• Advertisement

Sandringham enhanced timetable

Melbourne / Victoria Transport Discussion

Moderator: MAN 16.242

Sandringham enhanced timetable

Postby Roderick Smith » Mon Jul 03, 2017 11:51 am

Peaks, Mon.3-Tues.11.7.17
7.00-9.00, 17 up trains (8 tph).
16.46-18.22, 14 down trains (8 tph).
There are several times with 5 min headways (12 tph), which is quite sustainable, even with only a single platform at Sandringham.
The PTV/TfV/tunnelauthority claim that the tunnel will provide a 48% increase in Sandringham services is completely fake.
The line could sustain even more if ever the signalling at Brighton Beach were fixed: every second train could terminate there.

I can't attach the pdf: not allowed.

Roderick
Roderick Smith
 
Posts: 1235
Joined: Mon May 28, 2012 8:44 pm
Has thanked: 100 times
Been thanked: 193 times

Re: Sandringham enhanced timetable

Postby revenue » Tue Jul 04, 2017 11:58 am

You're confusing capacity with frequency. When Melbourne Metro opens, trains from Werribee, Williamstown and Laverton will be able to be through routed to Sandringham (rather than Frankston which gets its own loop). This will mean a significant increase in the number of services that will be operated. Melbourne Metro makes this reconfiguration possible which is why it is absolutely correct to say that it will deliver more services on the Sandringham Line.
revenue
 
Posts: 290
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 9:10 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 49 times

Re: Sandringham enhanced timetable

Postby Roderick Smith » Tue Jul 04, 2017 10:57 pm

I am not confusing anything with anything. Frequency and capacity are the same for Sandringham: 12 tph at whatever passengers per train. The overhyped tunnel makes no difference. They could be running today, as the closest approximation which Melbourne could get to a real metro. The whole 12 could be through routed, or running out of pfm 13: it makes no difference.
Werribee - Frankston is then quite independent, and again not tunnel dependent.
Go to the timetables and do your own counting.
Roderick
Roderick Smith
 
Posts: 1235
Joined: Mon May 28, 2012 8:44 pm
Has thanked: 100 times
Been thanked: 193 times

Re: Sandringham enhanced timetable

Postby krustyklo » Wed Jul 05, 2017 10:51 am

I am not confusing anything with anything. Frequency and capacity are the same for Sandringham: 12 tph at whatever passengers per train. The overhyped tunnel makes no difference. They could be running today, as the closest approximation which Melbourne could get to a real metro. The whole 12 could be through routed, or running out of pfm 13: it makes no difference.
Werribee - Frankston is then quite independent, and again not tunnel dependent.
Go to the timetables and do your own counting.

Having done just that I find that the frequency works out at every 6 minutes (with a minute variation here and there), or 10 trains per hour, not 12.

Interestingly, even when trains are at a 5 minute frequency in the down direction there is 1 minute added either at Sandringham or mid-journey so that arrivals at Sandringham are every 6 minutes. This suggests that the single platform at Sandringham is a limitation to frequency whatever happens with Metro. Drop on drivers would solve this problem to some degree, but are passenger numbers on the Sandringham line so high that a lot more services are needed compared to other lines? If anything, I would have thought the opportunity to run more Frankston and Dandenong trains would be a greater benefit from building Metro without the restrictions caused by single platforms? They certainly seem to be lines afflicted by overcrowding, presumably due to length and outer suburban estates sprouting up like weeds in a paddock.
User avatar
krustyklo
 
Posts: 2545
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 10:12 am
Location: Bundoora, VIC
Has thanked: 174 times
Been thanked: 253 times

Re: Sandringham enhanced timetable

Postby Roderick Smith » Wed Jul 05, 2017 6:45 pm

Flemington Racecourse worked with 5 min turnarounds or better, using drop-on drivers, so the single platform isn't really a limitation: it must be the combination of platform and driver changing ends.
One reason for going to 12 tph is that it fits elegantly with a basic 20 everywhere, and 10 to most places most of the time.
That is another reason for running the loops at the designed 24 and not the panic 23. I have done follow-on moves at 2 min (ie 120 s) in the loop, so the 24 is robust, not flaky: there is recovery available.
The reason for raising the issue: the new tunnel will not be providing a 48% capacity on this line, despite the misleading claims made by PTV and partners.

Upfield is another breathless location where drop-on drivers would be needed, for 10 min headways there.

Roderick.
Roderick Smith
 
Posts: 1235
Joined: Mon May 28, 2012 8:44 pm
Has thanked: 100 times
Been thanked: 193 times

Re: Sandringham enhanced timetable

Postby Craig » Fri Jul 07, 2017 1:46 pm

I understand they are already using drop-on drivers at Sandringham in the peaks.

Despite being one of the shorter lines, about 5 AM peak trains breach the load standards (see PTV stats) - Frankston Line fluctuates but is overall on par, while Dandenong has about 12 AM peak trains overcrowded. Just a single Ringwood corridor train in the AM peak regularly breached the load standards in May 2016.

Factors for high patronage on the Sandy line would include the high concentration of CBD professionals along the line; ongoing new apartments in inner suburbs; school students heading into inner suburb private schools; their siblings more likely to be continuing onto higher education; no freeway alternative. And it's a myth wealthy suburbs shun public transport - one only has to go to Middle Brighton in the AM peak and see dozens of suits board each train rather than take twice as long in traffic.

Kind Regards


Craig :-)
User avatar
Craig
 
Posts: 4223
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2004 11:26 pm
Location: Edithvale, VIC
Has thanked: 1205 times
Been thanked: 427 times

Re: Sandringham enhanced timetable

Postby V981 » Wed Jul 19, 2017 10:28 pm

Craig wrote:I understand they are already using drop-on drivers at Sandringham in the peaks.

Despite being one of the shorter lines, about 5 AM peak trains breach the load standards (see PTV stats) - Frankston Line fluctuates but is overall on par, while Dandenong has about 12 AM peak trains overcrowded. Just a single Ringwood corridor train in the AM peak regularly breached the load standards in May 2016.

Factors for high patronage on the Sandy line would include the high concentration of CBD professionals along the line; ongoing new apartments in inner suburbs; school students heading into inner suburb private schools; their siblings more likely to be continuing onto higher education; no freeway alternative. And it's a myth wealthy suburbs shun public transport - one only has to go to Middle Brighton in the AM peak and see dozens of suits board each train rather than take twice as long in traffic.

Kind Regards


Craig :-)


I know from previous experience in an old job....you would have to be an idiot not to use public transport if you live near a train line and work in the city. In my case it was the Monash Car Park or the train from Oakleigh back then. The train allowed me to read the paper and relax a bit more, even if I did have to stand sometimes.
The views expressed by me are mine and mine only. They do not neccesarily fall in line with the views of my friends, family, collegues or my employer.
V981
 
Posts: 588
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:14 pm
Location: Dandenong Victoria
Has thanked: 18 times
Been thanked: 154 times
Favourite Vehicle: Anything Volvo

Re: Sandringham enhanced timetable

Postby Heihachi_73 » Sat Jul 22, 2017 8:08 am

Unfortunately Victoria also has its fair share of idiots which don't use public transport even if their house is facing the station. Mont Albert is a prime example.
User avatar
Heihachi_73
 
Posts: 412
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 6:48 pm
Location: Ringwood
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 36 times

Re: Sandringham enhanced timetable

Postby revenue » Wed Jul 26, 2017 6:22 pm

The comments here are focused on capacity, but that's a slightly different issue.
The number of trains that can be feasibly operated on the Sandringham Line isn't just the product of the capacity of the line. It's something that depends on how that line fits into the operation of the total network and the need to balance services. Melbourne Metro enables services from Werribee and Williamstown to be through routed to Sandringham. This changes the economics of the line, and also changes the likely patronage responses. The number of trains that will be operated on the Sandringham Line is a product of a number of factors. Having trains from different groups mix together reduces capacity and reliability of the core of the network (and hence should be avoided). With the new post MM operating plan you have a few options - but the decision for most of those trains to continue to Sandringham has a number of operational benefits. You also have new combinations of stations being connected - for example, you'll be able to get a direct train from Prahran to Southern Cross with no change required. This has a patronage impact. Put simply, a train from Sandringham to the city will be more attractive to passengers if it serves both Flinders Street and Southern Cross (and Footscray, etc.)

So the increase in frequency being provided by MM on the Sandringham isn't the same as capacity - it's a product of where the trains are going to/from, the need to balance with the Werribee/Williamstown lines and not turn trains back in the core of the network (which wastes capacity), the new destinations that are opened up to Sandringham Line passengers from through services, etc.

Hence my comment that you are confusing CAPACITY with FREQUENCY. Melbourne Metro will have some capacity benefits for Sandringham but what it also does is change the economics and operational patterns that justify a significant increase in frequency where otherwise it would be not be viable/appropriate to do so.
revenue
 
Posts: 290
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 9:10 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 49 times

Re: Sandringham enhanced timetable

Postby Roderick Smith » Thu Jul 27, 2017 7:44 pm

'Revenue' seems to be confusing line capacity with used capacity. That is management speak: always excuses for why something can't be done.
The line capacity is 12 tph. It is up to conjecture whether that could or would be used.
The Swanston St tunnel still does nothing for Sandringham which couldn't be achieved independently.
It is quite possible to route every offpeak Newport train to the Sandringham line, with Brighton Beach available for terminating if management can't cope.
It is quite possible to route every Newport train to the Frankston line, with some terminating at Cheltenham.
That leaves the current Caulfield tunnel available for mushroom culture after Swanston St is opened.
It is quite possible to route 6 tph through to Sandringham, with 6 tph infill starting from Flinders St.
Right now, it is quite possible to run a base 6 tph to Werribee via Altona and 6 tph to Williamstown, leaving 6 tph Werribee express paths for peaks.
Put Werribee to Frankston, and put Williamstown to Sandringham.
Put the peak extras to Cheltenham (or Mordialloc), and infill Sandringham with extra ones from Flinders St.
Whatever the permutation, the misnamed tunnel does nothing for the Sandringham line.
That it total spin and razzle dazzle propaganda.

Roderick
Roderick Smith
 
Posts: 1235
Joined: Mon May 28, 2012 8:44 pm
Has thanked: 100 times
Been thanked: 193 times

Re: Sandringham enhanced timetable

Postby revenue » Fri Jul 28, 2017 10:22 am

You're advocating having trains from multiple lines mix in the core. Now that's possible, but you're advocating a solution that would be less reliable with lower capacity - which is what Melbourne Metro is designed to avoid.

I reiterate that the number of services provided on a line is a product of a number of factors. You are discounting some, and I'm making the point that you are doing so inappropriately. The number of services that you can operate on a line (e.g. the maximum number of services that can be operated within the infrastructure constraints) is only one factor in the determination in the effective maximum number of trains that can be operated reliably.

As I said, you're confusing maximum potential capacity with the effective capacity of a line - which considers a range of other factors which you have inappropriately chosen to ignore.

Roderick - I'm not posting this for your benefit - I know I'm not going to convince you as you prefer to see things in black and white. But other people might be interested in a more nuanced discussion that covers the other issues.
revenue
 
Posts: 290
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 9:10 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 49 times

Re: Sandringham enhanced timetable

Postby krustyklo » Fri Jul 28, 2017 8:22 pm

But other people might be interested in a more nuanced discussion that covers the other issues.

Thank you for your efforts, I know I certainly am interested in a point of view from someone with more relevant professional expertise than I have access to!

If I understand correctly, your point of view is that although theoretical capacity may well be 12 trains per hour (assuming Roderick's figure to be correct), other factors are:
  • Reliable capacity that enables an efficient recovery when something goes wrong. Someone, possibly Roderick, has posited in the past that the rule of thumb is to use up to maximum of 80% of theoretical capacity. In addition, turning trains back in the city would reduce the capacity, although I suspect that with 2 platforms this shouldn't be a major issue? Are there other factors than platform space that reduce the reliability of turning trains back at Flinders St? The other factor in reliability is not routing trains between different groups so that an issue on one group doesn't affect any other group.
  • Related to the above, I would also suspect that crossing trains between groups reduces capacity as a train occupies more lines and blocks platform exits / entries by virtue of crossing from one group to another. In the 90s there were particular services that crossed from the Sandringham line at different times of day including during the afternoon peak. It was quite useful to be familiar with which services were more likely to do this given I was travelling for work between Greensborough and Elsternwick at the time, but I can see how it would unecessarily reduce capacity, even for only a short time.
  • Potential patronage will affect the capacity economically provided - if more destinations can be (reliably) accessed within a travel time competitive with the car (not necessarily equal, but not ridiculously longer - it would be interesting to know if there is any research showing drop off in demand by percentage extra time taken compared to a car) then the extra demand can justify using more of the available capacity by running more services - economic capacity for want of a better term.

Have I got it right?
User avatar
krustyklo
 
Posts: 2545
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 10:12 am
Location: Bundoora, VIC
Has thanked: 174 times
Been thanked: 253 times

Re: Sandringham enhanced timetable

Postby revenue » Sun Jul 30, 2017 10:07 pm

Krustylo, yes you've got it right - but there are a few other factors as well that improve the case even further.

The capacity of a line isn't the same as the capacity of the trains that use it. Just because a train can carry X number of people doesn't mean that's the capacity of that train in practical terms. That's probably one of the misconceptions in this debate.

For example, one of the capacity constraints on the Sandringham line is the ability of Richmond and Flinders Street to cope with large volumes of passengers transferring between trains. So if you had 12 trains an hour on the Sandringham line (and the patronage growth that is expected over the next decades), then it is unlikely that those stations could absorb such a large number of transferring passengers. By connecting Sandringham to the Werribee and Williamstown lines then you provide them with access to two CBD stations. Now, it's important to remember that people are travelling to destinations - not stations. So by opening up direct access to Southern Cross then it means that someone travelling to the corner of Bourke and William (who might have previously transferred at Richmond to alight at Flagstaff) will now alight at Southern Cross to avoid changing. So the opening up direct access to Southern Cross actually changes patronage patterns by more than just the number of people who presently go to Southern Cross. The growth of employment in Docklands is another key factor here (eg. projected growth).

Other impacts are that if you can offer a direct service to two CBD stations then it can stimulate demand - as more people can get there without changing. eg. if people work in Docklands and live in Windsor then a direct service may be more attractive than changing.

The other factor is also that Metro Tunnel does reduce the number of people on the current stations (which gives room for future growth). This is actually really important - remember the capacity of the station isn't just a product of how many trains you can get through the platforms but also the stations, and the ability of surrounding streets to accept pedestrian traffic.

So what does this mean in summary? If you wanted to run really frequent trains between Flinders Street and Sandringham (and build a second platform at Sandringham to facilitate that) then you could run the number of trains that Mr Smith is advocating - and even more. But we aren't trying to move trains - we are trying to move people. And the number of people you can move is restricted by the ability of the stations you are serving to accommodate the passengers, the destinations of the trains (and therefore how the passengers are spread between stations/transfer patterns), the operating plan for the network, etc.

Running trains from Werribee and Williamstown to Sandringham ensures that these lines have no impacts on the operation of other lines. And hence the reliability of the network is increased, the capacity of the network is increased, the places people on the Sandringham can travel without transferring is increased, etc. These are three really important factors.

Working out how many trains you can theoretically move on a section of line isn't the same as the number of people you can move. Melbourne Metro increases the capacity of the Sandringham Line dramatically. It's going to make the line more useful. It's going to reduce overcrowding at Richmond and Flinders Street (by shifting passengers to the Melb Metro stations) - so those people travelling from Sandringham can transfer more easily, etc.

I've probably explained the above badly, but I hope it shows you how complex modeling the impacts of something like Metro Tunnel can be. Work that involves looking at where people are travelling to/from (not the stations but the actual destinations), and modeling where they will travel, where they will change, the impacts of those changes, and balancing demand between lines.
revenue
 
Posts: 290
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 9:10 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 49 times

Re: Sandringham enhanced timetable

Postby RailwayBus » Tue Aug 01, 2017 5:24 pm

Nailed it!
All views expressed are strictly my own and do not represent my employer or anyone else.
User avatar
RailwayBus
 
Posts: 4356
Joined: Wed May 21, 2008 9:40 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 464 times
Been thanked: 327 times
Favourite Vehicle: Train or tram.

Re: Sandringham enhanced timetable

Postby matthew » Tue Aug 01, 2017 6:43 pm

revenue wrote:Running trains from Werribee and Williamstown to Sandringham ensures that these lines have no impacts on the operation of other lines. And hence the reliability of the network is increased, the capacity of the network is increased, the places people on the Sandringham can travel without transferring is increased, etc. These are three really important factors.

'This can happen way before the Metro tunnel is built.
matthew
 
Posts: 71
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2012 8:51 pm
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 4 times

Re: Sandringham enhanced timetable

Postby revenue » Fri Aug 04, 2017 1:47 pm

Well in one way, you are correct.
In another more important way, you are unfortunately not.

You could run Werribee and Williamstown to a combination of Frankston and Sandringham (and vice versa), but then then means you are mixing the lines even more. By doing that you're going to reduce capacity and reliability. Separating out lines is really critical if you want to make the network consistent and reliable. Put simply, this approach would mean that you have the two tracks over the viaduct trying to marry into four tracks (two to Frankston and two to Sandringham). That's not ideal. With the current pre-metro tunnel tracks, you're better off terminating Sandringham at Flinders Street. But that's not really sustainable.
revenue
 
Posts: 290
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 9:10 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 49 times

Re: Sandringham enhanced timetable

Postby Roderick Smith » Sat Aug 05, 2017 12:03 am

Remember, this is only part of a wider debate: PTV(TfV) spin is that the new tunnel will enhance capacity on all other routes. It won't. The capacity on the lot is dictated by the outer ends and by sharing with VLine.

'revenue' and I do agree on trying to share Newport with Sandringham only, not with Frankston; he was the one stating that Sandringham didn't have the capacity to handle 12 tph, so I allowed for it and copped a blast. My earlier three posts have got lost in space.
Sandringham can certainly handle 12 tph, and the passenger capacity which that provides, running as a genuine metro: Flinders St pfm 11 to Sandringham. At that level of turn up and go, it doesn't matter if the trains are running 5 min late because of police actions and ill passengers and failed equipment. However, why should that line score when others have 20 min headways as the best available? It is far better to through work, and give better connectivity (eg to VLine).
I have now drafted a timetable which balances Newport with Sandringham exclusively. That would have been best with Flinders St pfm 11 still available, but management gave it away for non-railway use, as having it might get in the way of their case for the Swanston St tunnel. It still works with 10 & 12 for westbound, and 8 & 9 for eastbound. Poor old 13 is useless without 11. Perhaps build an expansion of the pfm 14 & 15 film museum (another throwing away of a railway facility as 'not needed')?
Base: 6 tph Sandringham - Werribee via Altona; 6 tph Werribee - Flinders St direct; 6 tph Flinders - Williamstown; 6 tph Williamstown - Sandringham. Longstanding readers will recognise the 1970s Sandringham / St Kilda / Port Melbourne pattern in a new guise. Werribee trains are limited express north of Newport. This now needs two new crossovers at Laverton to provide cross-platform interchange; a feature removed by PTV at great cost a few years ago.
Peak: The Werribee trains continue to Brighton Beach.
Super peak: There are six paths per hour (the former Geelong ones) for Werribee express trains via the straight: Flinders St - Melbourne SC - North Melbourne - Footscray - Hoppers Crossing - Werribee. Not all need be used. It would be nice to have them form each other, but they can't. At Werribee, they interwork with the base pattern (replace an 8 min turnaround with two 4 min ones, and the benefits are worth having a drop-on crew). At Flinders St, a 5 min pause becomes two 2-min pauses, matching the dwell time allowed on most other routes.
Of course, because of current rules and a refusal to fix the points locking at Brighton Beach, up BB trains can't take passengers until North Brighton. That is a long-standing fault which could be fixed with ease (improve the infrastructure, or change the paperwork).

Further across, 6 & 7 have to cope with loop and non-loop Dandenong & Frankston; 8 is now not available.

4 & 5 have to cope with northern, and non-loop Burnley (and if Melbourne had gone to double-deck, all Burnley could be looped; or run Alamein & Blackburn as one, splitting at Camberwell).

PTV did its worst to nobble Flinders St, another disaster legacy. For only a fraction of the cost of the overhyped tunnel, restoring pfm 11 could be achieved, much sooner.

Roderick.
Roderick Smith
 
Posts: 1235
Joined: Mon May 28, 2012 8:44 pm
Has thanked: 100 times
Been thanked: 193 times

Re: Sandringham enhanced timetable

Postby revenue » Mon Aug 07, 2017 12:17 pm

So now I'm confused. You're saying connect Newport services with Sandringham - but then what happens to Frankston? Are you saying that Frankston and Cran/Pak services share the loop or that Frankston terminates at Flinders Street?
revenue
 
Posts: 290
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 9:10 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 49 times

Re: Sandringham enhanced timetable

Postby matthew » Mon Aug 07, 2017 3:48 pm

revenue wrote:Well in one way, you are correct.
In another more important way, you are unfortunately not.

You could run Werribee and Williamstown to a combination of Frankston and Sandringham (and vice versa), but then then means you are mixing the lines even more. By doing that you're going to reduce capacity and reliability. Separating out lines is really critical if you want to make the network consistent and reliable. Put simply, this approach would mean that you have the two tracks over the viaduct trying to marry into four tracks (two to Frankston and two to Sandringham). That's not ideal. With the current pre-metro tunnel tracks, you're better off terminating Sandringham at Flinders Street. But that's not really sustainable.


How about this idea:
Werribee and Williamstown via Flinders Street to Frankston

Sandringham via Flinders Street to Upfield
matthew
 
Posts: 71
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2012 8:51 pm
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 4 times

Re: Sandringham enhanced timetable

Postby krustyklo » Mon Aug 07, 2017 6:39 pm

How about this idea:
Werribee and Williamstown via Flinders Street to Frankston

Sandringham via Flinders Street to Upfield


It would be fair to assume that cross town services should be matched by frequency and by avoiding crossing other lines. Off peak frequencies are probably the best proxy as you would expect peak hour service increases in frequency to be proportional to off peak frequencies.

On that basis:
Werribee / Williamstown to Frankston
Weekday off peak frequencies: Werribee 20 min / Williamstown 20 min / combined 10 min. Frankston 10 min.
Weekend off peak: Werribee 20 min with connecting Williamstown services at Newport. Frankston 10 min.
Weekday probably works better than through routing Sandringham at present given Sandringham every 15 minutes. If Sandringham went to every 10 mins, would then come down to likely passenger flows and the effect of service disruptions. I suspect the main reason for Sandringham is the balance of increased patronage and the self contained nature of the line (ie, Frankston has more level crossings / pedestrian crossings meaning higher likelihood of disruption, and I suspect a reason for moving Frankston trains to the loop post-Skyrail to keep the line self contained).

Sandringham / Upfield
Weekday off peak frequencies - Sandringham every 15 minutes, Upfield every 20 minutes.
Weekend off peak frequencies - Sandrginham every 20 mins, Upfield every 20 mins.
I suspect that downgrading Sandringham is not on for both patronage and political reasons. I also suspect that Upfield wouldn't cope with 15 minute frequencies due to the single line section. I suspect that under this scenario that upgrading the Sandringham line is less attractive - whilst it also serves Southern Cross and North Melbourne, I wonder which stations further along would be more attractive? Possibly no different to the ones towards Werribee, but hard to know.
Either way, the need to cross every other northern line somewhere between Flinders St and North Melbourne would kill the idea anyway due to the introduction of capacity constraints from the flat junction conflicts it would introduce. I suspect Upfield is best left well alone going through the loop. After all, we don't need all services avoiding the loop, kind of defeats the purpose really...
User avatar
krustyklo
 
Posts: 2545
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 10:12 am
Location: Bundoora, VIC
Has thanked: 174 times
Been thanked: 253 times

Re: Sandringham enhanced timetable

Postby revenue » Tue Aug 08, 2017 12:03 pm

How about this idea:
Werribee and Williamstown via Flinders Street to Frankston

Sandringham via Flinders Street to Upfield


Are we are talking about a scenario where Melbourne Metro didn't go ahead?

Well in an environment without Melbourne Metro then you've just massively reduced the capacity of the Cran/Pak lines if you keep them in the existing loop. Remember - Melbourne Metro delivers the ability to run very long trains on those lines because the CBD stations provided by Melbourne Metro will be able to cope with them (and the current city loop can't). It's really hard to extend the current city loop underground platforms (expensive and time consuming).

This is another capacity benefit of Melbourne Metro- it means you can run longer trains - which gives you at least a fifty percent increase in passenger capacity on Cran/Pak - and probably more. And that's before you add in next generation signaling, etc.

In terms of which lines can be linked with which other lines, there are a range of factors to be considered. And of course ordering.

Under the Metropolitan Rail plan released in 2012 it did call for Sandringham to be linked with Upfield - and yes that depends on a range of infrastructure changes to support that.

Hopefully this discussions is showing the incredible interdependencies between various elements.
revenue
 
Posts: 290
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 9:10 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 49 times

Re: Sandringham enhanced timetable

Postby Roderick Smith » Tue Aug 08, 2017 1:12 pm

The same capacity could have been achieved with double-deck trains, 20 years ago, and all routes, not just to Dandenong.
The overhyped tunnel was a disaster from concept to execution, designed by UK luddites.
The so-called 'high capacity' train isn't. The so-called 'high-capacity' signalling has been in use for 80 years, just not in the loops.

Roderick
Roderick Smith
 
Posts: 1235
Joined: Mon May 28, 2012 8:44 pm
Has thanked: 100 times
Been thanked: 193 times

Re: Sandringham enhanced timetable

Postby BroadGauge » Tue Aug 08, 2017 1:30 pm

krustyklo wrote:On that basis:
Werribee / Williamstown to Frankston
Weekday off peak frequencies: Werribee 20 min / Williamstown 20 min / combined 10 min. Frankston 10 min.
Weekend off peak: Werribee 20 min with connecting Williamstown services at Newport. Frankston 10 min.

Don't forget that it's changing from the end of this month, with what you've stated above basically staying the same except that the split of the 10 minute service Frankston - Newport will now be to Laverton/Williamstown, with Werribee express trains (every 20 mins) being a separate service overlaid on top of that.

I'm guessing that incorporating the fragile single track Westona loop into services that have come all the way from Frankston won't do any wonders for it's reliability. :twisted:. The only way to maintain a reliable service on the overall corridor is to continue bypassing the loop during late running.

Another odd thing about this change is that the CBD - Newport will be one of the most heavily serviced corridors on weekdays, with 9 trains per hour all day, but will only have a third of that on weekends.
User avatar
BroadGauge
 
Posts: 3365
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:20 pm
Location: Nyah West
Has thanked: 155 times
Been thanked: 174 times
Favourite Vehicle: Cash Express Train

Re: Sandringham enhanced timetable

Postby Roderick Smith » Tue Aug 08, 2017 3:23 pm

To an extent, the 27.8 plan matches what I have espoused for years in order to maximise available infrastructure, but still leaves too many places with only 3 tph, 20 min headways.
The Altona loop is very little longer than the straight, and could be accelerated by 3 min by putting concrete sleepers on the curves, canting properly, and going faster.
Even without that, best benefit comes from a base case of 6 tph to Werribee via Altona, and back via the straight, limited express.
6 tph to Williamstown, stopping at all stations.
That is 12 tph to Newport, and 10 min headways to every station (not quite turn up and go, but as good as Victoria gets).
Newport is signalled for better than 18 tph, but that becomes the maximum because of the desire for express trains: one express takes the track capacity of two stopping trains. Real metros don't run expresses.
My solution eliminates all messy shunting at Newport, nearly all cross-conflict moves, and the flaky cross at Westona which causes delays to propagate.
Altona people have to travel to Laverton, for a cross-platform interchange, but gain from being limited express, and the total is time neutral on a return trip to the city. That requires the installation of two crossovers to restore a capability removed by PTV perhaps 10 years back.
There are other prospects:
Running Altona anticlockwise in the morning brings back cross conflict.
Combining Altona with Williamstown, splitting at Newport, is beyond PTV's comprehension.
That still needs an extra crossover at Laverton to restore a capability removed by PTV.
Whichever, unidirectional gives Altona 10 min headways, and gives them now, and is quite independent of the Swanston St tunnel.

Roderick.
Roderick Smith
 
Posts: 1235
Joined: Mon May 28, 2012 8:44 pm
Has thanked: 100 times
Been thanked: 193 times

Re: Sandringham enhanced timetable

Postby matthew » Tue Aug 08, 2017 4:50 pm

revenue wrote:
How about this idea:
Werribee and Williamstown via Flinders Street to Frankston

Sandringham via Flinders Street to Upfield


Are we are talking about a scenario where Melbourne Metro didn't go ahead?

Well in an environment without Melbourne Metro then you've just massively reduced the capacity of the Cran/Pak lines if you keep them in the existing loop. Remember - Melbourne Metro delivers the ability to run very long trains on those lines because the CBD stations provided by Melbourne Metro will be able to cope with them (and the current city loop can't). It's really hard to extend the current city loop underground platforms (expensive and time consuming).

This is another capacity benefit of Melbourne Metro- it means you can run longer trains - which gives you at least a fifty percent increase in passenger capacity on Cran/Pak - and probably more. And that's before you add in next generation signaling, etc.

In terms of which lines can be linked with which other lines, there are a range of factors to be considered. And of course ordering.

Under the Metropolitan Rail plan released in 2012 it did call for Sandringham to be linked with Upfield - and yes that depends on a range of infrastructure changes to support that.

Hopefully this discussions is showing the incredible interdependencies between various elements.


I can fix the Pakehamn line by doing the following:
-Metro runs express as replacements for the V/Line services to Pakehamn
-V/Line runs the service from Pakehamn to Traralgon

The benefits of this, allows PTV to increase the capacity per service from 222 seats to 536 seats and that increase of 241% capacity.
matthew
 
Posts: 71
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2012 8:51 pm
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 4 times

Next


  • Advertisement

Return to Discussion - Melbourne / VIC

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], LB608 and 3 guests