A couple of things from PAEC’s (Public Accounts & Estimates Committee) Inquiry this week in State Parliament.
Trivial pursuits
The Opposition decided to make a big fuss about the new X’Trapolis 2.0 trains not being able to use the Metro tunnel, as if this was a huge problem due to poor planning.
It’s not. As I wrote back in June, Melbourne (like a lot of big city rail systems) has been moving for a while towards dedicated fleets on specific lines.
This includes the Metro Tunnel lines, which will run the new Evolution HCMT fleet. (Not “old trains” as Steve Price wrote in an ill-informed opinion piece in the Herald Sun last week.)
Two reasons for using specific trains using the Metro tunnel are the high-capacity (in-cab) signalling systems which are not fitted to other trains, and the Platform Screen Doors in the new stations, which need to align to train doors.
Could other trains be designed to be compatible with the PSDs? Perhaps, but it may not be straightforward. The HCMTs were deliberately designed as a 7 car set, with cars of slightly different lengths, to provide as much capacity as possible in a 160 metre long train. This was so they could fit in the City Loop ahead of the tunnel opening.
Designing trains for other lines to match that length would trigger lots of other changes such as platform extensions and signalling changes to make them fit.
It would likely be a lot of cost for not much benefit.
Longer term when the HCMTs need to be replaced, they’ll figure out a solution.
3AW interviewed the Opposition, and also got someone from the Metro Tunnel project to explain it. Cool.
But it didn’t stop a Sky “News” opinion/rant from noted rail expert conservative warrior Peta Credlin which managed to twist the Opposition’s claim further, implying that none of the trains are compatible – which really would be a problem if true.
Amazingly the accompanying web article also mangled the Opposition’s claim by reversing it, reporting that the Department said “five out of six trains will be able to be used in the new Metro Tunnel”.
This aside, for the Opposition to use PAEC and the media to pursue unimportant trivia like this is letting the State Government off the hook on things that actually matter, for instance:
- How many stations on the Sunbury to Cranbourne/Pakenham line will get the much-vaunted turn-up-and-go services when the tunnel opens?
- And how much of that will only be in the (increasingly less important) commuter peak?
- If the Metro Tunnel frees up capacity around the rest of the network, how many other lines will get TUAG services?
- Will they at least fix the 30-40 minute waits between trains seen on many lines at some times of the week?
- Will they look at retrofitting Platform Screen Doors to other stations, particularly those only served by HCMTs?
- What’s the deal with the Anzac Station/Domain Road tram line with platform stop that has no trams running on it? Will it ever get used?
And that’s just some Metro Tunnel-related points. There’s plenty of other issues with the broader public transport network they could be pursuing.
(The government is usually no better on how they spend their PAEC time of course, with government MPs regularly pitching softball questions to ministers and officials.)
Maps
I also noticed these maps presented by the Department of Transport and Planning at the hearing.
This one shows the rail network and planned activity centres:
Note the Fishermans Bend precinct. No rail, no tram. They really need to commit to Metro 2 to make this work.
I still think no stops and no development precincts between Cheltenham (Southland) and Clayton (7km as the crow flies) on SRL is a wasted opportunity.
And of course not all rail lines are equal, with service levels differing wildly. PTV had a plan to fix that a decade ago, but there’s been little action.
They also have a motorway version of the map!
It obviously excludes all the major non-freeway arterial roads, some of which carry huge amounts of traffic.
It also somewhat de-emphasises the enormous role of these roads for carrying single person cars. It’s not like they noticeably optimise any of the road network for freight. Too many cars get in the way.
But I should wait for the transcripts from the hearing; maybe they’re looking at ways of doing that.
Meeting our challenges
Bonus points for the inspirational heading, very similar to the 2006 plan “Meeting Our Transport Challenges” – which did deliver some worthwhile bus upgrades… but was also just before surging rail patronage and crowding and reliability failures completely overtook authorities, and probably led directly to Labor losing the 2010 election. (So that plan arguably didn’t meet transport challenges.)
In 2024, there’s plenty of important issues the Opposition could question the government on. It’s a shame instead they aim only for cheap headlines.
2 replies on “Wasting time in PAEC”
I suppose you can never preclude mis-routing from the pudding.
How would that be addressed I wonder?
@Graeme, misrouting is highly unlikely I would think.
From both directions (SE and west), no other tracks have connections into the Metro tunnel. There aren’t even any crossovers from other suburban lines to get onto the tracks that lead to the tunnel.