In the beginning

For years Sydenham station was a wayside stop on the empty plains north-west of Melbourne enroute to Bendigo.

SLV photo H1077

But the suburbs of Melbourne eventually grew north to Sydenham, and so in 2000 the decision was made to extend suburban trains from St Albans five kilometres north to a new station called ‘Watergardens’.

Weston Langford photo

Which opened in 2002.

The new terminus was well provisioned for a terminus station – three platforms, with centre turnback for terminating trains.

Sidings at the down end for stabling trains to form peak services.

Three lifts – one of the street on both sides, and a third to the central island platform.

With stairs in parallel.

However the footbridge across the tracks is narrow compared to what stations have today.

And the lifts were undersized compared to current standards – of 12 person capacity rather than 18.

But the lifts don’t work

As Watergardens station aged, the lifts weren’t exactly the most reliable – from 2016:

A malfunctioning lift at Watergardens train station that reportedly breaks down nearly every second week, on average, is likely to be replaced.

Western Metropolitan MLC Bernie Finn told state parliament recently the Watergardens lift had broken down 43 times over the past two years, and sometimes took a week to fix.

“For people to have to wait for up to a week for a broken down lift to be fixed seems to me to be quite insane. That is just ridiculous,” he said. “It is a major concern, particularly for people with disabilities and for elderly people.”

Public Transport Victoria and Metro Trains have been forced to provide maxi taxis for special needs commuters, who could not access the train to get to doctors’ appointments.

Mr Finn has also called for a second ramp to be built to service both sides of the station.

“I find it just astonishing that we have a lift there that has broken down so often. There is only one ramp for people to use, and it is on the opposite side of the platform,” he said.

“I just do not understand how the PTV could allow such a situation to exist.”

A PTV spokesman said it would continue to provide “alternative transport arrangements” for passengers when lifts are out of order.

“PTV is committed to finding a permanent solution for passengers – which at this stage could involve replacing the lifts,” he said.

Lift failures rendering stations inaccessible being the reason why the trio of stairs, lifts and long zig-zagging ramps with a DDA compliant 1 in 14 gradient has became the standard at new and upgraded railway stations in Melbourne from 2013.

But in the case of Watergardens station it was too late for that, so the only option was to upgrade the control and power supply systems for the existing lifts to improve their reliability – requiring one outage from 1 to 5 May 2017, and a second from 18 September to 3 November 2017.

And spending the big money

But even upgraded lifts can still fail, so in 2016 PTV commissioned Jacobs Group to study possible options to bring Watergardens station up to current standards, and provide a redundant method of access if the existing single lift to a platform failed.

They looked at going under, over and through the tracks. As you might expect, building a new level crossing got knocked on the head pretty quickly, and going under option was less than salubrious, so also got knocked out.

This left three options to upgrade the existing overpass – duplicating the three existing lifts, providing a ramp beside each lift, or a hybrid option with a additional lift to the island platform and two ramps to the street entrances.

Fitting in the new ramps on the street site was easy.

Artist’s impression, Jacobs 2016

But the island platform was more constrained, with a DDA compliant ramp taking up much the space at the Melbourne end.

Artist’s impression, Jacobs 2016

The Jacobs report also looked at the costs of the three options:

3.2 Constructability and Whole of Life Costings
An estimate of the turn out and life cycle cost for the 3 options – out to 30 years – is attached as Appendix D.
In precis, the full lifts option is the cheapest in the short term, the full ramps the most expensive:
Option 1 – All Lifts $5,276,700.00 – immediate Capital Construction Cost.
Option 2 – 2 ramps + 1 lift $5,595,000.00 – immediate Capital Construction Cost.
Option 3 – All ramps $6,568,200.00 – immediate Capital Construction Cost.

When factoring in the costs to service and maintain each option for 30 years (non-discounted cashflow) the costs become:

Option 1 – All Lifts $9,868,230.00 – adding $4,591,530.00 (non-discounted $s) in costs over 30 yrs.
Option 2 – 2 ramps + 1 lift $7,661,793.00 – adding $2,066,793.00 (non-discounted $s) in costs over 30 yrs.
Option 3 – All ramps $7,632,994.00 – adding $1,064,794.00 (non-discounted $s) in costs over 30 yrs.

For the first 10 years Option 1 has the lowest WOL cost.
Between year 10 to year 29 Option 2 has the lowest WOL cost.
After 30 years Option 3 has the lowest WOL cost.

Surprisingly the lift option was cheaper to build initially, through obviously the ramps became cheaper once ongoing maintenance costs were included.

Decision time

The 2018-19 State Budget committed $8.9 million to upgrade Watergardens station, with community consultation taking place in July 2018.

But there was a problem – the preferred option was installing additional lifts, but the PTV Network Technical Standards at the time required lift, stairs and a ramp for a vertical change of 5.6 metres – and so a waiver was required to provided a second lift, as well as to infringe on the minimum platform width where the new lift would land on the island platform.

However a waiver was granted, and work started on the project in early 2021.

The new lifts being located in plain grey towers, beside the existing brick ones.

An additional lift added at the end of the western entry.

And to the eastern entry.

While the additional lift to the island platform was snuck in beneath the existing concourse.

The stairs to the platform rebuilt.

To pass around the new lift shaft.

Which looks like it was always there.

PTV having this to say about the upgrade.

We have opened three new lifts at Watergardens Station to help people move around the station precinct and catch the train more easily.

This is part of the Public Transport Accessibility Improvements Program, which sees several metropolitan train stations upgraded to comply with current access guidelines for people with disabilities.

The new lifts feature:

• more space to increase lift capacity and allow for social distancing
• improved lighting
• a back up power supply, making them more reliable and avoiding breakdowns
• improved security with new CCTV coverage and windows
• more open design than the existing lifts with partially transparent lift walls.

Other completed works at Watergardens Station:

• We have increased the number of wheelchair accessible parking spaces in the Sydenham Road car park from five to nine.
• A back up power generator has been constructed to help power the lifts and station in the event of a blackout.
• Six extra CCTV cameras have been installed to cover blind spots around the stairs.
• Toilet refurbishments have been completed on the central platform and concourse to improve passenger amenities.
• New tactile ground surface indicators have been installed on all three platforms to improve accessibility.

A lot of work for a railway station only 20 years old!

Footnote: ramps vs lifts

Back in 2016 the Level Crossing Removal Authority also had to fight to avoid building massive ramps as part of the Mernda rail extension, but since then it seems to be a non-event – most new stations built since then feature dual redundant lifts to each platform, rather than ramp and a lift.

Footnote: platform extensions

The 2016 Options Report by Jacobs touched on the need for platform extensions at Watergardens station for the upcoming fleet of High Capacity Metro Trains, and flagged at changes at the city end would be the logical option.

1.5 Provision for other works – Future 10-car HCMT

Possible options should consider other works that may occur at or around the station in the future. The most important of these – in fact, the only one known to Jacobs – is the platform extensions for the new 10-car High capacity Metro trains (HCMT).

Currently the 3 platforms are 160 m long. The island platform is approximately.8.9 m wide at the down end; tapering on the Platform 3 side to c.7 m at the up end. All platforms will require an extension of 70m to bring them 230 m and, depending upon where this extension occurs, Platform 3 may need straightening.

Informal advice from PTV indicates that it is likely that it would be simpler and less costly to extend the platforms toward the city.

Jacobs’ own study of aerial photographs indicates that the gates to the stabling yards down from the station are c. 200 m from the NW end of the platform and that there are at least 7 sets of points in this area. The corridor to the SE is significantly less congested with 5 sets of points within c.250 m of the station after which it appears to be completely unencumbered until it reaches the next station at Keilor Plains.

For these reasons it seems most likely that the platform extensions would occur to the SE (up end); widening Platform 3 to remove the existing taper to provide an island of consistent width for its full length. Although the platform extension has no immediate bearing on the provision of secondary (or contingency) means of access to and from the station, as the widening would create additional space on the platform that would ease a pinch point in one of the options (see below), an up end extension to the platforms has been presumed in the development of the options..

And then look at what happened in 2022 – the entire lead into the yard at the down end of Watergardens was rebuilt.

Platform 1 extended by 15 for a 7-car HCMT.

And platform 2 and 3 extended by an even shorter 12 metres.

They also completed a major track slew at the down end of the yard at Watergardens, taking the sidings from 329 metres (two 6-car trains) long to 560 metres (three 7-car trains) long.

Footnote: the gory technical details

First – the options study by Jacobs.

Watergardens Accessibility Study
Options Study
December 2016

Watergardens station was designed and constructed between c. 2000 – 2002. The station was officially opened in January 2002.

The design provided for a single lift and stair access only to and from the island platform and the adjacent streets on either side of the station. However, the lifts have proved to be unreliable and, for those unable to use the stairs, access and egress to and from or across the station from either side has been made difficult.

With this in mind, PTV commissioned Jacobs to carry out an Options Study to draw out such options as might exist to provide a secondary means of access from one side of the station to the other and to the station’s central island platform for those unable to use a flight of stairs

The station contains 3 platforms – Platform 1 to the NE on the shopping centre side of the line and platforms 2 and 3 forming an island platform. Access to Platform 1 is made by one of two sets of stairs – one of 12, the other 13 risers – or one of two ramps – rising from the kerbside footpath. From the level of Platform 1 access is provided to the concourse level (c. 5600 mm above Platform level) by means of a lift or stair of 33 risers (two flights – of 17 and 16 risers).

From the SW side of the line, access to the station is made at concourse level. This is some 7000 mm above the pavement level, with access provided by means of lift or stairs. This stair consists of two flights – of 20 and 21 risers – 41 risers in all.

From the concourse access is provided to the island platform by lift and stair of two flights.

Looking at going under, over and through the tracks.

2. Options
Based upon the limitations noted above, there are three basic approaches – to cross the rail line / gain access to the platforms:
– At grade
– Under the permanent way
– Over the permanent way

As you might expect, building a new level crossing got knocked on the head pretty quickly.

2.1 Options – At-grade

Whilst recognising that both pedestrian and vehicular at-grade crossings both are, as a matter of PTV guidelines, no longer considered suitable, for completeness the possibility of at-grade options has been considered.

An at-grade point of egress has been provided at the down (NE) end of the island platform. This was previously used to provide emergency egress for the mobility impaired from the platform to the kerb-side on Sydenham Road, but the practice has since been discontinued. Presently, in the event of a lift failure, mobility impaired patrons are re-entrained and taken to the nearest accessible station from whence they are returned to Watergardens by taxi.

The ramp is still used by the Train drivers to access the stabling yard down line from the station.

In discussion with PTV and MTM at an initial Stakeholder consultation, it was agreed, for the above reasons and more, that an at-grade option is not feasible and was not pursued as a viable design option.

The going under option was less than salubrious, so also got knocked out.

2.2 Options – Under the permanent way

One underpass option was considered.

This is based upon using ramps of a maximum length of 6000 mm at an inclination of not more than 1:14 (one metre rise over 14 metres of length). Landings of not less than 1200 mm length are provided between each section of ramp. Larger landings are provided at changes in direction.

The scheme provides a straight ramp (of 10 x 6000 mm sections) descending from ground level adjacent the existing lift and stairs on the SW side of the station to a horizontal underpass lying c. 5600 mm below the level of the platform.

This ramp runs through the area currently used as a retention basis for storm water runoff from the adjacent carpark.

From the bottom end of this ramp, the underpass runs under Sydenham Road and the up end of the platform to emerge on the NE side of the lines with a switchback ramp (of 8 x 6000 mm sections) in an open area between the Telstra communication tower and existing station ramps. This delivers users c.60 m to the south of the existing station entry. The underpass is c. 50 m long.

A third ramp (of 13 x 6000 mm sections) runs from the mid-point of the underpass to deliver patrons to the far SE (up) end of the island platform.

The overall length of ramps and underpass is c. 190 m. There is a further c. 95 m of ramp from the underpass to the island platform.

In discussion with PTV and MTM at the initial Stakeholder consultation, it was agreed by all that due to the excessive ramp length required, particularly for the elderly and people with a disability, site drainage issues, issues surrounding potential local contaminated soil and the potential public safety risks associated with a long, unsupervised tunnel that this option was unfeasible and not to be pursued further.

Leaving options to upgrade the existing overpass.

2.3 Options – Over the permanent way

Three approaches suggest themselves to provide access over the permanent way:
• An all lift option – duplicating the three existing lifts
• An all ramp option and
• Hybrids of the above – the main version involving two external ramps with a lift to access the island platform

2.3.2 Three Additional Lifts

Duplicating the existing lifts is the most obvious approach to providing redundancy / contingency access to and across the station. There is some flexibility with the placement of these lifts but in each case, one position generally seems to recommend itself over the alternatives.

At the station entrances, new lifts can be located adjacent each of the existing entrance lifts. Subject to the final geometry of the lifts to be used, there appears to be sufficient space at both ends of the existing concourse to land a second lift.

Access to the island platform is more constrained. There does not appear to be anywhere adjacent the existing lift or on the existing concourse where a new lift could be placed without significant and deleterious effect upon the existing flow and function of the concourse.

The only suitable place is on the platform – on the up side from the stairs. To accommodate this, the existing concourse – complete with its glazed screen is to be extended. The concourse would extend to fill in the spaces on either side of the existing stairs and thence extend as a “U” to the new lift.

The new lift placement would require the relocation of the existing platform canopy and its associated furniture.

2.3.3 Additional Ramps and Central Platform Lift

After an all Lifts option, the next option is to replace lifts with ramps where these might be done easily i.e. outside the limits of the station but to keep a lift to the island platform.

The option is based upon providing two 1 in 14, 1.8m wide ramps – one on either side of the station – linking these into the existing stairs. This was a part of the original design – allowing the stairs and ramps to sit side by side – sharing the same landings at ground / platform and concourse levels.

As in the all Lift Option, the lift option requires an extension of the concourse and reconfiguration of the canopies.

On the NE (shopping centre) side, the ramp consists of 13 x 6 m sections for an over-all rise of c.5600 mm from platform level to the concourse. The rise from the street to the platform is provided by existing ramps. On the SW side, the ramp rises c. 7 m – 17 x 6 m sections – and is over 125 m in length.

2.3.4 Additional Three Ramps

The third option is that of 3 ramps consisting of a ramp at either station entrance (as per Option 2) and a third ramp on the island platform.

To install the required ramp on this platform at least one switch back is required. (The platform is not quite long enough to accommodate a single length ramp – being short by perhaps 3 m plus ramp run-off.) The difficulty that emerges is to maintain a 1.8m clear width between handrails on the ramp (and a zone on either side for screening on it) and maintain clearances at platform level to the coping.

In the layout as proposed, as the platform tapers a pinch point is reached where the width to the coping must be reduced to c. 3.1m. This “pinch” decreases as the ramp drops to platform level – opening out to c. 3.6 m at platform level.

The report also covered the suitability of lifts in general.

The current 12 person public lifts are smaller than is required by the current standard and are subject to vandalism.

Lift reliability is currently a problem because they operate publicly for 24 hours and are the only method of DDA entrance to and egress from the platform.

The additional lifts proposed in Option 1 & 2 will be larger 18 person lifts (3.5 x 3.5m footprint) and compliant with current design standards.

Discussion took place during the initial stakeholder meeting about whether new lifts should be introduced considering the maintenance issues associated with the existing 24 hour public use. The example of Coolaroo Station was given as a successful case where the introduction of duel public lifts works successfully. In addition, it was suggested that the majority of vandalism occurred within working hours as opposed to at night.

The current lift renewal programme was also discussed. It was noted that it could be 18 months before the existing lifts will be replaced and that some action will be required to improve reliability in the interim.

It was also noted that during the replacement of the existing lifts a means of temporary alternative access and egress will need to be provided. No solution to this was suggested, but Jacobs notes that it may be preferable to defer the upgrade of the existing lifts until after the installation of the alternative means of access considered in this study.

During the stakeholder meeting it was noted that by introducing ramps; the lifts may be turned off after hours, reducing maintenance and safety concerns, noting also that ramps are easier to install and of low maintenance comparatively to lifts. Ramps are likely to be less expensive over the long term however this is sensitive to maintenance costs.

Discussions took place around what would happen if no ramp upgrades occurred and lifts were closed at night. It was decided that removing an amenity that was previously provided would cause complaints and is not a suitable option.

Turning Lifts off after hours was generally accepted as an option that could be explored further.

And the costs of the three options:

3.2 Constructability and Whole of Life Costings
An estimate of the turn out and life cycle cost for the 3 options – out to 30 years – is attached as Appendix D.
In precis, the full lifts option is the cheapest in the short term, the full ramps the most expensive:
Option 1 – All Lifts $5,276,700.00 – immediate Capital Construction Cost.
Option 2 – 2 ramps + 1 lift $5,595,000.00 – immediate Capital Construction Cost.
Option 3 – All ramps $6,568,200.00 – immediate Capital Construction Cost.

When factoring in the costs to service and maintain each option for 30 years (non-discounted cashflow) the costs become:

Option 1 – All Lifts $9,868,230.00 – adding $4,591,530.00 (non-discounted $s) in costs over 30 yrs.
Option 2 – 2 ramps + 1 lift $7,661,793.00 – adding $2,066,793.00 (non-discounted $s) in costs over 30 yrs.
Option 3 – All ramps $7,632,994.00 – adding $1,064,794.00 (non-discounted $s) in costs over 30 yrs.

For the first 10 years Option 1 has the lowest WOL cost.
Between year 10 to year 29 Option 2 has the lowest WOL cost.
After 30 years Option 3 has the lowest WOL cost.

Next – the PTV Network Technical Standard Waiver.

PTV-NTS-002-W004 – Watergardens Dual Lift to Island Platform

Currently the central island platform (Platforms 2 and 3), Watergardens Station has DDA-compliant vertical transport with lifts and stairs, but the lifts have no operational redundancy. In the case of a lift failing, passengers with a DDA-accessible requirement would need to travel to the next accessible station and be provided with a taxi to return to Watergardens.

Up until 2017, lifts at Watergardens have not been reliable with many people having to travel to other stations to maintain access. In 2017 lifts at Watergardens were upgraded to increase their reliability lack of redundancy remained an issue.

Recently the State budget provided $8.9 million funding to provide for 3 lifts and increased concourse area at Watergardens Station. Design options for Watergardens were canvassed in a report by Jacobs on behalf of PTV: Watergardens Accessibility Study – Options Study – 02 December 2016.

Compared with the current arrangements, accessing the island platform (Platforms 2 and 3) requires a vertical change of about 5.6 metres above the platform. Normally this would trigger the need for a lift, stairs and a ramp (as opposed to two lifts).

However, providing a switchback ramp here with appropriate concourse modification, has been assessed as being a higher risk than providing a second lift with concourse modification. Providing a continuous grade (non-switchback) ramp would require platform extension, which would trigger expensive track work and will not be considered.

A Waiver is required to be provided to allow two lifts to be used in lieu of a lift, stairs and a ramp. Compliance with minimum platform width standard (MTM Structure and Facilities Standard (MCST 020 100-01)) cannot be achieved with either ramp or lift solutions. Ramp non-compliance would occur over a much longer length of the platform than a lift. This clearance will be subject to a Safety In Design Review once design has been completed. The lift non-compliance will need to be assessed further during detailed design and a potential subsequent MTM standards waver, separate to this application will need to follow process.

And the project requirements document.

Client Requirements Document
Watergardens Station Accessibility Upgrade
December 2018

As a part of the Public Transport Accessibility Improvements Program, several stations within the Metropolitan train network have been stated to receive upgrades in order to achieve compliance with current access guidelines for people with disabilities. Watergardens Station is identified as being in critical need of accessibility improvements. The reasons for this are summarised below:

• The current station has been prone to frequent lift failures causing reduced access to Patrons/Passengers and increased travel times. This has been attributed to unreliable lifts, lack of backup power systems and vandalism.
• With the concourse between the car park and shopping centre serving as a 24×7, primary access path for station patrons and general public alike, reliability issues with the lifts and vandalism lead to accessibility issues.
• The current issue is exacerbated as the lifts in the station are not complaint with DSAPT standards which raises major concerns with regards to safely accessing and moving casualties from the station.

There are some unpleasant customer experience complaints (from Jan 2017 to Oct 2018) against Watergardens Station regards to the DSAPT non-compliance station amenities. These complaints were lodged through MTM customer feedback system.

The main complaint topic is expressing the unpleasant reliability of the existing station lifts and inconvenience to enter and exit platforms when the lift/lifts are out of service. The other streams, one is about no level access or poor direct assistance for mobility impediment passenger boarding, and the other one is about inefficient/misleading notification to passenger with impediment.

If the concourse is inaccessible, the closest access path to cross the tracks is located about 750 meters on the Down side of the station and the other access is located about 1.5km from the station on the Up side of the station. There is no backup power supply for the existing three lifts.

Post retrieved by 35.215.163.46 using

The post The saga of lifts at Watergardens station appeared first on Waking up in Geelong.

In the beginning

The story starts back in December 2005, with the introduction of the VLocity trains to the V/Line fleet. Each set consisted of two carriages seating a total of 140 passengers, with a drivers cab at each end. For the peak hour express trains on the Geelong line, they would coupled together three units to make a six car train.

We then saw a politically motivated 20% cut in V/Line fares in 2007, resulting in an explosion in patronage, especially on the Geelong line.

One response to this was the ordering of additional trains for V/Line, who saw their first three-car long VLocity set enter service in August 2008.

But with patronage still growing and suburban and V/Line trains sharing the tracks out of Melbourne, running more services on the Geelong line wasn’t an option. But V/Line had another solution – 7-car long VLocity train, made up of two 2-car sets with a 3-car set.

These trains were introduced to the Geelong line in November 2008 and ran until June 2015, when Geelong trains commenced using the new Regional Rail Link tracks, and the last of the 2-car VLocity trains had been extended to be three cars along.

So what next?

As early as 2011 V/Line knew longer trains would be required – their ‘Initial Strategic Operations Plan’, obtained by the Greens under the Freedom of Information Act, says the following:

V/Line anticipates that by this point in time (2018) a high capacity style DMU will be required for Geelong services. It is expected that these trains would operate in 8- or 9-car consists and would each be able to carry 750 – 800 customers. It is expected that the eight peak hour services would be operated with the high capacity DMUs.

And the Regional Rail Link project also included provision for these longer trains – providing 250 metre long platforms at Footscray, Tarneit and Wyndham Vale stations to cater for a hypothetical nine car long train, made up of three 3-car sets.

But for some unknown reason, they decided only only build a 190 metre long platform at Sunshine, despite plenty of space at the city end for a 250 metre long one.

But in 2016 the State Government’s focus switched to a ‘high capacity next generation regional train’ – from the PTV website:

High capacity next generation regional trains

The 2016-17 State Budget includes $10 million in development funding for High-Capacity Next Generation Regional Rolling Stock to cater for the future needs of regional Victoria.

A next generation high capacity regional train will be commissioned in the coming years to cater for strong patronage growth and provide new peak services.

With V/Line saying in 2017 that nine car trains are possible, but won’t be happening any time soon – from the Geelong Advertiser.

Nine-carriage V/Line trains possible, but no plans for Geelong line yet
23 October 2017

The boss of the regional rail network has admitted for the first time nine-carriage trains on the Geelong line are a possibility.

Potential for a mega-train carrying more than 660 passengers comes after calls from commuters and rail experts to reduce peak-time overcrowding on the line.

But while James Pinder said a nine-carriage train was possible, he said it was not a current priority.

Mr Pinder said V/Line’s priority was bolstering its fleet from three to six-carriage trains.

“The (VLocity) train is capable of running in a nine-car configuration. (To run nine-carriage trains) it becomes an issue around infrastructure and number of vehicles (available),” he said.

“We don’t currently have any plans to run nine-car ser­vices. To run large numbers of nine-car services we would have to have a look at (increasing) platform lengths.”

On Monday, a spokeswoman for the Public Transport Minister did not say if the Government was considering introducing nine-carriage trains on the regional network.

The Geelong Advertiser under­stands platforms at Geelong station are long enough for nine-carriage trains — which could open the possibility for Geelong to Melbourne express trains.

Platforms at other smaller stations on the line would need to be extended for a stopping-all-stations Waurn Ponds to Southern Cross train.

Mr Pinder said nine-­carriage trains did not run across the V/Line network at present.

And they finally happen

On Sunday 21 June 2020 V/Line ran their first nine car VLocity train on the mainline, taking it from Southern Cross Station to Wyndham Vale and back to test their operation, as well as platform clearances.

Sunshine station being the sticking point.

The last one and 1/2 carriages fouling the junction when the front was stopped at the city end of platform 3.

Or sticking out in front after the rear of the train was brought onto the platform.

These tests were then followed in July 2021 by more testing, this time between Ballarat and Lal Lal, which doesn’t see any V/Line passenger services run along it.

ThebusofdoomFSX video

But it took another year for the first nine car train to take passengers – following the 30 May 2022 timetable change.

Passengers in Melbourne’s west now have more space on selected peak services with 9-car VLocity trains running to and from Wyndham Vale Station for the first time.

The longer trains, which have the highest-capacity of any regional commuter train in Victoria, will boost capacity by 50% cent on the busiest part on the V/Line network.

The new 9-car services will run each weekday, with 1 in the morning peak starting at Wyndham Vale and 2 in the evening peak departing from Southern Cross.

As well as improving capacity, the 9-car trains also provide more doors for boarding, reducing crowding in corridors particularly in peak periods.

Platforms will also be extended at Sunshine Station to allow nine-car VLocity trains to stop there in the future.

But due to the short platforms, these nine car services had to run express through Sunshine, as well as Deer Park.

Extending the platforms at Sunshine

With level crossing removal works at Deer Park station regularly closing the Geelong and Ballarat lines, V/Line took the opportunity to finally extend the platforms at Sunshine. In March 2023 the piled foundations were installed.

The real work kicking off in April, with assembly of the steel platform supports.

And pouring of the concrete deck.

They then left the completed section of platform fenced off for a month.

The nine car trains still having to skip the stop.

Until May, when they decided to take down the fence between new and old.

And the introduction of a new timetable from 28 May 2023 adding a stop at Sunshine to the nine car Wyndham Vale services.

However in recent months I haven’t seen a nine car train run – possibly due to a shortage of VLocity railcars following the retirement of the H set locomotive hauled carriage fleet.

And so they choose to cut down a nine car train to six cars, than a six car train to three.

And now to Melton?

In May 2021 the State Government announced that funding would be provided to allow nine car VLocity trains to run to Melton, a promise repeated in October 2022.

And reiterated yet again in March 2024.

The Melton level crossing removal works will help introduce larger nine-car VLocity trains as part of the $650 million Melton Line Upgrade, increasing capacity for passengers by 50 per cent and creating 1,000 jobs during construction – while making roads safer and less congested for pedestrians.

To support the introduction of nine car trains, a new train stabling facility is being investigated at Cobblebank where trains could be stored when they are not operating, further supporting local jobs in construction and ongoing maintenance.

But look at what else was happening at the same time – a brand new station at Deer Park was opened in April 2023, with platforms only 215 metres long – half a carriage (10 metres) too short!

That flew under the radar until August 2024, when the State Opposition gave a media drop to the Herald Sun, and then it was all over the news.

Footnote: it’s not just platform length

The new platform extensions at Sunshine also happen to be ~100mm higher than the existing platforms.

This happens to be a new platform height standard, which was also used at Deer Park station – and happens to be incompatible with the outward swinging plug doors fitted to V/Line’s Sprinter railcars.

And so those trains are banned from stopping at the new platforms.

Post retrieved by 35.215.163.46 using

The post A history of nine car long V/Line trains appeared first on Waking up in Geelong.

The story starts

Opposition transport spokesman and part time gunzel Matthew Guy kicked off the topic with a video posted to Instagram, detailing how the newly built platforms at Deer Park station were 10 metres short of a nine car VLocity train.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Matthew Guy (@matthewguymp)

Liberal Party HQ also sending a media drop over to the Herald Sun, who published it on Sunday 18 August.

As well as a comment from the opposition transport spokesman who tipped the newspaper off to the topic.

To add to the confusion and frustration, a Freedom of In-formation request by the opposition seeking documents on the nine-car train plan was refused due to the fact it was an “unfunded future project”. The nine-carriage trains, which come in sets of three carriages, are 225m long, and Sunshine station was recently upgraded from 190m to 225m to allow them to stop there. But Deer Park station, re-built during the $234m Mt Derrimut level crossing removal, is only 215m.

Look at who else got a mention.

The oversight was spotted on rail documents by self-described “train nut” Marcus Wong, who described it on his transport blog as a “comedy of errors”.

The blog post in question being my piece “First day at the new Deer Park station” from May 2023.

Herald Sun cartoonist Mark Knight also drew the short platform in cartoon form for Tuesday 20 August edition.

On the ground at Deer Park

The new platforms at Deer Park are longer than a 6-car VLocity train, with plenty of empty platform beyond the back of the train.

But it turns out they aren’t actually long enough for the 9-car trains currently used on services to Wyndham Vale to stop at.

The new platforms are only 215 metres long – half a carriage (10 metres) too short!

So why can’t they be longer?

The western end of Deer Park station is located hard up against a brand new townhouse development.

The townhouses almost touching the retaining wall that supports the tracks.

So there is no room for the platforms to be any longer at that end.

But what about the city end?

Here the platforms end right where the reinforced earth embankment that the station is built atop also end.

The tracks transitioning to the precast concrete u-trough viaduct.

So why didn’t they make the viaduct a little bit shorter, so that the platform could be made a little big longer?

Personally I don’t know – possibly if they made the viaduct one span shorter, the bus interchange wouldn’t be long enough for the “one stop per bus route, no matter how infrequently it runs” rule PTV follows.

Or the longer station would have taken up space for car parking down at ground level, and “no net loss of car parking” is the one rule that level crossing removals always follow.

Footnote: the other Deer Park platform problem

The new platform at Deer Park was also built to a new platform height standard, which isn’t compatible with V/Line’s Sprinter trains.

OPERATING RESTRICTION – DEER PARK STATION
SPRINTER RAILCARS

Upon advice from V/Line Network Engineering, Sprinter Railcars will NOT be permitted to stop at Deer Park Station at KP 17.943.

Any Sprinter Railcars travelling towards/from Wyndham Vale and Geelong or Melton and Bacchus Marsh will be required to run express through Deer Park Station.

The Operating Restriction will apply until further advised due to clearance issues between the Sprinter Railcar and the new Platform when the doors are in the Open position.

You can read about that saga here.

Post retrieved by 35.215.163.46 using

The post Nine car trains and the short platform at Deer Park appeared first on Waking up in Geelong.

Today we look at the Middleborough Road Project of 2007, which isolated the Lilydale and Belgrave lines for six weeks while a new rail cutting was excavated under Middleborough Road at Box Hill.

Trying to catch a bus at Box Hill

If you’ve ever had the misfortune of trying to catch a bus at Box Hill station, you know how convoluted the route is – first a set of escalators to exit the platform.

Then futz around with the ticket gates.

Dodge clueless shoppers inside Box Hill Central shopping centre.

Then take a vertigo inducing trip up another set of escalators into the middle of the shopping centre atrium.

And you’re finally there.

So what did the Middleborough Road Project do?

Then-rail operator Connex still called in the buses.

Up to 48 buses will run in peak periods between Box Hill and Blackburn.

The trip between Blackburn and Box Hill should take no longer than 17 minutes, including time to board and disembark, and walk between the bus and the train.

During peak periods and throughout the day on weekdays, a continuous shuttle bus service will operate between Box Hill and Blackburn. Buses will depart as soon as they are full and return as soon as the passengers on board have disembarked.

After 9pm on weekdays and on Saturdays, Sundays and public holidays, buses will operate to a set timetable. This will correspond to the temporary timetables for train services.

But built two temporary bus interchanges for them to operate from.

Blackburn

Buses will depart a temporary bus interchange just to the north of the station. Up to eight buses can stop in this interchange which will be built over an existing small car park and on the station side of Railway Road.

An extra DDA compliant crossing point is being built to the west of the station to accommodate passenger movement to and from the buses. This walkway will cross from the end of platforms 1 and 2, north to temporary bus interchange. It will not extend southwards to South Parade.

In addition, a number of gateways will be made in the fence separating platform 3 (which is the northern-most platform) and the adjacent temporary bus interchange in the car park.

Box Hill

A temporary bus interchange will be built next to the station, under Box Hill Central. The railway tracks, which are not in use during the shutdown, will be covered and the interchange built over them.

The interchange will have capacity for up to eight buses at a time to load/unload.

A pedestrian bridge, with stairs, will link platforms 2/3, with the bus interchange.

And how it worked

The interchange at Box Hill was the most impressive, with concrete being laid right over the top of the railway tracks, but in a way that trains could still run.

Weston Langford photo

So after the railway was shut down, buses could drive right in along the tracks.

Weston Langford photo

Stopping at a temporary bus interchange built on the tracks beneath the shopping centre.

Chris Gordon photo

Passengers being able to connect to trains on platforms 2 and 3 using a temporary footbridge over the bus roadway.

Chris Gordon photo

Buses then headed for Blackburn along the railway tracks.

Weston Langford photo

Exiting onto Whitehorse Road via a ramp at Linsley Street.

Weston Langford photo

And today?

2023 saw buses replace trains between Camberwell and Box Hill for level crossing removal works at Mont Albert Road, Mont Albert and Union Road, Surrey Hills – so how much effort was put into the replacement buses for that project?

At Camberwell station passengers had a short walk from the platforms to a shelter on Cookson Street to wait for buses.

With traffic controllers guiding buses out onto Burke Road.

But at the Box Hill end passengers got nothing – having to fight their way out of the station and along the Market Street mall to Whitehorse Road, where the buses would stop outside the shops.

In all an incredible contrast to the world of 2007 – we now grade separate dozens of level crossings each year without blinking, but put almost zero effort into making life easy for the passengers having their travel disrupted.

Further reading

• Vicsig page on the Middleborough Road Project
• Connex page on the Middleborough Road Project
• Forgotten lessons from rail replacement buses by me, and
• A look at the longest railway line closures in Melbourne, also by me.

Post retrieved by 35.215.163.46 using

The post Driving a bus down the railway tracks appeared first on Waking up in Geelong.

Regional Rail Link

The Regional Rail Link project was now approaching the finishing line, with a ‘consolidation train’ running back and forth over the newly laid tracks to bed them down before the commencement of revenue services.

The new platforms dedicated to V/Line services at Footscray were also open.

As restoration works continued on the station buildings.

The new platforms were also ready for 9-car long trains, the first of which didn’t run until 2022.

The new dual gauge tracks across the North Melbourne flyover also opened for trains, but not successfully – the Sydney-bound XPT derailed on the first attempt to leave Melbourne!

The cause of the derailment – the new tracks were incompatible with the wheel flange profile used on New South Wales trains.

And elsewhere on the rail network

The original blue/green and purple VLocity train liveries still dominated the view at Southern Cross Station.

Work had started on the 664 Collins Street development atop the south end of Southern Cross Station.

The escalators at North Melbourne station where entering a steep decline into unreliability.

Myki gates at stations were also failing regularly.

And Metro Trains – they were using the next train displays at Richmond station to promote the Channel 7 TV show ‘House Rules’.

Views that are gone

This view of a V/Line diesel headed over to the South Dynon locomotive depot was an unremarkable sight at the time, but today is hidden beneath the tangle of flyovers for the West Gate Tunnel at Dynon Road.

As were these trains at the Wagon Storage Yard at North Melbourne – now taken over by the Wurundjeri Way extension.

At Footscray station there was only a single small apartment tower to be seen – not the dozens found there today.

And you’d be hard pressed to guess that this scene is now the site of the Metro Tunnel portal at South Yarra – this private garage and car park was cantilevered over the railway cutting on Arthur Street.

And these trees cover Siding Reserve, which has been completely rebuilt to make way for the new railway tracks passing beneath.

Trams

A decade ago route 78 passengers were still having to put up with clunky old W class trams trundling down Chapel Street.

As did route 30 passengers on La Trobe Streets – the old clunkers finally being sent off into retirement in December 2014.

Meanwhile on William Street was a sign of the future – a brand new E class trams headed through on test. However it took until December 2021 for these trams to carry passengers on route 58.

Buses

The transition from National Bus to Transdev Melbourne started back in August 2013, but buses in the old liveries could still be seen on Hoddle Street.

And the Melbourne Visitor Shuttle bus was still kicking around, before it was discontinued in 2017.

Some loose ends

The big stadium in Docklands was still called ‘Etihad Stadium’.

Beside the Monash Freeway at Church Street in Cremorne, I found this small part under construction, on what was once a freeway off-ramp.

And a random photo I took of the Geelong skyline – the Kardinia Park light towers in place, but not the massive new grandstands.

And the view of Saint Mary of the Angels Basilica still dominated the skyline, with the office and apartment towers still to come.

And an Melbourne Airport Rail note

At Footscray station I found a giant banner linked to the Napthine Government’s ‘Moving Victoria’ campaign, promoting their unfunded ‘Melbourne Rail Link‘ project.

With a promise of trains running every 10 minutes to Melbourne Airport.

Conceived as an alternative to the Metro Tunnel, the Melbourne Rail Link tunnel would have run between South Yarra and Southern Cross, serving new stations at Domain and Fishermans Bend – instead of Arden and Parkville, who would be stuck using buses and trams.

But as you might have guessed, the Melbourne Rail Link project went nowhere, construction of the Metro Tunnel started a few years later and is almost finished, work on the Melbourne Airport Rail project has been stop-start, and a rail link to Fishermans Bend is as far away as ever.

Footnote

Here you can find the rest of my ‘photos from ten years ago‘ series.

Post retrieved by 35.215.163.46 using

The post Photos from ten years ago: July 2014 appeared first on Waking up in Geelong.

Current state

The City Loop isn’t one tunnel but a network of four separate tunnels that encircle the Melbourne CBD, with train services from different lines taking different routes around it at different times of day, before finally arriving at Flinders Street.

A result of this is that inbound trains full of passengers will slowly empty out as they make their way around the entire loop.

Before arriving at Flinders Street Station almost empty.

A loading pattern shown in this diagram from the 2012 PTV Network Development Plan.

Figure 16-2: Existing City Loop operation and train loadings – 2012 PTV Network Development Plan

Which goes on to say:

Constraints in the Northern Group revolve around the need for Craigieburn and Upfield lines to merge in the City Loop, thereby restricting the combined frequency to 24 trains per hour.

On the Burnley Group, the terminating and turning back of Burnley local trains at Flinders Street limits capacity on all Burnley Group local lines.

The current routing and efficiency of the loop and terminating lines in the city is an inefficient use of resources (trains and infrastructure), as demonstrated in Figure 16-2. The line thickness designates an indicative train loading for the AM peak period.

From the above figure, it can be seen that the loop operation is inefficient because all trains entering the loop will be overloaded. However, by the time they run across the viaduct between Flinders Street and Southern Cross, they will be nearly empty, which is a waste of valuable central area track capacity.

In addition, Burnley local services (the Glen Waverley and Alamein lines) that run direct to and terminate at Flinders Street will be underutilised as many passengers will transfer onto loop services at Richmond, which again is a sub-optimal use of trains and infrastructure.

And a solution?

The 2008 East West Rail Link ‘Analysis on Rail Capacity’ report introduced a solution – reconfiguring the City Loop tunnels.

Northern – Burnley loops connected

The existing four city loop tunnels operate independently from each other. Rather than operating each group independently, this option would see trains running between North Melbourne and Richmond, either via Flinders Street (FSS) and Southern Cross (SXS), or via the Melbourne Underground Rail Loop (MURL). For this option, the following operations could be achieved:

• Sydenham to Glen Waverley / Alamein / Blackburn via FSS, SXS
• Craigieburn / Upfield to Belgrave / Lilydale via MURL

Operations would assume that layovers and crew changes would take place at suburban termini rather than at Flinders Street or Southern Cross.

By allowing Burnley and Northern trains travelling in the Melbourne Underground Rail Loop (MURL) to continue on to North Melbourne or Richmond respectively rather than looping around to Flinders Street, track and platform capacity at Southern Cross, Flinders Street and across the viaduct would be released. In association with discontinuing the practice of reversing trains at Flinders Street station, this would allow for direct services from each group to be linked.

The spare capacity at Flinders Street station could be used for services from Caulfield and Clifton Hill groups, and allow for network expansion.

The infrastructure works required to enable Northern-Burnley operations as shown include:

• new tunnel connection from the Burnley loop tunnel west of Flagstaff to the existing western loop portal south of North Melbourne;
• new tunnel connection from the Northern loop tunnel south of Parliament to a new portal situated in the Jolimont rail yards and connected to existing Burnley down track;
• new platform 7 at North Melbourne, forming an island platform with existing platform 6;
• track slewing on either side of North Melbourne to enable sectorisation of lines.

Passenger impacts would need to be carefully managed due to need to terminate Werribee/Williamstown trains at Southern Cross. Furthermore, this option does not offer new travel opportunities or CBD connectivity, and introduces some risk of overcrowding issues which would need special attention during the design of this option.

This option would allow the metropolitan rail network to transport around 114,000 passengers into the CBD in the morning peak hour.

And the concept was further refined in the 2012 PTV Network Development Plan.

The removal of loop operations on the Northern and Caulfield loops and the connection between specific lines on each side of the city will result in the creation of two new Cross-City lines, with capacity for an additional 30 trains per hour in the peak (Craigieburn – more than six trains per hour, Upfield and future Northern lines – more than 18 trains per hour and Burnley local lines – more than six trains per hour)

High level scope of works:

• New tunnel link between Flagstaff (Caulfield loop) and North Melbourne platform 2. This will enable trains from Craigieburn to run into the Caulfield loop to Flagstaff, then exit via the existing portal at Richmond platform 5 and continue on to Frankston via Parliament
• New tunnel link between Parliament (Northern loop) and Richmond platform 3. This will enable trains from Frankston to run into the Northern loop to Parliament, then exit via the existing western portal at North Melbourne on to Craigieburn via Flagstaff
• Enabling works for new tunnel link from City Circle loop to down Burnley Through line to facilitate through running from Clifton Hill Loop Line to Ringwood Loop Line for the purposes of stabling and maintenance
• New fly-over from the Upfield line onto the through suburban lines at North Melbourne (over other Northern Group tracks)
• Bi-directional signalling at North Melbourne platform 1 to enable operation of city-bound and outbound Seymour services to Southern Cross

The package of works identified for this period will provide the following benefits:

• Free up two viaduct tracks following removal of loop routing, effectively providing two new tracks through the city
• Provide greater capacity for growing passenger demand on Craigieburn and Upfield lines and all Burnley express and local lines
• Enhance service reliability through the full sectorisation of lines through the city and suburban sections
• Enable quicker travel times for outbound journeys on the Burnley express line through segregation from local stopping services
• Provide faster cross-town journeys by eliminating the need for passengers to backtrack or suffer layover time at Flinders Street
• Extend the network connectivity for Burnley local services by providing direct through services to Southern Cross and the west
• Facilitate easier cross-town travel through the city for all northern lines to employment, education and retail precincts clustered in the east
• Provide a better balance in passenger loadings on trains bound for either the underground city stations (Flagstaff, Melbourne Central and Parliament) or the surface stations (Southern Cross and Flinders Street), as opposed to the heavily loaded loop services and relatively lightly loaded direct services terminating at Flinders Street
• Simplify the rail network by providing direct access to and from all city stations at all times of the day, reducing current confusion and inconvenience associated with daytime loop reversals
• Increase efficiency of train movements through the city by removing loop services
• Reduce train congestion at Flinders Street by eliminating terminating and turnback manoeuvers for Burnley local services, thereby increasing train efficiency through reduced train fleet requirements
• Enable the rationalisation of track and removal of excess point work in the central area to reduce maintenance requirements
• Provide network capacity to enable new rail corridors to be built in future years to serve new developments in the northern outskirts as well as an express link to Melbourne Airport

Along with a clear visual showing how two small sections of tunnel result in such a large uplift in the overall passenger capacity.

Figure 16-3: Proposed reconfigured loop operation and train loadings – 2012 PTV Network Development Plan

While 2021 Infrastructure Victoria spoke of the best time to deliver the City Loop reconfiguration project – now.

The Melbourne Metro Tunnel will enable some new services on Craigieburn and Upfield lines, but these would reach capacity by the mid-2030s. If these new services were introduced without
reconfiguring the City Loop first, they would be heavily disrupted for long periods during the project’s construction, and affect many more passengers.

Reconfiguring the City Loop immediately after completing the Melbourne Metro Tunnel minimises disruptions to passengers, particularly as the realignment of the Cranbourne and Pakenham services through the Melbourne Metro Tunnel upon opening can leave one of the two loop tunnels affected by this project empty. The Victorian Government should start detailed design and planning quickly to identify critical works to undertake before the Melbourne Metro Tunnel is completed. This can avoid significant disruption to the network.

The window of opportunity to deliver the City Loop reconfiguration project will close as demand continues to increase, and the network may only temporarily have enough spare capacity to change train service patterns during construction to minimise passenger impacts.

The Victorian Government should complete a business case for the project within the next two years. Reconfiguring the City Loop would enable more frequent and reliable services by creating two high frequency separated lines connecting northern and south-eastern areas. The business case should consider timing, including starting the project immediately after the Melbourne Metro Tunnel is completed.

Footnote: passenger capacity at the stations themselves

Turns out running more trains isn’t the silver bullet to increasing the number of passengers able to travel – capacity on the escalators and through ticket gates at railway stations is another.

A problem also flagged in the 2012 PTV Network Development Plan:

16.8 City Loop station upgrades

Service frequencies through the City Loop stations will increase with the provision of high capacity signalling on the Clifton Hill Group and better utilisation of existing signalling systems on the other loops. Moreover, the connection of the Northern and Caulfield loops will result in a higher proportion of train loads alighting at the City Loop stations.

Preliminary investigations completed to date, utilising simulation software and focused on Parliament station at this stage, have indicated that some additional escalator capacity will be required as well as an enlargement of the forecourt areas and an increased number of barriers at the main entrances.

At this stage of the investigation, platform capacities do not appear to be an issue even though these are causing some concern at present. This is due to the fact that in future all trains through a given platform will be running to no more than two stopping patterns and destinations.

It is currently considered that additional escalator capacity can be provided by insertion of new escalators into the existing escalator banks. The extension of the forecourt areas is an at-surface construction issue that should not be overly complex.

Key benefits
• Ensure station access and platform capacity can support passenger movements at peak times
• Reduced congestion and therefore improved travel times at key CBD stations.

High level scope of works
• Install new escalators at City Loop stations
• Widen forecourt areas and install additional ticket barriers where necessary to improve throughput.

And which is being addressed at Melbourne Central station as part of the Metro Tunnel project, with two new escalators being installed between the concourse and platform 1/2 to cater for the increased number of interchange passengers once the adjacent State Library station opens.

Further reading

• 2012 PTV Network Development Plan
• 2008 East West Rail Link Analysis on Rail Capacity report
• Infrastructure Victoria Reconfiguring the City Loop
• “Why Melbourne’s outgrown the City Loop” at Melbourne on Transit
• “Melbourne’s City Loop – the work of the Devil” at Under The Clocks

Post retrieved by 35.215.163.46 using

The post So why is the City Loop inefficient? appeared first on Waking up in Geelong.

Some history

V/Line’s ‘H’ type carriage sets were originally built as ‘Harris’ suburban trains back in the 1950s.

SLV image H31188. Photographer unknown. Undated but circa 1956 to 1968.

In the 1980s the decision was made to refurbish the aging Harris trains, bringing them up to the same standards as the air conditioned Comeng suburban trains then being delivered.

Weston Langford photo

However the additional weight of the upgraded equipment and expense of asbestos removal from the bodyshells saw the economics of the program compared to the purchase of additional Comeng trains, so the refurbishment program was abandoned.

Instead, it was decided to convert the Harris trains into the ‘H’ type locomotive hauled carriages for the use on V/Line services to destinations such as Bacchus Marsh, Kyneton, Sunbury, Seymour and Leongatha.

Image via Wikipedia

A role they continued in throughout the 2000s.

The delivery of the new VLocity railcars from 2005 was intended to allow the retirement of the H sets.

But the increase in patronage thank to the Regional Fast Rail project and a 20% cut to V/Line fares saw the aging carriages retained and refurbished from 2007.

And refurbished for a third time from 2020.

But then just a few years later V/Line decided they were were done with the H sets, and in December 2023 H sets were withdrawn from services to Bacchus Marsh.

And the surplus carriage sets were sent to Echuca for storage, where they were quickly vandalised.

Video by ‘Rail Australia’

The last day

On 2 February 2024 the last two H sets were retired from service, their runs to Geelong being taken over by VLocity railcars.

I started my day at 5 am, catching the first train of the day down to Geelong.

There I found diesel locomotive N456 already coupled up to carriage set SLH33.

Ready to shunt it out of the sidings.

And into platform 2.

To form the 7:23 am service to Melbourne

I opted to catch an earlier service to Lara, so I could photograph it’s arrival.

And then ride it though to Melbourne.

On arrival at Southern Cross, N456 ran around the carriages, as shunter Y163 pushed the carriages back into platform 4.

Where the carriage set was stabled for the day.

The last run?

It was the turn of N468 to lead carriage set SLH33 back to Geelong that evening – I caught the train from Sunshine.

And went through to Geelong.

Geelong’s resident shunter Y129 arrived soon after to collect the carriage set.

Pulling the set out of platform 3.

And in a bizarre touch for something being retired – they sent it through the train wash!

And then stabled it in the sidings.

And the actual last run

Turns out V/Line had some late running that day, and the N set rostered to run a down Waurn Ponds service wasn’t available to run that service, so V/Line pulled carriage set SLH32 out of storage at Southern Cross, having withdrawn it from service the day before – and pressed it back into service.

So I climbed aboard it at Geelong.

For the short trip to Waurn Ponds.

On arrival the locomotive was uncoupled from the carriages.

And ran around them via the main line.

N456 then coupled onto the Melbourne end.

And after an arriving VLocity train cleared the single track from Geelong.

Departed Waurn Ponds for the yard at Geelong.

The end for a train now over 65 years old.

Post retrieved by 35.215.163.46 using

The post Farewell to V/Line’s H type carriage sets appeared first on Waking up in Geelong.

In the beginning

The story starts in 1993 when V/Line bought 22 new single carriage diesel railcars for use on commuter services – their 130 km/h top speed saw them named ‘Sprinter’ trains.

Weston Langford photo

Able to run solo and in multiple with their classmates, the Sprinter trains saw use all over the V/Line network until the first 160 km/h capable VLocity trains entered service in 2005.

But in later years they were moved onto peak hour commuter runs, as well as Seymour services, where their lower top speed wasn’t a concern.

Enter Deer Park station

Until 2010 Deer Park station was a gravel covered platform on the edge of Melbourne that only saw a train every two hours.

But the opening of Regional Rail Link in 2015 saw a massive increase in trains serving the station – among them the Sprinter trains.

And then in 2022 it was announced that the level crossing at Mount Derrimut Road would be removed, with a new elevated station to be provided at Deer Park.

The incomplete station opened to passengers in April 2023.

But there was one minor difference to the old station that made all the difference – the platform.

Apparently V/Line has changed their standard platform height in order to reduce the step up into trains – with the new standard being around 100mm higher, as seen on this platform extension constructed at Sunshine station.

But the Sprinter trains have a design feature that the VLocity train lack – outward swinging plug doors that extend below the floor height of the train.

And so V/Line had to issue a notice.

OPERATING RESTRICTION – DEER PARK STATION
SPRINTER RAILCARS

Upon advice from V/Line Network Engineering, Sprinter Railcars will NOT be permitted to stop at Deer Park Station at KP 17.943.

Any Sprinter Railcars travelling towards/from Wyndham Vale and Geelong or Melton and Bacchus Marsh will be required to run express through Deer Park Station.

The Operating Restriction will apply until further advised due to clearance issues between the Sprinter Railcar and the new Platform when the doors are in the Open position.

Sprinter trains being free to travel through the station, but not stop there.

And a solution?

In January 2024 something new emerged from the workshops – a Sprinter railcar with modified doors.

V/Line sent it out to Deer Park late one night with a group of engineers onboard, ready to run a measuring tape over the open doors.

And testing out the wheelchair ramp.

There looked to be plenty of space between the platform and the modified doors.

Especially when compared to the plug doors on the unmodified set that came along for the ride.

But there was a sticking point – would the modified doors let in more exterior noise? Well, the microphone setup in the saloon can measure that!

So problem solved? I suppose it is a case of wait and see.

Post retrieved by 35.215.163.46 using

The post Sprinter trains and V/Line platform heights appeared first on Waking up in Geelong.

Service relocations at Sunshine

The north-east side of Sunshine station used to be shaded by a number of tall trees.

But in January 2023 Melbourne Airport Rail posted a notice that they needed to be removed from the rail corridor to make way for the location of power and signalling cables.

So rev up the chainsaws, these trees are coming down.

Allowing new signalling and power conduits to be run beside the railway line.

But it turns out the tallest trees they removed didn’t even lie on the path taken by the cables.

The rail corridor being so narrow they decided to use above ground trunking to carry the power and signalling cable runs.

But it’s too late for the trees – they’re already gone.

And another at Albion

Albion station used to have tall trees between the railway line and the car park.

They even appeared in the artists impressions that Melbourne Airport Rail released in August 2022 in their application for a Heritage Victoria permit.

Melbourne Airport Rail artists impression

The trees apparently not causing any issues with the parallel 15 metres tall rail viaduct.

Melbourne Airport Rail artists impression

But in January 2023 the trees were fenced off.

And in came the chainsaws, reducing them to just a stump.

So why were they removed?

It seems the only possible reason is because they wanted to put the new underground services conduit in a straight line parallel to the railway line, and routing them around a tree would be too hard.

The only upside being a clear view of the John Darling flour mill.

At least until the view gets blocked for good by the cheap and nasty Melbourne Airport Rail viaduct passing over Ballarat Road.

‘Temporary’ car park at Tottenham station

In January 2023 the Melbourne Airport Rail announced that they would be building a “temporary” 300 space car park at Tottenham station to compensate for car park closures at Albion and Sunshine – “no net loss of car parking” strikes again.

But it was being delivered at more than just a financial cost – three trees were also due to be chopped down.

A big gum tree.

Google Street View

This little introduced tree.

Google Street View

And this straggly thing.

Google Street View

A fence went up around the site of the car park soon after.

And then the excavators rolled in.

The locals weren’t happy about the permanent loss of trees for a temporary car park.

But the car park machine goes brrrr.

Gravel being used to show this was just a “temporary” car park.

And by Mary 2023 it was ready for use.

For just a handful of cars each weekday.

So what will come first – the resumption of work on the Melbourne Airport Rail and eventual removal of the “temporary” car park, or cancellation of the project and the car park living forever.

Post retrieved by 35.215.163.46 using

The post A tree falls for Melbourne Airport Rail appeared first on Waking up in Geelong.

Welcome to South Kensington station

South Kensington station has two platforms flanking tracks used by trains on the Werribee and Williamstown line.

V/Line trains speed past on the Regional Rail Link tracks to the south.

And to the north, Sunbury line trains speed past “stopping all stations except South Kensington”.

On the narrow citybound platform, four concrete bus shelters are the only protection from the elements for passengers.

Everyone else left exposed to the elements.

While over on platform 2, there’s only one shelter.

And good luck standing behind the yellow line – you can’t even see it any more!

The only way out – steep and narrow ramps.

Which leads to a leaking pedestrian underpass.

And out on the street – a crappy little brick building that’s actually a miniature prison.

Enter the Metro Tunnel

Back in 2008 the ‘East West Link Needs Assessment Study‘ proposed a new rail tunnel running under Swanston Street, connecting Footscray to Caulfield.

Melbourne Metro Business Case, December 2011

The design was refined in the years that followed, until April 2015 when it became the ‘Metro Tunnel’ as we know it today, with a western portal located beside South Kensington station.

The City of Melbourne saw this as an opportunity to move South Kensington station westward.

Future Melbourne Committee Agenda item 7.1
Notice of Motion, Cr Leppert: South Kensington Station
1 December 2015

Motion
1. That the Future Melbourne Committee:
1.1 Resolves that the City of Melbourne supports in principle the moving of the South Kensington Station westward, from its present location to above Kensington Road; and
1.2 Notes that a full list of legacy projects associated with the Melbourne Metro Rail project are being considered by management and will be publicly canvassed in 2016.

Background

Kensington Banks has the lowest access to public transport of all residential areas of the municipality. The closest train station is South Kensington Station (in some instances more than 1km away).

South Kensington and Kensington stations are relatively close together, servicing common parts of Kensington. The below map shows a 500m radius from the entrances to Kensington and South Kensington Stations (in orange) and a 500m radius from a potential new location of South Kensington Station (blue).

The State Government contemplated moving South Kensington Station westward during the planning for Kensington Banks urban renewal, but did not progress with any plans. It has the opportunity to revisit this during Melbourne Metro Rail works. Even if the station is not moved westward as part of the project, there would be scope to ensure that the new Metro Rail works are designed in a way which anticipates the potential future construction of a Station above Kensington Road.

Future populations will also benefit from a station above Kensington Road; land adjacent to the Maribyrnong River north and south of the railway and along Kensington and Hobsons Roads is currently undergoing or is earmarked for urban renewal. (See for example agenda item 6.2 on the 1 December 2015 agenda.)

The City of Melbourne frequently and formally engages with the Melbourne Metro Rail Authority and the subject of South Kensington Station has been discussed. This motion prompts a public discussion.

An idea rejected, but they still pushed for upgrades to station access.

Melbourne Metro Rail Project
Environmental Effects Statement
City of Melbourne Submission
July 2016

The Concept Design for the project does not include any changes to South Kensington Station. The EES states that the Melbourne Metro Rail Project (MMRP) will enable further upgrades to the Williamstown and Werribee train lines in the future.

It is unclear from the EES documents whether there will be construction impacts on the operation of South Kensington Station from the MMRP. Given the proximity of the works to South Kensington Station and the subway entrance to the station, it is submitted that should construction activities affect the operation of the station, this should be used as an opportunity to upgrade the existing station and it’s access. This would be consistent with the EES evaluation objective ‘to enable a significant increase in the capacity of the metropolitan rail network and provide multimodal connections, while adequately managing effects of the works on the broader transport network, both during and after the construction of the project’.

During the Melbourne Metro Rail Project public hearing process, the poor state of South Kensington station was also brought up.

Inquiry and Advisory Committee Report
Melbourne Metro Rail Project
21 November 2016

The Minister for Planning appointed a joint Inquiry and Advisory Committee (the Committee) to provide an opportunity for people to speak in support of their submission through a s, and to make findings and recommendations on the environmental and planning effects of the Project.

In addition, the Committee comments on the poor state of South Kensington station and suggest there is a legacy opportunity to upgrade the station.

The Metropolitan Transport Forum (submission 328) noted:

South Kensington station does not meet modern standards in any respect and will be due for an upgrade or repositioning to serve a larger catchment at some stage. It is critical that no future plans for South Kensington station be jeopardised by this Project, as the Western portal is close by.

This was echoed by submission 124, who called the lack of inclusion of an upgrade to the station “a lost opportunity”.

The Committee undertook a daytime inspection of the South Kensington Station and noted its poor standard and lack of amenity. There are no toilet facilities, no vending machine, no staff, limited shelter, limited tactile paving and narrow platforms particularly on the city bound side. The Committee is concerned that the Project may constrain the ability for a future increase in the width of the train platform or implement other improvements should they be deemed necessary to meet standards.

An upgrade of South Kensington station could be considered as part of this Project to balance the impacts to the community in this Precinct and bring the station up to current standards.

But the Melbourne Metro Rail Authority still considered improvements out of scope.

$11b Metro Rail project fails to fix ‘utterly inadequate’ station in its path
Clay Lucas
October 12, 2017

When Therese Fitzgerald moved to Kensington in 1975, not that many people used the nearby South Kensington railway station.

Skip forward four decades and a flood of passengers use it – last year almost 400,000 passengers used the station, 90 per cent more than 10 years ago.

And yet the facilities at the station, wedged between industrial rail yards and a park, are – to be polite – basic.

“It’s a bus shelter, not a railway station,” said Ms Fitzgerald, a member of local group the Kensington Association.

A Melbourne Metro Rail Authority spokesman said that, as the new Metro Tunnel project would not link to South Kensington railway station, its upgrade was “not within the scope” of the project.

Still, locals pressed on, with local member for Melbourne, Ellen Sandell, launching a ‘Upgrade South Kensington station now’ petition in June 2018.

Construction begins

By 2020 work on the new tunnel portal started.

Along with the emergency access and services shaft building.

Diagram from “Western Portal Development Plan” dated 2020

The connection back to the existing Sunbury line.

And a big flood wall.

But still, local residents were not happy with the level of disruption the project was causing, with no benefit to them.

The Metro Tunnel western portal’s clashes with residents
Meg Hill
18th February 2021

Plans for the Metro Tunnel’s western portal in South Kensington in 2015 required the demolition of 10 houses and 14 businesses. But pressure from locals changed those plans. The tunnel entrance was moved, and only one house was demolished.

They’ve struggled with long construction hours, noise, dust and vibrations since 2017. Although the residents support the infrastructure investment, they have taken issue with the lack of benefit for Kensington.

“The reality is that Kensington and South Kensington doesn’t benefit at all from this project, we’re just the entrance to the tunnel. We don’t get a station or anything like that, but we got a lot of disruption,” Ms Fitzgerald said.

The bitter feeling is exacerbated by tensions over the state of South Kensington Station, which locals have long complained about.

The Age reported in 2017 that Minister for Planning Richard Wynne had been advised by experts that an upgrade to the station should be considered as part of the Metro Tunnel project to bring it “up to current standards”.

Mr Hammond said that residents had been treated unfairly.

“There has never been any proper noise mitigation – if you look at RMIT they’ve got acoustic sheds, they put roofs over the works around Melbourne University and the hospitals,” he said.

“In the last financial year, the project did 46 weeks of out-of-hours work.”

“While it’s a good project and we all support the Metro Tunnel, it’s a seriously important piece of infrastructure, there’s no balance between getting the project built and the ability for residents to have some normal life.”

North West City News understands that part of that disruption is due to major construction of what is known as a “decline structure” at the tunnel entrance that has required extended hours of work due to challenging ground conditions.

Residents are sometimes offered voluntary purchase of their homes, or long-term relocation, when they complain if they’re eligible – although it is not entirely clear what constitutes eligibility.

A Rail Projects Victoria (RPV) spokesperson told North West City News that it had worked closely with the Kensington community.

“The Metro Tunnel is a project our city and state needs. It’s how we’ll deliver more trains, more often to and from our suburbs and free up vital space in the city loop,” the spokesperson said.

“From the early stages of planning the Metro Tunnel, we have worked closely with the Kensington community on many project elements including the design and location of the western tunnel entrance to minimise acquisition of homes and businesses.”

“Our workers on the ground do their best to keep noise to a minimum but we’ve been clear from the beginning of construction that a project of this size will cause some disruption.”

A fig leaf

In June 2021 South Kensington station finally made it to the top of the Metro Trains Melbourne list of stations to get a refresh, with work crews moving in.

Platform 2 was relaid in fresh asphalt, receiving a new platform edge with tactile edge markings, and a new fence along the rear.

And a new shelter for passengers in wheelchairs was provided at the departure end.

Platform 1 also received new tactile edge markings – not that the platform is wide enough to stay clear of the yellow line!

And finally something from the Metro Tunnel project

Rail Projects Victoria continued to dodge the question of South Kensington, but eventually committed to deliver some minor upgrades.

Upon completion of the Metro Tunnel, passengers using South Kensington Station will benefit from improved capacity and more frequent services on the Werribee and Williamstown lines.

While a new station in South Kensington or connection from the existing station to the Metro Tunnel is not in the scope of the project, we will undertake upgrades near the tunnel entrance.

Upgrading the entrance to the station.

Rail Projects Victoria artists impression

Works featuring:

• upgrades to Childers Street, with a new road surface, pathways, lighting, pavement and extensive landscaping, including water-sensitive rain gardens
• a new station forecourt and entrance canopy, including the realignment of Childers Street to create an enlarged station entrance area and improved pedestrian connections
• a new public space next to the egress building, with bike storage racks, lighting, seating areas and extensive landscaping
• a new pocket park at 135 Ormond Street with open space, extensive landscaping and enhanced integration with JJ Holland Park and the new station forecourt.

Justifying the works in an incredibly wordy way.

Western Portal Development Plan
Rail Infrastructure Alliance
4 May 2020

Alterations to South Kensington station are not proposed or required as part of the scope and extent of the Western Portal. Nevertheless, in accordance with Clause 3.3.c.2, the creation of the Station Forecourt and architectural treatments to the public realm at the entrance of the station seek to respond to and improve the physical, social and functional context of being a station on the metropolitan railway network.

With work on the revamped station entrance was well underway in April 2023.

Along with the associated landscaping.

Footnote: the real wildcard

Turns out the Melbourne Metro Business Case dated February 2016 investigated a downright bizarre idea – spending $1.65 billion on an underground station at South Kensington.

3.2. Decision A2: Is a South Kensington Station investment justified?

3.2.1. Options identification

Two options have been identified on this matter: retaining the status quo (Baseline) or adding additional Sunbury line platforms at South Kensington station.

– No additional station (Baseline): South Kensington Station remains as it is currently configured, serviced by the Werribee and Williamstown lines as it is today, and receiving the service boost to those lines as a result of the Melbourne Metro project.

– New South Kensington station: A new station (pair of platforms) is provided next to the existing station, enabling Sunbury line services to also start servicing the South Kensington area.

3.2.2. Options assessment

The existing South Kensington Station provides a suitable level of service to support the existing medium density residential catchment and JJ Holland Park. The station will receive an uplifted service on the Werribee corridor as a result of the Melbourne Metro. The current station is not DDA compliant and would require a total rebuild including realignment of the Werribee line tracks to provide improved accessibility to the station in approximately the same location. The design of the Western Portal can ensure this rebuild is possible at a future point in time when future growth in patronage warrants.

The existing intermodal freight uses on the southern side the rail corridor requires a long term investment in the Western Intermodal Freight Terminal and its connecting freight rail infrastructure before this use can be relocated from this site. This accordingly means the future redevelopment of the Dynon Precinct is a longer term proposition for which the scale, form and transport planning is relatively undetermined. Consideration has been given to an extension of tram services along the Dynon corridor given its length and for moving South Kensington Station to better connect to the future redevelopment of the area.

Adding a new pair of platforms at the existing South Kensington Station would entail rebuilding the existing station and track work to create a connection from the underground station platforms and concourse to above ground platforms. The space required for Melbourne Metro platforms would force the portal for the tunnel back to just east of Footscray Station and require tunnelling under the Maribyrnong River and would add in the order of $1.65bn (P90, nominal) in costs.

Table 8 – Summary analysis for Decision A2: South Kensington Station option:

No additional station (Baseline)

• Sufficient service level for existing land uses.
• Existing station gains a service boost with Melbourne Metro.
• Dynon precinct opportunity currently has an indeterminate, long term time frame in terms of generating new demand which would require the station infrastructure and access to be upgraded and or relocated further west.
• Baseline design can make provision for future upgrade in current location.

New South Kensington station

• (+ve): Significantly higher number of train services stopping at South Kensington (compared to relatively modest demand from medium density catchment).
• (-ve): Adds 1 minute travel time for Sunbury Line passengers due to additional stop, for limited local benefit at South Kensington given the timing of the future Dynon Precinct redevelopment.
• (-ve): Increases construction complexity and risk by requiring an additional river crossing at the Maribyrnong River and with significant additional tunnelling compared to baseline.
• (-ve): Requires increased private land acquisition to construct the portal at Footscray.
• (-ve): Requires much higher levels of rail disruption to the Werribee, Sunbury and RRL services given the rebuild of South Kensington Station and the realignment of tracks.
• (-ve): Increases the project cost by $1.65bn (P90, nominal).
• Detailed economic appraisal not undertaken due to poor strategic case for station.

Decision A2: Is a South Kensington Station investment justified?

It is recommended that the project retain the Baseline in this area, with no additional South Kensington station (Baseline).

So why would the business case looking into such an expensive option? I suspect by including it, they could say “they looked into South Kensington station” while avoiding the possibility of having to deliver anything.

Post retrieved by 35.215.163.46 using

The post Metro Tunnel and rebuilding South Kensington station appeared first on Waking up in Geelong.