Re: Remove City Loop trains from Burnley group lines

["Mike Alexander" <malex@bigfoot.com>]

Well, if we had lots of money to spend on solving this problem, this is what
I'd do:

Run the Caulfield loop clockwise and the Burnley loop anti-clockwise at all
times. Dig more ramps to allow Burnley trains to get to the current
Caulfield loop and Caulfield trains to get to the current Burnley loop. Run
every second train on Ringwood, Glen Waverley & Caulfield lines alternately
through each loop.

Run the Sandringham and Alamein trains straight through to the Upfield and
Williamstown lines via Flinders St, the "new" viaduct, and Spencer St. (or
to the Aiport line in the future). I don't reckon there'd be enough paths
through the loops for these lines, even allowing for best practice of ~30
tph through the loop. There might be a need for a flyover to get the Alamein
trains across to near the Sandringham lines in the Jolimont yards.

Dig a new ramp from Jolimont (on the other side of the tracks to the
existing ramp) connecting to the Northern loop towards Parliament, and a new
connection from the Northern loop to Spencer St. Also dig a new connection
between the Clifton Hill loop and Nth Melbourne. Similarly to above, run the
Northern loop anti-clockwise and the Clifton Hill loop clockwise at all
times.

Jolimont trains could alternate between:

a) Direct to Flinders Street, and then back to Jolimont via the current
Clifton Hill loop

and

b) Down the new ramp at Jolimont into the current Northern loop, and around
to Parliament, Melb Central, Flagstaff, (via the new connection) Spencer St,
Flinders St and back to Jolimont.


Trains from North Melbourne (except for the previously mentioned Upfield and
Williamstown lines) would alternate between:

a) Nth Melbourne (via the new connection to the Clifton Hill loop),
Flagstaff, Melb Central, Parliament (via the currently idle ex-City Circle
connection), Flinders St, Spencer St, Nth Melbourne, using the current
Clifton Hill loop

and

b) Nth Melbourne, Spencer St, Flinders St, Parliament, Melb Central,
Flagstaff, Nth Melbourne via the current Northern loop.

While I was at it, I would change Platform 1 at Flinders St to an island
platform . There are currently two tracks between Platforms 1 and 2, and a
wide platform, so there is enough room for it. The track for the new
Platform 1 would have to be right up against the building though.

I would also remove all recovery time at Flinders St, so that trains run
through it just like any other station. All recovery time should be at the
end of the lines.

The main problems would be:
1) Cost
2) Different train companies would be sharing the same loop
3) Capacity through the loop

Advantages would be:
1) No change of direction for the loop at lunchtime
2) Always able to get from anywhere to anywhere else, at all times of day.
3) Consistency for passengers, meaning maps and signs could explicitly point
out which platforms to go to for each destination.
4) The loop stations would have the top platforms for one direction, and the
bottom platforms for the other direction, consistently at all times.
5) Passengers would just have to wait for the correct train at any time of
day depending on whether they wanted to go to the loop or Flinders
St/Spencer St. If they were in a hurry, they could catch the first train and
change at Richmond, Flinders St, Parliament or Nth Melbourne for a direct
train.


Regards,

Mike Alexander
(malex @ bigfoot com)



"Dave Proctor" <daproc@spambait.ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
FGez6.129792$lj4.3936402@news6.giganews.com">news:FGez6.129792$lj4.3936402@news6.giganews.com...
> "Peter" <railvic@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
> 3ACD73B6.30CD8411@iprimus.com.au">news:3ACD73B6.30CD8411@iprimus.com.au...
> > Paul Dwerryhouse wrote:
> > >
> > > Peter <railvic@iprimus.com.au> writes:
> > >
> > > >I am interested to find out what are people's view of removing **
> DIRECT
> > > >** City Loop trains from Burnley group (Alamain/Belgrave/Glen
> > > >Waverley/Lilydale lines) during morning peak.  Instead all services
> will
> > > >run direct to Flinders Street and most will then run around the Loop
> > > >afterwards.  If those people choose to have direct Loop access during
> > > >that time, they would have to change at Richmond.
> > >
> > > This absolutely insane for the outer Burnley Group lines.
> > >
> > > You could get away with it for just the stopping-all-stations trains
> > > from Box-Hill and Alamein (ie, just make them go direct to Flinders St
> as
> > > they did about 5 years ago), but to do it for trains from Ringwood and
> > > Glen Waverley is counterproductive.
> > >
> > > There's just far too many people travelling in on those lines, and the
> > > vast majority of them go to Parliament, Museum and Flagstaff stations.
>
> And if you eliminate the lengthy stop at Flinders St, you will create
> quicker journeys fopr those going to Flagstaff and about the same for
those
> going to Melbourne Central. At the same time, you will create a service
from
> Flinder/Spencer St to loop stations in the morning peak, and if you
reverse
> the direction in the afternoons, you will provide a service from the loop
to
> Flinders/Spencer Sts, a service which does not currently exist.
>
> Or are you against providing services to the public?
>
> > > To make them all change at Richmond is ridiculous, given the number of
> > > people, and the distance from the city that they have to travel
already.
>
> Who said anything about making them change? Oh, that's right, Peter said
> they would all change.
>
> Funnily, it doesn't happen in Sydney, as an example, travelling from
> Ashfield to Museum, people stay on the train and travel around the City
> Circle, rather than change at Central onto a train which is next stop
> Museum.
>
> Similiarly, people from Revesby to Town Hall stay on the train and go
around
> the City Circle rather than change at Central onto a train whish is next
> stop Town Hall. The journey times are similiar between Sydney and
> Melbourne - why should the commuters of Melbourne behave any differently
> than the commuters of Melbourne (anyone who says MetCard will end up in my
> killfile!)
>
> I think that if you provide a direct service, and the journey times are
not
> greatly longer, then people will prefer the direct service over having to
> alight, go down a ramp, along a subway, up a ramp, wait on a wet and rainy
> platform for a train, and then get the next train in, all to save what, 4
> minutes?
>
> Of course, we can argue about this all day, neither of us really knows,
> because it has never been done. You have no evidence for your assertions,
I
> have no evidence for mine, apart from the fact that a NEW service will be
> provided, one which does not exist at the moment.
>
> > > Anyone who attempted this would have a very short career ahead of
> themselves
> > > in public transport.
>
> Please state why, Paul, and please don't rehash Peter's arguments. And can
> you give a reason why people travelling to and from Flinders St, Spencer
St
> and Flagstaff should have longer journey times?
>
> Dave
>
>