Glen Waverly train timetable

 
  Myrtone Chief Commissioner

Location: North Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria
I have long noticed the trains to Glen Waverly frequently pass train to the city at Gardiner station. I noticed this before the grade separation and after.
But with the only tram-rail level crossing being left on the line being at Kooyong, I have wondered about re-scheduling trains to pass each other there instead of Gardiner.

Sponsored advertisement

  TOQ-1 Deputy Commissioner

Location: Power Trainger
How trains interact with other trains at Glen Waverly Station and with other trains between Richmond and the City Loop would be of a larger consideration in the design of the timetable than whether or not the level crossing is activated more or less.
  Braddo Deputy Commissioner

Location: Narre Warren
If you're going to create a thread about Glen Waverley, can you at least spell the suburb correctly? It's not rocket science.
  Heihachi_73 Chief Commissioner

Location: Terminating at Ringwood
Glen Waverley needs to ditch the Ringwood group in order for it to be upgraded, every problem from the Lilydale and Belgrave lines (such as the single track sections and 30-minute off-peak frequencies) have a knock-on effect which drags the Glen Waverley line down with it. Even when they put Kooyong underground it won't fix anything aside from cars and trams which will no longer be stuck waiting for a train to bounce over the tram square at snail's pace.
  Madjikthise Assistant Commissioner

The delays work both ways. For some reason Metrol has an ungodly fear of getting trains out of order between Burnley and Richmond if one or the other is delayed, so they hold everything up until the late train goes through. "OMG we can't put an Xtrap in front of another Xtrap, it'll be total chaos!"
  Lad_Porter Chief Commissioner

Location: Yarra Glen
Glen Waverley needs to ditch the Ringwood group in order for it to be upgraded, every problem from the Lilydale and Belgrave lines (such as the single track sections and 30-minute off-peak frequencies) have a knock-on effect which drags the Glen Waverley line down with it.......
Heihachi_73
Totally agree in principle, but in practice GW is actually part of the Ringwood group.  The only way to do as suggested would be to give GW its own tracks all the way to Flinders Street (including through the City Loop if applicable), and with dedicated platforms at Richmond, so that there would be no sharing of anything with Ringwood trains.
  John.Z Chief Train Controller

Glen Waverley needs to ditch the Ringwood group in order for it to be upgraded, every problem from the Lilydale and Belgrave lines (such as the single track sections and 30-minute off-peak frequencies) have a knock-on effect which drags the Glen Waverley line down with it.......
Totally agree in principle, but in practice GW is actually part of the Ringwood group.  The only way to do as suggested would be to give GW its own tracks all the way to Flinders Street (including through the City Loop if applicable), and with dedicated platforms at Richmond, so that there would be no sharing of anything with Ringwood trains.
Lad_Porter
Um, this is practically what is already done weekday peak. Also, please don't mention the City Loop, it's in need of reconfiguring, not additional tunnels added.

The GW line can take Burnley platforms 1 and 4 (outside), East Richmond 1 and 2, Richmond 7 and 10, and Flinders platform 3 and 4. Trains terminate at Flinders, runs completely seperate to Ringwood, and no reason for them to interact with each other.

Ringwood trains run through platform 2 all day, changing direction at midday if need-be. No reason why they need to interact.
  Lad_Porter Chief Commissioner

Location: Yarra Glen
Fair enough, but does it always work that way?  What about the odd occasion when a particular track is not available?  And how do Alamein trains fit in when running to/from Flinders Street - they are nearly always stopping all stations?

At present, GW trains operate via the City Loop, therefore are sharing the Burnley track.  Are you suggesting that these trains should no longer use the Loop, or should use a different track?
  John.Z Chief Train Controller

Fair enough, but does it always work that way?  What about the odd occasion when a particular track is not available?  And how do Alamein trains fit in when running to/from Flinders Street - they are nearly always stopping all stations?

At present, GW trains operate via the City Loop, therefore are sharing the Burnley track.  Are you suggesting that these trains should no longer use the Loop, or should use a different track?
Lad_Porter
Mon-Fri, GW trains don't generally go into the City Loop, and in the future, just like Frankston trains, should not. There is the track capacity Burnley to Flidners and Caulfield to Flinders respectively to run these lines independently, but neither Metro nor the Government has the balls to make the call and piss off a couple of voters for the long term improvement of the network as a whole.



If you take the white line to be just the GW line, and assumed that the Olive Green formed of Belgrave/Lilydale trains with Alamein forming a Camberwell shuttle, then it is clear that there is the track space to run GW trains out of platforms 3/4, with no conflicting paths with City Loop trains, as they would pass through platform 2 as a continuous stream of one direction of trains, just as Jolimont trains do through platform 1.
  Lad_Porter Chief Commissioner

Location: Yarra Glen
"Mon-Fri, GW trains don't generally go into the City Loop,"

That's true in the mornings, including the peak time, but not so in the afternoons.  A quick look at the Mon-Fri timetable shows many Down GW trains going via the Loop, and many's the time I have stood on a platform of an afternoon waiting for the Belgrave and GW trains to go by before my Lilydale one came.  At FS these GW trains generally leave from platform 2/3, same as Belgrave and Lilydale.  To achieve complete independence, these trains should use platform 4/5 and always run direct between FS and Richmond in both directions.

This means that pax from the GW line wanting to go to or from a Loop station would always need to do a cross-platform change to another train at Richmond, mornings from 7 to 8 (as now) and evenings 9 to 10 (new).  Might not go down too well with them?
  TOQ-1 Deputy Commissioner

Location: Power Trainger
The Burnley group needs to be simplified. There are something like 18 different stopping patterns, which is just ridiculous. Taking Glen Waverley out of the loop and running them direct is just one part of that. At the moment you end up with people waiting in the City Loop stations for 'their' train, the express that stops at their station. More consistent stopping patterns means that people will board the next train, clearing platforms quicker.

Making people change for or from a City Loop shouldn't be a challenge if you also introduce a greater frequency so people aren't waiting around between their services.

Glen Waverley trains can not use Platform 5 at Flinders St as that only goes to the Northern City Loop portal. They can use 3 or 4, which is not ideal as they aren't shared platforms, but still workable. Off peak they might even be able to be all from Platform 3, as one platform can support a train every 7 minutes. Platform 4 is shared by the Northern and Burnley groups as well, another limitation.
  Myrtone Chief Commissioner

Location: North Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria
The Burnley group needs to be simplified. There are something like 18 different stopping patterns, which is just ridiculous. Taking Glen Waverley out of the loop and running them direct is just one part of that. At the moment you end up with people waiting in the City Loop stations for 'their' train, the express that stops at their station. More consistent stopping patterns means that people will board the next train, clearing platforms quicker.
TOQ-1

The Burnley group would be simpler if there were a line to Belgrave through Glen Waverly rather than one line to Glen Walverly, branching off at Burnley, and another to Belgrave, branching off at Burnley.

Making people change for or from a City Loop shouldn't be a challenge if you also introduce a greater frequency so people aren't waiting around between their services.
TOQ-1

Are you now talking about forcing more interchanges?

Glen Waverley trains can not use Platform 5 as that only goes to the Northern City Loop portal. They can use 3 or 4, which is not ideal as they aren't shared platforms, but still workable. Off peak they might even be able to be all from Platform 3, as one platform can support a train every 7 minutes. Platform 4 is shared by the Northern and Burnley groups as well, another limitation.
TOQ-1

What platforms 3, 4 & 5?
  TOQ-1 Deputy Commissioner

Location: Power Trainger
The Burnley group needs to be simplified. There are something like 18 different stopping patterns, which is just ridiculous. Taking Glen Waverley out of the loop and running them direct is just one part of that. At the moment you end up with people waiting in the City Loop stations for 'their' train, the express that stops at their station. More consistent stopping patterns means that people will board the next train, clearing platforms quicker.

The Burnley group would be simpler if there were a line to Belgrave through Glen Waverly rather than one line to Glen Walverly, branching off at Burnley, and another to Belgrave, branching off at Burnley.

Making people change for or from a City Loop shouldn't be a challenge if you also introduce a greater frequency so people aren't waiting around between their services.

Are you now talking about forcing more interchanges?

Glen Waverley trains can not use Platform 5 as that only goes to the Northern City Loop portal. They can use 3 or 4, which is not ideal as they aren't shared platforms, but still workable. Off peak they might even be able to be all from Platform 3, as one platform can support a train every 7 minutes. Platform 4 is shared by the Northern and Burnley groups as well, another limitation.

What platforms 3, 4 & 5?
Myrtone
1. My comment was with regard to stopping patterns. We are stuck with the infrastructure we have. Stopping patterns can be changed quite easily.
2. Yes. More interchanges need to happen, as they do in every city that has a functioning metro.
3. Flinders St Station. I have edited my post to hopefully remove any confusion.
  Myrtone Chief Commissioner

Location: North Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria
1. How about two additional platforms at Flinder's street station, below the exsting ones?
2. I'm sure what you mean by "Making people change for or from a City Loop".
3. I understand that post better now.
  John.Z Chief Train Controller

1. How about two additional platforms at Flinder's street station, below the exsting ones?
2. I'm sure what you mean by "Making people change for or from a City Loop".
3. I understand that post better now.
Myrtone
RE: point 2.

Why are Sandringham Trains not permanently terminating at Flinders? Ditto Glen Waverley?
Why is it ok that Werribee trains have been removed from the City Loop? Altona Loop trains run as shuttles during peak?
Why aren't all Frankston Trains run through to Newport and beyond?

Not all trains need to go through the City Loop, it causes capacity constraints on the network.

The City Loop is a capacity constraint on the network unless it is used to its maximum potential.
What it has given us is essentially one path from Jollimont, two from Richmond and one from North Melbourne. On top of this, we have the ability to run one train line from North Melbourne to Richmond, via Flinders.

Flinders St
Plat 1: Jollimont Loop
Plat 2: Burnley Loop
Plat 3: Unassigned
Plat 4: Unassigned
Plat 5: Northern Loop
Plat 6: Caulfield Loop
Plat 7: Unassigned
Plat 8: North Melbourne to Richmond through service
Plat 9: Richmond to North Melbourne through service
Plat 10: Unassigned
Plat 11/12?: Unassigned (can't remember what they call the platform under Fed Square).

From this diagram above, we can see that there is room to terminate GW trains at Plat 3/4, and Sandringham trains at Plat 10/11/12. Frankston trains would all run through to Newport and onto Werribee, Laverton via Altona and Williamstown

If it were not for the political suicide, I would suggest running Upfield/Craigieburn to Southern Cross Plat 7/8 and terminating there. Thus giving sunbury trains full access to the Northern Loop until 2026.

We have the track capacity to run many more services, excluding single track sections of the Upfield, Altona, Lilydale, Belgrave and Hurstbridge lines, however all of these lines (Excluding Altona) have the ability to have services start at intermediate locations, which should be the case. There is no reason why we shouldn't be aiming for 20tph during peak, it is only the need for all trains to go through the city loop which is stopping this.
  Mickeyb91 Station Staff

RE: point 2. Why are Sandringham Trains not permanently terminating at Flinders? Ditto Glen Waverley? Why is it ok that Werribee trains have been removed from the City Loop? Altona Loop trains run as shuttles during peak? Why aren't all Frankston Trains run through to Newport and beyond? Not all trains need to go through the City Loop, it causes capacity constraints on the network. The City Loop is a capacity constraint on the network unless it is used to its maximum potential. What it has given us is essentially one path from Jollimont, two from Richmond and one from North Melbourne. On top of this, we have the ability to run one train line from North Melbourne to Richmond, via Flinders. Flinders St Plat 1: Jollimont Loop Plat 2: Burnley Loop Plat 3: Unassigned Plat 4: Unassigned Plat 5: Northern Loop Plat 6: Caulfield Loop Plat 7: Unassigned Plat 8: North Melbourne to Richmond through service Plat 9: Richmond to North Melbourne through service Plat 10: Unassigned Plat 11/12?: Unassigned (can't remember what they call the platform under Fed Square). From this diagram above, we can see that there is room to terminate GW trains at Plat 3/4, and Sandringham trains at Plat 10/11/12. Frankston trains would all run through to Newport and onto Werribee, Laverton via Altona and Williamstown If it were not for the political suicide, I would suggest running Upfield/Craigieburn to Southern Cross Plat 7/8 and terminating there. Thus giving sunbury trains full access to the Northern Loop until 2026. We have the track capacity to run many more services, excluding single track sections of the Upfield, Altona, Lilydale, Belgrave and Hurstbridge lines, however all of these lines (Excluding Altona) have the ability to have services start at intermediate locations, which should be the case. There is no reason why we shouldn't be aiming for 20tph during peak, it is only the need for all trains to go through the city loop which is stopping this.
John.Z

I believe the station under Fed Square was Princes Bridge Station
  LeroyW Junior Train Controller

Location: Awaiting MM2

Plat 11/12?: Unassigned (can't remember what they call the platform under Fed Square).
John.Z


I think he's talking about platform 14 here.

While I like the logic of assigning the platforms at Flinders Street the way you have, there is a reason why Ringwood services use platforms 2 and 3 during peak (especailly PM): with the current dwell time/driver change over/whatever else goes on at FS, one platform can only feed trains every 4 mins into a loop tunnel (platform 1 being the prime example).

There are Ringwood trains through the loop departing FS at 4:53, 4:56, 4:58 and 5:01 in PM peak (and a Blackburn SAS direct at 4:57) - making use of both platforms is the only way currently to achieve such a frequency.

I imagine similar usage applies to platforms 4 and 5 and the Northern Loop.

So in a world of ideals I think this makes sense, but there are some other constraints holding it back in the meantime.
  Madjikthise Assistant Commissioner

There is someone in the timetables department that has a fetish for the loop, and consistently tries to cram as many trains through the loop as possible, even when the signalling cannot support it. Until that person retires or finds another job I wish you luck getting it changed.
  Lad_Porter Chief Commissioner

Location: Yarra Glen
The City Loop is intended to service people who work (or have other business) near a City Loop station, but I suspect that nowadays in the PM many such people going to an outer suburb, and not needing to change at Richmond, would prefer to walk or take a tram to FS because they would have a better chance of getting a seat.  Therefore the Loop becomes irrelevant to them, and they would be better served if their train ran direct to Richmond.  Perhaps a few more trains should do that?
  John.Z Chief Train Controller


Plat 11/12?: Unassigned (can't remember what they call the platform under Fed Square).

I think he's talking about platform 14 here.

While I like the logic of assigning the platforms at Flinders Street the way you have, there is a reason why Ringwood services use platforms 2 and 3 during peak (especailly PM): with the current dwell time/driver change over/whatever else goes on at FS, one platform can only feed trains every 4 mins into a loop tunnel (platform 1 being the prime example).

There are Ringwood trains through the loop departing FS at 4:53, 4:56, 4:58 and 5:01 in PM peak (and a Blackburn SAS direct at 4:57) - making use of both platforms is the only way currently to achieve such a frequency.

I imagine similar usage applies to platforms 4 and 5 and the Northern Loop.

So in a world of ideals I think this makes sense, but there are some other constraints holding it back in the meantime.
LeroyW
No, platform 14 is the platform on the northern side, east of platform 1. There is a platform to the east of platform 10 that Sandringham trains often terminate at, it is east of the Bar which is on the space formally occupied by train tracks.

Those reasons are due to limitations imposed by people, not physics. There is no reason to have driver changes at Flinders except for the fact that, it was done like that yesterday so why not today? No other metro line around the world has its drivers change mid-run, always at the Terminus. Flinders St, to maximise capacity should not be a terminus if the Train continues across the city, or through the city loop. Glen Waverley and Sandringham trains can terminate at double platforms, with drivers ready to start from the rear cab.
  YM-Mundrabilla Minister for Railways

Location: Mundrabilla but I'd rather be in Narvik

Plat 11/12?: Unassigned (can't remember what they call the platform under Fed Square).

I think he's talking about platform 14 here.

While I like the logic of assigning the platforms at Flinders Street the way you have, there is a reason why Ringwood services use platforms 2 and 3 during peak (especailly PM): with the current dwell time/driver change over/whatever else goes on at FS, one platform can only feed trains every 4 mins into a loop tunnel (platform 1 being the prime example).

There are Ringwood trains through the loop departing FS at 4:53, 4:56, 4:58 and 5:01 in PM peak (and a Blackburn SAS direct at 4:57) - making use of both platforms is the only way currently to achieve such a frequency.

I imagine similar usage applies to platforms 4 and 5 and the Northern Loop.

So in a world of ideals I think this makes sense, but there are some other constraints holding it back in the meantime.No, platform 14 is the platform on the northern side, east of platform 1. There is a platform to the east of platform 10 that Sandringham trains often terminate at, it is east of the Bar which is on the space formally occupied by train tracks.

Those reasons are due to limitations imposed by people, not physics. There is no reason to have driver changes at Flinders except for the fact that, it was done like that yesterday so why not today? No other metro line around the world has its drivers change mid-run, always at the Terminus. Flinders St, to maximise capacity should not be a terminus if the Train continues across the city, or through the city loop. Glen Waverley and Sandringham trains can terminate at double platforms, with drivers ready to start from the rear cab.
John.Z
Oh how simple it used to be:

Platform 1 centre, 1 east and 1 west then platforms 2 to 11 plus 10 east and 11 east.

Couldn't be bothered looking for it but we were all assured by Metro several years ago that crew changes would no longer take place at Flinders Street and that trains would simply arrive and depart as at any other suburban station.
It was a lie, of course, and we remain stuck with drivers out of position, chatting on the platform or stowing their kit etc.

The amount of time lost at Flinders Street for whatever reason must be an impact on the entire Metro operation.

There are two down Craigieburns ex Flinders Street at 1727 (one via Parliament and one via Southern Cross). Do they both go from platforms 4/5 side by side or does the direct service go from another platform.
  Clyde Goodwin2 Chief Train Controller

Other Systems DO change crews at Major stations it is done all day every day at Central in Sydney.
  railblogger Chief Commissioner

Location: At the back of the train, quitely doing exactly what you'd expect.

Plat 11/12?: Unassigned (can't remember what they call the platform under Fed Square).

I think he's talking about platform 14 here.

While I like the logic of assigning the platforms at Flinders Street the way you have, there is a reason why Ringwood services use platforms 2 and 3 during peak (especailly PM): with the current dwell time/driver change over/whatever else goes on at FS, one platform can only feed trains every 4 mins into a loop tunnel (platform 1 being the prime example).

There are Ringwood trains through the loop departing FS at 4:53, 4:56, 4:58 and 5:01 in PM peak (and a Blackburn SAS direct at 4:57) - making use of both platforms is the only way currently to achieve such a frequency.

I imagine similar usage applies to platforms 4 and 5 and the Northern Loop.

So in a world of ideals I think this makes sense, but there are some other constraints holding it back in the meantime.No, platform 14 is the platform on the northern side, east of platform 1. There is a platform to the east of platform 10 that Sandringham trains often terminate at, it is east of the Bar which is on the space formally occupied by train tracks.

Those reasons are due to limitations imposed by people, not physics. There is no reason to have driver changes at Flinders except for the fact that, it was done like that yesterday so why not today? No other metro line around the world has its drivers change mid-run, always at the Terminus. Flinders St, to maximise capacity should not be a terminus if the Train continues across the city, or through the city loop. Glen Waverley and Sandringham trains can terminate at double platforms, with drivers ready to start from the rear cab.Oh how simple it used to be:

Platform 1 centre, 1 east and 1 west then platforms 2 to 11 plus 10 east and 11 east.

Couldn't be bothered looking for it but we were all assured by Metro several years ago that crew changes would no longer take place at Flinders Street and that trains would simply arrive and depart as at any other suburban station.
It was a lie, of course, and we remain stuck with drivers out of position, chatting on the platform or stowing their kit etc.

The amount of time lost at Flinders Street for whatever reason must be an impact on the entire Metro operation.

There are two down Craigieburns ex Flinders Street at 1727 (one via Parliament and one via Southern Cross). Do they both go from platforms 4/5 side by side or does the direct service go from another platform.
YM-Mundrabilla
Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe one goes from platform 9 or 10.
  YM-Mundrabilla Minister for Railways

Location: Mundrabilla but I'd rather be in Narvik
Thanks Railblogger.
That does not surprise me. I would go for the direct service if travelling at that time.
  Madjikthise Assistant Commissioner


Plat 11/12?: Unassigned (can't remember what they call the platform under Fed Square).

I think he's talking about platform 14 here.

While I like the logic of assigning the platforms at Flinders Street the way you have, there is a reason why Ringwood services use platforms 2 and 3 during peak (especailly PM): with the current dwell time/driver change over/whatever else goes on at FS, one platform can only feed trains every 4 mins into a loop tunnel (platform 1 being the prime example).

There are Ringwood trains through the loop departing FS at 4:53, 4:56, 4:58 and 5:01 in PM peak (and a Blackburn SAS direct at 4:57) - making use of both platforms is the only way currently to achieve such a frequency.

I imagine similar usage applies to platforms 4 and 5 and the Northern Loop.

So in a world of ideals I think this makes sense, but there are some other constraints holding it back in the meantime.No, platform 14 is the platform on the northern side, east of platform 1. There is a platform to the east of platform 10 that Sandringham trains often terminate at, it is east of the Bar which is on the space formally occupied by train tracks.

Those reasons are due to limitations imposed by people, not physics. There is no reason to have driver changes at Flinders except for the fact that, it was done like that yesterday so why not today? No other metro line around the world has its drivers change mid-run, always at the Terminus. Flinders St, to maximise capacity should not be a terminus if the Train continues across the city, or through the city loop. Glen Waverley and Sandringham trains can terminate at double platforms, with drivers ready to start from the rear cab.Oh how simple it used to be:

Platform 1 centre, 1 east and 1 west then platforms 2 to 11 plus 10 east and 11 east.

Couldn't be bothered looking for it but we were all assured by Metro several years ago that crew changes would no longer take place at Flinders Street and that trains would simply arrive and depart as at any other suburban station.
It was a lie, of course, and we remain stuck with drivers out of position, chatting on the platform or stowing their kit etc.

The amount of time lost at Flinders Street for whatever reason must be an impact on the entire Metro operation.

There are two down Craigieburns ex Flinders Street at 1727 (one via Parliament and one via Southern Cross). Do they both go from platforms 4/5 side by side or does the direct service go from another platform.
YM-Mundrabilla
Some time ago they sent managers down to all the platforms to figure out why trains were not departing Flinders St on time. It was found that drivers were either waiting for a late train to arrive, or that they were facing a red signal at departure time. Driver changeovers was impacting services an insignificant amount of the time compared to reasons beyond the driver's control. So I ask again, because I'm sure I've asked this before on the forum, how does removing changeovers at Flinders St fix the problem?

Sponsored advertisement

Subscribers: Boss, Myrtone

Display from:   

Quick Reply

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