Anti-Baillieu flyers spotted this morning around Bentleigh
These anonymous flyers appear to have popped up overnight (at least I didn’t spot them yesterday) around Bentleigh station.
(Note another similar pink one in the background on the small pole opposite.)
I might note that since the 2010 timetable was introduced (and the tweaks in 2011), the morning commute is slower, but I for one can almost always get a seat on the train in the mornings, apart from when there are cancellations and other disruptions. However, I consistently travel after 8am on weekdays — it may be a different story before 8.
I wonder if it was the same person who posted this sign in 2010:
Whoever posted these new ones, it seems public transport is still a hot button issue — something both major parties would do well to note.
I didn’t spot any signs relating to the sub-par Bentleigh “Smartbus”.
Fewer seats for Comeng trains?
The debate about train seats has come up again, thanks to The Greens uncovering minutes of a meeting between Metro and the Department of Transport discussing the removal of train seats from Comeng trains. (MX story / Channel 7 story)
DOT was generally comfortable with the proposals as presented by MTM. Options to be assessed were only to include low cost options necessary to achieve a 900 load standard with no reduction in dwell time performance.
The proposal is to remove the third seat in groups of three, widening the centre aisle.
I make it 12 seats in a “T” carriage (trailer, with no driving cab) if they don’t widen the aisle at the far ends of the carriage, or 16 if they do, making it roughly a 13-16% reduction — though it would vary according to the type of carriage (Motor or Trailer, and EDI/M>Train refurbishment or Alstom/Connex refurbishment).
This would differ from the Connex trial layout, which took out more seats near the doors, but left more in the centres of the carriages, including a narrow aisle. Overall that layout removed more seats than seems to be proposed now.
As ever, it’s aimed at fitting more people on board (the minutes talked about an increase in the “load standard” from 798 per 6-carriage train to 900) and improving flow within the carriages, which would help station dwell times (the time taken to load and unload a carriage) — in this case, they’re specifically looking to be able to carry more people without increasing dwell times.
This latter point is important: if you want the train system to run more efficiently, with the maximum number of trains on the most congested parts of the network, eg the City Loop, at peak times, you need to improve dwell times. (Connex claimed in 2009 that the trial layout did help this.)
What kind of train system do we want?
I’ve just finished reading Jarrett Walker’s excellent book “Human Transit“, which ponders a lot of these kinds of issues. He calls them “plumber questions” — the kinds of questions a plumber asks a client. There’s not necessarily a right or wrong answer, but you do need to give some guidance as to the outcome you want.
In the case of train seats, it’s one of the questions related to what kind of train network we want. (Another was posed a year ago: Should every train run around the Loop?)
Broadly speaking…
Do we want a (small m) metro? Frequent services, aimed at more than just 9-5 CBD workers (eg including short suburban trips, counter-peak trips); fast dwell times for efficiency; less seats to maximise speed and capacity.
Or do we want a commuter rail service? Less frequency, particularly outside peaks; more seats because it’s primarily about long trips; primarily concerned with CBD trips, meaning just five stations have to handle huge passenger loads; but can lead to longer dwell times and lower peak frequencies because you don’t take advantage of metro efficiencies like more doors/less seats.
It’s not actually black and white. Melbourne is probably destined to remain somewhere in the middle.
The CBD outstrips public transport demand for all other destinations, and will continue to do so until traffic and parking demand is such that paid parking and gridlock becomes prevalent in the suburbs. (It’s getting there, but slowly.)
But there’s no reason we can’t have frequent (10 minute or better) trains all day everyday, just like real metros, supporting suburban non-work trips, and ensuring patronage is not just about peak hour, therefore providing a better return on the investment that’s been made in rail infrastructure, fleets and staff.
And remember, handling the booming 9-5 CBD commuter load better means optimising operations, including internal designs of carriages. The current designs from the early 2000s (before the boom) try to maximise seats, and in the face of surging demand, this has left passengers left behind on platforms, sometimes when there is space in the middle of carriages, because those aboard have not moved down. This is a direct result of narrow aisles and virtually nothing to hold onto except around the doorways.
How many seats?
Taken to extremes, seat removal might result in something like this:
Where’s this? It’s Brisbane. I suspect few want to see that kind of outcome here.
Note that only some of the carriages are set out like this, with maximum standing space, whereas others have more seats:
But it got me thinking… how do other cities design their carriages? What ratio of seats to carriage space do they have? I did a quick comparison, and came up with the following.
| City | Train type | Carriages | Seats | Seats/square metre |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| London | Underground 1995 | 6 | 248 | 0.88 |
| Hong Kong | East Rail Line Metro Cammell | 12 | 625 | 0.71 |
| Brisbane | SMU 260 | 6 | 472 | 1.19 |
| Perth | B series | 6 | 384 | 0.90 |
| Melbourne | Comeng Alstom (current) | 6 | 536 | 1.24 |
| Melbourne | Comeng Alstom (proposed) | 6 | 464 | 1.07 |
(Some of these are estimates, as I couldn’t find very reliable figures. A authoritative figure for seats in Perth’s trains was elusive, and the length of carriages sometimes included couplings, which aren’t part of the useable area inside. But you get the general idea, hopefully.)
The current changes to Melbourne carriage designs (first seen in the second series X’trapolis trains) are leading to wider aisles and more handholds to encourage people to move down, and help stop as many congegating in the doorways. But from what I can see, they still provide more seats than in many other big cities.
The Comeng proposal is similar (the seats per square metre figure will come down to about 1.07 by my calculations), though we’re not yet sure if it includes more handholds.
I think it’s probably a reasonable proposal, provided it includes more handholds along the carriage, and provided it’s accompanied by a service frequency boost (particularly outside peak hours, when there’s no problem with track or fleet capacity) so the total number of seats offered on each line doesn’t drop (or possibly even increases).
And even if there’s no frequency boost in peak, if you’re outraged by the idea of removal of any seats, consider this: In the face of continually rising patronage, would you rather be able to squeeze onto a train with 15% less seats, or be left behind on the platform?
What do you think?
Lego Myki and Metcard readers, from Brickvention
I didn’t make it to Brickvention this year, but Adrian O’Hagan did, and sent me this photo. It’s a Lego Myki reader… and on the back of it is a Metcard reader.
Adrian says when a Myki card was presented it beeped and displayed a balance (which may or may not have been the real balance; I’m assuming all the information on the card is encrypted). The Metcard version would take a presented Metcard, pretend to read it and then spit it back out again, just like in real life.
Adrian notes: “ironically the metcard worked without a hitch, but the myki was a bit buggy. Not sure if that was by design or not ;-)”
The Myki rollout continues – some details that probably aren’t in the papers
I remind any journalists reading that as ever, my personal blog may not represent the PTUA’s views.
In the papers today, news of the continuing rollout of Myki, and moves to get more people switching off Metcard:
Herald Sun: When it comes to myki, like it or lump it
The Age: The end is nigh for Metcard
More detail of what’s happening
Here’s some more detail from the information I’ve seen…
Vending machines will be activated for card sales (sounds like it’ll be full fare Mykis only, which may cause some issues for new concession users, including children. Probably a fraud prevention measure. Concessions will have to be bought from a human, probably requiring presentation of entitlement.)
Starting in February, retail outlets (primarily 7/11s) will start to sell Myki and do topups. They’re switching from Metcard, eg no more Metcard sales from those outlets.
130ish part-time staff to be recruited (eg Myki Mates) to help passengers during the transition. (It appears all of the previous mob, who gained some significant knowledge and experience, were not kept on. Hopefully they can get some of the same people back.)
Weeklies/Monthlies will no longer be sold at station Metcard machines or booking offices from March 26th or thereabouts, and given retail outlets will be switching over, that’ll mean they effectively disappear from sale.
Metcard vending machines to start being withdrawn, starting with “some CBD stations and Williamstown line”. (It’s unclear to me whether this means every machine will disappear from those stations, or if some machines will still be there for 2-hour and daily Metcard purchases — remembering that ultimately this won’t be an option.)
Metcard validators will stay around for some time to come, allowing Metcards to be used up, though the balance may start to change as users switch over.
Will it work?
They can’t run the two ticketing systems forever side by side, and given the premise that Myki is not being scrapped, and yes, Metcard needs to be removed at some point, this is probably reasonable to push the rollout along, but the concern will be if staff are available where needed.
There seems to be a hint of a “big bang” approach to stopping sales of weekly and monthly Metcards, and they’ll only have enough staff to do about 50-70 locations at a time, so some stations may not have any staff to help when the switch is on in earnest. A better approach would to do line-by-line with staff on hand.
They also need to make sure people realise Myki has an (almost) identically priced unlimited-travel alternative fare to the Metcard Weekly and Monthly tickets, because it appears not everyone is aware.
Still no word of any single use ticket option. No word on fixing things like the identical touch-on/touch-off beeps, which slows people down.
It has emerged that topups will be available on Melbourne buses. This is good, given users in suburbs with no easily-accessible retail outlet, but it’s unclear however if they will restrict the amounts (eg $5 increments as in Brisbane) to reduce instances of people topping up one fare at a time, which would defeat much of the purpose of having a Smartcard system.
But it’s unclear how the transition will be handled for buses and trams. It could get ugly if one day passengers go to board their service without having yet got a Myki and find there is no Metcard option anymore.
Oh, and it’s been mentioned that currently Myki accounts for about 30% of ticket validations in Melbourne, with the system taking about 1.8 million passenger trips per day.
So of course they have to make sure all the equipment is reliable and consistently fast as that load moves from 30% up towards 100%.
- A about a year ago: Herald Sun opinion piece: Keep myki and fix the problems
- …and the counterpoint: Why myki should be scrapped
Hey, maybe if Myki do TV adverts, they should use that Roger Voudouris song… “Get used to it, ‘cos I’ll be around…“
Tags: Metcard, Myki, public transport
21 comments
Proof that you can get a big-screen TV home by public transport
Proof that you (with the help of a friend, at least) don’t need a car to take a big-screen TV home… at least not since the advent of flatscreens.
Panasonic, 50 inch. Appears to have been bought at JB Hifi (which is nearby). Note the lady with her Metcard ready. They caught a 908 bus.
(No, this is not what they were talking about when it was flagged there’d soon be video ads on buses.)
Walking between carriages on a Comeng train
I’ve long thought the signage on Comeng and Hitachi trains about walking between the carriages was unclear. Going back a while, they talked about using them for “communication” but not “travel” — confusing to most.
Recently they’ve said “Please do not travel on platform between carriages”, which implies people should not use those doors to walk between the carriages at all. That’s not quite right.
They now appear to be replacing it with a more detailed version, seen here in red and white, below the older sign:
I think it makes the situation a little clearer.
“Please do not walk through gangway whilst train is in motion.” — In other words, it’s okay to use the door and gangway to move between carriages, but not while the train is moving — it’s less safe, after all, particularly when lurching across junctions and so on.
“Please do not travel on the platform between the carriages.” — It’s not okay to stand on the platform as the train moves along, having a smoke or whatever.
In the legislation there are a couple of points which appear to be relevant here:
- 34A. Vehicle in motion: A person must not, without reasonable excuse, enter onto a part of a rail vehicle not designed for the purpose of carriage while the vehicle is in motion.
- 46. Operating doors: A person must not, without reasonable excuse … open or hold open any door on any rail vehicle or road vehicle while the vehicle is in motion if the door provides access to the outside of the vehicle.
Of course on Siemens trains, there’s no door; the carriage space is almost continuous (and thus, it seems, “designed for the purpose of carriage”). On X’Trapolis trains (which I think have the same notice) there are sliding doors, but the area between the carriages is entirely enclosed (making the warning seem overly cautious).
There seems to be repeated talk that future models of trains will have completely continuous carriage space for passengers, to maximise capacity, and it sounds like they’ll most likely be in permanent six-carriage formation, with no centre cabs. Time will tell, of course.
Gunzel heaven: Parallel run
If there’s anything that gunzels get excited about, it’s a parallel run — two trains running in parallel.
It must take an enormous amount of work to organise such a thing: running two heritage trains on two tracks in the same direction (only possible in specific locations), and having them overtake each other repeatedly so that everyone in each train gets a good look at every part of the other.
Of course, it happens regularly with, say, conventional suburban trains, such as this stretch between Caulfield and Moorabbin on the Frankston line.
This section has three tracks. The third track was built in the mid-1980s, and allows peak-hour express trains to overtake stopping trains.
But until quite recently, this had been woefully underused. Inspection of the 2008 timetable shows only 2 express trains overtook stoppers in the morning, and 5 in the afternoon.
The June 2010 timetables finally changed that, with current schedules showing 7 trains overtake in the morning peak, and 13 in the afternoon, thanks to more consistent (mostly) stopping patterns and express trains scheduled well into the evening shoulder-peak period.
But triplicating rail lines is now out of fashion. Because there’s very little stabling in the central city, morning trains need to be shifted back out to the suburbs after the peak, and in the afternoon trains need to be brought back in, resulting in fairly even traffic — so two tracks in one direction and only one in the other doesn’t really work.
Back in 2006 the proposal was to triplicate the Dandenong line. But following a great deal of debate and consideration, now it’s all about making better use of the existing two tracks, by standardising stopping patterns, evening out frequencies and spreading peak loads onto different trains.
And future track expansion is likely to be another pair of tracks, for instance the “Melbourne Metro” tunnel. No doubt when eventually they look at expansion further out, it will also involve an extra two tracks, not just one.
Epic
Now, if a Siemens overtaking a Comeng is a bit routine for you, and you want to see an utterly epic triple parallel run, check this video from the 1988 Aus Steam event near Melbourne, featuring Australian steam engines together with the visiting Flying Scotsman.
(By the way, any of you budding Wikipedia editors care to clean up the Aus Steam article? The grammar is terrible.)
Tags: gunzels, public transport, trains
6 comments
Hidden meaning in route numbers
There’s hidden meaning in some of Melbourne’s tram and bus route numbers.
Below 150 is all trams, for a start. Above is buses.
I suspect trams will move to 1 or 2-digit numbers in the next few years, to accomodate the new “a” (altered) and “d” (depot) suffixes in the displays (most of which are limited to 3 characters). This is a good move, as it’ll remove some of the uncertainty around mystery route numbers.
It shouldn’t be too hard to move to 2-digits, as there are only two 3-digit route numbers: the 109 (formerly mostly known as the 42) and the 112 (formerly known as the 10).
150 to 199 used to be school bus routes, predominantly in the eastern suburbs. Does anybody know if they still run? I couldn’t find any trace of them when I went looking.
200-399 are mostly ex-tramway bus routes, now run by Ventura (National Bus) following privatisation in the 1990s. Some of them partially match old tram routes, either electric services since removed (such as the 246 from Elsternwick to Point Ormond, and the 220 and 223 both of which cover parts of the ex-Footscray tram network) or cable trams (such as many of the Lonsdale and Lygon/Rathdowne Street routes).
300-350 are mostly Eastern freeway routes, though a number of these have been renumbered into 90x Smartbuses.
400s are mostly in the western suburbs.
500s are mostly in the northern suburbs.
600s are mostly in the eastern suburbs.
700s are mostly in the southern suburbs.
800s are mostly in the south-eastern suburbs
…01 is emerging as the numbering for express high-frequency shuttles (401/601), though there are others like 201 and 701 which don’t fit into this model.
900s are the Smartbus routes, apart from the 703 which is only partly implemented.
940s to 980s are Nightrider services. The main routes are even numbered, and extension/shuttle services are odd-numbered, so the main Nightrider to St Albans is 942, and its extension to Melton is 943.
It should be emphasised that all of these rules are informal, and often broken, and thus should not be trusted. For instance, some south-eastern routes seem to have crept into the 92x range, for reasons unknown.
And there are enormously illogical route variations, such as the notorious 600/922/923 route split. It used to be simply the 600 (another ex-tram route), but then it merged with parts of route 822 and 823. The result is one of Melbourne’s most confusing route structures, with a common/frequent section between Beaumaris and Sandringham, but different/infrequent routes through Brighton to St Kilda and parts of Cheltenham. What were they thinking?
Others have probably discerned other patterns in the numbering. Comment away!
- Human Transit: What if route numbers signified service level?
Tags: buses, public transport, trams
15 comments
