This is beginning to become embarassing for Andrews.  We now have the Feds reviewing Albury and Gippsland services.  I expect some political sparing to come.

Gippsland rail funding possible to fix 'slow, unreliable' service says Federal Minister

This is beginning to become embarassing for Andrews.  We now have the Feds reviewing Albury and Gippsland services.  I expect some political sparing to come.

Gippsland rail funding possible to fix 'slow, unreliable' service says Federal Minister

• Duplication of the Dandenong rail corridor.

I couldn't agree more


Any part of the Melbourne to Dandenong corridor that's single line should have money allocated immediately from the forward estimates to enable immediate completion of the duplication of this line.

Mike...

G'day all.
I think they mean quadruplication, which is badly needed. But how is this embarrassing for Mr. Andrews? There is only so much money in the state budget coffers, and from what I can see, he is getting on with a fair bit with level crossing removal, duplicating parts of the Ballarat line and the Melbourne Metro project. But any Federal money would be a welcome addition! But I think they also need to include duplication of the Bunyip- Lonwarry section and a second platform at Moe.
Cheers all.

This is beginning to become embarassing for Andrews.  We now have the Feds reviewing Albury and Gippsland services.  I expect some political sparing to come.

Gippsland rail funding possible to fix 'slow, unreliable' service says Federal Minister

• Duplication of the Dandenong rail corridor.

I couldn't agree more


Any part of the Melbourne to Dandenong corridor that's single line should have money allocated immediately from the forward estimates to enable immediate completion of the duplication of this line.

Mike...

When they duplicate the Dandenong line they should electrify it at the same time.

The report by John Hearsch Consulting that was commissioned by the local Gippsland Councils has a good series of recommendations for infrastructure improvements on the Gippsland line.

Within 5 years

• Duplication of the single line between Bunyip and Longwarry and upgraded stations at both locations
• Expansion of the Drouin Parkway facility with an additional 400 car park spaces
• Provision of train stabling facilities at Warragul and Sale
• Extension of the Morwell crossing loop towards Traralgon for approximately 3km and upgrading of the existing loop track and turnout.
• Additional car parking at Moe
• Provision of a second platform at Morwell with associated DDA compliant access
• Upgrading of the Traralgon station precinct including provision of 200 car parking spaces
• A new safeworking system and signalling Traralgon to Sale
• Replacement of the Avon River bridge at Stratford
• Provision of remote controlled signalling for loco runarounds at Bairnsdale

5 - 10 years

• Full upgrading of the North line Pakenham to Bunyip and Longwarry to Moe to Class 1 standard to permit 160km/h operation of VLocity and new generation long distance trains
• Upgrading to Class 1 standard of the remaining Class 2 sections of the South Line between Longwarry and Warragul to permit 160km/h operation of VLocity trains and new generation long distance trains (subject to curvature constraints)
• Extending duplication from Moe to Hernes Oak including a new station building and second platform at Moe with associated DDA compliant access
• Upgrading of existing track Moe to Hernes Oak and Hernes Oak loop track to Class 1 standard to permit 160km/h operation of VLocity trains and new generation long distance trains (subject to curvature constraints)
• Provision of a second platform at Traralgon with associated DDA compliant access
• Track upgrade to Class 2 standard Traralgon to Bairnsdale for 130 km/h operation of VLocity trains and new generation long distance trains
• New safeworking system and signalling Sale to Bairnsdale
• Provision of a train stabling facility at Bairnsdale

10-15 years

• Quadruplication between Caulfield and Dandenong
• An overtaking line (4 km of bi-directional third rack) between Beaconsfield and Officer
• Extending track duplication from Hernes Oak to Morwell Loop and from Morwell Loop to Traralgon
• A new crossing loop at Wurruk (near Sale)

Is the comment regarding speed and quality of service true where Chester says the service is worse now than it was 15 years ago?  Seems to be a theme across V/Line?

Is the comment regarding speed and quality of service true where Chester says the service is worse now than it was 15 years ago?  Seems to be a theme across V/Line?

"The service is worse" is such an open ended statement.

Yes, the service is worse for semi-express loco hauled trains (to/from Bairnsdale) because they are between 10 and 15 minutes slower for the journey through the commuter zone between Traralgon and Melbourne compared to the end of last century, due to three extra timetabled stops and closer spacing of Metro paths that cause extensive running under yellows between Dandenong and Caulfield.

No, the service is better nowadays because it provides better options for commuters at three extra stations.

Yes, the service is worse because we have V-Locity trains capable of 160 km/h taking as long as red rattlers to reach the city.

No, the service is better because 20 trains run each way per weekday compared to less than 10 late last century.

Yes, the service is worse because Sale and Bairnsdale have grown rapidly but have not had an increase in train services.

No, the service is better because the morning Bairnsdale to FSS train takes a full 40 minutes less than what it did in 1975.

The report by John Hearsch Consulting that was commissioned by the local Gippsland Councils has a good series of recommendations for infrastructure improvements on the Gippsland line.

A new crossing loop at Wurruk (near Sale)

Any reasoning on the location of Wurruk for a crossing loop ?

Other than the fact an Industrial loop siding Is still partly there.

Wouldn't somewhere between Rosedale and Killmany be a better location ?

Why is that everytime bevans posts an article, there always has to be some kind of dig at Daniel Andrews? Considering all the work and investment that is currently happening railway-wise, I think it is phenomenal that we are getting so much done.

In saying that, there is always more to do (and that will always be the case), but to always resort to saying "ooo Andrews is in trouble" or "this is embarrassing for Andrews"? Embarrassing for who, exactly? And more importantly, *why*?

Leads me to wonder exactly what your beef is with the current Premier. It comes across like you hold a constant grudge.

Why is that everytime bevans posts an article, there always has to be some kind of dig at Daniel Andrews? Considering all the work and investment that is currently happening railway-wise, I think it is phenomenal that we are getting so much done.

In saying that, there is always more to do (and that will always be the case), but to always resort to saying "ooo Andrews is in trouble" or "this is embarrassing for Andrews"? Embarrassing for who, exactly? And more importantly, *why*?

Leads me to wonder exactly what your beef is with the current Premier. It comes across like you hold a constant grudge.

Just my opinion, Bevans as a site admin may be doing a bit of "flaming". ie "jazzing" up an item to make certain it gets a comment and therefore the site gets more traffic. Such flaming is a practice of almost all broadcasters, Jon Fane from ABC 774 Melbourne being a past master.

Sadly one cannot discount poor judgement or stupidity as such are commodities thats NOT in short supply in politics.

woodford

I enjoy a good critique and you might find if you look similar critique of the liberals when they were in.  Anyone in this state who believes Public Transport issues are being addressed and solved in a timely manner are kidding themselves.  
The V/Line issues have been shocking as has the lack lustre approach to solving them.  At the present time Andrews is in charge.  He needs to address these critical issues.

I enjoy a good critique and you might find if you look similar critique of the liberals when they were in.  Anyone in this state who believes Public Transport issues are being addressed and solved in a timely manner are kidding themselves.  

The V/Line issues have been shocking as has the lack lustre approach to solving them.  At the present time Andrews is in charge.  He needs to address these critical issues.

Hear, hear.

I would add an upgrade of Pakenham to the list.   Needed now.   It only takes things to go slightly out of sequence and the time table falls apart due to lack of platform capacity.  The approach signalling is in desperate need of upgrade, especially for down trains.   The run time from Dandenong to Pakenham is as bad as Caulfield to Dandenong for country trains being stuck behind the Metro services.

Why is it that run-through facilities are not used for express trains at Oakleigh, Westall and even Dandenong?  The infrastructure is there, yet it is not used (normal time table I mean, its rare but sometimes a run through happens at Westall due to mishap or something).

I am surprised that most spin on the Dandenong corridor SkyRail project regards the number of services and capacity.  There is no talk about run-time.   The new trains will essentially go the same speed as the old ones.   The country trains will still be stuck behind the Metro services (that is if the at not terminated at Pakenham, that has not gone away).

I would also suggest, at the risk of being shot by some locals, that the Garfield station be upgraded to allow the closure of the Bunyip and Tynong stations.  The number of stops through there is ridiculous.  An alternative would be to originate a pick up service from Warragul and have a Traralgon to Warragul pick up service  from Traralgon.  The two services combine at Pakenham for one path into town.   Do the opposite on the return journey.   There is not much point having 160km/hr trains and track when stations are 5km or less apart.

Thanks Rosco T for publishing the summary.   I've studied the report and will provide some comments a bit later.

For now however I would say this.

Setting out a suite of service and infrastructure improvements that shows how the various initiativves are built up over a 5 to 30 year horizon is exactly whats needed for Transport Planning everywhere in this country.    It never ceases to amaze me that varios Governments are reasonably comfortable about mapping out a future for roads but never for public transport because of fear about raising expectations.

I think the focus should be telling people about what lies ahead and how this contributes to managing growth etc, the issue then is about MANAGING EXPECTATIONS and how like all planning,  timelines will change and certain proposals will be modified to suit changes in growth, the economy etc.

Overall this is a good piece of work and it is noteworthy that it has been funded and commissioned by several councils in the region.   This seems to be a growing trend with similar studies undertaken in western Victoria and in Shepparton with the Shepparton piece apparently being refreshed.

I would add an upgrade of Pakenham to the list.   Needed now.   It only takes things to go slightly out of sequence and the time table falls apart due to lack of platform capacity.  The approach signalling is in desperate need of upgrade, especially for down trains.   The run time from Dandenong to Pakenham is as bad as Caulfield to Dandenong for country trains being stuck behind the Metro services.

Why is it that run-through facilities are not used for express trains at Oakleigh, Westall and even Dandenong?  The infrastructure is there, yet it is not used (normal time table I mean, its rare but sometimes a run through happens at Westall due to mishap or something).

I am surprised that most spin on the Dandenong corridor SkyRail project regards the number of services and capacity.  There is no talk about run-time.   The new trains will essentially go the same speed as the old ones.   The country trains will still be stuck behind the Metro services (that is if the at not terminated at Pakenham, that has not gone away).

METRO has no interest whatsoever in V/Line services, hence the rarity of running V/Line trains through those services when running late at Oakleigh, Westall or Dandenong despite the ability to do so when the need arises....and at Watergardens on the other side of town.

Unlikely trains will be terminated at Pakenham as part of the timetable going forward due to that proposal being way too politically risky.

Mike.

I'm just amazed the federal member for Gippsland is actually bothering to fund the trains.

Then again, he is very active in the local newspaper doing letters to the editor and might actually be reading the articles in the Latrobe Valley Express on the whole V/line situation.

I would add an upgrade of Pakenham to the list.   Needed now.   It only takes things to go slightly out of sequence and the time table falls apart due to lack of platform capacity.  The approach signalling is in desperate need of upgrade, especially for down trains.   The run time from Dandenong to Pakenham is as bad as Caulfield to Dandenong for country trains being stuck behind the Metro services.

Why is it that run-through facilities are not used for express trains at Oakleigh, Westall and even Dandenong?  The infrastructure is there, yet it is not used (normal time table I mean, its rare but sometimes a run through happens at Westall due to mishap or something).

I am surprised that most spin on the Dandenong corridor SkyRail project regards the number of services and capacity.  There is no talk about run-time.   The new trains will essentially go the same speed as the old ones.   The country trains will still be stuck behind the Metro services (that is if the at not terminated at Pakenham, that has not gone away).

METRO has no interest whatsoever in V/Line services, hence the rarity of running V/Line trains through those services when running late at Oakleigh, Westall or Dandenong despite the ability to do so when the need arises....and at Watergardens on the other side of town.

Unlikely trains will be terminated at Pakenham as part of the timetable going forward due to that proposal being way too politically risky.

Mike.

I can tell you now Mike if the Liberals were still in, Traralgon trains(not all) would be terminating at Pakenham and depending on when the quadruplication happens it could happen under Labour.
As far as run throughs go at either Oakliegh or Westall it all depends on whose fault it is.
If Metro caused the late running you get a run through if not, tough titties. (fines are costly).

It's a bit cheeky for Darren Chester (Federal Member for Gippsland and Infrastructure Minister) to have a crack at a State ALP Government over passenger rail transport. His Party's major impact on rail in Gippsland was the Kennett Government's closure of the South Gippsland line and the Bairnsdale pass back in 1993. I am not aware of a Coalition government doing anything out east for rail since the 1950's upgrading to support briquette traffic. They also created the Traralgon station monstrosity in the mid 90s - which turned half of a kilometre of railway land into retail, takeaway food joints and a railway station that is a textbook example of how not to build a transport precinct.

I sincerely hope that Mr Chester has had some kind of transport rethinking and will work with the State Government to implement some of the known infrastructure projects that the network needs in this part of Victoria. It is quite a gamble travelling on the Gippsland line and all credit to him if he can stump up some cash.

And I agree with Skitz's comment about paring back some of the thinly used stations between Drouin and Pakenham. The frequent stops for negligible passengers slow down the longer distance travellers, many of whom commute long distances to a station. A recent trip to Ballarat showed how much quicker travel is by only stopping at major towns.

And I agree with Skitz's comment about paring back some of the thinly used stations between Drouin and Pakenham. The frequent stops for negligible passengers slow down the longer distance travellers, many of whom commute long distances to a station. A recent trip to Ballarat showed how much quicker travel is by only stopping at major towns.

It's not even that hard to pair back services on places like Yarragon and Trafalgar.... you could drop them to bi hourly services and I don't think most people would notice. Hell I could even go so far to suggest a bus connection to Warragul or Moe even for most services.

I'm just amazed the federal member for Gippsland is actually bothering to fund the trains.

Then again, he is very active in the local newspaper doing letters to the editor and might actually be reading the articles in the Latrobe Valley Express on the whole V/line situation.

I know this place is pretty cynical about politicians, and rightly so, but the federal member (and by extension the federal government) taking an interest in regional public transport can only be a good thing.

Worst case scenario, he tries to score cheap political points and puts pressure on the state government to improve services. Best case scenario, the feds actually put some funding into it.

And I agree with Skitz's comment about paring back some of the thinly used stations between Drouin and Pakenham. The frequent stops for negligible passengers slow down the longer distance travellers, many of whom commute long distances to a station. A recent trip to Ballarat showed how much quicker travel is by only stopping at major towns.
It's not even that hard to pair back services on places like Yarragon and Trafalgar.... you could drop them to bi hourly services and I don't think most people would notice. Hell I could even go so far to suggest a bus connection to Warragul or Moe even for most services.

The issue with Trafalgar is that the stopping service is doomed to be the stopping all stations service and the run-time is poor.  Hence the suggestion of pick up service to Warragul then express etc.

As for bypassing Traf, at least it has a reasonable population (about the same as Bunyip and Garfield combined) is around 10km between stations, its not the killer of run-time like across the Longwarry to Pakenham section.   The problem with Trafalgar being bypassed is that it is a 21km drive to the next serviced railway station.   Yarragon its around 10km.  To back-track to Moe is 10km but 20km in time, so not worth it.

Compare this to the 4km to 5km station hops (most are 4km) between Longwarry and Nar Nar Goon.   Say they build a new station on the Up side of Garfield, the longest drive to catch a train would be from Tynong to Pakenham of around 12km on a reasonably direct and quiet road. and given the short distance back to Garfield I would say most Tynonigans would chose the back-track option rather than risk Pakenham car parking(!)

As for the bus suggestion, you can stick that.  I am trying to keep the focus on run-time here.  The bus link with the evening 'premium service' from Warragul is the pits.

METRO has no interest whatsoever in V/Line services, hence the rarity of running V/Line trains through those services when running late at Oakleigh, Westall or Dandenong despite the ability to do so when the need arises....and at Watergardens on the other side of town.

Unlikely trains will be terminated at Pakenham as part of the timetable going forward due to that proposal being way too politically risky.

Mike.I can tell you now Mike if the Liberals were still in, Traralgon trains(not all) would be terminating at Pakenham and depending on when the quadruplication happens it could happen under Labour.
As far as run throughs go at either Oakliegh or Westall it all depends on whose fault it is.
If Metro caused the late running you get a run through if not, tough titties. (fines are costly).

This is solely from METRO's point of view.

Politically it's not going to happen.

We all know what happened to the Libs because they dropped the ball on PT.

Mike.

Interestingly last night there was a hold up at Carnegie (piling works pushed the platform into the track), about 15min down from that.  After the hold up we got the 'straight' through Oakleigh and bypassed a metro service (a first for me to note).   Given the run to Dandenong we were 3min down and pretty much on time.  just shows what is possible!

.............................only to have it blown due to WOLO restrictions post Pakenham, even though it had cooled down.  I note the WOLO does not knock the Gippsland train as much as it feels, overall the journey took ten minutes longer than time table.

.............................only to have it blown due to WOLO restrictions post Pakenham, even though it had cooled down.  I note the WOLO does not knock the Gippsland train as much as it feels, overall the journey took ten minutes longer than time table.

Average speed over the length of one run on the timetable is roughly 80km/h funnily enough.... so WOLO's dont throw that out much.

Regarding Trafalgar and Garfield etc., it wasn't that long ago that some noisy citizens from Trafalgar were calling for MORE trains to stop there. You cannot actually disagree with their logic - Trafalgar is bigger than Garfield, where every train stops.

The problem with Garfield is that it was (and still is) promoted as a park 'n ride station post-RFR. it seemed to make sense at the time in that Garfield is the mid-point station between Drouin and Pakenham, and with RFR, with every train to stop there, 'build it and they will come' etc. Problem is, Bunyip has grown much more rapidly since then and now outstrips Garfield's population easily!  

I will always maintain that Bairnsdale InterCity services should run express between Warragul* and Dandenong, as they did late last century, with additional all-stopper services originating from Warragul departing shortly afterwards. Even express between Traralgon and Warragul should be considered, as long as there are eventually enough paths to allow additional V-Locity services from Traralgon to take up the local slack so to speak, all the way through to Melbourne.

*I note from a recent, unrelated news story pertaining to Warragul and Drouin that the forecast combined population of these two towns in 2030 is 100,000!