That's important because it is, in minister Danny Pearson's words, "the biggest change to metropolitan timetables since the '80s". Even much smaller changes have been rare because Andrews/Allan government public transport policy has been 99% about building infrastructure and maybe only 1% about service.
Inattention to service matters has led to continued complex peak timetables on some lines, widespread 30-40 minute gaps between trains and per capita service declines on Melbourne's busiest transport modes (metropolitan train and tram).
The stagnation has been particularly notable during off-peaks, evenings and weekends - the very times that have become more important due to changed post-pandemic travel patterns. It has also left us lagging Sydney, which since service boosts in 2017 now often has 10 to 15 minute maximum waits for trains (6am - midnight / 7 days) versus double or more for Melbourne.
When asked about service matters ministers and premiers might deflect to 'Big Build' projects such as the Suburban Rail Loop and Metro Tunnel. Or claim that "it will be a "decision of the train timetablers". Even though the schedulers' brief will include a service specification that includes maximum waits. That will have come from the department, and by extension the government.
If pressed further on service ministers might reaffirm improved timetables when major projects are completed. This bundling has raised expectations about what we'll eventually get. Especially as there has been such a service drought in the years preceding. Key benefits like off-peak frequencies could have been independently delivered across the network sooner, but apart from 2021's upgrades, largely were not. Such a 'service first' approach was proposed in the Network Development Plan Metropolitan Rail and got fully implemented on one line only - the then politically marginal Frankston line.
Will the 2025 Metro Tunnel and associated timetables finally 'bring home the bacon' (as Paul Keating would say) on public transport service across Melbourne? Or will its benefits be largely confined to one corridor and a handful of new CBD fringe stations?
I'll discuss this further here, though it should be emphasised that even in the most limited case we're likely to be in for a welcome and historically large boost in Metro rail service.
Business case service plan - pros and cons
The Day 1 service plan attached to the 2016 Metro Tunnel Business Case would help spread the project's benefits from a corridor to a network. If implemented we would have 7 day 10 minute daytime service to Newport, West Footscray, Craigieburn, Upfield or Gowrie, Clifton Hill, Dandenong, Frankston and Sandringham.
Maximum waits at other times like evenings and Sunday mornings would not exceed 20 minutes on most of these lines. This is a bit under half the network, with Craigieburn, Sandringham and at least part of Upfield being the main winners. A substantial gain, especially since off-peak Metro rail frequencies outside the south-east have been stagnant for years.
The service plan's key omission is that, like the 2012 Network Development Plan Metropolitan Rail from which it was possibly derived, it would have left busy stations like Sunshine, St Albans and Watergardens with a second-rate 20 minute off-peak daytime frequency. That's no better than today, would reinforce existing west-east inequalities in transport service and shower (deserved) ridicule on the project.
2022 state budget staff and driver funding
Funding for 'nearly 300 new drivers and station staff' was provided in the 2022 state budget. This is key to the Metro Tunnel getting service to match the infrastructure.
What difference to service can one train driver make? My guesstimate is 647 additional service hours per year. It's a lot. Because cutting maximum waits from 30-40 to 20 minutes requires so few extra trips per week, if they're not able to deliver at least this to most stations then something seems wrong.
Indeed it could be possible to get more lines up to a 10 min off-peak daytime service all week. Ringwood is the front-runner on cost grounds (with not many extra service km needed) while Craigieburn looks the leader on patronage and 2016 business case grounds. A strong justification also exists for other lines like Mernda and Werribee (with the former actually a Coalition 2014 election promise).
What difference to service can one train driver make? My guesstimate is 647 additional service hours per year. It's a lot. Because cutting maximum waits from 30-40 to 20 minutes requires so few extra trips per week, if they're not able to deliver at least this to most stations then something seems wrong.
Indeed it could be possible to get more lines up to a 10 min off-peak daytime service all week. Ringwood is the front-runner on cost grounds (with not many extra service km needed) while Craigieburn looks the leader on patronage and 2016 business case grounds. A strong justification also exists for other lines like Mernda and Werribee (with the former actually a Coalition 2014 election promise).
Will we get business case service levels on all lines?
Sunshine's short-changing is one good reason for the government to deviate from the business case service plan, in this case delivering more than envisaged. However the opposite can also happen, eg a descoping if costs blow out or to operations after completion. So it can sometimes be a case of 'swings and roundabouts'.
Speaking more generally, when major projects are being developed there is pressure to look wide and high for benefits to strengthen their business case (since each project competes with numerous others for funding). That may include cost-effective add-ons that, while not strictly necessary for the project and possible independently beforehand, may add disproportionate benefit or political acceptance (eg new freeways getting parallel bike paths). So they get included.
Examples for public transport projects could include service upgrades on intersecting lines with 'network effect' connectivity and patronage gains. However once funding is secured there are likely few consequences for government (except possibly political) if there is a subsequent de-scoping. Given the time elapsed between project development and delivery, changed circumstances (eg altered pandemic travel patterns) or budget priorities can be claimed as reasons to modify what's delivered.
In other words it is not implausible that the service levels we get next year are different from the outline contained in the Day 1 (2026 opening) service plan attached to the Metro Tunnel Business Case prepared nearly 10 years earlier.
It could also be worth comparing services against the peak capacity uplifts claimed on the Big Build website (though as peak service is dearer to add and patronage is less elastic it is fair to run this below capacity on Day 1).
Peak frequency
We do however already have an idea of Metro Tunnel's peak frequency. On March 5 2024, minister Gabrielle Williams told Parliament that Metro Tunnel trains would run every 3 minutes (presumably during peaks).
Sunshine's short-changing is one good reason for the government to deviate from the business case service plan, in this case delivering more than envisaged. However the opposite can also happen, eg a descoping if costs blow out or to operations after completion. So it can sometimes be a case of 'swings and roundabouts'.
Speaking more generally, when major projects are being developed there is pressure to look wide and high for benefits to strengthen their business case (since each project competes with numerous others for funding). That may include cost-effective add-ons that, while not strictly necessary for the project and possible independently beforehand, may add disproportionate benefit or political acceptance (eg new freeways getting parallel bike paths). So they get included.
Examples for public transport projects could include service upgrades on intersecting lines with 'network effect' connectivity and patronage gains. However once funding is secured there are likely few consequences for government (except possibly political) if there is a subsequent de-scoping. Given the time elapsed between project development and delivery, changed circumstances (eg altered pandemic travel patterns) or budget priorities can be claimed as reasons to modify what's delivered.
In other words it is not implausible that the service levels we get next year are different from the outline contained in the Day 1 (2026 opening) service plan attached to the Metro Tunnel Business Case prepared nearly 10 years earlier.
It could also be worth comparing services against the peak capacity uplifts claimed on the Big Build website (though as peak service is dearer to add and patronage is less elastic it is fair to run this below capacity on Day 1).
Peak frequency
We do however already have an idea of Metro Tunnel's peak frequency. On March 5 2024, minister Gabrielle Williams told Parliament that Metro Tunnel trains would run every 3 minutes (presumably during peaks).
This matches (allowing for rounding) the 18 trains per hour as successfully tested. Such a frequency is somewhat better than what currently runs from Dandenong and much better than which runs in from Sunshine.
In all cases a solid turn-up-and-go peak service, so the main effect will be to make certain trips quicker, especially those to destinations around Parkville and St Kilda Rd. And boost capacity massively, thanks to the new longer trains.
Off-peak frequency
All-week all-day frequency has potential to be the really transformative thing about the Metro Tunnel and allied timetables. It determines whether people can use trains all week without a timetable. And even live reasonably without a car. The latter can bring housing supply, jobs, entertainment and cost of living benefits.
Things are less clear here. Especially on related lines cited in the Business Case but not directly served by the Metro Tunnel.
Later last month, in a report about Melbourne's declining per-capita public transport service, The Age reported the following statement on Metro Tunnel timetables:
In all cases a solid turn-up-and-go peak service, so the main effect will be to make certain trips quicker, especially those to destinations around Parkville and St Kilda Rd. And boost capacity massively, thanks to the new longer trains.
Off-peak frequency
All-week all-day frequency has potential to be the really transformative thing about the Metro Tunnel and allied timetables. It determines whether people can use trains all week without a timetable. And even live reasonably without a car. The latter can bring housing supply, jobs, entertainment and cost of living benefits.
Things are less clear here. Especially on related lines cited in the Business Case but not directly served by the Metro Tunnel.
Later last month, in a report about Melbourne's declining per-capita public transport service, The Age reported the following statement on Metro Tunnel timetables:
Only those lines? What about the Sandringham, Craigieburn and at least part of the Upfield lines cited in the 2016 Business Case as getting a 10 minute interpeak service?
DTP, who undersold the new 475 bus, aren't the sharpest of marketers. But one would expect better from their political masters. After all their decade-old government is known for its messaging prowess and dominance over a weak opposition. Either not all the Business Case off-peak frequency upgrades on non-Metro Tunnel lines are going ahead or they, like Christopher Pyne, are withholding details to make it a surprise.
The guessing
Metro Tunnel services
My best guess on the service we might get for the Metro Tunnel lines (ie Sunbury, Pakenham, Cranbourne) is in the right hand column below:
A real European (or even Canadian) style metro would have better than 10 minute frequencies on at least its core section off-peak at least during the day. Parts of Perth's rail network enjoys a 7.5 minute midday frequency. While shoulders might be better than today I'm going to guess we're not going to get this. With 10 minute service still relatively rare, Melbourne has not developed the culture to go higher outside the peaks. Even with trams, where frequent service is most prevalent, the culture is to get bigger vehicles rather than increase frequencies (which have been unchanged for years).
While a 10 minute off-peak train service is amazing for a Melburnian it still represents a 20 minute gap if one train is cancelled or a 15 minute gap if one is slightly delayed. And even if everything runs on time a 9 minute gap (and the walk down to the platforms) is a significant transfer penalty. This means that those making short trips in the CBD will continue to use the trams, especially given the 'Free' Tram Zone's financial incentive for some. However the Metro Tunnel should still take some load off trams for Parkville and Anzac station passengers coming from or going to the suburbs.
Non Metro Tunnel lines
The government quote didn't mention the non-Metro Tunnel lines. The two lines most at risk of missing out if the Business Case upgrades are not implemented in full are Craigieburn and Upfield.
My best guess on the service we might get for the Metro Tunnel lines (ie Sunbury, Pakenham, Cranbourne) is in the right hand column below:
One tick indicates expected service matches the business case. Two ticks indicates a better service than the business case. Either due to a higher frequency or it being delivered to more stations.
The main difference between the two is that I have assumed that the busy Watergardens - West Footscray section gets full service, and not half service as proposed in the 2016 Business Case. I suspect the latter may have been due to a wish to leave room for electrified rail to destinations like Wyndham Vale, Melton and/or Melbourne Airport. Since the Metro Tunnel has beaten them all, I've assumed that it will run a full service to Watergardens. Anything else would be an embarrassment that would only entrench perceived (and real) east-west divides in public transport service.
'Other off-peak' would be evenings and Sunday mornings. Currently the Dandenong line has a well used 10 minute service until relatively late on weeknights. And there is high usage of the currently half-hourly Sunday morning service. Not to mention weekends, where there's a huge (10 to 30 min) service cliff after 7pm.
So I'm going to assume generosity including a 10 minute Dandenong - Watergardens service to late at night (if not last service) and it starting earlier than now on Sunday. Doing this would create a genuine Metro type service (with maximum 10 minute waits) with almost all Pakenham and Cranbourne off-peak services running straight through Dandenong, even at night. This would make the Metro Tunnel line the most frequent on the network, outstripping the Frankston line, which runs its 10 minute service until about 7 or 8 pm only.
The main difference between the two is that I have assumed that the busy Watergardens - West Footscray section gets full service, and not half service as proposed in the 2016 Business Case. I suspect the latter may have been due to a wish to leave room for electrified rail to destinations like Wyndham Vale, Melton and/or Melbourne Airport. Since the Metro Tunnel has beaten them all, I've assumed that it will run a full service to Watergardens. Anything else would be an embarrassment that would only entrench perceived (and real) east-west divides in public transport service.
'Other off-peak' would be evenings and Sunday mornings. Currently the Dandenong line has a well used 10 minute service until relatively late on weeknights. And there is high usage of the currently half-hourly Sunday morning service. Not to mention weekends, where there's a huge (10 to 30 min) service cliff after 7pm.
So I'm going to assume generosity including a 10 minute Dandenong - Watergardens service to late at night (if not last service) and it starting earlier than now on Sunday. Doing this would create a genuine Metro type service (with maximum 10 minute waits) with almost all Pakenham and Cranbourne off-peak services running straight through Dandenong, even at night. This would make the Metro Tunnel line the most frequent on the network, outstripping the Frankston line, which runs its 10 minute service until about 7 or 8 pm only.
A real European (or even Canadian) style metro would have better than 10 minute frequencies on at least its core section off-peak at least during the day. Parts of Perth's rail network enjoys a 7.5 minute midday frequency. While shoulders might be better than today I'm going to guess we're not going to get this. With 10 minute service still relatively rare, Melbourne has not developed the culture to go higher outside the peaks. Even with trams, where frequent service is most prevalent, the culture is to get bigger vehicles rather than increase frequencies (which have been unchanged for years).
While a 10 minute off-peak train service is amazing for a Melburnian it still represents a 20 minute gap if one train is cancelled or a 15 minute gap if one is slightly delayed. And even if everything runs on time a 9 minute gap (and the walk down to the platforms) is a significant transfer penalty. This means that those making short trips in the CBD will continue to use the trams, especially given the 'Free' Tram Zone's financial incentive for some. However the Metro Tunnel should still take some load off trams for Parkville and Anzac station passengers coming from or going to the suburbs.
Non Metro Tunnel lines
The government quote didn't mention the non-Metro Tunnel lines. The two lines most at risk of missing out if the Business Case upgrades are not implemented in full are Craigieburn and Upfield.
If this eventuates it would limit the Metro Tunnel's benefits. While services on the core Tunnel section may be frequent at all hours, a risk is that people step from a frequent Metro Tunnel train to one on another line that may still only be running every 20, 30 or even 40 minutes.
High all-week frequency is the entry price for full participation in a transit network. If you don't have that then you only have a series of lines that people are wary to change between without detailed trip planning. Much-vaunted apps and journey planners are no substitutes for a frequent service that people know is always coming soon.
I would be happy to be pleasantly surprised. Without inside information my expectations of off-peak frequencies on the lines listed in the Business Case are as follows.
Hence the 2016 Business Case service plan mention it as getting an upgrade to every 10 minutes. But this is also not backed by the latest statement reported in The Age. If its service was to be maintained at its current 15 minutes there would be variable wait times and inconsistent patterns over what forms what at Flinders Street if there is through running. I'm going to give the government the benefit of the doubt here so have put a question mark on the table above. As for the other off-peak, Sandringham's evening service is already the planned 20 minutes so it's only really the early weekend morning timetables (notably Sundays where it's a 40 minute service) that need boosting.
While Sandringham isn't the busiest Metro line off-peak there is a possibility of the Metro Tunnel still upgrading this line's services to enable (admittedly troubled and transposal-ridden) cross-city group operation. Despite its lower frequency the Craigieburn line actually carries more passengers than the Sandringham line and has higher growth prospects. Thus if Sandringham deserves a 10 minute day service (with a maximum 20 minute wait at other times) then so does at least Craigieburn on equity and patronage grounds.
I would be happy to be pleasantly surprised. Without inside information my expectations of off-peak frequencies on the lines listed in the Business Case are as follows.
Whereas I'm optimistic for the Metro Tunnel lines, I am less so for the other lines. This is even though lines like Craigieburn and Mernda have amongst Melbourne's longest waits (twice that of Frankston most times) and cutting 30 to 40 minute waits to 20 minutes requires a trivially small number of extra trips in the timetable.
These low expectations are based on government and DTP lacking a robust service frequency culture. This is exemplified by a record of rarely backing infrastructure builds with service, particularly off-peak, despite this being proportionately more important post-pandemic. The contrast with Sydney has widened hugely since about 2017, with that city having a stronger frequency improvement culture and funding across all modes.
Sandringham's position is interesting. It replaces the Frankston line as the eastern end of the cross-city group in the Business Case. For this to happen its current 15 minute weekday interpeak frequency would likely need to be harmonised to 10/20 minutes like the Frankston line currently is. These low expectations are based on government and DTP lacking a robust service frequency culture. This is exemplified by a record of rarely backing infrastructure builds with service, particularly off-peak, despite this being proportionately more important post-pandemic. The contrast with Sydney has widened hugely since about 2017, with that city having a stronger frequency improvement culture and funding across all modes.
Hence the 2016 Business Case service plan mention it as getting an upgrade to every 10 minutes. But this is also not backed by the latest statement reported in The Age. If its service was to be maintained at its current 15 minutes there would be variable wait times and inconsistent patterns over what forms what at Flinders Street if there is through running. I'm going to give the government the benefit of the doubt here so have put a question mark on the table above. As for the other off-peak, Sandringham's evening service is already the planned 20 minutes so it's only really the early weekend morning timetables (notably Sundays where it's a 40 minute service) that need boosting.
While Sandringham isn't the busiest Metro line off-peak there is a possibility of the Metro Tunnel still upgrading this line's services to enable (admittedly troubled and transposal-ridden) cross-city group operation. Despite its lower frequency the Craigieburn line actually carries more passengers than the Sandringham line and has higher growth prospects. Thus if Sandringham deserves a 10 minute day service (with a maximum 20 minute wait at other times) then so does at least Craigieburn on equity and patronage grounds.
Conclusion
The above is some speculation on what we might see in the new Metro Tunnel and related timetables. They should represent a very worthwhile service uplift on at least three and possibly up to six lines.
Only time will tell how well spread the improvements are throughout Melbourne and whether we'll get the big reductions in maximum all-week waits our trains need to form a truly useful network.
Only time will tell how well spread the improvements are throughout Melbourne and whether we'll get the big reductions in maximum all-week waits our trains need to form a truly useful network.
