Extending the Epping line to South Morang/Mernda and Aurora

Let’s face it - last week’s state budget was bad for public transport. Very little money was spent, and worryingly, some of the money spent was wasted. I’m talking about the $10 million that’s been earmarked for ‘design and development works’ for the South Morang rail extension. This is an absurd amount of money to be spending on design when the DoI secretly costed the whole project at $18 million in 2003. Of course, the government lied about the whole thing and claimed the outrageous price tag of $348 million. Similarly, the Aurora line was costed by DoI at $76 million, but the government claimed a $300 million price tag to wriggle their way out of building it. Below is the Melbourne 2030 plan for rail expansions to Epping North (Aurora) and South Morang - Mernda.

So, in this post, I’m going to have a look at the options for getting rail to South Morang (and beyond) as well as Aurora, how much they would cost, and what to do with the Epping line to give these new extensions a fast and frequent service. I should point out that I think it’s terrible planning policy to allow sprawl along these corridors, but if the government is insistent on allowing it to occur (quite a lot has already been built), then rail projects in the area should be considered.

Basic extension costs

Admittedly, the $18m and $76m construction costs for South Morang will only buy basic extensions, and are unlikely to include Keon Park to Epping duplication. Using the per km construction cost of $13.7m from the Mandurah line, we find that the 3.25 South Morang extension (to Civic Drive) would cost $44.5m, and that the 5.9 Aurora extension would cost $80.8m. The Mandurah line costs are - if anything - rather too high (that project included some inner city tunnelling, underground stations, freeway widening etc which is not a factor here), but it is fair to say that the DoI costs were somewhat too low for South Morang and about right for Aurora. They are nothing like the $300m + figures the government made up.

A need for extra works?

Defenders of the state government claim that the true costs are much higher because Keon Park - Epping needs duplicating and a host of other non reasons. If you want proof, have a look here - I love ZH836301’s It’s metal on slices of concrete FFS comment. But let’s look at this logically, if we are extending services further, why should more trains necessarily be running on the existing line? (assuming that Aurora is run as a shuttle) The reality is that the single track wouldn’t be much more of a problem for South Morang services than it is for present day Epping services. Beyond that, the single track isn’t even at capacity in peak hour - have a look at the diagram below - taken from a 2004 DoI report.

Now I’m not saying we shouldn’t duplicate Keon Park - Epping (I think we should), it’s just that it isn’t really an impediment to getting rail to South Morang and Aurora. It’s only 5km of single track anyway
- even if you tore the whole lot up and completely rebuilt it to Mandurah standards, it would still only cost $68.6m! My gold plated estimate is still only 32.5% of what the government claimed it would cost!

There’s probably already the need to build rail all the way to Mernda - another 8.2km from the South Morang terminus at Civic Drive. Again, using Mandurah costs it would be in the order of $112.3m. Total cost for high standard double track rail to Aurora and Mernda, as well as complete reconstruction of Keon Park - Epping would be 44.5+80.8+112.3+68.6 = $306.2m. We should remember that this is an extreme upper bound estimate and it still comes in below the government’s made up number. Coincidently, this cost forecast is exactly the same as for the Craigieburn bypass.

Service standard

I posted on a service standard for the Clifton Hill group a while back, advocating 6tph to Epping, with every second train running express Clifton Hill - Jolimont. 6tph is probably fine but if the line is to go all the way to Aurora and Mernda, it’s clear that every second train expressing 4 stations on tracks limited to 55kph won’t really cut it. Trains going this far out really need to run express beyond Clifton Hill as well. Either a two tier service is required, or some stations could be closed.

I would generally recommend against even considering inner city stations for closure in Melbourne, even when there is a tram line nearby. I’m generally in favour of keeping both heavy rail and street trams on the same corridor because they are sufficiently differentiated to not be very good substitutes for one another. But the Epping line is different, it has not one, but two tram lines running basically right next to it as far as Thornbury. Furthermore, one of them (the 112) is ripe for upgrading to high standard light rail. So for this section, we have a somewhat closer substitute for heavy rail as well as a traditional street tram.

On top of this, when we look at the AM peak patronage data for the line, it’s clear that there’s not really much patronage between Rushall and Preston at all anyway. This is probably because of such strong competition from the high frequency 86 and 112 trams. Upgrading the service standard for the Epping line would go some way to fixing this, but whatever happens there’s still going to be two tram lines competing with the rail.

Given these factors, there’s probably a case for removing Merri, Northcote and Croxton stations and upgrading the St. Georges Rd. track to do their job. To make this work, there would need to be a proper train/tram interchange at Thornbury. The 86 and 112 would use the Preston Workshops track to cross over each other - that is the northern section of the 112 would connect with the 86 and the northern section of the 86 would connect with the 112. Thornbury station would be rebuilt directly below the tram line to provide fast connections to heavy rail services. A new station like this shouldn’t really cost more than $15-20 million. The light rail line would need to run every six minutes or better in order to get average wait time down to an acceptable three minutes.

St. Georges Rd. would need to become proper light rail - that means real traffic light priority, fewer stops built to a higher standard (under cover island platforms), a decent track speed and larger light rail vehicles (like the C2 class). This concept could be taken further by building about 700 metres of tram track (for the cost of around $7.6 million) along the old inner circle rail alignment between Nicholson St. and St. Georges Rd. As at Thornbury, the lines could be swapped, with the northern section of the 96 going down St. Georges Rd. and Brunswick St. and the 86/St.Georges Rd. tram using the Nicholson St. reserve track. As above, the reserve track would need to be properly upgraded. This would better segregate street trams from potential high quality light rail, as well as better integrating inner-northern tram services with one another. The full map of what I’m considering is shown below.

I’m not completely comfortable with closing three heavy rail stations in Northcote, but even if this didn’t go ahead, the tram reforms I’m proposing are absolutely worthwhile. The cost would be low (700 metres of new track plus building/rebuilding five junctions and proper traffic light priority) and upgrades like platform stops and new trams are going to happen anyway - it’s just a matter of targeting them to the right places.

UPDATE - Below is an 800m pedshed for St. Georges Rd. as discussed. It takes in everything between Clifton Hill and Preston.

Express running - hero or villain? Part 2

In part one, I concluded that the growth in express running has outpaced the growth in trip length, and that this was done more or less to make rail more more competitive with the private car.

Has it been the best way make rail competitive though? The DoI thinks so, and contend that “express trains are a highly valued part of the metropolitan train timetable”.

The problem is that express trains are very path hungry when they have to share the same tracks as trains which stop all stations. So unless there’s more than two tracks, line capacity - and consequently frequency - is lowered. This isn’t just a problem for stations which are expressed, it reduces capacity for the whole line.

Of the 430 km of rail lines in Melbourne, 335 km are double track, 65 km are single track, and only 30 km are triple track or better. This means that on 78% of the network, there is a significant trade off between frequency and express running, and that 15% of the network (the single track bit) can’t handle either frequent or express services.

The DoI knows this, but claims that while “Reducing the number of express trains would help to increase capacity, but would significantly increase travel times from the outer suburbs and may dissuade commuters from using the train at all.” Really? In Melbourne, the rule of thumb is that every station expressed will save 1 minute compared to if the train called at the station. But you need to run sweeper services in between the expresses to serve the stations which are expressed. So, on the 78% of Melbourne’s network that is double track, every station expressed brings you 1 minute closer to the stopper in front, reducing the headway. Of course, stopping all stations trains can come in behind the expresses at whatever the signal headway is.

The upshot of this is that express running will increase average wait time on double track rail. Given that total travel time = time on train + wait time + walk to and from stations, the benefits of express running are mitigated. For more information on this, have a look at Riccardo’s training track page on true end to end journey time. Furthermore, we need to remember that lower frequency means lower capacity, meaning that the line can transport fewer passengers.

I’m not saying express running is bad per se, but rather that we need to be aware of the costs and benefits. Often, express services are a good idea, but generally on long, busy lines with the infrastructure (preferably 4 tracks) to support frequent services. I should note that where some express running is fixed into the timetable (like V/Line trains in Melbourne) then metropolitan expresses may be easier.

Consequences for Melbourne

There is a case for express running on parts of the Melbourne rail system. If expresses are needed anywhere, it’s on the Belgrave/Lilydale, Frankston and Cranbourne/Pakenham lines - lines which are closer to commuter than metro on their outer stretches. These lines do have a quite a bit of amplification to make it easier - Belgrave/Lilydale has three tracks to Box Hill, Frankston has three tracks to Moorabbin, and Cranbourne/Pakenham has a third track planned to Dandenong (who knows whether that will happen though).

Triplication adds some capacity, and worked ok for the sort of commuter service standard that was envisaged during construction in the 60s, 70s and 80s - but that sort of service standard is poor and ultimately unsuitable for Melbourne today. Most lines need 6-10 trains per hour all day every day. If express services are to be used, they should run at the same fixed pattern, all day every day - giving these lines a two tier service. The focus should be on shorter, more frequent expresses that can be delivered reliably within the parameters of the service standard.

What does this mean in terms of running patterns? For Belgrave/Lilydale, stoppers should run from Box Hill to Flinders St, and expresses stop only Box Hill - Camberwell - Glenferrie - Burnley - Richmond - Loop. For Frankston, stoppers should run from Moorabbin or Cheltenham to Flinders St, and expresses stop only Moorabbin/Cheltenham - Caulfield - South Yarra - Richmond - Loop. For Cranbourne/Pakenham, stoppers should run from Oakleigh to Flinders St, and expresses stop only Caulfield - South Yarra - Richmond - Loop. Additional infrastructure would be required, and ultimately 4 tracks to the intermediate termini is desirable. Here’s what it might look like to commuters:

Hurstbridge and Werribee currently see express running. For more detailed information on my plans for these lines, see here and here. For lines with V/Line trains, there needs to be a concerted effort at segregation, for a more detailed look at what I’d recommend in the western suburbs, have a look at this post.

Issues with Epping-Chatswood in my recent rail construction costs post

You may recall that in my recent post on Calculating rail line construction costs in light of the Eddington report, I compared the projected Eddington costs to empirical data (namely Mandurah and Epping-Chatswood). Well, Greg posted today that these costs have in fact blown out quite substantially. Total cost for the project is now much higher than the figures that I used.

So I had a more detailed look at how much the Epping-Chatswood line is costing, and the results are somewhat more murky. According to the NSW Audit Office, the total cost was originally forecast to be $1.6 billion (in 2000 prices), but these did not include $447 million interest on borrowings. The total final forecast cost of the project was revised upward by another $241 million in July 2006. Total project cost is now in the order of $2.3 billion.

But that doesn’t really answer the question, the $447 million of interest has nothing to do with how much it actually costs to build something if you’re not borrowing money, so we can disregard this. Total cost in current dollars is then $1.97 billion (indexed from 2000 prices to 2007 prices) + $247 million (indexed from 2006 prices to 2007 prices) is about $2.22 billion.

But the issue still isn’t resolved - the cost I estimated was based on information from Thiess - the project’s principal contractor. They were building their part of the project for $860 million (indexed by me to $984 million). My mistake was to assume this was the total project cost - it isn’t. According to the Transport Infrastructure Development Corporation, The Thiess Hochtief Joint Venture (THJV) is responsible for tunnelling, station excavation, and rail systems works; RailCorp is responsible for all rail works associated with the connection of the new line to the CityRail network; and A W Edwards is responsible for the fit-out of the new stations, construction of the station entrances and the urban domain works. I note on Thiess’ webiste, their cost has increased to $980 million - which is nearly exactly the same as my indexation of $984 million (or $78.72 million per km).

The upshot of this is that the per km cost that I worked out was basically accurate - but only if you want to cost tunnel with rail and station shells, but no station fit-out or station construction at the line termini. The problem is that this figure - whilst really good for costing new rail projects - is basically useless for comparison to Eddington because Eddington costs are all inclusive. The all inclusive Epping-Chatswood cost is $177.6 million per km. This is still only 51% of the Eddington cost.

Anyway, I hope that clears a few things up and makes my costs as accurate as possible - thanks for the tip Greg! The revised per km costs are set out in the table below.

Project/Study	Underground rail cost	Surface rail cost
NCCCS	41.14*	4.12*
Eddington	347	42.3#
Mandurah	—	13.7
Epping-Chatswood (Thiess)	78.72^	—
Epping-Chatswood (total)	177.6	—

* does not include stations
# includes land acquisition
^ includes only tunnel, rail and station shell cost

Express running - hero or villain? Part 1

I was browsing through some Eddington stuff a while back and found some interesting information in Chapter 3 - Public Transport on a Roll. These sort of reports often contain great data on the rail system, and Eddington has been no exception. In chapter 3, there’s good information on the growth in average trip length and increases in express running. I’d been thinking about to what extent expresses are a good or bad idea in Melbourne, and this information gave me enough to get at least some good insights into the pitfalls and possibilities of express running.

Trends in express running - 1940 to today

The most important information from the report on this is shown below. It can be found on pages 74 and 75.

So what to these statistics tell us? Basically they indicate that between 1940 and today, average trip length has increased from 11km to 18km (around 64%), but that peak express running has in many cases increased even more substantially - 814% between Burnley and Camberwell, 106% between South Yarra and Caulfield, 72% between Caulfield and Cheltenham. Footscray-Newport, Clifton Hill-Heidelberg and Caulfield-Clayton had no express trains in 1940, but have many now.

Granted, this comparison is very very dodgy for a couple of reasons. Firstly, I’m comparing an overall increase in trip length across the network to evening peak express increases on just a few lines, overstating the increases in express running vis a vis trip length. The lines with the biggest increases in express running are the ones which are likely to have increases in trip length substantially higher than the metropolitan average.

Secondly, some of the express numbers in the second diagram are misleading. For instance, the 57% of trains that run express Newport to Footscray are Werribee services - but in 1940 the Werribee line wasn’t a suburban service at all, and wasn’t electrified until 1984! There’s also no mention of changes in the level of express running in key sections like Jolimont-Clifton Hill and Camberwell-Box Hill.

Even with these (substantial) problems, still basically reasonable to accept this stylised fact that express running has increased at a faster rate than trip length. The DoI claims that “Express trains were introduced partly as a response to competition from the rise in car ownership.” This is probably a reasonable explanation of why express running was expanded over and above trip length increases.

In part 2, I’m going to consider whether or not this has been a good thing for rail in Melbourne.

site upgrade

I’m currently upgrading my blog with a new theme and some extra features - I hope you like them! As a result of this, some of the images may not display properly. I’m going to have to progressively work through this problem this afternoon and it should all be back in order this evening. Hopefully I’ll start adding some new features today as well.

Cheers,

Phin

Getting rail to Chadstone and Monash University

It’s a great failure of urban planning that two of the biggest trip generators in the south eastern suburbs were built away from the rail system, especially given how much rail is in the area. Chadstone sits halfway between the Glen Waverley and Cranbourne/Pakenham lines, slightly too far away for either of the lines to be of use. Monash is just that bit too far for the Cranbourne/Pakenhem lines to be useful.

But even if these trip generators were situated on existing rail corridors, the rail catchments would be limited because of the radial nature of the rail networkand the absence . Even Chadstone and Monash were built along the Cranbourne/Pakenham line, passengers living along the Glen Waverley, Belgrave/Lilydale and Alamein lines would still be unable to use rail as an effective substitute for car use, because they would have to travel all the way to Richmond and back out again to get there.

Clearly, a cross town rail link would be required to better integrate these lines with one other. Given that Chadstone and Monash aren’t even on the rail network anyway, such a line could be built to travel to them as well.

The good news is that most of such a line already exists as the Alamein line. Alamein is presently badly underused – extending it could create a viable cross town link and make existing infrastructure earn its keep.

New line

The line would head south from the Alamein line terminus for 1.4km, along the old outer circle alignment to East Malvern station, where an interchange with the Glen Waverley line would be built. The no. 3 tram would be extended 1.1km to meet the new rail interchange.

The line would dive underground at the East Malvern station car park and head south east to Chadtsone shopping centre, where an underground station would be built. The line would then head south and surface at Paddington Rd., Hughesdale. Total length for the underground section would be 2.6km.

From here, an extra pair of tracks would be built beside the Cranbourne/Pakenham lines to Huntingdale, where the line would branch off and follow North Rd. to Monash University. Extra platforms would be required at Oakleigh and Huntingdale stations, and a new station would be built at Monash University. Total length for this section would be 5km.

Cost using the NCCCS

6.4km surface rail @ $4.12m/km = $26.37m
2.6km underground rail @ $47.14m/km = $122.56m
Chadstone station = $58.93m
East Malvern, Oakleigh and Huntingdale station extra platforms @ $10m each = $30m***
Monash University station = $15m***
Monash fwy/Gardiners creek, Huntingdale Rd. and Princes Highway bridge works @ $15m each = $45m***
Substations x 2 @ $0.59m each = $1.18m

= $299.04 million

(*** costs not included in NCCCS - estimated by me)

Cost using empirical data from the Mandurah and Epping-Chatswood lines

6.4km surface rail @ $13.7m/km = $87.68m
2.6km underground rail @ $78.72m/km = $204.67m

= $292.35 million

Interestingly the NCCCS and empirical methods work out about the same because the per km costs that I calculated for Mandurah and Epping-Chatswood were inclusive of stations, bridges etc. whereas the NCCCS figures were not.

Existing line upgrades

Tacking this onto the end of the existing Alamein line wouldn’t work - the line needs upgrading to work efficiently. The 0.8 km of single track from Ashburton to Alamein needs duplicating and Riversdale and Prospect Hill roads need grade separating. Although you could probably get away with keeping the level crossing at Prospect Hill rd, it would be reletively cheap to do if Riversdale rd is being done at the same time (and RIversdale rd really needs doing on account of the tram square alone).

Current station placement is poor - basically none of the existing stations are usable in their current form. The rebuilt line would have stations at Riversdale rd, Toorak rd and High st - a net loss of three stations from the current arrangement.

At Camberwell the decision has to be made whether to run the line as a shuttle or continue it all the way to Flinders St. If the line were to run as a shuttle, a dock platform would be needed at Camberwell (requiring changes to the flyover), and if it were to continue, four tracks would really be needed from Camberwell to Burnley. I’ve got no problem with running the service as a shuttle, but to work properly the Belgrave/Lilydale line needs to be ultra frequent - not just for the expresses, but for the stoppers as well. This may warrant quadruplication to Camberwell or Box Hill anyway. I’d be interested in your thoughts on how to proceed here.

Cost of Alamein line upgrade

0.8km duplication @ $4.12m/km = $3.3m
New stations x 3 @ $10m each = $30m
Riversdale rd grade separation = $15m
Prospect Hill rd grade separation = $8m
Camberwell station works = $10m

= $66.3 million

Cost of Burnley - Camberwell quadruplication

4.7km @ $13.7m/km*** = $64.39 million

(Mandurah line cost used to approximate extra track cost - bridge spans, extra platforms and some earthworks would be required)

Service standard

Trains should run every 6 minutes (10tph) all day every day, giving passengers an average wait time of 3 minutes. Demand variations should be dealt with by running 3 or 6 car sets - not by running less frequent services off peak. Supplier induced demand and low marginal cost makes this a false economy. Because of the nature of the trip generators on the line (a shopping centre and university), there’s unlikely to be a traditional AM-PM peak demand function.

The trains don’t need to be especially comfortable because the average trip length will be reletively short. It’s exactly the sort of line that could see the Comeng trains live out their days over the next 20 years. Interior layout should be similar to now, but with more longitudinal seating around the doors.

Here’s what the line could look like to passengers if it ran as a shuttle from Camberwell.

For more information on why this sort of service standard is so important, I suggest reading Riccardo’s excellent new Training Track series; available here, here, here, here and here.

Costs and Benefits

The total fixed infrastructure cost of the project from Monash to Camberwell would be 292.35 + 66.3 = $358.65 million or 299.04 + 66.3 = $365.34 million, depending on which costing method were used. To upgrade Burnley - Camberwell to enable the line to reliably run to the city, an extra $64.39 million would be required on top of this.

The benefits would be considerable - public transport would be a serious option for the first time for trips to Monash University and Chadstone. Public transport could compete with the car for these trips not just on the Dandenong corridor, but throughout almost all of the middle ring eastern and south eastern suburbs, as well as out to Ringwood. On top of this, the Belgrave/Lilydale, Glen Waverley, Alamein and Cranbourne/Pakenham lines would be properly integrated with one another, making rail useful for a large variety of cross town trips between the various lines. Furthermore, the capital already invested in the Alamein line would be actually generating a return in the form of a service people actually want to use. These works would make it reletively easy to extend the line to Rowville. This project really should be a top rail priority, virtually on par with Doncaster.

Calculating rail line construction costs in light of the Eddington Report

I wanted to have a look at prospects for rail to Chadstone and Monash Uni in this post, but Eddington has inconvenienced me somewhat. He came up with some outrageous cost estimates for rail construction - far higher than the Northern Central City Corridor Study figures I’ve been using for costing projects like a north-south tunnel and airport line.

Clearly, I can’t go on using the NCCCS figures over the Eddington ones just because I like the fact they are lower - ultimately they are both theoretical studies and it would be poor form to rank one above the other without good reason. So I’m going to take a more empirical approach, and look at the costs of two new Australian rail projects - the Mandurah rail line in Perth and the Epping-Chatswood line in Sydney. Mandurah opened a few months ago and Epping-Chatswood should open in a few months, so the cost structures facing these projects should be broadly similar to those in Melbourne. This should give a more accurate picture of what new rail projects will cost.
The NCCCS Estimates

The NCCCS, released in 2002, costs double track surface rail at$1.9m/km, overhead at $0.8m/km and signalling at $0.8m/km. That’s basically $3.5 million per kilometre of railway in 2001 dollars. Indexed to 2007 dollars, the cost is $4.12 million per kilometre for above ground double track rail, assuming no property acquisition. Stations are not included.

For deep level underground rail, the underground railway at $40 million/km and underground stations at $50 million. In 2006 dollars (the most recent full year figures the RBA has on their calculator), that’s $47.14 million for the rail and $58.93 million for the stations.

Note these figures are slightly higher than those used in my posts on a north-south tunnel and airport line. This is because they were costed in 2006 dollars (2007 dollars not available at the time), whereas the figures above are in 2007 dollars. The difference is small though.

The Eddington Estimates

Getting the actual costings in the Eddington report is actually fairly difficult. This is partly because the report is so long, but it also takes the approach of making it as difficult as possible to find detailed explanations of the costs. Getting marginal costs per km seems to be impossible, and there is a failure to even separate station and track costs. Furthermore, the costs provided are vague - the headline figure for the public transport option is between $7.5 and 8.5 billion, without really explaining why.

The best information I could get was in Appendix C of the Engineering Design and Costing Report (watch out it’s a big file). It gives us slightly lower costs - $5.9 billion for a 17km rail tunnel, $1.1 billion for a 26kmTarneit rail line and $200 million for DART; yielding a total of $7.2 billion, all in January 2008 dollars. Strangely, other parts of the report cost the tunnel at $7 billion and DART at $250-300 million - there’s no consistency.

The lowest cost figures give a per km cost of around $347 million for rail tunnel (presumably with stations included) and $42.3 million for above ground rail. The above ground rail figure is basically useless for estimating rail construction costs though, because the Tarneit line requires substantial land acquisition. Interestingly, if we assumed that the land acquisition costs were massive (and let’s remember that this line goes through farmland) and took up half of the total cost, the rail construction cost would still be 5 times what the NCCCS estimated for surface rail.

Mandurah rail cost

The recently completed Mandurah line in Perth is 70km long, and cost $960 million in 2006/07 dollars. The whole New Metro Rail project cost over $1.4 billion, but included numerous other works and the purchase of a fleet of trains. The Mandurah line has 11 stations, two of which are underground, which are included in the $960 million cost. Per km, Mandurah cost $13.7 million, including 11 stations and an underground section.

Epping-Chatswood rail cost

The soon to open Epping-Chatswood line in Sydney runs underground for 12.5 km. It cost $860 million to build. Given $860 million figure was not given a year, I’ll assume that it’s in 2002 dollars (the year the project started), giving us a cost of $984 million in 2007 dollars. The per km cost is $78.72 million. However, the Thiess portion of the project only covered tunnelling, rail and station shells. Total project cost was higher - $2.22 billion in 2007 dollars. This gives at total per km cost of $177.6 million. To find out how I calculated these figures, click here.

Conclusion

The table below sums up the $m per km construction costs as measured by the NCCCS, Eddington, Mandurah and Epping-Chatswood, measured in more or less current dollars.

Project/Study	Underground rail cost	Surface rail cost
NCCCS	41.14*	4.12*
Eddington	347	42.3#
Mandurah	—	13.7
Epping-Chatswood (Thiess)	78.72^	—
Epping-Chatswood (total)	177.6	—

* does not include stations
# includes land acquisition
^ includes only tunnel, rail and station shell cost

The upshot is that empirical evidence suggests that the NCCCS estimates are slightly too low (not that low - we should remember that these estimates are the only ones which allowed us to completely remove stations from the equation), and that the Eddington estimates are way way way way too high when compared with actual rail projects happening in Australia. From now on, I’ll rely more on the empirical data (alongside the NCCCS figures) when looking at potential new infrastructure.

Alternatives to Eddington Part 1B - Western Suburbs Service Standard

I’ve noticed that in my recent post on alternatives to Eddington’s plan that I failed to have a good look at the service standard for the western lines. The need for a better service standard was the key reason for the works I was proposing, but for some strange reason I neglected to spell them out properly.

My views on service frequency have changed somewhat over the last few months. If you’d asked me 6 months ago what I thought the service level on Northern Group lines should be, I would have said that 6 trains per hour would be an acceptable off-peak frequency, with the exception of Williamstown with 5 tph. However, the more of Riccardo’s blog I read, the more convinced I am that at train every 10 minutes may not be enough for the busy lines. Below is what I’ve been thinking about for the western suburbs.

I’m not entirely happy with the result - I still don’t know what do to about services to Melton and Sunbury. If the northern loop can take 22 tph, and Craigieburn is taking up 10 tph, then there’s 12 tph available to Sunshine, and 6 tph towards Melton and Sunbury. If electrification were to occur to Melton and Sunbury, I’d run 6 tph to Sydenham and Ravenhall, and maybe only 2-3 tph beyond that to Melton and Sunbury. I’m hoping a S-Bahn frequency Ravenhall line would take some pressure off Sydenham-Sunshine. Here’s what I’m thinking of:

I just don’t know whether 6 tph is going to be good enough between Sydenham and Sunshine, or whether simplicity of operation alone justifies electrifying all the way to Melton if it stays a satellite town. I’d be really interested to hear some alternatives. Riccardo’s GO Transit style alternative has a lot of merit, and it’s another 16.5 kilometres from Ravenhall to Melton, so electrification could be costly and the line probably wants duplication as well.

I sense everyone is getting a bit sick of Eddington, so next post I promise I’ll look into something more interesting - I was thinking rail to Chadstone and Monash.

Alternatives to Eddington Part 1 - Western Suburbs Options

The recently released Eddingtion report is proposing a lot of new rail infrastructure. Whilst new money for rail infrastructure is most welcome, parts of the project seem poorly thought out. For some background on the potential pitfalls, have a look at my post on the topic and Riccardo’s summary of the problems.

It’s all very well for me to get stuck into Eddington for his general wackiness, but there is a need to invest in new infrastructure to increase capacity and provide service to new areas. So I’m going to have a look at what I’d do if the government signed off on the sort of spending Eddington wants for rail, but gave me the cheque instead. I’m going to split it into two posts – in this one, I’m going to look at alternative capacity improvements in the western suburbs, and in the next I’ll look at the north-south tunnel and better ways to deal with eastern suburbs capacity issues.

The problems in the western suburbs are twofold. Firstly, metropolitan trains are getting delayed by (and delaying) path hungry V/Line trains - an issue which has become more prevalent since the (most welcome) expansion of V/Line services. Secondly, metropolitan services are tangled up by infrastructure (single track, lack of flyovers and a lack of segregation between separate lines) and timetabling constraints and are delaying each other. The improvements I’m proposing are designed specifically to address these problems.

I’ve asked a lot more questions than I’ve answered in this post, and if you think the specifics of my plan won’t work - don’t hesitate to let me know!

Directly below are some diagrams, They show the Eddington plan (from p.40 of the DoI’s EWLNA analysis on rail capacity) followed by my plan in both track diagram and aerial photo form.

Sunshine corridor freight tracks upgrade

Eddington wants another two tracks to Sunshine to segregate metropolitan and V/Line services. My view is that, while this is good, perhaps the corridor could be considered more holistically. Freight is also part of the equation, and the dual gauge freight line suffers from long single track sections. Why not try to fix both problems at once as well as solving the North Melbourne issue?

Exactly what Eddington and the DoI want to do with North Melbourne doesn’t seem clear. Page 32 of the DoI’s report shows platforms 1 and 2 reserved for V/Line and Upfield alone, Werribee running through the loop and Craigieburn running direct. Yet they leave open the prospect of Craigieburn continuing through the loop and Werribee running direct. The map on page 41 shows the latter option. While the first option would be manageable, the second would be problematic.

In my plan, getting the line up to scratch where it parallels the Sydenham line is the easy part - it needs about 5 kilometres of Duplication between Sunshine and South Dynon junction. I believe that the ARTC are upgrading the line anyway so costs could potentially be split. The main cost will come from the works at Sunshine and North Melbourne.

At Sunshine, the whole lot needs to be knocked down and rebuilt with 4 platforms. I’m not exactly sure how to do this though - given the need for several flyovers.

At the city end, even more work is required. The line would run via existing tracks through North Dynon (these would conversion to dual gauge as I’m assuming the North East will go SG soon) and would be served by two new platforms at North Melbourne. The line needs to cross the metropolitan tracks to get to the Southern Cross terminus tracks and is in rather close proximity to the existing flyover. This means that the new platforms would need to be built to the north of the existing North Melbourne platforms to connect with the (substantially modified ) existing flyover, or the whole flyover would have to be rebuilt to the south. Both of these options would be expensive - but North Melbourne is a big problem at present and something needs to be done.

Over Dudley St., the easternmost two tracks would carry V/Line only, the middle two tracks Craigieburn and Sunshine loop services, and the western two tracks direct Laverton and Williamstown trains. The existing freight only tracks could be used for V/Line trains into the newly built platforms 15/16 at Southern Cross.

Questions

- Will the double track line be able to handle Ballarat, Bendigo and North East trains as well as the freights? My feeling is that it should if signalled properly. Potential areas of concern are around Tottenham and South Dynon, but cooperation with freight operators and the ARTC, combined with flyovers if required should go some way to solving these problems.

- Should V/Line stop at North Melbourne at all? If the loop running patterns were altered such that Caulfield and Clifton Hill ran clockwise all day, and Burnley and Northern anti-clockwise - as shown below - North Melbourne loses it’s importance as a V/Line/loop interchange. In the morning, V/Line passengers could alight at Southern cross and change to a Caulfield or Clifton Hill loop train, and in the evening, they could catch a Burnley loop train to get back to Southern Cross. This is a much better layout than operates at present. Eliminating V/Line stopping at North Melbourne would substantially reduce the cost of these works as no new platforms would be needed and the flyover would require less modification. It’s an idea that many will no doubt find controversial, but it’s not that crazy if you think about it.

Fishermans Bend line

Werribee is getting messy too, with a poor level of metropolitan service (in both relative and absolute terms) and problems with Geelong line services. The announcement that peak hour Werribee trains would run direct to Flinders St. during peak was a welcome step, but it doesn’t address the issue of poor service standard stemming from interaction with V/Line trains and the single track through Altona.

Eddington wants to build a line through Tarneit to take Geelong trains off the Werribee line, but at a supposed cost of $1.5 billion. How it could be so much is beyond me - Perth just built a 70km line to Mandurah with enough trains to operate the line for only $1 billion. Furthermore, ZH836301 pointed out on Railpage that Geelong trains taking this line would need to maintain an average speed of 115kph all the way to Footscray just to keep existing travel times. Clearly the line is completely mad.

Several people have suggested building a line from Newport to Southern Cross instead. I think this is by far the best idea - it speeds up both Geelong and Werribee services and reduces pressure on North Melbourne and Footscray. Under my plan, Werribee services would run express from Laverton to Newport, thence to Southern Cross. The existing line would be used for stoppers to Williamstown and Laverton via Altona, and would be through routed with Sandringham.

Questions

- Should the new line be deep level tunnel through Fishermans Bend, or will surface tracks beside the freeway suffice? If turning Fishermans Bend into high density residential becomes a reality, surface tracks beside the freeway could simply be decked over along with the freeway.

- Is the mud under the Yarra stable enough for a tunnel? My understanding is that the geology of the area precluded the West Gate from being built as a tunnel - has technology advanced sufficiently to make this plan workable?

Sunbury and Melton electrification

I included electrification to both Sunbury and Melton as part of the plan, but since I looked into it in these two posts, I’ve wavered somewhat. Electrification works well for high frequency metropolitan services, and in Melbourne, it tends to cause further urban sprawl. I’d rather that Sunbury and Melton functioned as satellite towns rather than suburbs - so perhaps electrification is not the way to go. I could be convinced either way on this issue.

Questions

Is electrification to Sunbury and Melton a good idea if we don’t want further sprawl out that way?

Some of the measures I’m proposing are fairly well known (Like building a line through Fishermans Bend), but others (like merging V/line and interstate freight) are not so common. Perhaps there’s a reason no-one’s suggested some of them (like they’re really bad!), so I’m very interested to hear your views. Below is what the Western Suburbs would look like to passengers if I had my way.

Eddington report released - two new rail lines recommended

The Eddington report has finally been released, and to be honest it’s far better than I expected when the inquiry was announced. The road tunnel has been given the green light, which is disappointing but completely unsurprising; but the big news is that Eddington has reccomended the construction of a 17km rail tunnel through the city and inner suburbs, as the “first step” towards creating a Melbourne metro. Also included is the proposal for the Tarneit link. The absence of rail to Doncaster is a disappointment, but again, hardly a surprise.

While the report contains little we didn’t already know about (most of it was leaked over the past couple of weeks), the recommendation of considerable rail improvements is most welcome. Frankly, it’s quite a break from the ‘build a freeway but upgrade a bus and fund it for 30 years’ approach which seems to have informed transport planning in Melbourne of late.

I’m not going to talk about the road tunnel, other than to say that the $9 billion earmarked for the road could do a lot if invested in public transport instead. I’m going to focus on the rail proposals, some of which (like a tunnel down Swanston St. and St. Kilda Rd.) are very sensible, and others of which (like diverting Geelong trains via a new line from Werribee to Deer Park) are positively wacky. Below are maps (from the report and The Age) of the scope of the rail project.

Tunnel issues

Basically, I really like the idea of a north-south tunnel running under Swanston St. and St. Kilda Rd. Indeed, I posted on this issue, as well what to do about the trams, a while back. However, I planned on sending the tunnel North to the Upfield and Doncaster and south to Balaclava. My plan wouldn’t have taken much pressure off the northern loop.

Sending a branch north-west to link up with the Sydenham and Werribee lines is a good idea, but I can’t see why it needs to go underground all the way to Footscray. There’s space in North Dynon for extra surface tracks, and lots of money could be saved by putting the tunnel portals at Lloyd St. in West Melbourne. Value for money wise, simply talking the Werribee line out of the loop would do part of this tunnel’s job for a lot less money. The bottom line is that tunnelling is still worthwhile, albeit truncated to West Melbourne.

The southern section of the tunnel, from the Sandringham line to Caulfield, probably is only required from a capacity perspective because of constraints in the city. The existing 4 tracks between Richmond and Caulfield would do the job well enough if the investment were made in decent signalling, high speed turnouts and flyovers. An efficient 4 track railway should be able to handle at least 40-60 tph per direction, catering for both expresses and stoppers. The city does have capacity problems, but taking trains out of the loop would mitigate them somewhat. In any case, I don’t really have enough information about city end capacity problems, so taking trains out of the loop may not be a viable long term option.

The big benefit of the Caulfield section is that it makes it much easier for residents of the south east to get to work in St. Kilda Rd. Making the rail system less radial by building these sort of connections between lines is a good idea, and absolutely necessary if public transport wants to seriously compete with cars.

The Tarneit rail line

The proposed Tarneit rail line takes a good concept - separating V/Line and metropolitan trains - and implements it terribly. 4 tracks from Sunshine to the Footscray is a sensible idea, but sending Geelong trains via Deer Park and Sunshine is mad mad mad. Not only will it increase Geelong line travel times, but it won’t solve Werribee line problems stemming from the Altona branch or broader V/Line issues related to the mess at North Melbourne.

Building a new line from Newport to Southern Cross via Fishermans Bend is a much simpler way of fixing the problem. It would improve speeds for Geelong trains and could potentially carry Werribee line trains too. Fixing up the Altona branch with double track and flyovers is a must as part of this project. Here’s what it would look like:

I’ve also been considering a few other ideas for untangling V/Line and metropolitan services in the western suburbs - there’ll be a post on that issue soon.

Whilst it may appear that I’ve been harsh on the report - especially the Tarneit line - I think Eddingtion has done the best job that could be expected given the circumstances. We have to remember that he was originally hired by the Victorian government to rubber stamp a freeway tunnel, but has come out demanding as much money spent on public transport improvements. Furthermore, the report talks of the need decent train, tram and bus frequencies all day every day, as well as a metro style system for inner Melbourne. That is eminently sensible and the man does deserve credit for it.