Yep granted all the Coalition did is build a few stations and the Bayside Rail Project,  which I have mentioned before about their poor record. Labor's Record on PT isnt great as well after 11 Years either.

No, you can't compare them at all - the Liberals were much worse. Labor made mistakes but at least things got done: Despite the flaws with Regional Fast Rail the interurban rail system got enormous amounts of money spent on track renewal and new signalling with a huge increase in services and a brand new interurban train fleet. And Regional Rail Link is opening soon; we'll get to see if that actually makes a difference to the West and Geelong - probably it will have been worth the wait.

Again - you have to ask what Denis and Ted accomplished in their four years and the answer is (pretty much) zero. That's despite the fact that Melbourne grew by an additional 400,000 in that time.

And your arguments against building a metro line down Swanston Street (cut and cover or not) are facile. If we didn't build things because 'they might be disruptive' then nothing will ever get done.

Melbourne city is not the same quiet sleepy hollow that it used to be after dark - there's huge amounts of people using public transport in the city after hours and all weekend that completely justify this much-needed expansion in cross-city rail capacity. To deny the city this vital increase is going to condemn us all to jam-packed trams up and down the CBD all week long and well into the night; I think if we aspire to be a 'world city' then it's time to start providing the (usually excellent) public transit systems required of a world city.

You do realise the whole length wont be cut and cover right?  They have to go deep under the Yarra and also bear in mind it has to go under existing tracks at FSS.

Yes I do realise, but we are talking about Swanston Street arent we?

Also I think it is a good idea going between Swanston St and the existing MURL tunnels.  This will provide far better integration with MCE.

No argument from me, however deep tunnelling should have been used. 50 Meters under is about 160 feet, some stations in Europe are 200+ feet underground. If the MURL is 30 Meters Deep, the MML would only have to be 40 Metres deep.

And regarding cut and cover under Swanston Street.  Do you know the constraints or what is under Swanston Street?  How deep they will have to go if they don't use cut and cover?

If there are Geological constraints, they have not been mentioned. Yes there will be cabling and Sewage pipes and the like, look at Crossrail and see what they do. Yeah well whinging, I thought only Poms whinge, bloody hell. Climbing up and down an moving escalator, geez it must be tough. Lifts will be provided for the Elderly, Prams and the Infirm.

Michael

Looking at tunnel depths, the MURL at Melb Central is down to 30m.  So the depth would have to be at around 50m.  The proposal is to go between the existing MURL and Swanston St.  As the station is going to be located there as well, thatd be common sense to have it as cut and cover to reduce costs.

And another thing I forgot that they do have to dig under is the Citylink Tunnels.

No, you can't compare them at all - the Liberals were much worse. Labor made mistakes but at least things got done: Despite the flaws with Regional Fast Rail the interurban rail system got enormous amounts of money spent on track renewal and new signalling with a huge increase in services and a brand new interurban train fleet. And Regional Rail Link is opening soon; we'll get to see if that actually makes a difference to the West and Geelong - probably it will have been worth the wait.

Again - you have to ask what Denis and Ted accomplished in their four years and the answer is (pretty much) zero. That's despite the fact that Melbourne grew by an additional 400,000 in that time.

And your arguments against building a metro line down Swanston Street (cut and cover or not) are facile. If we didn't build things because 'they might be disruptive' then nothing will ever get done.

Melbourne city is not the same quiet sleepy hollow that it used to be after dark - there's huge amounts of people using public transport in the city after hours and all weekend that completely justify this much-needed expansion in cross-city rail capacity. To deny the city this vital increase is going to condemn us all to jam-packed trams up and down the CBD all week long and well into the night; I think if we aspire to be a 'world city' then it's time to start providing the (usually excellent) public transit systems required of a world city.

No, you can't compare them at all - the Liberals were much worse. Labor made mistakes but at least things got done: Despite the flaws with Regional Fast Rail the interurban rail system got enormous amounts of money spent on track renewal and new signalling with a huge increase in services and a brand new interurban train fleet. And Regional Rail Link is opening soon;

Again - you have to ask what Denis and Ted accomplished in their four years and the answer is (pretty much) zero. That's despite the fact that Melbourne grew by an additional 400,000 in that time.

Yes all Interurban, all seats that are Marginal. Yes the Interurban Rail to Geelong, Bendigo and Ballarat got heaps of Money. The Metropolitan Rail Network and the Rest of V/Line Big Fat Zip, save Electrification to Craigieburn and Sunbury, Extension to South Morang and about 30 XTrapolis Trains, great trains they are, NOT! The Labor Government, like the Coalition paid lip service to Metropolitan Rail.

we'll get to see if that actually makes a difference to the West and Geelong - probably it will have been worth the wait.

Yes the West will still have Life Expired Comengs providing the Service whilst the Regional Passenger will get $20 Million Train Sets.

And your arguments against building a metro line down Swanston Street (cut and cover or not) are facile.

Well that's what you reckon, whatever! They had a chance to use Modern Tunnelling techniques to minimise disruption, and they could have used it, after all the North West Rail Link in Sydney are using a TBM. No they are going to build through Cut and Cover, a very old technique to save money. I am not against it being build but they way its being built.

If we didn't build things because 'they might be disruptive' then nothing will ever get done.

Nice to see that you give a damn about small traders concerns!!

Michael

Well that's what you reckon, whatever! They had a chance to use Modern Tunnelling techniques to minimise disruption, and they could have used it, after all the North West Rail Link in Sydney are using a TBM. No they are going to build through Cut and Cover, a very old technique to save money. I am not against it being build but they way its being built.

As has been pointed out multiple times already on this thread (and others), it's going to be way too shallow at the intersection of Latrobe and Swanston for a TBM and they'll probably need to build a portal there anyway. It will not be 'cut and cover' all the way down Swanston Street because it needs to dive substantially as it approaches the Yarra. And before you try and argue that the whole thing should be deep-level, would you prefer to be in an 'incident' ten or twenty metres under the surface or seventy to eighty? They're not building that small section as 'cut and cover' to deliberately annoy people like you - they're doing it because engineering advice is that it is desirable for it to be done that way.

Nice to see that you give a damn about small traders concerns!!

I don't understand why you are still banging on about this like it's an issue that affects you personally. Unlike other major projects across the country, they've already offered to negotiate compensation with affected parties - so what's the problem? You gotta break eggs to make an omelette, the alternative is to do nothing and at a break-neck growth rate of 100,000 people per year that is simply not an option.

As has been pointed out multiple times already on this thread (and others), it's going to be way too shallow at the intersection of Latrobe and Swanston for a TBM and they'll probably need to build a portal there anyway. It will not be 'cut and cover' all the way down Swanston Street because it needs to dive substantially as it approaches the Yarra. And before you try and argue that the whole thing should be deep-level, would you prefer to be in an 'incident' ten or twenty metres under the surface or seventy to eighty? They're not building that small section as 'cut and cover' to deliberately annoy people like you - they're doing it because engineering advice is that it is desirable for it to be done that way.

I don't understand why you are still banging on about this like it's an issue that affects you personally. Unlike other major projects across the country, they've already offered to negotiate compensation with affected parties - so what's the problem? You gotta break eggs to make an omelette, the alternative is to do nothing and at a break-neck growth rate of 100,000 people per year that is simply not an option.

We have decided that the Swanston Street alignment is the most cost-effective and allows you to deliver the project not at a depth of 40 metres but at a depth of around 10," he said.

So Don the Engineering Advice was to be that is is most cost-effective. And the Tunnel can be built at a depth of 80 and the whole incident thing is a purphy. There is no problems of OH&S in Underground Systems such as London and Paris, with much deeper tunnels. Anyway I am not against the Building of the Rail Tunnel just the way its built. For such as small section and the disruption it will cause why not use a TBM for the whole length.

I don't understand why you are still banging on about this like it's an issue that affects you personally.

Yeah a lot of things dont affect me personally like all those people losing their jobs at various TAFE. Isnt that the problem, oh it dont affect me so meh!!  That's the whole problem with society today, It dont affect me so tough!

Unlike other major projects across the country, they've already offered to negotiate compensation with affected parties - so what's the problem?

What like how they did for Footscray Residents regarding the Regional Rail Link, I hope they learnt their Lesson from that!!!


Michael

There is no problems of OH&S in Underground Systems such as London and Paris, with much deeper tunnels.

Again, this is a gross generalisation. Deep-level tunnels are generally avoided - even in modern London they've gone out of their way to avoid making Cross-Rail dive any deeper than 40m even if it meant significant disruption on the surface.

Ventilation in deep level tunnels continues to be a significant problem. If you have ever been on a London deep-level tube train on a stinking hot day you will understand why - once it gets hot down there it stays that way all day. It's extremely difficult in those confined spaces to dissipate accumulated heat from the trains (and the passengers themselves) and its a problem they still haven't been able to solve in this day and age. The only way to address the issue is to install very expensive large air-conditioning plants to pump cool air into the tube stations on hot days; it's not nearly as much of an issue in shallow tube stations where natural ventilation flow is easier to achieve.

However the main reason for not building a deep-level tunnel is that people are at a much more significant risk of death or injury if there's an incident at 80m deep - simply because of the difficulty in emergency services being able to access the site of the accident/fire at those very deep levels. Electrical systems usually fail or are switched off as a precaution during fires/accidents and therefore lifts and escalators will not be operating. Can you imagine what would happen to the elderly or infirm stuck on a train in a smoky dark tunnel trying to - firstly, locate the emergency exit and secondly - climb ten floors of stairs to get to safety? The Hearld-Sun would have a field day - I can see the headlines now:

Government was told that death-trap tunnel was too deep but built it anyway.

Anyway I am not against the Building of the Rail Tunnel just the way its built. For such as small section and the disruption it will cause why not use a TBM for the whole length.

Because it can't be used for the small section around Latrobe/Swanston for reasons already discussed.

Again, this is a gross generalisation. Deep-level tunnels are generally avoided - even in modern London they've gone out of their way to avoid making Cross-Rail dive any deeper than 40m even if it meant significant disruption on the surface.

Ventilation in deep level tunnels continues to be a significant problem. If you have ever been on a London deep-level tube train on a stinking hot day you will understand why - once it gets hot down there it stays that way all day. It's extremely difficult in those confined spaces to dissipate accumulated heat from the trains (and the passengers themselves) and its a problem they still haven't been able to solve in this day and age. The only way to address the issue is to install very expensive large air-conditioning plants to pump cool air into the tube stations on hot days; it's not nearly as much of an issue in shallow tube stations where natural ventilation flow is easier to achieve.

However the main reason for not building a deep-level tunnel is that people are at a much more significant risk of death or injury if there's an incident at 80m deep - simply because of the difficulty in emergency services being able to access the site of the accident/fire at those very deep levels. Electrical systems usually fail or are switched off as a precaution during fires/accidents and therefore lifts and escalators will not be operating. Can you imagine what would happen to the elderly or infirm stuck on a train in a smoky dark tunnel trying to - firstly, locate the emergency exit and secondly - climb ten floors of stairs to get to safety? The Hearld-Sun would have a field day - I can see the headlines now:

Government was told that death-trap tunnel was too deep but built it anyway.

Because it can't be used for the small section around Latrobe/Swanston for reasons already discussed.

Having checked the Crossrail website and found that no tunnel platform is below 30m, I now understand as to why they will not go under the MURL. Lets hope that the tunnels are built to high standard.

Michael

I was not going to do this but it is interesting!

woodford would like to some comments..................

At a depth of 10 metres one would assume that the platforms for Melbourne Central would be just below street level, is there room in the existing station for this.

The amount of services running below the street surface is enormouse, there being many telephone cables, electrical cables, water, sewrage, drainage culverts to take all the surface water. Most of these will be VERY difficult to shift without closing down a good section of the city.
How are they going to shift all these without closing down Swanston street entirely.

The geology in the area is listed as poorly sorted gravels, sand and sandy silt (most of Swanston st north of the Yarra) and silt, silty clay, sandy clay, minor peat and shell beds south of Flinders st. All of these will slump fairly easily, ie the excavation will HAVE TO support the weight of buildings down both sides of Swanston st and the bridge over the river. Given this and the previous point they CANNOT JUST dig a trench down the street and put the tunnel in.

To go under the river even using a 1 in 30 grade the tunnel will have to start decending around Bourke st and remember the tunnel WILL have to support the bridge over the Yarra above it, by the time it gets to Flinders st the base of the tunnel will be around 30 metres below st level.

Putting the line at at such a shallow depth IS going to cost a fortune, this is unlikely to be the real cheap option it seems to be!!!!!

woodford

...The amount of services running below the street surface is enormouse, there being many telephone cables, electrical cables, water, sewrage, drainage culverts to take all the surface water. Most of these will be VERY difficult to shift without closing down a good section of the city.
How are they going to shift all these without closing down Swanston street entirely...

Actually, this is the easy part. Temporary alternative connections can be provided for individual city blocks or half blocks which is likely to be the arrangement in Melbourne. So while all of Swanston Street will be closed to tram traffic, only a small part will be closed to vehicular traffic and pedestrians at any given time. And final restitution of the services has the advantage of updating them all to current standards. Most of these were laid over 100 years ago. Of course, that assumes that people take the opportunity and don't just try and save a few dollars by doing it on the cheap.

At a depth of 10 metres one would assume that the platforms for Melbourne Central would be just below street level, is there room in the existing station for this?

CBD North station will be a separate station located adjacent to Melbourne Central, most likely further north along Swanston St. A subway for passengers to interchange between stations will be provided.

The amount of services running below the street surface is enormous, there being many telephone cables, electrical cables, water, sewerage, drainage culverts to take all the surface water. Most of these will be VERY difficult to shift without closing down a good section of the city.
How are they going to shift all these without closing down Swanston street entirely.

Most electricity distribution cables have an interconnecting tie to the grid at both ends, so supply can be maintained whilst the cable is turned off. Sewerage and water mains are a bit harder, but it will probably be possible to re-route any water and sewerage piping before the cut-and-cover operation begins. It's not an impossible task, just time-consuming prepatory work.

The geology in the area is listed as poorly sorted gravels, sand and sandy silt (most of Swanston St north of the Yarra) and silt, silty clay, sandy clay, minor peat and shell beds south of Flinders st. All of these will slump fairly easily, ie the excavation will HAVE TO support the weight of buildings down both sides of Swanston st and the bridge over the river. Given this and the previous point they CANNOT JUST dig a trench down the street and put the tunnel in.

What, so they'll have to put in retaining walls? Heavens above, no-one's ever done that in the history of construction!

To go under the river even using a 1 in 30 grade the tunnel will have to start descending around Bourke St and remember the tunnel WILL have to support the bridge over the Yarra above it, by the time it gets to Flinders st the base of the tunnel will be around 30 metres below street level.

The tunnel alignment I've seen (i.e the publicly available one) has a detour around Princes Bridge for the Yarra crossing. The tunnel will probably start descending just after the south end of CBD North's platform - around Lonsdale St, I'd guess.

Are they actually naming the stations CBD North and CBD South?
Wouldn't it be more logical if there linking with Melbourne Central (CBD North) and Flinders Street (CBD South) they take on there names?

Are they actually naming the stations CBD North and CBD South?
Wouldn't it be more logical if there linking with Melbourne Central (CBD North) and Flinders Street (CBD South) they take on there names?

The CBD North station.  Will that be known as the Parkville or Carlton station?

The CBD North station.  Will that be known as the Parkville or Carlton station?

No, CBD North is the station attached to Melbourne Central. I think the idea of not calling it Melbourne Central is that they can claim them as "new" stations, not extensions to existing ones. Parkville is a completely separate station located in Parkville.

As you can see in this video, CBD North is located directly under the street in the North, and it then descends slightly until the platforms at CBD South, then goes around Princes Bridge as it descends under the Yarra, though the video is not clear on exactly how that happens. Looking forward to seeing something in a bit more detail than these videos they keep putting out.

I was not going to do this but it is interesting!

woodford would like to some comments..................

At a depth of 10 metres one would assume that the platforms for Melbourne Central would be just below street level, is there room in the existing station for this.

The amount of services running below the street surface is enormouse, there being many telephone cables, electrical cables, water, sewrage, drainage culverts to take all the surface water. Most of these will be VERY difficult to shift without closing down a good section of the city.
How are they going to shift all these without closing down Swanston street entirely.

The geology in the area is listed as poorly sorted gravels, sand and sandy silt (most of Swanston st north of the Yarra) and silt, silty clay, sandy clay, minor peat and shell beds south of Flinders st. All of these will slump fairly easily, ie the excavation will HAVE TO support the weight of buildings down both sides of Swanston st and the bridge over the river. Given this and the previous point they CANNOT JUST dig a trench down the street and put the tunnel in.

To go under the river even using a 1 in 30 grade the tunnel will have to start decending around Bourke st and remember the tunnel WILL have to support the bridge over the Yarra above it, by the time it gets to Flinders st the base of the tunnel will be around 30 metres below st level.

Putting the line at at such a shallow depth IS going to cost a fortune, this is unlikely to be the real cheap option it seems to be!!!!!

woodford

The Metro tunnel route does not go under  Princes  Bridge at all it is shown as diverging towards the MCG as it approaches Flinders Street then under the  river at a shallow depth  over the top of the existing Domain & Burnley road tunnels then swings back to rejoin St Kilda Road at the Domain Interchange .

Any reason why there's no station at South Yarra?
The tunnel appears to run directly under South Yarra station http://www.dtpli.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/268548/Melbourne-Metro-Rail-Project-fact-sheet.pdf

At a depth of 10 metres one would assume that the platforms for Melbourne Central would be just below street level, is there room in the existing station for this.

Should be plenty of room between the top of the existing tunnels (Caulfield and Clifton Hill) and the ground for the Metro Rail tunnels at Swanston St.

To get some idea of the depth available, stand on the corner of Swanston and Latrobe Streets. Look down the hill towards Elizabeth St. Remember that the existing tunnels are level through Melbourne Central, and the tops are about 5 metres below the level of Elizabeth St.

Does no one remember the lengthy escalator from the original Swanston St entrance to Museum station down to the concourse? And, of course, the concourse was still above the tunnels.

Any reason why there's no station at South Yarra?
The tunnel appears to run directly under South Yarra station http://www.dtpli.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/268548/Melbourne-Metro-Rail-Project-fact-sheet.pdf

Any reason why there's no station at South Yarra?
The tunnel appears to run directly under South Yarra station http://www.dtpli.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/268548/Melbourne-Metro-Rail-Project-fact-sheet.pdf

If you're not familiar with the area have a look at Google maps:

The line comes from the West under Toorak Road - according to the maps - and will need to curve south east to join the alignment of the Caulfield lines. A straight forward alignment will need to pass under the buildings near the corner of Toorak and Osborne Rds, so will have to be reasonably deep. It would then have to surface in a ramp, probably somewhere near Williams St. Land is expensive in South Yarra (*), so land resumptions would need to be minimised.

Given this, where are you going to put the South Yarra platforms? East of Darling St, the alignment will be on a sharpish curve, under buildings, and then on the ramp. The only real option is under Toorak Rd west of Darling St. This means that it will be a reasonable distance - both horizontally and vertically - to transfer between the two stations. Presumably an underground passway would be provided. The other issue is that Toorak Road is rather narrow - about 20 metres between building lines. That's not a lot of room to fit two tracks, two side platforms of reasonable width, passenger access (escalators/stairs/lifts), services, and the side walls.

I'm sure a set of platforms could be provided at South Yarra, but I doubt it would be that cheap and it wouldn't really provide much facilities for transfer. I could understand why they aren't planning to provide a station.

(*) Note that Chapel St is the only location in Melbourne where it has been worthwhile for developers to build over rail lines without a supporting government project.

A quick check on Google maps shows the existing Caulfield Loop ramps at Richmond need about 230 metres before there is sufficient depth to pass under tracks.

Applying the same distance at South Yarra, ending roughly half way between Toorak and Williams Sts, suggests the ramp would need to start east of Chambers St, quite close to Chapel St.

It will be interesting to see how they fit a double track ramp into this section.

Any reason why there's no station at South Yarra?  

There is no real need for a station or platforms at South Yarra on the new metro line.

The existing Frankston services would stop at all the stations south and north, and anyone going to or coming from south of Caulfield would simply change there.

If they do it right, the Dandenong line services should run express from Caulfield to the Domain, except of course the Vline services, which will obviously not be going into the new metro tunnel, and would continue to head towards Richmond.

Having checked the Crossrail website and found that no tunnel platform is below 30m, I now understand as to why they will not go under the MURL. Lets hope that the tunnels are built to high standard.

My only concern is that they don't make the walk from Melbourne Central too far or force you walk through a maze of shops to get in there.

Regarding tunnel depths: I'm glad you saw the light on that one - unless you are building a nuclear bomb shelter or similar then it's just not desirable to be too far below the surface. Hopefully the intersection of Swanston and Latrobe (where most of the digging will have to be done) is an exception rather than the rule.

No, CBD North is the station attached to Melbourne Central. I think the idea of not calling it Melbourne Central is that they can claim them as "new" stations, not extensions to existing ones. Parkville is a completely separate station located in Parkville.

Melbourne Central, as is the case with Watergardens is named after a shopping centre.

Melbourne Central for those of us old enough to remember was formerly known as MUSEUM station, hence it's unlikely the new Melbourne North CBD station would be called Melbourne Central.

Mike.

it's unlikely the new Melbourne North CBD station would be called Melbourne Central.

I couldn't think of anything more illogical than having central and north co-located, or worse still, having north situated east of central.

A tourist might easily assume that the stopping pattern would be north-centre-south, and that platforms which are co-located might have the same name.

A simple solution might be to rename central as CBD north, but renaming Flinders street to CBD south might cause more anguish than the Spencer street renaming to a location which is out in the universe somewhere.

Looking at the route on the press release, it can be readily plotted.
Grade separated junction at South Ken either under or over (no flat junctions)
Follow Arden St including a station box in cut and cover
Wrecking St
Grattan St with a station probably at University Square
Then turn right on a 300m or greater curve to Swanston St, few issues there
Follow Swanston St, station box at the State Library garden
Dive from Bourke, station in City Square
Bored tunnel diving under the railway, river, Alex emerging to cut and cover level in the parklands
Parallel to StK in cut and cover with a challenging turn into Toorak Rd
My suggestion is to cut across Fawkner Park and run along Alexander St then under the railway to Arthur St
Then the southbound track needs to cross under and join the existing, the northbound track is simpler.

Bear in mind curves should be flatter than 300 if possible, platforms have to be straight and flatter than 1%, gradients cannot be steeper than 3%.
Yes, it can be done but it will not be easy or cheap.

My only concern is that they don't make the walk from Melbourne Central too far or force you walk through a maze of shops to get in there.

Regarding tunnel depths: I'm glad you saw the light on that one - unless you are building a nuclear bomb shelter or similar then it's just not desirable to be too far below the surface. Hopefully the intersection of Swanston and Latrobe (where most of the digging will have to be done) is an exception rather than the rule.

I doubt it, think it will be similar to the way Museum/MCE was in the past, before the shopping centre was redone.

CBD North is a terrible name and not very specific on what streets it's located on, CBD South could be Flinders Street or revive the Princes Bridge name. or South Swanston (see below)
Names for CBD North
Melbourne Central
Library
La Trobe or La Trobe Central
Swanston or North Swanston


Parkville is also not a very specific name since it will be in the far south corner of Parkville.

Anymore ideas?