Special thanks to Chatswood correspondents Sharath and Amy! Check out their video on Hong Kong's MTR for more cross-platform interchange thrills: th-cam.com/video/kqJ6UspEFzM/w-d-xo.htmlsi=89_uE6kdf0UeLDis Like these videos and want to help support the channel? Join me on Patreon: www.patreon.com/Taitset Also thanks to my kids for the crayon hire.
I hate that vline doesn’t get enough gap and gets stuck behind the metro, he can easily be rectified. Also why is it quicker for a non express train over a express train, can you please bring this up in your next video.
@@matthewnorman9803 In peak hour there is nothing they can do, it's already scheduled as far behind a Westall as possible, then catches up to a Cranbourne before Dandenong, and finally a Pakenham train. It's in the best spot it could possibly be right now timetabling wise and PTV/DoTP knows it. It could be made to feel better by adding more stops, reducing the perceived delay waiting behind other trains, but other than that we'd just be looking at quadruplication or opening a parallel line. I don't get what you mean by non-express being faster than an express, this kind of is physically impossible in the same way overtaking isn't possible as it's only double-track. As a footnote I have experienced late-running VLines be given priority over a local Cranbourne train, such that the Cranbourne train had delays incurred.
@@AbsintheBabe the Pakenham has to be approx 25 mins ahead of the vline, the Cranbourne trains needs to be 12 minutes, the westall at 6 mins, you can easily run 2 Cranbourne trains after the pakenham train and run approx 5 pakenham and 5 Cranbourne because the frequency of the vline, also if pakenham services get bigger expresses it will be even easier. When the pakenham express skips yarraman and westall it’s 2-4 minutes slower then a train not expressing. It stops 3 extra stations which should be a 3 minutes quicker but it’s 3 minutes slower. Please explain that
@@matthewnorman9803 "When the pakenham express skips yarraman and westall it’s 2-4 minutes slower then a train not expressing. It stops 3 extra stations which should be a 3 minutes quicker but it’s 3 minutes slower. Please explain that" I'd like to see an example of what you're talking about. But I suspect that you're comparing peak with off-peak. Peak-period trains have slightly longer schedules to accommodate the extra time required for passengers to board a peak train. But if you compare the time for peak-time trains from, say, Caulfield to Dandenong, where one is a Pakenham that runs express and the other is a Cranbourne that doesn't, you'll find that they take the same time, not three minutes different. (And where do you get "three" from? Westall and Yarraman is two, not three.) The Pakenham trains are not quicker, because they are right behind a stopping service, so take the same time, not less.
I went to the open day at Anzac station last weekend, and asked a senior project manager about the static signs on the station walls showing the Metro tunnel route and all stations (Anzac > *Malvern* > Caulfield > Carnegie etc.). He confirmed that yes, all Metro tunnel services would be stopping at Malvern full-time, to provide an easier interchange and alleviate congestion at Caulfield.
@otanica Caulfield interchanges from Platform 1 to Platform 3 require a 120m walk, Malvern requires an 85m walk. Caulfield requires you pass through a set of myki barriers on Platform 3 which congest movement, which Malvern does not. Caulfield also sees significantly greater customer patronage as a destinstion/origin station, especially around peak uni times and during race days that Malvern does not, so you are less likely to experience pedestrian congestion per sqm at Malvern than at Caulfield. Also, Caulfield is often a transfer point for rail replacement buses too, adding to further congestion and urban design limitations along the Normanby Road interface with Platform 1 down to the underpass.
as someone who used to change from platform 1 to platform 4 every day, I won't miss running through the underpass when the trains are very close. nice proposition!
This transfer situation looks awful, I used to think the changes at Redfern and Dulwich Hill in Sydney were bad before they built the new overpass. This Caulfield one looks absolutely horrible. I obviously am a big fan of the prescribed solution here in this video but the much more likely outcome is they do what Sydney did and just build a hefty overbridge, potentially with escalators which would be a much better result than what you have right now!
I make this transfer many times a week and it fills me with rage lol, especially when it causes me to miss my connection ;( at least the pigeons are cute
I love me a good cross platform interchange. I always try to build some myself in Transport Fever 2, and it's always satisfying to see two trains pull up to the same island platform at the same time to "exchange" passengers. Just lovely.
I think the most prominent and effective use of cross-platform-transfer is at Richmond for platforms 7-8 and 9-10. This isn't as important for Down trains as transfers towards Camberwell and Glen Waverley can be done at Burnley, but the two Up platforms allow passengers to either go directly to Flinders St or towards Parliament via the City Loop. This is why that flyover exists west of Richmond station, and I think this is a great use of Cross-Platform-Transfers. I would love to see a similar layout implemented for Sandringham and Frankston trains at Richmond once Dandenong-group trains are rerouted through the city-loop. I think this would make a future "city-loop reconfiguration project" just about perfect.
As a frequent user of those platforms, they're hugely useful in both directions. If Lilydale/Belgrave are using the loop, I can catch a direct train from Flinders Street and beat my train. The Up direction transfer is hugely valuable too though
Agreed. I would argue that you can see Richmond platforms 7-10 as a semi-four way junction, at least separately for AM/PM peaks: Platform 7 (AM) - direct to Flinders Street (Glen Waverley line) Platform 8 (AM) - City Loop services (Belgrave, Lilydale and Alamein lines) Perfect and efficient cross-platform transfer as discussed Platform 9 (PM) - from the City Loop - Belgrave and Lilydale express trains, some Glen Waverley trains Platform 10 (PM) - direct from Flinders Street - Blackburn and Alamein stopping all stations trains Allows people from Flinders Street or the City Loop to easily stay on/change trains to the required destination at Richmond. Burnley is used less as the express services don't stop there.
"This is why that flyover exists west of Richmond station,..." I don't think that's correct. That flyover was built as part of the expansion of two tracks to four between Flinders Street E Box and Richmond in 1973, and allowed Glen Waverley trains from platform 4 at Flinders Street to stop at East Richmond without crossing the Burnley Through tracks on the level.
I transfer from an up Frankston to a down Pakenham train every morning at Caufield. It does not help that my up Frankston is scheduled to arrive at XX:25 and the down Pakenham is scheduled to depart at XX:27, turning a 2 minute walk into a less than fun run to try to catch the next Pakenham train. Melbourne needs to do a lot better at considering how people might be connecting between trains.
the up pakenham to down pakenham has a similar issue where the up pakenham gets to the station as the down pakenham leaves needlessly adding 10 minutes of wait time
Small correction at 08:25. That small road that could be used as a diversion is now a dead end road and will eventually become a park. There's a newer road slightly to the west that you can see on newer google earth imagery. I believe it's called caufield bvd
The current layout actually works really well for my commute home. I will usually go from Malvern to Caulfield and change to get to Parliament. I even get another cross platform interchange at Parliament with the Mernda/Hurstbridge line. However, I am well aware that my commute is quite niche so I'd gladly sacrifice that convenience for a net benefit.
7:02 Lidcombe Station has a Platform 0 for Olympic Park shuttle (built in 2000 for the Olympics, after the original station whenever it was constructed)😁
Thanks Martin. Suddenly there's Sharath and Amy at Chatswood! Sydney's Lidcombe station has a platform 0, should you need a precedent to convince the decision makers of the worthiness of your plan😉 You didn't mention, but would clearly be aware of, the excellent cross-platform convenience at Central Station suburban platforms.
Yeah I posted in my comment that there are also the following cross-platform transfers: -At Seven Hills between Richmond T5 trains and Western T1 trains -At Town Hall between T4 Eastern Suburbs and T1 North Shore trains If we loosen the criteria slightly more: -At Central between T1/T9 Western and North Shore line services there are cross-platform transfers in both directions to the T2 Inner West and City Circle services, I first realised that from Taitsets video on the City Circle! -Regents Park this one is a bit of a cheap copout but you do have cross-platform transfer between the new T6 shuttle and the T3 to Liverpool via Sefton, or same-platform transfer to City via Inner West line T3 If all trains stop at Westmead in future once the Metro West opens, there will also be the possibility of cross-platform interchange at Westmead between western, blue mountains and richmond line trains. Cross-platform interchanges may also feature in more future Sydney Metro projects like the Liverpool extension of SW Metro, a Tallawong extension of Metro NW and Metro WSA, and a Bradfield extension of the SW Rail Link.
@@BigBlueMan118 Phew! An exhaustive list, including the new serendipitous UP T6 to T3 at Regents Park or Berala on platform 1 and DOWN T3 to T6 at Lidcombe, platform 4 to 5. Pity about the 10 minute wait though.
Great Video! The cross-platform layout at Burnley does allow for passengers to easily change between services which stop at East Richmond, and express services. So, the layout there is actually pretty useful...
Off-peak and on weekends there's actually a timetabled transfer between ex-Camberwell trains and Glen Waverley trains, to give the former easy access to East Richmond. Same same but opposite for East Richmond to have easy access back out to Camberwell and beyond. Trains don't wait for each other though, so a late running of either can mess it up
I always enjoy this channel when it shows up in my recommendations, but it is something special to see a Public Transport TH-cam video that relates to my specific Public Transport Bugbear, which is living in Carnegie but working down the Frankston line, and inevitably *just* missing the changeover from the Up Frankston line to the Down Dandenong lines because of the 2-3 minutes it takes to walk from platform 1 to platform 4, at which point it's like "well, it's not worth waiting another ten minutes for the next train, guess i'll just walk."
Just an update on the road layout on the south side of Caulfield. There's now a large commercial/residential development on what was shown as open space in the video at 8:16 which has altered the road layout slightly, but I think your point about closing Normanby Rd is still valid. One issue with re-installing crossovers between the two lines is the CBTC signalling which would need to take that into account. On the subject of Platform 0, there are also a few in Japan.
6:08 best transition I have ever seen! 😂😂 Nonetheless, I think your solution sounds really great, and I feel like the most practical solution is to have a bridge on either end of station, so that not having to touch off and on even just to get to the down line of Pakenham is much more convenient than what it's currently now.
2:20 people change en masse at Richmond station's platforms 7&8, between Flinders St direct and City Loop trains, although this works only on weekday mornings.
Doing the interchange over two stations, Caulfield and Malvern you could achieve cross platform interchange between Up City Loop/Metro Tunnel at say Caulfield, and Down Frankston/Pakenham & Cranbourne at Malvern. Then you are only up for flipping the Up/Down lines and not rebuilding stations (the expensive part). The other consideration on your suggestion, if you were to do away with platform 4 at Caulfield, then I would be straightening platform 3 at the up end so all platforms are straight and without curves.
Works really well across City Hall and Raffles Place in Singapore between the two original metro railways there. Good passengers information and announcements, plus learnings and the passengers would get used to knowing which station to change trains.
Since you asked. My suggestions would all involve using giant cannons and trampolines. So I think you're on the right track. I subscribed for Broadmeadows Runaway pt 3
i like how the layout is rather similar to what we ended up doing at petrie up here in Brisbane with the kippa ring line, although we had a lot more space to play with, we ended up with a spare platform like you did, but we had the lines split between to caboolture to kippa ring on one island, and from caboolture then from kippa ring, then this layout allowing cross platform transfers in peak and once frequencies increase off peak cross platform transfers then. we've also got a similar case of last transfer being the tunnel being rather bad with eagle junction and northgate not being well equiped to handle large volumes quickly, currently the plan is to include Albion into the CRR route, kinda like including malvern. Albion doesnt really have much options to do cross platform as one side is in a deep cutting with roads going over, and the other side you have the CRR tracks splitting off quickly as well as other roads bridges and river crossings and eventually a depot. so for the upgrade there we've chosen to have two accessible footbridges, one is going to be a main concourse so much higher throughput and the other will be a bit smaller but still useable. we are able to pull this off cause the Albion station upgrade is going to be included in a long awaited TOD project which has taken its time to get off the ground, but seems to actually be starting now so fingers crossed
I'd like to mention two other Sydney stations that kinda meet the criteria Epping - Is on the T9 and the Newcastle and Central Coast Intercity line but is also serviced by the Sydney Metro M1 via an underground station. So, it's a direct transfer via one escalator or lift Wolli Creek - The T4 passes through on a north-south alignment and the T8 passes on an East-West alignment at an underground station. Similar situation - direct transfer via one escalator or lift
You can change between northbound north shore trains, and the city circle clockwise direction at central 16 & 17. The southbound direction can be done at both central platform 18 & 19 and town hall platform 1 & 2. Town hall 5 & 6 allows an interchange between northbound trains on the city circle and the eastern suburbs railway. This also means that you can change from an northbound north shore train to a Bondi junction train by first changing to the outer circle at central (16 to 17) and then from platform 6 to 5 at town hall. Might not be as fast as a direct change because you have to wait for two trains, but saves walking.
This video has made me realize I have very few cross platform transfers on my fantasy train network in Trainz 2. But I don't have any double junctions either.
I think it might be worth considering filling in platform 3 with a wider platform to handle increased crowds, or fill in platform 4 so down Dandyleon trains open doors on both sides. Aside from that, there isn't much I would change from what you have proposed.
Thanks for the video Marty, as a general point of interest it is worth noting that Sydney does actually have quite a few more cross-platform interchanges than the 2 you discussed in the video: -At Seven Hills between Richmond T5 trains and Western T1 trains -At Town Hall between T4 Eastern Suburbs and T1 North Shore trains If we loosen the criteria slightly more: -At Central between T1/T9 Western and North Shore line services there are cross-platform transfers in both directions to the T2 Inner West and City Circle services, I first realised that from your video on the City Circle! -Regents Park this one is a bit of a cheap copout but you do have cross-platform transfer between the new T6 shuttle and the T3 to Liverpool via Sefton If all trains stop at Westmead in future once the Metro West opens, there will also be the possibility of cross-platform interchange at Westmead between western, blue mountains and richmond line trains. Cross-platform interchanges may also feature in more future Sydney Metro projects like the Liverpool extension of SW Metro, a Tallawong extension of Metro NW and Metro WSA, and a Bradfield extension of the SW Rail Link.
Loved all the MTR cross transfers, I was there visiting family last month and I forgot how good it feels to complete a cross platform transfer as the doors are closing and the cheerful Cantonese door closing announcement is playing.
That’s awesome. I really wanted this video. And also now feel a little dumb for only earlier thinking of the options you said would likely happen. And that is a key point. We need to get this as an official proposal. Because it just makes sense. Maybe we could: 1) Put a QR code of this video in the under pass. 2) crowd fund a study. 3) Have a design competition. 4) make it out of lego (and get it displayed somewhere in melbourne. 5) do a false press release that it is happening, and hope different parts of government accidentally gaslight each other into doing it 6) create a petition, and get lots of signatures. 7) other.
They could have done this right originally by putting the dive for the metro tunnel one track across so that it would run onto the centre pair of tracks, resignalling those as Fast-Slow-Slow-Fast. Then the metro tunnel services would have stopped all stations using the centre island platforms, and a flyover on the down side of Caulfield would have elevated the line onto the LXRA viaduct. A few crossovers would have allowed trains to switch between Fast and Slow tracks. But, as you said in the video: that's just not how we do things here 🙃
There could be some merit to offering one cross platform interchange in the peak direction, and switching halfway through the day. You'd just need the frankston line to take right hand running in the mornings and the dandenong line right hand in the evening.
The removal of those crossovers is honestly one of the most short sighted projects done in recent years. With that being said, I still think the tunnel should've started at Caulfield.
Originally the metro tunnel was to start at Caulfield and turn west with stations at hawthorn road, balaclava, st kilda Junction, commercial road, domain and Flinders Street etc but this was descoped around 2015.
@@Kevin-go2dw wasn't there some good reasons for reducing the Bendigo line down to single-track in terms of increasing speeds? Like they would have had to do a load more work If they wanted to get speeds up to 160 for the line and still have it double-tracked or something?
A relatively simple solution in the short term, could be to install another crossover allowing Frankston services towards their city to stop at platform 2. This will allow a cross platform change for metro tunnel services to the city. It should impact fewer people than the current setup, however, it is not a great permanent solution. Wider exits and entrances, and alot moreover shelter areas desperately needed.
They should still do this for disruptions to either line, when people may be able to change to the other line in lieu of a replacement bus between Caulfield and the city. iirc the crossovers already in place allow this
great thoughts/ planning. If only someone in a position to listen. Just half way through long delayed night shifts on maint works on Metro, cant be more specific. But after a week, when not even open yet...
As a Malvern station local, I believe it’s best for people to change at Malvern, they can move the ticket barriers there. At Caulfield you can’t because of the customer service office. Trains should stop at Malvern full time as people use it to get many tram connections, E.G, I commonly find myself in Glenferrie road needing to get to the 72 but don’t want to go to Malvern road (commercial road) so I train to toorak. Additionally Malvern is perfect for a footbridge at the other end.
I have thought about this for around two years now. Improvements to the design: Have the Frankston line run on Platform 0 and 3 instead of 1&2, this removes the need for a long bridge on both sides of the station, just a small one for the Frankston Down and Dandenong group to cross. On the west end of the station, at the Metro Tunnel entrance, just shift it over a few metres so that the Caulfield Through Down and Caulfield Local Up go into the tunnel. Eventually, if Malvern-Hawksburn are de-heritage-listed, then the Dandenong group track could be completely straight from Caufield to the Metro Tunnel (bar that one kink near Toorak), allowing for much higher speeds.
Bayswater in Perth was redsigned as an interchange for Midland, Airport and Ellenbrook will be interesting to see how it works when the Ellenbrook line opens
Ellenbrook Line is in the middle and the Airport and Midland are on the outside. In this case it's the opposite situation as we do have the up and down lines running on the same platform at Bayswater but we would want it to be the other way to allow for cross-platform interchanges between outbound and inbound services on the lines but that would just be too complicated. Anyway, the walk is way less than what this video's station has.
I used to catch the Frankston line 5 days a week for work, back then it alternated, one loop train, one direct to Flinders, it was fairly easy to just arrive a bit earlier if you wanted the other option. Now I think it sucks, none go through the loop. And by your diagrams, in the future all will be loop trains even if you don't want it. I would much prefer if they went back to an alternating system, just re-instate those track cross-overs and every second train could use the alternate, is one Frankston to the loop, the the next through the new metro tunnel, alternating with Dandenong trains doing likewise, so hence much less need for train swapping/interchange, short of going from Frankston to a station out Dandenong way.
Great video. There is a niche cross platform transfer at Footscray - which I have done - at the city end of the platforms from an up Werribee train to a down V/Line train it’s straight across the platform (and even further along it’s just through the station building).
Great Video - In 2009 the platform 7 to 8 interchange in Richmond was great if you wanted to go to Flinders street or the city loop. Most of the other transfers in Melbourne are very sad indeed. ( Even the tram/train interchange at Gardener< build after 2009 -, such a sad affair- spending so much money and ending up with such a crappy interchange )
Congratulations, Martin, on a well thought out discussion on the perennial problem of changing trains at major interchanges and I simply love the crayon and pigeon input. At Caulfield, my thoughts turn towards having wide covered footbridges at both ends of the station with lifts (a la North Melbourne), firstly at the down end, including an outside barrier bridge link on both sides across John Monash Drive (for University access) and Normanby Road (for Racecourse access), then, later, replace the existing subway at the up end with similar outside barrier across road access. This would avoid the expense of rebuilding the station and upsetting the heritage brigade (well partly anyway) and eliminate/reduce pedestrian congestion on many fronts in and around the station precinct. The existing subway is an operational nuisance, especially when freight trains cross it, eating up line capacity with the 25kmh limit and is also vulnerable to flash flooding during our increasingly crazy climate change. I get that the 'rationalisation' involved in removal of crossovers between the Dandenong and Frankston corridors was driven by the isolation of signalling systems but a single strategic link between the Up Dandenong and Down Frankston lines added to the existing revised terminating crossovers could have considerably improved the flexibility of Caulfield at minimal signalling interface cost. Maybe a 'light globe' moment for the crayon experts later without too much pigeon doo-doo!🙂😉🙂
"...driven by the isolation of signalling systems..." Both lines have conventional signalling, as well as the Dandenong line having CBTC. I don't think that the removal of crossovers between the two lines was anything to do with that.
Another possible solution at both Caulfield and Footscray - elevate the lines in one direction to have the platforms on top of each other. Have both citybound lines on the lower platform and both outbound lines on the upper platform. This could also allow a passing point for country services and freight trains.
The second up dandenong flyover probably couldn't be "fairly short" because that would cause a drastic slow-down and mess with your headway a lot. That said, great video, great ideas, and it's given me a decent amount to think about
Love this video. My feeling is that the station may end up demolished and rebuilt (and perhaps a road or two maybe closed) as I could see them trying to integrate the station with the Monash Uni campus but I love your thought process. While some may not like the idea of demolition, if a master plan was put together that allowed a more seamless integration with the Route 3 tram and buses it would be a real win for the community
The down end flyover might be difficult grades-wise especially with consideration for the daily freight trains, but it certainly would be made easier if the road beneath was closed and the Frankston Line dove immediately after the platforms. All in all I'm very in favour of this idea, especially the reinstated crossovers
@@Low760 There are alternative crossings available at Grange Road and the new Caulfield Blvd for vehicular traffic if that's what you mean. If you mean pedestrian-wise I'd include/retain a pedestrian underpass here, which require much much less vertical space than a vehicular underpass.
I wondered about placing 3 and 4 above 1 and 2 replicating the common railway crossing project stations. While this wouldn't be as easy as cross platform it would allow for easy transfer between the lines onwards and outwards.
I was just discussing this the other day - IMO they completely missed what needed to happen at both Footscray and Caufield. I live in Sunbury, so there will be times I need to change lines now, but the new tunnel will actually put me closer to where I need to go most of the time anyway so I'm not overly bothered myself but they definitely did cock this up.
There's a third place with cross-platform transfers in Sydney, at Central. (some of) the suburban platforms are arranged in a way that makes it easy for passengers to transfer from the T1/T9 to the T2/T3/T8 (via Sydenham, not via the Airport line). This means that passengers coming from the western and northern suburbs can easily get to the eastern side of the CBD, and people from the south west can also easily transfer for trains towards the north shore.
Great idea! I use Caulfield station often - for both Cranb/Pknhm & Frankston lines. This proposal though makes too much sense, I think, for the powers that be to get onside with this. ☹️
This is a very interesting video idea. A possibly cleaner solution would be to have the Dandenong lines run into platforms 2 and 3 and the Frankston line into 1 and 4.(Frankston line has more room to fit a flyover and crossover at the down end) You then build two interchange island platforms in the space between the tracks and link all the platforms together with a bridge. This would seperate passengers who are interchanging and passengers who are getting on or off which would increase passenger flow and capacity. This is assuming drivers can open both doors at the same time. I would also reinstate the crossovers between lines.
The thing is with Caulfield, it did cost me more money when I was younger to change. When I didn't really have an allowance or a job, if I needed to change trains at Caulfield, my myki would occasionally drop into the negative, meaning I would have to technically spend more to be able to continue my journey, even though it's still only the one. Sure this money wouldn't necessarily then get deducted from Myki, and I'd be ready for my next trip, but since I didn't know when I would next have $5, and that the inspectors would often actively target high school kids, it definitely felt like a loss.
@@Taitset Yeah I know overall not changing the price, but definitely frustrating, esp back when topping up on your phone meant using web browser which took over 24 hours to process
After having a look I’ve concluded that it might be better to run the Dandenong lines on platforms 1 and 3, have the Farnkston line towards the city go on the new platform 0 and then use all the space on The branch to Frankston to get the other direction up and over into platform 2. A south entrance would also have to be sorted in your plan. Either realign the road or put an entramce to the subway on the other side of it. Another option would be go put one set of lines under platforms 2+3 in a tunnel, which wouldn’t be cross platform, but just straight down a level. 1 and 4 could then be for VLine
@@PJRayment timetable a smaller gap and give the relevant vlos cbtc so that way it’ll only take like one minute. Allows extra time for interchanges anyway
@@yar1 One minute implies that the VLocity arrives 30 seconds after the HCMT and departs 30 seconds before it, and CBTC doesn't allow the trains to be that close. In fact it doesn't allow much less than about two and a half minutes, I think. Hence the five minutes I mentioned. And timetabling it should allow for a bit of leeway in case the trains are not spot on time.
You can change between northbound north shore trains, and the city circle clockwise direction at central 16 & 17. The southbound direction can be done at both central platform 18 & 19 and town hall platform 1 & 2. Town hall 5 & 6 allows an interchange between northbound trains on the city circle and the eastern suburbs railway. This also means that you can change from an northbound north shore train to a Bondi junction train by first changing to the outer circle at central (16 to 17) and then from platform 6 to 5 at town hall. Might not be as fast as a direct change because you have to wait for two trains, but saves walking.
When the city loop reconfig ends up on the cards, I reckon they will build cross platform interchanges at north Melbourne in a similar style to that proposed: tacking a new platform face on a side platform (6). Even comes with a prebuilt overpass for craigieburn! Cant get cheaper than that
You could potentially keep platform 4 as a terminating platform as well, which would be useful to maybe start a train there in the morning and/or avoid blocking a through service. Wouldn’t be ideal for the connection but would at least keep train capacity if it’s needed.
The move they did in 2023 to remove the crossovers was called Caulfield Rationalisation (pt 1). Ostensibly, whether this is a reasonable reason or not, they were removed to improve curve radius (and speed) through the station approaches, and to air gap the new CBTC system from the legacy signalling so there was no way a future driverless train could find itself in conventional signalling land. I am also aware that deep in the depths of the DoT there are various future unfunded Caulfield rationalisations stages, including what you have shown. Kinda like sunshine with the MAR project, the ultimate configuration would be cross platform interchanges, additional platforms for future quaduplication, and an enhanced pedestrian amenity connecting Monash Caulfield all the way to the race course and eliminating road crossings for pedestrians. Whether any of those ever see the light of day is another matter entirely. This is to say, this solution is so reasonable it is a real plan. There is just no interest in making this plan. Maybe it was one of the early casualties of MMT scope cutbacks?
"... so there was no way a future driverless train could find itself in conventional signalling land." Assuming that they are ever driverless. They will always be in conventional signalling land, unless V/Line trains and goods trains are also fitted for CBTC and CBTC is extended to Sunbury, East Pakenham, and Cranbourne.
Singapore MRT designed this from the beginning in the 80's, with the first 2 lines having 2 interchange stations at Raffles Place and City Hall, so they had cross platform connections for all possible direction options. The tunnels between them cross over to make it possible. This should have been an integral part of the Metro design. Disappointed it was overlooked.
It would of course depend on how much, and which parts of the existing station that you wanted to keep. But my instant response would be to remove the central platforms 2 & 3. Put a new pair of tracks where they are. Build new platforms over the existing inner tracks. That would retain the overall footprint of the station. Platforms 1 and 4 would be unaltered and you would have 2 new island platforms 2 and 3.
This would be amazing, the amount of times I have needed to sprint from the Frankston line to the Dandenong line so I could get the city loop😪 I Started to just change in Richmond because chances of missing the train, outweighed the benefit of the express.
The newest and one of the best cross platform interchange is going to be Perth’s first at the new Bayswater station which has already opened. Once the Ellenbrook line opens it will be operating out of platform 2 & 3 with midland and airport operating out of 1 & 4.
It's not really a double junction like he highlighted exists in Hong Kong, as all 3 originate from one location - Meltham (and subsequently Perth). So you could simply just wait at your origin station for the correct train to show up, given that neither is faster than the other.
This seems as good as any way to fix the interchange problem at Caulfield, but it only solves 1/2 of the problem (although it probably solves more than that, given the high percentage of city/inner suburbs workers on Melbourne trains) I'd go one further and put in more flyovers on the up side of Caulfield to allow a second cross-platform interchange at Malvern. So change the flyover/platform layout so Caulfield does the Up Dandenong-Down Frankston and Up Frankston-Down Dandenong cross-platform interchanges, then add more flyovers to allow the Up-Up and Down-Down cross-platform interchanges to take place at Malvern.
This is s great video Martin, but the works to build a flyover would still require rebuilding the station to disability access standards, so the cost would be very high. I think an accessible pedestrian bridge will have to be built eventually, and I would like it at the city end, connecting to the tram stop on the north side and a pedestrian precinct for the racetrack and apartment developments on the south.
Special thanks to Chatswood correspondents Sharath and Amy! Check out their video on Hong Kong's MTR for more cross-platform interchange thrills: th-cam.com/video/kqJ6UspEFzM/w-d-xo.htmlsi=89_uE6kdf0UeLDis
Like these videos and want to help support the channel? Join me on Patreon: www.patreon.com/Taitset
Also thanks to my kids for the crayon hire.
I hate that vline doesn’t get enough gap and gets stuck behind the metro, he can easily be rectified. Also why is it quicker for a non express train over a express train, can you please bring this up in your next video.
@@matthewnorman9803 In peak hour there is nothing they can do, it's already scheduled as far behind a Westall as possible, then catches up to a Cranbourne before Dandenong, and finally a Pakenham train. It's in the best spot it could possibly be right now timetabling wise and PTV/DoTP knows it.
It could be made to feel better by adding more stops, reducing the perceived delay waiting behind other trains, but other than that we'd just be looking at quadruplication or opening a parallel line.
I don't get what you mean by non-express being faster than an express, this kind of is physically impossible in the same way overtaking isn't possible as it's only double-track.
As a footnote I have experienced late-running VLines be given priority over a local Cranbourne train, such that the Cranbourne train had delays incurred.
@@AbsintheBabe the Pakenham has to be approx 25 mins ahead of the vline, the Cranbourne trains needs to be 12 minutes, the westall at 6 mins, you can easily run 2 Cranbourne trains after the pakenham train and run approx 5 pakenham and 5 Cranbourne because the frequency of the vline, also if pakenham services get bigger expresses it will be even easier. When the pakenham express skips yarraman and westall it’s 2-4 minutes slower then a train not expressing. It stops 3 extra stations which should be a 3 minutes quicker but it’s 3 minutes slower. Please explain that
@@matthewnorman9803
"When the pakenham express skips yarraman and westall it’s 2-4 minutes slower then a train not expressing. It stops 3 extra stations which should be a 3 minutes quicker but it’s 3 minutes slower. Please explain that"
I'd like to see an example of what you're talking about. But I suspect that you're comparing peak with off-peak. Peak-period trains have slightly longer schedules to accommodate the extra time required for passengers to board a peak train. But if you compare the time for peak-time trains from, say, Caulfield to Dandenong, where one is a Pakenham that runs express and the other is a Cranbourne that doesn't, you'll find that they take the same time, not three minutes different. (And where do you get "three" from? Westall and Yarraman is two, not three.)
The Pakenham trains are not quicker, because they are right behind a stopping service, so take the same time, not less.
I propose we run a crowdfunding campaign to get the DTP a full set of crayons, better even than Crayola.
What about Derwent?
@@betteramulet50 at the very least!
Certainly, they must get their crayons asap!
Absolutely
I went to the open day at Anzac station last weekend, and asked a senior project manager about the static signs on the station walls showing the Metro tunnel route and all stations (Anzac > *Malvern* > Caulfield > Carnegie etc.). He confirmed that yes, all Metro tunnel services would be stopping at Malvern full-time, to provide an easier interchange and alleviate congestion at Caulfield.
The Malvern Interchange has the same problems with changing platforms that Caulfield does.
@otanica Caulfield interchanges from Platform 1 to Platform 3 require a 120m walk, Malvern requires an 85m walk. Caulfield requires you pass through a set of myki barriers on Platform 3 which congest movement, which Malvern does not. Caulfield also sees significantly greater customer patronage as a destinstion/origin station, especially around peak uni times and during race days that Malvern does not, so you are less likely to experience pedestrian congestion per sqm at Malvern than at Caulfield. Also, Caulfield is often a transfer point for rail replacement buses too, adding to further congestion and urban design limitations along the Normanby Road interface with Platform 1 down to the underpass.
Taitset took the saying "I have neither the time nor the crayons to explain this to you" personally
Great video! Thank you!
as someone who used to change from platform 1 to platform 4 every day, I won't miss running through the underpass when the trains are very close. nice proposition!
This transfer situation looks awful, I used to think the changes at Redfern and Dulwich Hill in Sydney were bad before they built the new overpass. This Caulfield one looks absolutely horrible. I obviously am a big fan of the prescribed solution here in this video but the much more likely outcome is they do what Sydney did and just build a hefty overbridge, potentially with escalators which would be a much better result than what you have right now!
I make this transfer many times a week and it fills me with rage lol, especially when it causes me to miss my connection ;( at least the pigeons are cute
really appreciate the pigeon at the end
9:03 in this hypothetical situation. Platform 4 would still be used to pick up Traralgon passengers
I was thinking it could be a dedicated v/line platform.
Like how Footscray have dedicated V-Line platforms
@@jonahroseby8432 true although Footscray needed it since they get alot of Vline. But this line gets one Vline per hour.
That's a great idea.
But the Taralgon lines follows and uses the same platforms as the Cranbourne and Pakenham lines.
Gotta prepare me for that Sharath jumpscare 😅 (love u sharath ❤❤).
Dude you ruined the surprise
I love me a good cross platform interchange. I always try to build some myself in Transport Fever 2, and it's always satisfying to see two trains pull up to the same island platform at the same time to "exchange" passengers. Just lovely.
taitset needs to design some train layouts for @twodollarstwenty on city skylines
The USB cord got me laughing and the Palm tree “thanks” sent me into fits. Appreciate your time and energy in these vids very much
I think the most prominent and effective use of cross-platform-transfer is at Richmond for platforms 7-8 and 9-10. This isn't as important for Down trains as transfers towards Camberwell and Glen Waverley can be done at Burnley, but the two Up platforms allow passengers to either go directly to Flinders St or towards Parliament via the City Loop. This is why that flyover exists west of Richmond station, and I think this is a great use of Cross-Platform-Transfers. I would love to see a similar layout implemented for Sandringham and Frankston trains at Richmond once Dandenong-group trains are rerouted through the city-loop. I think this would make a future "city-loop reconfiguration project" just about perfect.
@@diltonweany7003 back when I had to change frequently between loop and flinders. This interchange was very good.
I'm always seeing about a quarter of down-Burnley Loop passengers change for either local trains or other down Richmond services
As a frequent user of those platforms, they're hugely useful in both directions. If Lilydale/Belgrave are using the loop, I can catch a direct train from Flinders Street and beat my train. The Up direction transfer is hugely valuable too though
Agreed. I would argue that you can see Richmond platforms 7-10 as a semi-four way junction, at least separately for AM/PM peaks:
Platform 7 (AM) - direct to Flinders Street (Glen Waverley line)
Platform 8 (AM) - City Loop services (Belgrave, Lilydale and Alamein lines)
Perfect and efficient cross-platform transfer as discussed
Platform 9 (PM) - from the City Loop - Belgrave and Lilydale express trains, some Glen Waverley trains
Platform 10 (PM) - direct from Flinders Street - Blackburn and Alamein stopping all stations trains
Allows people from Flinders Street or the City Loop to easily stay on/change trains to the required destination at Richmond. Burnley is used less as the express services don't stop there.
"This is why that flyover exists west of Richmond station,..."
I don't think that's correct. That flyover was built as part of the expansion of two tracks to four between Flinders Street E Box and Richmond in 1973, and allowed Glen Waverley trains from platform 4 at Flinders Street to stop at East Richmond without crossing the Burnley Through tracks on the level.
Aussie train enthusiasts are so lucky to have this channel. Thank you Taitset
That drawing animation was brilliant. Awesome video again thanks for making my Sunday night a banger! 😊
I transfer from an up Frankston to a down Pakenham train every morning at Caufield. It does not help that my up Frankston is scheduled to arrive at XX:25 and the down Pakenham is scheduled to depart at XX:27, turning a 2 minute walk into a less than fun run to try to catch the next Pakenham train. Melbourne needs to do a lot better at considering how people might be connecting between trains.
It must be galling to think that in the past the same transfer would've been a simple 20m walk across from p3 to p2 at most times.
the up pakenham to down pakenham has a similar issue where the up pakenham gets to the station as the down pakenham leaves needlessly adding 10 minutes of wait time
I see the mad dash from the Frankston platform to the Dandenong platform.
@@natalieking9246been there, done that 😂
The palm tree approves of your idea Martin! Nice video mate
MUM TAITSET UPLOADED, I CAN’T GO TO SCHOOL
Sorry, it was very cruel of me to make it live at 9am on a weekday! :)
Appreciate you plugging in your drawing so we could see it more clearly on the screen
Small correction at 08:25. That small road that could be used as a diversion is now a dead end road and will eventually become a park. There's a newer road slightly to the west that you can see on newer google earth imagery.
I believe it's called caufield bvd
Thankyou - I didn't realise the imagery wasn't up to date, and also didn't notice when I went there!
@@Taitset yeah it's such a small detail to miss, great video though!
The current layout actually works really well for my commute home. I will usually go from Malvern to Caulfield and change to get to Parliament. I even get another cross platform interchange at Parliament with the Mernda/Hurstbridge line. However, I am well aware that my commute is quite niche so I'd gladly sacrifice that convenience for a net benefit.
man, I absolutely love learning about trains on the other side of the world!
Even the pigeon subscribed to Taitset's channel, what a legend 😂
7:02 Lidcombe Station has a Platform 0 for Olympic Park shuttle (built in 2000 for the Olympics, after the original station whenever it was constructed)😁
Taitset has been keeping his extensive experience as a motion graphic animator a secret!
Dude probably even has a pen licence and isn't telling us.
@drworm5007 I demand an royal commission!
Thanks Martin. Suddenly there's Sharath and Amy at Chatswood!
Sydney's Lidcombe station has a platform 0, should you need a precedent to convince the decision makers of the worthiness of your plan😉
You didn't mention, but would clearly be aware of, the excellent cross-platform convenience at Central Station suburban platforms.
Yeah I posted in my comment that there are also the following cross-platform transfers:
-At Seven Hills between Richmond T5 trains and Western T1 trains
-At Town Hall between T4 Eastern Suburbs and T1 North Shore trains
If we loosen the criteria slightly more:
-At Central between T1/T9 Western and North Shore line services there are cross-platform transfers in both directions to the T2 Inner West and City Circle services, I first realised that from Taitsets video on the City Circle!
-Regents Park this one is a bit of a cheap copout but you do have cross-platform transfer between the new T6 shuttle and the T3 to Liverpool via Sefton, or same-platform transfer to City via Inner West line T3
If all trains stop at Westmead in future once the Metro West opens, there will also be the possibility of cross-platform interchange at Westmead between western, blue mountains and richmond line trains. Cross-platform interchanges may also feature in more future Sydney Metro projects like the Liverpool extension of SW Metro, a Tallawong extension of Metro NW and Metro WSA, and a Bradfield extension of the SW Rail Link.
@@BigBlueMan118 Phew! An exhaustive list, including the new serendipitous UP T6 to T3 at Regents Park or Berala on platform 1 and DOWN T3 to T6 at Lidcombe, platform 4 to 5. Pity about the 10 minute wait though.
Love it! Makes complete sense! And good job saving the Palm tree mate :)
Great Video! The cross-platform layout at Burnley does allow for passengers to easily change between services which stop at East Richmond, and express services. So, the layout there is actually pretty useful...
Off-peak and on weekends there's actually a timetabled transfer between ex-Camberwell trains and Glen Waverley trains, to give the former easy access to East Richmond. Same same but opposite for East Richmond to have easy access back out to Camberwell and beyond. Trains don't wait for each other though, so a late running of either can mess it up
I always enjoy this channel when it shows up in my recommendations, but it is something special to see a Public Transport TH-cam video that relates to my specific Public Transport Bugbear, which is living in Carnegie but working down the Frankston line, and inevitably *just* missing the changeover from the Up Frankston line to the Down Dandenong lines because of the 2-3 minutes it takes to walk from platform 1 to platform 4, at which point it's like "well, it's not worth waiting another ten minutes for the next train, guess i'll just walk."
Just an update on the road layout on the south side of Caulfield. There's now a large commercial/residential development on what was shown as open space in the video at 8:16 which has altered the road layout slightly, but I think your point about closing Normanby Rd is still valid.
One issue with re-installing crossovers between the two lines is the CBTC signalling which would need to take that into account.
On the subject of Platform 0, there are also a few in Japan.
6:08 best transition I have ever seen! 😂😂
Nonetheless, I think your solution sounds really great, and I feel like the most practical solution is to have a bridge on either end of station, so that not having to touch off and on even just to get to the down line of Pakenham is much more convenient than what it's currently now.
2:20 people change en masse at Richmond station's platforms 7&8, between Flinders St direct and City Loop trains, although this works only on weekday mornings.
Unless there is a long wait to the next train, in which case you need to go to platforms 1 or 3.
Doing the interchange over two stations, Caulfield and Malvern you could achieve cross platform interchange between Up City Loop/Metro Tunnel at say Caulfield, and Down Frankston/Pakenham & Cranbourne at Malvern. Then you are only up for flipping the Up/Down lines and not rebuilding stations (the expensive part).
The other consideration on your suggestion, if you were to do away with platform 4 at Caulfield, then I would be straightening platform 3 at the up end so all platforms are straight and without curves.
That would be pretty darn confusing for most passengers.
Works really well across City Hall and Raffles Place in Singapore between the two original metro railways there. Good passengers information and announcements, plus learnings and the passengers would get used to knowing which station to change trains.
Thanks Martin. Here I was redesigning Spencer Street for my own headcanon, now you've presented me with another conundrum that needs deciphering.
CONGRATS ON 40K!!🎉
Since you asked. My suggestions would all involve using giant cannons and trampolines. So I think you're on the right track. I subscribed for Broadmeadows Runaway pt 3
I use that palm tree to know I’m clear of the 40km curve coming back from Frankston 😅 great video!
Caulfield P4 could do what Essendon P1 does. V/Line, passing, and the occasional Steamrail shuttle reversing direction.
Or it could end up being what the old Oakleigh platform 1 became.
i like how the layout is rather similar to what we ended up doing at petrie up here in Brisbane with the kippa ring line, although we had a lot more space to play with, we ended up with a spare platform like you did, but we had the lines split between to caboolture to kippa ring on one island, and from caboolture then from kippa ring, then this layout allowing cross platform transfers in peak and once frequencies increase off peak cross platform transfers then.
we've also got a similar case of last transfer being the tunnel being rather bad with eagle junction and northgate not being well equiped to handle large volumes quickly, currently the plan is to include Albion into the CRR route, kinda like including malvern. Albion doesnt really have much options to do cross platform as one side is in a deep cutting with roads going over, and the other side you have the CRR tracks splitting off quickly as well as other roads bridges and river crossings and eventually a depot.
so for the upgrade there we've chosen to have two accessible footbridges, one is going to be a main concourse so much higher throughput and the other will be a bit smaller but still useable. we are able to pull this off cause the Albion station upgrade is going to be included in a long awaited TOD project which has taken its time to get off the ground, but seems to actually be starting now so fingers crossed
I'd like to mention two other Sydney stations that kinda meet the criteria
Epping - Is on the T9 and the Newcastle and Central Coast Intercity line but is also serviced by the Sydney Metro M1 via an underground station. So, it's a direct transfer via one escalator or lift
Wolli Creek - The T4 passes through on a north-south alignment and the T8 passes on an East-West alignment at an underground station. Similar situation - direct transfer via one escalator or lift
2 lifts in both cases. 2 escalators at Epping. 2 sets of stairs at Wolli Creek.
You can change between northbound north shore trains, and the city circle clockwise direction at central 16 & 17. The southbound direction can be done at both central platform 18 & 19 and town hall platform 1 & 2.
Town hall 5 & 6 allows an interchange between northbound trains on the city circle and the eastern suburbs railway.
This also means that you can change from an northbound north shore train to a Bondi junction train by first changing to the outer circle at central (16 to 17) and then from platform 6 to 5 at town hall. Might not be as fast as a direct change because you have to wait for two trains, but saves walking.
This video has made me realize I have very few cross platform transfers on my fantasy train network in Trainz 2. But I don't have any double junctions either.
I think it might be worth considering filling in platform 3 with a wider platform to handle increased crowds, or fill in platform 4 so down Dandyleon trains open doors on both sides. Aside from that, there isn't much I would change from what you have proposed.
Thanks for the video Marty, as a general point of interest it is worth noting that Sydney does actually have quite a few more cross-platform interchanges than the 2 you discussed in the video:
-At Seven Hills between Richmond T5 trains and Western T1 trains
-At Town Hall between T4 Eastern Suburbs and T1 North Shore trains
If we loosen the criteria slightly more:
-At Central between T1/T9 Western and North Shore line services there are cross-platform transfers in both directions to the T2 Inner West and City Circle services, I first realised that from your video on the City Circle!
-Regents Park this one is a bit of a cheap copout but you do have cross-platform transfer between the new T6 shuttle and the T3 to Liverpool via Sefton
If all trains stop at Westmead in future once the Metro West opens, there will also be the possibility of cross-platform interchange at Westmead between western, blue mountains and richmond line trains. Cross-platform interchanges may also feature in more future Sydney Metro projects like the Liverpool extension of SW Metro, a Tallawong extension of Metro NW and Metro WSA, and a Bradfield extension of the SW Rail Link.
Loved all the MTR cross transfers, I was there visiting family last month and I forgot how good it feels to complete a cross platform transfer as the doors are closing and the cheerful Cantonese door closing announcement is playing.
That’s awesome. I really wanted this video. And also now feel a little dumb for only earlier thinking of the options you said would likely happen. And that is a key point. We need to get this as an official proposal. Because it just makes sense.
Maybe we could: 1) Put a QR code of this video in the under pass. 2) crowd fund a study. 3) Have a design competition. 4) make it out of lego (and get it displayed somewhere in melbourne. 5) do a false press release that it is happening, and hope different parts of government accidentally gaslight each other into doing it 6) create a petition, and get lots of signatures. 7) other.
love your videos, i pass through caulfied station regularly and appreciate your suggestions
great video as always mate, idk why but the things you talk about and how you talk about them is just interesting; the video ends before i know it.
Such a great video, always hyped for your releases
They could have done this right originally by putting the dive for the metro tunnel one track across so that it would run onto the centre pair of tracks, resignalling those as Fast-Slow-Slow-Fast. Then the metro tunnel services would have stopped all stations using the centre island platforms, and a flyover on the down side of Caulfield would have elevated the line onto the LXRA viaduct. A few crossovers would have allowed trains to switch between Fast and Slow tracks.
But, as you said in the video: that's just not how we do things here 🙃
I can't tell you how many times I've wished for a bridge connecting platforms 1 and 4 during my daily inter-train sprint.
10:45 - right at the end hearing Pakenham instead of East Pakenham and stopping all expect Narre brings me back to early 2024 days lol
Yes that bit of audio was from earlier in the year!
Great idea for a switching shunting layout! Thanks for another awesome video👏👏👍
6:27 Rip Bairnsdale N sets. Very nice to add that easter egg in.
There could be some merit to offering one cross platform interchange in the peak direction, and switching halfway through the day. You'd just need the frankston line to take right hand running in the mornings and the dandenong line right hand in the evening.
This is a very logical solution
The removal of those crossovers is honestly one of the most short sighted projects done in recent years.
With that being said, I still think the tunnel should've started at Caulfield.
I used to use the Frankston line for years and I was astonished they did that - who pays money to make something significantly less useful?
What would have been the benefit of starting the tunnel at Caulfield, higher speeds mainly or would you have added another station somewhere along it?
Same people that could see saving cost on the Bendigo line by reducing it from double track to single.
Originally the metro tunnel was to start at Caulfield and turn west with stations at hawthorn road, balaclava, st kilda Junction, commercial road, domain and Flinders Street etc but this was descoped around 2015.
@@Kevin-go2dw wasn't there some good reasons for reducing the Bendigo line down to single-track in terms of increasing speeds? Like they would have had to do a load more work If they wanted to get speeds up to 160 for the line and still have it double-tracked or something?
A relatively simple solution in the short term, could be to install another crossover allowing Frankston services towards their city to stop at platform 2. This will allow a cross platform change for metro tunnel services to the city. It should impact fewer people than the current setup, however, it is not a great permanent solution. Wider exits and entrances, and alot moreover shelter areas desperately needed.
They should still do this for disruptions to either line, when people may be able to change to the other line in lieu of a replacement bus between Caulfield and the city.
iirc the crossovers already in place allow this
great thoughts/ planning. If only someone in a position to listen. Just half way through long delayed night shifts on maint works on Metro, cant be more specific. But after a week, when not even open yet...
As a Malvern station local, I believe it’s best for people to change at Malvern, they can move the ticket barriers there. At Caulfield you can’t because of the customer service office. Trains should stop at Malvern full time as people use it to get many tram connections, E.G, I commonly find myself in Glenferrie road needing to get to the 72 but don’t want to go to Malvern road (commercial road) so I train to toorak. Additionally Malvern is perfect for a footbridge at the other end.
I have thought about this for around two years now.
Improvements to the design:
Have the Frankston line run on Platform 0 and 3 instead of 1&2, this removes the need for a long bridge on both sides of the station, just a small one for the Frankston Down and Dandenong group to cross. On the west end of the station, at the Metro Tunnel entrance, just shift it over a few metres so that the Caulfield Through Down and Caulfield Local Up go into the tunnel. Eventually, if Malvern-Hawksburn are de-heritage-listed, then the Dandenong group track could be completely straight from Caufield to the Metro Tunnel (bar that one kink near Toorak), allowing for much higher speeds.
I'm loving all of your content man!
Bayswater in Perth was redsigned as an interchange for Midland, Airport and Ellenbrook will be interesting to see how it works when the Ellenbrook line opens
Ellenbrook Line is in the middle and the Airport and Midland are on the outside. In this case it's the opposite situation as we do have the up and down lines running on the same platform at Bayswater but we would want it to be the other way to allow for cross-platform interchanges between outbound and inbound services on the lines but that would just be too complicated. Anyway, the walk is way less than what this video's station has.
That is absurdly brilliant, one can hope! Great video mate
I used to catch the Frankston line 5 days a week for work, back then it alternated, one loop train, one direct to Flinders, it was fairly easy to just arrive a bit earlier if you wanted the other option. Now I think it sucks, none go through the loop. And by your diagrams, in the future all will be loop trains even if you don't want it.
I would much prefer if they went back to an alternating system, just re-instate those track cross-overs and every second train could use the alternate, is one Frankston to the loop, the the next through the new metro tunnel, alternating with Dandenong trains doing likewise, so hence much less need for train swapping/interchange, short of going from Frankston to a station out Dandenong way.
Nice video preview, Martin!😁
Great video. There is a niche cross platform transfer at Footscray - which I have done - at the city end of the platforms from an up Werribee train to a down V/Line train it’s straight across the platform (and even further along it’s just through the station building).
Great Video - In 2009 the platform 7 to 8 interchange in Richmond was great if you wanted to go to Flinders street or the city loop. Most of the other transfers in Melbourne are very sad indeed. ( Even the tram/train interchange at Gardener< build after 2009 -, such a sad affair- spending so much money and ending up with such a crappy interchange )
Congratulations, Martin, on a well thought out discussion on the perennial problem of changing trains at major interchanges and I simply love the crayon and pigeon input. At Caulfield, my thoughts turn towards having wide covered footbridges at both ends of the station with lifts (a la North Melbourne), firstly at the down end, including an outside barrier bridge link on both sides across John Monash Drive (for University access) and Normanby Road (for Racecourse access), then, later, replace the existing subway at the up end with similar outside barrier across road access.
This would avoid the expense of rebuilding the station and upsetting the heritage brigade (well partly anyway) and eliminate/reduce pedestrian congestion on many fronts in and around the station precinct. The existing subway is an operational nuisance, especially when freight trains cross it, eating up line capacity with the 25kmh limit and is also vulnerable to flash flooding during our increasingly crazy climate change.
I get that the 'rationalisation' involved in removal of crossovers between the Dandenong and Frankston corridors was driven by the isolation of signalling systems but a single strategic link between the Up Dandenong and Down Frankston lines added to the existing revised terminating crossovers could have considerably improved the flexibility of Caulfield at minimal signalling interface cost. Maybe a 'light globe' moment for the crayon experts later without too much pigeon doo-doo!🙂😉🙂
"...driven by the isolation of signalling systems..."
Both lines have conventional signalling, as well as the Dandenong line having CBTC. I don't think that the removal of crossovers between the two lines was anything to do with that.
Another possible solution at both Caulfield and Footscray - elevate the lines in one direction to have the platforms on top of each other. Have both citybound lines on the lower platform and both outbound lines on the upper platform. This could also allow a passing point for country services and freight trains.
I watching this having just interchanged at Caulfield. Keen to hear your thoughts and ideas cos I have MANY!!!
The second up dandenong flyover probably couldn't be "fairly short" because that would cause a drastic slow-down and mess with your headway a lot.
That said, great video, great ideas, and it's given me a decent amount to think about
Love this video. My feeling is that the station may end up demolished and rebuilt (and perhaps a road or two maybe closed) as I could see them trying to integrate the station with the Monash Uni campus but I love your thought process. While some may not like the idea of demolition, if a master plan was put together that allowed a more seamless integration with the Route 3 tram and buses it would be a real win for the community
Hopefully the Metro Tunnel will cause the creation of more good interchanges, not just on the Metro Tunnel lines, but on the whole network.
The down end flyover might be difficult grades-wise especially with consideration for the daily freight trains, but it certainly would be made easier if the road beneath was closed and the Frankston Line dove immediately after the platforms. All in all I'm very in favour of this idea, especially the reinstated crossovers
Except the road is the only quick access for people on the other side
@@Low760 There are alternative crossings available at Grange Road and the new Caulfield Blvd for vehicular traffic if that's what you mean.
If you mean pedestrian-wise I'd include/retain a pedestrian underpass here, which require much much less vertical space than a vehicular underpass.
I wondered about placing 3 and 4 above 1 and 2 replicating the common railway crossing project stations. While this wouldn't be as easy as cross platform it would allow for easy transfer between the lines onwards and outwards.
I was just discussing this the other day - IMO they completely missed what needed to happen at both Footscray and Caufield. I live in Sunbury, so there will be times I need to change lines now, but the new tunnel will actually put me closer to where I need to go most of the time anyway so I'm not overly bothered myself but they definitely did cock this up.
Nice sharing friend
6:08 Wasn't expecting that but at the same time I was.
Hi Sharath and Amy!! 🎉
There's a third place with cross-platform transfers in Sydney, at Central. (some of) the suburban platforms are arranged in a way that makes it easy for passengers to transfer from the T1/T9 to the T2/T3/T8 (via Sydenham, not via the Airport line). This means that passengers coming from the western and northern suburbs can easily get to the eastern side of the CBD, and people from the south west can also easily transfer for trains towards the north shore.
Great idea! I use Caulfield station often - for both Cranb/Pknhm & Frankston lines. This proposal though makes too much sense, I think, for the powers that be to get onside with this. ☹️
This is a very interesting video idea.
A possibly cleaner solution would be to have the Dandenong lines run into platforms 2 and 3 and the Frankston line into 1 and 4.(Frankston line has more room to fit a flyover and crossover at the down end) You then build two interchange island platforms in the space between the tracks and link all the platforms together with a bridge.
This would seperate passengers who are interchanging and passengers who are getting on or off which would increase passenger flow and capacity. This is assuming drivers can open both doors at the same time.
I would also reinstate the crossovers between lines.
The thing is with Caulfield, it did cost me more money when I was younger to change. When I didn't really have an allowance or a job, if I needed to change trains at Caulfield, my myki would occasionally drop into the negative, meaning I would have to technically spend more to be able to continue my journey, even though it's still only the one. Sure this money wouldn't necessarily then get deducted from Myki, and I'd be ready for my next trip, but since I didn't know when I would next have $5, and that the inspectors would often actively target high school kids, it definitely felt like a loss.
That's a reasonable point. It's not actually increasing the cost, but in that scenario it does bring the payment forward.
@@Taitset Yeah I know overall not changing the price, but definitely frustrating, esp back when topping up on your phone meant using web browser which took over 24 hours to process
After having a look I’ve concluded that it might be better to run the Dandenong lines on platforms 1 and 3, have the Farnkston line towards the city go on the new platform 0 and then use all the space on The branch to Frankston to get the other direction up and over into platform 2.
A south entrance would also have to be sorted in your plan. Either realign the road or put an entramce to the subway on the other side of it.
Another option would be go put one set of lines under platforms 2+3 in a tunnel, which wouldn’t be cross platform, but just straight down a level. 1 and 4 could then be for VLine
Plat 4 for down vline overtakes 😼
How would they overtake, given that they also stop at Caulfield?
@@PJRayment get the hcmt to wait for the vlo to pass it
@@yar1 So the HCMT has to sit there for around five minutes so that the V/Line train can overtake?
@@PJRayment timetable a smaller gap and give the relevant vlos cbtc so that way it’ll only take like one minute. Allows extra time for interchanges anyway
@@yar1
One minute implies that the VLocity arrives 30 seconds after the HCMT and departs 30 seconds before it, and CBTC doesn't allow the trains to be that close. In fact it doesn't allow much less than about two and a half minutes, I think. Hence the five minutes I mentioned. And timetabling it should allow for a bit of leeway in case the trains are not spot on time.
You can change between northbound north shore trains, and the city circle clockwise direction at central 16 & 17. The southbound direction can be done at both central platform 18 & 19 and town hall platform 1 & 2.
Town hall 5 & 6 allows an interchange between northbound trains on the city circle and the eastern suburbs railway.
This also means that you can change from an northbound north shore train to a Bondi junction train by first changing to the outer circle at central (16 to 17) and then from platform 6 to 5 at town hall. Might not be as fast as a direct change because you have to wait for two trains, but saves walking.
10:20 "Doesn't even own as many crayons" They may need to step up their game a bit.
When the city loop reconfig ends up on the cards, I reckon they will build cross platform interchanges at north Melbourne in a similar style to that proposed: tacking a new platform face on a side platform (6). Even comes with a prebuilt overpass for craigieburn! Cant get cheaper than that
You could potentially keep platform 4 as a terminating platform as well, which would be useful to maybe start a train there in the morning and/or avoid blocking a through service. Wouldn’t be ideal for the connection but would at least keep train capacity if it’s needed.
The move they did in 2023 to remove the crossovers was called Caulfield Rationalisation (pt 1). Ostensibly, whether this is a reasonable reason or not, they were removed to improve curve radius (and speed) through the station approaches, and to air gap the new CBTC system from the legacy signalling so there was no way a future driverless train could find itself in conventional signalling land.
I am also aware that deep in the depths of the DoT there are various future unfunded Caulfield rationalisations stages, including what you have shown. Kinda like sunshine with the MAR project, the ultimate configuration would be cross platform interchanges, additional platforms for future quaduplication, and an enhanced pedestrian amenity connecting Monash Caulfield all the way to the race course and eliminating road crossings for pedestrians. Whether any of those ever see the light of day is another matter entirely.
This is to say, this solution is so reasonable it is a real plan. There is just no interest in making this plan. Maybe it was one of the early casualties of MMT scope cutbacks?
"... so there was no way a future driverless train could find itself in conventional signalling land."
Assuming that they are ever driverless. They will always be in conventional signalling land, unless V/Line trains and goods trains are also fitted for CBTC and CBTC is extended to Sunbury, East Pakenham, and Cranbourne.
Singapore MRT is the goat of cross-platform transfers.
City Hall and Raffles Place
Nice cameo from the De La boys!
Singapore MRT designed this from the beginning in the 80's, with the first 2 lines having 2 interchange stations at Raffles Place and City Hall, so they had cross platform connections for all possible direction options. The tunnels between them cross over to make it possible.
This should have been an integral part of the Metro design. Disappointed it was overlooked.
It would of course depend on how much, and which parts of the existing station that you wanted to keep. But my instant response would be to remove the central platforms 2 & 3. Put a new pair of tracks where they are. Build new platforms over the existing inner tracks.
That would retain the overall footprint of the station. Platforms 1 and 4 would be unaltered and you would have 2 new island platforms 2 and 3.
This would be amazing, the amount of times I have needed to sprint from the Frankston line to the Dandenong line so I could get the city loop😪
I Started to just change in Richmond because chances of missing the train, outweighed the benefit of the express.
The newest and one of the best cross platform interchange is going to be Perth’s first at the new Bayswater station which has already opened. Once the Ellenbrook line opens it will be operating out of platform 2 & 3 with midland and airport operating out of 1 & 4.
It's not really a double junction like he highlighted exists in Hong Kong, as all 3 originate from one location - Meltham (and subsequently Perth). So you could simply just wait at your origin station for the correct train to show up, given that neither is faster than the other.
This seems as good as any way to fix the interchange problem at Caulfield, but it only solves 1/2 of the problem (although it probably solves more than that, given the high percentage of city/inner suburbs workers on Melbourne trains) I'd go one further and put in more flyovers on the up side of Caulfield to allow a second cross-platform interchange at Malvern.
So change the flyover/platform layout so Caulfield does the Up Dandenong-Down Frankston and Up Frankston-Down Dandenong cross-platform interchanges, then add more flyovers to allow the Up-Up and Down-Down cross-platform interchanges to take place at Malvern.
My dad's idea: run the trains right next to each other at the same speed and open the doors for people to change lines
Does anyone else think of Pokemon when they hear the three downward notes on the upcoming train annoucements?
Great video and very thorough it would be great if it did happen
The city loop technically has cross platform interchanges as well
3 minutes past midnight and i need to wake up at 7, but taitset uploaded so feck my sleep
This is s great video Martin, but the works to build a flyover would still require rebuilding the station to disability access standards, so the cost would be very high. I think an accessible pedestrian bridge will have to be built eventually, and I would like it at the city end, connecting to the tram stop on the north side and a pedestrian precinct for the racetrack and apartment developments on the south.