No, not because you might get matchete attacked.

Your train might not make it

---

Link for story?     :-/

1. Lack of flexibility across the network
Because the tunnel uses platform screen doors and precise stopping systems, only HCMTs can run through it. That means Melbourne can’t just send any available train through the tunnel if there’s a disruption. Critics argue this reduces operational flexibility compared to a more “mixed fleet” system.
2. Fleet fragmentation
Melbourne already has multiple train types (Comeng, Siemens, X’Trapolis), and the tunnel effectively creates a separate “sub-network” that only one fleet can use. Some transport analysts say this makes maintenance, scheduling, and upgrades more complicated over time.
3. Future procurement constraints
If the city buys new trains later, they’ll either have to:
match the HCMT design very closely, or
accept that those trains won’t be able to use the tunnel
That limits competitive procurement and could increase costs or reduce options.
4. Platform screen doors = permanent lock-in
The platform screen doors are a big part of the criticism. They improve safety and allow higher-frequency “metro-style” service—but they also require exact door alignment, which effectively locks in train dimensions and door placement for decades.
5. “Only part of the fleet can use the flagship tunnel”
Some critics frame it as a poor return on investment: a multibillion-dollar tunnel that only a subset of trains can use. Supporters counter that it’s not meant to serve every train—it’s meant to run a dedicated high-capacity corridor.
6. Risk during disruptions
In a disruption (e.g., breakdown, maintenance), operators have fewer fallback options. You can’t just reroute a different train type through the tunnel, which could make incident recovery slower.

1. Lack of flexibility across the network
Because the tunnel uses platform screen doors and precise stopping systems, only HCMTs can run through it. That means Melbourne can’t just send any available train through the tunnel if there’s a disruption. Critics argue this reduces operational flexibility compared to a more “mixed fleet” system.
2. Fleet fragmentation
Melbourne already has multiple train types (Comeng, Siemens, X’Trapolis), and the tunnel effectively creates a separate “sub-network” that only one fleet can use. Some transport analysts say this makes maintenance, scheduling, and upgrades more complicated over time.
3. Future procurement constraints
If the city buys new trains later, they’ll either have to:
match the HCMT design very closely, or
accept that those trains won’t be able to use the tunnel
That limits competitive procurement and could increase costs or reduce options.
4. Platform screen doors = permanent lock-in
The platform screen doors are a big part of the criticism. They improve safety and allow higher-frequency “metro-style” service—but they also require exact door alignment, which effectively locks in train dimensions and door placement for decades.
5. “Only part of the fleet can use the flagship tunnel”
Some critics frame it as a poor return on investment: a multibillion-dollar tunnel that only a subset of trains can use. Supporters counter that it’s not meant to serve every train—it’s meant to run a dedicated high-capacity corridor.
6. Risk during disruptions
In a disruption (e.g., breakdown, maintenance), operators have fewer fallback options. You can’t just reroute a different train type through the tunnel, which could make incident recovery slower.

So good , I posted it twice

aquascoot wrote on Apr 28^th, 2026 at 5:55pm:

No, not because you might get matchete attacked. Your train might not make it

What does any of this have to do with getting "matchete (machete) attacked"?

And, please learn how to resize your pictures.

Forgiven.

Namaste.

:)

Carl D wrote on Apr 28^th, 2026 at 10:54pm:

aquascoot wrote on Apr 28th, 2026 at 5:55pm: No, not because you might get matchete attacked. Your train might not make it What does any of this have to do with getting "matchete (machete) attacked"?

Really Carl? It’s obvious, Melbourne is notorious with repeated machete attacks and train travel to outer city burbs has spread the attacks.
Tongue in cheek by Aqua re: trains… 

aquascoot wrote on Apr 28^th, 2026 at 6:31pm:

1. Lack of flexibility across the network Because the tunnel uses platform screen doors and precise stopping systems, only HCMTs can run through it. That means Melbourne can’t just send any available train through the tunnel if there’s a disruption. Critics argue this reduces operational flexibility compared to a more “mixed fleet” system. 2. Fleet fragmentation Melbourne already has multiple train types (Comeng, Siemens, X’Trapolis), and the tunnel effectively creates a separate “sub-network” that only one fleet can use. Some transport analysts say this makes maintenance, scheduling, and upgrades more complicated over time. 3. Future procurement constraints If the city buys new trains later, they’ll either have to: match the HCMT design very closely, or accept that those trains won’t be able to use the tunnel That limits competitive procurement and could increase costs or reduce options. 4. Platform screen doors = permanent lock-in The platform screen doors are a big part of the criticism. They improve safety and allow higher-frequency “metro-style” service—but they also require exact door alignment, which effectively locks in train dimensions and door placement for decades. 5. “Only part of the fleet can use the flagship tunnel” Some critics frame it as a poor return on investment: a multibillion-dollar tunnel that only a subset of trains can use. Supporters counter that it’s not meant to serve every train—it’s meant to run a dedicated high-capacity corridor. 6. Risk during disruptions In a disruption (e.g., breakdown, maintenance), operators have fewer fallback options. You can’t just reroute a different train type through the tunnel, which could make incident recovery slower.

Some experts need to go back to using old fashioned tape measures!

Sophia wrote on Apr 28^th, 2026 at 11:54pm:

Really Carl? It’s obvious, Melbourne is notorious with repeated machete attacks and train travel to outer city burbs has spread the attacks. Tongue in cheek by Aqua re: trains…

Good evening Sophia.

Nah, I'd much prefer to go along with something like:

"Lame attempt at trolling (as usual) by Aqua".

:)

Carl D wrote on Apr 29^th, 2026 at 12:01am:

Sophia wrote on Apr 28th, 2026 at 11:54pm: Really Carl? It’s obvious, Melbourne is notorious with repeated machete attacks and train travel to outer city burbs has spread the attacks. Tongue in cheek by Aqua re: trains…  Good evening Sophia. Nah, I'd much prefer to go along with something like: "Lame attempt at trolling (as usual) by Aqua". :)

Still no link -
resized for Aqua.   ::)


https://www.ozpolitic.com/album/forum-attachments/FB_IMG_1777361638371.jpg

aquascoot wrote on Apr 28^th, 2026 at 6:30pm:

1. Lack of flexibility across the network Because the tunnel uses platform screen doors and precise stopping systems, only HCMTs can run through it. That means Melbourne can’t just send any available train through the tunnel if there’s a disruption. Critics argue this reduces operational flexibility compared to a more “mixed fleet” system. 2. Fleet fragmentation Melbourne already has multiple train types (Comeng, Siemens, X’Trapolis), and the tunnel effectively creates a separate “sub-network” that only one fleet can use. Some transport analysts say this makes maintenance, scheduling, and upgrades more complicated over time. 3. Future procurement constraints If the city buys new trains later, they’ll either have to: match the HCMT design very closely, or accept that those trains won’t be able to use the tunnel That limits competitive procurement and could increase costs or reduce options. 4. Platform screen doors = permanent lock-in The platform screen doors are a big part of the criticism. They improve safety and allow higher-frequency “metro-style” service—but they also require exact door alignment, which effectively locks in train dimensions and door placement for decades. 5. “Only part of the fleet can use the flagship tunnel” Some critics frame it as a poor return on investment: a multibillion-dollar tunnel that only a subset of trains can use. Supporters counter that it’s not meant to serve every train—it’s meant to run a dedicated high-capacity corridor. 6. Risk during disruptions In a disruption (e.g., breakdown, maintenance), operators have fewer fallback options. You can’t just reroute a different train type through the tunnel, which could make incident recovery slower.

They have a Department of Transport and Planning (DTP), don't you know.  THey have worked hard to achieve yet another cock-up. It takes dedication and effort. Oh, yes.

"DTP is part of the state government and works together with local councils in Victoria to implement the objectives of planning. Each council in Victoria has its own planning scheme which it uses to help deliver planning objectives."

Sophia wrote on Apr 28^th, 2026 at 11:55pm:

aquascoot wrote on Apr 28th, 2026 at 6:31pm: 1. Lack of flexibility across the network Because the tunnel uses platform screen doors and precise stopping systems, only HCMTs can run through it. That means Melbourne can’t just send any available train through the tunnel if there’s a disruption. Critics argue this reduces operational flexibility compared to a more “mixed fleet” system. 2. Fleet fragmentation Melbourne already has multiple train types (Comeng, Siemens, X’Trapolis), and the tunnel effectively creates a separate “sub-network” that only one fleet can use. Some transport analysts say this makes maintenance, scheduling, and upgrades more complicated over time. 3. Future procurement constraints If the city buys new trains later, they’ll either have to: match the HCMT design very closely, or accept that those trains won’t be able to use the tunnel That limits competitive procurement and could increase costs or reduce options. 4. Platform screen doors = permanent lock-in The platform screen doors are a big part of the criticism. They improve safety and allow higher-frequency “metro-style” service—but they also require exact door alignment, which effectively locks in train dimensions and door placement for decades. 5. “Only part of the fleet can use the flagship tunnel” Some critics frame it as a poor return on investment: a multibillion-dollar tunnel that only a subset of trains can use. Supporters counter that it’s not meant to serve every train —it’s meant to run a dedicated high-capacity corridor. 6. Risk during disruptions In a disruption (e.g., breakdown, maintenance), operators have fewer fallback options. You can’t just reroute a different train type through the tunnel, which could make incident recovery slower. Some experts need to go back to using old fashioned tape measures!

Oh really ?




WWW search....
WOKE admission standard for engineering degrees
universities....lowering admission standard for engineering degrees

The Equity Illusion Why Lowering Standards Doesn't Help
Admission pathways Engineering UNSW Sydney
University lowers entry score for female applicants in engineering, computing and construction degrees





Quote:

The ATAR cut-off for every university course revealed Christopher Harris and Nigel Gladstone December 21, 2023 University entry scores for some engineering, health science and mathematics education degrees have dropped by more than 10 points this year, with institutions accepting lower marks on average...

https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/the-atar-cut-off-for-every-university-course-revealed-20231220-p5estk.html



QUESTION;
Where are the locations of the bridges that these recent graduate engineers have built !!! ?



p.s.

STANDARDS [or, the lack thereof.......

Our society......doesn't need to sentence violent criminals for long imprisonment terms, either.

We can just release them into the community after a year or two 'inside',
and then 'carefully' 'manage' their 'rehabilitation'....into the community.

/sarc off




Where is ARMCHAIR ???              ;D

Now  know why Richard Marles called Bushmaster vehicle a "battle taxi", it is good choice for commuting in Victoria  ;)

https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/640x480q70/922/idEXhi.jpg