Melbourne Metro Hype?

>>1039911
This looks pretty great.

File: montreal metro.jpg (85KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 640x640px

>>1039911
youre only 60 years behind canada

What's wrong with trams?

>>1040159
This project is meant to increase capacity for the metro Melbourne commuter rail system. The tram network serve the city centre and innermost suburbs

>>1040148
>rubber tires
>no aircon
no.jpg

Public Transport Users Association contends that the Loop and Flinders St could meet this capacity with modernised signalling and more frequent services

I am inclined to agree, when the Loop was built it was intended to handle services from a Rowville and Doncaster lines that have never been built, from expansions west and east that haven't happened, and the Port Melbourne and St Kilda lines were still operating.

So how can it be at capacity when all these trains aren't going through it?
Because of the very low frequency
Caused by the elderly signalling and control centre

>>1040183
You really need to do everything you can with the existing network before looking and expansions
Signalling and control centre, switches, wooden sleepers and jointed tracks, radio black spots, the sinking foundations and mud holes that have been created by metros cheap ass sleeper replacement program, etc - just look at how trains have to wait on the bridges past Clifton Hill waiting for the train on the other line to clear the track before they can proceed

And even then once thats done expansions ought to be into the suburbs that have been going without for decades

>>1040180
>Canada
>air conditioning
Why?

>>1039911
melbourne's best option would be to build some type of tram subway, imho

the flexibility in terms of service would be great as a result

>>1040191
oops, didn't pay attention that this will be like a s-bahn rather than an independent line

that works too

>>1040180
>rubber tires
Yes. Quieter, offer better acceleration and the entire network is underground because Canadian winters are horrific.
>no air con
Doesn't actually affect service...

But yeah pretend like comengs that come every 20 mins are superior to a real metro

>>1040210
Excuse you, a Comeng is much better than the X'Crap or Shitmens

>>1040191
From what I understand, doing anything underground in Australia is a fucking nightmare because of the ground. Building a single tunnel is a big engineering effort, particularly in cities like Perth which is literally built on sand.

>>1039911
>no station at South Yarra
Oh, they're gonna regret being that stupid in the coming years. (j/k, they'll pawn off all responsibility on future governments.)

>>1040183
>muh loop built to handle expansions that were never built
No. Wrong. Look at the actual track pairs available. If signalling and control was completely upgraded the loop would not be able to cope, specifically the Craigieburn and Upfield lines would have to share capacity. In that sense the metro tunnel will achieve something, but it's still a massive waste of money at this stage.

What they should have done is focus on removing level crossings, yes upgrading signalling, and maybe extending the Alamein line to Gardenvale.

>>1040191
>some type of tram subway
Funny you should say that, seeing how there are several places in Melbourne where the roads are too narrow for the tram network and they have to mix with cars, slowing every fucking thing to a crawl. Although if you're gonna fix that with tunnels put the cars in there instead. Nobody cares about car drivers.

>>1040699
That'd depend on the ground? It's not like that sort of thing is an Australian exclusive either.

>>1040210
tires for trains is a french thing, its a sop for their rubber industry

File: no..jpg (53KB, 624x488px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 624x488px

>>1040191
>lets build expensive infrastructure
>and put rolling stock with low capacity into it

>>1040699
Where the fuck did you hear that?
That sounds like something an American would say
There is nothing unique or difficult here
Yes Perth is sandy
And they built the Mandurrah railway which included tunnels for just a couple hundred million dollars

>>1040820
It's something I vaguely remember an engineer who worked on the Graham Farmer tunnel telling me

Where are the tunnels on the Mandurah line? All I can think of is a 100 m stretch going in to Elizabeth Quay, but I've never caught it past Cockburn

>>1040830
>on the graham farmer tunnel

So again, Perth. Perths shit geology doesn't represent the rest of the country.

>>1040699
That just means you need to hire better engineers. The Japanese get on with worse nightmares just fine.

>>1040716
>No. Wrong.

That doesn't explain how it can be at capacity when it is not handling the volume it was intended to

>>1040855
He's bullshit, its just Perth that's sandy and that hasn't been a problem in yonks.

The problem they have with building public transportation on the east coast is the pathological opposition to it from the state governments department of transport, they are utterly in the road camp.
So prices get ballooned as they drag their feet, over calculate the time required, contract their mates, etc and the end result is a couple km of track ends up costing billions - while in Perth the Mandurah railway in was just a couple hundred million for something like 50 or 70 km of track

>>1040897
Sure it does. Of the other lines mentioned by >>1040183 only a theoretical Doncaster line would actually put more pressure on the loop. Any Rowville line would probably be a branch from the Dandenong line, and the Port Melbourne/St Kilda lines were connected to the Sandringham line, never going through the loop at all.

Fact is that if you try and dial the capacity of the lines leading into the loop up to max, you won't be able to do so because there aren't quite enough tracks in the loop. It's especially clear if you look at North Melbourne station. Four lines leading in (Newport, Sunshine, Craigieburn, Upfield), only three track pairs to use.

>>1040716
>No. Wrong. Look at the actual track pairs available.
Is there a way I can look at a schematic online?

File: melbourne_city_loop.jpg (112KB, 1024x541px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 1024x541px

>>1041449
>a way I can look at a schematic online?
Not that I'm aware of, unfortunately. It's easy to look up how many platforms/tracks are at specific stations, and there are a few old schematics around, but nothing 100% up to date. Pic related should be accurate with how many tracks coming in from the northwest and southeast, along with the track available in the loop, but I have no idea about the accuracy of Flinders Street nor a lot of the junctions and obviously Port Melbourne/St Kilda have since been removed from heavy rail usage. It also doesn't depict the terminal platforms at Spencer Street aka Southern Cross.

>>1041532
I love this image.

>>1041337
In the 1969 melbourne transportation plan the Rowville line was suppose to run from Hughsdale to Upper Ferntree Gully
That still be more trains going through the burnley group in the loop
There was supposed to an express branch from between Clifton Hill & Victoria Park to the loop, that way the Doncaster/Greensbourgh/Epping trains could alternate between using the Clifton hill tracks and going express
Still more trains in the Clifton hill tunnel - and remember there would have also been the city loop service itself running as well a dedicated train that went around and around and around through spur back to flinders st in the Clifton hill tunnel
So more trains

File: image.jpg (40KB, 400x316px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 400x316px

>>1041589
Quake in awe mortals as you gape upon the mind splitting majesty that was the railway network intended for the 1969 Melbourne Transportation Plan
Weep for us mere mortals at what has come to transpire instead

>>1041532
So I just looked it up. Flinders Street has 13 platforms, and Southern Cross has over 20? It seems to me like any CBD capacity issues would be resolved by just adding more tracks between the two.

>>1041595
Bare minimum to solve any and all capacity issues would be to put another track pair along North Melbourne <-> Southern Cross <-> Flinders Street, yes. I assume they went with the metro idea because of the extra station coverage and 'cause big rail projects look cool.

>>1041595
southern cross handles the regional rail services, some of that track there ends at barriers and is used by locomotives and dmus

they've already added an extra viaduct like 15 years ago around the time they built the aquarium, kinda hard to add more at this point I think

File: old_melbourne_rail_proposals.jpg (116KB, 1024x808px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 1024x808px

>>1041591
What is this, a picture for ants?

Personally I think it's more natural to extend the Glen Waverley line to Ferntree Gully, and I remain confused why nobody ever suggests making the Alamein line useful.