The Department of Transport has released concept images for the redevelopment Carnegie, Murrumbeena and Clayton Stations as part of the Cranbourne-Pakenham Rail Corridor Project.

Below is the draft for Carnegie Station:


More detailed concept images on Carnegie and the other stations can be viewed here.

More information on providing feedback on the drafts for the new stations, and the project itself can be found here.

I've seen that. The plan for Clayton station is to have it moved to the west side of Clayton Road in the cutting. I'm curious as to the design of Murrumbeena. The big issue at Murrumbeena has always been the Neerim Road intersection that is bisected by the railway line leading to huge delays. With the design of the new Murrumbeena, the intersection has been left basically as is, and S bend although the current traffic flow will be somewhat fixed by lack of a train line through the intersection. One wonders why they couldn't have connected the two ends of Neerim Road across the top of the cutting? The plans will free up traffic and trains but construction will be disruptive and will involved shutting down the train lines for up to six weeks for major construction. Traffic between Oakleigh & Caulfield with all those buses will be horrendous for that period of time.

There is no room for quadruplication tracks to Dandenong

Quadruplication tracks - would allow for better express services on the Line.

They're making a huge mistake not allowing for future amplification. Going ahead with these plans will prevent any additional tracks being added. Does the government realise that the line is already running at capacity and the small batch of new trains will only do so much to fix this.

They're making a huge mistake not allowing for future amplification. Going ahead with these plans will prevent any additional tracks being added. Does the government realise that the line is already running at capacity and the small batch of new trains will only do so much to fix this.

It could also throw a spanner in the works for the much touted Port of Hastings rail line connection to Dynon, should it ever come to fruition.

Without the dedicated freight/regional rail lines on that corridor, all matter of hell would break loose once the line reaches capacity.

Talk about shooting yourselves in the foot!

It could also throw a spanner in the works for the much touted Port of Hastings rail line connection to Dynon, should it ever come to fruition.

Without the dedicated freight/regional rail lines on that corridor, all matter of hell would break loose once the line reaches capacity.

Talk about shooting yourselves in the foot!

Yeah it's strange isn't it? The rebuilds of Springvale & Westall in recent years has allowed for track amplification. But there is a distinct lack of real estate between Oakleigh & Caulfield although early signal diagrams of Oakleigh showed a siding to the south of the Platform 1 track so maybe there is room there. There is probably room for a third track between Hughesdale & Oakleigh where the Outer Circle line used to be (to the north of existing tracks) however this would likely be eliminated when the line is put in a cutting at Hughesdale. One would assume that there might be room for a third track between Hughesdale & Caulfield if the designs for the other two stations make allowances. Beyond Caulfield is really difficult. And I'll throw this into the mix; if a line through a tunnel is ever completed between Alamein & Oakleigh via Chadstone SC that will also take up a bit of track-space.

A report in The Age this morning highlighted the difficulties of threading a new freight line through the inner suburbs for the Hastings development.

Yeah it's strange isn't it? The rebuilds of Springvale & Westall in recent years has allowed for track amplification. But there is a distinct lack of real estate between Oakleigh & Caulfield although early signal diagrams of Oakleigh showed a siding to the south of the Platform 1 track so maybe there is room there. There is probably room for a third track between Hughesdale & Oakleigh where the Outer Circle line used to be (to the north of existing tracks) however this would likely be eliminated when the line is put in a cutting at Hughesdale. One would assume that there might be room for a third track between Hughesdale & Caulfield if the designs for the other two stations make allowances. Beyond Caulfield is really difficult. And I'll throw this into the mix; if a line through a tunnel is ever completed between Alamein & Oakleigh via Chadstone SC that will also take up a bit of track-space.

A report in The Age this morning highlighted the difficulties of threading a new freight line through the inner suburbs for the Hastings development.

I tend to agree with you, bring the Gippsland line in through the still existing Rail Corridor at East Malvern. A number of rail crossings are propose to be elminated on the Glen Waverley line.  Or  tunnel under East Malvern station and bring it out onto the existing permanent way to the Alamien Line.  Get rid of Alamein station and make that short section to Ashburton double track. Time for the railways to reinvent themselves................

What is it with Dennis making it underground
Have some charm in the stations
I think were are going to have
All stations underground
Like a prison

The lack of planning for an extra two express tracks on either the north or south sides of the station is really poor, but not surprising given that MTM is part of the proposal team. They don't appear to see V/Line and Gippsland freight customers as anything but existing cash cows to be milked once they have *exclusive* control over the Dandenong corridor.

Feedback wanted? ? ? ? ?

Like the feedback they're getting about the East-West tunnel ? ? ?

While trains to Footscray have 6 tracks with the new Regional Rail Link and many suburban lines in Sydney have 6 tracks and station platforms. They could quadruplicate the lines such as Box Hill and Dandenong it is only 4 tracks. Why do the western suburbs get 6 where the south and east do not even have 4 tracks.

Considering the concentration of V/Line and metropolitan train services to the west and south-west of Melbourne against those to the south-eastern side of town, there is a justification for having six tracks.

I tend to agree with you, bring the Gippsland line in through the still existing Rail Corridor at East Malvern. A number of rail crossings are propose to be elminated on the Glen Waverley line. Or tunnel under East Malvern station and bring it out onto the existing permanent way to the Alamien Line. Get rid of Alamein station and make that short section to Ashburton double track. Time for the railways to reinvent themselves................

Much agreed on the re-routing of Gippsland services via East Malvern and then onto the Glen Waverley corridor. As for linking it through to Alamein and then beyond, it would only be able to work if the line is quadruplicated between Camberwell and Burnley; although I do have concerns whether it would cause timetabling and capacity issues during the peak.

Am I reading the concept plan for Clayton correctly?

One platform will be at the existing station site and then the other platform is on the west?

Surely not? Will there at least be an underground connection between the two? Or do they expect people to just keep pressing the button and waiting 10 minutes to cross a major road just to access the other side?

Nunawading did well in eliminating the need for this.

Considering the concentration of V/Line and metropolitan train services to the west and south-west of Melbourne against those to the south-eastern side of town, there is a justification for having six tracks.


Much agreed on the re-routing of Gippsland services via East Malvern and then onto the Glen Waverley corridor. As for linking it through to Alamein and then beyond, it would only be able to work if the line is quadruplicated between Camberwell and Burnley; although I do have concerns whether it would cause timetabling and capacity issues during the peak.

I should have clarified my Alamein link idea. This was to be for a cross-suburban service between Camberwell & Oakleigh. Basically a 15 min frequency shuttle between the two stations via Chadstone SC & East Malvern station. Freights would obviously go via Caulfield which probably wouldn't have been a problem if Metro 1 ever gets off the ground (tunnel from Caulfield to South Kensington).

The Caufleid corridor seems to be handling the Marysville & Long Island freights ok at the moment as most of these tend to go through at night when there is less traffic. Not sure how it would cope with the additional freights from Hastings if that ever gets built. There is a real need for a third track to handle VLine pax from Dandenong to Caulfield. You would think that the new station designs would accommodate this.

Am I reading the concept plan for Clayton correctly?

One platform will be at the existing station site and then the other platform is on the west?

Surely not? Will there at least be an underground connection between the two? Or do they expect people to just keep pressing the button and waiting 10 minutes to cross a major road just to access the other side?

Nunawading did well in eliminating the need for this.

I am not sure that any of the three stations will have the capability of passengers to go under the road adjacent to the tracks.

There is nothing worse than waiting for a gap in the traffic to cross the road and seeing your bus sail past on the other side of the road!

Please make your concerns known on the Feedback Survey. I have just responded, and my points were
- provision should be made for triple tracking (as was done for the Middleborough Road project), so peak-direction Pakenham and Vline passengers  can travel express through the inner stations, as on the Eastern line
- bus stops adjacent to station entrances rather than some distance away
- any development over the railway station (not yet in the plans but could be added later) should allow in natural light, to a avoid a dingy replica of Box Hill


http://www.transport.vic.gov.au/projects/cranbourne-pakenham-rail-corridor-project/community-consultations

I rarely venture over to this side of town, but I've noticed many stations have ample room between platforms for an additional through line. Why don't they use these for over-taking/express suburban/vlp/freight traffic?

I rarely venture over to this side of town, but I've noticed many stations have ample room between platforms for an additional through line. Why don't they use these for over-taking/express suburban/vlp/freight traffic?

What stations ?

Caulfield and Oakleigh !

They're making a huge mistake not allowing for future amplification. Going ahead with these plans will prevent any additional tracks being added. Does the government realise that the line is already running at capacity and the small batch of new trains will only do so much to fix this.

How Is this a case of not allowing for future amplification and preventing additional tracks been added ?
Lack of vacant line side real estate makes railway corridor expansion very expensive, so the Intention Is only to rebuild the corridor as the current 2 track format (to go 4 tracks would require a big buy up of adjoining properties to expand the width of the railway corridor, as per RRL at Footscray)      

The project the Government proposes Is mostly a road congestion relief project (eliminating level crossing that get blocked for a great % of the time during peak travel times)

Removing these problem crossings opens the door to run extra trains during peak travel time, without cutting suburbs In two.

As for reducing travel time from Melbourne to Dandenong visa versa by full line speed express trains, well that Is In the way to hard basket !
There may be express trains but their journey times would be the same as stop all stations trains ~ 40 km/h average there about (though these days the Monash freeway gets slower than that during the peak !)

As I see it, the major pinch points for a third track are the existing platforms and station buildings.  If these are going to be demolished anyway for significantly lowered tracks, then the new platforms can be further apart to allow an additional track.  I agree that this is about having more frequent trains while reducing the impact on motorists.  What I contend is that it does not do anything to help support express and freight services.  I am talking about Vline trains and suburban expresses being caught behind all stations stoppers and the complexities of timetabling this and the cascading effects if one train is delayed.

With Westernport set to become a major international freight hub, the ability to run freight during the day to and from the Port of Melbourne will also require appropriate pathing.  I must confess that, having read the CIS for the East-West Toll Road, I know this link is really about moving this freight by road, but wouldn't it be nice if the Eastern Freeway was not clogged with tax payer subsidised B-doubles and B-triples

I can assure you that there are an order of magnitude more single occupant four-wheeled vehicles clogging up the Eastern than the odd truck (or bus, for that matter).

Why aren't they duplicating the Cranbourne line between Dandenong and Lynbrook? That area is a major bottleneck and has gotten worse since the new timetable, some trains can now be up to 10 minutes late because of the Cranbourne bound train that is usually the culprit, gets held up somewhere. Also they should get around to building a 4th platform at Dandenong for city bound trains from Cranbourne as part of the duplication.

I don't believe a 4th platform is needed at this stage but duplication from Dandenong to Lynbrook is an absolute necessity.

I don't believe a 4th platform is needed at this stage but duplication from Dandenong to Lynbrook is an absolute necessity.

Duplicate the whole line from Dandenong to Cranbourne, that's the only way to do it properly and throw in a few level crossing separations too given the level of development in the area. Funnily enough Merinda Park station is already set up for duplication - it was actually built with two platform faces so it will become and island station.

Nah put Merinda Park in a cutting because that pedestrian crossing is annoying.