I just noticed that Seymour is directly north of Whittlesea. I have an idea of extending the tracks of the South Morang line not only to Whittlesea but through it all the way to Seymour. This way VLine trains to Seymour could use the South Morang line instead of the Craigieburn or Upfield lines.
Now I did learn in another thread that the future planning in that area won't allow even for a rail extension to Whittlesea, but it probably should allow for it.
We could run extra suburban services on the Craigieburn line in addition to diverting the Upfield line, and there really has been an official proposal for the latter, and it is supported by the Moreland and Darebin city councils.

I just noticed that Seymour is directly north of Whittlesea. I have an idea of extending the tracks of the South Morang line not only to Whittlesea but through it all the way to Seymour. This way VLine trains to Seymour could use the South Morang line instead of the Craigieburn or Upfield lines.
Now I did learn in another thread that the future planning in that area won't allow even for a rail extension to Whittlesea, but it probably should allow for it.
We could run extra suburban services on the Craigieburn line in addition to diverting the Upfield line, and there really has been an official proposal for the latter, and it is supported by the Moreland and Darebin city councils.

Isn't just easier to connect the Upfeild line with the Craigeburn line. Only requires some 1 km extension and a few km of duplication and a flyover. Also you'd have to accommodate those between Seymour and Craigeburn by extending the electrification of the already busy Craigeburn line. Upfeild line doesn't serve many people so it's able to accomodate more Vline services. Since Mernda Line has many peak train services it would be tricky to fit the express Vlines services. Extending the Mernda Line to Whittlesea is probably as far as it will go in the future.

I just noticed that Seymour is directly north of Whittlesea.

It is; and between the two are the Kinglake State Park and Mount Disappointment.

I just noticed that Seymour is directly north of Whittlesea.

It is; and between the two are the Kinglake State Park and Mount Disappointment.

Yes very Mountain like terrain past Whittlesea don't see that train link happening it's better stick with the more reasonable and realistic plan of extending the Upfeild Line to join with the Craigeburn line.

I just noticed that Seymour is directly north of Whittlesea.

It is; and between the two are the Kinglake State Park and Mount Disappointment.

Yes very Mountain like terrain past Whittlesea don't see that train link happening it's better stick with the more reasonable and realistic plan of extending the Upfeild Line to join with the Craigeburn line.

Railway lines crossed mountains 150 years ago.

I just noticed that Seymour is directly north of Whittlesea.

It is; and between the two are the Kinglake State Park and Mount Disappointment.

Yes very Mountain like terrain past Whittlesea don't see that train link happening it's better stick with the more reasonable and realistic plan of extending the Upfeild Line to join with the Craigeburn line.

Railway lines crossed mountains 150 years ago.

Rail lines might have been crossing mountain ranges for 150 years but that still doesn't make this idea any better, Other viable and less expensive options are available for trains running to Syemour.

But Whittlesea is closer to Seymour than Craigieburn. That's being missed.

I just noticed that Seymour is directly north of Whittlesea. I have an idea of extending the tracks of the South Morang line not only to Whittlesea but through it all the way to Seymour. This way VLine trains to Seymour could use the South Morang line instead of the Craigieburn or Upfield lines.
Now I did learn in another thread that the future planning in that area won't allow even for a rail extension to Whittlesea, but it probably should allow for it.
We could run extra suburban services on the Craigieburn line in addition to diverting the Upfield line, and there really has been an official proposal for the latter, and it is supported by the Moreland and Darebin city councils.

I see your location is Carlton North, hence the fascination with diverting the upfield line, but I will take the bait and respond.

The South Morang line is being seperated from the Hurstbridge line and joined to the Werribee Line via Fishermen's Bend to give it access to 100% of a track pair at all times. The line has high patronage and needs all of the paths into the city it can get. V/Line trains taking paths are not what this line needs. The upfield line, however is the preferred route north due to it being of a lower patronage. My ideal seymour routing would be via RRL and following the SG route north, however an interim of via Upfield is acceptable. Craigieburn and South Morang need 24tph+ to be able to handle the passenger demand.

Here's another idea for Seymour trains - via RRL to just past Holden Rd at Calder Park (triple or quad Sunshine to there), and hook a right onto the new Outer Metro Ring rail to Donnybrook.

I just noticed that Seymour is directly north of Whittlesea.

It is; and between the two are the Kinglake State Park and Mount Disappointment.

Yes very Mountain like terrain past Whittlesea don't see that train link happening it's better stick with the more reasonable and realistic plan of extending the Upfeild Line to join with the Craigeburn line.

Railway lines crossed mountains 150 years ago.

Yes that was before high speed trains were introduced, the less gradient the less power required for the trains to travel on. Mountains would require alot terrain modifications and sometimes using extensive bridging or tunnelling. This makes it very expensive to implement. The Upfield connection makes the most sense since it has the capacity to have Vlines run along the route and it has a short easy connection. Also potentially can make the Upfield line as part of a future Wallan rail electrification project in the future.

The problem with the Upfield connection is that it couldn't be diverted underground, which, as I have said before, will mean it serves more people. See the official proposal to which I have linked above.

As Captain Mainwaring said to Corporal Jones on many occasions in Dad's Army - 'we are entering the realms of fantasy here'.

The problem with the Upfield connection is that it couldn't be diverted underground, which, as I have said before, will mean it serves more people. See the official proposal to which I have linked above.

As I said before, I disagree with the Upfield going underground, and rather have the Mernda line underground and the Upfield line to connect with the Craigeburn Line for the Vlines. Looks like we want to do each upgrade differently. Myrtone wants a direct Upfield link and a Direct Seymour link. I prefer what was planned in original PTV plan, to divert Upfield for Vlines and future proof Wallan electrification, and Untangle the South Morang line with Hurstbridge with Metro 2 tunnel via Parkville/Fitzroy to allow a future line to Doncaster.

1. The section of Earth between Whittlesea and Seymour has a lot of mountains.

2. The section of Earth between Whittlesea and Seymour is sparsely populated

3. The existing line between Broadmeadows and Seymour serves a decent population sector, including, but not limited to the towns of Wallan, Kilmore, Broadford and Tallarook.

4. The proposal to build a direct line from Mernda to Seymour has got to be one of the stupidest ideas I have read in a while. Well done.



Aside from that, this thread really does belong in the armchair operators section of the forum.

Railway lines crossed mountains 150 years ago.

They did, and the best of luck getting to cross mountains through a National Park and a State Forest for this latest hare-brained idea.

Heavy and Metro rail serve medium to long distance. Light Rail serves short distance. Therefore, you don't really need the closest line to be diverted in that direction.

Not that coherent. Is Royal Park to Flemington Bridge or Macauley "short distance". Certainly University to Coburg and beyond, let alone Flagstaff to Coburn and beyond is the sort of distance that heavy rail serves.

They live in the Northern Suburbs because the transit is already good to the university there is  little patronage to be gained south of the Ring Road and very little south of Bell Street in the north. The western and outer northern suburbs do not currently have good transit. The Metro tunnel is aimed at improving heavy transit to the Western Suburbs. Moving V/Line trains to the Upfield Line will have a flow on effect of improving heavy transit in the outer north.

These suburbs are the closest to the University, that's why they live there. Perhaps moving VLine trains to the Upfield line would be a temporary and short term solution.

Lower capacity street transit is more than suitable for the shorter distances between the inner north and Parkville. People coming in from the outer North can train in and change closer to university. Tram capacity is constantly increasing. Platforms are becoming more accessible and as they are, other works are helping with getting them out of congestion. A tram every 5 or 6 minutes in many cases may be better than a train every 10 or 15.

But if the Upfield line were diverted, they could take the train all the way instead of changing closer to the University.


And how would you get the V/Line trains to Whittlesea in the first place? Across the Flinders Street Viaduct where they would have to cross every suburban line? Reinstate the inner circle railway which would use your precious Upfield Line and disrupt that anyway?But there are already VLine trains across the Flinders Street Viaduct, such as to Traralgon.

No comment on the rest.

But there are already VLine trains across the Flinders Street Viaduct, such as to Traralgon.

That is not an argument. Traralgon trains only have to cross the Sandringham and Frankston pair of tracks and could do the latter at Caulfield. Where as the Whittlesea trains if still using Platforms 9 and 10 at Southern would have to cross the Burnley group, and the Caulfield Group immediately out of Southern Cross.

Michael

. Sometimes ideas that don't seem good at first might turn out to be better than you thought under critical examination.

Not in this thread.

If it is already the closest line to the university, then it is best served by the light rail and bus connections that already go there.

If you're going to put money into regional services, you might as well improve what we've already got rather than build something completely new that will cut off existing patronage. You give the impression Myrtone you're not actually interested in improving public transport across the board and just making your own life slightly easier because you don't like trams.

Some worthwhile regional projects might include:

• Duplicating the Geelong Line to Waurn Ponds, including Grade Separations where needed
• Upgrading Level Crossings on the Echuca, Ararat and Maryborough Lines to improve speeds
• Extending loops and duplication on the Bendigo, Ballarat and Traralgon Lines
• Improving signalling to allow trains to run closer together in some sections
• Duplicating to Shepparton and running more trains there which is probably worthwhile given Seymour has a population of 6,000 and Shepparton 50,000

Building new expensive lines through State Parks and Mountains because it makes a nice straight line on a map is not a good idea.

The Capacity on the South Morang Line post its separation from the Hurstbridge Line will also allow for a branch to Wollert, which is probably needed a lot sooner than the tunnel will allow.

Here's another idea for Seymour trains - via RRL to just past Holden Rd at Calder Park (triple or quad Sunshine to there), and hook a right onto the new Outer Metro Ring rail to Donnybrook.

Tullamarine Airport being a RRL junction for the Bendigo and Seymour lines.

If it is already the closest line to the university, then it is best served by the light rail and bus connections that already go there.

I'm not quite sure what you mean but those light rail and bus connections are street transit. The Upfield line is the closest off-street transit to the University, yet someone suggested diverting the South Morang line to serve it instead. Wierd.

If you're going to put money into regional services, you might as well improve what we've already got rather than build something completely new that will cut off existing patronage. You give the impression Myrtone you're not actually interested in improving public transport across the board and just making your own life slightly easier because you don't like trams.

I am very interested in improving transit, and especially off-street transit. It seems the diverting the Upfield line would increase patronage because it serves the northern suburbs a popular living area for University students and staff and a diverted Upfield line would also serve the University. One reason given against it is that it is already well served, but it is only served by lower capacity street transit.

Building new expensive lines through State Parks and Mountains because it makes a nice straight line on a map is not a good idea.

You know what? It's not just about Whittlesea being closer. One reason given against undergrounding the Upfield line is that it is planned to be used for VLine trains to Seymour, and the reason given for that, in turn, is running extra suburban trains to Craigieburn.
But if we instead extend the tracks of the Mernda line to Seymour, then extra suburban trains can run on the Craigieburn line and the Upfield line can be undergrounded.

First time I've logged for ages and this is the first thing I see, what a time to be alive.

I'm not quite sure what you mean but those light rail and bus connections are street transit. The Upfield line is the closest off-street transit to the University, yet someone suggested diverting the South Morang line to serve it instead. Wierd.

Heavy and Metro rail serve medium to long distance. Light Rail serves short distance. Therefore, you don't really need the closest line to be diverted in that direction.

I am very interested in improving transit, and especially off-street transit. It seems the diverting the Upfield line would increase patronage because it serves the northern suburbs a popular living area for University students and staff and a diverted Upfield line would also serve the University. One reason given against it is that it is already well served, but it is only served by lower capacity street transit.

They live in the Northern Suburbs because the transit is already good to the university there is  little patronage to be gained south of the Ring Road and very little south of Bell Street in the north. The western and outer northern suburbs do not currently have good transit. The Metro tunnel is aimed at improving heavy transit to the Western Suburbs. Moving V/Line trains to the Upfield Line will have a flow on effect of improving heavy transit in the outer north.

Lower capacity street transit is more than suitable for the shorter distances between the inner north and Parkville. People coming in from the outer North can train in and change closer to university. Tram capacity is constantly increasing. Platforms are becoming more accessible and as they are, other works are helping with getting them out of congestion. A tram every 5 or 6 minutes in many cases may be better than a train every 10 or 15.

You know what? It's not just about Whittlesea being closer. One reason given against undergrounding the Upfield line is that it is planned to be used for VLine trains to Seymour, and the reason given for that, in turn, is running extra suburban trains to Craigieburn. But if we instead extend the tracks of the Mernda line to Seymour, then extra suburban trains can run on the Craigieburn line and the Upfield line can be undergrounded.

And how would you get the V/Line trains to Whittlesea in the first place? Across the Flinders Street Viaduct where they would have to cross every suburban line? Reinstate the inner circle railway which would use your precious Upfield Line and disrupt that anyway?

To serve Mernda and Wollert there will need to be 24 or more trains per hour between Parkville and Epping, meaning there is no room for services beyond Seymour.


Please go and read the Network Development Plan, realize that it is actually a very good document written by some very smart people who are experts in urban planning and transit and read the justification about the options they have proposed. Some ideas are not good ideas and do not stand up under critical examination. This is one of them. In 40 years, maybe then we can talk about improving capacity in the inner north. Until then, the PTV plan will serve.

As I said before, I disagree with the Upfield going underground, and rather have the Mernda line underground and the Upfield line to connect with the Craigeburn Line for the Vlines. Looks like we want to do each upgrade differently. Myrtone wants a direct Upfield link and a Direct Seymour link. I prefer what was planned in original PTV plan, to divert Upfield for Vlines and future proof Wallan electrification, and Untangle the South Morang line with Hurstbridge with Metro 2 tunnel via Parkville/Fitzroy to allow a future line to Doncaster.

But remember that the Upfield line is a lot closer to the University than any other suburban line, including the South Morang. So if any suburban line is going to be diverted to serve the University, it might as well be the Upfield line, and you keep telling me it's not a good idea without acknowledging this factor.

Acknowledge this key factor noted well in the PTV plan. It's not about being how close it is or how direct it is, it is whether a rail line needs the capacity or not and whether it justifies a new route/tunnel. Untangling the network and separating it into individual routes is the aim to simplify and increase capacity on the rail network.

1. The Mernda Line is bottlenecked by the Hurstbridge Line therefore makes sense to have a seperate tunnel to allow future extensions or branches on the line.
2. Adding Vlines along the Mernda route puts more pressure on the existing bottleneck. Upfield line is less congested.
3. A super long route for the VLine to travel up in the Mountains which bypass all the towns that rely on the existing line
4. There are already many existing connection for Upfield passengers to Parkville.
5. Providing new connections to Parkville provide more benefit to Melbourne. Students able to catch Metro 1 from West to Parkville. And Metro 2 tunnel provide students from the North East to access Parkville.

People will have to change trains to get to their specific destination. Separating the rail network to increase capacity and reliability of most of the system. Delays on one line won't directly affect another. Under your proposal, you will only help the Upfield line which is not under much constraint and put alot of pressure on the Mernda and Hurstbridge line which actually serves an area that is growing in patronage. Upfield line has a constraint it has single track and perhaps North Melbourne, but Metro 1 will relieve this. And Upfield line is quiet enough to enable Vlines to run on the same track.

Since this is all just out and out fiction, Why not make Epping a junction, swing ha new line past Auroura, past the new markets and rejoin at Somerton, making  a giant loop back to Melbourne ?

They will not make a line nth to Seymour because a railfan can draw a line on a map. Unless  one has  billions to donate !

Regards,
David Head

Heavy and Metro rail serve medium to long distance. Light Rail serves short distance. Therefore, you don't really need the closest line to be diverted in that direction.

Not that coherent. Is Royal Park to Flemington Bridge or Macauley "short distance". Certainly University to Coburg and beyond, let alone Flagstaff to Coburn and beyond is the sort of distance that heavy rail serves.

They live in the Northern Suburbs because the transit is already good to the university there is  little patronage to be gained south of the Ring Road and very little south of Bell Street in the north. The western and outer northern suburbs do not currently have good transit. The Metro tunnel is aimed at improving heavy transit to the Western Suburbs. Moving V/Line trains to the Upfield Line will have a flow on effect of improving heavy transit in the outer north.

These suburbs are the closest to the University, that's why they live there. Perhaps moving VLine trains to the Upfield line would be a temporary and short term solution.

Lower capacity street transit is more than suitable for the shorter distances between the inner north and Parkville. People coming in from the outer North can train in and change closer to university. Tram capacity is constantly increasing. Platforms are becoming more accessible and as they are, other works are helping with getting them out of congestion. A tram every 5 or 6 minutes in many cases may be better than a train every 10 or 15.

But if the Upfield line were diverted, they could take the train all the way instead of changing closer to the University.

And how would you get the V/Line trains to Whittlesea in the first place? Across the Flinders Street Viaduct where they would have to cross every suburban line? Reinstate the inner circle railway which would use your precious Upfield Line and disrupt that anyway?

But there are already VLine trains across the Flinders Street Viaduct, such as to Traralgon.

No comment on the rest.