Building Melbourne's Useful Network Part 98: Making Caulfield a world-class Metro interchange

On Wednesday I was idly leafing through Vukan Vuchic's Urban Transit: Operations Planning & Economics (essential reading for any transit planner and if you buy it here you support this blog) and something jumped out at me. This track diagram on Page 220. 

You might have to look a bit to see what's good about it. The direction of the arrows might throw you out given we're left side drivers and our trains do the same. 

If it helps, assume that left is towards the CBD (via different lines) while the lines fan out to various suburbs to the right. And look at who can and cannot easily change between trains without having to leave the platform they are on. 

Follow the arrows. You can see that people coming toward the CBD from direction A can remain on the train if it suits. Or, if their inner-city destination is better served by Line B, they can alight at the station, and get an inbound B train, all without leaving the platform. This is because the platform is an island with citybound A and B trains leaving from opposite sides. 

Coming home? It's the same. Board Line B, alight at the station, remain on the platform and before long Train A will get you home. Again it's a simple cross-platform interchange involving no ramps, stairs or lifts. Provided trains are frequent changing is hardly an inconvenience at all. 

What about if you're the reverse? That is you live on Line B but your destination is best reached via Line A. Again it's an easy cross-platform change. And in both directions too. That makes this arrangement pretty much the gold standard as regards both capacity and accessibility. 

Best practice compared to us

The above is what world's best practice Metro system design looks like. As you'd expect Melburnians  who have seen it work overseas compare it favourably to what we have here. That is basically electrified country lines that vanish in a confusing and sometimes midday reversing CBD loop with often primitive interchange arrangements. 

Fortunately we're gradually untangling the City Loop. Currently we're two down and two to go with about a decade between big reforms. January 2021 was the most recent. 

The optimist in me says that if we get cracking we might be able to reform the Burnley Group next. That could include simpler peak stopping patterns, 10 minute interpeak services to Ringwood and a Frankston/ Werribee/ Williamstown style 20 minute maximum wait. All are cheapish upgrade that would benefit many marginal seats. It's a great opportunity to bring forward some benefits and a reason why the Minister should not listen to the 'do nothing until Melbourne Metro opens' camp when it comes to train services.

Then there's the northern group, ie Sunbury, Craigieburn and Upfield. That will almost certainly have to change when Metro Tunnel starts as the Sunbury line comes out of it to become the Metro Tunnel service. That frees up lots of capacity and should allow more even, reliable and frequent timetables. But even if that wasn't so, there is a strong case for better off-peak, evening and Sunday morning frequencies on busy lines like Craigieburn and Sunbury to happen as soon as possible. 

Priority Caulfield

Getting back to that diagram in Vuchic's book, one station jumped out at me as needing that track and platform layout, even if it had to be rebuilt. I posed the question on Twitter. 

Without clues or prompting the answers were all the same - Caulfield. 

And I think they're right. 

Right now Caulfield is not a good station for what the network asks it to do. This affects a metropolitan catchment of close to one million, including Metro lines to Frankston, Cranbourne and Pakenham and V/Line services to Gippsland. 

Caulfield will only become less fit for purpose if nothing is done due to the extra transferring that the Metro Tunnel operating patterns will necessitate. 

Caulfield currently consists of four platforms. Two are side platforms while two form a central island platform. Passengers changing between trains often need to pass in and out of barriers and go up and down ramps. And even for the minority of trips where a cross-platform change is possible the station building is sometimes in the way. 

Some computerised diagram flipping made the map look more sensible. Even more so with labels added. There's four platforms, just like now at Caulfield. Except they are on two islands rather than two sides and one island. 

With places attached you can see some real-world benefits, especially post Melbourne Metro when Dandenong trains will go through the Metro Tunnel while Frankston trains will resume to going via the City Loop. If you're a Frankston line passenger and want to go to St Kilda Rd, Flinders Street, Melbourne University, Footscray and eventually Melbourne Airport then a simple cross-platform change at Caulfield will enable it. Ditto for the trip home. No more going up and down escalators and stairs with luggage like with the current Southern Cross / Skybus connection.

Dandenong passengers wishing to go to South Yarra, Parliament or Southern Cross will have a similarly easy transfer. It is critical we get this right as these are popular destinations that are currently one-train but will involve a change when Metro Tunnel services start. Also, because rail systems tend to corral transferring passengers in inner stations such as Richmond (even if they don't strictly need to be there) it is good for long-term core capacity for transfers to be done further like at Caulfield. Especially if it is configured to permit step-free cross-platform changing as the above diagram does.   

Dandenong - Frankston interchanges aren't cross-platform in the above. Currently Dandenong up - Frankston down is conveniently cross-platform while Frankston up - Dandenong down is extremely inconveniently not. But the configuration above would be better overall with added walkways and freedom from fare barriers for train to train changes. 

Other considerations

Everything here has been about improved passenger access. Differences between the schematic map and what's actually at Caulfield have been glossed over. Most notable is the two instances where Frankston lines must cross both Dandenong lines. Doing this requires grade separated tracks to avoid trains crossing other paths and complex point switching (both of which would severely compromise capacity, scheduling flexibility and reliability). 

The diagram above also doesn't consider the three lines going to Frankston and the sidings in that direction. You can see them in more detail on the vicsig.net Frankston line guide. 

So as you can see there are complications compared to what I got out of a textbook. And the above is not the only ideas people have for Caulfield. For example the Victorian Transport Action Group has its own alternative for Caulfield which involves five platforms to create a turnback for airport rail, a holding/passing loop for freight trains and a new pedestrian concourse. 

So there are several ways to skin the Caulfield cat, each with their pros and cons. However Caulfield's strategic position on the network make an upgrade necessary like how we've rebuilt other stations like Footscray and Sunshine. While some might criticise 'taj mahal' stations elsewhere (eg did our Thomastown or Brisbane's Springfield need to be so grand?), where they handle high passenger volumes and efficiency is essential then  spending money to make them work is fine. 

Paradoxically though measures of success with transit interchanges are different to other buildings. For example successful shopping centres want people to linger longer and spend more. Whereas successful interchange stations are the opposite. They're almost unobtrusive, getting passengers in and out as quickly as possible while keeping them safe and not being rained on. 

A truly useful transit network requires deeper attention to matters like within-station interchange than has hitherto been given for both capacity and accessibility reasons. We can do things with better ramps, underpasses and overpasses but of the various possibilities cross-platform interchange between frequent services is the 'gold standard'. A side-benefit is that if we make this transfer painless then peoples' willingness to make more complex trips involving other connections, including to buses, will probably increase. My theory is that people have a fixed 'hassle budget' and if it's too hard then they'll just not make the trip or drive instead.

It is encouraging that the 2021 state budget has provided funding for track upgrades near Caulfield and improved interchange connections. Although some have expressed concern that removing points (apparently necessary for high capacity signalling) reduces operational flexibility, especially during disruptions. It is important that the scope for this project includes consideration of revised track and platform layout that could improve interchange. 

More for Caulfield?

I've covered train to train transfers. What else does Caulfield Station need? 

Intermodal connectivity. It's currently terrible to the 3/3a tram. And the 900 bus could be closer. The best interchanges have connections under the one roof with transfer distances measured in steps, not hundreds of metres. 

Melbourne needs to kick the habit of providing only single exits from station platforms as this reduces a station's pedshed. Especially in high density areas like South Yarra and what Caulfield is becoming. Each platform needs a minimum of two and preferably three exits (ends plus centre). To that I'd add numerous others like Camberwell, Frankston, Werribee and Glenhuntly. 

And we need high quality connections to Caulfield from some directions, most notably the north, north-east and perhaps the south-west. Currently, if they exist at all they are just buses every 30 to 60 minutes stuck in traffic. Useful Network Part 41 describes how we can do this economically with buses although I'm quite partial to other concepts like extending the Alamein line about 4km to Caulfield to get the speeds desirable for some of these connections.

After that there is land use. For one of the most accessible large parcels of land in Melbourne, Caulfield Racecourse is grossly underused. And there is demand for open space in nearby densifying Glenhuntly which has too little. Both are 'higher and better' uses for the racecourse site than the occasional horse race or exhibition that is currently there. Low-car development that moves the racing out, intensifies development in the part near the station and adds full time accessible public space in the Glen Huntly area appears highly desirable given the excellent access it will have (including not only Metro Tunnel but also Melbourne Airport a few years later). 

Conclusion

What are your thoughts on Caulfield? Is having flying junctions a too high price to pay for the convenience of bidirectional cross-platform interchange? Would you prefer the (likely cheaper) VTAG scheme? Should there be more emphasis on a low cost multimode component to bring both the tram (eg rerouting via Sir John Monash Drive) and buses closer? And, perhaps more importantly, are there lessons in this for Suburban Rail Loop interchange stations? Thoughts are appreciated and can be left below. 

PS: Useful Networks for other areas are here.