UN 223: More Metro Trains Done Cheap (why we should embrace the shoulders)

The Victorian state government has got itself in a bit of a bind, entirely of its own making.

For many years it built up expectations that there'd be "more trains across Melbourne" when the Metro Tunnel opened.

"There will be a new timetable in place everywhere - on our trains, on our buses and on our trams" the premier said on October 7, 2025. Use of the term "Big Switch" further fuelled expectations for February 1, 2026. 

Big Switch for some lines only

But on February 1 we ended up getting substantial timetable uplifts on just three out of sixteen lines - all going through the Metro Tunnel itself. This is very significant, creating Melbourne's first frequent corridor first to last train.

Elsewhere though it's a bit of a let-down. Three lines got minor uplifts while four will have improvements later in the year. Two of those four (Craigieburn and Upfield) will have their maximum waits cut from 40 to 20 minutes (good) but miss out on the 10 minute daytime service proposed in the 2016 Metro Tunnel Business Case (bad). 

Sandringham gets very good weekday interpeak upgrades (from every 15 to every 10 min) but Sunday mornings will remain only every 40 minutes and South Yarra loses its 7 day through service to North Melbourne, Footscray and Newport that it enjoyed when the Frankston line performed this function.  

Opportunities missed and opportunities future

It is robust operational practice to run trains in independent groups corresponding to City Loop portals, cross-city and Yarra (the latter apparently being the internal name for the Metro Tunnel group). It is good planning practice to introduce new timetables in stages by group (rather than all in one go like the "Big Switch" rhetoric had people believe). But it is also clear that many opportunities to upgrade by group were missed in the last decade, particularly for the northern, Clifton Hill and Burnley groups. 

For instance the government had over a decade to close 30 to 40 minute gaps on nine lines (Hurstbridge, Mernda, Craigieburn, Upfield, Belgrave, Lilydale, Alamein, Glen Waverley, Sandringham) but has hardly lifted a finger to do so.

The best time to act was then. The next best time to act is now. I discussed potential future priorities for that here. The minister herself said the 1 February changes were "only the beginning" of service uplifts, giving room for cautious optimism.

Certain objections can be dismissed as false (eg lack of trains or level crossings) while others (eg train driver numbers) can be worked around with sufficient advance planning or careful rostering (eg for shoulder peaks). For example a mere 40 trains per week could get rid of 30-40 minute evening and Sunday morning gaps for the whole week from 7am to 10pm on the Mernda line.  Around 300 trips per week could cut the 30 min gaps on the Belgrave and Lilydale lines while also benefiting busy stations like Box Hill and Ringwood.

For context Metro currently run about 18000 trains per week with the "Big Switch" adding about 1200 services per week. So we're not talking about unreasonable increases here, provided that the will exists to do it. 

Initiative, costs and value for money

DTP bureaucrats, unlike business entrepreneurs, operate in a context of constraint and limitation. Their budgets are fixed and they have little control over most revenue. Those of the Paul Younis mould appeared not even to care much about preventing losses (even denying the extent of bus fare evasion) or have much of a growth mindset such as could be applied to finding efficiencies, growing services, marketing or boosting patronage.

Despite this there have been some improvements to bus services and large boosts to V/Line rail services. But, Metro Tunnel's three lines excepted, service development and reform for Melbourne's busiest two modes - train and tram - has been slow. 

So there's been almost a stalemate. A cold shoulder for service if you like. 

Government says we're broke.

While DTP may not have been as forthcoming in championing potential reforms or efficiencies that could lead to better service as it might have been. That's despite growth in the number of executives who should be creating many times more value than they draw in pay. 

It remains amazing that over 25 years on, service uplifts under Jeff Kennett (a controversial premier with a reputation for cutting public services) still compare favourably with what recent government have delivered, at least for metropolitan rail.  

In an election year one solution is for sufficient pressure to be brought to bear on government so it is forced to find a way. Over the heads of the stodgier bureaucrats if necessary, not unlike what it did with the Suburban Rail Loop. Opportunities may also exist for government to use its monopsony powers to negotiate a sharper deal with would-be rail franchise operators in the soon to start MR5 deliberations. 

In 2024 I looked at how much public transport cost to run. This was done by dividing what we paid operators by annual kilometres operated to get a dollars per kilometre number.

Metro train worked out at $55 per service kilometre. That's a mean number. There will be substantial variations. Understanding this is important if you want to look at what is and is not cost-effective to add. This is because a kilometre's extra service at certain times will far exceed $55 while at other times it will be much less. 

There are certain understood facts about rail operations. Firstly that as it has its own infrastructure (unlike a trucking company) some costs remain fixed regardless of whether you run few or many trains. Whereas other costs do rise with the number of trains, some less than proportion, some in proportion and others disproportionally (latter most notably peak service, especially if it requires new trains, signals and tracks).

Trains need drivers and other staff. Their conditions, including working hours and pay, are set down in the MTM Enterprise Agreement 2023. This stipulates what is and is not an acceptable work roster with implications for scheduling and thus the efficiency and costs of particular timetables and service patterns.

Pages 74-85 has conditions for drivers. Notable features include minimum 12 hours between shifts, time and a half pay on Saturdays, double time on Sundays and at least 3 Sundays off per 8 weeks. There is 76 hours or ordinary full time work with a requirement to work "reasonable overtime" (paid at the appropriate rates). There is some provision for part-time drivers with the number capped at 50 new recruits under the agreement. However existing full time drivers can convert to part time or job share with mutual agreement. Part time drivers work a minimum 4 hours shift adding to 40 hours per fortnight minimum. Part time drivers cannot be rostered more than 1 shift per calendar day - ie no split shifts.  

That was a lot of words. What are the cost implications if you wanted to add service at particular times? And will you get much benefit in terms of increased patronage?

Apart from the $55 per km average, I don't have the actual costs of adding Metro train service kilometres at various times. But the graph below I think is a fair stab. It's not precise enough to interpolate Y axis numbers (so don't!). But it would be fair to say that there are high and low cost types of service additions that I will discuss. 

 

As noted above peak period service is the most expensive to add for reasons including total staff numbers, train numbers, signals, infrastructure and even tunnelling. Especially in the peak direction. Sometimes adding peak capacity is needed when trains are crowded - this is a common rationale for major projects such as the Metro Tunnel and level crossing removals. But if trains are already frequent and they are not overloaded then the gains from adding service are relatively small. 

Night Network comprises one train per hour on each line for about 6 hours in the wee hours of Saturday and Sunday. However for that stations need to be staffed over hours they were previously closed. Hence running that also has a high marginal cost.  

Embrace the shoulders

If the train system was an Aldi the off-peak frequencies would be in the centre aisle with all the other bargains. Off-peak weekdays is the cheapest, with Saturdays and Sundays somewhat more due to penalty rates. 

Depending on line trains may run their peak of peak frequency for only 2 hours before falling off. However many drivers may still be rostered, noting that a. most drivers are full time, b. there are no split shifts and c. part-timers are rostered on for a minimum four hours.

This gives rise to a potential 'overlay' where it may be possible to run more trains in the weekday shoulder peaks for basically negligible cost in the time bands shown in grey below (again this graph is theoretical). 

Improving frequency around 10am, 3pm and 7pm weekdays would provide a gentler drop-off outside the peaks that would especially assist those with flexible working hours and potentially even relieve peak pressure. It would also make plugging the remaining hole around noon small in the number of services required. 

Lines with high potential here could include Craigieburn, Mernda, Belgrave, Lilydale and a couple more like Werribee and Glen Waverley. 

Sunday mornings and weekend evenings

My rough graph before had weekend service as being dearer to add than weekday service. However that doesn't mean that it should be ignored.

One advantage of very low frequencies at one particular time of the week (eg Sunday mornings) is that only a handful of extra trains need to be added to remove annoyances that prevent the network having a useful service all week.

As an example just 4 extra return trips per week per line would close 40 minute Sunday morning gaps to 20 minutes in the 7am - 10am range on lines like Mernda, Hurstbridge, Sandringham, Craigieburn and Upfield. A similar number would get Belgrave and Lilydale service from 30 to 20 minutes, with benefits for a large catchment including densely populated centres such as Box Hill.   
 

Similarly weekend evenings requires just two return trips per line to push the typical 30 minute frequency start back from 7:30pm to 9:30pm. 

As both these examples are only one or two days of the week they involve a relatively small number of extra trips added per week, reducing their cost compared to if they needed to be run every day.

Both would go a long way to getting most of the network to run every 20 min or better from say 7am to 10pm. Not Sydney service standards but substantially better than current for relatively few trains and driver shifts added. 

Conclusion

Embrace the shoulders. They're the best bargains around if you want to boost Metro train services. Then do Sunday mornings and early evenings to make the network even more useful.  

Index to Useful Network items here

UN 222: Wollert/Epping North bus network consultation starts

News earlier in the week with the state government announcing consultation on an expanded bus network for Wollert in Melbourne's outer north.

Funding, service planning and political context

With funding allocated in the May 2025 state budget, this network has a very good chance of actually happening. And of the various funding sources, budget funding is the 'gold standard' as GAIC (ie growth area contribution) is time-limited and highly constrained. 

This is just as well for the state Labor government as its record on public transport services in Melbourne's growing north could be described as mediocre (if you sympathise with the government) or abysmal (if you don't) given the area's fast population growth and densification in middle suburbs.  

Route 390 and Craigieburn local buses have been two of the few bright spots in the last five or so years. Away from Craigieburn buses the more common experience has been expectations raised and then dashed for both train and bus. 

For instance Mernda and Hurstbridge lines got nothing out of the so-called 'Big Switch' despite the premier promising 'new timetables everywhere'. Similarly Craigieburn and Upfield lines were meant to get 10 minute off-peak service under the Metro Tunnel but didn't, though a smaller set of improvements from last year's state budget is proposed for later this year. 

Back to buses the north and north-eastern suburbs got promised large-scale bus reform before the 2022 state election but, with the government safely returned, this was abandoned the following year. Two valuable years was squandered on the ill-advised Greensborough FlexiRide before they realised that upgraded fixed routes were better after all, though resource allocation was misplaced on the latter with buses on busy Bell Street actually made more complicated. 

Given this patchy record bus advocates should not be satisfied with promises of network reviews from political parties in the coming election campaign - instead they should insist on specific measures whose honouring or otherwise is a yes or no answer. 

Politically Melbourne's north has been dominated by Labor that now has the baggage typical of long-term governments. Greens are competitive in southern inner areas, socialists are competing in diverse working class 'middle north' areas like Broadmeadows and Reservoir and the long-term drift away from the major parties leaves the door open to local independents. The Liberals, racked by disunity and with a weak local membership base, fancy their prospects in some higher income/big house areas like Greenvale but are likely to be most influential in where their preferences flow. 

Given previous disappointments with transport in the north and this being an election year, all eyes will be on this government to make this network a success rather than a fizzer. 

Proposed network

The upgrade is based on extending three existing bus routes north from Epping further into Wollert growth areas (356, 357, 358), adding a new bus route north from Epping (355) and creating a simpler largely east-west route (335) that replaces parts of existing routes 357 and 577 between Thomastown, Epping and South Morang. Serving a fast growing part of Melbourne's outer north, it will add bus coverage to a population of 21 000. 

The new network means that three of the four Wollert/Epping North routes intersect Route 390, as opposed to none before. Route 390 is an east-west bus between Craigieburn and Mernda that has enjoyed several rounds of service upgrades. 

The proposed network is very close to that which I speculated on here. Possibly its most controversial feature is that the east-west Lyndarum Drive loses its buses. Instead people will need to walk to north-south routes for which higher frequency is promised, at least on weekdays. I wrote more on Epping Rd, identifying it as a potential frequent bus corridor, more than 6 years ago. 

Something else that will no doubt be raised is access to Epping Plaza and Northern Hospital from a section of Epping Rd (which contains some low income apartments). Residents there have a choice of Route 356 to Epping Station or Route 357 that not only goes to the station but also beyond to the plaza and hospital. The proposed network replaces 357 with the new route 355 that, like 356 also terminates at the station. Thus bus users will need to change buses to make a relatively short local trip unless there is some sort of through-routing arrangement where arriving 355s and 356s form departing 357s and 358s. 

What is more certain is that those on the existing 577 are undoubted winners with the new 335, with this serving the plaza, hospital and beyond.   

The proposed network, with a handy slider map to compare with with the old, can be found here.

Service levels

Bus routes in the area typically operate every 20 minutes peak periods and 40 minutes off-peak weekdays and weekends. The main exception is Route 577 which has an uneven interpeak weekday service since its two buses per hour cannot regularly connect with the typical 20 minute train frequencies at Epping and South Morang. 

The notes for Routes 356, 357 and 358 have this somewhat vague statement: "We’re proposing to improve the frequency of peak-hour and weekday daytime services."

Thus we can expect weekend frequencies to remain the same. It is not known whether operating hours will be extended like they have recently been on some routes in Craigieburn, Werribee and Tarneit. 

 What will be a higher peak hour frequency for these buses? Trains at Epping are uneven but are roughly every 6 to 9 minutes in the peak. A bus frequency of around 15 minutes will connect with about every second train.

As for off-peak service, the current 40 minute service harmonises with every second train, a 30 minute service would offer recurring connections only hourly while a 20 minute service could connect with every train in at least one direction. 

Epping Road will have both 355 and 356 overlapping south of Hayston Rd to Epping Station. If both are every 40 minutes the ideal scheduling would see them spaced 20 minutes to provide an even headway connecting with every train at Epping. However if both are every 20 minutes then there is either the choice of two buses every 20 minutes to preserve train connectivity or 10 minute spacing to provide a frequent corridor with one route not meeting trains. Upgrading the Mernda line upgraded to run every 10 minutes off-peak would be ideal so this trade-off wouldn't need to be made.  

It has (commendably) become common for growth area bus routes to be upgraded to or even start with a 20 minute off-peak service at least on weekdays. As opposed to the previously typical and unexciting 40 to 60 minute frequencies. 

Examples can be found in Werribee, Tarneit, Craigieburn, Diggers Rest, Cranbourne and Clyde. The treatment of weekends varies for no reason I can discern. 20 minute weekend service is found on some Werribee, Tarneit and Cranbourne routes whereas Craigieburn and Diggers Rest passengers must make do with a 40 minute weekend service. It looks like Wollert will be following the 20 minute weekday/40 minute weekend pattern, with this known for the new Route 335 and possibly also for 355, 356, 357 and 358 (if these get a 20 minute weekday off-peak service). 

Another good feature of some new and upgraded routes is wider operating hours, with buses finishing at around midnight instead of 9pm on most nights of the week. This is most notable in Werribee, Tarneit and Craigieburn. 

The website does not state whether Wollert routes will get similar operating hours extensions. Neither does it mention the fate of Night Network services which currently operate on Route 357. This is particularly interesting as this proposal breaks the 357 up into multiple routes so there is a chance that some areas could gain Night Network while others lose it. Night Network is relevant not just for party goers but also early weekend morning travellers due to most regular bus routes starting late on weekends, particularly Sundays.

Survey

The consultation includes an online survey and meetings. Respondents will be asked about their bus usage and whether this is likely to increase under the new network.  Consultation finishes March 8, 2026.

Wider network implications

This revised network includes both established and new suburbs. In the former is Route 577 which will become a part of the new 335 route which will operate at a higher frequency along Findon Rd. Approximately 600m south of Findon Rd is McDonalds Rd which has the 901 SmartBus. In between is a residential area of indirect streets that is penetrated by the Route 556 dogleg discussed here. 

As well as taking people out of their way and wasting a lot of time the 556's run time has led to it (and possibly other routes like the 555) having an unmemorable and unharmonised with trains 22-24 minute headway. Basically this loop sabotages what could be a simpler, more direct and better connected route running every 20 minutes over a wide catchment. 

It would be desirable if the Wollert changes also simplify buses in this part of Epping. Options might include outright removal of the 556 dogleg, or, noting that the area is quite pedestrian hostile, its replacement by a local coverage-style South Morang to Epping route every 40 to 60 min in the Derby Dr area. 

See other Useful Network items here

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