Article: Chadstone station and tunnel on $2b shopping list

[Golliwog]

12 minute time saving by bus, sounds good.
Alamein line is taking a modest volume of passengers a short distance.
Higher frequency and higher speed will stimulate patronage as well.

What? How do you pull a 12 minute time saving out of that? You subtracted one frequency from the other. At best, you've dropped 12 minutes off the maximum wait time, you've done nothing about actual trip times. Unless you're still proposing turning it into a busway so the trip time would be roughly the same. But if the whole point of your argument is to 'save' money, spending anything on infrastructure defeats the purpose.

[#Metro]

What? How do you pull a 12 minute time saving out of that? You subtracted one frequency from the other. At best, you've dropped 12 minutes off the maximum wait time, you've done nothing about actual trip times. Unless you're still proposing turning it into a busway so the trip time would be roughly the same. But if the whole point of your argument is to 'save' money, spending anything on infrastructure defeats the purpose.

Er, waiting time reduction.
And why you think that waiting time isn't part of overall journey time? So a bus that comes once an hour and goes to the CBD in 20 minutes is just as attractive as a bus that comes every 2 minutes and takes an identical amount of time to reach the CBD?

The purpose of public transport (at least on class A ROW) is to move people and so fast and conveniently (and cheaply too), with 15 minute service the service on that line is quite good, but would be better if it had been bus IMHO.

You're only considering infrastructure costs, and valuing people's time at zero, which I don't agree with.

As Ozbob said, line has good frequency and there would be transaction costs plus people aren't that irritated that they would consider changing it.

[Golliwog]

No, I'm not saying the 15-3 isn't 12. That would be a ridiculous argument. I agree wait time is important, but realistically, people tend to some degree to aim for a particular time. Yes some do just miss a service and have to wait most of the gap between services, but trip time is probably most important once you're down at <15 minute headways.

If we're talking about a train every 15 minutes vs. a bus every 3, why do you talk about about the relative attractiveness of a bus every hour and a bus every 2 minutes, that's taking the argument to extremes, and is pointless as it's irrelevant to the topic at hand. As much as you like to not pay attention to it, I think something that people do take into account when sorting out transport, is the likelihood of getting a seat (or in peak, of at least getting on). Is/was there really that much of a difference between the catchment areas of the 385 vs. the FG line that could explain why before the change to 4tph, the FG train in the offpeak was usually at least half the seated capacity by Bowen Hills (of the whole train) while the 385 at double the frequency was only about the same? Why would the service that has half the wait time, not be packed to the gunwales? There's even lower waits once you start including other services like the 380 and 375.

What's more annoying, having to wait at most 15 minutes before getting on a service, or waiting a shorter period of time, but maybe not fitting on that service, and having to wait that shorter period of time again? That's what I think goes through many peoples minds when thinking about catching a bus.

[#Metro]

Yes some do just miss a service and have to wait most of the gap between services, but trip time is probably most important once you're down at <15 minute headways.

It's not. Waiting time is usually modelled to be more than in vehicle time.

If we're talking about a train every 15 minutes vs. a bus every 3, why do you talk about about the relative attractiveness of a bus every hour and a bus every 2 minutes, that's taking the argument to extremes, and is pointless as it's irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Yes, but you focus on that to avoid looking at the fact that waiting time does matter, a lot and therefore is relevant. With increased frequency, removal of double transfer/direct penetration into the suburbs, and reduced waiting time I think patronage could increase. There are examples of bus lines capable of transporting ~ 40 000 passengers per day on boring standard normal roads (10 million per year) without proper separation.

What's more annoying, having to wait at most 15 minutes before getting on a service, or waiting a shorter period of time, but maybe not fitting on that service, and having to wait that shorter period of time again? That's what I think goes through many peoples minds when thinking about catching a bus.

Your argument does have merit, for example in terms of the Melbourne Airport Scenario where more capacity IS needed and I TOTALLY agree with more capacity - probably LRT or rail (exactly how is another issue) but not with Alamein.

[#Metro]

There is ONE scenario where Alamein retention would make a whole heap of sense:

This is where Alamein trains are sent to the City Loop/Flinders street, stopping all stations.
Which would allow Belgrave/Lilydale trains to run express from Camberwell. That would benefit outer area people a lot and also make significant time savings to people who don't live on the Alamein line.

[somebody]

I second the query: what is the off peak patronage of the Alamein line.  Do many people really use a shuttle, which then runs at almost right angles to the main and radial line.

[Gazza]

My question is, why put any money into the Alamein line either way?

Yes, you could run a bus every 3 mins along a hypothetical buswway...But is the area crying out for the change?
Why not spend the concrete in an area that needs improvement? Alamein is fine.


Ps what mainline frequenxy does the Alamein buswway feed?

[Jonas Jade]

There is ONE scenario where Alamein retention would make a whole heap of sense:

This is where Alamein trains are sent to the City Loop/Flinders street, stopping all stations.
Which would allow Belgrave/Lilydale trains to run express from Camberwell. That would benefit outer area people a lot and also make significant time savings to people who don't live on the Alamein line.

Which is what happens in peak at the moment 

Don't forget that this particular section of line Richmond-Camberwell also experiences large counter peak demand to Glenferrie and Camberwell.

If you trash Alamein you'll need more short starters anyway to cover all stations.

Also even if you converted it to busway, there's no way you'd be getting the demand for a bus every 3 minutes. There's moderate demand on that line from a couple of stations, such as Burwood, but others like Alamein itself and Willison are on the lower end of overall patronage.

You'd probably end up with 5-10 minutes in peak (if based on demand) and then still only 15 minutes off peak.

[ozbob]

Thanks Jonas, I was getting around to mentioning that.  Alamein is a handy line.  Was re-extended from Ashburton after the second WW for new housing commission estates around Alamein.  The streets and that have commemorative names too.

Alamein may yet get connected back up again as loop line. 

[colinw]

Ripping it out and rebuilding it as something for ideological reasons would be utterly irresponsible when the line is working fine as is and the money would be better spent fixing other gaping holes in Melbourne's PT.  IMHO the whole premise of the Alamein line part of this thread is errant nonsense bordering on trolling. If that is the best we can do on this forum than I give up. 

Alamein is actually a positive example of a minor branch line, far better than the otherwise comparable lines in other cities (Doomben, Carlingford, Tonsley).  Decent service frequency, although dwindling somewhat in the evening. Runs as a shuttle much of the time but connects well. Provides single seat journey to city in peak, including servicing main line stations on the way in. Changing its mode just because "it shouldn't be a train, waaah" is one of the dumbest things I've read on here in a long time.

[SurfRail]

^ +1. 

A 6 car Hitachi set to you, sir.

[somebody]

I agree too.  I ignored the talk of Alamein busway.

[colinw]

^ +1. 

A 6 car Hitachi set to you, sir.

Waah, I wanted a Tait!     

I just love the 5'3" in Melbourne, and wish I was young enough to have experienced the Victorian Railways that was ...

[SurfRail]

Split you the difference, you can have a Harris.

[colinw]

Sweet!  Here's a photo I found of one near Ashburton on the Alamein line.

[ozbob]

 

[Gazza]

Agree with the foaming remarks.
Why is it assumed there is a direct relationship between vehicle size and frequency being provided?

E.g. many small buses running more frequently than a big train.

If that were the case then it's like saying rip up the rail line and replace it with PRT.
Little 4 person pods = 30 second frequency or something.

LOL.

[somebody]

Looking at the capacities,
Frankston and Dandenong both run at about 15tph peak (I think that excludes V/Line though)
via Camberwell runs at 22tph peak
Glen Waverley runs at 8tph

Assuming constant growth, there doesn't seem a huge advantage to sending Dandenong trains via the inner part of the Glen Waverley Line when that capacity is equally needed for other Burnley group lines via Camberwell.

Am I missing something?

[ozbob]

So what you have roughly is 30 sub trains on the quad from Caulfield, 30 trains sub on the quad from Burnley.  The only difference being the V/Liners, and there are a few +4 inbound over the morning peak. 

They can probably get a few more in on the quad from Caulfield in the peak and Burnley.  What they are doing is putting some triple sections out past Oakleigh eg. Westall 2.6km of third track between Springvale Road and Centre Road.  I assume that is to allow some counter peak and express passing before back on the double line and the constraints  with that.

Yes no real advantage going on to the Glen Waverley line ex Dandy.

I am sure you are aware but some readers may not,  the Dandenong lines in from Caulfield the trains all run express through to South Yarra (some may stop at Malvern).  The Frankston pair of lines are the all stoppers.  This allows them to push through a lot of trains.

Also you can swap over to the Frankston lines from the Dandenong lines on entry to Caulfield.  I have been on a few V/Liners that have done that, but was counter/off peak.

[somebody]

Looks to me like the "Melbourne Metro" proposal needs to run to Oakleigh.

[ozbob]

Looks to me like the "Melbourne Metro" proposal needs to run to Oakleigh.

Touche!

That is why I have been suggesting tunnel to the other side of Oakleigh.  They can run a few all stoppers up top and run the express stuff underneath.  Cuts down on a lot of the level crossing grief up top as well.  Would be expensive, but when you look at the grade separation costs, the track amplification etc. otherwise it might not be as expensive as first seems.

[SurfRail]

I thought there was plenty of room on the GW line.  Burnley Group trains have got 4 tracks to the city from Burnley haven't they?  2 for the loop and 2 to Flinders St only?  My understanding was that in the long term the outer services from Belgrave and Lilydale would run limited stops from Blackburn and use the loop, while GW and Blackburn starters would use Flinders St only (presumably the same for any peak City-Alamein trips), with 4 tracks all the way to at least Box Hill.

[somebody]

I thought there was plenty of room on the GW line.  Burnley Group trains have got 4 tracks to the city from Burnley haven't they?  2 for the loop and 2 to Flinders St only?  My understanding was that in the long term the outer services from Belgrave and Lilydale would run limited stops from Blackburn and use the loop, while GW and Blackburn starters would use Flinders St only (presumably the same for any peak City-Alamein trips), with 4 tracks all the way to at least Box Hill.

But you have to figure that there will be growth on the via Camberwell lines.  Using up that capacity for via Oakleigh doesn't leave room to cater for that growth.

[ozbob]

Plenty of room on the GW line itself.  If there was the connection, as proposed to East Malvern Chadstone Oakleigh would be neat, but it needs to be done in concert with putting the rest of the line underground  from East Malvern - Kooyong, particularly to avoid the tram crosses at Glenferrie Road and Bourke Road - if train frequency is to be seriously ramped up.  Express running will have to mixed with all stoppers though, so that is going to further restrict.  There is going to more growth Belgrave/Liydale lines so as an option for trains from the Dandy line limited, although having rail to Chadstone would be excellent.  I guess the extension from East Malvern to Oakleigh could be done without tunnelling the GW line itself and just run all stoppers.

[somebody]

Plenty of room on the GW line itself.

How long could it handle the growth on GW + via Camberwell + via Dandenong?  @3%p.a, in 10 years time, that growth would represent another 15.47 trains needed at current crowding levels.  10 years is not that long a time for a project such as would be necessary to handle that growth.

[ozbob]

I agree, just saying the GW line itself, once you get to Burnley you then have issues.  Not going to fly, this is probably why the PTUA and others favour the Alamein line extension to Chadstone.  Just a matter of running the Alamein trains a little further ... no real future capacity issues, and would make the Alamein line really work hard.  Simply run 6 cars where they are running 3 at present for the Chaddy crowd.