Re: Melbourne Airport Link

["Roderick Smith" <rodsmith@werple.net.au>]

Mark is quite right.
Using Japanese operating principles (and reliability), an airport service
could be superimposed quite easily on the existing track.  Likewise to
Ringwood: the third track Hawthorn - Box Hill is quite unnecessary.

Wha *is* needed is proper cross-platform interchange: something VR
designers cannot and will not do.
Box Hill was bad; Ringwood is a repeat.

An airport service could be integrated with public transport to the whole
area:
* stopping all stations train to Roxburgh Park leaves Melbourne; pauses at
Broadmeadows to be overtaken be airport train running nonstop Melbourne -
Broadmeadows: cross-platform interchange.
The majority of journeys are minimised, and only existing tracks are
needed.
-- 
Regards
Roderick Smith
Rail News Victoria Editor

MarkBau1 <markbau1@aol.comQQQQyuk> wrote in article 
> Why would they need a seperate line alongside the Broady line? 
> If you give the airport a 20 minute service that still only means 12
trains per
> hour through a station.
> If a seperate line is being built to enable high speed running, (hardly
needed
> for the trip to Tulla) then they will have to do away with all of the
crossings
> anyway.
> So tell me, why a seperate/new line for Tulla?