Why? Is it because of the pylons not being able to take enough weight, or something else?
Why? Is it because of the pylons not being able to take enough weight, or something else?The pylons would have been designed to take the expected weight and dynamic loads of the existing bridge deck. They wouldn't have been designed to take double that load, that would have just bumped up the cost, possibly significantly. The pylons would have only been designed to take an extra deck if there was an expectation that soon a 2nd deck would be required. Even then it would have been a hard sell to get the extra expense of the stronger pylons approved. Projects don't like paying for future 'maybes'.
I don't know how your second deck Idea would work ?Why? Is it because of the pylons not being able to take enough weight, or something else?The pylons would have been designed to take the expected weight and dynamic loads of the existing bridge deck. They wouldn't have been designed to take double that load, that would have just bumped up the cost, possibly significantly. The pylons would have only been designed to take an extra deck if there was an expectation that soon a 2nd deck would be required. Even then it would have been a hard sell to get the extra expense of the stronger pylons approved. Projects don't like paying for future 'maybes'.
Thanks for the clarification. I should probably stop going on about this but is it possible to strengthen the pylons. If so, would that be a viable alternative to property acquisition in what is an inevitable project?
You would need additional piles and a substantial steel superstructure to hold the second deck above the existing viaduct deck (that would drive the local NIMBY's out of their mind)
Property acquisition Is the only solution (reason why the Government has started to buy up properties)
I don't see any problem with the construction ideas.
You would need additional piles and a substantial steel superstructure to hold the second deck above the existing viaduct deck (that would drive the local NIMBY's out of their mind)
Property acquisition Is the only solution (reason why the Government has started to buy up properties)
It probably is cheaper to acquire more properties and build a 2nd single deck bridge alongside than try to re-engineer an existing structure to be two layered.
Alamein to Rowville cia chadsrone a much better idea I think. Heavy rail better option and can carry more people which provides future capacity. The trip on light rail would take forever.
Alamein to Rowville cia chadsrone a much better idea I think. Heavy rail better option and can carry more people which provides future capacity.
Alamein should be converted to smaller vehicles (eg. light rail) allowing for greater frequencies and easier extensions. Similar case for Williamstown and Altona following MM2 - lighter infrastructure would allow for more cost efficient extensions (say to Clifton Hill through Flemington as a possible example).
Okay then Mr Kennett. I certainly don't support this mode of thinking. Melbourne is a growing city, with an obvious limit on space which can be used for transit corridors. Rather than downsizing, we should be expanding. A Rowville Rail link via Monash University and Chadstone would undoubtedly make the Alamein line a lot more used. As for the west, the Altona line should really be extended to Point Cook and Werribee South eventually - Werribee and surrounds is huge and metro 2 probably won't be enough. As for the Williamstown line, there is no reason why it should be shut. It is quite short, so it is almost like a short-starter service for the west. Probably not even worth the cost of conversion for mine.You don't support rational thinking, and appropriate use of infrastructure?
No what we should be doing is expanding all modes of public transport, not just blowing cash on heavy rail when other, cheaper nodes will serve just as well.Alamein should be converted to smaller vehicles (eg. light rail) allowing for greater frequencies and easier extensions. Similar case for Williamstown and Altona following MM2 - lighter infrastructure would allow for more cost efficient extensions (say to Clifton Hill through Flemington as a possible example).
Okay then Mr Kennett. I certainly don't support this mode of thinking. Melbourne is a growing city, with an obvious limit on space which can be used for transit corridors. Rather than downsizing, we should be expanding. A Rowville Rail link via Monash University and Chadstone would undoubtedly make the Alamein line a lot more used. As for the west, the Altona line should really be extended to Point Cook and Werribee South eventually - Werribee and surrounds is huge and metro 2 probably won't be enough. As for the Williamstown line, there is no reason why it should be shut. It is quite short, so it is almost like a short-starter service for the west. Probably not even worth the cost of conversion for mine.
Where are passengers going to go at Caulfield? Frankston and Dandenong CBD-bound trains will be full. There aren't that many that will get off those trains for the Monash Caulfield campus. (Perhaps upgrade Route 3 to E-Class trams.)Not a totally insignificant amount do get off at the Caulfield Campus though. It is quite a large campus. In any case when the Melbourne Metro is built there will be more Cranbourne/Pakenham and Frankston line trains to the CBD.
Take as an example, post-MM2 the Footscray to Williamstown route becomes a heavily overengineered feeder route. Turning it into a semi-orbital linking across to Westgarth/Clifton Hill via Flemington and the Inner Circle would be relatively inexpensive and easily viable using small rollingstock (handy for access to Footscray and Flemington, reducing focus on the CBD and increasing densification of the inner suburbs). However it would be far too expensive to justify using existing trains, as facilitating it would require large-scale tunnelling, and would also be less useful since greater stop spacing would fail to provide for connection with other routes (eg. closely spaced north-south trams along the inner circle).
Not a totally insignificant amount do get off at the Caulfield Campus though. It is quite a large campus. In any case when the Melbourne Metro is built there will be more Cranbourne/Pakenham and Frankston line trains to the CBD.
Michael
Now, even if all passengers from the three Williamstowns change at Newport for MM2 in this future scenario (highly implausible), the patronage on this section and the Newport-Footscray section makes the idea of spending big bucks to actually reduce capacity on the line positively bizarre.Take as an example, post-MM2 the Footscray to Williamstown route becomes a heavily overengineered feeder route. Turning it into a semi-orbital linking across to Westgarth/Clifton Hill via Flemington and the Inner Circle would be relatively inexpensive and easily viable using small rollingstock (handy for access to Footscray and Flemington, reducing focus on the CBD and increasing densification of the inner suburbs). However it would be far too expensive to justify using existing trains, as facilitating it would require large-scale tunnelling, and would also be less useful since greater stop spacing would fail to provide for connection with other routes (eg. closely spaced north-south trams along the inner circle).
I find it hard to believe you've ever caught a train west of North Melbourne, such is the inconsistency in your positions compared with the Frankston
-Dandenong boondoggle you've proposed elsewhere. If you had in fact been on a Williamstown peak train recently you'd be well aware that they're jam-bloody-packed. Now, even if all passengers from the three Williamstowns change at Newport for MM2 in this future scenario (highly implausible), the patronage on this section and the Newport-Footscray section makes the idea of spending big bucks to actually reduce capacity on the line positively bizarre.
As for a new alignment to Flemington and Westgarth, where on earth is the demand, current or future, for such a route? Who is going to be catching this train? You tell us "population is not patronage" when it suits you but then come up with a travel pattern which flat out doesn't exist.
And the myth that light rail on a completely unreserved alignment is that much cheaper is truly nonsense, especially when you have to spend vast sums to convert infrastructure to make it work.
I find it hard to believe you've ever caught a train west of North Melbourne
If you had in fact been on a Williamstown peak train recently you'd be well aware that they're jam-bloody-packed. Now, even if all passengers from the three Williamstowns change at Newport for MM2 in this future scenario (highly implausible), the patronage on this section and the Newport-Footscray section makes the idea of spending big bucks to actually reduce capacity on the line positively bizarre.
As for a new alignment to Flemington and Westgarth, where on earth is the demand, current or future, for such a route? Who is going to be catching this train? You tell us "population is not patronage" when it suits you but then come up with a travel pattern which flat out doesn't exist.
And the myth that light rail on a completely unreserved alignment is that much cheaper is truly nonsense, especially when you have to spend vast sums to convert infrastructure to make it work.
I really respect that you're happy to say when you've got no understanding of something. Everyone, myself included, could learn from that.As for a new alignment to Flemington and Westgarth, where on earth is the demand, current or future, for such a route? Who is going to be catching this train? You tell us "population is not patronage" when it suits you but then come up with a travel pattern which flat out doesn't exist.Take as an example, post-MM2 the Footscray to Williamstown route becomes a heavily overengineered feeder route. Turning it into a semi-orbital linking across to Westgarth/Clifton Hill via Flemington and the Inner Circle would be relatively inexpensive and easily viable using small rollingstock (handy for access to Footscray and Flemington, reducing focus on the CBD and increasing densification of the inner suburbs). However it would be far too expensive to justify using existing trains, as facilitating it would require large-scale tunnelling, and would also be less useful since greater stop spacing would fail to provide for connection with other routes (eg. closely spaced north-south trams along the inner circle).
I find it hard to believe you've ever caught a train west of North Melbourne, such is the inconsistency in your positions compared with the Frankston
-Dandenong boondoggle you've proposed elsewhere. If you had in fact been on a Williamstown peak train recently you'd be well aware that they're jam-bloody-packed. Now, even if all passengers from the three Williamstowns change at Newport for MM2 in this future scenario (highly implausible), the patronage on this section and the Newport-Footscray section makes the idea of spending big bucks to actually reduce capacity on the line positively bizarre.
As for a new alignment to Flemington and Westgarth, where on earth is the demand, current or future, for such a route? Who is going to be catching this train? You tell us "population is not patronage" when it suits you but then come up with a travel pattern which flat out doesn't exist.
And the myth that light rail on a completely unreserved alignment is that much cheaper is truly nonsense, especially when you have to spend vast sums to convert infrastructure to make it work.
I have no idea about that alignment, Fair to say the demand may not be there.
And the myth that light rail on a completely unreserved alignment is that much cheaper is truly nonsense
Sophisticated Light Rail Systems such as the Docklands Light Railway need to be grade separated. Other systems like Manchester Metrolink and Croydon Tramlink does not need to be grade separated. With light rail it can be cheap or expensive. With heavy rail it is just expensive when talking about built up suburbs.
especially when you have to spend vast sums to convert infrastructure to make it work.
Really? in the worst case scenario, re-railing and re-sleepering 3.8 kms of double track, rebuilding platforms for low floor trams (although you could leave the platforms and have high floor trams ala Manchester) and replacing the over head with trolley wire, which is cheap, will cost vast sums of money, really? $300 million at the most and I am being extremely generous. And this coming from someone who has no issue of spending $50 Billion on a loop line we do not need.
Michael
But we have that an expensive tunnel for heavy rail through sparsely populated suburbia justifiable without question, but a cheap surface link across the much denser inner city is unthinkable? I wasn't joking when I said there was a large amount of cognitive dissonance going on. The inner city is exactly where we should be focusing on densification, and such a link is on a similar scale to the orbital links on overseas systems thoughtlessly touted by SRL advocates (aka. foamers). We should be building up intensively the central ~5km, a region bound roughly by St Kilda, the Yarra, Brunswick St and the Williamstown line, and with further development, to a lesser degree, out to ~10km corresponding to the general bounds of the tram system. Pick any of the world's major cities and it's built up on a similar scale, with high quality public transport links that crisscross the region (rather than leading to a central area as with our current CBD) allowing for jobs and development to be spread throughout and maximum utilisation of such links.So, 5km radius, basically the area that would be served by heavy rail with Metro 1 and 2 both in place? Funny about that. Stations in places where there are a) actually jobs, like Parkville and b) actually scope for major residential densification like Arden St, too.
While I get that light rail can be "cheap or expensive" in a general sense, if you just take a quick look at Google Maps you'll see there are enormous difficulties like the river, lack of road alignments and so forth, even if we assume the Inner Circle route could be used (which isn't a shoe-in given the NIMBY population out that way). Also, it's hard to see anyone approving conversion of the Racecourse/Showgrounds line - if indeed that's what ZH was proposing - to light rail and creating massive transport headaches for the major events which do occur there.
I've tried to explain before that my thoughts - I can't speak for anyone else's and certainly not the government's - are not along the lines of "lOnDoN hAs An OrBiTaL sO wE sHoUlD tOo".
If you have a job-dense inner core then the radial travel demand is just going to keep increasing. So if the CBD is five times bigger than it currently is, and 75% of the new jobs created (say) are matched by local residents, you still need to find a way to double edge-to-core travel volumes. That is emphatically not a model that's been successfully matched by any of your global cities.
Small, three car stock would be more suited to such a route - the actual costs of such conversion are zero.
Tyne and Wear Metro for one, standard gauge, 1500DC overhead - DC systems are not a rarity, gauge is not a major issue (convert).
You still haven't got the stabling part yet - new rollingstock/stabling means rollingstock freed up else where, eg. cost neutral.
It's thoughtless to claim conversion costs are prohibitive, and continue running services far beyond capacity requirements.
We've disabled Quick Reply for this thread as it was last updated more than six months ago.