|
aquascoot
|
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.
|