Light bulb moment!

It occurred to me that all the discussion has concentrated on the eastern end of SRL.

What seems missing in discussion is - what about the airport .?

We've all been under the dillusion that MARL is a complementary part, but that's not what the SRL pictures and description show.

According to the lastest "plan", the airport link will go to Sunshine (like MARL) but then goes off westwards.
MEANING, passengers from airport to CBD will have to change train.

Its even more likely for separate lines if SRL is driverless.
No way could it get mixed in with the rest of Metro - unless that is the devious  plan all along, make all MM1 ATO

Now we have the answers to how MARL will inter-connect to MM1 or some other path to Melbourne.
Those problems are solved because MARL doesn't go to Melbourne at all.

I'm not always against train change at logical hubs, but is this the greeting we want to give Melbourne  visitors?

My head really hurts. Bex please.

cheers
John

I assume, with the potential 10 billion (5 from state, 5 from feds) earmarked for Airport rail that they'll just overbuild it to work with the future metro loop (despite both beginning construction at the same time if the government stays in power)

2 new tracks from southern cross to sunshine, 4 new tracks from sunshine to airport; airport rail uses existing (by then) HCMTs to run a dedicated airport rail line while the metro duplicates that service on another pair of tracks between the airport and sunshine (interchange) then continues to werribee, while also servicing the rest of the suburban loop to the east of the airport.

it will be 10 years and then some before SRL gets anywhere near the airport. MARL will provide 2 tracks to the Airport and if and when SRL ever gets there they will build an additional 2 tracks. Its just clever spin tying MARL up with SRL makes it look like they have built a lot more than they have.
MARL track pair 2022
SRL track pair ???

@penguin2233
@Lockie91

You might disagree, but it's true

@penguin2233
@Lockie91

You might disagree, but it's true

The very well know 4D, Melbournes failed attempted to build a Double Decker train to suit the network. It ran all of 8 revenue trips in 1991 before being sidelined at Bayswater before being sent to Newport. Sold to railcorp for parts it was scraped in 2006 MURL wasn't built for DD trains, the 4D was built for it.

So why was the 4D a failure?

Reliability (lack of), double-deckers falling out of favour and, to a much lesser extent, the modifications required to other infrastructure. Based on Sydney's Tangaras, it ran on and off over 10 years (considerably more than 8 trips) on the Belgrave & Lilydale lines from 1992 but failed regularly. Scrapped in 2006. Wikipedia or VicSig has detailed information.

@penguin2233
@Lockie91

You might disagree, but it's true

I never disagreed. The damn train just didn't work 95% of the time! It amazes me that they allowed 4D to run on the MURL. I would've thought it would breakdown in the middle of service and need to have a Comeng push it out!

So why was the 4D a failure?

It never worked. "Initially the 4D was run coupled to a 3-car Comeng set until 1996 when, after a troubled conversion to driver-only operation, it was permitted to operate on its own. Often as not, though, it was towed or pushed by a 3 or 6-car Comeng set following a failure." I don't actually know why it broke down but when they tried to make it run it just didn't work. It was revived in 2000 but only lasted a year, then in 2002 a final attempt to bring it back to life failed; the train only lasting 3 days.

Sounds like they half-arsed the 4D on purpose; such monumental, repeated failures don't happen by accident or poor design.

Sounds like they half-arsed the 4D on purpose; such monumental, repeated failures don't happen by accident or poor design.

They took a toronga train from Sydney and chopped it to bits trying to make it work in Melbourne. The failure was trying to make something Sydney had work here.

The reason that we don't have them and Sydney is moving away from them is dwell time.

Sounds like they half-arsed the 4D on purpose; such monumental, repeated failures don't happen by accident or poor design.

Maybe, some stations had to be changed to allow the 4D to stop at them due to the different dimensions. Maybe they didn't want to change the whole system? The plan was to see if it worked, then order 40-50 more.

An aspect that hasn't been appreciated by posts to date is how the new line is not just designed to accommodate current demand, but to generate new public transport demand is to walkable mini-CBD's at the university campuses...

If Melbourne doesn't develop this way, with sub-centres easily accessed by rail, new employment would be in suburban office parks accessible only by car, or in the CBD, where the one-way nature of the main commute leads to poor utilisation of the rail fleet.

Cannot agree with this more.  The calls to "fix the current network first" by quadding, LX removal, CBD tunnels or whatever are similar to the freeway lobby's calls for more lanes to ease congestion - they will increase demand by providing a better service, which will then require more upgrades etc. (albeit increased demand on PT is far more preferable to freeways in any universe).

Unless we move people's trips away from the CBD, we will never have enough capacity to move everybody there from the suburbs for a job and will always be playing catch up.  SRL changes the thinking in a way that has never been done before.

Unless we move people's trips away from the CBD, we will never have enough capacity to move everybody there from the suburbs for a job and will always be playing catch up. SRL changes the thinking in a way that has never been done before.

This. Vicroads saw this happening many years ago and determined there was a need for such a cross-town line.

I am semi-reliably informed that myki data exists that shows 40% of trips have the CBD as an interchange and not a destination. If that's the case, moving these people onto the SRL (and a fair whack of commuter motorists) will be nothing but a massive positive for the city.

The reason that we don't have them and Sydney is moving away from them is dwell time.

Exactly, DD = 2 doors each side per carriage at the ends only. SD Melbourne style = 3 doors each side per car.

Takes longer to unload and load pax at each station which increases journey times.

BG

The reason that we don't have them and Sydney is moving away from them is dwell time.

Exactly, DD = 2 doors each side per carriage at the ends only. SD Melbourne style = 3 doors each side per car.

Takes longer to unload and load pax at each station which increases journey times.

BG

Catching a DD in Sydney is not pleasant in peak hour. The landing area for all four seating compartments is also standing room in peak. you might have 20 or so people cramped into this little area holding on to a few strap handles while 50 people try and come up and down stairs to use the door. Dwell times at inner city stations are 90 seconds plus. Impossible to have that when you are running a 120 second head way.

.............................................................................

PS: the undulating terrain will mean some very deep tunnels.
eg (Doncaster Hill, which might have to get under the Eastern Freeway)
No difference to construct the tunnel, but a very tall elevator to the surface.

It's likely some property will have to be acquired. If so, bridges or viaducts could be used in places, such as crossing the Eastern Freeway.

.................................................

Exactly, DD = 2 doors each side per carriage at the ends only. SD Melbourne style = 3 doors each side per car.

........................................................

except the Siemens (Nexas).

Putting aside the added cost and construction time of larger tunnels for double decker trains, I just don't see the need for them. This is a clean sheet design process. HCMTs will start entering service in 2019, the earliest section of this line won't open until 2030 at the earliest. Why wouldn't we be designing the stations, the tunnels and the rollingstock all at the same time to be purpose built to work together? I mean that is the one of the biggest positives of such a large scale project.

No HCMTs, No Double decker trains, just purpose built trains that are designed to run on this line, and this line only. 3 doors per side or even 4 or 5 doors per side, if big crowds are to be expected (and they are, just look at what the line is aimed at, Universities, The Airport, Major Centers & Interchanges). More doors means more standing passengers, moving in and out of the train faster. This translates to shorter dwell times which equals faster journey times. That is the bottom line right there. Faster journey times, that is how you win people over who would normally take their car.

Double deckers would work on something like the Geelong line where dwell times aren't an issue due to fewer total stations, but more people need to be able to get a seat due to the length of the journey. Maybe when the Geelong line gets its next upgrade in 10 to 20 years, and finally gets sparked, then it may be able to get some new generation, 8 carriage, electrified, 240km/h double decker. If that upgrade ever does eventuate that is.

As for this new Metro style line, just find the best way to get the largest number of people moving in the most efficient manner available. That is what the plan is about.

Penguin, Lockie. You both pressed disagree to a statement that the MURL couldn't take a DD. It could.

The 4D was doomed to fail from the start. It was a tangara shell from sydney outfitted with Comeng internals so that it could be run in tandem with it

Problem is, when you try to retrofit technology into an already established ecosystem, it was never going to work.

As to whether DD are good/bad for Melbourne, enough train lines would need work to make them work, and stations are too close for them to be of any benefit. An A set (Waratah) style train on VLine commuter services with long times between stops make sense, but not Metro, nor the SRL

As to whether DD are good/bad for Melbourne, enough train lines would need work to make them work, and stations are too close for them to be of any benefit. An A set (Waratah) style train on VLine commuter services with long times between stops make sense, but not Metro, nor the SRL

Solution...Looooooooooooooooonger trains haha. The SRL is independent from the existing network, so I do agree that designing a purpose built train with specific stations and tunnels makes a lot of sense. However, this does mean spending money on a new train. IMO having it built for the HCMT is the best idea, as the company responsible for producing the HCMT has knowledge in ATO and could re-fit a number of HCMTs to ATO. It also means less hassle in the engineering department with crews having to work on 5 types of trains in the workshop (including Comeng)

Solution...Looooooooooooooooonger trains haha. The SRL is independent from the existing network, so I do agree that designing a purpose built train with specific stations and tunnels makes a lot of sense. However, this does mean spending money on a new train. IMO having it built for the HCMT is the best idea, as the company responsible for producing the HCMT has knowledge in ATO and could re-fit a number of HCMTs to ATO. It also means less hassle in the engineering department with crews having to work on 5 types of trains in the workshop (including Comeng)

This may be the case. But some things to consider:

1. Whatever train is used for this line, it will need to be a completely new order, the current fleet will not be up to the large task of this new line.

2. These trains won't be needed until after the current HCMT contract has passed, so there is no guarantee that a future state government of that time will have an ongoing relationship with the makers of HCMT.

3. Any substantial new order such as this will need to go out to tender. Such a big tender as this one, with ongoing work for a substantial period of time would attract many potential candidates. It would be likely that any winning contender would need to be able to assure that most of the work would be done locally.

4. Longer trains mean longer platforms, that means larger underground station boxes. End result is higher expenses.

5. You refer to Comengs being around at the time this line is active, remember in 2035, when this line will be active, the Comeng fleet will be reaching 50 years of age, the Siemens and 1st order Xtraps will be 30 years old. In comparison, the majority of the Harris fleet didn't last 40 years, neither did the majority of the Hitachi fleet.

6. What makes you think Metro Trains Melbourne will operate this line? Is there anything in their contract saying new independent lines have to go to them? I'm not saying they won't get it, just think outside the square.

7. This is still a long way away. The first step is the upcoming election. If the Liberal/Nationals win, the whole thing is off anyway. We are getting way ahead of ourselves.

6. What makes you think Metro Trains Melbourne will operate this line? Is there anything in their contract saying new independent lines have to go to them? I'm not saying they won't get it, just think outside the square.

I think a BOOT contract is the obvious solution here. Given the minimal infrastructure interaction, except at stations, that leaves very little difficulty with such an arrangement. I would sincerely hope such a thing went out to open market, although I would expect that if it did, MTM would join a consortium with a view to becoming the eventual operators.

I think a BOOT contract is the obvious solution here.

I thought most trains ran on wheels, not boots.

You might want to elaborate.

I think a BOOT contract is the obvious solution here.

I thought most trains ran on wheels, not boots.

You might want to elaborate.

Nah, he mightn't. BOOT contracts have been discussed numerous times on RP in other similar threads.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Build%E2%80%93operate%E2%80%93transfer

The new thang that they thought up when they realized the serious flaws in PPPs.

BG

6. What makes you think Metro Trains Melbourne will operate this line? Is there anything in their contract saying new independent lines have to go to them? I'm not saying they won't get it, just think outside the square.

I think a BOOT contract is the obvious solution here. Given the minimal infrastructure interaction, except at stations, that leaves very little difficulty with such an arrangement. I would sincerely hope such a thing went out to open market, although I would expect that if it did, MTM would join a consortium with a view to becoming the eventual operators.

I would like to see it go to someone other than MTM so that Victoria could benchmark the performance of the SRL against Metro and give the Guvmit some ammo in it's future contract negotiations.

SRL is supposed to be a stand alone railway so give it a stand alone operator.

BG

.............................................................................
PS: the undulating terrain will mean some very deep tunnels.
eg (Doncaster Hill, which might have to get under the Eastern Freeway)
No difference to construct the tunnel, but a very tall elevator to the surface.

It's likely some property will have to be acquired. If so, bridges or viaducts could be used in places, such as crossing the Eastern Freeway.

you're right of course.

All along the hillside both sides is heavily built up, retirement village, cricket ground, parks, tennis , you name it somebody will be upset.

The least bad position to cross the freeway is just east of Station St/Tram Rd.
Would need about 10 houses both sides for the portal - 1st black mark for Libs to say "told you so"
Then there is the bridge. It will be called Skyrail to suit the agenda of detractors - 2nd black mark.

And this is only one such potential crossing.

If I were a smart polly (wash out my mouth), avoid all the nasties by going under, which is what Dan and Jacinta have been saying all week.
Being deep under Shoppingtown would create its own problems for the builder to solve without scaring the bejesus out of customers.

cheers
John

As you said this is just one case, however it appears there’s plenty of park on the south side of the freeway and, if the bridge crossed at the minimum height, it would start going into the side of the hill on the north side before it reached the property line, although some properties would need to be acquired. Hopefully by the time the project gets to the detailed design stage it will have built up enough momentum that these are minor issues.

The project needs to avoid the steep gradient issues created in Sydney’s Epping – Chatswood Rail Link when a political decision was made to tunnel under the Lane Cove River rather than cross it by bridge. A few eggs will have to be broken.