Extend Melbourne Tram route 3 to Chadstone

 
  James974 Deputy Commissioner

This is the idea, if it ain't possible let me know, just interesting the a tram line ain't so far away from connecting many key interchanges and destination.

Sponsored advertisement

  steve195 Train Controller

This has been talked about forever, but probably won't ever be built. The smart bus routes do an adequate job of ferrying people to and from Oakleigh, Holmesglen and even Caulfield.

Having said that, I am aware that Monash Uni and Infrastructure Victoria are looking to light rail as a solution to chronic bus overcrowding. One proposal has a tram line running down the median on Dandenong road from Clayton to Caulfield..
  James974 Deputy Commissioner

This has been talked about forever, but probably won't ever be built. The smart bus routes do an adequate job of ferrying people to and from Oakleigh, Holmesglen and even Caulfield.

Having said that, I am aware than Monash Uni and Infrastructure Victoria are looking to light rail as a solution to chronic bus overcrowding. One proposal has a tram line running down the median on Dandenong road from Clayton to Caulfield..
steve195
Do you have any idea why there hasn't been a recent move to tram priority and more tram extensions. Only tram upgrades ongoing is maintenance upgrades, new tram stops and new trams. The last tram extension I believe was 2004.
  Gman_86 Chief Commissioner

Location: Melton, where the sparks dare not roam!
Before the introduction of the E class, the majority of Melbourne's tram fleet were between 20 and 40 years old (Z, A and B class). Replacing these relics needs to be a priority. The current order is for 70 trams, I expect before the next election both parties will pledge to increase that to a total order of 150, fulfilling the total of the original contract with Bombardier. That will not be enough.

Vehicle for vehicle, the total of 150 will not even go close to replacing the entire Z class fleet. On top of that there are 70 A class trams, the last of which came into service In September 2017 (that's 30 years ago this month). Then there are the B class, there are 130 of them, the last of which came into service in 1994.

To replace every Z, A and B class tram vehicle for vehicle, the government will need to order a total of about 380 new trams. We are currently at about 56. It took 4 years for the first 50 to enter service, meaning at the current rate, assuming a continuous order, it will take more than 20 years to replace all of the high floor trams on the network. By then the first low floor trams (C and D class) will be due for replacement, provided they last that long.

In other words, there should just be a standing order for continuous production of new trams, or alternatively bombardier should be given a larger order and a government grant (federal maybe) to substantially increase their productivity.

What does all of this have to do with extending tram routes? Nothing, but at the moment it seems the government don't want to make a long term commitment to replacing the old rollingstock, so I doubt they are going to look at extending tram routes, requiring even more trams to run on the extended lines.
  steve195 Train Controller

@James974 Extending PT to under-served areas generally takes the form of heavy rail, given that most growth areas are in the outer suburbs. So extending to South Morang (soon Mernda) and RRL have taken priority in terms of railway extension investment in recent times. There are probably political reasons as well. Maybe some of our more well connected posters can enlighten us Wink

As I alluded to in my above post, last year Infrastructure Victoria recommend that "National Employment Clusters" that are not currently served by rail will require light rail in the future. This is why Monash Uni are no longer lobbying for a spur line from Huntingdale.

@Gman_86 The B class are currently going through a life-extension program, so the government must be expecting them to be around for another 10-15 years at least. Plus they are justifying retirements on a "capacity" basis, rather than the number of trams. So for every 2 E's, they retire 3 Z/A class trams. Hopefully the current patronage boom will stop them from stupidly following through with that policy.
  James974 Deputy Commissioner

@James974 Extending PT to under-served areas generally takes the form of heavy rail, given that most growth areas are in the outer suburbs. So extending to South Morang (soon Mernda) and RRL have taken priority in terms of railway extension investment in recent times. There are probably political reasons as well. Maybe some of our more well connected posters can enlighten us Wink

As I alluded to in my above post, last year Infrastructure Victoria recommend that "National Employment Clusters" that are not currently served by rail will require light rail in the future. This is why Monash Uni are no longer lobbying for a spur line from Huntingdale.

@Gman_86 The B class are currently going through a life-extension program, so the government must be expecting them to be around for another 10-15 years at least. Plus they are justifying retirements on a "capacity" basis, rather than the number of trams. So for every 2 E's, they retire 3 Z/A class trams. Hopefully the current patronage boom will stop them from stupidly following through with that policy.
steve195
Another question you mentioned Rowville rail may take the form of light rail than the latter heavy rail, is similar planned for Doncaster spur line to be light rail or still heavy rail down the strip of the median of the freeway?

For the trams, I believe the plan is to increase overall capacity but reduce the frequency, since less trams but more trams are longer.

As to the post, I still think smaller scale tram extensions are good to increase connectivity to the network, many tram route stop short from a train station or major destinations, obviously require political motive first. More importantly tram priority there is a lot of talk about it but not enough action, all I here is Yarra trams embracing it, do a trial and then go quiet, obviously the lack of political motivation to actually increase the speeds of trams is ridiculous. If you wanna do something right, they should get Yarra Trams executive visit the Gold Coast light rail and take some notes and implement all the features there. Melbourne buses and trams are the worst in Australia, trams are slow (one of the slowest in world), buses are irregular and a lot of them don't line up with other modes.
  steve195 Train Controller

@James974 Extending PT to under-served areas generally takes the form of heavy rail, given that most growth areas are in the outer suburbs. So extending to South Morang (soon Mernda) and RRL have taken priority in terms of railway extension investment in recent times. There are probably political reasons as well. Maybe some of our more well connected posters can enlighten us Wink

As I alluded to in my above post, last year Infrastructure Victoria recommend that "National Employment Clusters" that are not currently served by rail will require light rail in the future. This is why Monash Uni are no longer lobbying for a spur line from Huntingdale.

@Gman_86 The B class are currently going through a life-extension program, so the government must be expecting them to be around for another 10-15 years at least. Plus they are justifying retirements on a "capacity" basis, rather than the number of trams. So for every 2 E's, they retire 3 Z/A class trams. Hopefully the current patronage boom will stop them from stupidly following through with that policy.
Another question you mentioned Rowville rail may take the form of light rail than the latter heavy rail, is similar planned for Doncaster spur line to be light rail or still heavy rail down the strip of the median of the freeway?

For the trams, I believe the plan is to increase overall capacity but reduce the frequency, since less trams but more trams are longer.

As to the post, I still think smaller scale tram extensions are good to increase connectivity to the network, many tram route stop short from a train station or major destinations, obviously require political motive first. More importantly tram priority there is a lot of talk about it but not enough action, all I here is Yarra trams embracing it, do a trial and then go quiet, obviously the lack of political motivation to actually increase the speeds of trams is ridiculous. If you wanna do something right, they should get Yarra Trams executive visit the Gold Coast light rail and take some notes and implement all the features there. Melbourne buses and trams are the worst in Australia, trams are slow (one of the slowest in world), buses are irregular and a lot of them don't line up with other modes.
James974
Honestly, I think Rowville rail is dead.
I have no idea about Doncaster. My post about light rail was in reference to "National Employment and Innovation Clusters," Doncaster is not one of these. If I have time this week I'll try to track down that Infrastructure Victoria report.

I totally agree with you re: closing transport gaps by extending trams. I think it might have been the Greens who took a similar policy to the last state election. It was stuff like extending the 3 to Chadstone, the 48 to Doncaster, the 6 to Ashburton etc.

The Yarra Trams executives don't need to go to the Gold Coast. Aren't most of them French? Presumably they came to YT with experience from one of the many modern light rail systems in France. That's the level of service they should be aspiring to!
  kitchgp Train Controller


.........The current order is for 70 trams, ......
Gman_86

I think 10 more were added in the May State Budget, bringing the total to 80; 50 E-class (completed) and 30 E2-class.
  Myrtone Chief Commissioner

Location: North Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria
Would the extension be done in stages? Like the first stage being to East Malvern station.
  James974 Deputy Commissioner

Would the extension be done in stages? Like the first stage being to East Malvern station.
Myrtone
Stage 1; Extend tram route 3 to Chadstone terminus (green solid line)
Stage 2: Extend further to connect with Dandenong line (green dotted line)
  Myrtone Chief Commissioner

Location: North Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria
Since an extension just to the station mentioned above would allow a direct interchange between tram and train and would likely increase patronage, that would be the first stage. The first stage you gave is quite long in distance. It may be a good idea to extend it a short distance at a time.
  Heihachi_73 Chief Commissioner

Location: Terminating at Ringwood
Before the introduction of the E class, the majority of Melbourne's tram fleet were between 20 and 40 years old (Z, A and B class). Replacing these relics needs to be a priority. The current order is for 70 trams, I expect before the next election both parties will pledge to increase that to a total order of 150, fulfilling the total of the original contract with Bombardier. That will not be enough.

Vehicle for vehicle, the total of 150 will not even go close to replacing the entire Z class fleet. On top of that there are 70 A class trams, the last of which came into service In September 2017 (that's 30 years ago this month). Then there are the B class, there are 130 of them, the last of which came into service in 1994.

To replace every Z, A and B class tram vehicle for vehicle, the government will need to order a total of about 380 new trams. We are currently at about 56. It took 4 years for the first 50 to enter service, meaning at the current rate, assuming a continuous order, it will take more than 20 years to replace all of the high floor trams on the network. By then the first low floor trams (C and D class) will be due for replacement, provided they last that long.

In other words, there should just be a standing order for continuous production of new trams, or alternatively bombardier should be given a larger order and a government grant (federal maybe) to substantially increase their productivity.

What does all of this have to do with extending tram routes? Nothing, but at the moment it seems the government don't want to make a long term commitment to replacing the old rollingstock, so I doubt they are going to look at extending tram routes, requiring even more trams to run on the extended lines.
"Gman_86"

Where are they going to find the room to replace every Z and A class tram with an E class? Kew and Camberwell certainly don't have the space to swap out their A classes one for one with trams twice or three times their length. Also, we should be adding more trams to the network, not swapping them one for one, regardless of whether the newer trams can carry more passengers.

The Z3/A/B class fleet are all mechanically compatible (unlike the Z1s), there would be no reason to withdraw them by class. If they are heavily damaged in an accident or suffer a major failure once they do become surplus, it's fair game. In Melbourne however, we don't have surplus of anything related to public transport (except taxis) - they just make it look like we do by cutting frequencies, padding timetables and putting the "excess" vehicles away.
  jdekorte Assistant Commissioner

Location: Near Caulfield Station
Stage 1 - Extend Route 3 to East Malvern (and I mean right to East Malvern with the tram ending up next to the train station.)

Stage 2 - Extend Route 5 to Darling Station (Malvern Valley - with a terminus on Malvern Rd at Darling Rd.).

Stage 3 - Extend Route 3 to Holmesglen TAFE (Holmesglen Station) - the tram would share the Glen Waverly line reservation. Significant investment would be needed to put the tram line underneath the M1 but the benefits would be having a new tram stop on at the Western point of Holmesglen TAFE and an interchange at Holmesglen Station that would link up with the Warragul Rd buses. Holmesglen TAFE is an extremely linear campus with a length of around 500m. Having two tram stops serving it would be very beneficial as well as linking to two points on the Glen Waverly line and then to Caulfield Station.

Stage 4 - Extend Route 5 down Malvern/Waverly Rds to near the M1 bridge where it would then use the reserve next to the M1 to proceed to Warragul Rd. At that point the line would head south until the main Chadstone entry rd and turn right to terminate at the complex. Forget about trying to get a tram line down Chadstone Rd from Waverly rd - the corner is just too tight.
  James974 Deputy Commissioner

Stage 1 - Extend Route 3 to East Malvern (and I mean right to East Malvern with the tram ending up next to the train station.)

Stage 2 - Extend Route 5 to Darling Station (Malvern Valley - with a terminus on Malvern Rd at Darling Rd.).

Stage 3 - Extend Route 3 to Holmesglen TAFE (Holmesglen Station) - the tram would share the Glen Waverly line reservation. Significant investment would be needed to put the tram line underneath the M1 but the benefits would be having a new tram stop on at the Western point of Holmesglen TAFE and an interchange at Holmesglen Station that would link up with the Warragul Rd buses. Holmesglen TAFE is an extremely linear campus with a length of around 500m. Having two tram stops serving it would be very beneficial as well as linking to two points on the Glen Waverly line and then to Caulfield Station.

Stage 4 - Extend Route 5 down Malvern/Waverly Rds to near the M1 bridge where it would then use the reserve next to the M1 to proceed to Warragul Rd. At that point the line would head south until the main Chadstone entry rd and turn right to terminate at the complex. Forget about trying to get a tram line down Chadstone Rd from Waverly rd - the corner is just too tight.
jdekorte

I like your idea, but the suggestion about the tight corner, yeah that makes sense to remove.I went via Murrumbeena instead, for the Pakenham and Cranbourne lines can interchange easily as well.

The new map shows it in three stage, dark green, medium green and light green, with dots as proposed stops. It interchanges the two rail lines as well connect to Chadstone.
  jdekorte Assistant Commissioner

Location: Near Caulfield Station
Stage 1 - Extend Route 3 to East Malvern (and I mean right to East Malvern with the tram ending up next to the train station.)

Stage 2 - Extend Route 5 to Darling Station (Malvern Valley - with a terminus on Malvern Rd at Darling Rd.).

Stage 3 - Extend Route 3 to Holmesglen TAFE (Holmesglen Station) - the tram would share the Glen Waverly line reservation. Significant investment would be needed to put the tram line underneath the M1 but the benefits would be having a new tram stop on at the Western point of Holmesglen TAFE and an interchange at Holmesglen Station that would link up with the Warragul Rd buses. Holmesglen TAFE is an extremely linear campus with a length of around 500m. Having two tram stops serving it would be very beneficial as well as linking to two points on the Glen Waverly line and then to Caulfield Station.

Stage 4 - Extend Route 5 down Malvern/Waverly Rds to near the M1 bridge where it would then use the reserve next to the M1 to proceed to Warragul Rd. At that point the line would head south until the main Chadstone entry rd and turn right to terminate at the complex. Forget about trying to get a tram line down Chadstone Rd from Waverly rd - the corner is just too tight.

I like your idea, but the suggestion about the tight corner, yeah that makes sense to remove.I went via Murrumbeena instead, for the Pakenham and Cranbourne lines can interchange easily as well.

The new map shows it in three stage, dark green, medium green and light green, with dots as proposed stops. It interchanges the two rail lines as well connect to Chadstone.
James974
I find it puzzling that you would run the Route 3 east, then way back south - is this just to cover what the Route 624 bus already does?  And if you wanted to put a tram into that area of the Dandenong line, why not just extend the Route 67 north to Carnegie then have it follow Neerim Rd to Murrumbeena? It's probably more beneficial for tramlines to run in as a direct way as possible instead of a series of doglegs which is why I suggested Route 3 and Route 5 cover an easterly corridor with the Route 5 terminating at Chadstone. (In saying so buses should probably stick to primary, secondary and occasionally tertiary roads and not wander around the neighbourhood).

This being said, apparently there were some old plans for the Route 3 to reach East Malvern station then head east to Warrigul Rd, then head south down Warrigul Rd to Oakleigh South. The plans were put on hold due to the Great Depression but they were in a wish list from the Malvern & Prahran Tramways Trust - there was also talk of a tram from Surrey Hills to Mentone but that was even more far-fetched.

Sponsored advertisement

Subscribers: doyle, jdekorte, Myrtone

Display from: