Dandenong rail upgrade proposal being considered

 
Topic moved from News by dthead on 14 Mar 2015 21:49
  David Zhang Beginner

Location: Shanghai, China
A multibillion-dollar plan initiated under the Napthine government to avert a looming congestion crisis on Melbourne's busiest railway line could be adopted by Labor in a revised form.
Dandenong rail upgrade proposal being considered

Connected to the Melbourne Metro Rail Tunnel?

Sponsored advertisement

  LancedDendrite Chief Commissioner

Location: Gheringhap Loop Autonomous Zone
The Melbourne Metro tunnel is planned to connect the Sunshine and Dandenong rail corridors, so in theory yes. However, the Dandenong project in question is of a different nature and completely unconnected to the tunnel - it's about grade separations, new trains, a new stabling/maintenance facility and so on.
  Nightfire Minister for Railways

Location: Gippsland
The Melbourne Metro tunnel is planned to connect the Sunshine and Dandenong rail corridors, so in theory yes. However, the Dandenong project in question is of a different nature and completely unconnected to the tunnel - it's about grade separations, new trains, a new stabling/maintenance facility and so on.
LancedDendrite
But no duplication of the Dandenong - Cranbourne line ?
  don_dunstan The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: Adelaide proud
They need to commit to three tracks at least Caulfield-Springvale. It's been necessary for at least two decades.
  Nightfire Minister for Railways

Location: Gippsland
They need to commit to three tracks at least Caulfield-Springvale. It's been necessary for at least two decades.
don_dunstan
This won't do anything for extra capacity.

It would speed some services up.
  712M Chief Commissioner

Duplicate Cranbourne Dandenong, quadruplicate and grade separate Dandenong to Caulfield and then build the Metro tunnel to it's original plan from Caulfield to Footscray to join up with the Sunbury/Melton/Airport line. The upgrade needs to be done properly or there will be no point.

The current plan of moving block signalling will only allow an extra 6 trains maximum to run in peak hour and make journey times even longer and introducing trains with longitudinal seating will only make the journeys over 1 hour even more uncomfortable. Some peak hour Traralgon services already take over 2 and a half hours to travel the same distance as Bendigo which takes 1:30 to 2 hours.
  don_dunstan The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: Adelaide proud
This won't do anything for extra capacity.

It would speed some services up.
Nightfire
If it was necessary to do it to Moorabbin 25 years ago (longer?) then Pakenham/Cranbourne/Gippsland would surely justify an extension to (at least) Clayton... preferably Springvale or Dandy.
  LancedDendrite Chief Commissioner

Location: Gheringhap Loop Autonomous Zone
Doesn't look like moving block signalling is on the cards for the Dandenong Corridor project now, if the media reports are to be believed. I'd bet on them keeping the grade separations (Centre Road, Clayton Road, Murrumbeena Road and Koornang Road, all of which are on the 50 level crossings list), new rollingstock, and the Pakenham East depot.

Track amplification of any sort was never in the proposal publicly. It's arguably quite a small project, although the concessions that the 'Rail Transformation Consortium' may have been seeking to extract would've been unwise for a competent government to agree to.
  Nightfire Minister for Railways

Location: Gippsland
If it was necessary to do it to Moorabbin 25 years ago (longer?) then Pakenham/Cranbourne/Gippsland would surely justify an extension to (at least) Clayton... preferably Springvale or Dandy.
don_dunstan
4 tracks to cater for rolling stock balancing.

Most of the time only 2 tracks are used between Caulfield and Moorabbin (West and centre tracks)
  don_dunstan The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: Adelaide proud
4 tracks to cater for rolling stock balancing.

Most of the time only 2 tracks are used between Caulfield and Moorabbin (West and centre tracks)
Nightfire
4 tracks would take a lot of land acquisitions because the corridor is quite narrow in places (particularly closer to the city); not a problem if you are widening the Monash but the money won't be there if it's a rail project.

There's also the policy of building a new deep-water port at Westernport but I guess this has been ditched now with the new government. If they were really serious about that then you'd imagine that they would provide standard gauge access to it but as with most things (like the 3rd airport in Gippsland) it's just designed to look pretty in the computer animations and not much else.
  kuldalai Chief Commissioner

Premier Daniel Andrews has announced that the previous unsolicited bid from Metro as part of a Consortium has effectively been dumped after more detailed assessment by  DOT and replaced by a new Victorian Government funded project that will achieve better outcomes for similar expenditure in the Dandenong Corridor .

All lx between Caulfield and Dandenong are to be removed and go to tender as a single package ASAP for completion by end 2018.
37  new  generation high capacity trains to be built locally with at least 50% Australian content to go to tender ASAP.
New stabling and servicing facilities at Pakenham .  Four stations to be rebuilt as part of grade separation works .
As per DOT original proposal high capacity signalling installation will first be trialled on the Sandringham line , before being deployed on the Dandenong or other corridors.

(The previous unsolicited bid had 25 trains, 4 lx removals, 3 station re-builds, new stabling and servicing at Cranbourne, an unproven in mixed  traffic high capacity signalling system .)

It is believed that were grave concerns within  DOT that the proposed signalling system was unproven in a mixed traffic environment of  Metro, VLP and freight trains with different operating characteristics .  Thus the return to the original DOT approach to trial such a system first on the Sandringham line.

So we now have a totally Government initiated project that provides more trains and grade separation of all lx between Caulfield and Dandenong, with tenders to be called for the lx removals as a single package and  37 new generation trains within months.

Monday  30/03/15  AGE contained a very powerful article by Kenneth  Davidson as to how Victorian Governments have been conned with many PPP in the past where the State is now locked into huge on going payments, where the  Private Party wins and the State loses .  In the case of most if not all of the past PPP it would be cheaper for the State to have built and funded the projects itself  .

It is good to see the new Government seeking the advice of its own  Department rather than barging ahead overriding the Department they hold accountable .  Also the new PT Minister is very big on public consultation before introducing new services or timetables.  Geelong & Bendigo  bus re-structuring proposed under  Mulder with precious little consultation really drew the crabs, and as a result new Minister has directed that a second round of  REAL consultation take place in both Geelong and Bendigo .
  davesvline Chief Commissioner

Location: 1983-1998
This won't do anything for extra capacity.

It would speed some services up.
Nightfire
An interesting observation.

Before we write off the seemingly useless benefits of a 3rd from Caulfield to say Springvale, lets first discontinue use of the centre track between Burnley and BoxHill for a period of two weeks after Metro adjust the timetable to cater for capacity services a 2 track line can handle to see first what the opposite effect of this has....

Then I'd encourage some boffin with access to the appropriate simulation software to do a trial of how a 3rd track between Caulfied and Springvale might work with all but 2 crossings being eliminated (two exist close to BoxHill so a fair comparison).

Then you'd have your pro's and cons surely. Yes 4 tracks would be better, but if it aint going to fit in the available corridoor- isnt it a moot point. If 3 tracks will fit, lets atleast see what a simulation might reveal on how it "could" operate based on what the Burnley group achieves twice daily now.

Regards
  grog Train Controller

An interesting observation.

Before we write off the seemingly useless benefits of a 3rd from Caulfield to say Springvale, lets first discontinue use of the centre track between Burnley and BoxHill for a period of two weeks after Metro adjust the timetable to cater for capacity services a 2 track line can handle to see first what the opposite effect of this has....

Then I'd encourage some boffin with access to the appropriate simulation software to do a trial of how a 3rd track between Caulfied and Springvale might work with all but 2 crossings being eliminated (two exist close to BoxHill so a fair comparison).

Then you'd have your pro's and cons surely. Yes 4 tracks would be better, but if it aint going to fit in the available corridoor- isnt it a moot point. If 3 tracks will fit, lets atleast see what a simulation might reveal on how it "could" operate based on what the Burnley group achieves twice daily now.

Regards
davesvline
You could make that change without dropping capacity on once condition - you had extra rolling stock available to cater to the longer journey time.

There are 22 services that arrive at Parliament between 8 and 9, 13 seem to use the 3rd track. Making all services all stops on a single track will add 5 minutes to those services, so you need however many extra sets to cover for that additional travel time.

Other than that, it all ends up on the same line at the City Loop, so no, there would not be any reduction in capacity.

4 tracks isn't much better unless there is somewhere for the extra pair of tracks to go once they get to the city.

Not saying that there isn't a benefit, just that the benefit is travel speed, rather than capacity. High capacity signalling, on the other hand...
  Nightfire Minister for Railways

Location: Gippsland
An interesting observation.

Before we write off the seemingly useless benefits of a 3rd from Caulfield to say Springvale, lets first discontinue use of the centre track between Burnley and BoxHill for a period of two weeks after Metro adjust the timetable to cater for capacity services a 2 track line can handle to see first what the opposite effect of this has....

Then I'd encourage some boffin with access to the appropriate simulation software to do a trial of how a 3rd track between Caulfied and Springvale might work with all but 2 crossings being eliminated (two exist close to BoxHill so a fair comparison).

Then you'd have your pro's and cons surely. Yes 4 tracks would be better, but if it aint going to fit in the available corridoor- isnt it a moot point. If 3 tracks will fit, lets atleast see what a simulation might reveal on how it "could" operate based on what the Burnley group achieves twice daily now.

Regards
davesvline
Corridor capacity Is governed by the choke points In that particular corridor !

On the Box Hill line the choke point Is from Burnley Into the City and out again, where there Is only 2 tracks In each direction, but In the mornings there are 3 tracks (of up trains) merging Into 2 tracks.

Caulfield Is the same.

A third track only allows, some trains to overtake a train or so ahead of It, but then It's back down to double track again approaching the city.

For extra capacity to be added to the Dandenong line the Metro tunnel needs to extend to beyond Caulfield (as a double line) than form a second double track line to Dandenong.
(This may give Dandenong a 20 minute semi express service to and from Melbourne CBD all day along with the ability to have a train run every 2 minutes !)
  trainbrain Chief Commissioner

three tracks from Box Hill into the city has worked fine for over thirty years without any problems, tow tracks in up direction in morning peak, two tracks in dow direction after 12.30pm to cater for afternoon peak, the Dandenong corridor go easily cope with a similars situation without the need for a 4th track..........
  kuldalai Chief Commissioner

Three track  sections in the inner area work fine with the centre track in the peak direction of travel , provided you run a mix of services that terminate at the outer termini (semi express through the Centre track), and  SAS  inner area terminating trains . Like  Craigieburn trains and  Essendon  trains .  Where three tracks do not work well is where the counter peak track has too many trains trying to return towards the city for a second trip, one really needs a proportion of the longer distance services to go off .

Sponsored advertisement

Subscribers: doyle, Edith, Nightfire

Display from:   

Quick Reply

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