Rowville - proposed extension

 
  Rodo Chief Commissioner

Location: Southern Riverina
John of Melb. wrote.
Are you suggesting that the Napoleon Road route was likely to be the planned route, or that it should now be the route? If you are suggesting the former, then when this line was proposed (back in the 1960s, if not earlier), Napoleon Road, if it even existed, ran through paddocks. The creek route would have been closer to development along Ferntree Gully Road, the Mountain Gate estate, etc.

I am suggesting that the Napoleon Road route was likely to be the planned route. I think that the line was first proposed when the planning for the suburb of Rowville was initiating. It was mainly referred to as the Rowville railway, so a line through the middle of that area seems most likely, particuarly considering that Napoleon Rd still appears to have some kind of reservation along it.  
John of Melbourne wrote:
That's another one that I never saw a map for. In fact I never saw too many maps at all!

The only sort of map I saw was some kind of newspaper illustration that was not much more than a black line on a white background with the word ROWVILLE on it, most uninformative.
John of Melbourne wrote:
Proposed lines that had land reserved for them, which was later sold off (with one exception) that I am aware of are as follows:

Huntingdale - Fern Tree Gully

Glen Waverley eastwards

A direct route from Frankston to Mornington

Doncaster line

Altona to Westona (this was the one that was actually used) [/quote
]
The Rowville line and the Doncaster look to be the most immediately necessary but my main interest is in what land was sold off. I wonder exactly what has been sold off on the East Doncaster route, I worked operating earthmoving machinery on a new subdivision at the site of what was to have been the terminus, the intersection of Blackburn Rd and King St.(circa 1986)  The streets we built left space for this terminus and AFAIK nothing has been altered since.

About the time of the election of the John Cain Jr. Labor govt. an enthusiasm for "light rail" was developing. This was siezed upon by their politicians in particular, as a panacea for all public transport problems. It was seen by them (and some of their opponents) as some kind of brilliant new idea, when it fact it was just developing the existing Melbourne practice of running trams on a reserved pathway. It was promoted as a better and far cheaper alternative to heavy rail when in fact it was nothing of the sort.

This style of tramline can be a little cheaper in that lighter rails can be used and it can follow the topography more closely thus saving on earthworks, also  being more suited to running on the median strip of contorted roadways. These factors help with cheapness but also lead to nastiness in that speeds are restricted, similarly a signalling system is not
needed, less cost, less speed !  Such lines are suitable to continue on shared roadways and so have a different wheel profile restricting them to speeds of less than 80 kmh. Freight operations present no great problems with heavy rail either.

If a line such as the Alamein line was thought to need some desirable characterics of light rail such as more frequent stops and service frequency, then it would be easier and cheaper to run trains of no more than three cars in peak hours and build some extra short platforms for more stops. A few single car vehicles could be built for off peak and you could do anything that a so called "light rail" conversion could do, with the advantage of being compatable with rest of the suburban rail system.

I see the best way to make full use of the Alamein line is extending it to connect with Eastmalvern and Oakleigh, wherever its trains run through to is immaterial. The problems of the golf course, freeway and Eastmalvern station would be easily solved with a modern, light looking, long concrete viaduct extending to the south of Waverly Rd. An odd tree might have to be removed in rail reserve beyond there upsetting the NIMBYs and perhaps Riccardo and his mates.  Laughing The loss of this tremendous "urban forest" could be more than compensated for by ploughing up the Monash Freeway and planting it out  Laughing The alternative of tunneling south of Alamein and having a station underneath Chadstone would give a more direct link to Oakleigh but looks a lot more pricey and would be difficult to connect with the Glen Waverly line.  The original route goes almost near enough to Chadstone and at least those old stanchions  will do more than carry a feeder cable to Alamein.   Embarassed Thinking back now they may been single track type, I mainly remember noting that the earthworks had been basically  first built to carry 2 tracks  Embarassed
Cheers armchair urban planners,

Sponsored advertisement

  John of Melbourne The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: Melbourne suburbs
John of Melb. wrote.
Are you suggesting that the Napoleon Road route was likely to be the planned route, or that it should now be the route? If you are suggesting the former, then when this line was proposed (back in the 1960s, if not earlier), Napoleon Road, if it even existed, ran through paddocks. The creek route would have been closer to development along Ferntree Gully Road, the Mountain Gate estate, etc.

I am suggesting that the Napoleon Road route was likely to be the planned route. I think that the line was first proposed when the planning for the suburb of Rowville was initiating.
"Rodo"
Fair enough.

It was mainly referred to as the Rowville railway, so a line through the middle of that area seems most likely, particuarly considering that Napoleon Rd still appears to have some kind of reservation along it.
"Rodo"
I don't ever recall seeing it referred to as that.  I always saw it as the Huntingdale--Fern Tree Gully line.

That's another one that I never saw a map for. In fact I never saw too many maps at all!
"I"

The only sort of map I saw was some kind of newspaper illustration that was not much more than a black line on a white background with the word ROWVILLE on it, most uninformative.
"Rodo"
The map I saw was in the 1960s-era 15?-year plan for Melbourne, which was a diagrammatic map.  It showed the line heading east from Huntingdale then north-east to Fern Tree Gully.  It showed planned stations also, but being diagrammatic, you had to guess at the precise route.
  Riccardo Minister for Railways

Location: Gone. Don't bother PMing here.
Can someone explain on what grounds the line would need to terminate at FTG?

Many (most?) lines in Sydney are part of loops and form alternative routes if one is blocked. In Sydney, however, all loops feed ultimately into four main lines which are all heavily trafficked.

Ferntree Gully, just like Somerton, is at the distant end of the suburban area. And the main traffic restriction on additional Belgrave trains is not the line thus far, but the distant end. I would expect, if this was not remedied, you would end up with a tonne of trains at FTG but the same low service beyond.

If a loop was useful, it would be to Ringwood, where there is a bottleneck and where Lilydales could usefully cross Belgraves on a flyover and head for the city by some other path (or vv and go via Doncaster)

IMHO, a FTG loop would be a nice to have but way down the list.
  Brunny Chief Commissioner

Location: Peoples Republic of Moreland
I'd hardly hold Sydney's CityRail network up as an example of a successful rail system.  I used to live in the Sutherland Shire, which has 13 stations.  Only 11 of those had a service better than half hourly, the exceptions being Jannali and Sutherland.

Even established middle suburbs like Arncliffe, Banksia, Carlton, Allawah and Oatley only get a half hourly service.  And heaven forbid if you live between Riverstone and Richmond, or on the Carlingford line, which have an hourly CityRail service.

On the Melbourne suburban network, it really only gets that bad out past Dandenong.
  PalmerEldritch Say goodnight to the bad guy

Location: Princes Park, Carlton
Brunny: On the Melbourne suburban network, it really only gets that bad out past Dandenong.

This is a real shame when you take into account the considerable recent population growth in the Dandy-Pakenham and Dandy-Cranbourne growth corridors.

The City of Casey which encompasses the suburbs of Endeavour Hills, Doveton, Eumemerring, Hallam, Hampton Park, Narre North, Narre Central/Fountain Gate, Narre South, Berwick, Lynbrook and Cranbourne is the second fastest growing municipality in Australia after the Gold Coast.

There are two main problems with the current situation:
* half hour frequency on the Pakenham line
* single line track for most of the Cranny line

what is needed:
*staff at all stations, all hours of the day
*triplication or quadruplication of the Dandy-Pakenham line
*duplication of the Cranny line
*A station at Lynbrook
*extension of the Cranny line to Cranbourne East
*A station at Lakeside between Officer and Pakenham
*extension of the Pakenham line to a point about halfway between Pakenham and Nar Nar Goon to anticipate the growth which will be allowed to occur into the Pakenham East corridor under Melbourne 2030.
*a rail link between Hastings and Dandenong via the Cranny line to deliver freight straight to where it is needed: Dandy South, Eumemmering and Hallam
*A complete overhaul of General Motors station and proper integration with the adjoining factories to the north and Australia post to the south
*high-density development around Narre Warren station in particular
*and unpopular as it might be: a monorail link from Cranbourne to Fountain Gate

For an area which is rapidly catching up on Greater Geelong in terms of population, it is imperative that the public transport infrastructure is improved dramatically. The roads of Casey are choking on traffic at the moment.
  Brunny Chief Commissioner

Location: Peoples Republic of Moreland
There are two main problems with the current situation:
* half hour frequency on the Pakenham line
"PalmerEldritch"


Yes, that's a problem

* single line track for most of the Cranny line
"PalmerEldritch"


That's not actually a problem, it's more of an excuse.

what is needed:
*staff at all stations, all hours of the day
"PalmerEldritch"


Won't fix the problem, but would be nice

*triplication or quadruplication of the Dandy-Pakenham line
"PalmerEldritch"


Won't fix the problem, nor will it have any discernable impact on anything

*duplication of the Cranny line
"PalmerEldritch"


Won't fix the problem, but might help reduce delays

*A station at Lynbrook
"PalmerEldritch"


Won't fix the problem, but would be nice for those who live or would move next to it

*extension of the Cranny line to Cranbourne East
"PalmerEldritch"


The cattle will really appreciate a PT service.  What's the point of this again?

*A complete overhaul of General Motors station and proper integration with the adjoining factories to the north and Australia post to the south
"PalmerEldritch"


Hopefully including a cleanup of the toxic chemicals that GM used to regularly dump there.

*high-density development around Narre Warren station in particular
"PalmerEldritch"


Won't fix the problem, if anything it would add to it, because the new flats won't have access to many local jobs except by car.

*and unpopular as it might be: a monorail link from Cranbourne to Fountain Gate
"PalmerEldritch"


Won't fix the problem, and would be a stupid thing to do when the main line could simply be diverted to Fountain Gate.  The urban form may be 1950s, but that doesn't mean a 1950s transport system like the Monorail would actually serve it.  How many people would live within a few hundred metres of every monothinggy station?  A few hundred.  What would the patronage potential of such a system be?  Negligible.  What is the underlying problem?  Poor rail frequency and absence of intersecting bus services (either totally or for all intents and purposes).

For an area which is rapidly catching up on Greater Geelong in terms of population, it is imperative that the public transport infrastructure is improved dramatically. The roads of Casey are choking on traffic at the moment.
"PalmerEldritch"


Infrastructure is not the problem, and it is not really part of the solution.  We already have more rail per head of population than, well, anywhere else in the world.  How much more do we need?

The problem is lack of services.  Shiny Infrastructure may as well go straight to sims if continues to be as mismanaged as ours is.
  PalmerEldritch Say goodnight to the bad guy

Location: Princes Park, Carlton
Brunny, no offence but your ideas on what this area is like are somewhat antiquated

Triplication or quadruplication of the Dandy-Pak line would mean that the frequent V-Line services running through would not interfere with the suburban trains and would allow a fifteen minute rather than thirty minute frequency.

Railway extensions should be pro-active rather than reactive. Its people rather than cattle that are moving in.  Cranbourne East is developing quite rapidly and will be a substantial sized suburb in itself within three or four years.

As for local jobs, try Fountain Gate and Narre Warren Shopping centres and the Industrial estates to the east of FG. The idea of high density around train stations is for people to be near to PT, not to use their cars. Plenty of bus routes run through Webb Street past the station and north to Fountain Gate which is just up the road. Dandenong is ten minutes west on the train and Berwick 4 minutes east. What reason would there be for excessive car use?

Like it or not Casey needs a proper north-south PT link between Cranny and Narre Warren, and the current lines and bus routes are not serving the required purpose. People want to get from point A to be point B and if you had to travel from Cranbourne to Fountain Gate via Dandenong you would see the idiocy of it as well. Its no wonder people choose to drive. Casey also has very a high proportion of young and elderly people and housewifes. These are the sort of people more likely to use PT, especially for shopping.

most of the population of Casey is concentrated in the Narre Warren-Hampton Park-Cranbourne corridor, as far as im concerned the monorail proposals are too modest. There should be a link from Narre to Endeavour Hills as well.

Whats wrong with more options as well as more services?
  Brunny Chief Commissioner

Location: Peoples Republic of Moreland
Brunny, no offence but your ideas on what this area is like are somewhat antiquated

Triplication or quadruplication of the Dandy-Pak line would mean that the frequent V-Line services running through would not interfere with the suburban trains and would allow a fifteen minute rather than thirty minute frequency.
"PalmerEldritch"


Lack of extra trackage is not what is preventing this from happening, particularly between Dandy and Pakenham.  It would be quite possible to run 15' without affecting the speed of the dozen or so V/Line services a day.  It would be possible to get well below 15' if there was a facility to allow them to overtake, involving perhaps 3km of new track.

That said, simply adding more tracks has no difference whatsoever on services provided in of itself.  They are two totally separate line items on the state budget, both of which would have to be funded out of the state budget (since the operators have no real budget to undertake works or make significant improvements on their own, given that their income is tied to the services they presently provide).

As for local jobs, try Fountain Gate and Narre Warren Shopping centres and the Industrial estates to the east of FG. The idea of high density around train stations is for people to be near to PT, not to use their cars.
"PalmerEldritch"


How many of the $9/hr workers at Fountain Gate or Narre Warren Shops could ever dream to own a high cost high rise apartment?

Plenty of bus routes run through Webb Street past the station and north to Fountain Gate which is just up the road.
"PalmerEldritch"


None of which are any good for any purpose unless you have no other choice.  Nobody with an income would strand themselves in a flat next to Fountain Gate and not give themselves another choice.  To suggest otherwise is idealism gone mad and shows a total disconnect with reality.

Dandenong is ten minutes west on the train and Berwick 4 minutes east. What reason would there be for excessive car use?
"PalmerEldritch"


Even if you owned or rented a home next to a rail station, would you restrict every travel choice you made to destinations that are next to Public Transport?  Almost nobody has that luxury.  People need to go to destinations remote from the PT system from time to time, so they need a car.  Once they invest in a car, they will use it more than they need to.

The problem is that the bus network is so useless, and the rail network is not frequent enough.

Like it or not Casey needs a proper north-south PT link between Cranny and Narre Warren, and the current lines and bus routes are not serving the required purpose.
"PalmerEldritch"


That's because they don't exist.  The buses that do run are not even able to pretend to be a useful PT service.  Fix the buses.  Problem solved.

People want to get from point A to be point B and if you had to travel from Cranbourne to Fountain Gate via Dandenong you would see the idiocy of it as well. Its no wonder people choose to drive.
"PalmerEldritch"


I'm not suggesting the buses (if they are ever delivered) would force a trip via Dandenong, but transfers are a reality since nobody would want a trip from Fountain Gate to Frankston CBD, you shouldn't plan around them.  You plan around trips from random location to random location.

Casey also has very a high proportion of young and elderly people and housewifes. These are the sort of people more likely to use PT, especially for shopping.
"PalmerEldritch"


And providing a monorail would not change that in the slightest, except for a tiny tiny fraction of trips that start or end next to a monorail stop, or one of the rail stations that provide a useful service (i.e. not the Pakenham or Cranbourne lines, and arguably not even the Frankston line) that would allow you to transfer between services with a few minutes wait.

Whats wrong with more options as well as more services?
"PalmerEldritch"


More options takes away money that could be spent on more services.
  gwmss15 Locomotive Driver

why does melbourne have to be stuck in the past i ihad my way most of the trams outside the city would be underground or elevated heavy rail with station every 500 to 1000 meter and this would cover every main road of melbourne and would be fully automated system and total grade seperated ie there would be not one level crossing of any form in victoria and the min track speed for city would by 120kph and 300kph for country and  all lines city an country would be double or triple track and most freight would go by rail. all passerger trains would be airconditioned and electrified even in the country the only trams would be full aircond low floor trams only reunning in the city centres of melbourne ballarat bendigo and geelong only no more that 5 km from city centre all with super stop platforms

this how melbourne should be not with old out of date system this can happen even today be readical changes to transport and laws will be need ie laws that state that trucks can olny trave within 100 km of a intermodel freight station. car would have to be restricted to the point wher you could only get them if you had a real purpose and then for not business use it going to cost you over $500000 to get a car and then it must be cut up after 10 years and no finance could be obtained for cars unless for business like a tradesmen

this will have to apply to all parts of victoria to allow the above system to work in victoria then you will see what 99% of all trips made by public transport and over 90% market share in frieght .

it this my view and i hate to have to put up will old crap that should have been done away with about 30years ago
  PalmerEldritch Say goodnight to the bad guy

Location: Princes Park, Carlton
Brunny: How many of the $9/hr workers at Fountain Gate or Narre Warren Shops could ever dream to own a high cost high rise apartment?

Point taken, but given the rate of development in the Narre Warren area I would not be surprised if a lot of high-density commercial development isn't attracted to Fountain Gate. Not to mention to inevitable expansion of Monash Berwick into a large campus. There is potential for student high rise accommodation as well. If Peddle Thorpe can be commissioned to design  26 storey student high-rise apartments next to Box Hill TAFE imagine what could be done in around Berwick station which is right near  to Monash and in Narre Warren station which is four minutes away by train.

Brunny: idealism gone mad and shows a total disconnect with reality

Just google the words: The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch...lol

Brunny: Even if you owned or rented a home next to a rail station, would you restrict every travel choice you made to destinations that are next to Public Transport?

Thats why I said excessive car use. If you lived next to Narre Station
why would you need to drive to Fountain Gate shops??? Imagine if you had no choice but to travel by car even to go to the local shops....thats the situation faced by many people in Casey. And guess what..if you don't drive your basically screwed. Plenty of people are home-bound, isolated and bored with nothing to do because there are not enough options.

I don't know what the situation is like in Moreland, but to walk to my local train station it takes forty minutes at a good pace. Yet i can drive there in seven. I'm not saying cars should be banned, only that their use can be cut down through better PT, better planning, more mixed housing densities and greater decentralisation of commerce away from the CBD.

To be continued
  Brunny Chief Commissioner

Location: Peoples Republic of Moreland
Thats why I said excessive car use. If you lived next to Narre Station
why would you need to drive to Fountain Gate shops???
"PalmerEldritch"


Because it's quite a long walk, and you wouldn't want to carry much home with that long a walk.

Plenty of people are home-bound, isolated and bored with nothing to do because there are not enough options.
"PalmerEldritch"


And Monorails, elevated trains, driverless metros etc will not change this by more than a fraction of a percent, despite the hundreds of millions that would need to be spent building them.

There are some solutions, but even an expensive Monorail line or two will not have a big enough impact to make a real difference.  Even five would not be enough, and that would break the bank.  Best to push for options that both make a difference and don't break the bank.
  John of Melbourne The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: Melbourne suburbs
Can someone explain on what grounds the line would need to terminate at FTG?
"Riccardo"
It was never intended to terminate there.  It was intended to join the Belgrave line at Fern Tree Gully, and to do so towards Ringwood.  Although services were never mentioned, you could have run Flinders Street--Huntingdale--Fern Tree Gully--Ringwood (and beyond).

* single line track for most of the Cranny line
"PalmerEldritch"

That's not actually a problem, it's more of an excuse.
"Brunny"
It is a problem.  It limits timetable flexibility and recovery from late running.

Triplication or quadruplication of the Dandy-Pak line would mean that the frequent V-Line services running through would not interfere with the suburban trains and would allow a fifteen minute rather than thirty minute frequency.
"PalmerEldritch"

Lack of extra trackage is not what is preventing this from happening, particularly between Dandy and Pakenham.  It would be quite possible to run 15' without affecting the speed of the dozen or so V/Line services a day.  It would be possible to get well below 15' if there was a facility to allow them to overtake, involving perhaps 3km of new track.
"Brunny"

With a 15' service to and from Pakenham, V/Line trains that departed just ahead of a spark would just about catch up to the previous spark.  So although on paper extra tracks are not needed, if you want to allow for higher frequencies in the peak, for some recovery from late running, for scheduling the V/Line trains so that they don't have to depart just ahead of a spark, or for V/Line trains at higher speeds than 115 kph, extra tracks would be of some use.  (Not necessarily worth the money, however.)  An overtaking track would need to be a lot longer than three kilometers, however.  In fact it would need to be nearly the whole way between Dandenong and Pakenham!  (Assuming 115 kph trains.)

*extension of the Cranny line to Cranbourne East
"PalmerEldritch"

The cattle will really appreciate a PT service.  What's the point of this again?
"Brunny"
Obviously you haven't been to Cranbourne East lately.

*and unpopular as it might be: a monorail link from Cranbourne to Fountain Gate
"PalmerEldritch"

Won't fix the problem, and would be a stupid thing to do when the main line could simply be diverted to Fountain Gate.
"Brunny"
Simply?  Would you like to pop down there next weekend and do it?

For an area which is rapidly catching up on Greater Geelong in terms of population, it is imperative that the public transport infrastructure is improved dramatically. The roads of Casey are choking on traffic at the moment.
"PalmerEldritch"

Infrastructure is not the problem, and it is not really part of the solution.  We already have more rail per head of population than, well, anywhere else in the world.  How much more do we need?
"Brunny"
If we do, it is only because we are so spread out.  We need more to fill the gaps.  Buses are nowhere near as good.

why does melbourne have to be stuck in the past i ihad my way...
"gwmss15"
And a few billion dollars.

the min track speed for city would by 120kph ...
"gwmss15"
That would be somewhat of a waste, when the trains wouldn't be able to get up to that speed before having to slow down for the next station.

it this my view and i hate to have to put up will old [stuff] that should have been done away with about 30years ago
"gwmss15"
Some of the old stuff that you want to do away with is only about 30 years old.  Are you advocating doing away with almost brand-new vehicles?
  Brunny Chief Commissioner

Location: Peoples Republic of Moreland
* single line track for most of the Cranny line
"PalmerEldritch"
That's not actually a problem, it's more of an excuse.
"Brunny"
It is a problem.  It limits timetable flexibility and recovery from late running.
"John of Melbourne"


Boo-hoo..  There are far worse problems with PT in Melbourne than a few late trains, particularly at or near suburban terminuses (where, umm, there is already timetable recovery, and usually also a few sidings worth of trains to cover one that might be sitting in a loop instead of being ready to depart).  Tis not always the case, but there are far more pressing concerns than this particular stretch of single track.

I'd consider Westgarth-Clifton Hill, Heidelberg-Rosanna and the Altona Line to all be far more important than Dandenong-Cranbourne.

Lack of extra trackage is not what is preventing this from happening, particularly between Dandy and Pakenham.  It would be quite possible to run 15' without affecting the speed of the dozen or so V/Line services a day.  It would be possible to get well below 15' if there was a facility to allow them to overtake, involving perhaps 3km of new track.
"Brunny"
With a 15' service to and from Pakenham, V/Line trains that departed just ahead of a spark would just about catch up to the previous spark.  So although on paper extra tracks are not needed, if you want to allow for higher frequencies in the peak, for some recovery from late running, for scheduling the V/Line trains so that they don't have to depart just ahead of a spark, or for V/Line trains at higher speeds than 115 kph, extra tracks would be of some use.  (Not necessarily worth the money, however.)  An overtaking track would need to be a lot longer than three kilometers, however.  In fact it would need to be nearly the whole way between Dandenong and Pakenham!  (Assuming 115 kph trains.)
"John of Melbourne"


V/Line trains could make better use of stations in the south east to help minimise their impact on the suburban network while also providing greater utility to their existing and potential passengers.  Employment centres for example.  And a stop at either Clayton or Oakleigh as well to allow better access to and from Clayton's University.

However, if there is a section where an extra track or two is desirable, it's not Pakenham-Dandenong, it's Dandenong-Caulfield (or a section therein).  Huntingdale-Oakleigh would provide about enough length for an express VLP train to overtake a spark while it makes two stops, with minimal delays to the spark for the dozen or so times a day (out of about a hundred sparks) where there is actually a V/Line service *gasp*.

Infrastructure is not the problem, and it is not really part of the solution.  We already have more rail per head of population than, well, anywhere else in the world.  How much more do we need?
"Brunny"
If we do, it is only because we are so spread out.  We need more to fill the gaps.  Buses are nowhere near as good.
"John of Melbourne"


Buses and trains serve totally different purposes.  While I do not support the use of buses in roles where trains are needed (particularly to carry large volumes of passengers to and from Clayton's University, to pick a role relating to this thread), buses are essential to the functioning of a healthy rail system.  Unfortunately, our rail system is not healthy.  Intersecting bus routes that run frequently from first to last train, with a slightly more frequent rail service, would provide enough capacity and flexibility to meet just about any PT trip possibility that could ever reasonably be served by PT in a city like Melbourne.  And the cost would be negligible, since there really isn't that much that needs to be done, thanks to what is already one of the most extensive but underused suburban rail systems in the world.

why does melbourne have to be stuck in the past i ihad my way...
"gwmss15"
And a few billion dollars.
"John of Melbourne"


The implications of which many around here simply can't appreciate.

the min track speed for city would by 120kph ...
"gwmss15"
That would be somewhat of a waste, when the trains wouldn't be able to get up to that speed before having to slow down for the next station.
"John of Melbourne"


Spot on.  High speed and suburban rail are at odds with each other's purpose.

it this my view and i hate to have to put up will old [stuff] that should have been done away with about 30years ago
"gwmss15"
Some of the old stuff that you want to do away with is only about 30 years old.  Are you advocating doing away with almost brand-new vehicles?
"John of Melbourne"


LOL!  Good catch.  It's worth pointing out that the trains the Hitachis replaced were about twice the present age of the Hitachis, and still had a bit more oomph left in them.  The Hitachis are spring chickens.

Oh, and they're the only train that every driver in the fleet is qualified to operate.
  John of Melbourne The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: Melbourne suburbs
* single line track for most of the Cranny line
"PalmerEldritch"
That's not actually a problem, it's more of an excuse.
"Brunny"
It is a problem.  It limits timetable flexibility and recovery from late running.
"John of Melbourne"

Boo-hoo..  There are far worse problems with PT in Melbourne ...
"Brunny"
I didn't say that it was a big problem, just that it is a problem, whereas you said it's not a problem.  However, it's not a trivial problem either.

...than a few late trains, particularly at or near suburban terminuses (where, umm, there is already timetable recovery, and usually also a few sidings worth of trains to cover one that might be sitting in a loop instead of being ready to depart).
"Brunny"
There isn't always timetable recovery, there are no sidings at Cranbourne, there are not normally spare trains at Dandenong, and even if there were, they are not manned and live and able to be brought into service in time to get rid of late running.  And the late running can impact onto the rest of the system.

Tis not always the case, but there are far more pressing concerns than this particular stretch of single track.

I'd consider Westgarth-Clifton Hill, Heidelberg-Rosanna and the Altona Line to all be far more important than Dandenong-Cranbourne.
"Brunny"
Altona I would agree with you on, but not the other two because they are so short.

V/Line trains could make better use of stations in the south east to help minimise their impact on the suburban network while also providing greater utility to their existing and potential passengers.  Employment centres for example.  And a stop at either Clayton or Oakleigh as well to allow better access to and from Clayton's University.
"Brunny"
What does "make better use of stations" mean?  Stop at more of them?  Slow them down?  Most of them already stop at Clayton.  I don't see much justification is giving them more stops.

However, if there is a section where an extra track or two is desirable, it's not Pakenham-Dandenong, it's Dandenong-Caulfield (or a section therein).
"Brunny"
I believe that the discussion was being done on the assumption that Caulfield to Dandenong will be triplicated anyway, and therefore it was about the merits of triplicating Dandenong - Pakenham as well.  I can't see the latter happening, I can't see that it's a priority, but neither do I agree with you that it would be of no benefit.
Huntingdale-Oakleigh would provide about enough length for an express VLP train to overtake a spark while it makes two stops, with minimal delays to the spark for the dozen or so times a day (out of about a hundred sparks) where there is actually a V/Line service *gasp*.
"Brunny"
No it wouldn't.  You would need to do Springvale to Oakleigh as a bare minimum  (i.e. even then the trains would have to be spot on time for it to work).
Infrastructure is not the problem, and it is not really part of the solution.  We already have more rail per head of population than, well, anywhere else in the world.  How much more do we need?
"Brunny"
If we do, it is only because we are so spread out.  We need more to fill the gaps.  Buses are nowhere near as good.
"John of Melbourne"

Buses and trains serve totally different purposes.
"Brunny"
The word was "rail", and I was alluding to trams as much as trains.

While I do not support the use of buses in roles where trains are needed (particularly to carry large volumes of passengers to and from Clayton's University, to pick a role relating to this thread), buses are essential to the functioning of a healthy rail system.
"Brunny"
I have no disagreement with that.

But where I would disagree is where the cutoff line is between what should be bus and what should be tram.  I would make a higher proportion of them tram than you would.

Unfortunately, our rail system is not healthy.  Intersecting bus routes that run frequently from first to last train, with a slightly more frequent rail service, would provide enough capacity and flexibility to meet just about any PT trip possibility that could ever reasonably be served by PT in a city like Melbourne.  And the cost would be negligible, since there really isn't that much that needs to be done, thanks to what is already one of the most extensive but underused suburban rail systems in the world.
"Brunny"
"Negligible" is a relative term.  I think that the cost would be considerable, but in saying that I'm comparing it to what is currently spent on railway infrastructure (RFR excepted).  If I was to compare it to what is spent on road infrastructure, I would agree that it would be negligible.

It's worth pointing out that the trains the Hitachis replaced were about twice the present age of the Hitachis, and still had a bit more oomph left in them.  The Hitachis are spring chickens.
"Brunnyh"
I miss the Taits.  Crying or Very sad

Oh, and they're the only train that every driver in the fleet is qualified to operate.
"Brunnhy"
At the moment.
  Supt. of Printing Deputy Commissioner

Location: Gembrook Line
Railway extensions should be pro-active rather than reactive. Its people rather than cattle that are moving in.  Cranbourne East is developing quite rapidly and will be a substantial sized suburb in itself within three or four years.
"PalmerEldritch"

. . . not to mention the fast-growing retirement village on the doorstep of a future Cranbourne East station (the line runs along its rear boundary).
  tayser Deputy Commissioner

Location: Melbourne
If Peddle Thorpe can be commissioned to design  26 storey student high-rise apartments next to Box Hill TAFE ...
"PalmerEldritch"


Got anymore info? any renderings floating about??

...carry on. Smile
  PalmerEldritch Say goodnight to the bad guy

Location: Princes Park, Carlton
Got anymore info? any renderings floating about??

...carry on.


I actually posed that question on the recent East Doncaster thread in the Victoria forum on page 2  Smile :

Also does anyone have any information about a proposed 26 storey Apartment block supposedly being developed on the site of the Box Hill Bowl? My source is my next door neighbour (who coincidentally is a CAD manager at Peddle Thorpe Architects) who told me last year that it was being aimed at the international student market, yet I have found no reference to it on their website. Can anyone tell me if this is anything more than a rumour?


I really should ask him how things are going with this development..if it is going ahead at all!
  tayser Deputy Commissioner

Location: Melbourne
Got anymore info? any renderings floating about??

...carry on.


I actually posed that question on the recent East Doncaster thread in the Victoria forum on page 2  Smile :
"PalmerEldritch"


! you've just given me enough info to start digging for more!

watch this space Wink

cheers
  NSWGR8022 Deputy Commissioner

Location: From the lands of Journalism and Free Speech
When last I read about this project the feds had agreed to fund the heavy rail line to the suburb or Rowville.  Dictator Dan came back with a light rail option for the route which I thought at the time was a red herring to hold the project up as much as possible.  Since this time there have been no announcements and no commitments meaning the Andrews Govt is planning to try and bury the idea when the funding from the feds was made available.

is this another example of procrastination of the govt in Victoria because they simply do not want this work to go ahead?  Post COVID19 this would be a good project as heavy rail.
  stooge spark Chief Train Controller

Location: My House
Almost 16 years!
Some of the users on the threads on this thread haven't been active in almost a decade!
FFS, how hard is it to read the dates?
Then again, I don't expect much from someone who unironically says Dictator Dan!
  AheadMatthewawsome Junior Train Controller

Location: Opening Train Lines
Some of us were not even born yet! It would of been 2 years until I was born!

After somebody has not posted on a thread for around 2 to 3 years, it is best to start a new thread and link it to the old thread.

Lots of people get very cranky here when somebody posts on a very old thread. I don't, but I did the same thing a few months back and got a ton of complaints from posting in a 10 year old thread. And I got into a lot of trouble with the Admin's. It would be a good idea for next time.

Also, who is Dictator Dan? Is he the heir to King Biswas, King of the word? He lerks around Railpage in the Archived Threads, you might find him there.
  Adogs Chief Train Controller

*cough*
  bevans Site Admin

Location: Melbourne, Australia
When last I read about this project the feds had agreed to fund the heavy rail line to the suburb or Rowville.  Dictator Dan came back with a light rail option for the route which I thought at the time was a red herring to hold the project up as much as possible.  Since this time there have been no announcements and no commitments meaning the Andrews Govt is planning to try and bury the idea when the funding from the feds was made available.

is this another example of procrastination of the govt in Victoria because they simply do not want this work to go ahead?  Post COVID19 this would be a good project as heavy rail.
NSWGR8022

The ALP here in Victoria are not keen for heavy rail delivery having avoided it mostly for close to 22 years.  The feeling in Vic was for a tram line which is nonsensical in my opinion as Melbourne has one of the slowest light rail networks in the world.

Having said that you are right why has this gone all quite and could it be dusted off and what happened to the federal cash?
  EmrldPhoenix Station Master

Location: Melbourne, VIC
The Rowville project seems to have been put on hold.

https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/fears-caulfield-to-rowville-tram-link-on-ice-20190528-p51rz6.html

The above article in The Age was published over a year ago and there has been no news on the subject since.

On the matter of funding, it seems that the feds have set aside $475 million for 'Monash Rail' in the 18/19 federal budget, which indicates the desire for a heavy rail line over a light rail/tram line.

Funding may potentially be contingent on that fact, which could explain the lack of movement from either side.
  mejhammers1 Chief Commissioner

The Rowville project seems to have been put on hold.

https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/fears-caulfield-to-rowville-tram-link-on-ice-20190528-p51rz6.html

The above article in The Age was published over a year ago and there has been no news on the subject since.

On the matter of funding, it seems that the feds have set aside $475 million for 'Monash Rail' in the 18/19 federal budget, which indicates the desire for a heavy rail line over a light rail/tram line.

Funding may potentially be contingent on that fact, which could explain the lack of movement from either side.
EmrldPhoenix
If $475 Million is a single payment and not yearly figure than it is woefully inadequate for heavy rail. No wonder the ALP does not want to build heavy rail to Rowville. My opinion is that they should choose a totally different alignment then through Huntingdale.

Michael

Sponsored advertisement

Display from: