This tunnel is the one between Clifton hill and Newport. Clifton hill to Fitzroy to Parkville to Flagstaff to Southern Cross to Fisherman bend and Newport. It gets a mention quite a few times (Infrastructure Victoria, PTV plan and by the Melbourne Metro project). This metro tunnel has similar benefits as the first, but will cost much more. Metro tunnel 1 unlocks Northern group lines, Arden redevelopment, Hospital precinct gets a station, and two city stops and unlocks trams on Swanston with a station at Domain Interchange. Metro tunnel 2 unlocks South Morang and Hurstbridge lines, Fishermans bend redevelopment, Hospital precinct gets station interchange, two city stops, station at Fitzroy and the extra is that unlocks the Werribee, Wlliamstown and Altona junction. I'm curious whether you agree with Melbourne metro 2 project. If the planning started in the next term of government and it could be finished by 2030 (4 years after Melbourne metro 1) as part of making it a two staged project.

Added a photo of the proposed route make it easier to visualise what a metro tunnel 2 could look like;
Key: Brown=interchange station, Purple=station, the route is in Purple.

Metro Tunnel 2 excites me the most
*Allows the Menda and Hurstbridge lines to be seperated, and not constrained by the outdated Jolimont to CH section (which desperately needs some work)
*Gives Fishermen's Bend Train Access
*Allows the Werribee line to be fully seperated from the Williamstown and Altona Lines
*Allows the Altona line to be extended through to Point Cook and eventually Werribee South, with enough track capcity to make it worthwhile
*If built with four tracks, could see Geelong services electrified (Quad track werribee to southern cross) with a more direct path to Melbourne
*RRL would then be used as an electrified commuter network, considering that Tarneit and Wyndham Vale (and to an extend Lara) are suburbs of commuting households to and from Melbourne.

That's all possible if they do it right, unlike Metro Tunnel 1 which should be going Domain --> Balaclava --> Caulfield (as orignally proposed) which solves many problems we will face in the future:
*V/Line and Freight capacity between Melbourne and Caulfield, no space for dedicated tracks without double decking tracks ontop of each other
*Interchange between South Yarra and Dandenong Lines

This tunnel is the one between Clifton hill and Newport. Clifton hill to Fitzroy to Parkville to Flagstaff to Southern Cross to Fisherman bend and Newport. It gets a mention quite a few times (Infrastructure Victoria, PTV plan and by the Melbourne Metro project). This metro tunnel has similar benefits as the first, but will cost much more. Metro tunnel 1 unlocks Northern group lines, Arden redevelopment, Hospital precinct gets a station, and two city stops and unlocks trams on Swanston with a station at Domain Interchange. Metro tunnel 2 unlocks South Morang and Hurstbridge lines, Fishermans bend redevelopment, Hospital precinct gets station interchange, two city stops, station at Fitzroy and the extra is that unlocks the Werribee, Wlliamstown and Altona junction. I'm curious whether you agree with Melbourne metro 2 project. If the planning started in the next term of government and it could be finished by 2030 (4 years after Melbourne metro 1) as part of making it a two staged project.

I just tried making a sketch of the approximate route it is 15 km route with 9 kms of tunnel between Port Melbourne and Clifton Hill, the bit between Port Melbourne and Fisherman bend is surface rail and I just wanna ask if it's better to tunnel or bridge over the Yarra River Between Newport and Fisherman's bend.

Keep Port Melbourne-Fishermen's Bend as a tunnel, then tunnel under the river and Newport. Build new underground platforms at Newport so there is more capacity there for Altona and Williamstown Trains (I am a supporter of keeping Altona Loop trains to still run via Footscray, and have only Werribee/Wyndham Vale trains run via the Metro).

If you keep the whole thing as a tunnel you don't waste time and money coming back up and then lowering again.

Keep Port Melbourne-Fishermen's Bend as a tunnel, then tunnel under the river and Newport. Build new underground platforms at Newport so there is more capacity there for Altona and Williamstown Trains (I am a supporter of keeping Altona Loop trains to still run via Footscray, and have only Werribee/Wyndham Vale trains run via the Metro).

If you keep the whole thing as a tunnel you don't waste time and money coming back up and then lowering again.

Do you support Quadding between Altona Junction and Newport as well, because that would seperate the Altona line from the Werribee/Wydnham Vale line? i think that is needed as well though it will cost extra.

Keep Port Melbourne-Fishermen's Bend as a tunnel, then tunnel under the river and Newport. Build new underground platforms at Newport so there is more capacity there for Altona and Williamstown Trains (I am a supporter of keeping Altona Loop trains to still run via Footscray, and have only Werribee/Wyndham Vale trains run via the Metro).

If you keep the whole thing as a tunnel you don't waste time and money coming back up and then lowering again.

Do you support Quadding between Altona Junction and Newport as well, because that would seperate the Altona line from the Werribee/Wydnham Vale line? i think that is needed as well though it will cost extra.

You just have the Werribee-Fishermen's Bend Portals surface after Altona Junction and you remove the need for quadding on the surface.

Do you support Quadding between Altona Junction and Newport as well, because that would seperate the Altona line from the Werribee/Wydnham Vale line? i think that is needed as well though it will cost extra.You just have the Werribee-Fishermen's Bend Portals surface after Altona Junction and you remove the need for quadding on the surface.

I didn't think of that but if you did that, I'd remove the two level crossings on the line at the same time by sinking the existing two tracks at the same time as extending the portals to the junction.

I just wanna ask if it's better to tunnel or bridge over the Yarra River Between Newport and Fisherman's bend.

Think about how long the bridge would have to be. It would have to be as high as the Westgate - to clear the ships - with ramps about half to a third shallower. The answer is pretty obvious.

I just wanna ask if it's better to tunnel or bridge over the Yarra River Between Newport and Fisherman's bend.

Think about how long the bridge would have to be. It would have to be as high as the Westgate - to clear the ships - with ramps about half to a third shallower. The answer is pretty obvious.

West gate bridge costs 1 billion in today's dollars, a tunnel would cost about 1.6 billion in today's dollar. Yes tunnelling is better in this situation since can go under Newport it make sense to continue the tunnelling. The extra costs are worth it since it mean it is out of sight and can add underground platforms at Newport.

Also as part of Metro 2 tunnel, do you think a station at Queen Victoria Market would be suitable at Queen street as part of the project. This is when I drawn the route onto Google Maps seemed to pass the Vic Market between Flagstaff and Parkville stations.

Consider a link to a Fitzroy station and then north west from there perhaps connecting at high point shopping centre. May be a connection from Flemington?

What about the much needed tracks for a station at chadstone will this be included at some point.

I keep referring to my Google map sketch; this is the route I am thinking of. Ignore the Level crossings and other details on the map. I've included where the stations located and where the route is.
You can check it out here if you like:https://goo.gl/maps/MjVebF7V3Qk

Okay, a few thoughts from me. I think that it should be done in three stages. Firstly, the tougher one, Rushall to Southern Cross, with terminating facilities provided underground at Southern Cross. Stations would be at Clifton Hill, Fitzroy, Parkville (perhaps closer to Lygon street, with seamless interchange with Metro 1 services) and Flagstaff (closer to the QVM, with seamless interchange with MURL services).
Stage two would have a new set of underground platforms built at Southern Cross (perhaps done during stage one to save costs) for Geelong/Warrnambool services. The existing underground terminus at Southern Cross would continue and run parallel to Geelong services, both in separate, two tracked tunnels, with a station at Fishermans Bend for Werribee trains and then at Newport for both Geelong and Werribee trains. Just beyond the existing Altona Junction, these four tracks would come to ground, running alongside each other to Werribee.
Stage three would involve the opening of extensions enabled by the new tunnel/s. The long awaited Doncaster extension should run via Clifton Hill for interchange if possible. The Altona loop would be no longer, instead running beyond Westona to Point Cook. RRL would be electrified with services to West Werribee Junction to interchange with Geelong services. That's all I can think of for now.

Okay, a few thoughts from me. I think that it should be done in three stages. Firstly, the tougher one, Rushall to Southern Cross, with terminating facilities provided underground at Southern Cross. Stations would be at Clifton Hill, Fitzroy, Parkville (perhaps closer to Lygon street, with seamless interchange with Metro 1 services) and Flagstaff (closer to the QVM, with seamless interchange with MURL services).
Stage two would have a new set of underground platforms built at Southern Cross (perhaps done during stage one to save costs) for Geelong/Warrnambool services. The existing underground terminus at Southern Cross would continue and run parallel to Geelong services, both in separate, two tracked tunnels, with a station at Fishermans Bend for Werribee trains and then at Newport for both Geelong and Werribee trains. Just beyond the existing Altona Junction, these four tracks would come to ground, running alongside each other to Werribee.
Stage three would involve the opening of extensions enabled by the new tunnel/s. The long awaited Doncaster extension should run via Clifton Hill for interchange if possible. The Altona loop would be no longer, instead running beyond Westona to Point Cook. RRL would be electrified with services to West Werribee Junction to interchange with Geelong services. That's all I can think of for now.

Nice suggestions here. I just made a map for a Doncaster line after Metro 2 tunnel is built. Here is the link below https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edithl=en&hl=en&authuser=0&authuser=0&mid=1gNABXf2b5ebkIVfP4n7TweezisU&ll=-37.734612725937275%2C144.84661756461117&z=12

Geelong already has a set of tracks on RRL no point moving them by adding two extra tracks from Werribee to Southern Cross, given the extra costs will just save time not untangle the network. The extra tunnels and track can be added at a later date when High Speed Rail is implement that is 30 years or more away. Money well spent on Geelong line is more services and a flyer over at Deer park, Werribee line extended to Wyndham Vale and Duplication to Waurn Ponds.

Also Point Cook station is not needed have great bus connections, money can be better spent on a Werribee South line which links at Hopper Crossing station and the Zoo at Werribee. The land just needs to be bought and requires no tunnelling and is in the area where they plan to develop the Werribee south Precinct also connects the tourists to the zoo and gardens. And yes the Altona loop would need to be duplicated first.

Going out on a limb here, the Werribee route for the tunnel has obvious merit and will probably be what happens, but has anyone considered the tunnel running under Newport, and surfacing on the Newport-Sunshine freight line? This would allow intermediate stations at Brooklyn etc, and then for the soon to be electrified Melton line to run via this route?

Geelong - Werribee - Newport - Fishermen's Bend dedicated tracks will be needed one day. May as well plan for it now whilst building MT2, saves costs later on. Have a dedicated DD fleet of carriages with an electric loco @200-250km/hr, express Lara to Southern Cross (extend suburban sparks to Lara). Then, build Airport Rail off RRL with Ballarat and Bendigo services, plenty of track space, and VLine rolo is better suited to luggage than commuter sparks anyhow.

Hate to reopen this old thread but it excites me greatly. I do think that given the patronage at Tarneit and Wyndham Vale, the Geelong line, by the time Metro 2 is built (if ever) will need more direct tracks with connections just at Werribee and Newport. Yes, if done properly with appropriate upgrades at either ends, it will probably cost $15-20 billion, but if the federal government gets involved (unlikely, unless Shorten, a Melbournian gets in) and the State chips in $2 billion a year like it has for Metro 1, I think it will be achievable. I can see the benefits of this tunnel being far greater than Metro 1 in terms of unlocking capacity for both existing and new lines. Any thoughts?

Had not seen this previous due to the large number of posts and info at this site but I really like it.

Would this design allow trains from the north east to access metro tunnel 1 heading south effectively providing north south access from the north east to the south of the city?

Could a line to Doncaster shopping town or beyond also be connected?

@MetroFemme

In the design outlined, Yes the North East (Hurstbridge line) would effectively use the existing track and South Morang services into the new tunnels.

A Doncaster line would connect at Victoria Park, this design includes another interchange at Victoria Park as a future proof if ever that line is feasible to get built in the future.

As above, there would be direct benefits for hurstbridge and south morang lines (mernda possibly).  South morang would use the new lines while hurstbridge would use the current line, almost doubling capacity for each.  But it also allows indirect benefits for the glen waverly, alamein, lilydale and belgrave lines as it free's up some city loop slots which they could possibly use.  

The bets part IMO is the possibility of electrifying the geelong line and having werribee line services turn into full geelong services and having them use the new tunnel.  
A newport- - werribee then geelong all stops via paisly using an EMU would take roughly the same time as a full express velocity via RRL.

A metro 1 connection would be nice but probably too expensive to warrant.

A metro 1 connection would be nice but probably too expensive to warrant.

Do you mean Parkville? Metro 1 and 2 are designed to interchange at Parkville

Sorry, I should have made it more clear. A passenger interchange will most definitely be needed at all the stations it crosses other lines. I was referring to a hard rail, underground connection between Metro 1 and 2. I can see little use for it as the network is styling for separate, independent lines. Even if a Mernda train wanted to go South to say the MCG, they could just use the old link to Clifton Hill and go in that way.

@MetroFemme

In the design outlined, Yes the North East (Hurstbridge line) would effectively use the existing track and South Morang services into the new tunnels.

A Doncaster line would connect at Victoria Park, this design includes another interchange at Victoria Park as a future proof if ever that line is feasible to get built in the future.

Doncaster won't get heavy rail !

Tram or light rail at the very most !


I wonder If Clifton Hill could be bypassed by the Metro 2 line, with the Northern tunnel porthole starting near the Merri Creek bridge than heading straight for Parkville.

@MetroFemme

In the design outlined, Yes the North East (Hurstbridge line) would effectively use the existing track and South Morang services into the new tunnels.

A Doncaster line would connect at Victoria Park, this design includes another interchange at Victoria Park as a future proof if ever that line is feasible to get built in the future.

Doncaster won't get heavy rail !

Tram or light rail at the very most !


I wonder If Clifton Hill could be bypassed by the Metro 2 line, with the Northern tunnel porthole starting near the Merri Creek bridge than heading straight for Parkville.

I said if... somewhere in the future the rail line is feasible, it can accommodate for an interchange, however at this current stage it is not feasible or estimated to be feasible in the future. If there was a situation that particular rail line needed to get built, the Metro 2 tunnel can accommodate the interchange.

Now for removing that curve and bypassing Clifton hill, but then the Hurstbridge services miss out the quick interchange unto the new route, since Parkville would be a popular destination, since it serves the hospital, education precinct.

Note I have outlined before other routes that do bypass Clifton hill and use the old inner circle alignment then connect with Upfield at the zoo and head south to Parkville and Flagstaff (This was inspired by Myrtone's Upfield rail tunnel idea). Not sure if you prefer that route instead.