But there are already VLine trains across the Flinders Street Viaduct, such as to Traralgon.Heavy and Metro rail serve medium to long distance. Light Rail serves short distance. Therefore, you don't really need the closest line to be diverted in that direction.Not that coherent. Is Royal Park to Flemington Bridge or Macauley "short distance". Certainly University to Coburg and beyond, let alone Flagstaff to Coburn and beyond is the sort of distance that heavy rail serves.They live in the Northern Suburbs because the transit is already good to the university there is little patronage to be gained south of the Ring Road and very little south of Bell Street in the north. The western and outer northern suburbs do not currently have good transit. The Metro tunnel is aimed at improving heavy transit to the Western Suburbs. Moving V/Line trains to the Upfield Line will have a flow on effect of improving heavy transit in the outer north.These suburbs are the closest to the University, that's why they live there. Perhaps moving VLine trains to the Upfield line would be a temporary and short term solution.Lower capacity street transit is more than suitable for the shorter distances between the inner north and Parkville. People coming in from the outer North can train in and change closer to university. Tram capacity is constantly increasing. Platforms are becoming more accessible and as they are, other works are helping with getting them out of congestion. A tram every 5 or 6 minutes in many cases may be better than a train every 10 or 15.But if the Upfield line were diverted, they could take the train all the way instead of changing closer to the University.
And how would you get the V/Line trains to Whittlesea in the first place? Across the Flinders Street Viaduct where they would have to cross every suburban line? Reinstate the inner circle railway which would use your precious Upfield Line and disrupt that anyway?But there are already VLine trains across the Flinders Street Viaduct, such as to Traralgon.
No comment on the rest.
That is not an argument. Traralgon trains only have to cross the Sandringham and Frankston pair of tracks and could do the latter at Caulfield. Where as the Whittlesea trains if still using Platforms 9 and 10 at Southern would have to cross the Burnley group, and the Caulfield Group immediately out of Southern Cross.
Edited 04 Apr 2017 22:36, 3 years ago, edited by mejhammers1
1. It may have a lot of mountains but a railway built through them would still be more direct to Seymour than the existing lines serving it. Others tell reject this idea without acknowledging this.
2. So a railway through there would have fewer stations, so fewer stops between Southern Cross and Seymour.
3. The existing line could be served be a shorter shuttle service.
4. Sometimes ideas that don't seem good at first might turn out to be better than you thought under critical examination.
As I said before, I disagree with the Upfield going underground, and rather have the Mernda line underground and the Upfield line to connect with the Craigeburn Line for the Vlines. Looks like we want to do each upgrade differently. Myrtone wants a direct Upfield link and a Direct Seymour link. I prefer what was planned in original PTV plan, to divert Upfield for Vlines and future proof Wallan electrification, and Untangle the South Morang line with Hurstbridge with Metro 2 tunnel via Parkville/Fitzroy to allow a future line to Doncaster.But remember that the Upfield line is a lot closer to the University than any other suburban line, including the South Morang. So if any suburban line is going to be diverted to serve the University, it might as well be the Upfield line, and you keep telling me it's not a good idea without acknowledging this factor.
About this website
Railpage version 3.10.0.0037
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest is © 2003-2020 Interactive Omnimedia Pty Ltd.
You can syndicate our news using one of the RSS feeds.