Melbourne Metro tunnel 2

 
  True Believers Chief Commissioner

For those who are interested in the alternative of the northern section I post them here:

Sponsored advertisement

  Nightfire Minister for Railways

Location: Gippsland
I said if... somewhere in the future the rail line is feasible, it can accommodate for an interchange, however at this current stage it is not feasible or estimated to be feasible in the future. If there was a situation that particular rail line needed to get built, the Metro 2 tunnel can accommodate the interchange.

Now for removing that curve and bypassing Clifton hill, but then the Hurstbridge services miss out the quick interchange unto the new route, since Parkville would be a popular destination, since it serves the hospital, education precinct.

Note I have outlined before other routes that do bypass Clifton hill and use the old inner circle alignment then connect with Upfield at the zoo and head south to Parkville and Flagstaff (This was inspired by Myrtone's Upfield rail tunnel idea). Not sure if you prefer that route instead.
James974
Build the Metro tunnel direct from Parkville to the Merri River bridge, relocate Rushall station to the tunnel porthole.

Re-establish the Inner circle as as light rail between to Zoo and Clifton Hill (This takes care of many Interchange options)
This light rail could even extend beyond Clifton Hill and head for the median strip of the Eastern Freeway.
  True Believers Chief Commissioner

@Nightfire I like your thinking, shorten the tunnel and add a new light rail along the old inner city rail alignment, I'll post a map of your route, for others to visualise.
  Nightfire Minister for Railways

Location: Gippsland
@Nightfire I like your thinking, shorten the tunnel and add a new light rail along the old inner city rail alignment, I'll post a map of your route, for others to visualise.
James974
It just that underground railways cost something In the order of $1 Billion per Kilometre, like rail costs would be nowhere near that.
  LancedDendrite Chief Commissioner

Location: Gheringhap Loop Autonomous Zone
As above, there would be direct benefits for Hurstbridge and South Morang lines (Mernda possibly).  South Morang would use the new lines while Hurstbridge would use the current line, almost doubling capacity for each.  But it also allows indirect benefits for the Glen Waverley, Alamein, Lilydale and Belgrave lines as it free's up some City Loop slots which they could possibly use.  
tazzer96
  • The Mernda rail extension is being built as we speak, it's beyond a possibility
  • The Burnley Group (Glen Waverley, Alamein, Lilydale and Belgrave lines) run in a separate City Loop tunnel to the Clifton Hill Group (South Morang/Mernda and Hurstbridge lines). There's no conflict between them at the moment, just intra-group congestion.

Also, for the love of God could you please capitalise your proper nouns.


The best part IMO is the possibility of electrifying the Geelong line and having Werribee line services turn into full Geelong services and having them use the new tunnel. A Newport - Werribee then Geelong all stops via Paisley using an EMU would take roughly the same time as a full express VLocity via RRL.
tazzer96
And what do you propose doing with the Geelong line portion of RRL?
  True Believers Chief Commissioner

@Nightfire I like your thinking, shorten the tunnel and add a new light rail along the old inner city rail alignment, I'll post a map of your route, for others to visualise.
It just that underground railways cost something In the order of $1 Billion per Kilometre, like rail costs would be nowhere near that.
Nightfire

Heres the Google map, Is this something you were looking for, a short direct route. Also means it will instead have a station in North Melbourne, Docklands, South Wharf instead to shorten the underground sections further.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1XpAuDlTz7x4qdC3dVLXgJSKyGT4&usp=sharing
  True Believers Chief Commissioner

This is Metro tunnel 2 using the shortest possible tunnel lengths.
  True Believers Chief Commissioner

Here is the light rail for interchanges

  Nightfire Minister for Railways

Location: Gippsland
This is Metro tunnel 2 using the shortest possible tunnel lengths.
James974
But you have missed the Melbourne CBD !

The Newport end would probably be straight on towards Altona Junction without the hook towards Spotswood.
(Unless your planing on demolishing the centre of Newport expanding the station and completely re-arranging the Melbourne Road street scape)
  True Believers Chief Commissioner

@Nightfire You can change at Parkville to Access CBD North and Flinders street, or change at North Melbourne to access Southern Cross.
Going through the CBD would cost more since the tunnel length would be longer.

Also the connection at Newport is so the existing station can interchange easily. The subway would need to be replaced and I would replace it with two subways, one at the north end of the station and one at the southern end of the station. The new platforms would be positioned below the two new subways.

Newport Station ground level///Subway///Newport Station underground platforms.
  tazzer96 Chief Commissioner


The best part IMO is the possibility of electrifying the Geelong line and having Werribee line services turn into full Geelong services and having them use the new tunnel. A Newport - Werribee then Geelong all stops via Paisley using an EMU would take roughly the same time as a full express VLocity via RRL.
And what do you propose doing with the Geelong line portion of RRL?
LancedDendrite
Get rid of the geelong portion of the RRL.  It was stupid thinking to have the geelong line use the RRL long term anyway.  It's so indirect.   I can't stand all the talk here about quadding the RRL so they can seperate metro from geelong services when it couldn't be that much harder to quad (pentuple?) werribee west - newport.   The old route is capable of 145km/h for most of its length, and is a whole lot shorter
  John.Z Assistant Commissioner

Couple of thoughts.

Metro 2: Why would you send the Upfield line through it? Mernda will need the 24tph capacity, we're trying to move away from having trains sharing lines with each other.

Geelong: Needs to go via Werribee, whether express or SAS, Tarneit/Wyndham vale line will need its own dedicated service sooner rather than later, should be combined with Melton line to form its own line into the city. (Would need to build another track pair Sunshine - City, No point Sunbury, Melton and Wyndham Vale trains all sharing one track pair).
  True Believers Chief Commissioner

Couple of thoughts.

Metro 2: Why would you send the Upfield line through it? Mernda will need the 24tph capacity, we're trying to move away from having trains sharing lines with each other.

Geelong: Needs to go via Werribee, whether express or SAS, Tarneit/Wyndham vale line will need its own dedicated service sooner rather than later, should be combined with Melton line to form its own line into the city. (Would need to build another track pair Sunshine - City, No point Sunbury, Melton and Wyndham Vale trains all sharing one track pair).
John.Z
Metro 2: never a mention using Upfield line through it, interchange only.

Geelong: it is more problematic than it sounds. Everyone seems to complain the route is too long, but at the current speeds and how it doesn't have a metro line delaying it, you'd think the service was much better. The only reason they're complain is the huge influx of people using Tarneit and Wyndham Vale using a regional service. Yes that's the real problem (Capacity not speed)

Two more tracks between DeerPark and Sunshine which is needed for electrifying to Melton. Two track between Deer Park and Tarneit west, Tarneit west will be terminus of that branch, so existing line must be electrified. Then the section between Wyndham Vale and Tarniet west is left as it is. And then the Werribee line extended out to Wyndham Vale, this section is already got provision so it would be easy to plan it out. These can be done in sections and wouldn't need the Geelong line electrified. Also since it mostly done in a new rail corridor the grade separation is already completed as well as it would be less disruptive in general.
  Mr Gus Meister Junior Train Controller
  True Believers Chief Commissioner

What about this? https://drive.google.com/open?id=1jYGs9do2MY_V83CHS-y-zLeAGSc&usp=sharing
Mr Gus Meister
Port Melbourne, should be instead be South Wharf. Russell station closed and the line realigned. The rest is fine just make the line not zig-zag it doesn't need that.
  John.Z Assistant Commissioner

What about this? https://drive.google.com/open?id=1jYGs9do2MY_V83CHS-y-zLeAGSc&usp=sharing
Mr Gus Meister
Some interesting ideas:

1. Altona line should go via Footscray and be extended to Point Cook / Werribee South (Williamstown Line doesn't justify a whole path to itself)
2. Have a branch on the Bacchus Marsh line to Werribee via Tarneit/Wyndham Vale
3. Yellow line should go via Doncaster Rd between Boroondara Park and Ringwood Heights (more expensive, but higher benefits)
  True Believers Chief Commissioner

What about this? https://drive.google.com/open?id=1jYGs9do2MY_V83CHS-y-zLeAGSc&usp=sharing
Some interesting ideas:

1. Altona line should go via Footscray and be extended to Point Cook / Werribee South (Williamstown Line doesn't justify a whole path to itself)
2. Have a branch on the Bacchus Marsh line to Werribee via Tarneit/Wyndham Vale
3. Yellow line should go via Doncaster Rd between Boroondara Park and Ringwood Heights (more expensive, but higher benefits)
As a I said before a few tweaks with the Metro tunnel 2 alignment

1. Agree Altona via Footscray. But Point cooke not so sure about whether this is justified.
2. Scale down the Yellow line to Melton, and have a branch on the RRL to Tarneit west instead
3. Yellow line shouldn't even go to Doncaster, too expensive, should either terminate at South Yarra or connect with another existing line. Eventually the Yellow line branch at Tarneit would extend out to Geelong. Geelong electrification would be more beneficial than a Doncaster line. I am not opposed to a Doncaster line but Im convinced that the line won't be needed in 50 years or to be built instead at light rail standards.

4. I missed this extend the Werribee line to Wyndham Vale
  LancedDendrite Chief Commissioner

Location: Gheringhap Loop Autonomous Zone
What about this? https://drive.google.com/open?id=1jYGs9do2MY_V83CHS-y-zLeAGSc&usp=sharing
Mr Gus Meister
Ok, let's have a look...

Firstly, you've retained the notorious Rushall curve on the 'Metro 2' line or even worse, replicated it in a tunnel. The Rushall curve could be kept (or better still, singled with some curve easing) in order to connect the Hurstbridge and Mernda lines for non-revenue trains such as EMU stabling/maintenance depot movements, track maintenance trains and so on. However, it's ridiculous for for future Melbourne Metro 2 revenue services to use it - it's dangerous, Rushall station isn't exactly a high patronage station and the speeds through the section are pathetic.
It would be a much better idea to start the tunnel dive at Merri, get rid of Rushall station and have an underground interchange platform adjacent to Clifton Hill Station (under Hoddle St or Mayors Park).

For the Fishermans Bend section, you've only got the station placement about right for 'Sandridge', although even then the name is meaningless. In fact the route you've drawn seems to mostly ignore the whole Fishermans Bend urban renewal zone entirely; your Metro 2 tunnel seems to skirt to the east and south of it. I'd suggest having a look at this technical study done in 2013 concerning putting a Metro line through Fishermans Bend - it's possibly outdated compared to whatever Fishermans Bend Integrated Transport Plan draft exists in the bowels of DELWP, but it gives you a good idea of the kind of routing and station placement that would be most beneficial and the ground conditions that help inform that.

I can see why you've plonked down proposed stations at South Wharf/Jeff's Shed and 'Port Melbourne' - they're a large trip generator and a light rail interchange, respectively. However, you've also duplicated the 109 tram light rail corridor in that section - what's the point?
On the topic of stations, having a station in the Fishermans Bend Employment Zone is also probably a bit of a waste. The Fishermans Bend Draft Vision proposes something resembling an east-west light rail travelling along Lorimer St to connect that area with the other precincts and the CBD and that's likely to be an adequate solution. Having a station where you've plonked it is an expensive and circuitous deviation for a route that connects to Newport Station.

Now, as for the 'Doncaster - Bacchus Marsh line - it's a tad fanciful. The Doncaster section along the Eastern Freeway is bonkers - it doesn't follow the freeway median (which is pretty much non-existent east of Bulleen anyway) but it follows the freeway's route, which means that it doesn't go anywhere near local suburban centres or even the middle of Doncaster. What's the point of a bloody line to Doncaster that skirts around Doncaster Hill where all the high-rise development is? That section also terminates in the middle of nowhere (and I've never heard of 'Ringwood Heights'). That area is best served with a busway/BRT or if there's enough money available, some kind of light rail that terminates at Doncaster Hill. Heavy rail is highly inappropriate for the terrain and likely future population density along that entire corridor.
  torrens5022 Junior Train Controller

The Altona line should be extended to Point Cook South via Altona Meadows (population 20,000) and Point Cook population 50,000 and growing to 70,000 when finished, there should be three station Altona Meadows, Point Cook and Point Cook South, Aviation Road is the urban growth boundary.  The extension would service 100,000+ people.    
You could go further and link back up to the Werribee line and new Werribee interchange after Point Cook. also maybe have a Werribee to city via RRL (Wydham Vale, Tarneit, Deer Park etc), the electrify to Waurn Ponds service would be all stops Waurn Ponds to Werribee, Laverton, Newport, Fishermans Bend, CBD then a service to Mernda,  this would reduce a RRL Waurn Ponds to City by 11km, from 91km to 80km, cutting the service from 75min from Waurn Ponds to 65min, which means a service of 50min CBD to Geelong, it would continue a semi-express Mernda service (eg CBD - Northcote - Preston - Reservoir - Thomastown - all stops 35min).  
Anyway I digress, extend Westona to Point Cook South (maybe a new Werribee interchange) run this via Newport and Footscray , run a Werribee via RRL (Deer Park) with added stations, electrify to Waurn Ponds and run a Waurn Ponds to Mernda via metro tunnel 2 limited stops service 100min end to end.
  True Believers Chief Commissioner

The Altona line should be extended to Point Cook South via Altona Meadows (population 20,000) and Point Cook population 50,000 and growing to 70,000 when finished, there should be three station Altona Meadows, Point Cook and Point Cook South, Aviation Road is the urban growth boundary.  The extension would service 100,000+ people.    
You could go further and link back up to the Werribee line and new Werribee interchange after Point Cook. also maybe have a Werribee to city via RRL (Wydham Vale, Tarneit, Deer Park etc), the electrify to Waurn Ponds service would be all stops Waurn Ponds to Werribee, Laverton, Newport, Fishermans Bend, CBD then a service to Mernda,  this would reduce a RRL Waurn Ponds to City by 11km, from 91km to 80km, cutting the service from 75min from Waurn Ponds to 65min, which means a service of 50min CBD to Geelong, it would continue a semi-express Mernda service (eg CBD - Northcote - Preston - Reservoir - Thomastown - all stops 35min).  
Anyway I digress, extend Westona to Point Cook South (maybe a new Werribee interchange) run this via Newport and Footscray , run a Werribee via RRL (Deer Park) with added stations, electrify to Waurn Ponds and run a Waurn Ponds to Mernda via metro tunnel 2 limited stops service 100min end to end.
torrens5022
Altona extension would heavily rely on tunnels and are very expensive, a more efficient idea to add rapid bus transit, doesn't cost much, upgrades the existing modes of transport and best of all can be done immediately.
  John.Z Assistant Commissioner

No it wouldn't. The area has many public reserves like HD Graham reserve and Truganina park where Grade rail or Skyrail could be built without tunnels.
  True Believers Chief Commissioner

No it wouldn't. The area has many public reserves like HD Graham reserve and Truganina park where Grade rail or Skyrail could be built without tunnels.
John.Z
That is in swampy and marshy terrian, building an elevated structure through there would be just as challenging and expensive as a tunnel. You would have to get an EES and local approval first since it runs along environmental sentivitive area, hence why nothing is built out that way.

Also that would only cover half way, the rest will be tunnels. Honestly the area would be difficult to put a proper station for Altona meadows if you chose that route and making the route much longer.

Either route, it is not practical and cost efficient compared with other larger scale of rail works.
  tazzer96 Chief Commissioner

While I agree that williamstown branch is not enough to justify a whole path to the city via footscray, I don't see why this is the sole reason why altona trains shouldn't use a new tunnel.  The tunnel would have superior signalling and allow for a heap more trains.  
Having the current tracks relatively free from newport to southern cross would also allow warranmbool services to use this route without much interference.  I personally think that anything that gets trains away from the city loop and finders street station is a good thing.
  True Believers Chief Commissioner

Hey since this Altona line extension is kinda off the scope of the thread, I made a new one out of interests what others view upon this.
  reubstar6 Chief Train Controller

I think that Clifton Hill should remain on the South Morang line if possible because otherwise Hurstbridge Line users would have to wait until Flagstaff to interchange, which is quite frankly a waste of time (I'm assuming it's Sunday when busses don't run).

Sponsored advertisement

Display from: