Re: Metro capacity, from: Article: All change: new plan for faster city trains

[ozbob]

Doesn't Melbourne have plenty of capacity for additional services so long as you don't insist that they run around the city loop?  Rolling stock is the problem AIUI.

Rolling stock?  Yes, hence the Hitachis back into battle ..

Additional services?  Peak is at the limit essentially, complicated by the high number of V/Line running in West (hence RRL) and on the Dandenong line.  Metro is constantly having to drop loopers and change patterns on the fly if there is just a minor issue/delay.

[somebody]

Peak is at the limit essentially,

FWIW, PTUA seem to disagree: http://www.ptua.org.au/myths/infra.shtml

[ozbob]

Peak is at the limit essentially,

FWIW, PTUA seem to disagree: http://www.ptua.org.au/myths/infra.shtml

That is from 2010. Don't forget there has been more peak services added since then. There is not much more capacity at all at peak, you only have to observe it now.  They have made some more paths by altering loops and some shuttles. 

Rolling stock, at the last election the Liberals promised 40 new sets, only 7 have been funded ...   

What you see is what you have got ...

[somebody]

I can't understand why they run some peak hour Frankston line trains run around the city loop, particularly in the PM peak.

At Richmond, you don't have a cross platform interchange for the Caulfield group AIUI.

That is from 2010.

They reckoned there was room for 1/3 more services then.  I doubt they have increased services that much.

Obviously some pinch points would exist.

[ozbob]

There are more V/Liners as well.   There is a new platform at Southern Cross (platform 14) waiting for RRL.

[ozbob]

Another interesting thing is that there is the odd freighter on the Frankston line, and often runs at peak.  Probably easier at peak with express patterns ...

[BrizCommuter]

Peak is at the limit essentially,

FWIW, PTUA seem to disagree: http://www.ptua.org.au/myths/infra.shtml

There are some massive factual inaccuracies in that article. Notably 30 sec headways on Paris Metro, and 60 secs on London Underground. Should be 95 and 120 respectively.

Most of the City Loop tracks in Melbourne run close to 20tph in the am peak.

[somebody]

Thanks for your comments BC.

I don't think anyone was/is saying that you could/should significantly increase city loop trains.  Surely the point of the article was to increase Flinders St/Southern Cross direct running.

[ozbob]

You might find this interesting Simon. 

http://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/AboutCouncil/PlansandPublications/strategies/Documents/Submission_John_Smith.pdf

Nothing like a third is it?

Currently about 112 suburban trains enter central Melbourne in the morning peak hour: 33 from the west and 79 from the east.

Current capacity is about 128 per hour (32 from the west, 96 from the east). The western lines are likely to need a capacity increase soonest, as they serve growth areas.

Capacity will be about 136 per hour (40 from the west, 96 from the east) after V/Line trains through North Melbourne are moved to the new track pair planned in Regional Rail Link 1.

It is worth pointing out that theoretical capacities and practical capacities are not always aligned .. lol

Good old metro is having major reliability issues with the present trains as it is, maybe a push up to 120 per hour but I reckon that is it for now.

Some of the ideas John Smith is suggesting are quite neat actually.  My own view is the metro tunnel will never be built  (Melbourne's Cleveland Solution of sorts ) ...

[somebody]

That link doesn't have a file behind it.  Web Archive doesn't have it either.

Bummer.  32tph is an extremely odd number.  How do they get there - 16tph/track?

[ozbob]

Link works fine for me.  Try this shortened one --> http://bit.ly/LspQVz

[somebody]

Not sure what happened there with the link.

Anyway that link (not sure if it was written by an individual or what?) argues a similar case to PTUA - that there is plenty of capacity for additional rail services.  The quoted portion is the capacity ON THE OPERATING PATTERNS APPLYING AT THE TIME.

That Metro have adjusted the patterns speaks volumes to me.

Interesting comment by the PTUA about Victoria having more rail infrastructure than almost anywhere else in the world.  IMO, we don't want to be like them - I'd much rather have infrastructure used at an appropriate intensity - Vic is far too low, even with the growth in services which has occurred.

[#Metro]

The four types of rail/busway system:

High Concrete, High Frequency <--- Paris, Tokyo, London; These cities have massive density so can afford it
High Concrete, Low Frequency <--- Brisbane, Melbourne, Sydney;
Low Concrete, High Frequency <--- Toronto; Other Canadian Cities, Perth
Low Concrete, Low Frequency <---- Can't think of any examples of this, Perhaps Adelaide, Auckland.

[SurfRail]

The four types of rail/busway system:

High Concrete, High Frequency <--- Paris, Tokyo, London; These cities have massive density so can afford it
High Concrete, Low Frequency <--- Brisbane, Melbourne, Sydney;
Low Concrete, High Frequency <--- Toronto; Other Canadian Cities
Low Concrete, Low Frequency <---- Can't think of any examples of this, Perhaps Adelaide, Auckland.

I'd say Perth belongs in the Low C / High F.  Melbourne is somewhere in between, but heading there, same with the Gold Coast.

Bang on correct for Brisbane.

[ozbob]

There is capacity if further things are done.  They are close to the limit at the moment. Same deal in Brisbane, there is potential capacity increases but things need to be done to achieve that, same in Melbourne.

Metro has been a positive for Melbourne, particularly after a long period of flops and basic neglect ..  every time I go back to Melbourne I note there are incremental improvements.  V/Line is an added bonus.

One thing that will need to be addressed is the train numbers from the east, everything going on at the moment is not giving that side any real increases.  Caulfield to Dandenong is a looming basket case (some would suggest already is).  It is wrong to say that the east is not growth areas, it is booming eg. Cardinia Road ...

[#Metro]

I think this is a useful concept - Melbourne has 200+ stations, and Sydney has 300+ stations. Toronto only has 69 and carries the same volumes!

You're right about Perth. I will add it.

Brisbane - what's needed is frequency enabling changes. I'd support TUZification of the Ipswich/Richlands line next - game changer!

[somebody]

I'd say Melbourne is High C, medium F.

If it wasn't for privatisation, I'd say they would likely be Hi C/Low F.

There is capacity if further things are done.  They are close to the limit at the moment. Same deal in Brisbane, there is potential capacity increases but things need to be done to achieve that, same in Melbourne.

In Vic: Operational policy changes, buying more rolling stock, duplicating single track sections.

Removing conflicting moves would be nice but I don't think there are many.  Newport-Altona-Laverton has some.

One thing I wish they would do is remove the way the trains reverse direction around the city loop in the middle of the day.  Rather than connect Frankston and Werribee, how about Frankston&Caulfield, Werribee&Craigieburn/Upfield.  Do you see what I am trying to say?  Perhaps it would add conflicts.  Even if so, it should be achievable to remove Frankston line via loop.

[SurfRail]

I would have thought the logical arrangement would be (using off-peak headways)

Through lines:
Frankston (10min frequency) - Werribee/Altona and Werribee Express/Wyndham Vale (20min frequency each)
Sandringham - Williamstown (15min)

Northern Group
Craigieburn and Sydneyham (10 min each), Upfield (probably less frequent)
Always go via Flagstaff (clockwise)

Clifton Hill Group
South Morang and Greenborough (every 10 min each), less frequent shuttle to Eltham (20 min) Hurstbridge (40 min)
Always go via Flinders Street (clockwise)

Caulfield Group
Pakenham express and Westall all stations (10 min each), 10 min shuttle to Cranbourne
Always go via Flinders Street (clockwise)

Burnley Group
Glen Waverley and Blackburn all stations, Belgrave express (10 min each), 10 min shuttle to Lilydale
Always go via Parliament (anti-clockwise)

That enables you to get to either the loop or the through-route from North Melbourne and Richmond (although it does prevent you going direct from Jolimont to Flinders Street, or from Flagstaff to North Melbourne - neither of which I think is a huge problem.)

You can probably JUST get away with this in the off-peak, but peak-time would be stuffed for getting much more out of the CBD without Melbourne Metro , which gets the Caulfield Group and the Sydenham (and eventually Melton) line out of the loops.

[somebody]

Still less intuitive for pax.  Far better to be able to ALWAYS go the same way inbound and outbound.

[SurfRail]

Still less intuitive for pax.  Far better to be able to ALWAYS go the same way inbound and outbound.

Which is exactly what I just said (didn't I)?

[somebody]

Still less intuitive for pax.  Far better to be able to ALWAYS go the same way inbound and outbound.

Which is exactly what I just said (didn't I)?

Didn't you say always go "clockwise" or "anti-clockwise"?  What I meant is to always go either "Direct" or "via loop", both inbound and outbound, for each line.

[SurfRail]

Still less intuitive for pax.  Far better to be able to ALWAYS go the same way inbound and outbound.

Which is exactly what I just said (didn't I)?

Didn't you say always go "clockwise" or "anti-clockwise"?  What I meant is to always go either "Direct" or "via loop", both inbound and outbound, for each line.

OK - to clarify what I said:
Northern Loop - always via the Loop in and Southern Cross out (ie clockwise)
Clifton Hill Loop - always direct via Flinders St in and Parliament out (ie clockwise)
Caulfield Loop - always direct via Flinders St in and Parliament out (ie clockwise)
Burnley Loop - always via the Loop in and Flinders St out (ie anti-clockwise)

The main aim would be to remove as much terminating and reversing from the city as possible and consolidating that around the suburban termini where there is time and room.

[somebody]

The sort of pattern I am referring to, say from Frankston to Dandenong and back would mean that when heading to Frankston you are always going anti clockwise around the loop, but clockwise around the loop coming from Frankston.  Does that clarify it at all?

Is it achievable?

[ozbob]

Anything is achievable, well not in the smart state,  but check this out --> http://www.danielbowen.com/2011/03/03/should-city-loop-reverse/

[SurfRail]

The sort of pattern I am referring to, say from Frankston to Dandenong and back would mean that when heading to Frankston you are always going anti clockwise around the loop, but clockwise around the loop coming from Frankston.  Does that clarify it at all?

Is it achievable?

Yep, understood.

Basically it's not possible because there is only one track per loop (total of 4 tracks, one for each group). Every train from each group has to go the same way in and the opposite way out.  It's like the 555 up here.

(That only applies for trains going via the loop at some point.  If they are coming from Richmond, then you can split them up somewhat eg Glen Waverley could run direct to Flinders St and terminate and reverse there, while the other Burnley Group lines all go via the loop in the anti-clockwise direction.)

What you are suggesting would be sort of like a train going up the City Circle outer through Town Hall and then Museum, reversing at Central and then going back via the City Circle outer again through Museum without swapping to the inner.  You would not get very far without a big KEERRUNNCH.  The 4 groups don't share an up and down track.

I expect the swapovers in direction at given times (which I think used to be more pervasive) require you to clear the relevant loop of trains entirely, almost like flushing a toilet.

[somebody]

Perhaps it still isn't clear.

Current situation:
Frankston-Werribee
Werribee-Frankston
Dandenong-loop-Dandenong
Craigieburn-loop-Craigieburn

My proposal:
Frankston-loop-Dandenong
Dandenong-loop-Frankston
Craigieburn-loop-Werribee
Werribee-loop-Craigieburn

No loss in capacity, and Werribee & Frankston get access to the loop after serving FS/SX inbound (serve loop before FS/SX outbound).  Also no need to reverse operating patterns at Midday.

I was more worried about conflicting moves.

[SurfRail]

Perhaps it still isn't clear.

Current situation:
Frankston-Werribee
Werribee-Frankston
Dandenong-loop-Dandenong
Craigieburn-loop-Craigieburn

My proposal:
Frankston-loop-Dandenong
Dandenong-loop-Frankston
Craigieburn-loop-Werribee
Werribee-loop-Craigieburn

No loss in capacity, and Werribee & Frankston get access to the loop after serving FS/SX inbound (serve loop before FS/SX outbound).  Also no need to reverse operating patterns at Midday.

I was more worried about conflicting moves.

But you've taken up 2 loop tracks for each of the Northern and Caulfield groups (even assuming the junctions permit that).  Where do the Clifton Hill and Burnley trains go now that their loops are occupied?

[somebody]

Oh, I do believe you are correct.  Blast, I thought I had it there for a minute.

So we need to keep Werribee-Frankston.  Still, I think what I was proposal has some merit.

How about:
Sydenham->loop->FS/SXS->Craigieburn
Craigieburn->SXS/FS->loop->Sydenham

Mix and match this principle for other lines.

Which differs from your proposal in the sense that if your line goes inbound via the loop you go outbound via the loop.  Which makes complete sense to me.

[Gazza]

Sydenham->loop->FS/SXS->Craigieburn
Craigieburn->SXS/FS->loop->Sydenham

Doesn't that still require two city loop tunnels to be used?
Essentially you're proposing a situation where somebody can go to say Parliament, and catch a Sydnenham train one way, and then across the platform catch a Craigeburn train the other way.

But there are only 4 tunnels, so the only way to do that would be to mix traffic from different groups together.

Topgraphically, each tunnel is like a balloon loop, so they can only ever provide a one way service for each group at a given time.

[somebody]

Sydenham->loop->FS/SXS->Craigieburn
Craigieburn->SXS/FS->loop->Sydenham

Doesn't that still require two city loop tunnels to be used?
Essentially you're proposing a situation where somebody can go to say Parliament, and catch a Sydnenham train one way, and then across the platform catch a Craigeburn train the other way.

But there are only 4 tunnels, so the only way to do that would be to mix traffic from different groups together.

Topgraphically, each tunnel is like a balloon loop, so they can only ever provide a one way service for each group at a given time.

Yes it still requires 2 tunnels, but 2 tunnels are already required (ignoring the degree to which the tunnels are shared).

Not sure why you'd change at Parliament though!

[Gazza]

Yes it still requires 2 tunnels, but 2 tunnels are already required

How? Sydenham and Cragieburn share just one tunnel presently.

[somebody]

Yes it still requires 2 tunnels, but 2 tunnels are already required

How? Sydenham and Cragieburn share just one tunnel presently.

I'm not that familiar with Melbourne.  My bad.  Actually, looks like this proposal would only work for the North Melbourne and Clifton Hill lines if an un-sectorisation is introduced.  Hmm.  Perhaps SR's suggestion is the most reasonable for them.  Arguably.

But you could do it for the Caulfield and Burnley groups which do already have 2 tracks in the loop between them.

Caulfield->loop->SXS/FS->Burnley
Burnley->FS/SXS->loop->Caulfield

Would that work?

[SurfRail]

But you could do it for the Caulfield and Burnley groups which do already have 2 tracks in the loop between them.

Caulfield->loop->SXS/FS->Burnley
Burnley->FS/SXS->loop->Caulfield

Would that work?

The tunnel entrances are particularly located to support the current set up and I am not sure this is possible without serious works happening (which would be redundant if Melbourne Metro happens).

The issue is that you have just connected 2 bits of the system together that would probably be better left separated.  Apart from reliability issues, in this particular example the big issue is that the Burnley and Caulfield groups do not use interoperable rollingstock.

The Burnley and Clifton Hill groups were formerly Hillside trains (Connex).  The Caulfield and Northern Groups were formerly Bayside Trains (M>Train).  Both operators ordered different new rollingstock (Connex ordered the Xtraps, M>Train ordered the Siemens sets). 

As a result of the new trains orders, various pieces of safeworking equipment (particularly the DOO stuff like mirrors etc) were placed in different spots due to the driver's position in the different cabs. 

(Both operators also commissioned different upgrades to the Comeng fleet they received, although this last issue has now been corrected and all the Comengs can talk to each other again.)

Effectively, this is still maintained today - the new Xtraps are only seen on the Burnley and Clifton Hill lines.

[somebody]

Ok, tks.

I think the top priority for them is to remove the Frankston via loop trains from the PM peak.