Rail

<html><body>
<h2>Comment</h2>

If the voting public are to take the Andrews Government's <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/victorian-government-unveils-suburban-rail-loop-election-proposal">Suburban Rail Loop</a> proposal on face value, over time, Melbourne will have a train line from Cheltenham to Werribee via the north-east and Melbourne Airport.

But will it be a 'single' train line - for example, the same service, no matter which part of the new rail line you are traveling on? 

Business case development currently underway for the Melbourne Airport Rail Link (MARL) and - should the Andrews Government be re-elected - the Suburban Rail Loop, will determine that outcome however, there may be some benefit to developing what in effect would be two separate rail lines to form the one greater loop line.

In recent days we saw a private proposal dubbed 'AirRail Melbourne' which is concerned with building a new railway from Southern Cross to the Airport via Sunshine and as I mentioned in my <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/ifms-airrail-melbourne-proposal-helps-other-projects-to-get-financed">commentary</a>, that specific railway is unlikely to cost $15 billion in total and the private investment - to the tune of $5 billion - would give governments the choice to reallocate funds to expanding other rail corridors and introducing new metro and regional services.

AirRail Melbourne, the proposal which will seek to use the market-led infrastructure process set up by the Victorian Treasury, positions itself to take a bet each way on how other projects might work with it. 

For instance, extrapolating the AirRail Melbourne proposal we might foresee a new dedicated line built Southern Cross - Sunshine - Airport and a new track pair from Sunshine - Deer Park - Wyndham Vale to the Geelong/Werribee line junction. Likewise, governments will have a choice to position the MARL/AirRail Melbourne line as a future path for Bendigo and Seymour-Shepparton services just like how the Rail Futures Institute has advocated for in the past.

Governments might even choose to extend the track eastward to form the wider Suburban Rail Loop (SRL) too.

<h2>But should they?</h2>

When the SRL was unveiled by the Premier, the eastern and northern sections on the map looked somewhat obvious - by simply looking at the map we can see its purpose is to move people around the middle suburbs between the existing radial network of metropolitan and regional services.

The western section looked undercooked, but one suspects that's because of the already announced business case development work occuring for the MARL and look at the situation now - the State Government called for expressions of interest to participate last week and already a well-rounded proposal has had its 15 minutes in the sun.

The passenger movement task to and around the west is different to the northern and eastern sections of the SRL - the west has far more complexity: High-speed rail to Geelong, city to airport services, should MARL be used in future for Bendigo and Seymour-Shepparton?

And so it follows, might - or should - the Suburban Rail Loop as Melbourne's orbital rail line, be two different systems given the two broad passenger movement tasks in different regions of the metropolitan area?

If we assume the western side of the city will proceed with the MARL or something like the AirRail Melbourne proposal which includes rail corridor expansion to the west, the SRL from the Airport to Cheltenham could be a separate rail system akin to what the Sydney Metro is to the wider rail network in Metroplitan Sydney (and regional NSW).

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public//pictures/article-images/projects-stations-bukitbintang-02-1.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Bukit Bintang station on Kuala Lumpur's newest MRT line SBK9 - image: my-mrt.my"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="387" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files//styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/projects-stations-bukitbintang-02-1.jpg?itok=zAOmBLiD" title="Bukit Bintang station on Kuala Lumpur's newest MRT line SBK9 - image: my-mrt.my" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Bukit Bintang station on Kuala Lumpur's newest MRT line SBK9 - image: <a href="http://mymrt-underground.com.my/projects/sungai-buloh-kajang-sbk-line/">my-mrt.my</a></figcaption></figure>I was recently in Kuala Lumpur, where last year they opened the second and final phase of that city's latest MRT line.  It's a turn-key system, with portions of underground and elevated track broadly connecting through the centre of KL and out to the east and west of the Klang Valley.

We know the Andrews Government has cornered themselves into an underground rail line from Cheltenham to Broadmeadows and some of the most expensive components of underground railway construction are the stations.  The bigger the station, the higher the cost as the rule of thumb goes.

On the Metro Tunnel project, the five stations are enormous - in platform length in particular - to cater for lengthened trains. Upwards of 220 metres.

On KL's Line SBK Line 9 (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sungai_Buloh%E2%80%93Kajang_MRT_line">Sungai Buloh-Kajang 9</a>), trains are just as wide and each four-car train has a similar capacity as our standard metro trains in Melbourne (3-3.1m &amp; 1,200 passengers per train) but with only four cars, the trains are shorter and therefore platform length requirements are shorter as well. The trains are 90 metres in length.

The enormous capacity of the comparatively short trains is achieved with longitudinal seating and wide, open gangways between carriages. The trains are also driverless, centrally controlled with platform screen doors at all stations.

The Andrews Government claims the SRL will enable trips from Cheltenham to the Airport in 45 minutes, and it's likely that the majority of trips on the line (should it be built) will be much shorter and minimal seating in longitudinal configuration - in order to create scalability over time - would likely be acceptable to most people given the line's purpose is to rapidly move people between lines and to the newly served employment, shopping and education precincts.

Food for thought.

Lead image credit: Bukit Bintang station, <a href="http://mymrt-underground.com.my/projects/sungai-buloh-kajang-sbk-line/">my-mrt.my</a>
</body></html>

Alastair Taylor

Might the Suburban Rail Loop be two separate rail systems?

<html><body>
On Sunday, the Minister for Public Transport and the Premier were in Warrigal to announce the Victorian Government's regional rail revival program. Soon after, the Victorian Government announced their intention to spend $10 million on figuring out how to deliver the Melbourne Airport rail link sooner than the timeframe specified in infrastructure Victoria's 30-year strategy.

This $10 million comes with strings attached, however: it - along with the Regional Rail Revival program - will be financed out of the money that Victoria is entitled to under the Federal Government's asset recycling scheme.

This announcement marks a distinctive shift in Victorian Government rhetoric when it comes to the Melbourne Airport rail link. To date, the Victorian Government has frequently attempted to shift the focus to its current portfolio of infrastructure projects and likewise, they have repeatedly said that the Melbourne Metro project must be built before the Melbourne Airport rail link.

Various news reports have circulated widely in the past of proposals by private organisations to link the airport and city via monorail or other rail-based technologies and the Victorian Government's response has often been reported that the project proponents should approach the government through the unsolicited proposals process.

In receiving briefings from the proponents, the Victorian Government appears to have made the judgement that there is a large amount of interest in linking the airport and Melbourne's CBD with the rail-based transit solution via a privately funded solution.

What a privately funded rail solution looks like is hard to picture at present but it could involve utilising a completely different rail technology and corridor or it could also involve a Melbourne Metro-style private-public partnership extension to our current rail network out to the airport.

In any case, dialing everything back to effectively starting from scratch might frustrate some but on the other hand it also provides far more freedom to develop solutions in relieving pressure on the road network in accessing Melbourne Airport.

At a fundamental level this new business case and study round should revisit all previous Melbourne Airport rail link studies and update the data contained within them. This would include projected rail passenger statistics, updated aviation passenger projections, and taking a more forensic look at how land is used around the airport and how many people are, and how many people will be employment in non-aviation related jobs in future.

One of the themes from Infrastructure Victoria's 30-year strategy found that, when modeled, if a rail link is much more than just a 'City to Airport' service, it has the tendency to have positive impacts dispersed over a greater area. In the 30-year strategy's case, having Melbourne Airport Rail Link as a branch of the new high capacity metro line would take cars off the Monash because airport services would run through the city and out to the south-east.

There is a good body of commentary and evidence elsewhere around the world which points to airport rail solutions should try to serve more than two destinations and the fares should be realistic. Jarrett Walker's article on <a href="http://humantransit.org/2016/03/keys-to-great-airport-transit">Keys to Great Airport Transit</a> is an excellent starting point.

<blockquote>
Toronto’s new <a href="https://www.upexpress.com/">high-fare, elite train</a> between downtown and the airport is a <a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/union-pearson-express-ridership-slumps-to-all-time-low/article28634074/">failure in ridership terms</a>, so it’s a good moment to talk about transit to the airport in general.

This <a href="http://www.ryerson.ca/citybuilding/blog/up_express_and_down/?mc_cid=7f336ff24e&amp;mc_eid=9acc982aad">critique by Cherise Burda of Ryerson University, one of the Toronto line’s few regular riders</a>, pretty much sums up why the Toronto Union Pearson Express is doing so poorly: Fares too high (CAD $27.50 one way) for a line that just doesn’t connect the airport to enough places.
<cite>Jarrett Walker, <a href="http://humantransit.org/2016/03/keys-to-great-airport-transit">Keys to Great Airport Transit</a></cite>
</blockquote>

Interestingly, since that article was published (and the linked blog post was published), Toronto has dramatically reduced the Union-Pearson Express fares and <a href="https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/transportation/2016/03/17/union-pearson-express-ridership-spikes-after-fare-reduction">patronage has subsequently blossomed</a>.

While we should welcome any action on getting rail into Melbourne Airport (the faster, the better), if we're going down the path where there is a greater private sector role in developing the Melbourne Airport Rail solution, we mustn't ignore the experience other cities have had.
</body></html>

$10M Melbourne Airport Rail link study: don't ignore lessons from other cities

<html><body>
In a not-so-surprising move, the commencement of construction on the level crossing removals at Edithvale (Edithvale Road) and Bonbeach (Bondi Road) have been delayed by at least a year due to the Level Crossing Removal Authority determining an environmental effects statement (EES) must be conducted for the two sites.

At the same time, the Minister for Public Transport, Jacinta Allan, on Sunday morning also announced that Station Road in Seaford will be fast tracked and a hybrid lift-one, lower-the-other design solution has been chosen. Seaford Road is set to be sunk by 1.5 metres and the Frankston rail line will be raised on an embankment either side of Seaford road and cross the sunken thoroughfare.

"Detailed technical investigations have found that it is not feasible to lower the line into a trench to remove the level crossing in Seaford, due to the impact a rail trench would have on groundwater and its effect on Kananook Creek and nearby Ramsar-listed Edithvale-Seaford wetlands".

<iframe allowfullscreen="true" allowtransparency="true" frameborder="0" height="350" scrolling="no" src="https://www.facebook.com/plugins/video.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FDanielAndrewsMP%2Fvideos%2F1322772607787272%2F&amp;show_text=0&amp;width=560" style="border:none;overflow:hidden" width="100%"></iframe>

<h2>Skye/Overton Road gets fast-tracked, rail over road</h2>

On Saturday, the Public Transport Minister announced that Skye/Overton Road between the terminus at Frankston and Kananook station is to be fast-tracked with construction scheduled to start this year. A rail bridge over road was the selected design response.

Final designs are still under development, however the images used on the Level Crossing Removal Authority's website for consultation depict the bridge as being 900 metres long and have an approximate height of 8m.

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/skye-overton-aerials.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Skye/Overton Road rail bridge. Level Crossing Removal Authority"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="232" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/skye-overton-aerials.jpg?itok=QQtrHAAL" title="Skye/Overton Road rail bridge. Level Crossing Removal Authority" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Skye/Overton Road rail bridge. Level Crossing Removal Authority</figcaption></figure><h2>Comment</h2>

If proximity to sensitive wetlands or other hydrographic features is a key determinant after conducting initial tests that leads to ruling out trench rail design responses then at Carrum, it's hard to see how this could work. Carrum and Aspendale Stations are the two stations on the Frankston line located closest to the foreshore (Aspendale is not on the list of 50 level crossings) and the Patterson River complicates things at Carrum.

With the station precinct surrounded by water on two sides and Eel Race Road in effectively the same boat, perhaps this is why the initial investigations are still underway.

The Herald Sun <a href="http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/andrews-government-facing-budget-blowout-over-the-cost-of-removing-rail-level-crossings-on-frankston-line/news-story/78024a09d14f2eecf5f900bbb64e93e3">yesterday published a report</a> that said "the budget for eight level-crossing removals along the Frankston line could blow out by between $1 and $2 billion if suburban sky rail options are dumped. Five sites have the option of expensive rail trenches while three, in Carrum and Frankston, are earmarked for rail bridges."

The Frankston line along with the South Morang and Upfield lines are perhaps Melbourne's worst for the frequency of level crossings and a casual glance at the <a href="https://www.ptv.vic.gov.au/about-ptv/ptv-data-and-reports/network-development-plan-metropolitan-rail/">PTV Network Development plan</a> paints a picture of how train services will increase dramatically over time and it can't happen with so many level crossings still throughout the metro area.

Whether the Herald Sun report has any truth in it or not, no-one can afford to kowtow to local opposition groups at every turn when there's still a lot of work to do beyond the government's initial list of 50.
</body></html>

Bonbeach and Edithvale level crossing removals delayed by EES

<html><body>
<h2>Comment</h2>

Casual observers of transport investment in Melbourne could be forgiven for missing the bigger picture with the quick succession of recent announcements by the Minister for Public Transport over the past few weeks.

The series of announcements which began on February 16th dealt many of the technical components required to produce what the Melbourne Metro Tunnel project aims to achieve: a giant high-frequency rail line from two different ends of the city, right through the middle.

To date, the overwhelming majority of projects announced by the Victorian Government have been about shovels in the ground or manufacturing things; the 50 level crossing removal projects and the new dedicated train fleet that will start on the Pakenham/Cranbourne-Sunbury lines are the best examples.

Up until this point as well, the Victorian Government has been happy - and has effectively got away with it - to use quite an array of buzzwords from the rail world. TUAG (Turn Up And Go) services, High Capacity Metro Line (does that mean Metro as in the operator or does metro mean <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_M%C3%A9tro">métropolitain</a>?), HCS (High Capacity Signalling) and so on.

What does this mean? Here's my take.

<h2>Connecting some of the dots</h2>

The announcement on 16th of February continued the shovels-in-the-ground theme, stating that platforms on the Pakenham-Cranbourne lines will be extended. I assume that a similar package will be announced at some point closer to the completion of the Metro tunnel (as the Sunbury line stations will need to be configured in the same way as the Pakenham/Cranbourne line is about to be).

Due to the nature of platform screen doors that you find in other metro systems around the world - the doors are in a fixed position and only open when a train is stopped in the right position at a platform - having a dedicated fleet of trains is going to allow the Melbourne Metro Tunnel stations (Arden, Parkville, Melbourne Central, Flinders Street and Domain) to have them.

I put a question to one of the Minister for Public Transport's aides: the Pakenham/Cranbourne line station platforms are set to be lengthened, however what about platform heights? Will platform heights be augmented to allow higher accessibility for wheelchairs/prams regardless of where a passenger is located on a station platform?

Existing platforms that are being extended will retain the same platform height and the new stations that are getting built as part of the level crossing removal projects will be built to the current standard: 1170mm above the rail head.

"The High-Capacity Metro Trains (HCMTs) will be built to a similar height as X'Trapolis trains, but it's worth noting that floor heights of a train vary in operation depending on the number of passengers on board", the Minister's aide said.

The design of the new HCMTs is still, presumably, being finalised - ditto for the platform extensions - however, we may see a more widespread roll out of the wheelchair ramps we see at City Loop stations now.

Pakenham/Cranbourne (and eventually Sunbury) line trains are about to be orphaned from the rest of the network, and despite platform clearances still required to cater for V/Line and Freight trains, there would appear to be a bit of wiggle room for the design of the new station platforms to match up - as best it can - with the new HCMTs, thus making it possible to completely roll out the wheelchair ramps to all stations on the line.

Because if trains are going to be running as frequently as the Victorian Government has said, minimising driver delays will be paramount and providing a uniform experience at each and every station for those who require the use of a wheelchair is the right thing to do.

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/raised_platform.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Raised platform for wheelchairs at Melbourne Central. Image © Marcus Wong"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="305" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/raised_platform.jpg?itok=YkIV7nHq" title="Raised platform for wheelchairs at Melbourne Central. Image © Marcus Wong" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Raised platform for wheelchairs at Melbourne Central. Image © <a href="https://railgallery.wongm.com/city-loop/F111_7953.jpg">Marcus Wong</a></figcaption></figure>From the same announcement on the 16th of February, it was stated: "more than 70 kilometres of overhead power lines will be rebuilt, 20 substations will be built or upgraded, and a section of track in South Dandenong will be duplicated to boost reliability and support more services."

New and upgraded substations point to further sectorisation of Melbourne's rail network: it's likely a precursor to a voltage change in the overhead wiring in order to run the new, longer, trains operating on higher frequencies. This was also foreshadowed in the Melbourne Metro Tunnel business case document suite.

Will the Pakenham/Cranbourne-Sunbury line join the Brisbane, Perth and now Adelaide rail networks and switch to alternating current (25kV AC) or will we remain an <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Currents">Edison acolyte</a> and stick with direct current, but at a higher voltage like the networks in Italy and Belgium? (Melbourne &amp; Sydney rail networks operate at 1500V DC; Italian and Belgian mainline networks use 3000V DC).

From a passenger's perspective, the voltage used in the traction system matters little, however it would be a marked, technical, change.

The most recent piece in the enormous jigsaw puzzle that is the Melbourne Metro + Level Crossing Removal + HCMT project was the Minister announcing on Tuesday, via her Facebook page, that bids for the rail systems package have been received.

<iframe allowtransparency="true" frameborder="0" height="500" scrolling="no" src="https://www.facebook.com/plugins/video.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FJacintaAllanMP%2Fvideos%2F1121614744615681%2F&amp;show_text=1&amp;width=560" style="border:none;overflow:hidden" width="100%"></iframe>

Up until this point, it's all been about physical things: the new trains, the extended platforms, the level crossing removals, the tunnel, the new substations, the new catenary. The rail systems package includes more physical things, however it's the train control and safety system embedded within the HCS - High Capacity Signalling - component where the quantum leap (in context of how we manage rail operations) will occur.

And with a $1 billion pricetag, perhaps now we'll finally get a new network command and control centre. After all, it's been on the cards for <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/the-ball-starts-rolling-on-new-train-control/2005/07/01/1119724809180">years</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrol#History">years</a>.

<h2>And some more thoughts</h2>

Maintaining a level of scepticism when jargon is thrown about by government is always healthy, and now two years on, all the components required to take two century-and-a-half year old rail corridors and blitz it into the realm of standard modern rail practice are all pointing in the right direction. Yet there are still some unknowns.

On the new power/traction components: will we start to see the roll out of line-side infrastructure to support storing energy generated by a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regenerative_brake#Conversion_to_electric_energy:_the_motor_as_a_generator">regenerative braking</a> system on the new trains?

As base-load power supplied to the rail network is predominantly supplied from coal power plants, this type of system is an economic plus as well as an environmental cost saving measure. The savings come from storing energy generated by trains braking on the line which can then be fed back in - less demand for power, in theory, reduces the overall power bill and it follows with less power required to operate the rail network, that's less coal burned - hence the environmental cost saving.

On intermodal integration: an unrelated announcement also recently made by the Minister for Public Transport was that bus operator contracts are-a-changing. Our first 'High Capacity Metro Line' can't just be fed by people parking cars at stations or riding a bike to a station, those people who live further than a comfortable walk away from a station need an alternative to driving to the station.

On the eastern side of this new High Capacity Metro Line, high-frequency bus routes exist in some places which interface well with rail services: the smartbus routes (which are sadly the exception, not the rule). Will we see more of these routes to the east and west of the city connecting with the new metro line and running on better frequencies to create a much wider, true, intermodal network?

How can this fit with an <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/first-home-owners-in-regional-victoria-get-a-boost-from-state-government-20170302-gupix6">emerging decentralisation agenda</a>? Specifically: the Monash National Employment Cluster is partially serviced by the High Capacity Metro Line (Springvale, Westall, Clayton and Huntingdale stations) but what of the 'last mile' into the precinct? Is the VPA factoring in a major bus route overhaul as part of <a href="https://vpa.vic.gov.au/project/monash-employment-cluster/">its planning work</a>?

On where the network will get its power from in future: back in January the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change (Lily D'Ambrosio) announced, to much surprise, that the Victorian Government will "voluntarily surrender renewable energy certificates matching the amount of electricity used by all of Melbourne's trams". In short, the power required to operate the tram network will come from renewable sources in future.

Is the same thing on the cards for the heavy rail network?
</body></html>

Melbourne's first 'High Capacity Metro Line'

<html><body>
With rail services recommencing operations between Box Hill and Ringwood this morning after the completion of major works on Heatherdale Road and Blackburn road level crossing removal projects, there remains only two level crossings between Flinders Street and Ringwood.

Located at Mont Albert Road and Union Road, the latter of which saw a horrific accident last year, these two level crossings, if they were to be reprioritised - perhaps even bolted-on to the list of the state government's 50 - would most likely result in one station rebuild (Surrey Hills), possibly two (Surrey Hills and Mont Albert).

Beyond Ringwood on the Lilydale branch, level crossings remain at Dublin Road (East Ringwood), Coolstore Road (Croydon), Manchester Road (Mooroolbark), Melba Avenue and Maroodah Highway (Lilydale). Manchester Road and Maroondah Highway are on Spring Street's list of 50 crossings to be removed by 2022.

On the Belgrave branch, Bedford Road (Ringwood), Alpine Street (Ferntree Gully), and Railway Avenue (Upper Ferntree Gully) are the three remaining level crossings, after Scoresby Road and Mountain Highway were grade separated late last year.

Trenches are a feature of this eastern suburbs spine. Starting with the first modern day grade separation project at Boronia, right through to deepening the cutting that already existed at Heatherdale during the most recent grade separation.

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/16463334_1347577555316926_2868075743451115199_o.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="The trench leading up to Blackburn Station. Image © Level Crossing Removal Authority"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="387" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/16463334_1347577555316926_2868075743451115199_o.jpg?itok=2hiZZ-4-" title="The trench leading up to Blackburn Station. Image © Level Crossing Removal Authority" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>The trench leading up to Blackburn Station. Image © Level Crossing Removal Authority</figcaption></figure><h2>Dandenong corridor is firing up</h2>

At the same time as the Ringwood corridor is [almost] becoming level crossing-free, the major works on the Dandenong corridor have kicked up a gear.

Last week images of the first columns to support the elevated track between Caulfield and Oakleigh started appearing on social media. Murrumbeena is the site which is seeing the majority activity at present as it's the launch site for this section of the Dandenong corridor work.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-partner="tweetdeck">
Fourth pier in place overnight <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/skyrail?src=hash">#skyrail</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/MelbourneStevo">@MelbourneStevo</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/trainspotter67">@trainspotter67</a> <a href="https://t.co/uGeqnEWP0s">pic.twitter.com/uGeqnEWP0s</a>
— Crossing Watch (@CrossingWatchin) <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://twitter.com/CrossingWatchin/status/827389942116474880">February 3, 2017</a>
</blockquote>

Beyond the primary 'skyrail' project, there are five more level crossings on the list of 50 set to be removed over the next few years.

Abbots Road on the Cranbourne line along with Thompsons Road appear to be the most advanced with the primary website for the <a href="http://levelcrossings.vic.gov.au/crossings">Level Crossing Removal Authority</a> carrying multiple renders at both locations.

Likewise, South Gippsland Highway (Dandenong), Hallam Road (Hallam) and Clyde Road (Berwick) on the Pakenham line are currently 'in planning'.
</body></html>

Only two level crossings remain between the City and Ringwood

<html><body>
Refreshed stations delivered as part of the ongoing level crossing removal project, the new Melbourne Metro tunnel, ballsy private sector-lead high-speed rail proposals like CLARA and now the Rail Futures 'InterCity' paper. It's a good mix of shovels in the ground and an eye on the future of rail in the state.

The Consolidated Land and Rail Australia (CLARA) high-speed rail and InterCity paper by Rail Futures have a true statewide focus through the creation of brand new cities serviced by a high-speed rail line (CLARA) and InterCity's advocacy for population decentralisation outside of Melbourne.

While it is tempting to launch straight into an analysis of the hard infrastructure proposals in the InterCity report, we need to talk about the notion of a "State of Cities".

It's quite easy to throw phrases like "building sustainable cities" around, and 9 times out of 10, the message will likely be interpreted as building green cities, which is fine, but what about a growing city sustaining its own residents through increased local employment opportunities?

I must echo the comments made by Alan Davies <a href="https://blogs.crikey.com.au/theurbanist/2016/09/07/are-regional-dormitories-the-way-to-grow-our-cities/">earlier this week</a>: the overriding vision in the InterCity report seems to focus largely on enhanced regional rail line infrastructure and services as the new high-speed commuter conduits from the regional cities into central Melbourne.

Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater when it comes to the '20 minute city' concept (regardless of how pithy that aspiration is). Inter-city commuting, on the scale of Ballarat/Geelong/Bendigo to central Melbourne, would be the domain with those with high levels of income.

The regional cities may currently have, and potentially build new, affordable housing, but it won't be cheap to commute, nor should it. We should be focusing our efforts on creating jobs in the regional cities so that locals can work local.

It would be wrong to narrow the affordable housing debate into one of grand-scale long-distance commuting to Melbourne from the regional cities and this specific debate needs further study, not just from the planning and transport realm, but also the health, economic and small, medium and large business realms.

Moreover in InterCity, there's an assumption that regional rail services will remain diesel-powered.

In light of the Victorian Government's recent posturing to kick-start renewable energy investment as well as the <a href="http://reneweconomy.com.au/2016/new-hope-for-solar-towers-as-south-aust-seeks-energy-competitors-94366">recent news</a> that the SA Government 'announced a new tender designed to introduce new competition in the [generation] market': to build solar-based power plants and storage, capable of dispatching electricity into the grid 24 hours a day. I'd argue that on top of assessing the individual proposals, a switch to greater electrification throughout the regional rail network should also receive a look in.

Overall however, InterCity is an elegant and informative document and will likely be a report that's referenced a lot in future (the proposals contained within it now need to run the gauntlet of cost-benefit analyses to ascertain whether any of its multiple proposals stack up).

<h2>CLARA and InterCity: a crossover?</h2>

The proposals outlined in the <a href="http://www.railfutures.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/160804-Regional-Rail-paper-v14.1.11-final-for-printing.pdf">InterCity report</a> are spread over two phases:

Phase 1 would see an investment program which deals with incremental change over a few election cycles: line speed upgrades (trackwork, signaling, level crossing protection), duplicating single track sections and quadruplicating metro area track to allow greater separation of regional and metro trains as well as increase regional service frequencies. The start of the cross-country network on the newly converted standard gauge track between Geelong, Ballarat and Maryborough/Horsham would also begin in this phase.

<blockquote>
Phase 1 also includes a fundamental shift in transport govenance, to actively integrate planning across transport modes and to deliver on the objectives of the Transport Integration Act 2010.

<cite>InterCity: How regional rail can re-balance population growth and create a 'state of cities' in Victoria (page 44)</cite>
</blockquote>

Phase 2 is the more meaty part of the infrastructure proposal, made possible by changes in phase 1: further line speed upgrades to enable 200kph operations where achievable, a dedicated fast line that would extend from Southern Cross to Melbourne Airport and then act as a new main line for Bendigo/Echuca/Swan Hill and Seymour/Shepparton/Wodonga regional services.

This new route would also double as the future path for future inter-state high-speed rail services to enter Melbourne.

The second phase also calls for a new fast line to Geelong that would connect to the cross-country network and that same network would then be extended from Maryborough into Bendigo. Overarching everything would see more and more lines converted from broad gauge track to standard gauge, presumably made simpler by installing dual gauge sleepers from the get-go so that a gauge switch can eventually be carried out with minimal disruption.

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/intercity_phase2_map.png" rel="gallery-all" title="InterCity: infrastructure investment in phase 2 (page 45)"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="457" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/intercity_phase2_map.png?itok=IWhWXT_5" title="InterCity: infrastructure investment in phase 2 (page 45)" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>InterCity: infrastructure investment in phase 2 (page 45)</figcaption></figure>The <a href="http://www.clara.com.au/">CLARA</a> high-speed rail and city-building proposal came to light in mid-July with ex-Premiers of Victoria and New South Wales fronting a media conference. The organisation's website is vague and much of the media reporting at the time was also vague: there's still a lot of cards being held close to the chest of the CLARA directors.

One might expect a proposal such as this to tout a particular rail technology, alas, it didn't. Instead, visitors to CLARA's website are presented with images and a video which depicts conventional high-speed rail (metal wheels on metal tracks) and maglev technology.

No doubt there are commercial reasons behind not revealing the type of high-speed rail CLARA will run with eventually, however if any tests that might prove any of InterCity's proposals to be worthy of adding to the long-term infrastructure for the state come back positive, this would likely force the hand of CLARA or any other future high-speed rail proposal linking the state capitals.

Inherent in InterCity's proposal is that the airport will function as a major hub: regional services would run to and from Bendigo and Seymour, City-Airport rail shuttle services and high-speed rail would use this corridor over the longer term. If this proposal is studied at any great length and it is found to have merit, the tracks initially built for the regional and shuttle services will not be able to handle maglev trains.

The sooner a clearer picture of the entire CLARA proposition is made public, the better.

<h2>InterCity's airport hub focus: multiple birds with one stone?</h2>

Based on media reporting at the time of CLARA's unveiling, it has become apparent that the Melbourne end of the route to Sydney is likely to kick off first. And fundamental to this will be the decision on how to access the terminus in central Melbourne.

If I were a betting man, I'd offer good odds that the Rudd and Gillard-era high-speed rail study for the east coast from 2012 has informed a part of CLARA's proposal. Thanks to the documents that are now in the public domain we know <a href="https://infrastructure.gov.au/rail/trains/high_speed/files/HSR_Phase_2_Appendix_Group_3D_Melbourne.pdf">the indicative route</a> and the estimated capital costs involved in the 2012 study.

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/ec_hsr_costs.png" rel="gallery-all" title="Estimated costs on the East Coast High Speed Rail network (Appendix 4B)"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="427" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/ec_hsr_costs.png?itok=MeqT6wY4" title="Estimated costs on the East Coast High Speed Rail network (Appendix 4B)" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Estimated costs on the East Coast High-Speed Rail network (<a href="https://infrastructure.gov.au/rail/trains/high_speed/files/HSR_Phase_2_Appendix_Group_4_Cost_and_program.pdf">Appendix 4B</a>)</figcaption></figure>The 2012-era study foresaw the east coast high-speed rail network as a conventional line (minimum 300kph operations) which require their own corridor but do have the ability operate over the conventional networks. This is how the TGV system works in France: all high-speed lines lead to Paris and they connect with the mainline network on the outskirts of the city, and then travel to the various terminii on the lower-speed network.

Regardless, due to the century's old Australian anachronism of differing rail gauges, a new track pair would need to be built in Melbourne (or the really cheap solution would be to go really slow over the existing standard gauge line, fighting for access with freight trains).

The 2012 study found that the most effective solution to access Southern Cross is to build an approximately 12-13 kilometre tunnel from Gowrie station, near the Western Ring Road and Hume HWY, all the way to Southern Cross underneath the existing Upfield line; the orange line in the map below is an approximation of this route.

<iframe frameborder="0" height="480" scrolling="no" src="https://www.google.com/maps/d/embed?mid=1D-QCvXH91ehwoHgPkWlO70JxkeA&amp;hl=en" width="100%"></iframe>

The estimated cost of this tunnel in 2012 was $2.2 billion. If you're trying to get your head around that figure by trying to compare it to the $6 billion figure for the 9km Melbourne Metro Rail tunnel, just don't. In short, a basic explanation is: the high-speed rail tunnel would just be that: a tunnel. No stations en route, just a path for trains to move in and out of Southern Cross and the Melbourne metropolitan area.

The 2012 study also has a "Northern Melbourne" station located just outside the tunnel in Campbellfield. The <a href="https://infrastructure.gov.au/rail/trains/high_speed/files/HSR_Phase_2_Chapter_3.pdf">indicative service plan</a> as part of the study foresaw this station effectively working in peak flow directions on the flagship inter-city express services: morning peak all Sydney-bound trains would stop en route, and in afternoon peaks all Melbourne-bound trains would stop here.

The rest of the 'pretty' lines on that map are my attempt to adapt the InterCity Melbourne Airport hub and the 2012 east-coast high-speed rail study. The blue line is a tunnel, measuring 14km - approximately 1 kilometre longer than the 2012 study tunnel - and the pink line is an elevated track leading to an elevated station 'bolted on' to the Terminal 1 expansion (which is depicted in Tullamarine's master plan); zoom in on the airport for more detail.

The Green and Yellow lines beyond the airport are my approximation of the new regional (and eventual high-speed) lines from the InterCity report.

Essentially the 2012 study route and station has been moved westward in that map: a tunnel leading all the way to Southern Cross is still the backbone, there's a "Northern Melbourne" station at the airport and the connections beyond the airport run outside the urban growth boundary for the most part (the 2012 study would have seen a new line built in the existing Upfield and Craigieburn-Wallan rail corridors, right through the middle of the growth areas).

Taking the known estimates for the 2012 study, I assume the cost to build the proposal as shown in the map would be similar to the study's cost breakdown; perhaps with a higher station, bridge and earthworks cost.

Like many others I don't hold high hopes for a high-speed rail line anytime soon. That's said, I'll be watching the CLARA proposal with interest and here's hoping the ducks fall into line across the various governments.

Furthermore I acknowledge the <a href="http://metrotunnel.vic.gov.au/resources/business-case">Melbourne Metro Rail business case</a> makes it pretty clear that airport rail services will eventually run through it; however it's always good to take a fresh look at things, especially now that the InterCity report is out in the open.

To close, I'll leave you with this thought: a 19km journey from Southern Cross through the tunnel and over the elevated sections into the airport station with a maximum speed of 200kph could be done in 8-10 minutes. How do you like them apples, Skybus and Transurban?
</body></html>

CLARA & Rail Future's InterCity: a crossover?

<html><body>
On Thursday the Premier and Minister for Public Transport held a media conference which appears to have now put the humble line-side signal on the endangered species list. At the same time, the announcement for expressions of interest in the new train control system adds a new chapter to the story of Metrol, the primary train control centre for the rail network.

As the Melbourne Metro project is going to merge the Sunbury, Pakenham and Cranbourne rail lines into single metro line, it is also going to get its own dedicated train fleet and will be the first set of lines in Melbourne to get a completely new signalling system.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-partner="tweetdeck">
Technology has come a long way since 1981! Today we released our rail systems EOI <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/TBT?src=hash">#TBT</a> <a href="https://t.co/Fo0bCqD4KG">https://t.co/Fo0bCqD4KG</a> <a href="https://t.co/2pcg186Fws">pic.twitter.com/2pcg186Fws</a>
— Melbourne Metro Rail (@melbournemetro) <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://twitter.com/melbournemetro/status/730665059681083392">May 12, 2016</a>
</blockquote>

In a nutshell, Melbourne's existing signalling system breaks portions of track up into blocks: a signal stands at the start of each block and the colours displayed (the signal 'aspect') tells the driver of a train what they can/cannot do.

For instance, a signal which has a green over a red (such as in the lead image) means that the driver of a train can proceed past the signal at normal line speed. A signal displaying red over red means the driver cannot pass the signal. <a href="http://vicsig.net/index.php?page=infrastructure&amp;section=signalling#aspect">Head over to this concise guide on Vicsig.net</a> to learn more about our currently signalling system deployed around Melbourne.

Although not explicitly mentioned in Victorian Government's media release, this new high-capacity signalling system is likely to be a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications-based_train_control">communications-based train control</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_block">moving block</a> system.

In this scenario, trains are fitted with transceivers which communicate with equipment installed along each train track and real-time information - such as train position and speed - is fed into a system which monitors the entire network. Precision is the key difference between what we have and communications-based train control systems.

<h2>Moving blocks versus Fixed blocks</h2>

The precision which comes with communications-based train control systems allows a safer implementation of moving blocks to separate trains on a line. Where we currently have fixed blocks whose signals govern train movements, in a moving block scenario and because the system which operates the line knows exactly where every train is, fixed blocks can be done away with and instead the train control system maintains the distance between trains.

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/fb_vs_mb.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Fixed block versus moving block. Image source: Wikipedia"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="223" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/fb_vs_mb.jpg?itok=EIFImbHD" title="Fixed block versus moving block. Image source: Wikipedia" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Fixed block versus moving block. Image source: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications-based_train_control">Wikipedia</a></figcaption></figure>On the fixed block (upper) line, the train on the right is occupying two blocks; this forces a greater distance between the trains. On the moving block (lower) line, the distance between the leading (right) and trailing (left) trains is shorter because the control system is maintaining the safe minimum distance, not fixed signals.

The following video filtered on to the Premier's Facebook feed on Thursday afternoon.

<iframe allowtransparency="true" frameborder="0" height="419" scrolling="no" src="https://www.facebook.com/plugins/video.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FDanielAndrewsMP%2Fvideos%2Fvb.134712696593275%2F1077806672283868%2F%3Ftype%3D3&amp;show_text=1&amp;width=560" style="border:none;overflow:hidden" width="100%"></iframe>

As the video shows, the ability to run trains closer together means that there is more capacity on a single track; in other words, more trains can be operated. This is generally expressed as 'X number of trains per hour' which can then directly translate into how often a train will arrive and depart at a station, i.e. 30 trains per hour = a train will arrive at/depart a station every 2 minutes.

The claim in the government video is that our current fixed block signalling can only successfully handle 20 trains per hour and that the new system will enable 24-30 trains per hour. This may well be the case, however what is not mentioned…

<h2>The railway will become increasingly automated</h2>

On our current network, it is left to the skill of the train driver to accelerate, decelerate, stop at the right spot on the platform and obey warnings and guidance from line-side signals. With a communications-based train control system, all those traditional train driver tasks can be handled by a combination of the control system embedded on the rail line and a train's own internal operating system.

And as seen by many railway systems around the world, the job of a train driver can also be made redundant with full automation. I don't suspect we'll be heading for full automation upon the opening of Melbourne Metro but it could be made possible, perhaps inevitable.

Lead image credit: <a href="http://railgallery.wongm.com/kensington-racecourse-essendon-resignalling/F106_9239.jpg">Marcus Wong's rail gallery</a>.
</body></html>

Rail

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Rail

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News