Sky rail for Pakenham Cranbourne line outlined

 
Topic moved from News by bevans on 13 Jan 2016 16:51
  falconea Station Master

Agree with your conjecture. The obvious place to put two additional lines is *between* the viaducts they are building now. Just have to reconstruct the stations to be on the outside of the lines and not on the insides as they are building now.

Sponsored advertisement

  Carnot Chief Commissioner

^^I gather that future quadruplicating would mainly be an issue in the inner suburban section.
  falconea Station Master

Out of curiosity, have you enquired about the VPS? If so what has the process been like?
steve195
We haven't - not interested in selling. Have seen comments from neighbours that no-one in Railway Parade, Murrumbeena has been eligible because there is a road between the houses and the works. I don't know if this is true. If it is it greatly eliminates applications on the south side of the line, much of which has road between the houses and the line.

We bought the house 20 years ago knowing that one day something would be done about the level crossings and that we probably wouldn't like the disruption of the works. We weren't anticipating so much shade on the house and garden, however!

Losing all the trees is upsetting. I really wished they'd just gone and taken them all out in one go, rather than the "take a few this weekend, a few a month later, a few a month later" approach they used. The big lemon scented gum was obviously going to have to go but they left it until last! (It was not a local native. Nice tree, though.)
  Crossover Train Controller

Location: St. Albans Victoria
Out of curiosity, have you enquired about the VPS? If so what has the process been like?
We haven't - not interested in selling. Have seen comments from neighbours that no-one in Railway Parade, Murrumbeena has been eligible because there is a road between the houses and the works. I don't know if this is true. If it is it greatly eliminates applications on the south side of the line, much of which has road between the houses and the line.

We bought the house 20 years ago knowing that one day something would be done about the level crossings and that we probably wouldn't like the disruption of the works. We weren't anticipating so much shade on the house and garden, however!

Losing all the trees is upsetting. I really wished they'd just gone and taken them all out in one go, rather than the "take a few this weekend, a few a month later, a few a month later" approach they used. The big lemon scented gum was obviously going to have to go but they left it until last! (It was not a local native. Nice tree, though.)
I agree; Trees add an enormous amount to an area .
       I live in St Albans South and I must say I am impressed that the team seem to have really made an effort to keep as many trees as possible here . I thought a lot more would be removed than have been .
  Adogs Chief Train Controller

What views have the residents voiced regarding additional noise?  Has the EIS addressed this?
bevans

I read something or other from the LXRA that said the viaduct would actually be less noisy than what's there now.

Overseas (or at least, in Hong Kong), I've seen noise reduction being touted as a reason FOR putting rail up on viaducts.
  TheMeddlingMonk Deputy Commissioner

Location: The Time Vortex near Melbourne, Australia
What views have the residents voiced regarding additional noise?  Has the EIS addressed this?

I read something or other from the LXRA that said the viaduct would actually be less noisy than what's there now.

Overseas (or at least, in Hong Kong), I've seen noise reduction being touted as a reason FOR putting rail up on viaducts.
Adogs
From what I remember of physics, it should be less noisy. The primary sources of noise will be the wheel-rail interface and (for the majority of traffic - Metro services) the traction motors in the driven bogies (diesel engines for the V/Line and frieght services).

The higher frequency sounds will not diffract easily around the barriers on the sides of the viaducts (same principle as the sound barriers you see along highways and freeways) and so should be reduced in contrast to the current situation.

Lower frequency sounds will diffract around, but they too should be reduced (although not as much) since it's no longer a direct line-of-sight between the rails and residents (at bare minimum there will be the derailment barriers).

Noise from locomotive-hauled freight and passenger services is likely to be the least reduced of all, I suspect. Of course, those near level crossing shouldn't need to put up with the horns anymore, either.
  woodford Chief Commissioner

What views have the residents voiced regarding additional noise?  Has the EIS addressed this?

I read something or other from the LXRA that said the viaduct would actually be less noisy than what's there now.

Overseas (or at least, in Hong Kong), I've seen noise reduction being touted as a reason FOR putting rail up on viaducts.
Adogs
From what I remember of physics, it should be less noisy. The primary sources of noise will be the wheel-rail interface and (for the majority of traffic - Metro services) the traction motors in the driven bogies (diesel engines for the V/Line and frieght services).

The higher frequency sounds will not diffract easily around the barriers on the sides of the viaducts (same principle as the sound barriers you see along highways and freeways) and so should be reduced in contrast to the current situation.

Lower frequency sounds will diffract around, but they too should be reduced (although not as much) since it's no longer a direct line-of-sight between the rails and residents (at bare minimum there will be the derailment barriers).

Noise from locomotive-hauled freight and passenger services is likely to be the least reduced of all, I suspect. Of course, those near level crossing shouldn't need to put up with the horns anymore, either.
"TheMeddlingMonk"


I think you will find noise from the final result will NOT be an issue a MASSIVE amount of research on this particularly subject has been done specially in Britian where noise from new structures like this is strictly controled particularly at night. The viaducts themselves will contribute to this noise reduction along with the fences along there sides.

woodford
  MetroFemme Chief Train Controller

The ALP intends developing and running their own marketing campaign for the sky rail on the Frankston line where they have a few marginal seats. Why is there is a need for a sky rail in a sandbelt area where tunnelling is far cheaper than it is in areas where rocks are more prevalent.

Digging out sand for those level crossings should not be expensive.
  steve195 Train Controller

The ALP intends developing and running their own marketing campaign for the sky rail on the Frankston line where they have a few marginal seats. Why is there is a need for a sky rail in a sandbelt area where tunnelling is far cheaper than it is in areas where rocks are more prevalent.

Digging out sand for those level crossings should not be expensive.
MetroFemme
No level crossings are being removed by tunnelling afaik.

Digging out sand is not the problem, keeping the water out is.
  lkernan Deputy Commissioner

Location: Melbourne
Digging out sand for those level crossings should not be expensive.
MetroFemme

It's not, but it's also not a good substance for building a long lasting tunnel or trench in.
Anyone who went to the beach as a kid knows that.
  LancedDendrite Chief Commissioner

Location: North Haverbrook; where the monorail is king!
Digging out sand for those level crossings should not be expensive.
MetroFemme
On the other hand, dealing with a high local watertable is hellishly expensive.
  lkernan Deputy Commissioner

Location: Melbourne
Some good overviews have been posted on the levelcrossings Youtube channel.

http://tinyurl.com/zt3heec

edit: tinyurl to avoid confusing the Railpage Youtube filter.
  Adogs Chief Train Controller

Digging out sand for those level crossings should not be expensive.
On the other hand, dealing with a high local watertable is hellishly expensive.
LancedDendrite

As is pumping water out of a concrete box trench, below sea level, 50m from the beach, every time it rains.
  LancedDendrite Chief Commissioner

Location: North Haverbrook; where the monorail is king!
...which is why offering a 'bathtub trench' alternative to elevated rail during the community consultation period is so silly. It's not a practical solution and the locals get all of the upside (no overshadowing, better bay sightlines) and none of the downside.

Perhaps if the residents pick the trench option, they should help pay for the flood insurance?
  woodford Chief Commissioner

The ALP intends developing and running their own marketing campaign for the sky rail on the Frankston line where they have a few marginal seats. Why is there is a need for a sky rail in a sandbelt area where tunnelling is far cheaper than it is in areas where rocks are more prevalent.

Digging out sand for those level crossings should not be expensive.
MetroFemme
It is though, sand is NOT self supporting, so some sort of VERY good support MUST be provided before any excavations can even start.

The problem then is what would effectively be required on the Frankston line would be an underwater tunnel, one of THE most expensive ways of doing such things. Remember sand is effectively transparent to water.

Another problem all underground structures need drainage and often such structures when built will muck up the area's water table so anyone surviving on wells or bores are often out of luck. This happened when they dug the Severn tunnel most wells on the southern side dried up completely.

woodford
  LancedDendrite Chief Commissioner

Location: North Haverbrook; where the monorail is king!
Another problem all underground structures need drainage and often such structures when built will muck up the area's water table so anyone surviving on wells or bores are often out of luck. This happened when they dug the Severn tunnel most wells on the southern side dried up completely.
woodford
I did note that on several of the videos for the Frankston Line 8 (FL8) that the LXRA was doing comprehensive Environmental Effects Statements (and presumably studies connected to them). The effects of trenching on the drainage of local wetlands might allow the LXRA to put the kibosh on the bathtub trench option regardless of the local's feelpinions on the matter.
  Adogs Chief Train Controller

Another problem all underground structures need drainage and often such structures when built will muck up the area's water table so anyone surviving on wells or bores are often out of luck. This happened when they dug the Severn tunnel most wells on the southern side dried up completely.
I did note that on several of the videos for the Frankston Line 8 (FL8) that the LXRA was doing comprehensive Environmental Effects Statements (and presumably studies connected to them). The effects of trenching on the drainage of local wetlands might allow the LXRA to put the kibosh on the bathtub trench option regardless of the local's feelpinions on the matter.
LancedDendrite

Not sure that a trench would actually affect the wetlands - from memory the wetlands fill almost entirely from the other direction (ie whatever isn't funnelled into the Patterson Cut).

I am a Seaford local and I support the elevated option.  TBH I feel like a lot of locals do - most people can work out that the trench option is ridiculously unfeasible for the reasons cited above.  

The Libs seem to have mobilised a lot of the same volunteers who put up Vote for XYZ posters in their yards to also put up the NoSkyRail ones, or maybe that's confirmation bias in my observation.

I agree that the visual aspect is a negative.  But that's about it - in literally everything other area (cost/engineering) the elevated option is preferable.

Unless they're putting it up for debate so they can show it's not doable, offering the Bathtub Option to locals is crazy...  It gets their hopes up about something that simply isn't going to work for the amount of money they would spend on it.
  Steamboat Willie Beginner

Digging out sand for those level crossings should not be expensive.
On the other hand, dealing with a high local watertable is hellishly expensive.
LancedDendrite
And with sea level rise likely to be 300-600 mm by 2100, possibly a lot higher and growing faster each century, progressively more expensive.  Seems to make sense to elevate the rail.
  Nightfire Minister for Railways

Location: Gippsland
And with sea level rise likely to be 300-600 mm by 2100, possibly a lot higher and growing faster each century, progressively more expensive.  Seems to make sense to elevate the rail.
Steamboat Willie
If these doomsday predictions come true, Port Phillip Bay has the ability to have a dyke built across the heads with locks and pumps controlling the movement of water, ships/boats and marine life.
  falconea Station Master

If these doomsday predictions come true, Port Phillip Bay has the ability to have a dyke built across the heads with locks and pumps controlling the movement of water, ships/boats and marine life.
Nightfire

Not possible - 3 major rivers empty out into Port Phillip Bay.

Audrey
  Nightfire Minister for Railways

Location: Gippsland
If these doomsday predictions come true, Port Phillip Bay has the ability to have a dyke built across the heads with locks and pumps controlling the movement of water, ships/boats and marine life.

Not possible - 3 major rivers empty out into Port Phillip Bay.

Audrey
falconea
Flood gates would be open during low tide and closed during high tide.

Have you been to the Netherlands and surrounding lowlands to see how they deal with the "Nord Zee" (North Sea) ?
  falconea Station Master

Flood gates would be open during low tide and closed during high tide.

Have you been to the Netherlands and surrounding lowlands to see how they deal with the "Nord Zee" (North Sea) ?
Nightfire

I am aware of the solutions in the Netherlands and have seen some of the dykes.

Don't think dykes will be any more popular than a skyrail along the Frankston line! Nor can we afford it.

Also only offers protection for sea level rises of up to a metre or so. More than that and we're screwed. (Which we will be anyway.)
  jdekorte Deputy Commissioner

Location: Near Caulfield Station
I had a look at the Carrum videos that LXRA put up, some interesting options here although it's all based on elevating the rail due to Patterson River/Kananook Ck, and the bay.

Apparently locals would like an additional road bridge built linking Station St across the Patterson River which on paper looks entirely feasible. They also want the Carrum stabling sidings removed which may have to happen with elevated rail. One thing that puzzles me is that I've heard that the Carrum sidings, along with Mordialloc & Frankston are due to be moved anyway when the Baxter facility is built. Is it possible that they might get started on Baxter at the same time these other projects are on the go? Wouldn't this also necessitate removing the level crossing at McMahons Rd near Monash Uni and rebuilding Leawarra Station? Sorry for the speculation but I can't help seeing that all these projects are ultimately linked. These level crossing projects would also be getting started at the same time the Frankston Station precinct renewal is underway - major construction starting next year.
  Steamboat Willie Beginner

And with sea level rise likely to be 300-600 mm by 2100, possibly a lot higher and growing faster each century, progressively more expensive.  Seems to make sense to elevate the rail.
If these doomsday predictions come true, Port Phillip Bay has the ability to have a dyke built across the heads with locks and pumps controlling the movement of water, ships/boats and marine life.
Nightfire
Unfortunately those were the baseline predictions in a low emission environment.  If we continue with business as usual add another 400 mm, plus up to 1140 +/- 360 mm if the West Antarctic Ice Shelf breaks up, plus Greenland etc.  On the other hand there will no longer be any NIMBYs along that stretch of line and the line had better go further than Frankston.
  Nightfire Minister for Railways

Location: Gippsland
Flood gates would be open during low tide and closed during high tide.

Have you been to the Netherlands and surrounding lowlands to see how they deal with the "Nord Zee" (North Sea) ?

I am aware of the solutions in the Netherlands and have seen some of the dykes.

Don't think dykes will be any more popular than a skyrail along the Frankston line! Nor can we afford it.

Also only offers protection for sea level rises of up to a metre or so. More than that and we're screwed. (Which we will be anyway.)
falconea
When you calculate the value of beach front private property, public land and facilities that would be adversely effected by storm surges, Governments would have to act out of pure necessary, regardless what the greenees and NIMBY's say.

Some Dutch cities have enormous sea defense Infrastructure.

Port of Rotterdam have giant gates that can close the whole harbor off from the sea.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maeslantkering
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_Works

Even the likes of Venice have sea defense to protect the historic Island part of the city from flooding.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOSE_Project

Sponsored advertisement

Display from:   

Quick Reply

We've disabled Quick Reply for this thread as it was last updated more than six months ago.