If people can't get across, they would just have to take another path.

Getting rid of the pedestrian crossings would be the best possible solution.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Either option sounds like a lot of work, so I doubt we're going to see that happen any time soon!

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)

Oakleigh-Caulfield however....if it were done all at once, manageable but now it's going to be painful.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.