit costs that's of the order of $30 million.  So in total of the order of $60 million. Then lets kick in say $15 mill for changes top signalling, level crossing protection circuitry etc to cater for dual gauging, that brings it to around $75m ish.

Double tracking from an equivalent point on the existing SG at Somerton through Broadmeadows is not as cheap as one might anticipate.   The dreaded fibre optic cable and added protection of the fuel pipeline needed at Broadmeadows alone was around $12 million in 2009 dollars and the "disruption of service" penalty was around $500,000 a day for each time there was any shutdown needed during construction.  Hence the reason the SG passenger platform was located well clear of this area at Broadie.   I won't put an estimate on what it would cost to build an additional Bunbury Street Tunnel or an additional bridge crossing the river but the numbers would go off the planet and another tunnel would be hugely difficult as the existing tunnel went underneath a road reserve, not under housing and under existing trackage at Footscray as there now is today with RRL.

So if you go back to the Upfield option you firstly clear all SG passenger services off the freight system into Dynon/Melbourne.   You provide valuable train paths on the Craigieburn/Broadmeadows Lines Metro Lines on a corridor very difficult to expand operations on.  You get a more direct SG and even Seymour BG service into Melbourne.    When you place a value on train paths and you ask Metro would they like more paths on the Broadie Line in exchange for putting additional trips on a line with capacity then this is option that has to be considered more seriously.   As mentioned previously the number of peak train paths needed is 2 or 3 a day.

The other consideration in this is the growth in freight.   Whilst we can’t see that today, the situation going forward is that freight traffic on rail will grow, particularly now that we have a Port of Melbourne sale with all Port bidders saying they want to grow the rail side.   Port rail shuttles will come regardless of this initiative currently in limbo and of course we have the Murray Basin Project now fully funded.   These various levers will generate more rail freight and the needs of it have to be accommodated along the same corridor that we are talking about.  Hence separating SG passenger from freight needs to be on the table.
  woodford Chief Commissioner

Whilst it is quite possible to duplicate from Wallan all the way through to Tottenham on the SG, the biggest issue confronting a reasonably significant increase in passenger train numbers is from Tottenham through Dynon and into SX across the flyover.   If you shift all NE and Goulburn Valley passenger trains to SG you have 2 XPT each way per day.  4 (that is the plan) V/Line Albury each way per day and an upgraded Shepparton which would be around 8 services each way per day which is one of the operating scenarios modelled in the Goulburn Valley Gauge Standardization report.   So that's a total of 28 SG sectors per day. 14 each way.   So yes double tracking to Tottenham is not a problem but from there in are you going to build a new tunnel and bridge to get through Footscray and across the river and then try an unravel the existing complex track arrangements to get to the flyover and then compete for slots on a very busy flyover???   As of right now PN and others frequently occupy the mainline for shunts and making up freight trains etc.   This is not compatible with a much more frequent passenger service going forward both in terms of reliability, capacity and still with a much longer journey into the City.
Trainplanner
Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.......YES!
This is a point I have been trying to get across, that the current SG pass path into Southern Cross, does have some serious short comings which are not going to be real easy to fix, and this WILL have to be seriously improved BEFORE we can contemplate any substantial increases in traffic.

woodford
  Nightfire Minister for Railways

Location: Gippsland
Whilst it is quite possible to duplicate from Wallan all the way through to Tottenham on the SG, the biggest issue confronting a reasonably significant increase in passenger train numbers is from Tottenham through Dynon and into SX across the flyover.   If you shift all NE and Goulburn Valley passenger trains to SG you have 2 XPT each way per day.  4 (that is the plan) V/Line Albury each way per day and an upgraded Shepparton which would be around 8 services each way per day which is one of the operating scenarios modelled in the Goulburn Valley Gauge Standardization report.   So that's a total of 28 SG sectors per day. 14 each way.   So yes double tracking to Tottenham is not a problem but from there in are you going to build a new tunnel and bridge to get through Footscray and across the river and then try an unravel the existing complex track arrangements to get to the flyover and then compete for slots on a very busy flyover???   As of right now PN and others frequently occupy the mainline for shunts and making up freight trains etc.   This is not compatible with a much more frequent passenger service going forward both in terms of reliability, capacity and still with a much longer journey into the City.
Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.......YES!This is a point I have been trying to get across, that the current SG pass path into Southern Cross, does have some serious short comings which are not going to be real easy to fix, and this WILL have to be seriously improved BEFORE we can contemplate any substantial increases in traffic.

woodford
woodford
What about If the SG passenger train path was routed from Sims Street junction to the Regional Rail Link at South Kensington (via double dual gauge tracks) than dual gauge the RRL from South Kensington to that problem junction leading onto the North Melbourne flyover ?
  james.au Minister for Railways

Location: Sydney, NSW
The Melbourne Metro Network plan envisages all regional services coming in through Somerton etc in the long run.  So having DG track along that stretch would facilitate the complete movement of this traffic to this line and fit this strategy.

The way I see it, Goulburn Valley will go SG one day, which will leave duplicated BG track to Seymour.  The SG will eventually duplicate to Tottenham etc.  

Another question is when/if there will be a rail corridor to bypass Albion/Jacana that goes around the west with the western ring road proposals.  This would join somewhere down the West near the future WIFT and the existing freight terminals down that way.  This may impact on what happens with Tottenham et al (and even Albion/Jacana etc).
  Trainplanner Chief Commissioner

Location: Along the Line
To james.au.  There has been a lot of work to develop and protect an alignment for a take off of the SG near Beveridge (flyovers etc similar to Manor) t enable a rail link to the Outer Ring Corridor that then plugs into WIFT etc on the Altona side of the City.   That takes some pressure of the current SG that is then taken up again by port rail Shuttles from the proposed Wallan/Beveridge Modal Hub and the Somerton Intermodal site.   Hence the need to still get SG passenger services off the network at Somerton as per the Masterplan that you referred to.   Returning to Nightfire's point that suggestion doesn't address the saturation of train traffic through the tunnel and across the river and Sims Street is part of that complexity of freight lines you really want to get passenger trains well away from.
  Nightfire Minister for Railways

Location: Gippsland
The Melbourne Metro Network plan envisages all regional services coming in through Somerton etc in the long run.  So having DG track along that stretch would facilitate the complete movement of this traffic to this line and fit this strategy.

The way I see it, Goulburn Valley will go SG one day, which will leave duplicated BG track to Seymour.  The SG will eventually duplicate to Tottenham etc.  

Another question is when/if there will be a rail corridor to bypass Albion/Jacana that goes around the west with the western ring road proposals.  This would join somewhere down the West near the future WIFT and the existing freight terminals down that way.  This may impact on what happens with Tottenham et al (and even Albion/Jacana etc).
james.au
Traveling times along the Coburg route will likely get slower and slower If country trains are to share the same tracks with suburban trains (quad track North Melbourne to Somerton would be a different story)
Question Is why can't train paths on the goods line from Footscray to Somerton be better managed with say double bi directional tracks with refuge loops at Tottenham and McIntyre to play with ?

The outer ring transport corridor would be way to Indirect to run passenger trains from Melbourne CBD to Seymour and beyond.

Where Is this WIFT (Western Intermodal Freight Terminal ?) planed ? on the outer ring transport corridor ?
This terminal and the Donnybrook one will replace South and North Dynon Intermodal Freight Terminal (that both will feel the pressure of property developers eying off close to CBD land)

Sponsored advertisement

Display from:   

Quick Reply

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