Is it that hard to understand?

Of course you're spending money, but there's a net reduction in capital expenses since you're freeing up higher capacity rollingstock for better use elsewhere, replacing it with cheaper, more appropriate vehicles.  

Rather hilarious that you picked the Tyne and Wear Metro too. Compare the pair:

Rather hilarious you fail at basic maths, we have:

>Tyne & Wear Metro:
>>>39 tonne for a 56m train, scales to 117 tonne for 168m for three sets, or 0.7tonne/m
>Melbourne X'trapolis:
>>>six-car set at 244 tonne for 143m, or 1.7tonne/m

Which makes sense, since the listed capacities are:

>Tyne & Wear Metro:
>>>64 seats + 188 standees, or per three sets 192 seats (504 total), 1.1seats/m & 4.5pax/m
>Melbourne X'trapolis:
>>>listed capacity of 528 seats + 266 standees (crush 1394), 3.7seats/m & 9.7pax/m

So such stock is half the size of our trains, far more suitable for the capacity needs of Williamstown/Altona etc.

Is it that hard to understand?

Of course you're spending money.

No, it wouldn't have been hard to understand at all had you not first described it as "zero cost" and later "cost neutral", when neither is the case. "Net reduction in capital expenses" is plausible but it depends on the timeframe and what other stock is being replaced and retired on the network.  

And you're right on the T&W, so thanks for the correction.

I'd rather maintain the X-Trapolis fleet on the line because it is tried and tested. A brand new light rail fleet is risky. Just look at the problems that we've had with the V/locities and the Siemens fleets of trains. You're proposing a pointless risk that will take valuable money off other more pressing areas.

I'd rather maintain the X-Trapolis fleet on the line because it is tried and tested. A brand new light rail fleet is risky. Just look at the problems that we've had with the V/locities and the Siemens fleets of trains. You're proposing a pointless risk that will take valuable money off other more pressing areas.

Both the Siemens and V/Locities are heavy rail, or rather the Siemens Nexas, based of the Modular Metro platform that was designed for the UBahn systems in Germany and Austria. It was a cheap off the shelf train not designed for the long commuter diagrams of the Melbourne Rail system. The Victorian Government is build new high capacity trains. Again the risk is based on the sophistication of the Light Rail. Simple modern streetcars/trams would be less risky than the light rail vehicles that the DLR use.

Surely both the light rail vehicles mentioned would be less risky than the HCMT.

If it means releasing more capacity for the Werribee corridor, which carries 8 times the patronage of the Williamstown line and it is still growing, then maybe conversion of the Willy line is not such an outrageous idea!


Michael

I'd rather maintain the X-Trapolis fleet on the line because it is tried and tested. A brand new light rail fleet is risky. Just look at the problems that we've had with the V/locities and the Siemens fleets of trains. You're proposing a pointless risk that will take valuable money off other more pressing areas.

Something that saves money, a pointless risk?

It's a shame basic logic can't be taught, but when it's lacking you really shouldn't really comment on economic matters.

Something that saves money, a pointless risk? It's a shame basic logic can't be taught, but when it's lacking you really shouldn't really comment on economic matters.

I can't justify wasting money on converting the Williamstown line to Standard Gauge, rebuilding the platforms to an adequate height, changing the power supply in the wires to suit light rail, buying a brand new fleet, building a practical interchange in Newport, etc. Just run three car sets. Capacity won't be an issue when the Werribee line goes through Metro 2, leaving plenty of room for Williamstown and Altona services through the current route.

Question for you ZH and Michael: are you proposing a) conversion of Newport-Williamstown prior to or instead of Metro 2; or b) conversion of Footscray-Williamstown after Metro 2?

I’ve come around to the idea of a) thanks to this thread and looking at patronage statistics. If we can get 20tph to Werribee with signalling improvements and a tram between Newport and Williamstown (and hell - why not along the Altona Loop too?) then it would be a much more cost-effective option than Metro 2 West.

On the other hand, I’m skeptical of the benefits of b) because if the Werribee line is segregated anyway, any capex savings are minimal or non-existent and the only benefits would be in opex. If there are any statistics about what opex savings might look like I’d be curious to see them.

What's this got to do with a Caulfield - Rowville tram line?

Nothing really .
They are talking about an existing branch line with only the faintest similarity to a Huntingdale-Rowville branch.

Question for you ZH and Michael: are you proposing a) conversion of Newport-Williamstown prior to or instead of Metro 2; or b) conversion of Footscray-Williamstown after Metro 2?

I’ve come around to the idea of a) thanks to this thread and looking at patronage statistics. If we can get 20tph to Werribee with signalling improvements and a tram between Newport and Williamstown (and hell - why not along the Altona Loop too?) then it would be a much more cost-effective option than Metro 2 West.

On the other hand, I’m skeptical of the benefits of b) because if the Werribee line is segregated anyway, any capex savings are minimal or non-existent and the only benefits would be in opex. If there are any statistics about what opex savings might look like I’d be curious to see them.

@PIMM why fall for the light rail conversion nonsense that @ZH froths ?

IF Williamstown is so lightly loaded as claimed, than convert the time table to a shuttle between Willy and Newport.
It's already done each evening. Can even be shortened to 3 cars.
That frees up additional time slots for Werribee without any effort.
Not many would complain - yeah sure !!

Of course the big "IF" is the true passenger counts for the Williamstown line, not just bald assertions.

3 Willy stations to 9:30am weekdays - 1163 passengers alight (source: PTV Station by Station 2015)
sounds light
BUT
Fawkner/Gowrie/Upfield - 985 passengers alight
Diamond Creek/Wattle Glen/ Hurstbridge - 949 Passengers alight
should we shut down those lines too ?
Bentleigh - 1171 passengers alight
do we shut that station ?

Frankly the "hardly anybody uses Williamstown line" is a load of nonsense,
as is this discussion in this thread about the tram going to Rowville.

cheers
John

I can't justify wasting money on converting the Williamstown line to Standard Gauge, rebuilding the platforms to an adequate height, changing the power supply in the wires to suit light rail, buying a brand new fleet, building a practical interchange in Newport, etc. Just run three car sets. Capacity won't be an issue when the Werribee line goes through Metro 2, leaving plenty of room for Williamstown and Altona services through the current route.

So you can only conceive of 'our' trains or 'our' trams.

You have no idea about the realities that lie in between, so is your opinion really worth that much?

Question for you ZH and Michael: are you proposing a) conversion of Newport-Williamstown prior to or instead of Metro 2; or b) conversion of Footscray-Williamstown after Metro 2?

Post Metro 2 of course.

What's this got to do with a Caulfield - Rowville tram line?

What's half the drivel people post on this site got to do with anything, let alone reality?

should we shut down those lines too ?

Well of course the Hurstbrdge line should be closed beyond Eltham, and the Upfield line would be far more useful if redirected to the airport from Campbellfield.  Hurstbridge is a great example that makes a mockery of the one-size-fits-all paradigm.  Did you think I held Williamstown to be the only example of gross oversupply and inefficiency?

Were you hoping you stumbled on a contradiction?  Better luck next time.

You have no idea about the realities that lie in between, so is your opinion really worth that much?

Okay then, I have no idea. What are these "realities" that you are speaking of? I think I made a fairly comprehensive list of issues that would render the project too expensive for its limited benefit.

This is not the "Should we convert the quieter sections of heavy rail network to light-rail?" thread

This is the Rowville tram line proposal thread. Ok can some moderator remove the clutter and put it on a seperate thread.

As for Rowville light rail, the government seems to be quiet about this proposal, is it happening or was it just another thought bubble?

Also for the costs for light rail doesn't come cheap. The Parramatta light rail will cost 2.4 Billion total and that also involves conversion of the heavy rail on the Carlingford line, plus a new section through Parramatta.

This is not the "Should we convert the quieter sections of heavy rail network to light-rail?" thread

This is the Rowville tram line proposal thread. Ok can some moderator remove the clutter and put it on a seperate thread.

As for Rowville light rail, the government seems to be quiet about this proposal, is it happening or was it just another thought bubble?

Also for the costs for light rail doesn't come cheap. The Parramatta light rail will cost 2.4 Billion total and that also involves conversion of the heavy rail on the Carlingford line, plus a new section through Parramatta.

Believed that as part of the feds funding for airport rail, rowville will be heavy rail. Hence why nothing more has come of this since first announcement.

https://transport.vic.gov.au/getting-around/public-transport/new-tram-to-connect-citys-south-east
Still very much on DOT website.

Another project dependent on the election methinks.

Okay then, I have no idea. What are these "realities" that you are speaking of? I think I made a fairly comprehensive list of issues that would render the project too expensive for its limited benefit.

Have you ever been on a train outside Australia?

This is the Rowville tram line proposal thread. Ok can some moderator remove the clutter and put it on a seperate thread.

Well then, since nothing has changed with Rowville, that would render this entire thread pointless clutter and we may as well close it.

My initial reply was to somebody implying light rail must be slow - do you not understand how discussions organically flow elsewhere?

https://transport.vic.gov.au/getting-around/public-transport/new-tram-to-connect-citys-south-east
Still very much on DOT website.

Another project dependent on the election methinks.

It's just every other proposal is on the Big Build website. This one seems to be missing.

Either it's not significant enough to be listed there.

Or that there maybe discussions between the Feds on whether it should be heavy rail vs light rail.

ZH: I know discussions can lead off-topic, but there is a point where it should come back to the original discussion and try to stay on-topic. Thank you.

The feds I think they said they would be provided the money and wanted heavy rail and the state government who are anti heavy rail are wanting light rail so maybe this is a pipe dream and the real project will be heavy rail as originally proposed?

X31 The State Government wants the Rowville line to be light rail and it should be. The Rowille corridor has been built on, I cannot see the residents accepting sky rail, so tunnelling at great expense to Rowville is a waste of time. In any case as the  Fed's have only allocated $300 Million they are In no position to dictate. Rowville should be greatful.

Michael

The state government is not anti-heavy rail, that's nonsense. Anyways a heavy rail option to Rowville is more pipe dream than the light rail option.

While the light rail option can be done on grade. The heavy rail solution would require tunnels and elevated sections and would cost into the billions and only serve a few areas (limited amount of stations)

Another issue with the heavy rail line option it is putting pressure on the double track that is used by the Cranbourne/Pakenham metro trains the V-lines out to Bairnsdale and the freight that use this corridor.

This would either mean 1) the heavy rail line would terminate at Huntingdale 2) Serious quadruplication work along this section of line 3) an expensive long diversion via Alemain line. None of these options are feasible in the short-medium term.

As for Rowville rail being either heavy rail vs light rail. Well the light rail option is superior in terms of cost and time-frame. It may not carry the most passengers per hour or the quickest service, the rail branch would only service a few stops. Also Rowville is located near enough to several heavy rail lines. With a light rail route (which is an upgrade to the current smartbus connection) and better bus network, the area of Rowville would be served well with PT.

With SRL coming into construction soon, this light rail route would connect nicely to the heavy rail station at Monash. The SRL route would complement well together with the Rowville light rail. Since you can take the SRL to Monash, then interchange for Rowville, or even Chadstone Shopping centre.

This is not the "Should we convert the quieter sections of heavy rail network to light-rail?" thread

This is the Rowville tram line proposal thread. Ok can some moderator remove the clutter and put it on a seperate thread.

trAs for Rowville light rail, the government seems to be quiet about this proposal, is it happening or was it just another thought bubble?

Also for the costs for light rail doesn't come cheap. The Parramatta light rail will cost 2.4 Billion total and that also involves conversion of the heavy rail on the Carlingford line, plus a new section through Parramatta.

Light Rail in Sydney is expensive because the South East Light Rail and the Parramatta Light rail has been over-engineered to the point of ridiculousness. The Inner West light rail extension from Lilyfield to Dulwich Hill cost less than $200 Million, is a basic streetcar operation and is totally incompatible with the new systems. If Melbourne sticks with a simple line of sight system along the median strip for Rowville, they will be able to do it for about $600 Million.


Michael

With the proposal of running the Alamein line through to Rowville, I'm assuming the line would enter a tunnel after Alamein, running underneath Chadstone with a station serving the popular shopping centre. Then, would it be possible for the line to emerge on Dandenong Road (perhaps around Atkinson St where the median strip is quite wide) and go onto a Skyrail until it needs to hook left onto the original alignment from the Dandenong line? This would surely save costs.

With the proposal of running the Alamein line through to Rowville, I'm assuming the line would enter a tunnel after Alamein, running underneath Chadstone with a station serving the popular shopping centre. Then, would it be possible for the line to emerge on Dandenong Road (perhaps around Atkinson St where the median strip is quite wide) and go onto a Skyrail until it needs to hook right onto the original alignment from the Dandenong line? This would surely save costs.

Could work
A tunnel from Alamein to Oakleigh via Chadstone would be the dream then on to Rowville but this could work

A tunnel  from the Alamein line would have to start a fair way north of Alamein. It is only 600m to Gardiners Creek on a direct line to Chadstone. The Outer Circle went over the creek. Tunneling under the Glen Waverley line seems inefficient. There are only 7 stations to Burnley via Kooyong compared with 10 (11 including Willison) via Camberwell.

This whole project needs reviewing (scrapping), starting with what is it trying to achieve. Why is there a pressing need to dump people at Caulfield or Camberwell?

Nothing in the state budget to get this project going?

Either it's been delayed/postponed, forgotten entirely, or canceled

Reasons from most likely to unlikely
1) Maybe planning work hasn't been completed yet
2) Found it to be too costly or not as beneficial as initially thought
3) Maybe to discuss whether it should be heavy or light rail
4) Maybe didn't want to get Nimby backlash

Idk, when they announced it, it seemed like they wanted to push ahead with this.

Quote:

https://www.urban.com.au/transport/2018/04/11/analysis-the-new-tram-route-from-caulfield-to-monash-university-and-rowville

Anyways has anyone been consulted on this project?