Diversion of the Upfield line

 
  Myrtone Chief Commissioner

Location: North Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria
There are two options for this diversion, the one already mentioned is to divert to line to run under Sydney road until Coburg, the other is to have the undergound portion below the existing alignment. In either case, it would be a good idea for the diverted line to serve the University, thus connecting with the MMRT. But cost of either undergrounding option won't be ongoing, though I now realise that the current Upfield line is used more by commuters living west of Sydney road that by those living east of it.

Sponsored advertisement

  thadocta Chief Commissioner

Location: Katoomba
There are two options for this diversion, the one already mentioned is to divert to line to run under Sydney road until Coburg, the other is to have the undergound portion below the existing alignment. In either case, it would be a good idea for the diverted line to serve the University, thus connecting with the MMRT. But cost of either undergrounding option won't be ongoing, though I now realise that the current Upfield line is used more by commuters living west of Sydney road that by those living east of it.
Myrtone
Or they could do the most sensible, operationally practical and financially prudent option, which is to leave it alone and do nothing.

In short, you have a solution which is looking for a problem, and that problem is unlikely to arise in the near to midterm future.


Dave
  Myrtone Chief Commissioner

Location: North Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria
But there are so many level crossings on that line, and still single track north of Gowrie, so something does need to be done, this diversion in some form would be most effective.
  jamesadams7 Station Master

But there are so many level crossings on that line, and still single track north of Gowrie, so something does need to be done, this diversion in some form would be most effective.
Myrtone

Well, in that case, could they possibly duplicate the line north of Gowrie (which has nothing to do with diverting the line) and remove all of the level crossings by simply elevating the whole thing and running the Upfield Bike Path underneath? That might also reduce some of the cyclists on Sydney Rd that seem to experience so many issues.
  Myrtone Chief Commissioner

Location: North Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria
But running it underground would enable it to serve the University and also integrate it with the MMRT. This diversion would increase patronage on the line and in fact would help justify duplication north of Gowrie, so there is a connection.
  Flygon Train Controller

Location: Australia
How many times to we have to say to you "There's no conceivable benefit of undergrounding and diverting the Upfield line"? The University is already well served, the Trams are there for a reason. If someone living in Upfield wants to go to the University? Great, they can hop off at Jewell and take the Tram, or, god forbid, walk the rest of the way to the University. We have legs, it's not that hard to walk to the Tram stop, or the University.

Spending several billion dollars just to run the line under the road just to service the University, and provide other largely unnecessary shortcuts is an abysmal waste of public money. Simple as that.
  thadocta Chief Commissioner

Location: Katoomba
Like I said, he's got a solution which is looking for a problem, a problem which doesn't exist.

Dave
  Myrtone Chief Commissioner

Location: North Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria
How many times do have to mention that the University being well served by street transit is not a vaild argument against a heavy rail link with the northern suburbs? Especially given that the cost of tunneling won't be ongoing.
The Melbourne University desperately needs to be served by heavy rail, and a popular living area for students and staff already is. So, in that case, it would surely be a good idea to have at least one heavy rail line serving both.
Heavy rail has a higher capacity that any street transit, and is often grade seprated, especially on more recent extensions.

I'm looking for a soluition to the following problems which do exist:

*Indirectness of the line between Brunswick and the CBD, likely the major factor in low patronage.
*Highest level crossing density of any suburban line, probably anywhere in Australasia.
*Some stations are also too close together, being in the same suburb and less than a mile apart, diverted line would only stop once in each suburb.

The diverted line might also include provision for trains from Somerton or Craigiburn to run express in the inner suburbs.
  dthead Site Admin

Location: Melbourne, Australia
Is there any official report from the uni, from the goverment or rail opoerator about anything in this thread ? as in the last year or so ?

Regards,
David Head
  Myrtone Chief Commissioner

Location: North Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria
There have been official proposals, one was in the People Plan, though I can't access the discussion paper, also see this news article, which actually mentions a tunnel that would start from Jewel on the Upfield line.
In fact, I've heard that the Moreland city council is actually investingating undergrouding of the Upfield line.
  thadocta Chief Commissioner

Location: Katoomba
I'm looking for a soluition to the following problems which do exist:

*Indirectness of the line between Brunswick and the CBD, likely the major factor in low patronage.
*Highest level crossing density of any suburban line, probably anywhere in Australasia.
*Some stations are also too close together, being in the same suburb and less than a mile apart, diverted line would only stop once in each suburb.

The diverted line might also include provision for trains from Somerton or Craigiburn to run express in the inner suburbs.
Myrtone
None of these are problems to anyone except you.

Dave
  Gman_86 Chief Commissioner

Location: Melton, where the sparks dare not roam!
I'm looking for a soluition to the following problems which do exist:

*Indirectness of the line between Brunswick and the CBD, likely the major factor in low patronage.

The diverted line might also include provision for trains from Somerton or Craigiburn to run express in the inner suburbs.
Myrtone
Could you reference at least 1 study, survey or report that supports your assertions that the route the Upfield line takes is a factor in the lower than average patronage of the Upfield line? Otherwise it is just an opinion.

Level crossings north of Park St Brunswick (Jewell) are a completely seperate issue, as is the single track section north of Gowrie.
  Myrtone Chief Commissioner

Location: North Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria
What more evidence do you need than the fact that lines running more directly into the city are more patronised? Undergrouding of much of the Upfield line will eliminate every level crossing south of Batman, so it cannot be a "completely separate issue."
Duplication of the section north of Gowrie also must necessarily be related, as such duplication is needed to increase frequecies, which in turn would be justified by this diversion.
But no increase in frequencies is realistic unless we reduce the number of level crossings. While level crossing don't present a bottleneck in the way single track sections do, they do require a limit to the number of trains per hour on each track, and I think 3 per hour is a pretty reasonable limit with an unusually high level crossing frequency, and some of the over roads as busy as Brunswick road and Bell street. How can someone like Dave claim that this is not a problem when there is a programme to replace level crossings by grade separated ones?
Look at it this way; Increasing train frequencies over some (less busy) crossings is only realistic if other (busier) ones are grade separated. If we elimiate the vast majority of crossings, all of the ones on the inner section to be specific, then an increase in frequency, especially on the inner section is indeed realistic.

EDIT: Do we really need to stop suburban trains more than once in each suburb, especially if suburb boundries are no less than a mile apart?
  Flygon Train Controller

Location: Australia
"But no increase in frequencies is realistic unless we reduce the number of level crossings."

Nevermind building simple cuttings/putting rail under road without actually undergrounding to work around this issue is far cheaper than a tunnel, and that the service frequencies are nowhere near approaching the point where level crossing congestion is a serious problem. Rolling Eyes
  Myrtone Chief Commissioner

Location: North Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria
First of all what does "cheaper" mean in this case, in the short term or long term? Terms like "cost" are often use far to loosely, initial and ongoing cost are different types.
Undegrouding the Upfield line would be far more effecitve at reducing the number of crossings, and also bring about other benefits not brought about by simple cuttings.
Even if the service frequencies might seem to be "nowhere near approaching the point where level crossing congestion is a serious problem" I imagine that it will be the case if we increase frequencies without grade separation work. So I still don't think any increase in frequencies is realistic unless that level crossing count goes down and grade separated crossing count goes up.
It just would be bad enough for say, the Brunswick road and Bell street level crossings (especially the latter) to each come down more than three times an hour, I think, given that there are no alternative routes crossing the line by grade separation.
  Gman_86 Chief Commissioner

Location: Melton, where the sparks dare not roam!
What more evidence do you need than the fact that lines running more directly into the city are more patronised? Undergrouding of much of the Upfield line will eliminate every level crossing south of Batman, so it cannot be a "completely separate issue."
Duplication of the section north of Gowrie also must necessarily be related, as such duplication is needed to increase frequecies, which in turn would be justified by this diversion.
But no increase in frequencies is realistic unless we reduce the number of level crossings. While level crossing don't present a bottleneck in the way single track sections do, they do require a limit to the number of trains per hour on each track, and I think 3 per hour is a pretty reasonable limit with an unusually high level crossing frequency, and some of the over roads as busy as Brunswick road and Bell street. How can someone like Dave claim that this is not a problem when there is a programme to replace level crossings by grade separated ones?
Look at it this way; Increasing train frequencies over some (less busy) crossings is only realistic if other (busier) ones are grade separated. If we elimiate the vast majority of crossings, all of the ones on the inner section to be specific, then an increase in frequency, especially on the inner section is indeed realistic.

EDIT: Do we really need to stop suburban trains more than once in each suburb, especially if suburb boundries are no less than a mile apart?
Myrtone
This is not evidence. this is one of many possible contributing factors, but not actually evidence, so I ask again, do you have any factual evidence? Otherwise this whole proposal of yours is as others have pointed out, a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
  Myrtone Chief Commissioner

Location: North Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria
Nobody has given any other factors in the low patronage of the line, and I don't see why running it more directly into the city wouldn't increase patronage. One evidence I can give is that the Northern suburbs are a popular living area for students and staff of the University, and so diverting the line to serve the University as well as the northern suburbs ought to increase patronage.
As far as I know, most suburban rail commuters travel between the CBD and the suburban area.

In fact it will address a number of problems that do exist, the most prominent being the high frequency of level crossings.
  toastywarmhamster Station Master

Location: Space and Time
So just for something to do Myrtone, and assuming your arguments are not complete bollocks.

What if the line is diverted to run under Sydney Road. Where do you propose to place the stations?

You keep banging on about Melb Uni... Why? If they want a direct link to the city (which they already have), they can pay for it themselves, and they could.

You mentioned something about the signals are all yellow as well (Not sure I tend to zone out reading your posts). The signals at ends of platforms protect level crossings, the reason they are top yellow, is because the next signal is at stop. Protecting a ...yep level crossing.

I drove this line today and it was busy with people heading to the Zoo and into town for the footy. It will be the same tomorrow, which given the line didn't even operate on Sundays until relatively recently is great.

twh
  Myrtone Chief Commissioner

Location: North Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria
There are two option for underground the line, one is a cut and cover tunnel below the existing line, or a bored tunnel under Sydney road. In either case, well, I'm not quite sure where to put the new Brunswick station, but the ones in Moreland and Coburg might go under busy intersections.

As for links with the city, I mean heavy rail links not road ones (which trams and buses among others use). There is no direct heavy rail link between the northern suburbs and the CBD and no such link with the University.

Yes, I know that each signal is yellow when the next is red, that would not be the case if the line were undergrounded.

That the line now runs on Sundays might seem great, but it does mean that level crossings now come down every day of the week, not just Monday-Saturday.
And here's what's not so great here; Before the late 90s upgrade, the level crossings still have swing gates, which covered the full width of the road on train approach, but a step backwards was taken by replacing them with barriers only covering half the road.
  TOQ-1 Deputy Commissioner

Location: Power Trainger
There are only 3 level crossings on the Upfield line that have been identified as being problematic for congestion and or safety, which can be seen on the Level Crossing Removal Program's Website. Given that none of them have been selected for the first few rounds of removals, they are obviously of no real issue for the time being.

The low patronage on the Upfield line is due to the good services of other public transport in the area: people have access to trams that run every few minutes into the city and the University Precinct, and there are bus services that run east-west to other train lines and destinations. The Upfield line only having one load breach in the peak while other lines have several shows that funds for a metro are better justified elsewhere.

The primary problem with putting the Upfield line into a tunnel under Sydney Road is that its place in the Network Plan is to carry the VLine services that currently run via Broadmeadows. This is because electrifying to Wallan via Upfield will actually give Wallan capacity, as the Upfield line has very few load breaches. This will continue in the future as even as the density increases around the Upfield line, the extra capacity that duplicating the end of the line through, in conjunction with grade separations will more than meet this growth.

I suggest you read the Network Development Plan, based on years of work and written by experts based on actual modelling for population and patronage growth. I also suggest you read the Business Case for the Melbourne Metro that justifies the route that takes, and the reasons for the lines going through it being chosen.
  Myrtone Chief Commissioner

Location: North Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria
There are only 3 level crossings on the Upfield line that have been identified as being problematic for congestion and or safety, which can be seen on the Level Crossing Removal Program's Website. Given that none of them have been selected for the first few rounds of removals, they are obviously of no real issue for the time being.
TOQ-1


But this diversion would eliminate as many as seventeen level crossings, with no added ongoing costs, and with other benefits as well.

The low patronage on the Upfield line is due to the good services of other public transport in the area: people have access to trams that run every few minutes into the city and the University Precinct, and there are bus services that run east-west to other train lines and destinations. The Upfield line only having one load breach in the peak while other lines have several shows that funds for a metro are better justified elsewhere.
TOQ-1


There are plenty of other PT services in the same area, but they are all street transit. By undergrounding the line, it would be feasible for the only East West tram service to be extended westward.
Now the only other tram service in the area does run directly into the CBD. I'm not sure that funds for a metro are justified anywhere in the Melbourne Metropolitan area, metro was a solution to a problem that all Australian cities were able to avoid.

The primary problem with putting the Upfield line into a tunnel under Sydney Road is that its place in the Network Plan is to carry the VLine services that currently run via Broadmeadows. This is because electrifying to Wallan via Upfield will actually give Wallan capacity, as the Upfield line has very few load breaches. This will continue in the future as even as the density increases around the Upfield line, the extra capacity that duplicating the end of the line through, in conjunction with grade separations will more than meet this growth.
TOQ-1


The other option might be a tunnel under the existing alignment, you could still have plenty of buildings above it. This could be a cut and cover tunnel in fact.
  Nightfire Minister for Railways

Location: Gippsland
Someone clearly has no Idea of the cost of building a modern underground railway tunnel.

Along with the many ongoing costs of operating the many systems that form part of a modern underground railway (can't use standards from the 1850's)
  Myrtone Chief Commissioner

Location: North Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria
What are the systems in a modern underground rail tunnel? And what were the 1850s standards?
  thadocta Chief Commissioner

Location: Katoomba
Give up everyone, he's just arguing for the sake of arguing (which, IIRC, is the definition of a TROLL).

Dave
  Pressman Spirit of the Vine

Location: Wherever the Tin Chook or Qantas takes me
Give up everyone, he's just arguing for the sake of arguing (which, IIRC, is the definition of a TROLL).

Dave
"thadocta"


Exactly!

If you posted that you totally agreed with every one of myrtone's stupid ideas, he'd still argue with you!!

I'm amazed that this thread hasn't been shunted into the fantasy world of the Armchair Operators forum yet!
Seems that's where most of myrtone's threads go.

Sponsored advertisement

Subscribers: Edith, Myrtone, Nightfire, Pressman

Display from:   

Quick Reply

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