TT 222: What's coming after the Metro Tunnel timetables?

A few bits and pieces arising from the start of Metro Tunnel services on Sunday February 1. There was comment from people we don't often hear from. And some of the articles might give an idea of official attitudes towards any future timetable changes. And you'll find some attempts from me to read between the lines too.  

1. Big Switch starting

Sunday February 1 marked the Big Switch with the full Metro Tunnel timetable starting. This was arguably the biggest change to metropolitan public transport services since the July 2024 train, tram and bus reforms. 

I have updated my daytime frequent network maps accordingly with a new frequent rail corridor to Watergardens and the new 241 bus on weekdays. Updated evening maps to follow. Extract for off-peak daytime frequencies showing 10, 15 and 20 min rail networks below (click for a better view). 

2 Service frequency graphic

Alan Thomas has made this great graphic on how Melbourne metropolitan rail frequencies have changed since the 1930s. It's right up to the minute including the Metro Tunnel timetable. Some frequencies are better than they have ever been (eg the Frankston line) while other busy stations at certain times (eg Box Hill at night) have lower frequencies than they did in the 1930s and 1970s. I wrote about 1939's generally more frequent inner area train network here. 

3. Media coverage 

Scouring this is handy to get a clue as to the government's thinking for what's next. Especially given it raised and then dashed expectations of service improvements on non Metro Tunnel lines when the timetables came out. And we hear rare quotes from DTP insiders and the shadow minister. I've inserted some of my analysis of these media comments. 

* 30/1/2026 Age Inside the mission to fix Victoria’s commute times 

Quotes DTP executive director of modal planning Stuart Johns saying that the timetable development started 3.5 years ago based on VISTA demand modelling. Said the Metro Tunnel will provide capacity to add trains "for decades to come".

Here's a direct quote from the article: "He said the world was different to what the Metro Tunnel business case had imagined a decade ago, but one of its most exciting features was a “turn up and go” service along the lines that use the tunnel where commuters at most stations don’t have to look at the timetable to know a train is less than 10 minutes away."

Saying "the world was different" gives a fair justification for the peak frequencies being operated being lower than envisaged in the Business Case. Also noted was "turn up and go service along the lines that use the tunnel". As I warned back in 2021 the original business case service plan was deficient with regards to service west of West Footscray.

My hunch was that there was a wish to leave the door open for rail extensions or electrifications to at least one and possibly more of Melbourne Airport, Melton or Wyndham Vale. The BCRs of these could be assisted if increased frequencies for Sunshine was a part of those (rather than the Metro Tunnel) projects. Especially for Airport Rail which as a politically popular but expensive and somewhat marginal project probably needed all the BCR help it could muster, even if it needed to be poached from other projects. The Network Development Plan of 2012 had a similar approach of other lines getting 10 minute frequencies before stations beyond Sunshine did. 

However rational it might have seemed at the time to have left better frequencies on the table for these other rail projects, they did not happen, unlike the Metro Tunnel that the Andrews Labor government enthusiastically got on with building. 

Given that Dandenong already had a 10 minute 7 day frequency (introduced by the Liberal government in 2014) it would have been indefensible for the business case timetable that short-changed Sunshine with a substandard 20 minute service (ie little better than was then current) to have proceeded given it would perpetuate existing historical east-west divides in service levels that ceased being justifiable years ago. Thus the stations from Tottenham through to Watergardens rightly got a much better all day timetable than the business case envisaged. An "exciting feature" for "all different types of travel patterns, not just the traditional AM and PM peak" in Mr Johns' words.

Another part of this "different world" was that train patronage had not fully recovered since the pandemic due to widespread working from home. Peaks might still be busy but may only be experienced for 3 rather than 5 days per week. This could be used to defend the less than envisaged peak frequency on non-Metro lines. Not to mention that schedulers were dealt a hand inferior to that in the business case due to the project's descoping of turnbacks at Essendon and Gowrie. 

Less defensible features of the new timetables were the off-peak frequencies on Craigieburn and to a lesser extent Upfield lines, with both keeping their 20 to 40 minute off-peak gaps. Craigieburn line residents have every right to feel jibbed by this timetable that perpetuates the north-south divide of having more patronage but twice the waits of the historically politically privileged Frankston line that enjoys trains every 10 minutes 7 days.

The state government would appear to be sensitive to this with 2025 state budget funding for improved services. The new timetable commencing "later this year" will see maximum 20 minute waits first to last train for both Craigieburn and Upfield. However true service equality that reflects usage requires a 10 minute 7 day service as the business case proposed, especially for Craigieburn. 

You can compare the business case with what we got with regards to all day frequencies in the animation below. As you can see the "Big Switch" timetable provided the network with 10 minute service at 64 stations versus the 95 envisaged (although it will be up to 75 on weekdays when Sandringham happens mid-year). 

Minister Gabrielle Williams described the February 1 timetable as "only the beginning", raising expectations of more service upgrades to come. Hopefully these will go beyond the 2025 budget commitments with the pre-election 2026 budget a big test of this. It's helpful noting that relatively modest increases (eg 1 to 3% more trains scheduled per week) are enough to shorten the longest waits, especially on the Burnley and Clifton Hill groups that the "Big Switch" excluded. 

The minister's "only the beginning" statement is a slightly different message to that of the final-sounding "Big Switch" branding and the premier announcing a "new timetable in place everywhere" back in October. At best this latter messaging has not gone well for the government. And in some cases it has been straight out wrong, with the article acknowledging complaints from lines in Melbourne's East that got nothing (along with the Clifton Hill group).  

Taitset/Philip Mallis video discusses 'Big Switch" timetable

* 31/1/2026 Herald Sun Metro Tunnel ‘Big Switch’ delivers huge train boost for some but ’big let down’ for those left behind

Stresses the differences between the timetable delivered and the higher frequencies for Craigieburn, Upfield and Sandringham in the Business Case. Refers to descoping of turnbacks on the Upfield and Craigieburn lines and that some lines get nothing. Most of the new stations, including Parkville near the hospitals, will not be open for Night Network. 

Article has quotes from a government spokeswoman about enabling further increases and "this is just the beginning" similar to the Age article above. The less-often-quoted-than-expected Opposition public transport spokesman Matthew Guy even got a word in, saying that “Labor’s big talk for the big switch has proven to be a big let down”. A fair comment especially for those hoping for the full implementation of the business case service frequencies on lines like Upfield and Craigieburn. 

A direct quote from the article: "Labour (sic) sources say some gaps may be addressed in coming months but downplayed the need for sweeping boosts after the “Big Switch” on February 1 given patronage levels and other Budget priorities while money is scarce."

Above may give an insight into official thinking which, in contrast to the optimistic "just the beginning" remark hoses down expectations. Some elements in Labor seem to love building transport assets (all those construction sector jobs!) but downplay the need to work them hard with frequent service (despite involving RTBU and TWU jobs) to realise their full benefits.

"Sweeping boosts" could mean 10 minute service and/or upgrades on other line groups like Clifton Hill and Burnley which have got and may continue to get nothing more. The "some gaps in coming months" might just be the Upfield, Craigieburn, Werribee and Sandringham changes that we already know about as they were funded in the 2025 state budget. 

It is true that Melbourne's peak-heavy rail network has not recovered in patronage since the pandemic as fast as other systems (which tend to have higher all day frequencies so are more generally useful for diverse trips). But it's largely peak usage that's suffered (notably Mondays and Fridays) less than off-peak whose usage remains constrained by low service levels across both train and bus. 

As for "money being scarce", this is largely a function of rising costs and/or interest bills on major infrastructure projects (think WGT, NEL, LXRP, SRL Metro Tunnel etc). A key justification of these was to unlock more peak capacity but off-peak service could have been added at any time since it was (on the vast majority of the network) not constrained by infrastructure. It would be unfortunate if the costs of infrastructure 'crowds out' funds that could have provided service, and thus realise more of the benefits, now. 

It would seem that if the community was to apply pressure on the government to boost Metro rail services the approaches with the highest chances of success are the cheap/high impact measures like cutting waits from 30-40 to 20 minutes on the rest of the network and then starting on 10 minute roll-outs. Ringwood is relatively cheap and could be a by-product of closing Belgrave and Lilydale's 30 minute weekday gaps while the busy Craigieburn line could be tackled by working inwards by broadening shoulder peaks (the first step of which was promised in 2025).   

 * 1/2/2026 ABC Hundreds of new train services added as Melbourne lines switch to new Metro Tunnel

Describes the changes in significant detail. PTUA mentions issues with unchanged timetables on the Clifton Hill and Burnley groups as well as new stations being closed for Night Network. Similar to the Age article it quotes DTP on the development of the timetables. 

* 1/2/2026 Social media post from minister Gabrielle Williams. Mentions the next round of upgrades for Werribee, Sandringham, Craigieburn and Upfield coming "middle of year". 

"Middle of year" is a bit more specific than "later this year", which is welcome. 

4. First weekday's operation

Metro Tunnel line services themselves seemed to run well yesterday. But the Upfield line had some major problems with short-shunting during the morning peak. The Frankston line was also hit by cancellations. Caulfield station as currently is proved its unsuitability as a large scale interchange point, although some of this may be first day issues that will become less acute as some find changing at alternative stations like Malvern and in the CBD more convenient. Passengers interviewed in the media gave mixed impressions though some convoluted two-change trips could have been simplified by going a different way.   

See other Timetable Tuesday items here

TT 221: A hypothetical graph - complaints versus service frequency

The graph below is a hypothesis rather than anything that's been measured.

It seeks to show the relationship between service levels and complaints received regarding frequency at off-peak times on the Melbourne metropolitan rail network. 

X axis is service frequency, Y axis is volume of complaints related to frequency. 

Click graph above to enlarge

The red line is the cost of running the service by frequency. This is assumed to be fairly proportional to the service level added until you hit constraints such as rolling stock, signalling and line capacity in which case the marginal cost of adding extra frequency can become extremely expensive and not quick to do. So expensive that you instead think about alternatives like adding carriages, price signals like incentives to travel off-peak, diverting passengers onto parallel quieter lines etc.  

Conversely if service is already frequent except for some narrow time bands (eg Sunday mornings or evenings) then the marginal cost of adding frequency in those time bands is small. When expressed in terms of maximum waits the cost of halving maximum waits on some lines can be tiny as only a few percent more trains need adding to the timetable. 

The blue line is more speculative. For a suburban rail system where trip lengths of 30 to 60 minutes are common, it makes the assumption that basically no one would complain about a 10 minute frequency (unless it's peak times and even this is insufficient to avoid crowding). 

Whereas 30, 40 and 60 minute frequencies are universally despised. Especially in cases where you don't have full control over your arrival time due to having just come off another train, tram or bus or having an activity such as work that finishes at a particular time. 

Note that these curves would be system and trip specific. Frequency is less important on regional train networks with high average speeds and long trip distances. On the other hand for metro systems it is more important with even 10 minute headways contributing to excessive variability for large volumes of short trips. What you see above is a 'best guess' average for the Melbourne suburban system. Much of it is based on social media and other posts about train frequencies. That is you rarely hear objections to high frequencies but you often do for low frequencies such as the 30 or 40 minute gaps that exist on most of the suburban network at certain times. 

If this holds true then some great opportunities present themselves. Going from every 40 to every 20 minutes is adding 1.5 trains per hour each way. Going from every 30 to every 20 or every 20 to every 15 minutes is adding 1 train per hour each way. In all cases maximum waits (and thus travel time variability) is greatly reduced, as are likely complaints. 

In contrast, going from (say) 9 to 12 trains per hour is more expensive (3 trains per  hour more) and is unlikely to make as big an inroads into complaints (unless the higher frequency is required to relieve crowding). 

The moral is that governments wishing to generate goodwill in an election year would do well to start by cutting the maximum waits across the whole network first. After they are low then you can consider other frequency upgrades. This has lessons for the current government that has tended to avoid even small frequency boosts with the new Metro Tunnel timetable getting a less warm reception than it might have due to previous over-selling coupled with under-delivery of service on less favoured lines where 30 and 40 minute gaps remain common. 

The recommendation going forward is to get as many train lines as possible down to a 20 minute maximum wait - as opposed to the widespread 30 or 40 minutes. This was done for Werribee, Williamstown and Frankston in 2021. There wasn't anything more on Metro lines for 5 years but the 2025 state budget funded Craigieburn and Upfield with implementation later this year. 

This then leaves Mernda, Hurstbridge and Sandringham (maximum 40 minute gaps) and Belgrave, Lilydale, Glen Waverley, Alamein (maximum 30 minute gaps) to resolve. For context Sydney has a maximum 15 minute wait at most stations while Perth's maximum is 15 minutes at every station during the day all week, dropping to 30 min after about 8 or 9pm. 

See other Timetable Tuesday items here

UN 221: New era for rail travel in Melbourne - Introducing Metro Frequent 130

Melbourne is getting its first day and night frequent rail line on February 1. 

Trains run every 10 minutes or better for over 130 hours of the week at 22 stations. 

I've called the concept 'Metro Frequent 130'. 

Learn about its benefits and extension prospects here.

See other Useful Network items here