Are you being served? Commentary on the service aspects of public transport in Melbourne, Australia. Covers networks, routes, timetables, planning, co-ordination, information, marketing and more.
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 Craigieburnlocalbuses 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.
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
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. Or what will happen to Night Network services (which are currently operated on Route 357).
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.
It has become quite common for growth area bus routes to be upgraded or even start off with a 20 minute off-peak service at least on weekdays. As opposed to previously typical 40 - 60 minute frequencies. Examples can be found in Werribee, Tarneit, Craigieburn, Diggers Rest, Cranbourne and Clyde. There are however some variations in that 20 minute weekend service is found on some Werribee, Tarneit and Cranbourne routes whereas in Craigieburn and Diggers Rest a 40 minute weekend service is the norm. It looks like Wollert will be following the 20 minute weekday/40 minute weekend pattern with this explicitly stated for the new Route 335 (which replaces all of 577 and part of 357).
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.
The wider network
This area 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. The consultation does not mention the possibility of reforming that for improved directness and a simpler and better connected 20 minute frequency. It would be desirable if the Wollert changes also simplify buses in this part of Epping.
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.
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
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).
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.
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.
