Renewed push for Melbourne airport rail link

 
Topic moved from News by bevans on 10 May 2016 22:19
  LancedDendrite Chief Commissioner

Location: Gheringhap Loop Autonomous Zone
LancedDendrite, I think the southern route proposed by you is an excellent idea.
May I humbly make a few suggestions for improvement:
1) Would it be possible to build an East Sunbury station, somewhere near the intersection of C325 and C743?. Also, may I suggest North Sunbury station should be built north of Raes Rd (it would then be closer to more residential development).
2) There is a crossing of Shepherds Ln. This seems unnecessary, I would make the rail line cross under C743 south-east of Shepherds Ln - it has to cross C743 somewhere so that is a better place IMHO.
3) Where it crosses Loemans Rd (west of Bulla), the current drawn line is going to need a tunnel to get from 120m altitude to 160m altitude. If the line is moved a bit further south, it can follow the contours of the land at 1/50 and no tunnel is required.
4) All curves on any new track must permit 160km/h - from memory this means the minimum radius should be 1600m. The connection to the existing Albion line should be redesigned so trains could run at 160km/h. Of course, this requires a much longer bridge and is more costly - but when you build something that will last more than 100 years, it needs to be built properly. Also all other curves should be 1600m or greater.
tom9876543
  1. East Sunbury - Why bother? The only reason I can think of is for a Pork & Ride. There's no residential development there. If that particular location becomes more important then build a station at that time, not now. As for Sunbury North: the only reason you'd go north of Raes Rd is to avoid land resumptions or tunnelling. Going north places it further away from residential development by the looks of the map. I'm not too flash when it comes to house prices but I'm pretty sure land resumption out there wouldn't be a huge cost like it is in say, Caulfield or Huntingdale. Although the local council wants to have a station north of Raes Rd, so it might be better... who knows.
  2. Fair point. The southern route still has issues with the need to create a fair few occupational crossings, which makes me a bit squeamish. Creative civil engineering would be required to minimise the number of level crossings, and that's not my forte.
  3. Your assumption is that the line is travelling at grade at Loemans Rd. If you rummage around the VicRoads website you'll find plans to realign Sunbury Rd for the 'Bulla Bypass', which this project would have to piggyback onto for preparatory civil works. This would result in a rail flyover regardless of what the gradient lines say (and they're imprecise on Google Maps).
  4. No, that curve doesn't need realigning and there's no need.


Flygon: Running along Tullamarine Fwy sounds great, until you realise that Airport Drive has been specifically built to carry rail along most of its median. Airport Dr is the cheapest possible access option to Melbourne Airport. Adding extra stops is silly, the point of the railway is that it doesn't have to stop anywhere but Footscray & Sunshine before getting to Melbourne Airport. It's already going the 'long way around', it doesn't need any help to make it slower than going via the Tullamarine Fwy.
As for a stop at Bulla: Why bother?

Sponsored advertisement

  tom9876543 Train Controller

LancedDendrite, I think the southern route proposed by you is an excellent idea.
May I humbly make a few suggestions for improvement:
1) Would it be possible to build an East Sunbury station, somewhere near the intersection of C325 and C743?. Also, may I suggest North Sunbury station should be built north of Raes Rd (it would then be closer to more residential development).
2) There is a crossing of Shepherds Ln. This seems unnecessary, I would make the rail line cross under C743 south-east of Shepherds Ln - it has to cross C743 somewhere so that is a better place IMHO.
3) Where it crosses Loemans Rd (west of Bulla), the current drawn line is going to need a tunnel to get from 120m altitude to 160m altitude. If the line is moved a bit further south, it can follow the contours of the land at 1/50 and no tunnel is required.
4) All curves on any new track must permit 160km/h - from memory this means the minimum radius should be 1600m. The connection to the existing Albion line should be redesigned so trains could run at 160km/h. Of course, this requires a much longer bridge and is more costly - but when you build something that will last more than 100 years, it needs to be built properly. Also all other curves should be 1600m or greater.
  1. East Sunbury - Why bother? The only reason I can think of is for a Pork & Ride. There's no residential development there. If that particular location becomes more important then build a station at that time, not now. As for Sunbury North: the only reason you'd go north of Raes Rd is to avoid land resumptions or tunnelling. Going north places it further away from residential development by the looks of the map. I'm not too flash when it comes to house prices but I'm pretty sure land resumption out there wouldn't be a huge cost like it is in say, Caulfield or Huntingdale. Although the local council wants to have a station north of Raes Rd, so it might be better... who knows.
  2. Fair point. The southern route still has issues with the need to create a fair few occupational crossings, which makes me a bit squeamish. Creative civil engineering would be required to minimise the number of level crossings, and that's not my forte.
  3. Your assumption is that the line is travelling at grade at Loemans Rd. If you rummage around the VicRoads website you'll find plans to realign Sunbury Rd for the 'Bulla Bypass', which this project would have to piggyback onto for preparatory civil works. This would result in a rail flyover regardless of what the gradient lines say (and they're imprecise on Google Maps).
  4. No, that curve doesn't need realigning and there's no need.
LancedDendrite

1. My view is that when the train station is built, it will encourage new residential development. The land will quickly be occupied.
2. Level crossings???? All crossings will be separated, bridges built. The number of level crossings will be 0.
3. Going to street-directory.com.au, you can see the Melways map of Melbourne. Melways provides excellent coverage of proposed roads. According to Melways, the 'Bulla Bypass' would be built north of Bulla, nowhere near Loemans Rd. So maybe you found some other information that is now wrong? Also I think that Google Maps gradient lines are reasonably accurate.
4. 2km at 80km/h = 1.5 minutes. 2km at 160km/h = 0.75 minutes. (Also 160km/h line is shorter) It looks like straightening the curves will save 1-1.5 minutes. Maybe not worth the extra cost.
  dollarbill85 Locomotive Fireman

LancedDendrite, I think the southern route proposed by you is an excellent idea.
May I humbly make a few suggestions for improvement:
1) Would it be possible to build an East Sunbury station, somewhere near the intersection of C325 and C743?. Also, may I suggest North Sunbury station should be built north of Raes Rd (it would then be closer to more residential development).
2) There is a crossing of Shepherds Ln. This seems unnecessary, I would make the rail line cross under C743 south-east of Shepherds Ln - it has to cross C743 somewhere so that is a better place IMHO.
3) Where it crosses Loemans Rd (west of Bulla), the current drawn line is going to need a tunnel to get from 120m altitude to 160m altitude. If the line is moved a bit further south, it can follow the contours of the land at 1/50 and no tunnel is required.
4) All curves on any new track must permit 160km/h - from memory this means the minimum radius should be 1600m. The connection to the existing Albion line should be redesigned so trains could run at 160km/h. Of course, this requires a much longer bridge and is more costly - but when you build something that will last more than 100 years, it needs to be built properly. Also all other curves should be 1600m or greater.
  1. East Sunbury - Why bother? The only reason I can think of is for a Pork & Ride. There's no residential development there. If that particular location becomes more important then build a station at that time, not now. As for Sunbury North: the only reason you'd go north of Raes Rd is to avoid land resumptions or tunnelling. Going north places it further away from residential development by the looks of the map. I'm not too flash when it comes to house prices but I'm pretty sure land resumption out there wouldn't be a huge cost like it is in say, Caulfield or Huntingdale. Although the local council wants to have a station north of Raes Rd, so it might be better... who knows.
  2. Fair point. The southern route still has issues with the need to create a fair few occupational crossings, which makes me a bit squeamish. Creative civil engineering would be required to minimise the number of level crossings, and that's not my forte.
  3. Your assumption is that the line is travelling at grade at Loemans Rd. If you rummage around the VicRoads website you'll find plans to realign Sunbury Rd for the 'Bulla Bypass', which this project would have to piggyback onto for preparatory civil works. This would result in a rail flyover regardless of what the gradient lines say (and they're imprecise on Google Maps).
  4. No, that curve doesn't need realigning and there's no need.


Flygon: Running along Tullamarine Fwy sounds great, until you realise that Airport Drive has been specifically built to carry rail along most of its median. Airport Dr is the cheapest possible access option to Melbourne Airport. Adding extra stops is silly, the point of the railway is that it doesn't have to stop anywhere but Footscray & Sunshine before getting to Melbourne Airport. It's already going the 'long way around', it doesn't need any help to make it slower than going via the Tullamarine Fwy.
As for a stop at Bulla: Why bother?
LancedDendrite
I agree about Bulla, it's only a small town so I can't imagine many people would use it, and they already have a bus service which connects to The Airport and Sunbury Station. I'd imagine the trip wouldn't take long due most of the route being on a country road. That Bulla Bypass is badly needed. I remember how steep and windy the road is there.

I think that Airport West would benefit from having a station.
  historian Deputy Commissioner

An interesting question is why Melbourne Airport was built at Tullamarine in the first place.

The topography was similar on the other side of Moonee Ponds Creek around Sydenham (then just a station in the middle of nowhere). This would have allowed far cheaper transport connections. Apart from the railway line, the freeway connection would have been an upgraded Calder, serving all the users of that road, and avoiding the wasted expense of building a freeway between Essendon and Tullamarine.

Selection of Tullamarine, of course, was the responsibility of the Commonwealth, while the transport links were the responsibility of the State.
  ZH836301 Chief Commissioner

Location: BleakCity
So much junk in this thread:

*Nobody hires cars to travel to the CBD
*Melbourne's airport is not in a similar position to others
*Melbourne Airport is not against a rail link

And while we're on fantasy krap, my pick is cut the Upfield line back to Campbellfield and run across the old Maygar alignment with a 3km whatever tunnel under Broadmeadows across to the Tulla/airport precinct.  Consider it the plodding all stops Piccadilly line partner to the Heathrow Express equivalent via Albion. Turns the Upfield line into something useful, and also defeats the 'can't build it until the "Metro" is finished in 2050' rubbish.

But according to all the whiners in this thread people from the north don't need to go to the airport...
  dollarbill85 Locomotive Fireman

So much junk in this thread:

*Nobody hires cars to travel to the CBD
*Melbourne's airport is not in a similar position to others
*Melbourne Airport is not against a rail link

And while we're on fantasy krap, my pick is cut the Upfield line back to Campbellfield and run across the old Maygar alignment with a 3km whatever tunnel under Broadmeadows across to the Tulla/airport precinct.  Consider it the plodding all stops Piccadilly line partner to the Heathrow Express equivalent via Albion. Turns the Upfield line into something useful, and also defeats the 'can't build it until the "Metro" is finished in 2050' rubbish.

But according to all the whiners in this thread people from the north don't need to go to the airport...
ZH836301
I am assuming from this rant whatever you call it that you don't live in Upfield? Do you even care about the people who will be disadvantaged by the removal of their train service? And not to mention how ridiculous this plan of yours is? It will take even longer to get to the airport this way, and I can't imagine the cost and the amount of property acquisition, which in case you didn't know, most people are opposed to? And there is already an adequate bus service which connects to Broadmeadows (902), and an adequate connection to the airport at Broadmeadows (901).

The reason it is being built the way it is, is because most of the track it will use already exists, they only need to build 6km of double track to reach the airport, And Melbourne Metro will be finished in 2026, Not 2050, no idea where you got that figure from or if you were being sarcastic. The system in its' current form can't support another railway line, and that the same reason that The Melton Line hasn't been electrified yet, because currently there is no capacity to support these two lines, that's where Melbourne Metro comes in. Once it is close to completion, then The Airport Rail Link and Melton Electrification will be considered.
  Bogong Chief Commissioner

Location: Essendon Aerodrome circa 1980
There's just one thing wrong with that fantasy plan map. Air traffic at Tulla has multiplied many times since it was opened almost 50 years ago and it's close to the level where a third runway will be required. This runway will be to the west of the current main north(ish) - south(ish) runway.

So that planes using the new runway do not need to cross the existing main runway to get get to a terminal, there will be a need for a brand new Terminal 5 away from the current passenger area of the airport. This new T5 area will need to replicate all the services currently operating in the T1 - T4 area. My guess is that it will probably be just to the north of the current golf course but south of the dog kennels shown on the Google earth link above.

Now any rail line built at vast expense to the T1 - T4 area is not going to just dump passengers in this area and instruct them to change to something like a cable operated people mover to get to T5. An expensive train would be expected to service all terminals. So the planned railway would need to include plans to swing west from a station servicing T1 - T4 to get to T5, not swing north towards Bulla as shown in the fantasy map.
  railblogger Chief Commissioner

Location: At the back of the train, quitely doing exactly what you'd expect.
Now any rail line built at vast expense to the T1 - T4 area is not going to just dump passengers in this area and instruct them to change to something like a cable operated people mover to get to T5. An expensive train would be expected to service all terminals. So the planned railway would need to include plans to swing west from a station servicing T1 - T4 to get to T5, not swing north towards Bulla as shown in the fantasy map.
Bogong
That may be true however in some airport around the world this is the reality - the train serves one or two terminals which you go into to access the people mover to other terminals.
  ZH836301 Chief Commissioner

Location: BleakCity
So much junk in this thread...
I am assuming from this rant whatever you call it that you don't live in Upfield? Do you even care about the people who will be disadvantaged by the removal of their train service? And not to mention how ridiculous this plan of yours is? It will take even longer to get to the airport this way, and I can't imagine the cost and the amount of property acquisition, which in case you didn't know, most people are opposed to? And there is already an adequate bus service which connects to Broadmeadows (902), and an adequate connection to the airport at Broadmeadows (901).

The reason it is being built the way it is, is because most of the track it will use already exists, they only need to build 6km of double track to reach the airport, And Melbourne Metro will be finished in 2026, Not 2050, no idea where you got that figure from or if you were being sarcastic. The system in its' current form can't support another railway line, and that the same reason that The Melton Line hasn't been electrified yet, because currently there is no capacity to support these two lines, that's where Melbourne Metro comes in. Once it is close to completion, then The Airport Rail Link and Melton Electrification will be considered.
dollarbill85
Suggest cup of concrete.

They can catch a bus like everybody else (oh, I forgot this was Whalepage).  Upfield is only about 2km from Coolaroo, and has woeful patronage, which is made even more pathetic by the fact it is a terminal station some distance from the previous stop.

You see, hooking fish on Whalepage is like fishing at a trout farm, it's almost too easy...

On the one hand you claim a bus is fine for those in the north, then on the other you claim we need a train for the south.  And you must be new to this if you think 2026 is a certainty, for a project that hasn't even started construction yet.

And by the way, you're missing the extra 8km on the Airport line, unless you want to repeat VicRail's illustrious history of fracking things up by trying to run a frequent passenger service on the state's main interstate freight railway.  There is more than sufficient capacity for airport trains to slot in with Vline services at Sunshine - the idea that we need the new city tunnel to complete it is all a BS smokescreen, and you swallowed it, hook , line and sinker.
  pawanoro Deputy Commissioner

Umm T5, not on any radar for the next twenty years, all the terminal development is focussed on the existing contiguous set of terminals. And the next runway the airport want to build is east/west, not north/south, they're talking about that in the 2040 timeframe.
  Valvegear Dr Beeching

Location: Norda Fittazroy
There's just one thing wrong with that fantasy plan map. Air traffic at Tulla has multiplied many times since it was opened almost 50 years ago and it's close to the level where a third runway will be required. This runway will be to the west of the current main north(ish) - south(ish) runway.
"Bogong"
Unfortunately, you are correct. For many years, signs on the ground and dotted lines on Melway (and other maps) showed that two more runways were planned. The existing runway referred to by Bogong is runway 16/34. It's parallel companion, which would presumably have become 16L/34R was to have been where Airport Drive is now, and the existing runway would have then been re-named 16R/34L. That plan is now well and truly down the proverbial.
So, incidentally, is the second east-west runway (existing one being 09/27) which would have crossed towards the south end of the new 16L/34R. The longer we waited, the more difficult it became - why am I not surprised?
  dollarbill85 Locomotive Fireman

So much junk in this thread...
I am assuming from this rant whatever you call it that you don't live in Upfield? Do you even care about the people who will be disadvantaged by the removal of their train service? And not to mention how ridiculous this plan of yours is? It will take even longer to get to the airport this way, and I can't imagine the cost and the amount of property acquisition, which in case you didn't know, most people are opposed to? And there is already an adequate bus service which connects to Broadmeadows (902), and an adequate connection to the airport at Broadmeadows (901).

The reason it is being built the way it is, is because most of the track it will use already exists, they only need to build 6km of double track to reach the airport, And Melbourne Metro will be finished in 2026, Not 2050, no idea where you got that figure from or if you were being sarcastic. The system in its' current form can't support another railway line, and that the same reason that The Melton Line hasn't been electrified yet, because currently there is no capacity to support these two lines, that's where Melbourne Metro comes in. Once it is close to completion, then The Airport Rail Link and Melton Electrification will be considered.
Suggest cup of concrete.

They can catch a bus like everybody else (oh, I forgot this was Whalepage).  Upfield is only about 2km from Coolaroo, and has woeful patronage, which is made even more pathetic by the fact it is a terminal station some distance from the previous stop.

You see, hooking fish on Whalepage is like fishing at a trout farm, it's almost too easy...

On the one hand you claim a bus is fine for those in the north, then on the other you claim we need a train for the south.  And you must be new to this if you think 2026 is a certainty, for a project that hasn't even started construction yet.

And by the way, you're missing the extra 8km on the Airport line, unless you want to repeat VicRail's illustrious history of fracking things up by trying to run a frequent passenger service on the state's main interstate freight railway.  There is more than sufficient capacity for airport trains to slot in with Vline services at Sunshine - the idea that we need the new city tunnel to complete it is all a BS smokescreen, and you swallowed it, hook , line and sinker.
ZH836301
It doesn't matter, Upfield needs it's station, it serves alot of homes and businesses. I suppose you think they should close Alamein Station while they're at it? There is a plan to fix that part of the line, including track duplication and a second platform at Upfield. This is so that Seymour trains can be diverted away from The Craigieburn Line. and the level crossing at Camp Road is earmarked for removal, which will speed up travel times for the 902.

I never said the bus service was fine, I was only giving examples of why your idea wouldn't work. Between Broadmeadows and Gladstone Park It's a 7.5 minute service frequency. And how do you propose to get the railway Line down steep Johnstone Street? The timeline for the project was for full construction to commence in 2018. Pre-Construction works are taking place as we speak. I don't know what makes you think it will take 34 years to build a 9km tunnel, that is the best example of flawed logic if I ever saw it.

Again, you are wrong, The Airport line will not use the same tracks used by freight trains. It will run as part of the Metropolitan railway network, via Footscray, Middle Footscray, West Footscray, Tottenham and Sunshine. An flyover will be built at Sunshine for Airport Services. The Airport Line is designed to feed into the Melbourne Metro tunnel, which is why it isn't being built right now. As I said before Melbourne Metro is needed to create capacity in order for an airport service to run.

And in case you don't remember, the purpose of the RRL was to separate V/Line trains from Metro Trains, Running an Urban type service on that line would defeat the purpose of the RRL. People wanting to transfer between The Airport Service and V/Line services would have opportunities to do so at CBD South (Gippsland Line), Footscray and Sunshine (Ballarat/Ararat/Maryborough, Bendigo/Eaglehawk/Epsom/Swan Hill/Echuca, Geelong/Warrnambool).

You comment about other people's stupid ideas, But you have no idea at all. Pot calling the kettle black much?
  Myrtone Chief Commissioner

Location: North Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria
It doesn't matter, Upfield needs it's station, it serves alot of homes and businesses. I suppose you think they should close Alamein Station while they're at it? There is a plan to fix that part of the line, including track duplication and a second platform at Upfield. This is so that Seymour trains can be diverted away from The Craigieburn Line. and the level crossing at Camp Road is earmarked for removal, which will speed up travel times for the 902.
dollarbill85
Recall the idea of undergrounding the inner section, and incorporating it into the North-South rail link. Yes, this would remove every Upfield line level crossing south of Batman. This diversion ought to have a massive return on investment. It would greatly increase property values in Brunswick, Moreland and Coburg, as well as freeing up a long strip of land, meaning that something called value capture (city council and land buyers covering a portion of the cost) could fund a considerable portion of the initial cost of the diversion.

Again, you are wrong, The Airport line will not use the same tracks used by freight trains. It will run as part of the Metropolitan railway network, via Footscray, Middle Footscray, West Footscray, Tottenham and Sunshine. An flyover will be built at Sunshine for Airport Services. The Airport Line is designed to feed into the Melbourne Metro tunnel, which is why it isn't being built right now. As I said before Melbourne Metro is needed to create capacity in order for an airport service to run.
dollarbill85
In fact, I think the tracks used by freight trains are either standard gauge or dual gauge. I imagine that the Airport tracks will be 1500mm gauge.

And in case you don't remember, the purpose of the RRL was to separate V/Line trains from Metro Trains, Running an Urban type service on that line would defeat the purpose of the RRL. People wanting to transfer between The Airport Service and V/Line services would have opportunities to do so at CBD South (Gippsland Line), Footscray and Sunshine (Ballarat/Ararat/Maryborough, Bendigo/Eaglehawk/Epsom/Swan Hill/Echuca, Geelong/Warrnambool).
dollarbill85
It also diverted V/Line trains away from level crossings between Footscray and Weribee. There are still some level crossings on this rail link, but few and far between.

You comment about other people's stupid ideas, But you have no idea at all. Pot calling the kettle black much?
dollarbill85
Yes, he did that with me on a thread about retrying double-decker trains as a way of increasing our capacity ceiling.
  dollarbill85 Locomotive Fireman

It doesn't matter, Upfield needs it's station, it serves alot of homes and businesses. I suppose you think they should close Alamein Station while they're at it? There is a plan to fix that part of the line, including track duplication and a second platform at Upfield. This is so that Seymour trains can be diverted away from The Craigieburn Line. and the level crossing at Camp Road is earmarked for removal, which will speed up travel times for the 902.

Recall the idea of undergrounding the inner section, and incorporating it into the North-South rail link. Yes, this would remove every Upfield line level crossing south of Batman. This diversion ought to have a massive return on investment. It would greatly increase property values in Brunswick, Moreland and Coburg, as well as freeing up a long strip of land, meaning that something called value capture (city council and land buyers covering a portion of the cost) could fund a considerable portion of the initial cost of the diversion.

Again, you are wrong, The Airport line will not use the same tracks used by freight trains. It will run as part of the Metropolitan railway network, via Footscray, Middle Footscray, West Footscray, Tottenham and Sunshine. An flyover will be built at Sunshine for Airport Services. The Airport Line is designed to feed into the Melbourne Metro tunnel, which is why it isn't being built right now. As I said before Melbourne Metro is needed to create capacity in order for an airport service to run.

In fact, I think the tracks used by freight trains are either standard gauge or dual gauge. I imagine that the Airport tracks will be 1500mm gauge.

And in case you don't remember, the purpose of the RRL was to separate V/Line trains from Metro Trains, Running an Urban type service on that line would defeat the purpose of the RRL. People wanting to transfer between The Airport Service and V/Line services would have opportunities to do so at CBD South (Gippsland Line), Footscray and Sunshine (Ballarat/Ararat/Maryborough, Bendigo/Eaglehawk/Epsom/Swan Hill/Echuca, Geelong/Warrnambool).

It also diverted V/Line trains away from level crossings between Footscray and Weribee. There are still some level crossings on this rail link, but few and far between.

You comment about other people's stupid ideas, But you have no idea at all. Pot calling the kettle black much?

Yes, he did that with me on a thread about retrying double decker trains as a way of increasing our capacity ceiling.
Myrtone

1). I did hear about a proposal of that nature. I like that idea, But the government might decide to put a skyrail there, They seem to be obsessed with Skyrail at the moment. I honestly don't see what's wrong Skyrail, I could see it working along there, beyond Jewell Station anyway. Part of The Upfield Line is already elevated anyway, but the underground option would be preferable as like you said, frees up land.




2).Thanks for that information. That is proof of why Airport trains won't be using Freight Lines, because they are not built to run on them.




3). Good point. Some of them are earmarked for removal. 1 at Aircraft and 2 at Werribee. I happen to live near the Werribee Line, Removing these will certainly ease traffic congestion in the area.

4). Double Decker trains would probably be more expensive. I remember when we did have them, they weren't around long. He seems to think that Melbourne and Sydney are exactly the same city. Good to know there are some people with brains around here.
  Myrtone Chief Commissioner

Location: North Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria
1). That location is uphill from the C.B.D, and the underground option would allow integration with the North-South Rail link. No part of the Upfield line is elevated, it's ground level all the way, except for a short embankment with Flemington bridge station, and the section through Royal Park is uphill.

2). Not exactly, they could still use dual gauge track, but apparently you are saying they will have their own Victorian gauge tracks.

3). And maybe the Weribee line might one day be diverted through the Docklands, on a new, completely level crossings free route. The crossings on the outer section are mostly in less built up areas and so could be removed simply by raising roads.

4). Melbourne and Sydney are indeed different, but the simple fact is that double decker trains are less expensive for the increase in capacity obtained than the increase got by adding more tracks, although we may need to do the latter anyway. But double deckers could still save us from lengthening platforms to accommodate longer trains.
  The Vinelander Minister for Railways

Location: Ballan, Victoria on the Ballarat RFR Line
Y'know Mike, that line is getting really tired. Can't you think of a better one?
LancedDendrite

Yeah and I'm happy to repeat that line whilst we have d1ckheads saying something in their opinion will NEVER happen.

Cheers...
  The Vinelander Minister for Railways

Location: Ballan, Victoria on the Ballarat RFR Line
There is more than sufficient capacity for airport trains to slot in with Vline services at Sunshine - the idea that we need the new city tunnel to complete it is all a BS smokescreen, and you swallowed it, hook , line and sinker.
ZH836301

Err...no there isn't. The revised June Timetable will be tinkering with the tight paths already in the RRL.

Adding an airport train into the mix, that won't be stopping all signals to wherever simply won't work...the capacity just isn't there.
  dollarbill85 Locomotive Fireman

1). That location is uphill from the C.B.D, and the underground option would allow integration with the North-South Rail link. No part of the Upfield line is elevated, it's ground level all the way, except for a short embankment with Flemington bridge station, and the section through Royal Park is uphill.

2). Not exactly, they could still use dual gauge track, but apparently you are saying they will have their own Victorian gauge tracks.

3). And maybe the Weribee line might one day be diverted through the Docklands, on a new, completely level crossings free route. The crossings on the outer section are mostly in less built up areas and so could be removed simply by raising roads.

4). Melbourne and Sydney are indeed different, but the simple fact is that double decker trains are less expensive for the increase in capacity obtained than the increase got by adding more tracks, although we may need to do the latter anyway. But double deckers could still save us from lengthening platforms to accommodate longer trains.
Myrtone
I used to travel along the Upfield Line all the time, so I know it quite well. I think the underground option is the best idea, but it seems to me that the state government has gone Skyrail crazy, or so the media is telling us. Who knows what to believe?

From what I understand is that Airport trains will be intergrated into Melbourne Metro, as will Melton once it's electrified, travelling via The Sunbury Line as far as Sunshine, and then branching off the airport there via the proposed rail flyover.

I have read this plan. The line is supposed to start at an upgraded Newport before travelling under The Yarra River towards Fisherman's Bend. There should be at least 2 stations there. Then it will pass under Southern Cross, and then curve north-east towards Flagstaff. I think another station should be built to serve Queen Victoria Market, interchanging with Melbourne Metro at Parkville Station (Parkville Station will be designed with this in mind). There will be another station at Fitzroy before the line reaches Clifton Hill, where there will be underground platforms. The line between there and Merri is proposed to be straightened out to accomodate the tunnel section, and trains will continue onto Mernda.

You have a good point there. I guess what would need to happen is to weigh up the costs of each one in order to make a decision, but I think the government is pursuing longer trains and platforms. But these are all good ideas though.
  mejhammers1 Chief Commissioner

So much junk in this thread:

*Nobody hires cars to travel to the CBD
*Melbourne's airport is not in a similar position to others
*Melbourne Airport is not against a rail link

And while we're on fantasy krap, my pick is cut the Upfield line back to Campbellfield and run across the old Maygar alignment with a 3km whatever tunnel under Broadmeadows across to the Tulla/airport precinct.  Consider it the plodding all stops Piccadilly line partner to the Heathrow Express equivalent via Albion. Turns the Upfield line into something useful, and also defeats the 'can't build it until the "Metro" is finished in 2050' rubbish.

But according to all the whiners in this thread people from the north don't need to go to the airport...
I am assuming from this rant whatever you call it that you don't live in Upfield? Do you even care about the people who will be disadvantaged by the removal of their train service? And not to mention how ridiculous this plan of yours is? It will take even longer to get to the airport this way, and I can't imagine the cost and the amount of property acquisition, which in case you didn't know, most people are opposed to? And there is already an adequate bus service which connects to Broadmeadows (902), and an adequate connection to the airport at Broadmeadows (901).

The reason it is being built the way it is, is because most of the track it will use already exists, they only need to build 6km of double track to reach the airport, And Melbourne Metro will be finished in 2026, Not 2050, no idea where you got that figure from or if you were being sarcastic. The system in its' current form can't support another railway line, and that the same reason that The Melton Line hasn't been electrified yet, because currently there is no capacity to support these two lines, that's where Melbourne Metro comes in. Once it is close to completion, then The Airport Rail Link and Melton Electrification will be considered.
dollarbill85
Ah but that’s just it. It should not be between V/Line and Metro services, it should be between express and stopping services. The tracks servicing V/Line will have more capacity than the Metro tracks during peak hours. I assume any Airport rail service would be express. If the signalling configuration remains the same, then good luck having to graft 6 Airport trains with the 10 peak hour services to Wintergardens & Sunbury, not to mention the future Melton services. That could be as high as 16 trains per hour at peak.

The Melbourne Metro was not developed to provide capacity for the airport. That is rubbish and the assumption that Melbourne Metro has to be built to provide is nothing but smoke and mirrors. The Melbourne Metro is being built to;

1. Provide additional capacity for the CBD

2. To serve the huge employment centre of Parkville and the new residential areas around the Arden Street area of North Melbourne.

3. To provide relief for the Swanston Street Tram corridor, amongst the busiest Tram corridors in the World!

Yes the Airport is mentioned, but there is no timeline. It might be built by 2035, perhaps. The Government is lukewarm at best, stating that whilst it is a nice project to have, we will concentrate on rail services that passengers use daily thank you. The Coalition with their dreadful Clayton’s Melbourne Rail Link is more enthusiastic and that is saying something. So you see, a bout of health cynicism is warranted as regards to Airport Rail. If you think not, let’s see what is provided in the way of Public Transport to the Airport at the moment.

Skybus

Every 10 Minutes to the City (Express). Wonderful service, sod all amenities provided to the passenger, save a few what can only be described as Nissan huts dotted around the airport, selling paper tickets.

PTV

902 Bus

Every 15 Minutes from Broadmeadows Station and east thereof

478/479 Bus

Every 30 Minutes from Airport West and west thereof, services end at 7.30 pm

And that’s your lot. Indeed the PTV Bus Services cannot serve the Airport Terminals directly and serves a Bus Interchange behind Terminal 4.

I hate to say this but there is no way a Government is going to spend between $3 and $5 Billion needed for a dedicated express heavy rail Airport service, that ain’t happening. The only way that rail will get to the Airport is if it can be achieved and a much cheaper cost and that is either by using the V/Line Tracks and diverting both Bendigo and Seymour/Shepparton services to serve the Airport and loop back to their respected lines. Or by taking over the unloved broad gauge, diverting all broad gauge freight to the Upfield line and converting it to standard gauge suitable tram/light rail operation only, or simply extending the 59 tram. Of course the Stations would be at grade or as sky rail and built as Spartan as possible to save costs.

Michael
  Bogong Chief Commissioner

Location: Essendon Aerodrome circa 1980
Dollar Bill, your grand plans are impressive, but in the real world there is no way any government could find the sort of money required for all of them without simultaneously increasing taxes to a level that the states economy would be destroyed and blowing out debt to a level where we would lose our good credit rating and have to pay a much higher interest rate on government debt.

Now I'm not suggesting that people who dream big need to have the financial experience of running a successful and fast growing mid sized business. But at the other extreme, people with plans like these should be more financially savvy than a clueless teenager who has never had to budget and save for anything.

So it would be great if you could illuminate us with a rough idea of how a government (or a business consortium) could pay for all these huge projects you envisage. If you can't, then perhaps you should confine yourself to less ambitious ideas that seem at least slightly plausible.
  mejhammers1 Chief Commissioner

The day that a train arrives at Tullamarine Airport will be the same day that Satan drives to work in a snowplow.

It will never ever happen. Too many people have vested interests to ensure that buses and multi story long term carparks dominate.
ewokracing
Absolute rubbish. The Rail to Tullamarine is not being built because to provide an express rail it would cost between $3 to $5 Billion. Too much for a dedicated route.

Michael
  mejhammers1 Chief Commissioner

Dollar Bill, your grand plans are impressive, but in the real world there is no way any government could find the sort of money required for all of them without simultaneously increasing taxes to a level that the states economy would be destroyed and blowing out debt to a level where we would lose our good credit rating and have to pay a much higher interest rate on government debt.

Now I'm not suggesting that people who dream big need to have the financial experience of running a successful and fast growing mid sized business. But at the other extreme, people with plans like these should be more financially savvy than a clueless teenager who has never have to budget and save for anything.

So it would be great if you illuminate us with a rough idea of how a government (or a business consortium) could pay for all these huge projects you envisage. If you can't, then perhaps you should confine yourself to less ambitious ideas that seem at least slightly plausible.
Bogong
Bogong, could you be any more patronising!!! Dollar Bill is merely quoting what is in the Metropolitan Rail Plan  which states the uncoupling of the South Morang Line from the Hurstbridge and Future Doncaster lines by building a tunnel through Parkville to Southern Cross to Fisherman's Bend. You can have a gander at the link below;

http://ptv.vic.gov.au/about-ptv/ptv-data-and-reports/network-development-plan-metropolitan-rail/

So it would be great if you illuminate us with a rough idea of how a government (or a business consortium) could pay for all these huge projects you envisage. If you can't, then perhaps you should confine yourself to less ambitious ideas that seem at least slightly plausible.

Or maybe you could find some of these ideas developed by the PTV a Government organisation, no less, in guess what, the link below

http://ptv.vic.gov.au/about-ptv/ptv-data-and-reports/network-development-plan-metropolitan-rail/

Michael
  railblogger Chief Commissioner

Location: At the back of the train, quitely doing exactly what you'd expect.
There is more than sufficient capacity for airport trains to slot in with Vline services at Sunshine - the idea that we need the new city tunnel to complete it is all a BS smokescreen, and you swallowed it, hook , line and sinker.

Err...no there isn't. The revised June Timetable will be tinkering with the tight paths already in the RRL.

Adding an airport train into the mix, that won't be stopping all signals to wherever simply won't work...the capacity just isn't there.
The Vinelander
I expect that once the Ballarat Line upgrade is completed there will be quite a few more services added too.
  dollarbill85 Locomotive Fireman

So much junk in this thread:

*Nobody hires cars to travel to the CBD
*Melbourne's airport is not in a similar position to others
*Melbourne Airport is not against a rail link

And while we're on fantasy krap, my pick is cut the Upfield line back to Campbellfield and run across the old Maygar alignment with a 3km whatever tunnel under Broadmeadows across to the Tulla/airport precinct.  Consider it the plodding all stops Piccadilly line partner to the Heathrow Express equivalent via Albion. Turns the Upfield line into something useful, and also defeats the 'can't build it until the "Metro" is finished in 2050' rubbish.

But according to all the whiners in this thread people from the north don't need to go to the airport...
I am assuming from this rant whatever you call it that you don't live in Upfield? Do you even care about the people who will be disadvantaged by the removal of their train service? And not to mention how ridiculous this plan of yours is? It will take even longer to get to the airport this way, and I can't imagine the cost and the amount of property acquisition, which in case you didn't know, most people are opposed to? And there is already an adequate bus service which connects to Broadmeadows (902), and an adequate connection to the airport at Broadmeadows (901).

The reason it is being built the way it is, is because most of the track it will use already exists, they only need to build 6km of double track to reach the airport, And Melbourne Metro will be finished in 2026, Not 2050, no idea where you got that figure from or if you were being sarcastic. The system in its' current form can't support another railway line, and that the same reason that The Melton Line hasn't been electrified yet, because currently there is no capacity to support these two lines, that's where Melbourne Metro comes in. Once it is close to completion, then The Airport Rail Link and Melton Electrification will be considered.
Ah but that’s just it. It should not be between V/Line and Metro services, it should be between express and stopping services. The tracks servicing V/Line will have more capacity than the Metro tracks during peak hours. I assume any Airport rail service would be express. If the signalling configuration remains the same, then good luck having to graft 6 Airport trains with the 10 peak hour services to Wintergardens & Sunbury, not to mention the future Melton services. That could be as high as 16 trains per hour at peak.

The Melbourne Metro was not developed to provide capacity for the airport. That is rubbish and the assumption that Melbourne Metro has to be built to provide is nothing but smoke and mirrors. The Melbourne Metro is being built to;

1. Provide additional capacity for the CBD

2. To serve the huge employment centre of Parkville and the new residential areas around the Arden Street area of North Melbourne.

3. To provide relief for the Swanston Street Tram corridor, amongst the busiest Tram corridors in the World!

Yes the Airport is mentioned, but there is no timeline. It might be built by 2035, perhaps. The Government is lukewarm at best, stating that whilst it is a nice project to have, we will concentrate on rail services that passengers use daily thank you. The Coalition with their dreadful Clayton’s Melbourne Rail Link is more enthusiastic and that is saying something. So you see, a bout of health cynicism is warranted as regards to Airport Rail. If you think not, let’s see what is provided in the way of Public Transport to the Airport at the moment.

Skybus

Every 10 Minutes to the City (Express). Wonderful service, sod all amenities provided to the passenger, save a few what can only be described as Nissan huts dotted around the airport, selling paper tickets.

PTV

902 Bus

Every 15 Minutes from Broadmeadows Station and east thereof

478/479 Bus

Every 30 Minutes from Airport West and west thereof, services end at 7.30 pm

And that’s your lot. Indeed the PTV Bus Services cannot serve the Airport Terminals directly and serves a Bus Interchange behind Terminal 4.

I hate to say this but there is no way a Government is going to spend between $3 and $5 Billion needed for a dedicated express heavy rail Airport service, that ain’t happening. The only way that rail will get to the Airport is if it can be achieved and a much cheaper cost and that is either by using the V/Line Tracks and diverting both Bendigo and Seymour/Shepparton services to serve the Airport and loop back to their respected lines. Or by taking over the unloved broad gauge, diverting all broad gauge freight to the Upfield line and converting it to standard gauge suitable tram/light rail operation only, or simply extending the 59 tram. Of course the Stations would be at grade or as sky rail and built as Spartan as possible to save costs.

Michael
mejhammers1
It's not rubbish. The Network Development Plan clearly showed an airport line connecting to the Melbourne Metro, and even when the original Melbourne Metro proposal was dumped and The Melbourne Rail Link took its' place, It was proposed that airport line would be built in tandem with the MRL.

And every 30 minutes to the airport isn't good enough. they could have at least 15 minute services if they alternated between 478 and 479. This sort of arrangement works well throughout Melbourne. Airport buses should run until at least midnight. The 901 already does both of those things.

Any airport service would be a standard commuter service. The express V/Line route would make for a more efficient Airport service, not to mention v/locities which would probably be used on such a service have luggage storage, whereas metropolitan trains do not, but that is the most likely route they will take. And if these lines were diverted how would they "loop back" as you put it? I don't think commuters on those lines would be too happy about the added time to their journey's when the journey is already long enough as it is.

The Jacana Loop does have alot of potential, from what I have seen it isn't used that often, apart from the XPT to Sydney and the odd freight train. And I don't think it is a wise decision to run freight trains along a line as built up as Upfield, that is why they have their own dedicated Line out of Melbourne. I can't imagine the delays it will cause to passenger services having to wait for them.

And if you want a tram to the airport, it would most likely have to be underground within the airport, which would be a first for our tram network, but for route 59 to be a viable airport service and an alternative to a heavy rail link, I think a route 96 style upgrade would be justified. And the trams currently used on that particular route wouldn't be able to cope with the extra passengers, an especially dedicated fleet with low floors and luggage racks, but it would have nowhere near the same capacity as a train, there would be no prospect of express services, and the trip would take too long anyway, even with the aforementioned upgrades.
  mejhammers1 Chief Commissioner

So much junk in this thread:

*Nobody hires cars to travel to the CBD
*Melbourne's airport is not in a similar position to others
*Melbourne Airport is not against a rail link

And while we're on fantasy krap, my pick is cut the Upfield line back to Campbellfield and run across the old Maygar alignment with a 3km whatever tunnel under Broadmeadows across to the Tulla/airport precinct.  Consider it the plodding all stops Piccadilly line partner to the Heathrow Express equivalent via Albion. Turns the Upfield line into something useful, and also defeats the 'can't build it until the "Metro" is finished in 2050' rubbish.

But according to all the whiners in this thread people from the north don't need to go to the airport...
I am assuming from this rant whatever you call it that you don't live in Upfield? Do you even care about the people who will be disadvantaged by the removal of their train service? And not to mention how ridiculous this plan of yours is? It will take even longer to get to the airport this way, and I can't imagine the cost and the amount of property acquisition, which in case you didn't know, most people are opposed to? And there is already an adequate bus service which connects to Broadmeadows (902), and an adequate connection to the airport at Broadmeadows (901).

The reason it is being built the way it is, is because most of the track it will use already exists, they only need to build 6km of double track to reach the airport, And Melbourne Metro will be finished in 2026, Not 2050, no idea where you got that figure from or if you were being sarcastic. The system in its' current form can't support another railway line, and that the same reason that The Melton Line hasn't been electrified yet, because currently there is no capacity to support these two lines, that's where Melbourne Metro comes in. Once it is close to completion, then The Airport Rail Link and Melton Electrification will be considered.
Ah but that’s just it. It should not be between V/Line and Metro services, it should be between express and stopping services. The tracks servicing V/Line will have more capacity than the Metro tracks during peak hours. I assume any Airport rail service would be express. If the signalling configuration remains the same, then good luck having to graft 6 Airport trains with the 10 peak hour services to Wintergardens & Sunbury, not to mention the future Melton services. That could be as high as 16 trains per hour at peak.

The Melbourne Metro was not developed to provide capacity for the airport. That is rubbish and the assumption that Melbourne Metro has to be built to provide is nothing but smoke and mirrors. The Melbourne Metro is being built to;

1. Provide additional capacity for the CBD

2. To serve the huge employment centre of Parkville and the new residential areas around the Arden Street area of North Melbourne.

3. To provide relief for the Swanston Street Tram corridor, amongst the busiest Tram corridors in the World!

Yes the Airport is mentioned, but there is no timeline. It might be built by 2035, perhaps. The Government is lukewarm at best, stating that whilst it is a nice project to have, we will concentrate on rail services that passengers use daily thank you. The Coalition with their dreadful Clayton’s Melbourne Rail Link is more enthusiastic and that is saying something. So you see, a bout of health cynicism is warranted as regards to Airport Rail. If you think not, let’s see what is provided in the way of Public Transport to the Airport at the moment.

Skybus

Every 10 Minutes to the City (Express). Wonderful service, sod all amenities provided to the passenger, save a few what can only be described as Nissan huts dotted around the airport, selling paper tickets.

PTV

902 Bus

Every 15 Minutes from Broadmeadows Station and east thereof

478/479 Bus

Every 30 Minutes from Airport West and west thereof, services end at 7.30 pm

And that’s your lot. Indeed the PTV Bus Services cannot serve the Airport Terminals directly and serves a Bus Interchange behind Terminal 4.

I hate to say this but there is no way a Government is going to spend between $3 and $5 Billion needed for a dedicated express heavy rail Airport service, that ain’t happening. The only way that rail will get to the Airport is if it can be achieved and a much cheaper cost and that is either by using the V/Line Tracks and diverting both Bendigo and Seymour/Shepparton services to serve the Airport and loop back to their respected lines. Or by taking over the unloved broad gauge, diverting all broad gauge freight to the Upfield line and converting it to standard gauge suitable tram/light rail operation only, or simply extending the 59 tram. Of course the Stations would be at grade or as sky rail and built as Spartan as possible to save costs.

Michael
It's not rubbish. The Network Development Plan clearly showed an airport line connecting to the Melbourne Metro, and even when the original Melbourne Metro proposal was dumped and The Melbourne Rail Link took its' place, It was proposed that airport line would be built in tandem with the MRL.

And every 30 minutes to the airport isn't good enough. they could have at least 15 minute services if they alternated between 478 and 479. This sort of arrangement works well throughout Melbourne. Airport buses should run until at least midnight. The 901 already does both of those things.

Any airport service would be a standard commuter service. The express V/Line route would make for a more efficient Airport service, not to mention v/locities which would probably be used on such a service have luggage storage, whereas metropolitan trains do not, but that is the most likely route they will take. And if these lines were diverted how would they "loop back" as you put it? I don't think commuters on those lines would be too happy about the added time to their journey's when the journey is already long enough as it is.

The Jacana Loop does have alot of potential, from what I have seen it isn't used that often, apart from the XPT to Sydney and the odd freight train. And I don't think it is a wise decision to run freight trains along a line as built up as Upfield, that is why they have their own dedicated Line out of Melbourne. I can't imagine the delays it will cause to passenger services having to wait for them.

And if you want a tram to the airport, it would most likely have to be underground within the airport, which would be a first for our tram network, but for route 59 to be a viable airport service and an alternative to a heavy rail link, I think a route 96 style upgrade would be justified. And the trams currently used on that particular route wouldn't be able to cope with the extra passengers, an especially dedicated fleet with low floors and luggage racks, but it would have nowhere near the same capacity as a train, there would be no prospect of express services, and the trip would take too long anyway, even with the aforementioned upgrades.
dollarbill85
It's not rubbish. The Network Development Plan clearly showed an airport line connecting to the Melbourne Metro, and even when the original Melbourne Metro proposal was dumped and The Melbourne Rail Link took its' place, It was proposed that airport line would be built in tandem with the MRL.

Never disputed the fact that the Airport Line is proposed to link with the Melbourne Metro. I have said as much. I said it wasn't the case that the Melbourne Metro is needed to be built before rail to the Airport. Why give credence to a dreadful project such as the Melbourne Rail Link. A project thought up by the planning minister at the time to give hope to his developer mates involved with Fisherman's Bend. A project that would not provide extra capacity through the CBD, would not serve the large employment centre of Parkville, or the more developed area of Arden Street or relieve the very busy Swanston Street Tram corridor. MRL was nothing more than a thought bubble which would not see the light of day.

Any airport service would be a standard commuter service. The express V/Line route would make for a more efficient Airport service, not to mention v/locities which would probably be used on such a service have luggage storage, whereas metropolitan trains do not, but that is the most likely route they will take.

Isn't that what I and ZHB has said. That the Airport service should use the express tracks. You disputed this. And you are contradicting what you had said earlier, that the Melbourne Metro needs to be built before the Airport service. Clearly by your suggestion of using V/Locities, it doesnt. The suggestion of diverting Seymour and Bendigo services is controversial, but it is a way forward on building heavy rail, because no Government no matter the spin is going to pony up between $3 and $5 Billion for a dedicated Airport Rail services.

The Jacana Loop does have alot of potential, from what I have seen it isn't used that often, apart from the XPT to Sydney and the odd freight train. And I don't think it is a wise decision to run freight trains along a line as built up as Upfield, that is why they have their own dedicated Line out of Melbourne. I can't imagine the delays it will cause to passenger services having to wait for them.

The XPT does not use the broad gauge. Any freight train that runs out of Melbourne runs through built up areas. The dedicated freight line was built to avoid the steep gradients of the Broadmeadows corridor. In any case only 3 trains per hour runs through the Upfield line and the PTV Metropolitan Rail states as a proposal, all Seymour and Shepparton services would be diverted on to this corridor. It should not be hard to put freight trains on a corridor that sees at most 6 trains per hour.

And if you want a tram to the airport, it would most likely have to be underground within the airport, which would be a first for our tram network, but for route 59 to be a viable airport service and an alternative to a heavy rail link, I think a route 96 style upgrade would be justified. And the trams currently used on that particular route wouldn't be able to cope with the extra passengers, an especially dedicated fleet with low floors and luggage racks, but it would have nowhere near the same capacity as a train, there would be no prospect of express services, and the trip would take too long anyway, even with the aforementioned upgrades.

Why would the Tram stop have to be underground? Please explain that one. Yes a tram does not have capacity as a train, nor does a bus, but the Skybus is being used. The Tram would not be express, but that is not what it is designed for. The tram would also serve the North West Suburbs, if an extension of the 59 Tram route and stops would be built if the old broad gauge route was converted. It would be providing extra capacity at a much cheaper cost to build.

Michael

Sponsored advertisement

Display from:   

Quick Reply

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