Why? Is it because of the pylons not being able to take enough weight, or something else?

no, it would probably look stupid and given all the protests etc against skyrail the first time, it would be a bad idea to repeat all of that

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'.

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?

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?

I don't know how your second deck Idea would work ?

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)

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.

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.

I don't see any problem with the construction ideas.

Which option is going to get chosen
Feds want heavy rail while Andrews has proposed light rail

No Capacity on the Dandenong Line so the Rowville Line would have to run from Oakleigh to Alamein via Chadstone, if it is heavy rail.

Light Rail can work well, just how will it work along the Princes Hwy. Would need traffic light priority Gold Coast Style and new super Trams. IMO, Monash To Caufield works as a brilliant light rail route, not sure about all the way to Rowville though

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. The trip on light rail would take forever.

Agreed. It would hopefully also begin discussions about through-routing the Alamein/Glen Waverley lines with the west/north and re-configuring the city loop.

Are most people here blissfully unaware that there are different sizes of rail vehicle?

You don't just have a choice between a large Melbourne train and a slow tram that rattles apart above 60km/h - there's a plethora of different rail vehicles of all sizes used for different applications all over the world.  Not all routes require rollingstock capacities of 2000-persons - some routes are more suited to smaller units like those used on the London Underground, others might be more suited to large double deck rollingstock that maximises seating over capacity.  

You can also have large station spacings of a few kilometres for trunk routes through low density suburbia, or shorter spacings around 400m (eg. four per mile on Melbourne's mile-by-mile grid) for feeder routes.  While rail should ideally have complete grade separation, one can choose to have signalised intersections if less expense is justified, and all the segregation of rail is equally applicable for use with buses.

Our non-segregated street trams are an anachronism - globally, something smaller than our existing trains does not translate to a tram trundling to a stop every hundred metres.

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).

If you make the only choice trains with capacity beyond that ever required, or unsegregated trams running too slowly to be of practical use to anybody, then you're quite limited in your choices when it comes to new network options.

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.)

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?

Williamstown has a population of 12k, North 4.5k, and Altona 13.5k - what use have they for a 50,000/hr capacity railway?  Similarly, large capacity rollingstock on the Alamein line is unwarranted, and facilitating such vehicles makes any extension nothing more than a pipe dream due to the associated infrastructure expenses.

So I know if you have a clue, have you actually even ever been on a real metro?  

A Melbourne tram is basically larger inside than the average London deep-tube unit, with our trains closer in size to London overground rollingstock.  There are a multitude of train sizes used throughout the world, and using larger stock than required leads to both greater operating and capital expenditure, not just associated with the units themselves, but also the heavier infrastructure requirements.  It still seems you think there is only a binary choice between an oversized Melbourne train and a slow, unsegregated tram, ignoring the spectrum in between.  

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).

So don't confuse rationality for being anti-rail - we could achieve so much more if we weren't throwing money away on excesses.

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.

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.

If for some reason the Government does extend via Altona, the frequency will stay the same. This is because the Altona line runs along railway street as single track between Seaholme and 750 metres west of Altona, with absolutely no prospect of double tracking. Converting to Light Rail is not an outrageous idea and would free paths for the much larger and growing suburbs of Williams Landing, Hoppers Crossing and Werribee. It could also be extended to serve suburbs such as Brooklyn.A conversion cost of say $200 Million is too much but $50 Billion for the SRL is AOK. Go figure!

Forget about heavy rail to Rowville. Heavy Rail will need to be grade separated and I just cannot see the residents down there agreeing to Skyrail, which means tunnelling. $5-8 Billion for a established no growth corridor is poor value for money. The Light Rail proposal is the right one for Rowville. It can be built quickly, at grade using the median and at a much, much lower cost.

Michael

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.

Michael

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.

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

Even if it is only light rail, up to 5000 passengers per hour could be arriving at Caulfield in the AM; 12 (5 min headway) x 400-capacity LRVs. Effectively an extra track pair is being added east of Caulfield, with nothing added between Caulfield and South Yarra. Metro Tunnel will provide a near-redundant track pair between South Yarra and the CBD for extra capacity. It would seem for the Caulfield - Rowville LR to work, Metro Tunnel should have started from Caulfield, not South Yarra, as mentioned elsewhere in RP and was originally intended.  (If funds are unlimited the LR should be extended to South Yarra. The jury will disregard that last statement.)  

Alamein would appear to have similar problems, with capacity limitations west of Camberwell. Quadding Camberwell – Burnley doesn’t seem realistic. The Glen Waverley line at Darling or East Malvern (more direct than Alamein anyway) with all the LXs removed and an extra track pair between Burnley and Richmond connecting to the redundant South Yarra pair would be far too expensive.

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.

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.

Really Williamstown trains are jam packed? Probably because of the frequency of the trains (13-23 mins at peak). The latest known figures shows that Williamstown Station had 164,000, Williamstown Beach had 223,000 and North Williamstown 316,000. Compare that to Werribee 1.364 Million, Hoppers Crossing 1.357 Million, Williams Landing 809,000 & Laverton 1.502 Million. Only Aircraft with 209,000 has less that the Williamstown Stations and has more patronage than Williamstown itself. Remove paths taken up by Williamstown trains to be used by Werribee and converting to light rail is not the most bonkers idea out there.

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.

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

I find it hard to believe you've ever caught a train west of North Melbourne

I'm from the west, so nice try - I'm just capable of looking at things rationally, without favouritism or parochialism.

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.

Haha, 'jam-packed'?  What, one service?  It would only appear that way since the frequency is so low.

Journey to work figures (2016) for rail are only 978 for Williamstown and 377 for North - the entire workforce would barely fill a train!  The service frequency is low because it simply could not be justified running empty trains since the patronage simply wouldn't be there, however use smaller vehicles and you have the ability to run a more frequent, more useful, and ultimately more patronised service.

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.

Such fickleness.  

We've got all these SRL loonies raving about decentralisation, about the pains of needing to travel into the CBD and the need for alternatives.  Footscray is being touted as an extension of the CBD (similar scale to St Kilda Rd), Flemington Racecourse and the Showgrounds are undergoing extensive redevelopment, and densification of the inner north is a no-brainer for catering for increasing population.  

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.

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.

Haha, so the fact that it is cheaper to bore small tubes than giant tunnels is a myth?  The fact that smaller vehicles can cope with tighter curves and higher grades is a myth?  The fact that such vehicles they are more suited to smaller station spacing and offer flexibility in the level of segregation is a myth?  The fact that the infrastructure for such systems is far cheaper to build and operate is a myth?

You don't think there would be a substantial difference in cost for implementing such a link using our heavy trains against using smaller vehicles more synonymous with the London Underground or Paris Metro?  Apart from Footscray to Flemington Racecourse and Newmarket to Flemington Bridge, an open alignment already exists, though it would be unsuitable to implement using our existing trains.

So what vast sums do you think are involved with conversion of Footscray to Williamstown and Altona exactly?  You can claim rollingstock and stabling, but really that's complete nonsense if you actually put some thought into it, since it works out that you're freeing up existing trains for use where they're actually required.  No need to change stations or wiring in any case, and there is nothing stopping implementation of stock that uses existing voltages for traction.  But of course, you wouldn't have considered that because in your mind if it's not one of our oversized trains it's a crappy tram, rattling to pieces as it trundles around in traffic at 60km/h, stopping at every stone's throw.  

Do you people have any worldly experience or knowledge?  Again I ask, have you ever been on a real metro?

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.

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.

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

I really respect that you're happy to say when you've got no understanding of something. Everyone, myself included, could learn from that.

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.

Also, I think your rough costing may be a little off - Newport to Williamstown is 3.8km but ZH was proposing Footscray to Williamstown which is about 8.8km. The other issue is the workshop precinct, which is going to stick around for a while yet given Downer EDI will be competitive for the next suburban stock order starting in 2023-ish. You could set up access from the Werribee/Metro 2 corridor but that would involve some nasty curves or reversing moves. Not saying it can't be done but it will cost. So say maybe $500m all up? But that doesn't include the new alignment bit, which could be another $500m comfortably given there would be a river bridge involved at a very minimum for civil works.

That said I think the frequency point is a good one, I just question whether the cost of maintaining a heavy rail line and adding some extra services is really so "wasteful" as to justify a relatively large capital expenditure on light rail conversion. There will still be 3-car sets floating around when Metro 2 opens, so maybe a cheaper solution is to run those every 10 minutes instead of a 6 every 20.

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.

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". No. The problem with transport in Melbourne is that the horse has already well and truly bolted: 11,000 sq km of low-to-medium-density development with a relatively small high-density core that will remain relatively small even if we do get to your 25 sq km developed area. 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.

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.

You still can't see anything smaller than a Melbourne train, can you?  You've never been on a metro, it shows.

Small, three car stock would be more suited to such a route - the actual costs of such conversion are zero.

If you can't work out why, there's no hope for you.

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".

Really?  We're being told, with examples, that a world city (smeg-smeg) needs an orbital route.

There's no figures, no logic, no business case, no thought whatsoever.

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.

So you'd prefer jobs distributed haphazardly all over suburbia in PT unfriendly business parks, with our suburban boundaries pushed ever further, with job growth in the CBD catered for from outer suburbanites rather than nearby residents?

Because that's the alternative.

Small, three car stock would be more suited to such a route - the actual costs of such conversion are zero.

You're talking out of the proverbial here and you know it mate.

There's no such thing as 1500V DC overhead 1600mm gauge high-floor light rail rollingstock available anywhere in the world. So if you decided to go with those specs you'd have to have them designed and built from scratch. Then of course you have to remove all points of interaction with the existing network, because, I assume, your cheap-as-chips proposal doesn't include any money for signalling better headways - we'll just be running line of sight. And removing interaction with the existing network needs you'll be needing to build yourself some decent stabling. All this would likely end up costing more than actual light rail conversion.

Might as well just let the Comengs and then the Siemens sets run out their twilight years in 3-car formation.

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.

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.

Oh, so all of a sudden it’s cost neutral rather than “zero cost”? Funny about that. And it’s not even that - how exactly does spending money on stabling in location A get offset, even if we don’t have to spend money in location B? It’s still money going out unless you’re using some very advanced accounting.

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

Comeng carriage: ~45t, 23m long
Class 994 carriage (T&W): 39t, 28m long

So for all our trouble we get a train that’s more or less the same as what currently runs on the line. Really?

So if we’re not changing rollingstock, and we’re not changing gauge, and we’re not changing signalling, why the hell are we doing this exactly?