HCMTs. Trains do not need to go thru the City loop.

Instead of having  long distance metro train going thru the loop you can have shorter distance train go thru and have you long distance metro trains go directly to Flinders Street.

Also at same time have northern loop trains go thru the loop before it goes to Flinders st station.

Changing at Burnley will be fun in the rain, or in the hot sun. At Richmond there is full-length shelter, whereas Burnley's north platform, where the interchange will need to occur, has only one short section with shelter. Have MTM thought this aspect through?

There is a section of the initial proposal from MTM about Southern Cross Station, which was cut off. Could there be a proposal for opening the pedestrian subway for interchange during peak hour?

I don't know why people are still fixated on the idea of the Southern Cross subway. I would have thought by now that its pretty clear it will never be reopened.

It isn't DDA compliant, which if they reopened it would mean they are breaching the DDA in a way that continued use since being built before DDA doesn't apply to.
The subway is used for other services now, that would have to be relocated somewhere else at great expense.

What is needed at Southern Cross is better quality escalators on all platforms, including V/Line, better way-finding signage, and ultimately more frequent, consistent services.

The Victorian Government (the owners of Burnley station) doesn't give a toss about station platforms or their amenities (look at the roof of any station built since the year 2000, including the one (or two?) metre gap between the end of the awning and the actual platform edge). Burnley 3+4 has a sheltered waiting area (albeit a decrepit-looking wooden structure that is probably lined with asbestos), but the windows have been smashed that many times they don't even bother fixing it anymore; apparently the huge 1990s style CCTV cameras must be there just for show, either that or they have the resolution of an original Game Boy while recording at one frame per second. The tin shed (wheelchair shelter) at the down end isn't much better than the main shelter and usually smells of vomit, stale beer and/or urine.

The Victorian Government (the owners of Burnley station) doesn't give a toss about station platforms or their amenities (look at the roof of any station built since the year 2000, including the one (or two?) metre gap between the end of the awning and the actual platform edge). Burnley 3+4 has a sheltered waiting area (albeit a decrepit-looking wooden structure that is probably lined with asbestos), but the windows have been smashed that many times they don't even bother fixing it anymore; apparently the huge 1990s style CCTV cameras must be there just for show, either that or they have the resolution of an original Game Boy while recording at one frame per second. The tin shed (wheelchair shelter) at the down end isn't much better than the main shelter and usually smells of vomit, stale beer and/or urine.

all the comforts of home.....................

The Victorian Government (the owners of Burnley station) doesn't give a toss about station platforms or their amenities (look at the roof of any station built since the year 2000, including the one (or two?) metre gap between the end of the awning and the actual platform edge). Burnley 3+4 has a sheltered waiting area (albeit a decrepit-looking wooden structure that is probably lined with asbestos), but the windows have been smashed that many times they don't even bother fixing it anymore; apparently the huge 1990s style CCTV cameras must be there just for show, either that or they have the resolution of an original Game Boy while recording at one frame per second. The tin shed (wheelchair shelter) at the down end isn't much better than the main shelter and usually smells of vomit, stale beer and/or urine.

all the comforts of home.....................

This of course assumes that the PM down will stop at Burnley.  
Is is said assume = make and smeg out of you and me.

The Metro proposal does NOT say that, just some hopeful observers who should know better.

BTW: if this comes to fruition and the benefit is for the "majority" then
those pax would vote for express Parliament-Camberwell-Box Hill and stuff those in between, they can take the SAS.

cheers
John

I don't really have any issues with this. Simplifying stopping patterns and loop direction is one of the most basic things MTM can do to move towards a metro system.

Running Dandenong Group services in the one direction all day will enable people to access City Loop stations from Richmond all day.

Frankston needs to be removed from the Loop and i imagine this will all happen at the same time. This will finally create a true cross city group, something that the government was hesitant to do in fear of political backlash from the "sand belt" seats. Dandenong Group can have all 24TPH in the loop without interaction with another lines timetable. Frankston can have exclusive use of the Cross City Lines boosting the timetable while also having the benefit of rationalising the timetable on the Werribee line.

The frankly bizarre stopping patterns of the Ringwood Group need to be rationalised. Direct Alamain SAS covers the inner city stations too Camberwell. Ringwood services running express to Camberwell then all too Ringwood. Blackburn Services Express Richmond > Camberwell > Box Hill > Blackburn. Belgrave & Lilydale Express Camberwell > Box Hill > Ringwood > All to Belgrave & Lillydale. Something simple like the above all day everyday. Adjusting the frequencies for peak and weekend. With a constant stopping pattern people know where to interchange to access different stations on the line. Also spreads the passenger loading of the peak over different services, with passengers for stations closer to the city not taking up space for those going to the end of the line. Ie. If a Belgrave passenger needs to go to Mont Albert they know they need to change at Box Hill, if the stopping pattern is always the same they know they will always get a train.

If some services need to skip Richmond to help loadings so be it.

Passengers and Gunzels need to get use to interchanging. The days of one train will take you wherever you want to go is over. If you need to change at Burnley/Richmond/ Footscray to get to the City Loop so be it. As always INDEPENDENT FULLY SEGREGATED LINES.

This is what I would need, in order to catch the train again. Since I know that cleaner trains is too hard an ask, I'll settle for this.

+1000000. More Ringwood to Box Hill expresses would be awesome, currently there is just one in the up direction, and it isn't even in a useful time frame, but at 2034 from Ringwood. I just wish there was more than just the one up express. Of course though, they would need to kill the useless shuttle services and have the other train behind it stopping all stations to the city to take its place. For example, that up Belgrave I mention is followed immediately by a SAS up Lilydale at 2036 (and due to whatever pathetic reason Metro gives, this service is run with just three carriages).

Why anti-clockwise?  One woudl assume to stick to clockwise would prevent some cross-over moves for typical up and down movements.  What am I missing here?

Also, to throw a suggestion out there, run Gippsland Velocities via the loop too (manage the ventilation) and remove the west richmond interfaces.

Why anti-clockwise?  One woudl assume to stick to clockwise would prevent some cross-over moves for typical up and down movements.  What am I missing here?

Also, to throw a suggestion out there, run Gippsland Velocities via the loop too (manage the ventilation) and remove the west richmond interfaces.

The Loop portals are between the running pairs so no conflicts running one way or the other.

not quite right.

How so?

At richmond the portal sits between the down and up track so no conflict of movement

At SXS platform only runs in one direction (anti in the morning + weekends, clockwise in the evening) same as the loop so no conflicts there either.

Why anti-clockwise?  One woudl assume to stick to clockwise would prevent some cross-over moves for typical up and down movements.  What am I missing here?

Also, to throw a suggestion out there, run Gippsland Velocities via the loop too (manage the ventilation) and remove the west richmond interfaces.

The Loop portals are between the running pairs so no conflicts running one way or the other.

Too easy, thanks.

Now to put the Gippsland Velocities on the same ant-trail.  

Maybe there is another reason behind all this.
How many people have been on a slightly late Caulfield group train in the morning or weekend and then as it approaches Richmond the drivers says the the train will run direct to Flinders St. Let's be honest, the only reason they do these loop bypasses is to cook the books and get the trains into Flinders St on-time.
If the loop runs anti-clockwise all day it will give Metro more opportunities to cook the books and make there figures better by bypassing the loop.

I can confirm thanks to a friend a Metro that all Frankston services will be removed from the loop in 2020. It will be Pakenham and Cranbourne HCMTS only.

Is there any update on when this timetable change can be expected to take effect? I am assuming that HCMTs cannot be introduced to service until the timetable has changed, as they can only operate one-way around the loop. With patronage at such low levels at the moment I would think this is a good opportunity to make these changes so that pax can get used to this as they gradually return to the network.

With the roll out of HCMTs is there any plan as to how the rest of the fleet will be redeployed with Comengs becoming freed up from the Cranbourne/Pakenham lines?

If Metro are serious about separating lines into sectors, it would make sense to isolate fleet types to specific lines from a training and maintenance perspective. Is this likely to occur? XTraps are already running all services on the Burnley and Clifton Hill groups (Bayswater and Epping depots). The remaining XTraps and Siemens should be enough to cover the Cross City Group (Newport depot), which would leave the remaining Comengs to service Sandringham, Upfield, Craigieburn, and Sunbury until HCMT is rolled out. This would still leave a surplus of trains which would allow the oldest Comengs to be retired.

Is there any update on when this timetable change can be expected to take effect? I am assuming that HCMTs cannot be introduced to service until the timetable has changed, as they can only operate one-way around the loop. With patronage at such low levels at the moment I would think this is a good opportunity to make these changes so that pax can get used to this as they gradually return to the network.

This timetable change is a small part of a massive update to the whole metro network timetable - I think there will also be V/line changes, as well as connecting buses etc - which was only recently approved by the powers that be. From my understanding, the aim was to implement in November. However given the current patronage and HCMT situation, it could well be pushed back until the end of the summer holidays.

Dec 13 is the date I've heard bandied about for the introduction of HCMT.
fair to assume the timetable update will be on the same day

Just need to send all the Gippsland Velocity' via the same said loop (runs for cover ) removing the interface at west Richmond and improve reliability.

(first one to raise the obvious diesel fumes in the tunnel is the rotten egg)

Just need to send all the Gippsland Velocity' via the same said loop (runs for cover ) removing the interface at west Richmond and improve reliability.

(first one to raise the obvious diesel fumes in the tunnel is the rotten egg)

great idea! I'm all for it!

Melbourne needs to realise that trains are for carrying people and goods, not for gunzels to play trainz
Straight rail as much as possible, use captive rollingstock, simplify the network, standardise stopping patterns, remove the last of the loop direction switcharoos. get on with it!

Just need to send all the Gippsland Velocity' via the same said loop (runs for cover ) removing the interface at west Richmond and improve reliability.

(first one to raise the obvious diesel fumes in the tunnel is the rotten egg)

In the true vein of cood, shooda, wooda.

The interface of vline at Richmond Junction is a perpetual problem for all metro trains who pass there (Sandringham, Frankston, Dandenong)

Ideally, the Gippsland vline trains shouldn't cross any lines, let alone 3. How many other trains can One slighly late cause.

Solution = Gippy fly-over to the Sandy line much further down.
The opportunity to create a really useful rationalisation was there when the tunnel portal at South Yarra was built. They blew it.
Least worse alternative, cross-over UP from South Yarra. Marginally cleaner than doing the same as current.

Is this enough stink

cheers
John

Should some of them cross to the Frankston line over the Caulfield pedestrian underpass?  Last time when I rode the last up Bairnsdale it seemed that it was following an all station train, but the parallel Frankston line had green over red all the way.  By crossing over one pair of lines first there will also be less crossovers at Richmond?

Should some of them cross to the Frankston line over the Caulfield pedestrian underpass?  Last time when I rode the last up Bairnsdale it seemed that it was following an all station train, but the parallel Frankston line had green over red all the way.  By crossing over one pair of lines first there will also be less crossovers at Richmond?

Musta been an odd one.

From Caulfield to Sth Yarra: typically Dandy are express and Frankston are SAS.

Agreed cross-over at Caulfield would make Richmond simpler. I doubt the already slow crawlers from Gippy would be happy.

It was close to 22:00 so both lines would have been SAS.  There might just happened to be a large gap on the Frankston line.  I remember that the evening peak down Bairnsdale regularly used Frankston line, with a Pakenham train making an additional scheduled stop at Malvern instead of express South Yarra to Caulfield, to allow it to overtake and access the Dandenong platform using two crossovers above the pedestrian underpass.  If the train controllers are more enthusiastic more similar movements can take place to speed up things.

VLine can just terminate Gippy trains at Flinders St like they used to, no need for flyovers, just give them Platforms 6 and 7 permanently once the metro tunnel opens, the crossovers are already there.

Outside of peak you can do stock transfers if needed for cleaning, fuelling, maintenance.

edit: Like this,

Platform 1: Clifton Loop
Platform 2: Burnley Loop
Platform 3: Burnley Local (Turnback)
Platform 4: Burnley Local (Turnback)
Platform 5: Northern Loop
Platform 6: VLine (Turnback)
Platform 7: Caulfield Loop
Platform 8: Cross City towards Frankston
Platform 9: Cross City towards Newport
Platform 10: Sandringham (Turnback)
Platform 12/13: Sandringham (Turnback)

The loop lines only need one platform, Metro needs to timetable away from stopping trains at Flinders St for changeover. Clifton Loop already does changeover at Clifton Hill, need to look for similar at Caulfield+Burnley+North Melbourne/Footscray for the other lines.

The turnback lines have two platforms becuase of the crossover conflict, so need more space for timetable recovery.

Ideally, Upfield and potentially Craigieburn would terminate at Spencer St platforms 8/8s to free up space and remove the number of lines in the northern loop.

VLine can just terminate Gippy trains at Flinders St like they used to, no need for flyovers, just give them Platforms 6 and 7 permanently once the metro tunnel opens, the crossovers are already there.

Outside of peak you can do stock transfers if needed for cleaning, fuelling, maintenance.

yes & no.

Once Dandy goes to MM1, then its tracks and FSS platform are available as you suggest. Nice straight run.
Can 6&7 cross  the viaduct to SXS 16 for the maintenance?

In the meantime (ie the anti-clock loopy thing), the crossovers Richmond already there are exactly the problem.
When vline crosses the Sandringham(2), Frankston(2), Dandenong(1 on the down); means a lot of other trains have to wait. Or converse Vline can wait a long time until all clear. Or everybody stop & wait for the flag man to sort it.

Edit like this.

Complete re-design of how FSS works is too logical. Essentially doubling the through capacity of all lines , this is not the way Victorian Rail works!

cheers
John