Upfield rail tunnel is not viable

 
  Heihachi_73 Chief Commissioner

Location: Terminating at Ringwood
Closing roads is bad, that's why you only close the lesser-used ones. They should have done it 20-30 years ago when the Upfield line still had hand gates, semaphore signals and no trains on Sundays.

Sponsored advertisement

  tom9876543 Train Controller

Tom, keep in mind that people dont want to have to drive 4km down the extremely busy and traffic light heavy sydney road, or rat run through the narrow streets of brunswick in order to cross to get to the other side, sure that the number of crossings of the rail line is a little excessive, and you can say that they dont matter politiclly, but its not gonna go down very well, and considering the whole area has 40000 people living in the two burbs, its going to get VERY annoying.
Also closing brunswick road is stupid, if you gonna keep with this already somewhat of an insane idea, close park street instead, as Brunswick road forms a connection to citylink, and highpoint and most of the inner west.
As for re routes:
504 - you totally missed this route.
506 - in order for it to reach south to park street its gonna have to do a ton of rat runs, or run down grantham street and completey miss the sedondary college. Dont give that "just terminate it at Brunswick sec" because most riders use the route to get to sydney road or lygon street.
508 - it connects to Brunswick station, re routing that would remove that connection, and the route would have to do a ton of rat runs to get down from victoria street to back up to blyth street.
509 - I sort of agree woth cancelling this route, doesnt do the original route justice and still has no passengers.
503 - Pretty stupid to cancel it because its short, it connects Brunswick to Essendon station and gives Anstey station a bus route you should only cancel a route because of a lack of riders.
510 - connects Moreland station with the rest of the north side of Brunswick, and has a connection with the route 6, which is always acceptable.
512 - Im really surprised you don't want this cancelled, its roughly the same distance as route 503. The only decent one for re routing.

Sorry if I made some mistakes with grammar and my wording, I'm very stupid.
Also I don't know how to quote posts on mobile, so thats why i'm not quoting yours, and your names too long and hard to remember for me to quote.


Tl; dr Closing roads is bad and the ones that you won't close are rather odd.
stooge spark

The plan is cars will be diverted from Brunswick Rd to Park St. There would be some dog legs. But the advantage is the commercial zone of Brunswick Rd will have less through traffic and possibly could even be made into a pedestrian only area. Possibly Brunswick Rd is too close to Jewell Station for the rail to climb back up to ground level (I'm not sure).
Remember, this is a plan for removing level crossings cheaply, as an Upfield rail tunnel is too expensive.

504 - Minor detour to Park St, not even noticeable.
506 - It could be routed down Barry St / Gray St / Dollman St. Hardly a "rat run". The bus won't stop directly out the front of the secondary college. Poor kids might have to walk 200 metres, wouldn't want the precious snowflakes to over exert themselves.
508 - Can go south down Nicholson St and north Dollman St / Gray St / Fallon St / Prentice St. People will have to walk 60 metres to get to Brunswick Station.
503 - Cancel it, people will have to take alternative options such as tram south then 504 bus. Bad luck.
510 - North via Nicholson St. South via Hudson St / Loch St / Audley St / Station St. Its a longer route but this is the compromise that is required to cheaply remove the railway crossings.
512 - You are correct, I realise now it should be cancelled.
  John.Z Chief Train Controller

Did everyone bluntly ignored my idea, didn't you see the map, I proposed the Metro 2 tunnel run to connect with the upfield line using the inner circle rail route and then tunnelling to Flagstaff as proposed by PTV network development plan. That is the long term plan. This Metro 2 tunnel would continue to Fishermans bend and connect to the Newport.

Yes lack of interchange with Hurstbridge line but they are only 10 minutes apart walking distance. Probably the only disadvantage as well as cost.

Of course in the short term buses can be improved in the area and route 19 tram separated from traffic, with priority lights.

The Upfeild tunnel with Upfeild trains running is not a priority but seperating the South Morang from Hurstbridge has merit in the future and connecting it with Upfeild line, would reduce the demand on the route 19 and improve buses in the area.
James974
Now you sound like Myrtone lol

The South Morang line has enough patronage as it is, it doesn't need to connect with the Upfield Line.

The Upfield line will be well served as a through route to Sandringham via the City Loop tunnels in the next 20 years. No need to worry about either lines.
  True Believers Chief Commissioner

"Did everyone bluntly ignored my idea"
Ok my idea is going to be removed from the thread.
  doyle Junior Train Controller

No James I thought your idea had merit.
  True Believers Chief Commissioner

No James I thought your idea had merit.
doyle
I'll probably create another thread, on possible routes for Metro 2 tunnel and discuss it there instead.
  stooge spark Train Controller

Tom, I respect your thoughts into rerouting the bus routes in the area, and also why you would keep park street open instead of Brunswick road.
The reason why I suggest Brunswick road is for two reasons:
1. Its part of a huge road that runs from Avondale heights to Fitzroy
2. It technically has two lanes in each direction, so you can forbid parking and allow for the significant increase in traffic.
The most important reason though, is that in the event of re routing the bus routes, the job becomes easier,  and less disruptive.
Another problem you have your plan is that grey street is a one way street, what do you expect to do for the other direction? If you keep with your plan to re route them down park street.
As for your routes (now running with the keeping of Brunswick road open:
504: no changes
506: runs via fallon/union/watson streets now, you would rather the students get to school faster, as that means less disrutions in the morning.
508: runs via gardiner  and fallon streets now, same route as above as well.
510: not too familiar with the roads in coburg,  I just know it can go via hudson street
512: understandable

As for rebuilding jewell (or not), im honestly surprised you didnt just suggest to close it.
Edit: No, im not saying that jewell should be closed, just was wondering why you didnt suggest it should just be closed.  Coming from your (admittedly understandable) criticizing of the huge amount of pt in the inner north.
  tom9876543 Train Controller

Tom, I respect your thoughts into rerouting the bus routes in the area, and also why you would keep park street open instead of Brunswick road.
The reason why I suggest Brunswick road is for two reasons:
1. Its part of a huge road that runs from Avondale heights to Fitzroy
2. It technically has two lanes in each direction, so you can forbid parking and allow for the significant increase in traffic.
The most important reason though, is that in the event of re routing the bus routes, the job becomes easier,  and less disruptive.
Another problem you have your plan is that grey street is a one way street, what do you expect to do for the other direction? If you keep with your plan to re route them down park street.
As for your routes (now running with the keeping of Brunswick road open:
504: no changes
506: runs via fallon/union/watson streets now, you would rather the students get to school faster, as that means less disrutions in the morning.
508: runs via gardiner  and fallon streets now, same route as above as well.
510: not too familiar with the roads in coburg,  I just know it can go via hudson street
512: understandable

As for rebuilding jewell (or not), im honestly surprised you didnt just suggest to close it.
Edit: No, im not saying that jewell should be closed, just was wondering why you didnt suggest it should just be closed.  Coming from your (admittedly understandable) criticizing of the huge amount of pt in the inner north.
stooge spark

You are correct regarding Gray St, I quickly looked and didn't realise it is one way. It does have "rat run" status. Gray St can be reconfigured as a 2 way street with no on-street parking permitted. As compensation, reduce size of Temple Park and add 45degree car parking to Gray St.

In regards to Jewell, I think stations 700m apart is a little bit too close. I wouldn't complain if the spacing was increased to 1200m, reducing the number of stations. This could also be applied to other lines e.g. Westgarth - Alphington has too many stations.

Closing all the railway crossings to vehicles, between Brunswick Rd and Bell St, is a viable option to cheaply fix the level crossing problem on the Upfield line.
  Myrtone Chief Commissioner

Location: North Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria
...we realise you have been advocating an Upfield tunnel for many months despite the obvious fact that it won't happen, for many reasons. I note that one of the reasons you're advocating this is that the University precinct would be served by heavy rail.  Isn't the reason Metro 1 is being built? And in further connectivity, the Parkville station will be able to handle Metro 2 (Clifton Hill - Fitzroy - Parkville - Flagstaff - Southern Cross - Fishermen's Bend - (potentially Newport). This to me looks like plenty of connectivity to the University/Hospital/Research precinct by heavy rail. Why does the Upfield line have to be added to this mix? It would be far more beneficial to keep the Upfield line on its present alignment.  If there are passengers on the Upfield line that want to access the Uni precinct then they can switch to a tram at Jewell. The line should not be re-routed at vast expense for little benefit to other passengers.
jdekorte
The reason isn't simply that the University precinct would be served by heavy rail, but that one of the lines serving it would also serve the nearest suburbs to it currently served by heavy rail. If the Upfield line isn't added to the mix, it will be back-to-front. Can anyone see why someone might want to avoid something back-to-front?
Also, the portion between the city and Brunswick would be more direct. And would be an easy way to remove all three level crossings south of Brunswick, including two under a road viaduct. I know the area and there isn't enough clearence to raise the railway, nor could the roads there conceivably be lowered.

I have wondered for some time if anyone posting here is actually behind the official planning.
  True Believers Chief Commissioner

The reason isn't simply that the University precinct would be served by heavy rail, but that one of the lines serving it would also serve the nearest suburbs to it currently served by heavy rail. If the Upfield line isn't added to the mix, it will be back-to-front. Can anyone see why someone might want to avoid something back-to-front?
Also, the portion between the city and Brunswick would be more direct. And would be an easy way to remove all three level crossings south of Brunswick, including two under a road viaduct. I know the area and there isn't enough clearence to raise the railway, nor could the roads there conceivably be lowered.

I have wondered for some time if anyone posting here is actually behind the official planning.
Myrtone
Removal of crossings between Royal Park and North Melbourne.
Arden Street: Hybrid option: Rail lowered with road raised.
Macaulay Road: Hybrid option: Rail lowered with road raised.
Each would have significant drainage and pumps to relocated water whenever heavy rains happen.
Popular Road: will be determined at a future date.
Could easily be a cheap road under option

The two crossings under city link are difficult to remove but with good engineering and planning it can be done. So yeah an billion
$$$ tunnel would remove that factor, but it is only 2 crossings out of a total 30 or so that are the most challenging.

The key to success is separating the lines for future demand. This is exactly why Metro tunnels are built into the city since its primary aim to enable the line to expand and separated by the other lines. Frequency and reliability is much more important than providing a gold class service for Upfield. Whenever the network has constraints need to be addressed first. Whenever there is future demand a rail link needs to be provided. But when you are focussing in inner northern suburbs and the lacking in patronage Upfield line, I can't take you seriously into having this line tunnelled and separated considering there are better options that can be considered. Inner city suburbs can be improved further with many options like cycling, light rail and buses. This is not possible for outer suburbs where the only options in the motor vehicle or a poor bus connection with train or if lucky have a train station nearby.

"I have wondered for some time if anyone posting here is actually behind the official planning." Myrtone
I doubt you are anything special, you provide no logical arguments yourself like trams are too slow, can't seperate those two crossing and Upfield students can't get direct access into the city. Too bad there are more urgent issues with the rail network than having the Upfield line go a few kilometres longer. If you wanna gold plate every project we have no money left for real beneficial projects.
  Myrtone Chief Commissioner

Location: North Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria
Removal of crossings between Royal Park and North Melbourne.
Arden Street: Hybrid option: Rail lowered with road raised.
Macaulay Road: Hybrid option: Rail lowered with road raised.
Each would have significant drainage and pumps to relocated water whenever heavy rains happen.
Popular Road: will be determined at a future date.
Could easily be a cheap road under option
James974

But the diversion would avoid all this. I know the section under the Western link, and I can't even see lowering the railway being viable because of the gradient towards Flemington bridge.

The key to success is separating the lines for future demand. This is exactly why Metro tunnels are built into the city since its primary aim to enable the line to expand and separated by the other lines. Frequency and reliability is much more important than providing a gold class service for Upfield. Whenever the network has constraints need to be addressed first. Whenever there is future demand a rail link needs to be provided. But when you are focussing in inner northern suburbs and the lacking in patronage Upfield line, I can't take you seriously into having this line tunnelled and separated considering there are better options that can be considered. Inner city suburbs can be improved further with many options like cycling, light rail and buses. This is not possible for outer suburbs where the only options in the motor vehicle or a poor bus connection with train or if lucky have a train station nearby.
James974

Indeed separating lines for future demand is more important. Sure inner suburbs can be improved, but this takes up space in streets with limited capacity. I'm sure patronage on the Upfield line will increase once duplicated and extended.

...I doubt you are anything special, you provide no logical arguments yourself like trams are too slow, can't seperate those two crossing and Upfield students can't get direct access into the city. Too bad there are more urgent issues with the rail network than having the Upfield line go a few kilometres longer. If you wanna gold plate every project we have no money left for real beneficial projects.
James974

And no one else gives any object to the proposal other than cost. Trying looking at if as if costs that aren't ongoing are no object, can you still explain whether this project would be viable.
Sure, raising the Western Link and the railway tracks would remove two level crossings next to Moonee Ponds creek and the inner northern suburbs could be improved with many street based options.
But this massive diversion would do both.

I'm not saying there aren't more urgent issues with the rail network that diverting the Upfield line, many of which have to do with a lack of forsight among previous generations of rail-planners. But this one might be viable once those urgent issues have been addressed.
  True Believers Chief Commissioner


But the diversion would avoid all this. I know the section under the Western link, and I can't even see lowering the railway being viable because of the gradient towards Flemington bridge.

The key to success is separating the lines for future demand. This is exactly why Metro tunnels are built into the city since its primary aim to enable the line to expand and separated by the other lines. Frequency and reliability is much more important than providing a gold class service for Upfield. Whenever the network has constraints need to be addressed first. Whenever there is future demand a rail link needs to be provided. But when you are focussing in inner northern suburbs and the lacking in patronage Upfield line, I can't take you seriously into having this line tunnelled and separated considering there are better options that can be considered. Inner city suburbs can be improved further with many options like cycling, light rail and buses. This is not possible for outer suburbs where the only options in the motor vehicle or a poor bus connection with train or if lucky have a train station nearby.

Indeed separating lines for future demand is more important. Sure inner suburbs can be improved, but this takes up space in streets with limited capacity. I'm sure patronage on the Upfield line will increase once duplicated and extended.

...I doubt you are anything special, you provide no logical arguments yourself like trams are too slow, can't seperate those two crossing and Upfield students can't get direct access into the city. Too bad there are more urgent issues with the rail network than having the Upfield line go a few kilometres longer. If you wanna gold plate every project we have no money left for real beneficial projects.

And no one else gives any object to the proposal other than cost. Trying looking at if as if costs that aren't ongoing are no object, can you still explain whether this project would be viable.
Sure, raising the Western Link and the railway tracks would remove two level crossings next to Moonee Ponds creek and the inner northern suburbs could be improved with many street based options.
But this massive diversion would do both.

I'm not saying there aren't more urgent issues with the rail network that diverting the Upfield line, many of which have to do with a lack of forsight among previous generations of rail-planners. But this one might be viable once those urgent issues have been addressed.
Myrtone
"Diversion would avoid it all", hmm I just stated:
The two crossings under city link are difficult to remove but with good engineering and planning it can be done. So yeah an billion $$$ tunnel would remove that factor, but it is only 2 crossings out of a total 30 or so that are the most challenging.
James
Yeah I think your saying grade separating them is impossible but it ain't impossible just very difficult. For two level crossing removals at the expense of a tunnel would not be worth it.

And once again you use the BS argument about the gradients, Are you some engineer, cause seems like you over estimate how steep the Upfield line is compared with other lines.
I don't think the gradients on the line are nearly as bad as what you think they are.
http://www.victorianrailways.net/grades/upfield.html
Compare to the grades on the Craigieburn line and to Seymour
http://www.victorianrailways.net/grades/melbsey.html
TOQ-1

The light rail and cycling options already take up most of the road space, the only section that probably be affected the most is Sydney Road, but I do believe it is possible, in Northcote on route 86 got upgrades to parts of the tram stops and improvements to seperate cars with trams.

Yes diverting Upfield does both these like what I mentioned because this is the alternative plan and no doubt would cost not as much as the tunnel. I do not just object the cost but the timing and whether the Upfield line would get busy enough to make a diversion viable. Even if extended to Wallan it only really serve an extra two or three stops. By the time we get to an Upfield line tunnel, we may not know if other new infrastructure would be in progress like the High Speed Rail which would connect at Campellfeild on the Upfield Line or have an outer circle rail line. These may alleviate the Upfield line or even better try to decentralise Melbourne. It is not viable for the tunnel built within 30 years. After 30 years it is very unclear what will happen since most plans extend to 30 years. I understand you want to plan ahead, but if you plan too far ahead, it gets very unclear as other projects get introduced. The Growth corridors could slow down in pace as our city gets more densely populated. New forms of transport may be introduced.

Sponsored advertisement

Display from:   

Quick Reply

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