Proposed Tram Network Revamp

Melbourne / Victoria Transport Discussion
User avatar
Craig
Posts: 4374
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:26 am
Location: Edithvale, VIC

Proposed Tram Network Revamp

Post by Craig »

Melbourne Times Weekly wrote: Trams on track for change
BY REBECCA THISTLETON


YARRA Trams is investigating adjusting tram routes along St Kilda Road to improve capacity and tram priority.
The tram operator recently made a presentation to the Metropolitan Transport Forum revealing that Melbourne's trams spend almost 18 per cent of their time at traffic lights.

Public transport advocates applauded efforts to improve capacity by adjusting routes but said giving trams priority was the key to making them more efficient.

Yarra Trams' proposal suggested extending routes 64 and 74, which run along St Kilda Road and Swanston Street, beyond their terminus at Melbourne University to Moreland and East Coburg via Lygon Street.

New lines included a No. 11, to run from Victoria Harbour to West Preston via Collins Street, and a No. 12, from St Kilda to Hoddle Street via La Trobe Street.

Yarra Trams spokesman Colin Tyrus said the concept was presented to the Metropolitan Transport Forum to promote discussion about ways to enhance the efficiency of tram services along the St Kilda Road corridor while catering for the rapidly growing western end of the CBD and Docklands.

Mr Tyrus said the map did not indicate government policy and any network changes would be determined by the government.

Public Transport Users Association president Daniel Bowen said route realignments would increase the number of people moving along St Kilda Road and towards Southern Cross Station and Docklands.

He said efforts would be effective if trams gained greater road priority and spent less time at red lights.


Professor Graham Currie, who heads the Monash University Public Transport Research Group, said tram route changes were a good idea but costly to implement.

"Trams are more popular with the public than buses. However, trams cost a lot more when you look at changing where they go."
A copy of the powerpoint presentation that was given is available here - http://www.mtf.org.au/site/files/ul/dat ... 473575.ppt - inculdes a map showing the various changes, as beow.

Image

Robert Amos wrote this excellent summary to TramNews newsgroup of the key changes, I've made a few changes.
  • Route 1 terminates at Melbourne Uni not East Coburg.
  • Route 3 no change (3A not shown)
  • Route 5 runs along Park St from Domain Interchange, into Clarendon and Spencer to terminate at Footscray Road
  • Route 6 no change
  • Route 8 removed. Route 55 extended along Toorak Road to existing Route 8 terminus. Route 67 extended to Moreland.
  • Route 11 established as full route West Preston to Victoria Harbour.
  • Route 12 from Hoddle St/Victoria Pde to the existing Route 112 terminus at Fitzroy St, St Kilda. Runs via La Trobe Street, providing full time service on this corridor at last
  • Route 16 shortened to run from Melb Uni to Caulfield Station. Route 58 (I think?) does Glenferrie/Hawthorn Rd from Kew to East Brighton
  • Route 30 extended to Footscray Rd
  • Route 55 extended along Toorak Rd to Glenferrie Rd (replacing southern end of Route 8 )
  • Route 58 (?) created to run along Glenferrie/Hawthorn Rds from Kew to East Brighton.
  • Route 64 terminates at Malvern Station. Extended beyond Melb Uni to East Coburg (replacing northern end of Route 1). 58 replaces southern end.
  • Route 67 extended beyond Melb Uni to Moreland (replacing northern end of Route 8 )
  • Route 72 terminates at Gardiner Station.
  • Route 73 created to run from Gardiner Station along Burke Rd to Cotham Rd (Camberwell end of Route 72)
  • Route 75 extended to Footscray Rd
Some great suggestions IMO.

I much prefer it than TransDev's suggestion a few years ago of connecting shuttles along St Kilda Rd. (as detailed in this leaflet - http://www.yarratrams.com.au/Portaldata ... _Road_.pdf)

Kind Regards


Craig :)
User avatar
RailwayBus
Posts: 4356
Joined: Wed May 21, 2008 9:40 am
Favourite Vehicle: Train or tram.
Location: Melbourne

Re: Proposed Tram Network Revamp

Post by RailwayBus »

When this was described to me some time back, I was told the West Coburg to Toorak route was to be numbered the 58, but on this map it shows 55. I would assume they changed their mind and decided to retain a known number.
All views expressed are strictly my own and do not represent my employer or anyone else.
User avatar
BroadGauge
Posts: 3694
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 1:20 pm
Favourite Vehicle: Car
Location: NSW

Re: Proposed Tram Network Revamp

Post by BroadGauge »

I like it, much better than all the individual shuttles.

The way it's been split up means the higher-capacity trams can be allocated to the St Kilda Rd services with the smaller trams on the suburban shuttles (Camberwell-Gardiner, Kew-East Brighton etc) which is far superior to the old proposal.
User avatar
John
Posts: 735
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 11:06 am
Location: Melbourne

Re: Proposed Tram Network Revamp

Post by John »

Some of these proposed changes make a lot of sense but I agree with Craig in that a St Kilda Rd shuttle would be a much more preferable change. Its getting passengers over that reluctance to change trams that is the biggest hurdle. I think the new Metro train timetable is a start at changing this culture.
Craig wrote:Route 12 from Hoddle St/Victoria Pde to the existing Route 112 terminus at Fitzroy St, St Kilda. Runs via La Trobe Street, providing full time service on this corridor at last
I wonder what frequency this service would operate at. Only reason I ask is this section of the 112 is a lot quieter than the northern section and could probably cope with a reduction in service level, particularly off peak.
Craig wrote:Route 72 terminates at Gardiner Station.
Route 73 created to run from Gardiner Station along Burke Rd to Cotham Rd (Camberwell end of Route 72)
This one has been talked about before under TransdevTSL, namely to address the 72 being one of the least punctual routes. I think it would work well and I think long term the Government should be looking at an extension of the Burke Road tramline to Monash University's Caulfield campus. They could also potentially extend the northern terminus out to Doncaster Road.
Keep Melbourne Moving.
User avatar
Alex on the Bus
Posts: 1143
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 11:44 pm
Favourite Vehicle: Scania L113CRB/Ansair Commuter
Location: Some place overpopulated with Cats supporters

Re: Proposed Tram Network Revamp

Post by Alex on the Bus »

So it looks like the only additional track works will be a short section in Park Street, South Melbourne (bridging the gap between the 1 and 55 routes), a new curve between Clarendon and Park Streets, plus possibly some crossovers and segregated turnbacks (Hoddle Street will probably need a segregated turnback for the new route 12).

The new network doesn't look too bad but I'd look at routing another St Kilda Road route into William Street to accompany the 55 - maybe shifting route 3 (which duplicates another Swanston Street route in route 16 much of the way) into William Street and terminating it at the Vic Market. Also, I'd have to get used to not being able to get from my place (in Thornbury) to St Kilda on one tram - although that's only an issue during summer.
Oh, what a perfect world this world would be,
If he was President now - but he's not.
User avatar
RailwayBus
Posts: 4356
Joined: Wed May 21, 2008 9:40 am
Favourite Vehicle: Train or tram.
Location: Melbourne

Proposed Tram Network Revamp

Post by RailwayBus »

Alex on the Bus wrote:So it looks like the only additional track works will be a short section in Park Street, South Melbourne (bridging the gap between the 1 and 55 routes), a new curve between Clarendon and Park Streets, plus possibly some crossovers and segregated turnbacks (Hoddle Street will probably need a segregated turnback for the new route 12).
A redesign of the Domain Road Interchange part of this proposal.

RB.
All views expressed are strictly my own and do not represent my employer or anyone else.
tranzitjim
Posts: 778
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 5:37 pm
Location: Melbourne Victoria Australia

Re: Proposed Tram Network Revamp

Post by tranzitjim »

I have done a printout for further study.

Looks like they are trying to do the best they can with a somewhat restricted tram fleet.

One idea I would have said they need do, if they are prepared to build along Park Street, is they should build along Holden Street, and extend two of the Melbourne Uni routes along that, with one to West Preston, and the other to La Trobe Uni at least, if not as far as Bundoora.

I would also say the following....

****About #64 & Caulfield etc *****
....#64 should continu to East Brighton, in addition to the 58 idea.
....Sorry the map is not at all clear, is that #15 or #16 to Caulfield? Perhaps #64 should go to Caulfield, and #15 also turn at the Grand Union, and run down to East Brighton?
....Perhaps a route #65 which does as #64 above, but turns and runs to the Malvern tram depot. There the tram can turn in to the depot, and have plenty of time to turn around.

**** About #72/#73 ****
....About #72/#73, Perhaps they should run every second tram to Gardiner, but retain #72 for the through trips.
....Why is it always so delaied. Should they do an honnest timetable for the section.
....At the least, #72 should overlap with #73 between Gardiner and Alfred Hospital.

*** As for #11/#12 ****
.....This is clearly to split the #112, as it was originally. St Kilda people will be a tad peeved off with their loss of a direct link into Collins Street.
....Perhaps we need to keep #112 as well as #11 and #12?
User avatar
BroadGauge
Posts: 3694
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 1:20 pm
Favourite Vehicle: Car
Location: NSW

Re: Proposed Tram Network Revamp

Post by BroadGauge »

tranzitjim wrote:....#64 should continu to East Brighton, in addition to the 58 idea.
Why? You don't need two overlapping frequent tram routes all the way down there.

tranzitjim wrote:....Sorry the map is not at all clear, is that #15 or #16 to Caulfield? Perhaps #64 should go to Caulfield, and #15 also turn at the Grand Union, and run down to East Brighton?
It's the 16. And providing a connection from Caulfield Station to St Kilda has far more potential uses than more trams to East Brighton Terminus.

tranzitjim wrote:*** As for #11/#12 ****
.....This is clearly to split the #112, as it was originally. St Kilda people will be a tad peeved off with their loss of a direct link into Collins Street.
....Perhaps we need to keep #112 as well as #11 and #12?
If they don't like it, they can catch route 96 and walk from Bourke St, or simply change trams.
User avatar
712M
Posts: 342
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2010 4:27 pm
Favourite Vehicle: Volvo B10M
Location: Melbourne

Re: Proposed Tram Network Revamp

Post by 712M »

BroadGauge wrote:
tranzitjim wrote:....Sorry the map is not at all clear, is that #15 or #16 to Caulfield? Perhaps #64 should go to Caulfield, and #15 also turn at the Grand Union, and run down to East Brighton?
It's the 16. And providing a connection from Caulfield Station to St Kilda has far more potential uses than more trams to East Brighton Terminus.
Does this mean that route 3A will be abolished?

BroadGuage wrote:
tranzitjim wrote:*** As for #11/#12 ****
.....This is clearly to split the #112, as it was originally. St Kilda people will be a tad peeved off with their loss of a direct link into Collins Street.
....Perhaps we need to keep #112 as well as #11 and #12?
If they don't like it, they can catch route 96 and walk from Bourke St, or simply change trams.
They can get off at Crown Casino and change to route 109, or even walk from Southern Cross Station if it's only a few stops.
User avatar
krustyklo
Posts: 2647
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 11:12 am
Location: Bundoora, VIC

Re: Proposed Tram Network Revamp

Post by krustyklo »

Why is it always so delayed. Should they do an honest timetable for the section.
The problem with 'honest' timetables is they seem to allow for worst case scenarios that delay people most of the time and only benefit people when things go wrong. As a northern suburbs bus user on two long (566 and 902) routes, the problem seems to be one of when things are running really well, the vehicles drag the road to maintain the timetable. The 566 for example seems to have ample recovery time built in off peak, but rarely runs to time during peak hour (the sectional running times are the same by day eg all weekday times are the same, weekend times are different to weekday times) - often the 8.29am from Watsonia station towards Northland is on time in school holidays (or if the validator isn't working), but up to 25 minutes late otherwise. The 902 in the evening peak is a shambles if catching a bus from Greensborough westbound with many buses sighted personally running 'Bus Full' or ' Not In Service' to try and recapture some semblance of a timetable, with relatively few others reliably on time day in day out. The reality is that long routes with no, little or symbolic priority will have issues with problems at risk of compounding due to the distance. The 72 is the same.

There will always be arguments over the best solution. Should 'block cars' or 'block buses' be available at known trouble times just in case, albeit at a cost? Certainly the 86 still has block cars inserted at times of trouble, with suitable sub board. Should the timetable allow for worst case scenarios? How flexible should the timetable be - eg school holiday and/or Christmas holiday timetables with shorter running times at the cost of less clear timetables? Should routes be shorter with the cost of poorer connections / increased interchange time? No answer is perfect, and all timetables involve compromise.

There is no simple answer. To be honest, I think the 72 / 73 suggestion is the best option as it recognises that the route really caters for different markets and segregates the route accordingly. I honestly don't think for a moment that many people travel the length of the route when it is far quicker to travel from the CBD by train to a station such as Gardiner or Camberwell and interchange to the 72 from there, and I suspect that most of the market for the 72 is short local journeys or the last leg of a commute from a CAD or the CBD or a journey from an intermediate trip generator / destination such as Chapel St to somewhere along the route (ie home). I suspect that the few who travel through Gardiner would be catered for by having the trams nominally connect in the timetable and would be relatively minorly inconvenienced if the connection was running late as the trams there run fairly frequently anyway. In fact, I wouldn't be doing too concerned if the 72 ran more often than the 73 anyway and only connected to every second tram as it would be a better use of resources benefiting more people at a small inconvenience to a few, and would therefore limit any inconvenience worth mentioning to users connecting from the 72 to 73.

My greater question relates to why they feel the 1 and 15 are better terminated in the city and the 64 and 67 chosen to continue. If long routes are considered a problem (eg 72), I am not sure why through routing two of the longer southern routes with the northern routes is considered better than two of the shorter ones. Possibly one consideration is the greater amount of segregated running along Dandenong Rd / Nepean Hwy) but there is still enough track shared with cars that I doubt it would make a lot of difference to the current set up where the 1 and 15 do have significant segregated running (eg St Kilda Rd or Sturt St) or run through relatively minor roads.
User avatar
jarf
Posts: 1360
Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2005 4:24 pm
Favourite Vehicle: Scania L94UA/Volgren CR228L
Location: Stab Albans
Contact:

Re: Proposed Tram Network Revamp

Post by jarf »

^ Based on some of the loadings I've seen heading towards South Melbourne, I imagine the 1 might run mostly with smaller trams, whereas Lygon St might require larger trams.
Random Gunzel Insanity - http://jarfness.blogspot.com/
paulgersche
Posts: 177
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 9:54 am

Re: Proposed Tram Network Revamp

Post by paulgersche »

I may have missed something, but ....

Why keep the 3 and the 16, when their routes are common apart form the 16 serving the St. Kilda precinct? Removing this unnecessary duplication would release trams (that we are always being told are in short supply) for other areas.

Just my two bobs worth ...

Regards to all

Paul
User avatar
RailwayBus
Posts: 4356
Joined: Wed May 21, 2008 9:40 am
Favourite Vehicle: Train or tram.
Location: Melbourne

Re: Proposed Tram Network Revamp

Post by RailwayBus »

paulgersche wrote:I may have missed something, but ....

Why keep the 3 and the 16, when their routes are common apart form the 16 serving the St. Kilda precinct? Removing this unnecessary duplication would release trams (that we are always being told are in short supply) for other areas.

Just my two bobs worth ...

Regards to all

Paul
Loading between Caulfield Station and Balaclava Station is quite high. I do not believe one route on current frequencies would be able to handle it.
All views expressed are strictly my own and do not represent my employer or anyone else.
User avatar
712M
Posts: 342
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2010 4:27 pm
Favourite Vehicle: Volvo B10M
Location: Melbourne

Re: Proposed Tram Network Revamp

Post by 712M »

jarf wrote:^ Based on some of the loadings I've seen heading towards South Melbourne, I imagine the 1 might run mostly with smaller trams, whereas Lygon St might require larger trams.
I've found that route 1 (to South Melbourne) can be quite busy at peak times with passengers getting left behind on the Z3 services, however I assume that Brunswick will no longer run this route after the change. If Malvern run it then D1s may be more appropriate to handle the patronage better than Z3s.
User avatar
Connex
Posts: 1949
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 11:10 am
Favourite Vehicle: XT 853M-1627T-854M
Location: Newport Workshops

Re: Proposed Tram Network Revamp

Post by Connex »

712M wrote:I've found that route 1 (to South Melbourne) can be quite busy at peak times with passengers getting left behind on the Z3 services, however I assume that Brunswick will no longer run this route after the change. If Malvern run it then D1s may be more appropriate to handle the patronage better than Z3s.
I would argue that Southbank would assume responsibility for Route 1 as there would be a fair amount of dead running from the Malvern Depot to the terminus at South Melbourne Beach when compared to Southbank. The re-routed Route 5 to Footscray Road, via Claredon Street would also be shared with Malvern to limit the amount of dead running. Of course, it goes without saying that the depot would need to be expanded.

It should be mentioned that in the presentation by Yarra Trams, it mentioned the re-distribution of the tram fleet once the new Flexity E-Class trams enter service. The table in the presentation (Slide 27) shows:
  • 2012: E-Class trams will begin replacing the D2s on Route 96, with the route to eventually be operated solely by C2 and E-Class trams;
  • 2013: C-Class trams will operate solely on Route 109, similar to the current status quo;
  • 2014: The displaced D-Class* trams will move to the Brunswick Depot, replacing B2 trams on Route 19;
  • 2017: E-Class trams will begin appearing on Route 112
* No specific mention of which type of D-Class tram.
Metcard. Your ticket to Melbourne.
tranzitjim
Posts: 778
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 5:37 pm
Location: Melbourne Victoria Australia

Re: Proposed Tram Network Revamp

Post by tranzitjim »

So with Malvern and Southbank both sharing routes, namely #5, and perhaps #1.

Does this mean we may see both C1 and D1 operating on the same route?

Also, once we get enough E class trams at Southbank for the #96, Should the C2s not head off to Kew to have all the C class at the one depot?

The irony with the above plans is, the D2s where originally planned to go to Brunswick for route #19.

Are we likely to see D1s at Brunswick, to keep all the Siemens fleet in one location?
User avatar
Connex
Posts: 1949
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 11:10 am
Favourite Vehicle: XT 853M-1627T-854M
Location: Newport Workshops

Re: Proposed Tram Network Revamp

Post by Connex »

tranzitjim wrote:Does this mean we may see both C1 and D1 operating on the same route?
The plan states that C1 trams will be allocated to Kew Depot to run Route 109.
tranzitjim wrote:Also, once we get enough E class trams at Southbank for the #96, Should the C2s not head off to Kew to have all the C class at the one depot?
High capacity trams are required on Route 96, hence, the C2s will remain at the Southbank Depot to service Route 96. There's more to fleet allocation than having just one type of tram at a depot.
tranzitjim wrote:The irony with the above plans is, the D2s where originally planned to go to Brunswick for route #19.

Are we likely to see D1s at Brunswick, to keep all the Siemens fleet in one location?
I don't recall any plan for the D2s to be allocated to Brunswick for operation on Route 19. Although I am happy to be corrected.

But once again, there's more to fleet allocation than just having one type of tram located at a particular depot. The D class trams are high-capacity trams, and as a result, they should be allocated to the depots/routes that need them most, provided that the maintenance facilities are provided.
Metcard. Your ticket to Melbourne.
giarc
Posts: 33
Joined: Mon May 03, 2010 12:16 pm

Re: Proposed Tram Network Revamp

Post by giarc »

With all the platforms popping up on the 86 line, will Preston Depot inherit some of the Cs and Ds? Seems silly to have the platforms serviced by B Classes which seem to defeat the purpose
User avatar
John
Posts: 735
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 11:06 am
Location: Melbourne

Re: Proposed Tram Network Revamp

Post by John »

Connex wrote:2012: E-Class trams will begin replacing the D2s on Route 96, with the route to eventually be operated solely by C2 and E-Class trams;
I wonder if that is an indication that the C2 (aka Bumblebee) trams have been purchased.

Last I heard, Mulder was unimpressed at the figure the Labor Government had negotiated to buy them for (reportedly around the $5 million mark). I believe Transdev agreed to sell them but Labor were still finalising pricing. Interestingly, the new E Class trams are reported to cost $6 million each.
Keep Melbourne Moving.
User avatar
John
Posts: 735
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 11:06 am
Location: Melbourne

Re: Proposed Tram Network Revamp

Post by John »

giarc wrote:With all the platforms popping up on the 86 line, will Preston Depot inherit some of the Cs and Ds? Seems silly to have the platforms serviced by B Classes which seem to defeat the purpose
Eventually, the entire tram network will need to be DDA (Disibility Discrimination Act) compliant. Platform stops are half of the solution with the other half being low floor accessible trams.
Keep Melbourne Moving.
jonas_jade
Posts: 64
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 11:58 am

Re: Proposed Tram Network Revamp

Post by jonas_jade »

^^ wrt platforms, there seems to be no correlation between short-mid term planned allocations of low floor stock to certain routes and construction of platform stops. At the moment they're just being built ad-hoc as they get approvals, funding, opportunity etc.
User avatar
Connex
Posts: 1949
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 11:10 am
Favourite Vehicle: XT 853M-1627T-854M
Location: Newport Workshops

Re: Proposed Tram Network Revamp

Post by Connex »

jonas_jade wrote:^^ wrt platforms, there seems to be no correlation between short-mid term planned allocations of low floor stock to certain routes and construction of platform stops. At the moment they're just being built ad-hoc as they get approvals, funding, opportunity etc.
It's not really 'ad-hoc'.

Construction of platform stops is performed where it can be done with relative ease, minimal disruption to pax and external infrastructure and where space isn't an issue. Hence, why platform stops were built between Somers Street and East Burwood of Route 75 relatively early in the platform stop project.
Metcard. Your ticket to Melbourne.
User avatar
krustyklo
Posts: 2647
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 11:12 am
Location: Bundoora, VIC

Re: Proposed Tram Network Revamp

Post by krustyklo »

With all the platforms popping up on the 86 line, will Preston Depot inherit some of the Cs and Ds? Seems silly to have the platforms serviced by B Classes which seem to defeat the purpose
To be fair, as an 86 user with baby in stroller, the platform stops still make it slightly easier compared to pre-super stops with my daughter in the stroller 4 years ago.
User avatar
712M
Posts: 342
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2010 4:27 pm
Favourite Vehicle: Volvo B10M
Location: Melbourne

Re: Proposed Tram Network Revamp

Post by 712M »

John wrote:
giarc wrote:With all the platforms popping up on the 86 line, will Preston Depot inherit some of the Cs and Ds? Seems silly to have the platforms serviced by B Classes which seem to defeat the purpose.
It is said above that Es will eventually run on the 112, which is operated by East Preston Depot, so the 86 may see Es. However the B2s seem to do a good enough job at the moment and have similar capacity to a D2. If it is extended to Footscray in the west and South Morang in the north, then more trams will be required.
User avatar
Connex
Posts: 1949
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 11:10 am
Favourite Vehicle: XT 853M-1627T-854M
Location: Newport Workshops

Re: Proposed Tram Network Revamp

Post by Connex »

The fleet management plan only takes into account the order for 50 E-Class trams.

There's still the possibility that another 100 trams will be added onto the order, so we could see E-Class trams spread out onto more than just those routes listed above.
Metcard. Your ticket to Melbourne.
Post Reply

Return to “Discussion - Melbourne / VIC”