Melbourne Metro tunnel 2

 
  reubstar6 Chief Train Controller

I'd say that it is better to just cut across from Newport to Southern Cross on a diagonal with station(s) on that diagonal. Then go Southern Cross, Flagstaff, Parkville, Fitzroy, Clifton Hill and Rushall.

Sponsored advertisement

  mm42 Chief Train Controller

I'd say that it is better to just cut across from Newport to Southern Cross on a diagonal with station(s) on that diagonal. Then go Southern Cross, Flagstaff, Parkville, Fitzroy, Clifton Hill and Rushall.
reubstar6
But that doesn't serve the 60,000 jobs and 15,000 students, most of which will north of the West Gate freeway, nor the 80,000 residents, most of which will be south of the freeway.  One station is proposed for each group of users because the freeway creates enormous severence.

To me the urgency in getting the section of this started as the MM1 construction activity winds down is so that as the employment centre develops travel by public transport is time-competitive with private vehicles.  Trams will take too long because of the many stops and traffic lights within the Docklands precinct, and offer quite limited capacity. Much of their capacity is already taken servicing Docklands. By contrast the heavy rail will be able to whisk commuters from Southern Cross Station to the employment and education precinct in under 6 minutes, making the commute time competitive with employment locations Docklands and the CBD. The main use of trams will be in travel within the precinct, and resident travel to the CBD.

The other urgency is to build the stations while the area is still brownfield and construction costs are low. The later in the development cycle these stations are built the higher will be their cost. Both proposed stations are to be located beneath roads with trams, which could involve building the tramline then demolishing it several years later to build the station beneath.

https://www.fishermansbend.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0029/87059/Fishermans-Bend-Integrated-Transport-Plan-Final.docx.pdf
  ngarner Junior Train Controller

Location: Seville
Newport To Parkville needs to be in planning now and have construction start by 2022 at the latest. The western section is needed as the growth on the Werribee Line is extraordinary and Newport will be at capacity again soon.

Think two stations to service the precinct of Fishermends Bend would be sufficient. Personally I would have a station at Montague which would also connect with the Route 96 tram to allow connection with passengers. Montague was on the former Melbourne Rail Line promised in the 2014 election by Dennis Napthine and I think it has some potential this time being part of MM2. Then a Station at Southbank as well as the stations we’ve discussed that will be at Southern Cross, Flagstaff and Parkville.

Time for MM2 and the modernisation of Melbourne’s Rail Network
ptvcommuter
How do you propose a line going through Montague and on to Southbank will be able to curve back on itself enough to then also go through Southern Cross and then double back to Flagstaff? It's a huge complication to tunnel that if the curves don't make it nonviable. It might work if Southern Cross was ignored (where's the major city interchange then? Flagstaff isn't going to be it) but then you're duplicating Metro 1 unless you mean to only touch the west end of Southbank but then you are duplicating the Port Melbourne light rail instead. Either makes no sense to me.
Southbank already has decent public transport with trams on both edges and through the middle on the north-south axis and east-west heavy rail just across the river and that's ignoring the buses. The map on p6 of the Fisherman's Bend document (the link of which was posted by mm42. Thanks mm42, interesting read) makes your proposal look overkill when you look at the existing PT in the Southbank area. Access to Montague and Southbank is reasonably easy from Southern Cross and PT users are going to have to get used to changing trains or to other modes as the projects underway, or soon to be, are completed.

Neil
  True Believers Chief Commissioner

Interesting to see RACV supports Melbourne Metro 2.

And Labor says Melbourne Metro 2 can only start after Melbourne Metro 1.

Source: https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/where-s-the-money-for-melbourne-metro-2-this-election-20190515-p51nl5.html

Also, the Hobson council is pushing for the project, interesting to see they want the Newport - Sunshine link?

Source:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=62&v=FOYgk1ewCnM
  John.Z Chief Train Controller

Interesting to see RACV supports Melbourne Metro 2.

And Labor says Melbourne Metro 2 can only start after Melbourne Metro 1.

Source: https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/where-s-the-money-for-melbourne-metro-2-this-election-20190515-p51nl5.html

Also, the Hobson council is pushing for the project, interesting to see they want the Newport - Sunshine link?

Source:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=62&v=FOYgk1ewCnM
True Believers

Not that the council has fleshed out any details, but here's one way this could work.

Line 1) Laverton (or Point Cook) to Sandringham via Newport, Footscray etc etc
Line 2) Werribee (or Wyndham Vale) to Mernda via Metro 2
Line 3) Williamstown to Wyndham Vale (or Werribee) via Sunshine + Goods route.

Passengers on Line 3) would need to change at Newport, Sunshine or Werribee/Wyndham Vale for a service to the city, but would provide Williamstown, Altona North, Tarneit etc. with a metro service it currently doesn't have.
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

If passenger trains take over freight train lines then how are you going to move freight by train. Melbourne metro 2 is a good idea but don't be stealing freight line capacity. Build new lines.
  John.Z Chief Train Controller

If passenger trains take over freight train lines then how are you going to move freight by train. Melbourne metro 2 is a good idea but don't be stealing freight line capacity. Build new lines.
simstrain
The corridor is consistently 40m+ in width. Enough room for 4 tracks without taking away space from freight.
  True Believers Chief Commissioner

Is the Newport - Sunshine rail link a good idea?
  John.Z Chief Train Controller

Is the Newport - Sunshine rail link a good idea?
True Believers
If it's a continuation of the williamstown line, yes.

Hobsons Bay Council want it to be a spur of MM2, so no.

edit: Light Rail Sunshine to Williamstown via the corridor could be a good use of existing land.
  True Believers Chief Commissioner

Is the Newport - Sunshine rail link a good idea?
If it's a continuation of the williamstown line, yes.

Hobsons Bay Council want it to be a spur of MM2, so no.

edit: Light Rail Sunshine to Williamstown via the corridor could be a good use of existing land.
John.Z

Yeah, but could the Newport - Sunshine rail link be part of SRL instead.

Route 1: Newport - Cheltenham via SRL
Route 2: Williamstown/Altona - Sandringham via Footscray
Route 3: Wyndham Vale (extended Werribee line) - Mernda via MM2
Route 4: Melton/Wyndham Vale (via Tarneit) - City via RRL
Route 5: Express Regional trains/Airport - City via new Airport rail link tunnel
Route 6: Sunbury - Dandenong via MM1
  John.Z Chief Train Controller

There's plenty of way to skin the same cat. Guess we'll just have to sit back and see which way Andrews decides. I feel that most of these decisions will be made by 2022.
  x31 Chief Commissioner

Location: gallifrey
https://www.railpage.com.au/news/s/wheres-the-money-for-melbourne-metro-2-this-election suggests the metro 2 scope would be limited to the Newport to SCS link?
  True Believers Chief Commissioner

https://www.railpage.com.au/news/s/wheres-the-money-for-melbourne-metro-2-this-election suggests the metro 2 scope would be limited to the Newport to SCS link?
x31
That's just the image, I think the Metro Tunnel 2 could be built as one stage, it would only get the full benefits if the whole tunnel was built.
  reubstar6 Chief Train Controller

The Newport-Southern Cross section should be built first. But the second section definitely needs to be constructed. How will there be space for the Wollert line?
  True Believers Chief Commissioner
  John.Z Chief Train Controller

The Newport-Southern Cross section should be built first. But the second section definitely needs to be constructed. How will there be space for the Wollert line?
reubstar6
I've never understood it either. If there's no space for the Hurstbridge Line, there's no room for the wollert line in the future.

That's why I think the Upfield Line should be closed north of Gowrie, with a new line from Gowrie Wollert running next to the Hume Fwy. Instead of sharing 24tph on one track pair, you now have split the traffic across 2 track pairs, allowing for up to 48 tph into the area.
  trainbrain Deputy Commissioner

A white elephant in the making.
  TOQ-1 Deputy Commissioner

Location: Power Trainger
The Newport-Southern Cross section should be built first. But the second section definitely needs to be constructed. How will there be space for the Wollert line?
I've never understood it either. If there's no space for the Hurstbridge Line, there's no room for the wollert line in the future.

That's why I think the Upfield Line should be closed north of Gowrie, with a new line from Gowrie Wollert running next to the Hume Fwy. Instead of sharing 24tph on one track pair, you now have split the traffic across 2 track pairs, allowing for up to 48 tph into the area.
John.Z
The idea is the Hurstbridge line uses the existing tracks into the city, while Mernda/Wollert use the new tunnel. The original idea was that Mernda/Wollert would have 24tph to share, and Hurstbridge/Doncaster would also get up to 24tph to share.

The land between the Hume Freeway and the Merri Creek is made up a nature reserve, so I don't think bringing the Upfield Line across there would be worth it. Better to keep it going in the same direction, and support the Craigieburn Line. The area between the Airport and Craigieburn is experiencing the same growth that Wollert is.
  MetroFemme Chief Train Controller

Work being specified for new metro 2 as track management plans now indicate metro 1 will cause issues on Sandringham line. Expect work to link this line with Newport via tunnel.
  potatoinmymouth Chief Commissioner

Struggling to buy that. What kind of problems are we talking?
  potatoinmymouth Chief Commissioner

Struggling to buy that. What kind of problems are we talking?
  ptvcommuter Train Controller

Work being specified for new metro 2 as track management plans now indicate metro 1 will cause issues on Sandringham line. Expect work to link this line with Newport via tunnel.
MetroFemme


Any sources or evidence please ?
  Adogs Chief Train Controller

As another question, where exactly would the Clifton Hill portal be located?

Would MM2 definitely serve Clifton Hill, or would it be a similar situation to MM1 going underground at Sth Yarra but not actually being connected to the station?  Leaving Clifton Hill to just handle Hurstbridge traffic.

Could it, for example, remain on the current route over the Merri Creek bridge, then go underground in the triangular park (Rushall Garden) next to Rushall?  Thereby removing the tight curve, and potentially deleting Rushall entirely to be replaced by a Nth Fitzroy station located within a 10 or so minute walk?
  TOQ-1 Deputy Commissioner

Location: Power Trainger
It has been speculated by quite a few people that one of the aims of the tunnelling would be to remove that curve. That of course leaves the question of what happens to Rushall station itself, as one would imagine that like South Yarra, the limiting factors would become the descent into the portals before they could be levelled out for a station.
  WarburtonStation Beginner

It has been speculated by quite a few people that one of the aims of the tunnelling would be to remove that curve. That of course leaves the question of what happens to Rushall station itself, as one would imagine that like South Yarra, the limiting factors would become the descent into the portals before they could be levelled out for a station.
TOQ-1

I have wondered this myself. I would imagine they would want to get rid of the kink, but on the other hand an interchange at Clifton Hill seems essential to making the tunnel more accessible to more people. Rail Futures in their unofficial proposal goes even further North, starting the tunnel at Croxton.

I've also wondered about the placement of the stations between Clifton Hill and Parkville. Usually on unofficial maps this is just shown as one station, "Fitzroy" around the site of the Gasworks redevelopment on Alexandra Parade (Really in Fitzroy North).

I found it really interesting that on the leaked (then-)TfV network development plan they had two stations: Fitzroy and Carlton. If you pair that with this image from the Suburban Rail Loop document:



This map seems to me to be showing the tunnel running under Johnston St, rather than Alexandra. This maintains the kink and could even start the tunnel entrance lower (maybe just after Clifton Hill or around Victoria Park).

Now, this is just pure speculation based on little published evidence, but taken together it could mean they're considering an alignment beneath Johnston St with stations in Fitzroy (possibly around Smith St?) and Carlton (Somewhere between Brunswick St and Lygon?). This would make a lot of sense to me: Collingwood and Fiztroy are densifying really quickly, and there's lots more development in the pipeline. One of the reasons for the alignment further North was to capitalise on the gasworks redevelopment by providing it with a station, but the current proposals show a development with mostly 5-8 stories, which might not justify a metro station.

Of course, a tunnel entry further south would do nothing to get rid of the Rushall kink.

Regardless, I hope they do go for two stations in the Northern leg of MM2, the inner north is becoming quite dense and new stations would cater to this, and help make it more of an extension of the city.

Sponsored advertisement

Display from: