Claering up two myths :

-  The single track section section Geelong - South Geelong is NOT the issue it is only 3 mins run time .
The service reliability issue is the lack of double track between South Geelong and Waurn Ponds .  The round trip run time Geelong - Ponds including tight turnaround is 40 minutes, so existing off peak pattern dicates every 40 to the Ponds and every 20 to South Geelong .  Works pretty well, but very tight at peak times with trains fleeting through to South Geelong, Ponds & Marshall .

- The duplication cost is more like $ 300m , and the grade seps add another $ 400m . Wood St is to grade separated probably as that route offers the only East/West route across Geelong for truck traffic .  Surf Coast Highway is major divided road with huge traffic volume .


-  9 car VL trains will not happen fast for three reasons  1.  Extremely expensive capex wise and opex wise  2. Would actually reduce peak hour train throughput at Southern Cross and 3 . number of operational issues associated with platform extensions to 9 cars and signals etc . (9 car VL trains would take up all of plats 2, 3, 7 or 8 or 15/16 and reduce remaining platform faces available to other train sizes.)

However 7 car VL sets to both Geelong and Ballarat would be easy .  Simply buy 28 -  30  trailer cars and insert into 28 - 30 of the 88 VL set fleet .  Then one can run VL train sizes of  3, 4, 6, 7 or 8 cars .  By simply acquiring 28 - 30 VL trailer cars to make a mix of 3 and 4 car sets the peak hour capacity over 1530 - 1830 on both Geelong and Ballarat can be increased  by over 30% for marginal extra opex at lowest capital cost per extra seat .  The issue now is LONGER  V/Locity trains, not more 3 car VL trains .

88 VL total train sets is more than enough to operate all VLP train services . In fact with short term electrification to both Wyndham Vale and Melton there will be VL 3 car sets released for use elsewhere .

I agree that there is a case for the government to buy some trailer cars but as far as I am aware they have no plans to do that. I am a bit puzzled that when you think that running 9 car trains isn't practical you would be ok with an 8 car train. On thing is certain, with capacity constraints on the regional line from Southern Cross to Sunshine/Deer Park there isn't much scope to run many additional 6 car trains.

I'm not sure what you mean by short term but I wouldn't expect to see an electric train at Melton or Wyndham Vale for another decade. Once deliveries are complete the 88 Vlocity sets will be fully utilised by replacing loco hauled sets, increasing some 3 car workings to 6 car & the sheer volume of passenger growth. Even after electrification it's hard to see that there will be any spares.

However 7 car VL sets to both Geelong and Ballarat would be easy . Simply buy 28 - 30 trailer cars and insert into 28 - 30 of the 88 VL set fleet . Then one can run VL train sizes of 3, 4, 6, 7 or 8 cars . By simply acquiring 28 - 30 VL trailer cars to make a mix of 3 and 4 car sets the peak hour capacity over 1530 - 1830 on both Geelong and Ballarat can be increased by over 30% for marginal extra opex at lowest capital cost per extra seat .  

If you ignore such minor nuisance details such as stabling and maintenance requirements, then sure inserting an extra car or two is simple, cheap and easy! But when its realized that most locations are setup for 3 car units or multiples of 3, then all of a sudden that simply inserted 4th car becomes an issue.

Take Ballarat for example, Bombardiers maintenance shed is only capable of servicing a 3 car unit in each of its 3 roads. It could be extended but that will be an expensive rejig of the yard and a loss of stabling/prep areas or a potential removal of the turntable. Another example of the impact of a 7/8 car vlocity are you would have to have a spare road to shunt into at Ballarat East when coming out of the carriage sheds as a 6 car can fit between dwarf 32 and Humffray St where as any longer would not.

With Geelong, the loco stabling roads are 237m or 159m in length, which all are based around 3 car units. An additional car would require a rejig of the yard or a loss of stabling by fitting one 4 car unit instead of two 3 car units. Traralgon, Bendigo, arrival yards, Bombardier West Melbourne and so on all have the same issues and would require a lot of work. Not to mention all the other background items such as prep times and roster changes etc.

None of the above examples and issues are insurmountable, but adding an additional car is not as simple and easy as its sometimes made out to be.

$700 million to duplicate the line from South Geelong to Waurn Ponds doesn't seem like great value for money to me & I am not surprised that Infrastructure Australia didn't rate it as a priority project.

It does nothing to address capacity issues between Geelong & Melbourne where the real problem is & the single track bottleneck through the tunnel between Geelong & South Geelong remains.

I would rather see the money spent on a platform lengthening project to enable longer trains to run on the Geelong line.

As has been said the true bottleneck currently occurs between Geelong station and Waurn Ponds, not in a small section under the CBD. Single track from Geelong southwards will become completely untenable as more residents pack into Curlewis, Armstrong Creek, Mt Duneed and other such areas, and moreso when the branch line to Torquay is completed.

Would there be a lot of people from the Southern Suburbs of Geelong who currently drive to Geelong or South Geelong station to take advantage of the better train frequencies there?

As has been said the true bottleneck currently occurs between Geelong station and Waurn Ponds, not in a small section under the CBD. Single track from Geelong southwards will become completely untenable as more residents pack into Curlewis, Armstrong Creek, Mt Duneed and other such areas, and moreso when the branch line to Torquay is completed.

Could someone explain why Dandenong-Frankston is unthinkable but Grovedale-Torquay is desirable?

Odd priorities.

Could someone explain why Dandenong-Frankston is unthinkable but Grovedale-Torquay is desirable?

As far as I know @Maximas has never commented on the Dandy-Frankston proposal.

For what it's worth I think a Torquay line now would be putting the cart well before the horse given the bus currently runs about once every 40 minutes in peak.

Update on the Victorian Regional Rail Revival
Completion dates:
Ballarat 2019
Warrnambool 2020
Geelong/Bendigo 2021
Gippsland 2022

Initial Geelong works will be second platform at Waurn Ponds, “full duplication” South Geelong to Waurn Ponds has been assessed as the best option and will be delivered separately if the feds are on board.

And what do you know - that takes us right up to the next election!

it might sound selfish, but I'm disappointed that the completion of the Gippsland upgrades are at the bottom of the list. I can only hope that the relatively simple Bunyip - Longwarry duplication sub-project is prioritised over the rest of the upgrades. Some conjecture exists that the entire timetable is based on crossing times allocated to the duplicated sections either side; a late runner having to presently wait either side of the single track section will have a major knock-on effect for every subsequent service that that train forms.

Andrews committed to South Geelong -  Waurn Ponds duplication before 11/18 eelction.  Will be complete by late 2023 includes two grade seps at Wood St South Geelong and at Torquay Rd Grovedale.  Estiamed cost now $  700m . Feds have only kicked in a piddling $ 150m so far, but no doubt that will be upped once we get a Federal Labour Government ensuring Victoria gets its fair share of the bikkie barrell for capex .

Also, don't forget that RRV is completing the grade separation of Barwon Heads Road as a part of the Barwon Heads Road Dulplication Project.

Also, don't forget that RRV is completing the grade separation of Barwon Heads Road as a part of the Barwon Heads Road Dulplication Project.

They really need to draw up plans to eliminate every level crossing through Greater Geelong (on the Warrnambool line)

Could someone explain why Dandenong-Frankston is unthinkable but Grovedale-Torquay is desirable?

As far as I know @Maximas has never commented on the Dandy-Frankston proposal.

For what it's worth I think a Torquay line now would be putting the cart well before the horse given the bus currently runs about once every 40 minutes in peak.

Honestly wasn't even aware of such a proposal, and don't see much relevance to this subject anyway - although if this is under current discussion in the forums I'd be keen to check out the thread

Torquay is actually running out of land to re-zone and develop, the train line perhaps more relevant for tourist purposes and especially for Armstrong Creek, which is set to hit about 60 thousand residents in 20 years time. As it is most Armstrong Creek residents (that are commuting to Melbourne via train) are using their cars to drive into Marshall from what I can tell.

In a recent presentation to the Bendigo Sustainability Group the RFI's Bill Russell offered the following under the heading of "Current Planned Bendigo Line Improvements"

Duplication of several single line sections:
• Near Kyneton
• Near Castlemaine
• Near Bendigo
• Signalling upgrades around Bendigo and extension to Huntly
& Raywood; reopening of Harcourt station
• Improvement of service frequency to 20 minutes peak, 40
minutes off-peak
• Consideration of deviation to avoid holdups caused by
suburban trains between Sunshine and Diggers Rest


I am not sure if I have heard anyone actually say that particular re-duplication works are actually planned before, I have only heard them referred to as being investigated. This would suggest that there is already some sort of an idea of what will be done. And I have certainly not heard of the deviation although running Bendigo trains via Plumpton to the Ballarat line and then onto the RRL around Melton have been discussed on RP before.

BG

In a recent presentation to the Bendigo Sustainability Group the RFI's Bill Russell offered the following under the heading of "Current Planned Bendigo Line Improvements"

Duplication of several single line sections:
• Near Kyneton
• Near Castlemaine
• Near Bendigo
• Signalling upgrades around Bendigo and extension to Huntly
& Raywood; reopening of Harcourt station
• Improvement of service frequency to 20 minutes peak, 40
minutes off-peak
• Consideration of deviation to avoid holdups caused by
suburban trains between Sunshine and Diggers Rest


I am not sure if I have heard anyone actually say that particular re-duplication works are actually planned before, I have only heard them referred to as being investigated. This would suggest that there is already some sort of an idea of what will be done. And I have certainly not heard of the deviation although running Bendigo trains via Plumpton to the Ballarat line and then onto the RRL around Melton have been discussed on RP before.

BG

Deviation most surely means between Sunbury and Sunshine (via Airport)

How good are the RFI's sources? That is, have they previously been "ahead of the game" so to speak? I think it's very significant if they've got wind of plans for some sort of diversion, but it didn't appear on the plan that was leaked just before the election so I'd be surprised if it had somehow entered transport department thinking since then.

Officially the Govt has said the first things they may do is:
1) Plan for reduplication between Castlemaine and Porcupine Hill
2) Reinstate Harcourt Station
3) Upgrade East track between Kyneton and Sunbury to Class 1 for 160 km/h running (low hanging fruit that one).
4) Raywood, Harcourt, and Goornong stations.  (With likely signal integration with Bendigo 'Metro' signal changes for the former).

1-3 are related to 20 min peak/40 min off-peak freq.

Nothing has been officially mentioned about the other upgrades as far as I am aware.  Although probably being considered 'long-term' (like the OMR-E6 road and rail project).

Officially the Govt has said the first things they may do is:
1) Plan for reduplication between Castlemaine and Porcupine Hill
2) Reinstate Harcourt Station
3) Upgrade East track between Kyneton and Sunbury to Class 1 for 160 km/h running (low hanging fruit that one).
4) Raywood, Harcourt, and Goornong stations.  (With likely signal integration with Bendigo 'Metro' signal changes for the former).

1-3 are related to 20 min peak/40 min off-peak freq.

Nothing has been officially mentioned about the other upgrades as far as I am aware.  Although probably being considered 'long-term' (like the OMR-E6 road and rail project).

With the airport line happening, the $20 question is to what gauge and will it be an outlet to the regional lines north.

Its not inconceivable that the airport line could be standard gauge and include the North East and Bendigo lines and be independent of the current systems (sighting particularly the Sunbury to Sunshine Metro interface and the interface with the freight network for the NE)

So far as future building is concerned this is a strategic cross-road.

Dan was talking about integrating the airport link with Melb Metro 1. Broad Gauge it'll be.

Officially the Govt has said the first things they may do is:

3) Upgrade East track between Kyneton and Sunbury to Class 1 for 160 km/h running (low hanging fruit that one).

Is the East track still timber sleepers

If not, assuming they are probably low profile concrete sleepers, I don't think they are good for 160Km/h operation.

Mike.

Dan was talking about integrating the airport link with Melb Metro 1. Broad Gauge it'll be.

My opinion is that the proposed airport line should join the new Metro line to/from South Kensington.

It also helps tourists and visitors to catch the train which will probably be closer to their hotel.

Mike.

Officially the Govt has said the first things they may do is:
1) Plan for reduplication between Castlemaine and Porcupine Hill
2) Reinstate Harcourt Station
3) Upgrade East track between Kyneton and Sunbury to Class 1 for 160 km/h running (low hanging fruit that one).
4) Raywood, Harcourt, and Goornong stations.  (With likely signal integration with Bendigo 'Metro' signal changes for the former).

1-3 are related to 20 min peak/40 min off-peak freq.

Nothing has been officially mentioned about the other upgrades as far as I am aware.  Although probably being considered 'long-term' (like the OMR-E6 road and rail project).

Really interesting times ahead for Bendigo, it would appear it is certainly developing into a major central Vic transport hub.

Raywood, Huntly, Goornong, Eaglehawk the areas to the North certainly don't have to trek right into the CBD to catch a train, which for many is a real bonus.

Harcourt to the south, another great addition, I would hope, only problem, the more stations to top stop at, it's increasing your travel time, however I guess that is a matter of scheduling the very frequent trains at the appropriate stations.

All fingers are now pointing towards a new station, we can call it Schumakers because it could be placed on Schumakers Lane, about half way to Marong...............with a look at extending to Marong in the medium term..... thought's on that one ?

Is it just me or is Geetriot getting raw deal here, I would have though it most certainly would support, this type of metro service, given it's current and growing population.

BigShunter.

Deviation most surely means between Sunbury and Sunshine (via Airport)

Any deviation on the Up side of Sunbury would seem like an odd idea to me. It would require a rebuild of Sunbury station to be effective as delays in getting a platform at Sunbury are pretty common on Up V/Line services. The projected increase in SBY services when HVMT and Metro tunnel are up and running will make timetabling V/Line services through the existing bottleneck a real drama. And running all trains express through SBY is not really an option as many people want to travel to/from Sunbury.

Also the line from Sunbury to Clarkefield is not on a great alignment and with better modern technology a quicker and more direct route from either Gisborne via Plumpton or Clarkfield via Airport would seem like much better bang for buck.

Sparks could then be extended out to either Clarky or Gizzy and stabling moved from Sunbury allowing a simplification and rebuild of the Sunbury station precinct enabling a re-invigoration of the tired town centre.

BG

Is it just me or is Geetriot getting raw deal here, I would have though it most certainly would support, this type of metro service, given it's current and growing population.

The problem Geelong's rail network is always going to face is that the stations - with the exception of South Geelong when the footy's on - aren't really within walking distance of anywhere anyone wants to go inside Geelong.

There's a bit of internal travel to Lara, but Corio and North Shore are in the middle of nowhere, North Geelong isn't much better, South Geelong just has Kardina Park close by and beyond that they're just commuter stops. Even Geelong itself is at least a block away from the edge of the CBD.

Is it just me or is Geetriot getting raw deal here, I would have though it most certainly would support, this type of metro service, given it's current and growing population.The problem Geelong's rail network is always going to face is that the stations - with the exception of South Geelong when the footy's on - aren't really within walking distance of anywhere anyone wants to go inside Geelong.

There's a bit of internal travel to Lara, but Corio and North Shore are in the middle of nowhere, North Geelong isn't much better, South Geelong just has Kardina Park close by and beyond that they're just commuter stops. Even Geelong itself is at least a block away from the edge of the CBD.

With the 20 minute frequency between South Geelong & Lara, and 40 minutes between Waurn Ponds / Marshall and Lara the volume of local travel on the default Geelong Metro is quite significant ; largely from Waurn Ponds & Marshall into Geelong, and from Lara and North Geelong into Geelong .  The train service frequencies (and like 10 / 20 at peak times) are much better than the Geelong urban bus frequencies .

...and the construction goes on...

https://www.premier.vic.gov.au/regional-rail-revival-major-packages-out-to-market/

Interesting that they’ve chosen to bundle Echuca, Shepp and Gippy into a single package. The approach has paid off for the LXRP, so I assume there’s some logic in extending the model to this.

It’s interesting to notice the massive differences between this project and the old RFR works. First, this is being heavily bundled, compared to RFR which was tendered line-by-line, second, and perhaps more importantly, this project has had its scope strictly defined by RPV prior to contracting, compared to the RFR Design And Construct And It’s Somebody Else’s Problem approach. Hopefully it will pay off - we’ll get a first glimpse of the results when the Ballarat works come online later this year.

The burning question, I reckon, is do the brains trust ever envisage standardising the Shep or Goulburn Valley lines and will any allowances or scope be part of the of works.

There must be works not far off with the North East line as well, going to be a very busy time for construction on the lines up to the next election......pleasing to see....who knows after the next couple of years, we may have a team of Experts.......

BigShunter.

Used V/line's Daylink again this week to get to Ballarat, the bus stop at Horsham VIC is still atrocious. I would have thought that a regional rail revival would include something for bus interchanges. No shelter from changing buses in the sun and the rain, buses are two-deep at times and go to several destinations, not good enough. The Horsham Council and the VIC govt need to come together and come up with something better.