It is extremely unlikely that this loop rail line proposal will ever be completed - and certainly not by the Andrews government.

Andrews reminds me of Turnbull's announcement of the $50 billion submarine scam which will be completed about the same time as Andrews' proposed rail loop. Andrews is trying one of the old tricks used by NSW Labor for years - announce something, then announce it again. And again. He might get years of announcements out of this one.

Victorian voters are the most left wing in Australia - politically and socially - and they may well be stupid enough to reelect the incompetent who has so resolutely supported such political gems as the Safe Schools scam, the global warming scam and dirty deals with unions. This is just another in the series. And if he is reelected, Victoria will get what it deserves.

Rail is the most economical and most efficient way to move volumes of passenger and freight traffic. And this project will need to be built sooner or later, ditto rapid rail. For each decade these and similar essential projects are delayed the cost effectively doubles and mostly because of activists like you Alan!?

Who invariably know all the real or imaginary inventive reasons for not proceeding with infrastructure projects, which will likely pay for themselves a dozen or more times over. As did the then unaffordable and entirely unnecessary Habour bridge!

We used to build dams and managed to build plenty once and as accelerated infrastructure project builds which peaked in the fifties and declined since then.

And rail just didn't get the upgrades which would have seen it take precedence over the ubiquitous car, and highway clogging trucks etc.

Which may have solved a few problems for personal transport/freight forwarding, while adding to the smog of large cities, which the latest science tells us may be harming our cognitive abilities and possibly explains this less than well thought out article Alan?

We need to decentralise and convert our economy to a nuclear-powered one, that will be what we need to adapt to runaway unstoppable climate change.

Putting the rail underground will at lest stop the rails from buckling under the next inevitable granny killing heatwave and bringing urban rail to a complete halt!

How do you propose all the old folk no longer able to drive our kids commute to their shops/doctors and schools Alan, as the employable adult population all have to work till they drop!?
Alan B.

Alan B.,
You seem to have based your opinion on the false assumption that Alan Davies is an anti rail activist. He's not; he's merely pointing out some valid problems with the plan. That doesn't mean they're insurmountable obstacles, but when funding is limited it makes sense to concentrate on more cost effective projects first.

Rail is indeed the most economical and efficient way to move large volumes of passengers. But in the outer suburbs, where both the origins and the destinations are dispersed, getting those large numbers of passengers onto rail isn't easy.

And like for like, there's barely and difference between the cost rise of civil engineering projects and the CPI. The cost rises are mainly the result the projects being built to higher specifications, sometimes needlessly. In the case of tunnelling, it's likely the cost will actually fall over the next few decades.

It isn't difficult to stop the rails from buckling in heatwaves without resorting to putting it all in tunnel - well constructed tracking expansion joints can see to that! But tunnels give the advantage of greatly limiting the disruption on the surface.

Adrian, you seem to have based your assumption of my take on Alan's piece on an assumption I thought Alan was anti-rail. I arrived at no such conclusion. Reading things, words or motives into other's words, your forte, not mine. Mine, on the merit of the argument, which I didn't concur with. As simple as that!

Simply put, the rail project has merit, and ought to be built underground to prevent the next heat wave from buckling the rails and as it did not all that long ago, bringing Melbourne urban rail to a complete stop. And the highways to rolling roadblocks.
Alan B.

Expansion joints were in place. Ought to know worked for Vic rail in my twenties. Still not effective with the sort of heat that accompanies heat waves.

And a place for pebbles/ballast etc. To intrude if the gap is too wide. Many rail projects are made with a single length of rail seam welded as the track is laid to prevent a rail shifting and allowing a train to de-rail when even a small movement or subsidence can move a rail out of alignment sufficiently to derail a train.

And no more important than for very rapid rail. It's like anything. do it right the first time even at greater initial cost that then prevents you having to spend nearly as much again and again on upgrades that should be unnecessary. It may be an old saying, penny wise and pound foolish.

Do it right the first time may result in a larger initial outlay? But on balance, far less over time!

But as much of a truism today as when first coined.
Alan B.

Many more commuters would use trains if adjacent parking was adequate and secure. Simply put, there are too many places where parking is extremely limited or just not available.

If we want folks in outer suburbs to use trains we need places for them to park all day and also affordable. What's the point of putting in, expensive train projects, then with parking fees, pricing them out of the commuters' reach?

Ditto traffic tunnels that are built or managed by private firms, whose toll fees are aimed only at the profit graph and not urban congestion!
Alan B.

Alien B.,
My conclusion that you thought Alan was anti-rail was based on your statement that "For each decade these and similar essential projects are delayed the cost effectively doubles and mostly because of activists like you Alan!?"

Your argument was primarily about whether we should build what we need, and scarcely addressed Alan's point that this isn't, and would divert funding away from, the infrastructure that's really needed.

I apologise for the autocorrect error - I meant to say "well constructed track AND expansion joints". Together they're sufficient to easily cope with hot weather. And for the benefit of readers not familiar with modern railway practice, I'll clarify that I mean proper expansion joints. Unwelded rail sections held together with fishplates don't count, even if they were originally intended to serve that purpose.

Anyway, my point is that tunnelling is expensive. There are many good reasons to build rail tunnels, but preventing track buckling isn't one of them. That can be done far more cheaply by other means.

If a lack of parking is really what's limiting train use in the outer suburbs, that's a relatively easy problem to fix. But getting lots of passengers onto an orbital railway, when most of them have destinations nowhere near a railway station, is a much more formidable task!

One technique used in some places to overcome expansion due to heat
is that when the rails are installed, they are stretched, so expansion
just reduces the tension.
Does the proposed line have a connection to the CBD or Southern Cross ?
Unless it does there is no point in it going to the airport.
The majority of the airport rail traffic in Sydney goes to the CBD and
to Central station for connection to all other lines.

Bazz,
You are correct about tensioning rails, but there's a limit to how much that can be done, as we also need to avoid track breakages in cold weather.

They are proposing to build a line from the airport to the CBD first, part of which would also be utilised for the section of this line west of the airport.

Sorry but a loop is the only way to go, even if it takes passengers the long way round, and will probably be a complete circle before the turn of the century, to avoid endless criss-cross patchwork that ultimately costs several times more overall.

Can't think of anything superior save a monorail system that utilises the central divide on our highways to carry a monorail system that replaces the ubiquitous diesel burning bus traffic. Motorized walkways and escalators filling the gaps?

We complain about lack of forward vision and again when it's displayed!

Don't resile from my comment on the naysayer (expert) knowing all the reasons things shouldn't be done!

The best solution is, do it right the first time and consequently only do it once. which ultimately, invariably is the least expensive and most pragmatic option!
Alan B.

Build this thing, then run it as a government operation, & we will be paying through the nose for carting a few Melbournians around for ever.

There was a time, somewhere well back in the last century when Sydney suburban rail ran at a profit, but that time is long since past. No railway in Oz, with our wage structure is viable, other than the coal & iron ore railways

Build this thing with it's vast opportunity for corruption, the unions, constructions companies, & many politicians will become rich, in office or after, & the rest of Oz people will be subsidising it for ever.

Alan B.,
If there's one thing it will never be this century, it's a complete circle, as there's Port Phillip Bay in the way! And the small number of people travelling from Cheltenham to Werribee can easily do so via the CBD.

You seem to have got it into your head that this loop's exactly what's needed. But in reality it's very far from what's most urgently needed, as it would only cater for a small proportion of journeys in the area it serves, and the roads it would relieve are not the most congested.

What you dismiss as "endless criss-cross patchwork that ultimately costs several times more overall" would also give several times more benefits overall.

As for monorails, they're a specialist mode and tend to be a lot slower.and tend to have much lower capacity. I can't think of anywhere in Melbourne a monorail's the best solution, but I'm not a Melburnian so there may be something I've missed.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Hasbeen,
Rail is viable for a lot more freight than just coal and iron ore. Your failure to realise this makes me wonder whether you're assuming t to still have the staffing levels of the 1970s!

Passenger rail tends to be lossmaking because governments recognise the benefits of keeping fares low outweigh the cost of the subsidies.

Aidan if moving freight by rail was viable, Australia post would not run fleets of interstate trucks to carry their parcels.

Hasbeen, that's a non sequiter. Whether Australia Post utilises rail says very little about its viability or profitability.

Rail is constantly competing with road to carry freight. Sometimes they win contracts, sometimes they lose. But even if Australia Post decided to move their freight by rail whenever they could, they'd still need a fleet of interstate trucks, as there are many places Australia Post serves on the way that are nowhere near a rail freight terminal, and there are many journeys that are technically possible by rail but far more practical by road (such as Adelaide to Townsville).

There is a big difference between inter state & intra state Aiden. Look it up in the dictionary.

Rail Freight into Sydney from the nprth is at near maximum.
During the day they reduce the number of freight trains because of the
heavy commuter traffic from Newcastle and Central Coast.
They then release the build up of trains at Newcastle for overnight
run to Sydney Chullora in both directions.
These trains are usually about 60 plus by two 40ft containers each.
They come down from Newcastle all night until about 5am when the
commuters start again.
I seriously doubt if the M1 motorway could handle all that traffic
with one 40ft container per truck.

I think that most people have no idea how much freight goes by rail.
Certainly the real estate agents selling units along the rail line
pretend that they do not know.

Hasbeen,
So let me get this straight: not only are you blind to the enormous changes (mostly involving efficiency improvements) that have occurred in the rail industry in the last thirty years, but you also imagine that interstate trucks can't stop at intrastate depots on the way?

Even the regulations for trucks registered as Federal Interstate permit intrastate cargo to be carried as part of interstate journeys (though that's becoming moot as Federal Interstate registration's being phased out anyway).