Travel Tuesday: Matthew Guy's transport learnings from South America

Politicians are often frankest in their first (and last) speeches. Listen to those to hear their background, their interests and acknowledgements to the people who helped them win their seats.

Another time where MPs can veer off the limited agenda set by their parties is in the reports they must submit if they go on parliament-funded overseas study trips. Not only do these accounts describe what they saw overseas but they also discuss lessons and applicability for here. 

Failure to adequately report on the latter invites derision from political rivals and the general public (which overwhelmingly regards taxpayer-funded overseas travel by politicians, especially opposition and backbench members, as junkets).  

Shadow Public Transport Minister Matthew Guy MP travelled to South America in 2019, 2023, 2024 and again in 2025. A substantial part of all trips included inspecting and talking to locals involved with running its public transport. Mr Guy also reflected on the applicability of what he saw to our public transport network. 

Because few will have read them below is my summary. It could be topical as current opinion polls have the Coalition ahead to win November's state election. 

2023 trip (notes here)

* Potential to learn from Buenos Aires metro in respect to these: 
- On board PSOs in large numbers
- Free wi-fi on board and charging stations at stations 
- Use of station space for local art with this exploited for tourism
- Zero tolerance to graffiti and vandalism with vandals fined and forced to clean it up

Above were described as being 'not without merit'. 

* Potential to learn from Argentinian railways with regards to 
- rapid response to crime 
- 200 security staff and police on one line alone
- visible command control centres

This was considered to be an advance on our PSO program and potentially implemented. 

* Trains had the following features 
- Position displays of the train location between stations 
- Windows that could slightly open at the top
- Widespread use of third rail to supply power 

Third rail was considered particularly beneficial to economically extend electric traction to areas beyond overhead power. It could also be retrofitted to existing rolling stock and be rolled out quickly. This point is relevant for recent debate over Melton and Wyndham Vale electrification. 

* Main stations in Buenos Aires were covered with a large central roof. 

Mr Guy regarded Southern Cross Station as a success and recommended that Flinders Street be covered with a large semi-circle roof. 

* Having three rail gauges presented significant operational difficulties in Buenos Aires. Dual gauging was considered complex and not widely used. 

Based on this research, Mr Guy described the decision to build the Suburban Rail Loop with standard gauge and different operational specifications as 'absolutely mad'. He wanted rolling stock and maintenance procedure to be the same across the whole rail network with the SRL interoperable with the existing Metro system. 

* The National Railway museum was inspirational. Mr Guy said that Victoria had done less with rail heritage than other states. He saw potential in the use of Newport workshops for this purpose. 

* Mr Guy compared the SUBE travel card favourably with Melbourne's Myki system. However I don't think he was sufficiently clear on how it was superior. 

* Buenos Aires had an extensive and well used bus network. This included a terminal in the CBD.  

Mr Guy supported a similar terminal for Melbourne but it wasn't clear whether this was for metropolitan or regional buses. He suggested at least initially terminating more buses at Southern Cross. 

* Buneos Aires has a short distance University Train to connect the campus to the main rail network. It was too crowded for Mr Guy to ride. 

Mr Guy strongly backed Geelong having a regional commuter rail system such as NSW operates in the Hunter Valley and Illawarra regions. He also mentioned Coalition policy for this. 

2024 trip (notes here)

* Trip (which included Wayne Farnham MP) was focused on infrastructure (particularly rail). Mr Guy saw value in learning from cities that had growing rail networks but built them cheaper than we did. 

* Potential to learn from the low construction costs of the rapidly expanding Santiago Metro
- Santiago is tunnelling 76km of new metro lines at a cost of $US 9b
- Metro construction cost is less than 1/10 that of Melbourne
- Contracts are broken up and tendered as small parts to get the best price 
- Procurement is not controlled by the union movement (which Guy claimed was the case here)
- Contracts are more open with less secrecy than he associated with the Big Build 

* Mr Guy toured the control centre for the Metro. Lines operated independently and were supervised separately, though staff were all in the same room. 

* A briefing on Barrio Bellavista (an older inner city neighbourhood) was given. It had high tourist visitation. Mr Guy saw merit in doing similar preservation of a Melbourne inner northern or eastern neighbourhood. 

* Sao Paulo metro carries 4.5 million passengers per day. A major project is to standardise rail gauges.
- Line 7 was digging about 30 metres of tunnel per day 

Like in 2023 Mr Guy said that it was extraordinary that our SRL was being built on a different gauge to the rest of the suburban system. Also that our tunnelling rate was much slower at 30 metres per month. 

* Mr Guy returned to Buenos Aires and met people running the Metro. Expansion had been halted but was being reconsidered again. Again he reaffirmed the ticketing as being easier to use than Myki. Credit card ticketing was on the agenda (since achieved here). 

* Buenos Aires had an ebike system. This was considered easy to use. Heavy fines exist for dumping or abandoning bikes. Mr Guy supported these systems for Melbourne. 

* The Tren de la Costa is a 15km long light rail serving the northern suburbs of Buenos Aires. It runs between the heavy rail and the metro. it is slow (40km/h) but well used.

Mention was made about the potential for similar systems to serve parts of Melbourne including East Werribee, Rowville and Doncaster. 

2025 trip (notes here)

* Travel this time included Paraguay. Key observations were:
- Its last trains ran over ten years ago so a visit to a museum was arranged. Their rail was set up by British people so it had similarities with systems in Commonwealth countries. Mr Guy said that if rail does close it was essential to preserve the rail corridor for future reopening. 
- Street closures for community events were very successful in revitalising downtown for community events
- Bike tracks were being improved in Asuncion with these separate from main roads, thus not impeding road traffic or removing vehicle lanes. This was favourably contrasted with Melbourne. 

* The Brazilian state capital of Florianopolis was also visited. Key observations:

- There is no urban rail but there is an extensive bus system with 60 lines serving a dozen central bus stations. These run 5am to midnight with a smart ticket system. A frequent service runs to the airport.
- The airport is a mixed use precinct with concerts and events often held there. 

Mr Guy said that the lessons for Melbourne remain around frequency and connectivity; with bus timetables designed to link to each other, similar to that of a metro rail network.

* Buenos Aires was again visited. Discussions were had about the Subte metro rail network which has had periods of state and private operation.
- Themes from previous trips, such as them doing ticketing, security and crime prevention better than us were reaffirmed. 
- The Subte was built with very small trains which limited capacity. Mr Guy drew a parallel with the Suburban Rail Loop which had only four car trains with him seeing this as a false economy to make the SRL business case stack up.  
- Maintenance standards were declining on both the metropolitan and regional rail networks. This meant more derailments. 
- Crowding was a major issue in the north-western suburbs where diesel trains were required to do a suburban rail's job. There was a need for electrification due to its potential for higher capacity, with a parallel with Melton drawn. 
- Multiple operators run trains in Buenos Aires. While acceptable for buses, many Mr Guy spoke to said that this fragmentation was a problem for rail including a lack of timetable efficiency. In his report he drew a parallel with the Suburban Rail Loop (if it is to be completed) that it be linked in with the existing rail and tram providers. While not stated this effectively means that he repudiates the network fragmentation that happened under the Kennett government's franchising (and potentially the Sydney decision to build an operationally separate driverless metro). 
- Trenes Argentinos, the country's regional freight and passenger operator has severe problems with lack of infrastructure investment and derailment. Speeds are often reduced rather than tracks upgraded. Mr Guy drew parallels with Victoria where some lines have 65km/h limits (versus 115km/h in NSW). 
- Shrinkage of the ebike network and a deterioration of service since previous visits.

Summary

Through these trip reports the shadow minister has articulated some ideas for transport in Victoria. This could include: 

* Tougher South American-style security
* A rebuilt Flinders Street with a large arched roof
* A central bus interchange in Melbourne CBD
* Faster tunnelling at lower cost on major projects with greater transparency 
* A Suburban Rail Loop that has bigger trains, is interoperable with the Metro network and is potentially run by the same operator  
* Potential for Geelong to have its own rail system and light rail in some Melbourne suburbs
* Bicycle tracks should be off-road and not involve slowing of cars or taking space from them 

Mr Guy's apparent support for bigger trains on the Suburban Rail Loop appear to indicate a view that it could carry more passengers than some if its detractors claim. And it seems to discount the possibility that automated driverless trains run close together at high frequencies can still mean a high capacity,  even if they are small, like Rail Futures' light metro concept. 

Have you been to South America and observed transport there? What's your thoughts on Mr Guy's ideas? Either way please let us know in the comments below.  

See Timetable Tuesday items here

UN 249: Introducing the Melbourne Public Transport Plan

Want to read a bold public transport plan for Melbourne but concerned the state government hasn't written one for many years? The Rail Futures Institute has stepped into the breach with its 30 year plan out to 2060.  

 

Read the overview (4 pages, 3 MB pdf)

Read the plan (34 pages, 7 MB pdf) 

Order a hard copy ($40 posted)

In the last decade Melbourne has spent record amounts on transport megaprojects. Car drivers are now much less likely to be stopped at railway boom gates and have the West Gate Tunnel available as an alternative to the West Gate Bridge. Train passengers can board at a rebuilt station and travel from south-east to north-west under the CBD via the Metro Tunnel. 

However congestion and management of expected urban growth remain hot issues. Inner suburban trams are amongst the slowest in the world, the fastest growing areas are still on diesel trains and many suburban buses are only every 40 minutes, especially on weekends.  

Road maintenance issues are acute, bicycles too often mix with increasingly heavy cars and construction costs have spiralled. Public transport services have actually declined per capita in most Melbourne municipalities. 

Politics might change, premiers come and go but the enduring truth is that a growing city needs better transport infrastructure and services. We can't build our way out of congestion, and even if we could the cost would be huge. 

Never has it been more important that not only are projects built efficiently but the right projects are chosen to start with. Which requires a transport plan of the sort we haven't had for a while. 

Need for an integrated transport plan

The Transport Integration Act 2010 required that there be an integrated transport plan. The Auditor-General found that there wasn't one. And that having smaller plans or a list of projects, did not, contrary to executive government's view, qualify. Monash Mayor Cr Stuart James made a strong case for an integrated transport plan here.

Transport Planning has not been particularly influential lately. Parts of the bureaucracy that might have produced such a plan, such as the Department of Transport or Infrastructure Victoria, tended to be sidelined, ignored or even abolished (as has been recently announced for Infrastructure Victoria). 

Not assisting the cause was a general sense of cynicism about planning. Some earlier plans, especially those covering public transport, were not implemented. Certain past governments gained a record for being more interested in commissioning feasibility studies than project delivery.

Pretty much every aspirant for premier in the last 50 years promised rail to places like Melbourne Airport and Rowville, only for them to leave office without a sod being turned. And deals on controversial projects signed at the wrong time can be annulled by a successor government, in some cases at considerable cost. 

Various civil society groups involved in planning and transport (who can say out loud what some departmental insiders privately think) have long bemoaned what they call 'the lack of an integrated transport plan'. But they, the Auditor-General and Infrastructure Victoria got short shrift from a self-confident government that, for over a decade, regarded their list of mega projects as the plan and their parliamentary majority as public legitimacy and proof that these projects were wise. 

Some recently wrote to the Premier calling on the Major Projects Royal Commission to not just examine corruption in the construction sector but also broader transport planning issues. Their thinking? Building the wrong projects, due to vested political and commercial interests shaping the agenda, could cost at least as much to the community as the widely reported corruption allegations.  

One of the signatories, the Rail Futures Institute, had previously decided that if the government wasn't going to produce a long-term integrated public transport plan then it should do one. In early 2024 RFI established a small team with professional backgrounds in transport planning and management to write the report. Just over 30 months later the result is available for you to read.

2030 - 2060 plan overview

The plan anticipates Melbourne's continued growth to a population of around nine million by 2060. "Business as usual" conditions, with the vast majority of trips made by private car, were considered neither affordable, sustainable nor desirable.

There had to be a substantial swing towards higher public (and active) transport usage. Which necessitated a network that not only got peak period commuters to the CBD but was also fit for a much broader variety of trips across the week.   

While Melbourne had some enviable foundations, notably a strong CBD, a large rail network and a street grid conducive to direct tram and bus routes, aspects of how the network was being planned and operated held usage back. 

Particular issues included often infrequent trains outside peak periods, trams stuck in traffic and a largely legacy bus network that had good coverage but indirect routes and low frequencies. 

A multimodal frequent network with great connectivity

The answer to many of these issues did not necessarily require a lot of new infrastructure construction, such as had almost exclusively occupied the government's transport agenda. But it did require a new focus on using what infrastructure and rolling stock we had more intelligently to form a better connected multimodal Frequent Network. 

That meant higher all day rail frequencies, tram priority over car traffic and bus network reform and service increases. Improved physical interchange would also be required to convert the current disjointed system into a frequent web suitable for both CBD and cross-suburban travel. Cost-effectiveness of such a network could be higher; adding service multiplies connections and thus the number of trips that public transport can better compete with driving.

 

Converting our heavy rail to Metro lines 

The above optimisation, while necessary and extremely cost-effective, can only go so far given Melbourne's anticipated growth. This is why the Melbourne Public Transport Plan also has a significant infrastructure program.

Priorities will be informed by a desired network operating style. In the case of our suburban heavy rail this means conversion to a more frequent, higher capacity Metro-style system with turn-up-and-go service available all week.

The first steps involve off-peak frequency upgrades, consistent 'greenfields' timetables and electrification of outer suburban V/Line services. Capacity upgrades on the Upfield line and at Burnley Junction would prepare for future improvements. 

Also envisaged are extensions to Melbourne Airport, Clyde, Wyndham Vale - Werribee, Wallan, Bacchus Marsh, Wollert and Knox City. These would increase the rail network's reach, especially in growth areas.

Higher capacity signalling, automated operation and a reconfigured City Loop (essentially a through track pair between Richmond and North Melbourne via Parliament, Melbourne Central and Flagstaff) would greatly increase core capacity. Some passengers will need to change trains to reach some CBD stations but the trade-off is improved frequency, directness and a host of new cross-city trips that become possible in the one seat. Reconfiguration, which has been supported by Infrastructure Victoria, makes the rail network more useful for short trips within the CBD and surrounds rather than purely as a commuter feeder from the suburbs to the CBD.  

The single biggest rail project is Melbourne Metro Two (MM2), a Metro-style railway that is considered necessary to accommodate passenger demand from the Melton and Wyndham growth areas.  Trains would originate at Melton or Werribee and operate via Fishermans Bend, Southern Cross, Flagstaff and Parkville to terminate at Victoria Park. MM2 would support redevelopment of Fishermans Bend and improve CBD east-west connectivity.

(Download the plan for a clearer view of this and later maps)

New Light Metros to connect the suburbs

Possibly the most radical part of this plan is the introduction of a fourth mode - Light Metro. Similar to Vancouver's Skytrain, lines would be driverless and frequent to offer high capacities despite short train lengths.

Short trains, especially if surface or elevated, lower construction costs compared to tunnelling. The lower the construction cost the more can be built, with RFI recommending light metro networks in parts of Melbourne's west, north and east. The Suburban Rail Loop North would be a constructed as a Light Metro between Melbourne Airport and Box Hill under this concept.  

Higher performance trams

The main challenges facing Melbourne's trams include low speeds (due to mostly running in mixed traffic), poor accessibility and a legacy network that misses many potential connection points. By providing high capacity movement under the Swanston St spine, the Metro Tunnel project was intended to unlock the potential for tram network reform to better serve the greater CBD area but this has not yet happened. 

Notable central network reforms proposed include a connection to Anzac Station via Park Street and new connections to Arden Station via Spencer and Victoria Streets. CBD-fringe L-shaped routes would reduce the need to change. In addition suburban extensions would extend dead-end termini to better meet trains. Most of these are in the east but there is also a new route that connects Highpoint with Sunshine by tram. 

Trams would be more accessible and faster with improved priority. Time is money when running trams and as well as making travel more attractive shorter run times enables a higher frequency / higher capacity service to be operated. 

A concept tram network is shown below but I suggest looking at the plan itself for a better view (link later). 

More frequent and better connected buses

Reformed and upgraded buses is a major part of the RFI Melbourne Public Transport Plan. Reformed bus networks can convert the network from a CBD-centric asterisk to a more connected grid. This is key to making public transport work for a wide variety of trips, not just the minority involving travel to and from the CBD. 

Despite being the most cost-effective way to extend frequent public transport to the millions of Melburnians beyond walking distance of trains and trams, the state government's record on buses has been mixed. Network reform to the scale envisaged in 2021's Victoria's Bus Plan has not taken place, with the Auditor-General warning that Bus Plan objectives won't be achieved if progress continues at the current pace.

The plan makes the point that despite their much larger catchment area than trams, bus ridership in Melbourne is less. This is the result of a largely legacy bus network where just 4 out of 350 routes operate every 15 minutes or better 7 days a week. There are many cases where Melbourne routes are frequent on weekdays but not weekends or service levels do not align with usage or needs. Operating hours are also shorter than trains and trams, reducing the ability of buses to operate as reliable feeders. 

The Melbourne Public Transport Plan proposes a tiered hierarchy to replace currently haphazard service levels. The highest level, applicable to the main bus corridors, would provide a service every 10 minutes or better over long hours the whole week. The bus component of the Frequent Network, these are your direct high patronage main road routes. 

Potential candidate routes, running every 10 minutes or better most of the week, are below. For context not one bus route in Melbourne meets this service standard in 2026 so implementation of a network like this would be a major advance.

Supplementing the Frequent Bus Network could be a middle 'Connector' tier of services every 20 minutes or better over long hours. Together with Frequent routes, Connector routes would provide long hours coverage every 20 minutes or better within ten minutes walk of most homes. To its credit the State Government has rolled out routes similar to these in some growth areas but gaps elsewhere remain long.  Remaining smaller scale transport needs would be met by local (every 30 to 60 min with minimum service standards) or special purpose routes (with service tailored to need). 

Implementation

The final chapter proposes a network development strategy to progressively roll out more frequent and better connected service. This would be informed by a network service hierarchy and a program of priority upgrades that maximises the use of existing train, tram and bus assets.

Services can be privately run (as per now) but planning and management should be through a single agency. Implementation plans for Heavy Metro, Light Metro, Trams and Buses would support the network strategy. 

Conclusion

Rail Futures has, with a small team led by president John Hearsch, produced and released a broad 30 year multimodal public transport plan for Melbourne. It fills a significant gap given the dominance of narrow project-based planning for public transport in recent years.

Implementation would see a transformed public transport network fit for a growing city. And the timing is right as it provides guidance on how to maximise benefits from existing, new or rebuilt transport assets in the interim. 

I'm biased* but the state government and those aspiring to govern would do well to draw concepts and policies from it. 

I also invite you to read the plan online. Printed copies are available for $40 posted. 

And, if you like it, raise its contents with the next political candidate who seeks your vote. 

(*) as one of the plan's authors. 

An index to all Useful Network items is here

TT 243: Did the Big Build help the trains run on time?

 

State government ministers, MPs and spokespeople have not been backward in claiming benefits of the Big Build program of major transport projects. 

Removed level crossings, it is often said, could reduce accidents, increase reliability and allow more trains to run. The renewal of old assets, provided the new ones were more reliable, was another potential benefit. The railways would never have got funding to rebuild so many stations so quickly on their own but did so as the rail component of what was substantially a road project. 

And the Metro Tunnel promised benefits not only for precincts with new rail coverage but also the rest of the network, including added capacity to reduce crowding, enabling higher frequency and improved reliability. 

At Sunday's Webster Street level crossing removal community celebration in Dandenong deputy Premier (and former Transport Minister) Gabrielle Williams said that Big Build projects transformed the Pakenham and Cranbourne lines from being the least to the most reliable on the network. Those lines are particularly relevant as they are now level crossing free and run through the Metro Tunnel. 

Delivery and Punctuality - overall

Because they were cited by the Deputy Premier, they are easy to quantify and numbers are available, let's test some of the stated benefits by looking at Metro service delivery and punctuality. I did this by looking at performance data from the reporting website at: https://www.vic.gov.au/public-transport-monthly-performance

I compared the last twelve months (September 2025 to August 2026) with data from twelve years prior (September 2013 to August 2014). That is before the election of the Andrews government and thus its Big Build program. 

Because rail network usage and performance is seasonal I made month for month comparisons to remove this as a potential error. The notable timetable changes in 2025-2026 include: 
* November 30 2025 'Summer Start" that added a limited Metro Tunnel service to the existing timetable
* February 1  2026 "Big Switch" that marked the full commencement of the Metro Tunnel and the Frankston line's return to the City Loop
* August 23 2026 timetable that created the Werribee/ Williamstown/ Sandringham cross-city group and boosted services on all four northern suburbs Metro lines. 

Cancellations and late running are caused by several different factors. Only some are attributable to infrastructure faults and level crossing incidents. But given the scale of level crossing removals done in 12 years it might be possible that the works have contributed to improved performance. 

The first step was to do a 12 month average across all lines. 

Delivery Sept 2013 - Aug 2014 99.0%
Delivery Sept 2025 - Aug 2026 99.0%

Punctuality Sept 2013 - Aug 2014 93.1%
Punctuality Sept 2025 - Aug 2026 94.3%

Delivery (ie proportion of cancellations) was stable. But there was a 1.2% improvement in punctuality. Without further information, such as incident numbers as is collected internally, it is not possible to attribute this to level crossing removals or infrastructure renewal.

However the potential importance of other factors was notable from the Sandringham punctuality improvement of 1.7% since that line has had the least change to infrastructure with no level crossing removals. 

Delivery and Punctuality - by line 

The 0% average change in service delivery between 2014 and 2026 masks big changes on certain lines. The biggest improvers were the Frankston, Sandringham, Cranbourne and Craigieburn lines. The biggest falls in delivery were on the Mernda and oddly (due to the relationship with Cranbourne) Pakenham. (click graph for better view)

As for punctuality, Cranbourne and Pakenham stand out as the big improvers. Not so much due to the Metro Tunnel (which was in full service for only seven of the last twelve months) but because both lines were poor performers in 2014. So much so that your Pakenham or Cranbourne train (88 to 89% on time) was almost twice as likely to be late as the network average (93%) and three to four times more likely to be late than reliable lines like Glen Waverley and Sandringham. That gap had closed to such an extent that both Pakenham and Cranbourne were above the network average, whether pre or post Metro Tunnel. 

Lines associated with the cross-city and northern groups, such as Frankston, Sunbury and Werribee had improvements of around 1%. 

The main rises in tardiness were on the Burnley and Clifton Hill groups, with punctuality down by about 1%. 

What about the Metro Tunnel? 

I tried looking at Metro Tunnel and related performance back in March when we only had February's data. With seven months data it's worth a revisit.  

The last year includes 3 months with no Metro Tunnel service, 2 months with existing timetables plus limited Metro Tunnel service and 7 months with full Metro Tunnel service. Have delivery and punctuality on the affected lines changed before and after the February 1 2026 "Big Switch"? 

Sunbury line

Delivery Sep 2025 - Jan 2026 99.2%

Delivery Feb 2026 - Aug 2026 98.5%

Pakenham line

Delivery Sep 2025 - Jan 2026 98.5%

Delivery Feb 2026 - Aug 2026 98.2%

Cranbourne line

Delivery Sep 2025 - Jan 2026 99.4%

Delivery Feb 2026 - Aug 2026 98.6%

Craigieburn line

Delivery Sep 2025 - Jan 2026 98.8%

Delivery Feb 2026 - Aug 2026 99.2%

Upfield line

Delivery Sep 2025 - Jan 2026 99.4%

Delivery Feb 2026 - Aug 2026 99.4%

The results show that the three Metro Tunnel lines (Sunbury, Pakenham and Cranbourne) had fewer cancellations when their trains ran via the City Loop than when they were joined via the Metro Tunnel. In contrast the Craigieburn and Upfield lines (which remained in the Loop) improved or retained their previous delivery performance. While not noted above, the Frankston and Werribee lines also improved (noting though they had long periods of bus replacements). 

Sunbury line

Punctuality Sep 2025 - Jan 2026 91%

Punctuality Feb 2026 - Aug 2026 93.3%

Pakenham line

Punctuality Sep 2025 - Jan 2026 95.6%

Punctuality Feb 2026 - Aug 2026 93.8% 

Cranbourne line

Punctuality Sep 2025 - Jan 2026 96.2%

Punctuality Feb 2026 - Aug 2026 94.9% 

Craigieburn line

Punctuality Sep 2025 - Jan 2026 90.4%

Punctuality Feb 2026 - Aug 2026 91.4%

Upfield line

Punctuality Sep 2025 - Jan 2026 94.6%

Punctuality Feb 2026 - Aug 2026 95.2%

Sunbury had a significant rise, accentuated by the poor January 2026 (88%) result. Pakenham and Cranbourne had a deterioration. That is despite some long (and increasing) dwell times that make achieving targets easier. It would seem that the longer the line the more there is to go wrong, and adding 40 kilometres of Sunbury has increased the risk of delays. 

Craigieburn and Upfield recorded improved punctuality. As did Frankston, Werribee and Williamstown. Though it should be noted that until 23 August 2026 the latter two had a stop-gap timetable terminating at Flinders Street until works could be completed to join them to Sandringham to restore the cross-city group. 

It should be noted that all numbers are as reported. These reports exclude planned disruptions due to works. Actual customer experiences will vary as bus replacements due to works are common on some lines, particularly at nights and weekends. The time costs of these disruptions are not evenly borne; there would be some regular weekend or evening travellers for whom almost no subsequent improvement could offset the extra time spent waiting or travelling on replacement buses over many years.  

Cross-city restoration 

For much of the last year Sandringham, Werribee, Williamstown and Laverton trains terminated at Flinders Street to allow for project works in the west. The 23 August timetable connected these to form a cross-city group similar to what ran involving the Frankston line. 

The August performance results included just nine days of this timetable. Thus the new pattern would have affected less than one-third of the month's performance. 

Notwithstanding this limited effect, punctuality for Werribee and Sandringham fell by about 2% between July and August 2026. 

It is too early to say whether this fall is a blip or a problem inherent to through-running a long line similar to described above for Sunbury - East Pakenham/Cranbourne. We'll have a better idea of this later in the year/early next year after sufficient data is available.  

Summary 

On most lines Metro trains are more punctual today than they were 12 years ago. However without further information it is not possible to attribute this improvement to infrastructure works such as level crossing removals or non-infrastructure factors. The Sandringham line example shows that a line can improve performance by more than the network average without large infrastructure works.   

The Metro Tunnel appears to have delivered performance improvements for non-Metro Tunnel lines such as Craigieburn and Upfield. This is due to these lines being isolated from the busy Sunbury line. However it should be noted that both these lines are still operating at half the off-peak frequency envisaged in the Day One timetable of the Metro Tunnel Business Case. 

Lines in the Metro Tunnel, conversely have had (mostly) off-peak frequency boosts but the Cranbourne and Pakenham lines have suffered more cancellations and more delays under the Metro Tunnel than when they ran through the City Loop.

This is a concern since one of the benefits of Automatic Train Control is faster recovery from delays due to its allowance of closer train spacing. Hopefully these systems are still in the refinement so that, together with targeted maintenance and operations culture improvement, they can fully offset the reliability challenges arising from the through running of long lines.

See other Timetable Tuesday items here