Sky rail for Pakenham Cranbourne line outlined

 
Topic moved from News by bevans on 13 Jan 2016 16:51
  Myrtone Chief Commissioner

Location: North Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria
If people can't get across, they would just have to take another path.
Nightfire
If people can't get across during the busiest hours of the day, there might as well be no gate at all.

Getting rid of the pedestrian crossings would be the best possible solution.
Nightfire
Either a closure or grade separation of that crossing are the only solutions if trains run that frequently. The same applies with road crossings.

Sponsored advertisement

  drunkill Junior Train Controller

Location: Melbourne, Australia
Hughesdale station the other day, lifting up the roof segments.


Murrumbeena tonight from the footpath. They'll be spacious entrances/foyers.
  drunkill Junior Train Controller

Location: Melbourne, Australia
Slab has been poured at Carnegie, ready for tiling, fixtures, myki barriers and planter boxes etc.

Plus lifts and stairs...





  True Believers Chief Commissioner
  stooge spark Train Controller

I gotta admit, something about the Murrumbeena road viaduct seems kinda, off.
I think it might generally not look good, or that it doesn't really feel like it matches anything within the suburb.
Don't really have a problem with the other crossings either, Heatherton and Koornong roads look alright, and Clayton actually looks really good, but something about Murrumbeena seems pretty weird.
Also surprised about the lack of news coverage about the level crossings at Carnegie, you'd think with them being the most controversial, they would get alot of news coverage, but I barely saw anything in the news about them, compared to NP and Clayton.
  thekingoffoxes Chief Train Controller

The footage I captured on the weekend for R707 over the Skyrail shows Nobel Park station to Eastlink.
Interesting to note the extra bridge height over Mile creek and the curve work to line up with Yarraman Station (obviously too expensive to change the shape of that station.



https://youtu.be/r7qdR6rtC0M
  TheMeddlingMonk Deputy Commissioner

Location: The Time Vortex near Melbourne, Australia
Nice video, but please be aware of the rules about operating drones: http://droneflyer.gov.au/

By the way, I'm impressed your drone kept up with the train.
  raudteejaam Junior Train Controller

Quick question regarding the situation at Oakleigh...would it not have made more sense to eliminate Platform 3, and keep the island platforms from a station management perspective? Indeed, what was the rationale, if any, for eliminating platform 1 and keeping the other two?

I think losing the ability to turn back trains between Caulfield and Westall will one day come back to haunt Metro.(or am I wrong, and they can in fact still terminate and turn back at Oakleigh?)

Incidentally, the traffic at what was Clayton Rd LX is now as bad if not worse than it was then the LX was in place due to the necessary but awfully time-consuming roadworks going on to remove the rails. It's one lane each way, traffic was banked back well over the hill towards the Medical Centre and down past Centre Road the other way. It'll improve when they're done I know, but prime fodder for nay-sayers to turn up and point and shout about it.
  LancedDendrite Chief Commissioner

Location: North Haverbrook; where the monorail is king!
Quick question regarding the situation at Oakleigh...would it not have made more sense to eliminate Platform 3, and keep the island platforms from a station management perspective? Indeed, what was the rationale, if any, for eliminating platform 1 and keeping the other two?

I think losing the ability to turn back trains between Caulfield and Westall will one day come back to haunt Metro. Or am I wrong, and they can in fact still terminate and turn back at Oakleigh?
raudteejaam
Platform 1 was removed to improve pedestrian access to the station from Haughton Rd by making it walk-up instead of forcing everyone through the subway. I'd also venture that the island platform wasn't large enough to comply with modern passenger loading standards either. Getting rid of a curved platform instead of a straight one like Platform 3 is an added bonus.

Crossovers and bi-directional signalling have been rebuilt and retained at Oakleigh for emergency turnbacks. It's not exactly a hot standby siding, but it'll do until the current Metro franchise agreement expires...
  Nightfire Minister for Railways

Location: Gippsland
Quick question regarding the situation at Oakleigh...would it not have made more sense to eliminate Platform 3, and keep the island platforms from a station management perspective? Indeed, what was the rationale, if any, for eliminating platform 1 and keeping the other two?

I think losing the ability to turn back trains between Caulfield and Westall will one day come back to haunt Metro. Or am I wrong, and they can in fact still terminate and turn back at Oakleigh?
Platform 1 was removed to improve pedestrian access to the station from Haughton Rd by making it walk-up instead of forcing everyone through the subway. Getting rid of a curved platform instead of a straight one like Platform 3 is an added bonus.
LancedDendrite
looks like they got a better mainline alignment between platform 2 & 3
  TheMeddlingMonk Deputy Commissioner

Location: The Time Vortex near Melbourne, Australia
I think they kept Platforms 2 and 3 as this favoured an easier track alignment (no need to introduce an S curve for the up track).

When I was there recently, the track was completely gone from the original platform 1. I didn't look closely, but I suspect there is no longer any ability to terminate at Oakleigh (which I am sure will come back to bite them). I also have the bad feeling that they'll make it impossible to easily re-use what was Platform 1.
  Nightfire Minister for Railways

Location: Gippsland
I think they kept Platforms 2 and 3 as this favoured an easier track alignment (no need to introduce an S curve for the up track).

When I was there recently, the track was completely gone from the original platform 1. I didn't look closely, but I suspect there is no longer any ability to terminate at Oakleigh (which I am sure will come back to bite them). I also have the bad feeling that they'll make it impossible to easily re-use what was Platform 1.
TheMeddlingMonk
If you look on the Vicsig website, you will see that there Is a trailing crossover each side of Oakeigh Station, so a turnback Is possible from both directions (probably even a locomotive hauled train turn back Is possible too)  

To run 4 tracks through Oakeigh Station, One would guess that major changers would be required to the station and surrounds (Warrigal Road flyover) Huntingdale the same.
  TheMeddlingMonk Deputy Commissioner

Location: The Time Vortex near Melbourne, Australia
Thanks. Good to know I'm mistaken about Oakleigh's status.

I recall seeing a track diagram showing that there were previously three tracks between platforms 2 & 3, so I suspect that as long as they don't need four functional platforms at Oakleigh, there would be space for four tracks.
  Nightfire Minister for Railways

Location: Gippsland
Thanks. Good to know I'm mistaken about Oakleigh's status.

I recall seeing a track diagram showing that there were previously three tracks between platforms 2 & 3, so I suspect that as long as they don't need four functional platforms at Oakleigh, there would be space for four tracks.
TheMeddlingMonk
That extra track hasn't existed for a very long time.

In the case of 4 tracks the Island platform 1 & 2 could be kept (platform 1 recommissioned) platform 3 might get demolished and moved a track width towards platform 2, crating room for a platform 4 (on the other side) pedestrian access would need to be totally redone.

Or you could demolish the Warrigal Road flyover, returning the road to ground level and skyrail the tracks over Warrigal Road and the station buildings (Hanover Street bridge may need to go too) the same concept could be done at Huntingdale (returning North Road back to ground level with a cross Intersection with Huntingdale Road)
  TheMeddlingMonk Deputy Commissioner

Location: The Time Vortex near Melbourne, Australia
Either option sounds like a lot of work, so I doubt we're going to see that happen any time soon!
  Nightfire Minister for Railways

Location: Gippsland
Either option sounds like a lot of work, so I doubt we're going to see that happen any time soon!
TheMeddlingMonk
Quadruplication of the Dandenong - Oakleigh line (not to mention the Oakleigh - Caulfield section) would be an extensive expensive project (Government's are probably scared of It) NIMBY's will come out of the woodwork all a long the line (not touched by skyrail, the no skyrail NIMBY's have already been beaten to a pulp, so they may be just over It all)
  John.Z Chief Train Controller

Either option sounds like a lot of work, so I doubt we're going to see that happen any time soon!
Quadruplication of the Dandenong - Oakleigh line (not to mention the Oakleigh - Caulfield section) would be an extensive expensive project (Government's are probably scared of It) NIMBY's will come out of the woodwork all a long the line (not touched by skyrail, the no skyrail NIMBY's have already been beaten to a pulp, so they may be just over It all)
Nightfire
Oakleigh-Dandenong is easily enough done, there is ample room within the corridor without touching any properties. Oakleigh-Caulfield however....if it were done all at once, manageable but now it's going to be painful.
  Nightfire Minister for Railways

Location: Gippsland
Oakleigh-Caulfield however....if it were done all at once, manageable but now it's going to be painful.
I can't agree with you on this, keeping the trains running (during construction) posed a significant challenge to the planers and engineers (being an extreme brownfield project)

Shutting down the Oakleigh-Caulfield section to all trains for like 6 Months could of brought a different outcome, but the economics of long term track and station (also road & parking) closures have proven to be rather harsh on local commercial businesses.  

LXRA seems to have a philosophy not to acquire any private property (or as very little as possible)
  kitchgp Chief Commissioner

In keeping with RP’s reputation for minutiae, will the platforms at Oakleigh be re-numbered, and if so, how?
Option 1: Keep the same numbers.
The least expensive. This will cause considerable confusion in later years, eg “Why is there no Platform 1 at Oakleigh?” and raise numerous concurrent RP threads on the subject.
Option 2: Renumber Platform 3 as Platform 1
The minimum cost renumbering option, however this would be the opposite of the numbering pattern on the stations on either side, where Platform 1 is on the south side.
Option 3: Renumber Platform 2 as Platform 1 and Platform 3 as Platform 2
The most expensive and will cause some initial confusion but conforms with the pattern at other stations on the line.
  Nightfire Minister for Railways

Location: Gippsland
In keeping with RP’s reputation for minutiae, will the platforms at Oakleigh be re-numbered, and if so, how?
Option 1: Keep the same numbers.
The least expensive. This will cause considerable confusion in later years, eg “Why is there no Platform 1 at Oakleigh?” and raise numerous concurrent RP threads on the subject.
Option 2: Renumber Platform 3 as Platform 1
The minimum cost renumbering option, however this would be the opposite of the numbering pattern on the stations on either side, where Platform 1 is on the south side.
Option 3: Renumber Platform 2 as Platform 1 and Platform 3 as Platform 2
The most expensive and will cause some initial confusion but conforms with the pattern at other stations on the line.
kitchgp
Option 3 hands down

Just a matter of undoing the name boards and re Installing them In the new order, some of the smaller signs (directing people to what platform) can just have a sticker stuck over the old Info with the new Info.
  TheMeddlingMonk Deputy Commissioner

Location: The Time Vortex near Melbourne, Australia
In keeping with RP’s reputation for minutiae, will the platforms at Oakleigh be re-numbered, and if so, how?
Option 1: Keep the same numbers.
The least expensive. This will cause considerable confusion in later years, eg “Why is there no Platform 1 at Oakleigh?” and raise numerous concurrent RP threads on the subject.
Option 2: Renumber Platform 3 as Platform 1
The minimum cost renumbering option, however this would be the opposite of the numbering pattern on the stations on either side, where Platform 1 is on the south side.
Option 3: Renumber Platform 2 as Platform 1 and Platform 3 as Platform 2
The most expensive and will cause some initial confusion but conforms with the pattern at other stations on the line.
Option 3 hands down

Just a matter of undoing the name boards and re Installing them In the new order, some of the smaller signs (directing people to what platform) can just have a sticker stuck over the old Info with the new Info.
Nightfire
I can confirm that this has already been done.
  John.Z Chief Train Controller

Oakleigh-Caulfield however....if it were done all at once, manageable but now it's going to be painful.
I can't agree with you on this, keeping the trains running (during construction) posed a significant challenge to the planers and engineers (being an extreme brownfield project)

Shutting down the Oakleigh-Caulfield section to all trains for like 6 Months could of brought a different outcome, but the economics of long term track and station (also road & parking) closures have proven to be rather harsh on local commercial businesses.  

LXRA seems to have a philosophy not to acquire any private property (or as very little as possible)
Nightfire
There is no reason as to why the pillars could not have been designed similar to this

Allowing for two tracks per pillar, even if it were in the future.
  Myrtone Chief Commissioner

Location: North Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria
But that's monorail, not elevated conventional rail. Mass transit monorails may need more consideration. The Gold Coast light rail was orginially planned as a monorail, which itself would have better fitted with the Gold Coast image than the ground level rail that got built.
  Nightfire Minister for Railways

Location: Gippsland
There is no reason as to why the pillars could not have been designed similar to this

Allowing for two tracks per pillar, even if it were in the future.
John.Z
Woudn't work for heavy rail, a monorail Is very light rail.
  Nightfire Minister for Railways

Location: Gippsland
But that's monorail, not elevated conventional rail. Mass transit monorails may need more consideration. The Gold Coast light rail was orginially planned as a monorail, which itself would have better fitted with the Gold Coast image than the ground level rail that got built.
Myrtone
I'm glad they ditched the monorail concept In favor of trams on their own right of way light rail (with traffic light priority)

The system works extremely well and well used (though they need to put a local shuttle on the Southport - Surfer Paradise section where passenger loading Is very high)

Sponsored advertisement

Display from:   

Quick Reply

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