Melbourne Airport Rail Link

 
  mejhammers1 Chief Commissioner

@tayser that's my point. They must be doing other works. E.g. rail beyond the airport. Having said that, several hundred million for two side platforms and 1 junction remodel. Again London Bridge junction remodelling a complete re build and expansion of the Station in the middle of London cost a shade under $2 Billion! Come on!

Michael
You can't really compare like for like international city to international city, it will vary wildly depending on local needs and expertise. The 2nd avenue subway extension in New York cost $4.45 billion for a 3.2km extension and 3 stations. London is in a position where there is a lot of local knowledge about railways, and a lot of different paths and options when one train line is down that means the cost of disruption to other lines is less.

It shouldn't cost $10 billion, but there a lot of other works going on concurrently that are eating up expertise as well as resources. We now have two facilities in the state creating concrete sections for tunnels, one for Melbourne Metro and one for West Gate Tunnel. Facilities like that take time and money to set up.
TOQ-1
True regarding tunnel expertise and the time taken to set up tunnelling machines. I am not sure that the Government will use the Deep tunnel method for the short tunnel approaches to the airport. To cut costs they could utilise cut and cover.

It is Complexity that drives up costs & Crossrail had to be built through existing Tube lines. At Tottenham Court Road the Crossrail tunnels passes within 50cm of the Northern Line escalators.

Michael

Sponsored advertisement

  Upven Locomotive Fireman

@tayser that's my point. They must be doing other works. E.g. rail beyond the airport. Having said that, several hundred million for two side platforms and 1 junction remodel. Again London Bridge junction remodelling a complete re build and expansion of the Station in the middle of London cost a shade under $2 Billion! Come on!

Michael
You can't really compare like for like international city to international city, it will vary wildly depending on local needs and expertise. The 2nd avenue subway extension in New York cost $4.45 billion for a 3.2km extension and 3 stations. London is in a position where there is a lot of local knowledge about railways, and a lot of different paths and options when one train line is down that means the cost of disruption to other lines is less.

It shouldn't cost $10 billion, but there a lot of other works going on concurrently that are eating up expertise as well as resources. We now have two facilities in the state creating concrete sections for tunnels, one for Melbourne Metro and one for West Gate Tunnel. Facilities like that take time and money to set up.
True regarding tunnel expertise and the time taken to set up tunnelling machines. I am not sure that the Government will use the Deep tunnel method for the short tunnel approaches to the airport. To cut costs they could utilise cut and cover.

It is Complexity that drives up costs & Crossrail had to be built through existing Tube lines. At Tottenham Court Road the Crossrail tunnels passes within 50cm of the Northern Line escalators.

Michael
mejhammers1
And compared to NYC/London, this railway will be going through low-density areas for 99.9% of the time. Set aside $1b for "property acquisition, $1.5b for the airport station and you still have $7.5b for the rest. That's a lot of $$$
  footscrazy Station Master

*bump*

announcement apparently due on this shortly
  Valvegear Dr Beeching

Location: Norda Fittazroy
announcement apparently due on this shortly
"footscrazy"

In the context of this whole saga, "shortly" probably means November 2027.
In an unprecedented move, this whole thread, full to the brim with unsupported speculation, has been mercifully asleep for 10 weeks. Now, someone had to wake it with a non-news announcement.
  reubstar6 Chief Train Controller

announcement apparently due on this shortly
footscrazy

Source?
  lkernan Deputy Commissioner

Location: Melbourne
I figured this might come up as one of their post-corona recovery projects.
  footscrazy Station Master

"Source?"

Nothing concrete, just Chinese Whispers

Some more whispers today in The Age.

"However, The Age understands that a decision on the rail line through Melbourne's north-west is now set to be made in coming weeks."

https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/airport-rail-consortium-calls-for-support-on-tunnel-option-20200515-p54tfm.html
  Rossco T Chief Train Controller

Location: Camberwell, Victoria
"Source?"

Nothing concrete, just Chinese Whispers

Some more whispers today in The Age.

"However, The Age understands that a decision on the rail line through Melbourne's north-west is now set to be made in coming weeks."

https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/airport-rail-consortium-calls-for-support-on-tunnel-option-20200515-p54tfm.html
footscrazy
Yep, just the same private consortium pushing their barrow again, trying to lobby the Government to invest in their project.  Just like they were doing before COVID 19 hit.

Ross
  Valvegear Dr Beeching

Location: Norda Fittazroy
It had to happen and away we go again - 10 weeks without a raft of speculation was just too much for this thread to bear. It was getting lonely and could be heard saying, "Please come and write things. Anything will do, it doesn't matter if it's confirmed or not - just write."
  EmrldPhoenix Station Master

Location: Melbourne, VIC
At this point I'd be really surprised if the private tunnel was included in the plan for MARL. In light of the pandemic, the government is not going to bring out a gold-plated tunnel that costs more to use than to build. That is political suicide for Andrews and the ALP considering the tight finances of the state government.

There is no justification for the tunnel beyond pure greed by the AirRail consortium. They say things about more space for regional trains, as if regional services didn't receive dedicated tracks as part of RRL. While more capacity is not bad, the cost of this tunnel does not justify its use case.

I'd like to see MARL begin construction with the idea of connecting to the Metro Tunnel, at least in the medium term. Even with the Airport hooked up to the Metro Tunnel, there is still enough capacity to account for the electrification to Melton or Wyndham Vale plus increased Sunbury services. Electrification of the second line is another topic for another day, but this solution is workable for the situation as it is now. This solution would make the most of the Metro Tunnel, utilising the entire capacity of the tunnel. We would also not need to have a big old tunnel that might not even be used beyond potential Airport services.
  Engineeringlogic Station Master

Come on Guys!! The announcement is only a couple of weeks away and time is rapidly diminishing to get this discussion upto 50 pages!
  reubstar6 Chief Train Controller

Even with the Airport hooked up to the Metro Tunnel, there is still enough capacity to account for the electrification to Melton or Wyndham Vale plus increased Sunbury services.
EmrldPhoenix

You can always electrify Wyndham Vale from the other end if you have to. It's not the quickest route but a regular service and a seat for passengers is an improvement. If they want State Library or Town Hall they can take the train to the terminus at Deer Park and change for a Melton line service, but otherwise the Werribee line will do them quite fine.
  freightgate Minister for Railways

Location: Albury, New South Wales
Something does not add up for the project https://www.railpage.com.au/news/s/airport-rail-consortium-calls-for-support-on-tunnel-option says the cost is $8b but under the Daniel Andrews approach or is almost double. Why ?
  EmrldPhoenix Station Master

Location: Melbourne, VIC
Something does not add up for the project https://www.railpage.com.au/news/s/airport-rail-consortium-calls-for-support-on-tunnel-option says the cost is $8b but under the Daniel Andrews approach or is almost double. Why ?
freightgate
MARL is being reported to cost $8-13 billion by government sources. With the state and federal governments putting up $5 billion each, the proposal is easily funded even accounting for some cost overruns.

The only reason it is set to cost more is if the private investors, AirRail, get involved. They plan on adding $7 billion to the cash pile, giving a potential budget of $17 billion for the whole project. None of this actually means anything. This is how much funding each party is able and willing to supply to the project, not the actual cost which is projected to be $8-13 billion.
  Lockie91 Chief Train Controller

At this point I'd be really surprised if the private tunnel was included in the plan for MARL. In light of the pandemic, the government is not going to bring out a gold-plated tunnel that costs more to use than to build. That is political suicide for Andrews and the ALP considering the tight finances of the state government.

There is no justification for the tunnel beyond pure greed by the AirRail consortium. They say things about more space for regional trains, as if regional services didn't receive dedicated tracks as part of RRL. While more capacity is not bad, the cost of this tunnel does not justify its use case.

I'd like to see MARL begin construction with the idea of connecting to the Metro Tunnel, at least in the medium term. Even with the Airport hooked up to the Metro Tunnel, there is still enough capacity to account for the electrification to Melton or Wyndham Vale plus increased Sunbury services. Electrification of the second line is another topic for another day, but this solution is workable for the situation as it is now. This solution would make the most of the Metro Tunnel, utilising the entire capacity of the tunnel. We would also not need to have a big old tunnel that might not even be used beyond potential Airport services.
EmrldPhoenix

Firstly 7 - 12Billion or whatever we are up to now is a touch obscene. Additional capacity into the city will be needed in the medium term. There is very much a justification for the tunnel or the state & federal governments would of never floated the idea. AirRail jumped on these comments some years ago and took a market led proposal to the state. Whether or not a Link is built in one foul swoop or staged over 2 components is yet to be seen.

The state will want to role out 'Metro/TAUG' frequency to Melton & WV same as what is planned for Sunbury - Pakenham. (When?) If we go for a 5 minute frequncy that's 12TPH per line or 24TPH in total. Watergardens currently has 6 minute frequency between 7 & 9am, this is going to be boosted to 12TPH post MM1. So we are up 36TPH plus 6 to the Airport is 42, Plus regional services, another 9TPH. So during the peak period of 7 - 9am we need to account for around 51TPH between Sunshine and the CBD. This isn't all going to happen post MM1 but definitely over the next 10 years.

So do we spend it now or spend it later?

Back to AirRail, late last year the state was very keen to go it alone and spend their own money to build a link to ensure any Sunshine - CBD link was not in private hands for the next 20+ years. It was looking like it was going to happen, then COVID19 happened and budgets both state and federal collapsed. All of a sudden AirTrain pushing a 7 billion dollar wheelbarrow to deliver an Airport link and additional capacity (Plus Job Jobs Jobs) doesn't sound too bad. Even if the state has to work with the public transport equivalent of Transurban for the next 20 years.
  skitz Chief Commissioner

Something does not add up for the project https://www.railpage.com.au/news/s/airport-rail-consortium-calls-for-support-on-tunnel-option says the cost is $8b but under the Daniel Andrews approach or is almost double. Why ?
freightgate
Do you not watch Utopia?  There us a dedicated episode on the issue.   What do theys say, often the truth is said in jest.
  NSWGR8022 Assistant Commissioner

Location: From the lands of Journalism and Free Speech
Does the tunnel plan run all the way into Sunshine and then above ground to Tullamarine Airport or is the proposal to run a tunnel from the city to Highpoint SC and then to the airport or were both proposed?

Was there ever a proposal to link both airports in Melbourne via the one rail link (Essendon and Tullamarine)?
  EmrldPhoenix Station Master

Location: Melbourne, VIC
So do we spend it now or spend it later?
Lockie91
You make some excellent points, but this is the main point I want to address.

The problem with how rail infrastructure is built in Victoria is that every part of the project must be built at the same time. This means we get mega-projects with mega-project budgets and mega-project blowouts. Instead, a steady stream of upgrades and extensions would be preferable. Budgets and costs are more manageable. Someone else called this salami upgrades, where salami is carved one slice at a time. Likewise, rail infrastructure should be improved one bit at a time.

The entire capacity of a large project is guaranteed not to be used on day 1 of operations. Rather, there is always going to be a gradual increase in the usage of infrastructure. Melton and Wyndham Vale lines will not have 12 tph on day 1 after electrification. More services will be added as required. As of right now, the Metro Tunnel will accommodate 12 tph to Sunbury, 6 tph to Airport, and another 6 tph to another destination.

A new tunnel is going to be necessary, I can't argue that point. What I can ask is, is it going to be an effective use of infrastructure spending right now? Plans need to be made for a new tunnel, and it should be taken into account for future rail services and upgrades.

But this tunnel should not be a requirement for MARL, because it is not a requirement for MARL.
  TOQ-1 Deputy Commissioner

Location: Power Trainger
Does the tunnel plan run all the way into Sunshine and then above ground to Tullamarine Airport or is the proposal to run a tunnel from the city to Highpoint SC and then to the airport or were both proposed?

Was there ever a proposal to link both airports in Melbourne via the one rail link (Essendon and Tullamarine)?
NSWGR8022
The Tunnel Plan isn't really a plan as much as it is the floating of an idea from a private consortium who want to be able to charge other train operators (V/Line and presumably whoever ends up running the airport line) for using their tracks as well. Their idea is to go via Sunshine so that V/Line does this, and so they make a lot of money in the long run.

Highpoint was one of the (4 I think) original routes considered a couple of years ago. This was Malcolm Turnbull's preferred option because the Federal Government at the time was selling defence land in the area and Turnbull saw the opportunity to raise more revenue from that by making the land more valuable with a rail link to the CBD and Airport. The State Government was never keen on this idea. The route via Sunshine ended up preferred, with the future capacity issue between Sunshine and the City kicked down the road.

In any case, it probably would not be a tunnel all the way from Sunshine to the city. With the Sunbury Line leaving its current alignment between South Kensington and North Melbourne after Metro Tunnel is completed, those tracks could be utilised (at least initially, and yes, at the expense of the Craigieburn and Upfield Lines who would still have to share platforms at North Melbourne). A new bridge over the Maribyrnong, and a tunnel under Footscray, then claiming some roads from Tottenham Yard to ascend and run at ground level to Sunshine. Add a much needed change to the Hampshire Road overpass and done.
  Lockie91 Chief Train Controller

So do we spend it now or spend it later?
You make some excellent points, but this is the main point I want to address.

The problem with how rail infrastructure is built in Victoria is that every part of the project must be built at the same time. This means we get mega-projects with mega-project budgets and mega-project blowouts. Instead, a steady stream of upgrades and extensions would be preferable. Budgets and costs are more manageable. Someone else called this salami upgrades, where salami is carved one slice at a time. Likewise, rail infrastructure should be improved one bit at a time.

The entire capacity of a large project is guaranteed not to be used on day 1 of operations. Rather, there is always going to be a gradual increase in the usage of infrastructure. Melton and Wyndham Vale lines will not have 12 tph on day 1 after electrification. More services will be added as required. As of right now, the Metro Tunnel will accommodate 12 tph to Sunbury, 6 tph to Airport, and another 6 tph to another destination.

A new tunnel is going to be necessary, I can't argue that point. What I can ask is, is it going to be an effective use of infrastructure spending right now? Plans need to be made for a new tunnel, and it should be taken into account for future rail services and upgrades.

But this tunnel should not be a requirement for MARL, because it is not a requirement for MARL.
We like to make the comparison between road and rail upgrades. That roads are added to over time and that is how funding is easily delivered. I agree, this is a fantastic model. A bit of money on some lane upgrades over a decade and you've broken up Billions into smaller size projects.
Two things this doesn't account for; the concentration of resources. If that road project had been done in one hit it would of been cheaper. Every time another stage is announced the government runs another round of tendering. Mega Projects are efficient when done correctly as has been shown in other states. The issue is we tend to give them out to private companies that are out to squeeze the government for as much as they can. That is were your blow out comes from. The state should cut out the middle man and hire the builders directly. Unfortunately when things go wrong you can't finger point. Money V Political Risk

Second issue with that comparison. When a road get congested, cars find other ways of getting to their destination. The road does not simply reach capacity and cars stop using it. That is the issue with rail. If we do a small upgrade on one section of a line can we increase capacity over the entire line? Generally no, a train can't take a side street and run down another main road. When a line reaches capacity that's it. You've never heard someone say "the freeway was full so I couldn't get to work"

As for your figures. Many like to use them. These are from the 2012 PTV NDP which was written for the Terry Mulder, the Liberal Transport Minster. The issue here is they dramatically underestimated population growth. Not just in transport, but right across the state. This is from the introduction of the NDP on page 12:

This plan takes into account Melbourne’s expected growth over the coming decades. As set out in Victoria in Future, Melbourne will grow from a population of four million people to 6.5 million over the next 40 years.

Detailed transport modelling undertaken by Public Transport Victoria (PTV) shows that public transport boardings are expected to increase strongly over the next two decades, with weekday patronage more than doubling from 1.8 million to 3.8 million.




As of September 2017 Victoria is sitting at 6.3 Million People; PTV's 2019 annual report has total network boardings at 6 Million per day.
So they were a little off in the projections.

We are already starting from behind the eight ball so to speak. Let's go back to the Sunshine to City issue and break it down.
The Local Government Area of Wyndham Vale currently has a population of 288,212, forecast to 512,000 by 2040. RRL runs through Wyndham Vale, Tarneit & Manor Lakes. With the former yet to have a station. WV & Tarneit currently have a combined population of 72,104, with a projected 2040 population of 176,000. If we add in Manor Lakes that becomes 218,000
Brimbank LGA, which includes Watergardens, Keilor Plans, Albion, Sunshine & Tottenham have a projected 2040 population of 230,000, not much different from the current population.
Melton LGA taking in Melton, Cobblebank, Thornhill Park, Rockbank & Truganina have a forecast population of 485,000 an increase of 182% on todays numbers.

I don't really think 6TPH in the morning peak is going to cut the mustard for Melton, leaving little room for any growth. Which is why the government cut the airport out of MM1 last year. Watergardens currently enjoys a 7/8 minute peak frequency and most peak trains are crush load by Sunsine, thats with half the projected population of Melton. Melton will need to start with something similar to Watergardens leaving room for growth. 12TPH is quite feasible to Melton in the next 10 years. WV is not going to be much different.

Now back to those numbers one last time, let say MM1 is built as planned in 2012 and opens in 2025. Melton has 6TPH and they are at crush load in the morning peak. MM1 is at capacity as the Airport is taking up 6TPH. Where do you get those extra 2 or 3 peak hours services from? Do you steal them from the Airport or Sunbury? Or do those 300,000 people out at Melton & Rockbank need to wait until 2040 because we didn't plan ahead? What about WV, are those 200,000 people still cramming on to a couple of V/locitys? Or have we sparked RRL and Geelong and Ballarat commuters are back to crawlling behind stoppers?

The tunnel may not be a requirement of MARL, but as has been proven time and time again. If you build it on the cheap you are leaving an even bigger mess for a future government to untangle. I'd strongly argue those 52TPH I quoted will be very much needed by 2030, when MARL is expected to be complete. If built with tunnel of course.

Lockie

  justarider Deputy Commissioner

Location: Mister Fact Checker
A new tunnel is going to be necessary, I can't argue that point. What I can ask is, is it going to be an effective use of infrastructure spending right now? Plans need to be made for a new tunnel, and it should be taken into account for future rail services and upgrades.

But this tunnel should not be a requirement for MARL, because it is not a requirement for MARL.

As for your figures. Many like to use them. These are from the 2012 PTV NDP which was written for the Terry Mulder, the Liberal Transport Minster. The issue here is they dramatically underestimated population growth. Not just in transport, but right across the state. This is from the introduction of the NDP on page 12:

This plan takes into account Melbourne’s expected growth over the coming decades. As set out in Victoria in Future, Melbourne will grow from a population of four million people to 6.5 million over the next 40 years.

Detailed transport modelling undertaken by Public Transport Victoria (PTV) shows that public transport boardings are expected to increase strongly over the next two decades, with weekday patronage more than doubling from 1.8 million to 3.8 million.
As of September 2017 Victoria is sitting at 6.3 Million People; PTV's 2019 annual report has total network boardings at 6 Million per day.
So they were a little off in the projections.

We are already starting from behind the eight ball so to speak. Let's go back to the Sunshine to City issue and break it down.
The Local Government Area of Wyndham Vale currently has a population of 288,212, forecast to 512,000 by 2040. RRL runs through Wyndham Vale, Tarneit & Manor Lakes. With the former yet to have a station. WV & Tarneit currently have a combined population of 72,104, with a projected 2040 population of 176,000. If we add in Manor Lakes that becomes 218,000
Brimbank LGA, which includes Watergardens, Keilor Plans, Albion, Sunshine & Tottenham have a projected 2040 population of 230,000, not much different from the current population.
Melton LGA taking in Melton, Cobblebank, Thornhill Park, Rockbank & Truganina have a forecast population of 485,000 an increase of 182% on todays numbers.

I don't really think 6TPH in the morning peak is going to cut the mustard for Melton, leaving little room for any growth. Which is why the government cut the airport out of MM1 last year. Watergardens currently enjoys a 7/8 minute peak frequency and most peak trains are crush load by Sunsine, thats with half the projected population of Melton. Melton will need to start with something similar to Watergardens leaving room for growth. 12TPH is quite feasible to Melton in the next 10 years. WV is not going to be much different.

Now back to those numbers one last time, let say MM1 is built as planned in 2012 and opens in 2025. Melton has 6TPH and they are at crush load in the morning peak. MM1 is at capacity as the Airport is taking up 6TPH. Where do you get those extra 2 or 3 peak hours services from? Do you steal them from the Airport or Sunbury? Or do those 300,000 people out at Melton & Rockbank need to wait until 2040 because we didn't plan ahead? What about WV, are those 200,000 people still cramming on to a couple of V/locitys? Or have we sparked RRL and Geelong and Ballarat commuters are back to crawlling behind stoppers?

The tunnel may not be a requirement of MARL, but as has been proven time and time again. If you build it on the cheap you are leaving an even bigger mess for a future government to untangle. I'd strongly argue those 52TPH I quoted will be very much needed by 2030, when MARL is expected to be complete. If built with tunnel of course.

Lockie

Lockie91
Some fascinating big numbers there @Lockie91.
You actually understated Watergardens, its more like each 6 minutes.

Pity numbers still don't support your contention for building a tunnel because of a need to double.

Some awkward numbers, with assumptions of what will/is being built.

In due course both WDV and MLT will be sparked, by provision of quad tracks.
An express pair for V/Line and an SAS pair for Metro.

V/Locity capacity = 500 per 6 car set, including standing pax.
Comeng/Seimens capacity = 1500.
HCMT capacity = 1800 (per 7 car), 2500 per 10 car

Passenger numbers
WDV
current 6tph (3 from Geelong + 3 short start).
Assuming
the 3 from Geelong are 1/2 full before WDV
the 3 short start become 6 Metro tph.
3 trains from Geelong expand as required on RRL

Current capacity = 3 * 1/2 * 500 + 3 * 500 = 2,250 pax/hr
Potential capacity = 6 * 1800 = 10,800 pax/hr (or 15,000 with 10 car sets)

MLT
current 4tph (short start MLT or Bacchus). Excludes express from Ballarat.
Assuming
the 4 short start become 6 Metro tph.
trains from Ballarat expand as required on RRL

Current capacity = 4 * 500 = 2,000 pax/hr
Potential capacity = 6 * 1800 = 10,800 pax/hr (or 15,000 with 10 car sets)


SDM  (Watergardens)
current 10tph (includes start SBY). Excludes V/Line.
Assuming
the 10 Metro become 12tph Metro.
Bendigo continue RRL at Albion.

Current capacity = 10*1500 = 15,000 pax/hr
Potential capacity = 12 *2500 = 30,000 pax/hr



So that's a 400% increase for Melton, and 100% increase for Watergardens.
Still haven't needed a tunnel, and the line is only assumed to be 24tph (SBY 12 + MLT 6 + Airport 6) - well short of capacity

WDV is another story.
Clearly WDV and MLT both won't fit. Could interchange which goes where , the numbers don't change.

Building a whopper tunnel, to support only 6tph is fantasy.
When you can find another 18tph in about 30 years, then that is when to plan for it. Certainly not in the middle of a state wide build that is sucking up all available resources.

cheers
John
  bevans Site Admin

Location: Melbourne, Australia
It seems clear a tunnel is required for the airport link unless Metro 2 is built to take geelong trains off the RRL freeing up capacity for airport line trains?

With the state of Victorian finances with the onset of the issues around COVID19 and large investments in the health system and reduced receipts, using a super fund for the tunnel as outlined in https://t.co/ADfg0aUOAs makes a lot of sense to me.  Structure the deal for a buyout if you think it is better.

If this is not doable then take some of the wasted money being planned for the North East Link and put that into the western network capacity in the form of a tunnel.
  justarider Deputy Commissioner

Location: Mister Fact Checker
It seems clear a tunnel is required for the airport link unless Metro 2 is built to take geelong trains off the RRL freeing up capacity for airport line trains?

With the state of Victorian finances with the onset of the issues around COVID19 and large investments in the health system and reduced receipts, using a super fund for the tunnel as outlined in https://t.co/ADfg0aUOAs makes a lot of sense to me.  Structure the deal for a buyout if you think it is better.

If this is not doable then take some of the wasted money being planned for the North East Link and put that into the western network capacity in the form of a tunnel.
bevans
yerr, nah

the problem with all the tunnel solutions so far, is the dead end at SCS.
The pathetic inabilty of V/line to quickly turn trains around, including RRL, completly strangles the TPH required to move the growing number of pax.
Those tunnels would have the same failing.

That is why I keep banging on about making as many lines as possible go thru MM1.
Just don't stop & turn in the CBD, keep going thru to the other end.
That magnifies the total throughput tremendously (excuse my chanelling of the Donald) .

MM2 may ultimately be the answer, but it has a few very expensive extra components
  • Run through the CBD until meets Mernda line.
  • Quad the Werribee line to Newport
  • Spark the line to Geelong
  • Spark & run backwards Wyndham Vale RRL, or make a loop, or some weird variation
Maybe eventually, but not yet.

I have no issue with a Super Fund being the financier (full disclosure, probably would be my retirement income a benefit)
BUT
I do object to private operators, including IFM, designing & building monster projects with little benefit other than profit gouging the public

cheers
John
  True Believers Chief Commissioner

Just a correction Lockie, Manor Lakes is where Wydnham Vale station is located.

There are a few proposed stations along the regional rail link route that were planned beforehand.

This includes Blackforest Road station, located near Blackforest road and it located directly in the west direction from Werribee.

Then there's the obvious Tarneit west station, located west of Tarneit station, probably near Davies/Sayers road.

And the final station is Truganina which is located more like near Doherty's road.

All the housing growth are coming through those areas and those stations will have to be built very soon. Hopefully they could bundle it with the electrification project to the west. But they should do it as soon as they can, the area is growing fast.
  John E Station Master

Justarider I think quadding would only be required to Laverton or Williams Landing if Geelong went through Metro 2.  
I'm not sold on the idea of an underground station being built at Newport because of:
- lack of space
- liklely very high cost
- limited benefit as an interchange (very few pax from Williamston and Altona would likely change).
I see Laverton serving as almost as good an interchange.

Geelong train could follow metro train as long as they can speed up the Metro train to 120k's an hour there would minimal time lost for Geelong pax compared to Quadding to Newport.

Sponsored advertisement

Display from: