Re: Remove City Loop trains from Burnley group lines

[Peter <railvic@iprimus.com.au>]

Mike Alexander wrote:
> 
> "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.

Mike it will be "interesting" for Burnley group train to use Caulfield
loop both at Richmond and Spencer Street.  For starter, the Caulfield
loop portal is too close to the end of Richmond platform to allow a
flyover to be constructed and allow Burnley group trains to access.  At
Spencer Street, Burnley trains will have to cross a few paths in order
to get back to the correct track before Flinders Street.  Since you have
suggested building new Loop ramps, taking the current environment into
account, I think this will only be a wishful thinking (especially when
every government channels more money to roads than public transport).  

As a side track, commuters on the Belgrave/Lilydale lines are still
waiting on the Brack Govt. election promise of having third track
between Blackburn and Mitcham.  According to our local paper a couple
weeks back, the Govt. spokesperson stated this will be achieved by the
end of their first term.  I somehow don't believe this will ever happen,
because they need to grade separate Middleborough, Blackburn, Springvale
and Mitcham Roads and they will cost $$$$$$$$$.  Otherwise those boom
gates will be down more frequently than now and nowadays those roads are
already like carparks during peak hour.  If you have to drive on
Springvale Road between Canterbury Road and Maroondah Highway during
arvo peak, make sure you allow good 20 minutes for this 2km section!!  I
got caught once and now avoid it totally!!

> > "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.

Don't forget some customers already complaining about existing services,
I can just imagine the complaint generated by the "musical platforms" in
those loop stations.  The current loop platform setup is consistant and
less confusing.

> > > 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.

Yes $$$$$$$$$$$, which the State Government is not willing to spend on
public transport and private operators are not obligate to construct ...