Re: Remove City Loop trains from Burnley group lines

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

"Peter" <railvic@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
3ACEA68A.F7FB9358@iprimus.com.au">news:3ACEA68A.F7FB9358@iprimus.com.au...
> Mike Alexander wrote:
> >
> > 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 Caulfield loop ** clockwise ** and the Burnley loop **
> anti-clockwise ** at all times ... allow Burnley trains to get to
> Caulfield loop ... Caulfield trains ... to current Burnley loop".  No
> thanks, as this will create "headon", wouldn't it?

No. Think of it like the City Circle in Sydney. Depending on which way
around the circle a train is going decides which loop it goes into.

>
> "Run every second train on Ringwood ... alternately through each loop" -
> So this mean a Glen Waverley trains will leave from platform 4 going
> anti-clockwise, while next Glen Waverley will leave from platform 2
> going clockwise?

Well, apart from the fact that I (arbitrarily) excluded the Glen Waverley
trains, yes. But, depending on which station you are at, you would know
which platform to go to to get the shortest trip. If you are at Parliament,
you would go to the current Caulfield Platform (2), and get a train direct
to Richmond, but if you were at Flagstaff, you may want to go to Platform 4
and get a train the other way around. If the service was frequent enough,
there wouldn't be the big panic there is now to get the "first" train. The
thing that would be important would be the train that got there quickest.

>
> > 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.
>
> Ok, add another long flyover at Richmond Junction ... Why not,
> considering we already have quite a few foot bridges linking MCG to the
> Tennis Centre already?

Relevance? If you are discounting a flyover because of the low height of the
bridges, then a flyunder would suffice.

>
> > 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.
>
> Does this mean we will have trains bypass Spencer and Flinders Streets -
> eg. North Melbourne - City Loop - Richmond, or Jolimont - City Loop -
> North Melbourne??

No. I'm suggesting that each line does the same style of travel around the
loop at present, but by sharing tunnels it allows both directions to be done
at any time of day. So the Clifton Hill trains would do either "Jolimont -
Flinders St - Spencer St - Loop - Jolimont" or "Jolimont - Loop - Spencer
St - Flinders St - Jolimont", at any time of day, with every second train
taking alternate directions. There would be the opportunity to run services
like you described, but in the interests of consistency, I would avoid them.

>
> > 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.
>
> Clifton Hill group train alternative between platform 1 and 3 in loop
> stations ...

Yep, depending on which way they were going.

>
> > 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
>
> Northern group alternative between platform 1 and 3 in loop stations ...

Yep, sharing tunnels, and once again, depending which way they were going.


> > 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.
>
> From what you described above, we will require more recovery time, not
> because of signalling, train movements, etc., but to allow loop
> customers to sort out which platform their next Clifton Hill bound train
> will be ...

Customers sorting out which platform to go to does not delay trains. As I
mentioned above, this scenario would work best with a frequent service,
making a reliance on the "first" train to a destination less relevant, but
making the shortest trip the most attractive. Put yourself in the glorious
future where the Clifton Hill trains run every 5 minutes, in each direction
around the loop. You are at Melbourne Central. Could you be bothered
figuring out which train is going to get you to Clifton Hill first, when
there is a train in 1 minute running via Spencer St, or one in 4 minutes
running via Parliament? You'd just wait for the one via Parliament because
it is a direct journey, and a 4 minute wait is not worth the effort of
avoiding. Of course the capacity of the loop starts to become an issue once
you start running frequent services like I described on all lines.

Relax, it's only a pipe dream, but an interesting one to think about.

>
> > 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.
>
> Not quite ... As mentioned above, some Clifton Hill group trains will
> depart platform 1, while others from platform 3 ...

At each station the sign would point to the shortest way to the particular
destination. At Flagstaff the sign might say "Clifton Hill (via Spencer
St) - Platform 3" and at Melbourne Central it might say "Clifton Hill (via
Parliament) - Platform 1". Which ever one is shorter wins out. Important
thing is that the sign doesn't change.

>
> > 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)