Re: Perth vs Melbourne (Was: Melbourne Double deckers)

["Graeme" <gvrail@thatsent.com.au>]

Sam,

I certainly agree on some of the issues you raised, but my points are really
broad principals based on extensive overeats research.  Whether there are 4
or 15 lines does not matter in regard to skip stopping trains in the peak
period, or trains traversing the loop before continuing on.  It is precisely
that because of the length of the lines that their needs to be skip stopping
trains on two types of stopping pattern where broadly pattern "A" calls at
most stations on the inner half before running express to the outer whilst
Pattern "B" runs express in the inner and then calls at all stations on the
outer part of the journey.  All major stations are serviced by all trains,
enabling interchange for a passenger boarding at a minor inner station and
needing to travel to an outer minor station.

You're dead right that our longest all stations trip takes 38 minutes.  With
skip stopping in the peak that journey takes 29 minutes which from a
marketing point of view is under half an hour.  Running every train in the
peak period faster as a limited stop train reduces travelling times for
everyone.  Equipment gets better utilised and track capacity also increases.

>From a passenger perspective the system becomes easy to use as there are
only two "limited stop" patterns either A or B.  Once you know that if you
are to use the "A" train in the peak that's all you have to look for.

Thanks for your input, in fact people from the MET came to see me in 1994
and were staggered as to the simplicity of the service and how it could
dramatically increase capacity.  What happened!!!

--
Graeme Vellacott
PO Box 322
CANNINGTON 6987
AUSTRALIA
Email:   gvrail@thatsent.com.au
Ph/Fax: +61 8 9451 5630
Jennifer Richmond <richmond@melbpc.org.au> wrote in message
38210F98.ABD750EC@melbpc.org.au">news:38210F98.ABD750EC@melbpc.org.au...
>
>
> Graeme wrote:
>
> > By running through trains as well say and
> > I'm only guessing Broadmeadows to Melbourne then through to Frankston
with
> > the train being limited stop on both sides, you start to promote cross
city
> > travel.
>
> Perth is different to Melbourne in the fact that Melbourne has a rail loop
in
> the city:
> If you were running terminating trains in Perth, the driver would need to
change
> ends in the city and clog up the platform by turning around. In Melbourne,
the
> train just keeps going and ends up where it started
> If you were running through trains in Melbourne, the train would need to
bypass
> the loop (missing up to 3 stations) and loosing a potential customer base.
A lot
> of people use the loop stations as they are close to their work or in the
case
> of midday users, close to the shops.
>
>
> > You also don't have to be a rocket scientist to also work out that
> > running expresses contra flow also gets the equipment back into the City
for
> > a second or even third trip in the peak.
>
> Again, Perth is different to Melbourne:
> Melbourne is about (I say about) 3 times bigger than Perth, so the
suburban rail
> lines are longer. It can take over an hour to do a complete single
journey,
> whereas Perth's longest route takes just 38 minutes stopping all stations
> I agree that there should be more express trains and I believe that
Hillside are
> planning on putting more express services on. There are reverse-express
services
> operated in Melbourne (Mostly on the Ringwood lines) but they don't reduce
> travel time by very much i.e. 0917 FSS - BEG via MCE. Departs FSS at 0917
and
> only stops at premium stations en-route to BEG , where it arrives at 1016,
> taking 59 mins via loop instead of 74, bypassing 17 stations. It has
taken off
> less than 1 min per station bypassed. (I must say that it is nicer than
stopping
> though).
>
> I think that Perth is a great system - for Perth. Melbourne has 15 heavy
> passenger railway lines, whereas Perth has 4. Melbourne has 2 different
Railway
> companies whereas Perth has 1.
> I think that some of your methods used in Perth would work in Melbourne,
but
> some wouldn't.
>
> Sam Eades
>