50 level crossings to be removed

 
  Adogs Chief Train Controller

I don't think any of the above solutions for Macaulay Rd is likely, or even feasible.  Not enough clearance under Citylink to raise the railway.  Road doesn't have room to go up or down.  Not a wise idea to sink the railway next to a creek which doubles as stormwater.  I think ultimately it'll stay in the too hard basket.

(Unless they decide to do something major like underground the Upfield line basically from West Melbourne to somewhere near Royal Park, having a subway junction at Arden/NMelb, then closing current Macaulay and replacing it with a subway station about 100m to the east)

Sponsored advertisement

  Adogs Chief Train Controller

I meant Macaulay Rd, Craigieburn line.
reubstar6

Ohhhh.  That makes more sense.
  potatoinmymouth Chief Commissioner

Letter in the Hun today claiming maximum speed limit on Skyrail is 80km/h and the Pakenham removals will therefore result in increased travel time for Gippsland services.

This sounds like nonsense (and don’t judge me for my choice of paper, I needed a form guide!) but can someone confirm otherwise? There are a lot of trains running over bridges much faster than that.

I’d imagine the line speed on the CD9 section was 80km/h and Skyrail simply matches that spec.
  Nightfire Minister for Railways

Location: Gippsland
Letter in the Hun today claiming maximum speed limit on Skyrail is 80km/h and the Pakenham removals will therefore result in increased travel time for Gippsland services.

This sounds like nonsense (and don’t judge me for my choice of paper, I needed a form guide!) but can someone confirm otherwise? There are a lot of trains running over bridges much faster than that.

I’d imagine the line speed on the CD9 section was 80km/h and Skyrail simply matches that spec.
potatoinmymouth
V/Line trains will be stopping at Pakenham anyway, so why's an 80 km/h restriction going to Impact on anything.

As for the elevated sections of the Dandenong line, 80 km/h running would be amazing, but other traffic on the line cuts running speed way down.
  potatoinmymouth Chief Commissioner

V/Line trains will be stopping at Pakenham anyway, so why's an 80 km/h restriction going to Impact on anything.
Nightfire

Our man claims it’s currently an average 93km/h between Pakenham and Dandenong. I don’t know if I can be bothered checking.
  stooge spark Train Controller

Letter in the Hun today claiming maximum speed limit on Skyrail is 80km/h and the Pakenham removals will therefore result in increased travel time for Gippsland services.

This sounds like nonsense (and don’t judge me for my choice of paper, I needed a form guide!) but can someone confirm otherwise? There are a lot of trains running over bridges much faster than that.

I’d imagine the line speed on the CD9 section was 80km/h and Skyrail simply matches that spec.
potatoinmymouth
Doesn't matter for the Caulfield-Dandenong section, never reaches anything beyond 80km/h anyway.
The Pakenham skyrail will be a similar case, the train usually slows around McGregor Road anyway.
  Nightfire Minister for Railways

Location: Gippsland
V/Line trains will be stopping at Pakenham anyway, so why's an 80 km/h restriction going to Impact on anything.

Our man claims it’s currently an average 93km/h between Pakenham and Dandenong. I don’t know if I can be bothered checking.
potatoinmymouth
You would find that no train exceeds 80 km/h In the McGregor Rd - Racecourse Rd section anyway.

Also there Is no reason why a new viaduct couldn't be designed to take a train at full line speed.
  Gman_86 Chief Commissioner

Location: Melton, where the sparks dare not roam!
Pakenham - All trains call at Pakenham, so 80km/h limit is not an issue here.

Macauley Rd (Upfield line) -  The only way to remove this crossing would be to either close the road or close the railway. Neither can be lowered because of the creek and the railway can't be raised enough because of the Tollway. This will remain as is for the foreseeable future.

Macauley Rd (Craigieburn line) - This is a bit of a dilemma. You can't significantly alter the grade of the railway without impacting access to the grain sidings. The road can't be lowered, as it is already a fairly steep grade heading up towards Kensington Rd and the locals won't react kindly to a road overpass being installed in the middle of their local village. This will likely end up in the too hard basket until such a time as Allied Mills vacate Kensington and the sidings become redundant.

Marshall St Ivanhoe - This shouldn't even be in the next 50.

I expect the next 3 to be named will be Fitzgerald Rd, Station St and Robinsons Rd on the Ballarat line. They are all fairly important roads & currently between 7AM and 8AM there are 20 trains scheduled through this section. With duplication to Melton opening next year, and electrification to both Wyndham Vale & Melton on the horizon, this number can only be going up in the near future. I expect an announcement late this week, or early next week.
  historian Deputy Commissioner

I don't think any of the above solutions for Macaulay Rd is likely, or even feasible.  Not enough clearance under Citylink to raise the railway.  Road doesn't have room to go up or down.  Not a wise idea to sink the railway next to a creek which doubles as stormwater.  I think ultimately it'll stay in the too hard basket.

(Unless they decide to do something major like underground the Upfield line basically from West Melbourne to somewhere near Royal Park, having a subway junction at Arden/NMelb, then closing current Macaulay and replacing it with a subway station about 100m to the east)
Adogs

Indeed. The other problem is that the foundations of the city link viaduct are on each side of the rail line extending from Arden St to about half way to Flemington Bridge - just where you want to put the cutting. Given that this was all originally a swamp, I would lay money on the foundations being 1) surrounded by silt 2) subject to a very high water table (i.e. saturated silt), and 3) (consequently) extremely large. Lowering the railway line would involve digging out all the soil between these two rows of foundations while bracing them so that the water pressure in the water table on the outside didn't push them into the cutting. The cutting sidewalls would have to be strong enough to resist this side thrust forevermore. Any movement of the foundations of City Link doesn't bear thinking about. This is assuming that there is, in fact, space between the foundations for the cutting. I'm sure it's possible. I wouldn't like to pay for it. I reckon they've snookered themselves there.

As for the crossing at Kensington, it's also challenging. The road falls steeply from the west on both sides of the line, and on the west runs through Kensington shopping centre. Consequently changing the road levels will not be feasible. The only practical approach is to raise or (probably) lower the rail line. You'd have to demolish the existing station (liked by the locals), and provide alternative rail access to the flour mill siding (the oldest remaining private siding in Melbourne by a good long chalk). Or tell the flour mill to go to road transport.

Of course, there is little point in removing only one of the level crossings. To get any congestion busting effect you really need to remove both. And it's not like Macaulay Rd goes anywhere except Kensington.
  712M Chief Commissioner

Letter in the Hun today claiming maximum speed limit on Skyrail is 80km/h and the Pakenham removals will therefore result in increased travel time for Gippsland services.

This sounds like nonsense (and don’t judge me for my choice of paper, I needed a form guide!) but can someone confirm otherwise? There are a lot of trains running over bridges much faster than that.

I’d imagine the line speed on the CD9 section was 80km/h and Skyrail simply matches that spec.
potatoinmymouth
Absolute BS. Trains have no problem running over the Abbotts Road Skyrail bridge on the Cranbourne line at 115 km/h.
  Gman_86 Chief Commissioner

Location: Melton, where the sparks dare not roam!
Letter in the Hun today claiming maximum speed limit on Skyrail is 80km/h and the Pakenham removals will therefore result in increased travel time for Gippsland services.

This sounds like nonsense (and don’t judge me for my choice of paper, I needed a form guide!) but can someone confirm otherwise? There are a lot of trains running over bridges much faster than that.

I’d imagine the line speed on the CD9 section was 80km/h and Skyrail simply matches that spec.
Absolute BS. Trains have no problem running over the Abbotts Road Skyrail bridge on the Cranbourne line at 115 km/h.
712M
Just more lies from those Anti-Skyrail hacks.
No substance,
No facts,
No clue.
  justarider Chief Train Controller

Location: Stuck on VR and hoping for better.
I don't think any of the above solutions for Macaulay Rd is likely, or even feasible.  ...

(Unless they decide to do something major like underground the Upfield line basically from West Melbourne to somewhere near Royal Park, having a subway junction at Arden/NMelb, then closing current Macaulay and replacing it with a subway station about 100m to the east)
--adogs
-

Indeed. The other problem is that the foundations of the city link viaduct are ...(near impossible)

As for the crossing at Kensington, it's also challenging. ....(go under BUT the flour mill...)

Of course, there is little point in removing only one of the level crossings. To get any congestion busting effect you really need to remove both. And it's not like Macaulay Rd goes anywhere except Kensington.
historian
Thanks Historian, good analysis as usual. I trust my abbreviation hasn't lost the meaning of your post.

@Adogs got pretty close. Taking the Upfield line into a tunnel that meets the new MM1 station (Arden aka North Melb) is probably the most feasible. Keep well away from the viaduct and all its engineering issues.
Lose Macauay station completely, the new Arden is near enough as a replacement.
Whether it comes out of the ground at North Melb (aka West Melb) is possibly redundant. Just go straight into the Loop tunnel.

Is it worth it ???
Macaulay Rd (North Melb) is only 77 on the ALCAM list.
Would really only consider if the whole line got an upgrade, and then the Seymour trains were re-routed.
V/Lo and freight in a tunnel now - oops.

The interesting LX is Macaulay Rd (Kensington).
That is 9 on the ALCAM list , and is very notable as the only one of the top 20 to not have a firm commitment to replace.

These both may stay in the too hard basket for a long time yet.

cheers
John
  John.Z Chief Train Controller

Thanks Historian, good analysis as usual. I trust my abbreviation hasn't lost the meaning of your post.

V/Lo and freight in a tunnel now - oops.

The interesting LX is Macaulay Rd (Kensington).
That is 9 on the ALCAM list , and is very notable as the only one of the top 20 to not have a firm commitment to replace.

These both may stay in the too hard basket for a long time yet.

cheers
John
justarider
Seymour will run via the Airport before it gets the chance to run via Upfield (and even that is 20+ years away at the min). The upgrades to the level crossings alone make that project a non starter.
  jakar Assistant Commissioner

Location: Melbourne
Pakenham - All trains call at Pakenham, so 80km/h limit is not an issue here.
Gman_86
V/Line trains will be stopping at Pakenham anyway, so why's an 80 km/h restriction going to Impact on anything.
Nightfire
To be rather pedantic, there are two trains a day Mon-Fri express through Pakenham, one in each direction. Ignoring any TSR's and all going smoothly the UP train in the morning is able to go track speed through the section which is currently 115km/h. The down train would be less impacted as its normally restricted to a medium speed of 80km/h through the points at the down end of Pakenham to cross from the DOWN line to the south track.
  ptvcommuter Train Controller

3 to be announced, would say they would be the RRL Crossings as part of the Western Rail Project. These next 60 should be announced in 2020-2021 when the first 50-60 are almost complete and there’s 10-15 remaining

- Station St, Fairfield
- Victoria Rd, Fairfield
- Marshall St, Ivanhoe
- Puckle St, Moonee Ponds
- Park St, Moonee Ponds
- Macauley Rd, Kensington
- Gaffney St, Pascoe Vale
- Devon Rd, Pascoe Vale
- Maddox Rd, Newport South
- Maidstone St, Altona
- Anderson St, Yarraville
- Hudsons Rd, Spotswood

- Glen Waverley Line Project (4 LX): Removes High St, Madden Gve, Tooronga Rd and Glenferrie Rd
- Sunbury Line Project (4 LX): Calder Park Dve, Holden Rd, Calder Hwy and Watson’s Rd
- Pakenham Line Project (5 LX): Officer/Station St, Brunts Rd, Goff St, Webb St and Progress St

- Frankston Line Project: (10 LX): Whickam Rd, Highett Rd, Warrigal Rd, Parkers Rd, Bear St, McDonald St, Groves St, Lochiel Ave, Armstrong’s Rd and Seaford Rd

- Upfield Line Elevated Rail Project: (17 LX): Arden St, Macauley Rd, Poplar St. Park St, Brunswick Rd, Union St, Dawson St, Albert St, Victoria St, Hope St, Albion St, Gaffney St, Bakers Rd, Box Forest Rd, Cemetary Ent, Barry Rd and Boundary Rd

- Mernda Line Project: (9 LX): Arthurton Rd, Beavers Rd, Normanby Ave, Woolton Ave, Hutton St, Regent St, Keon Pde, Paschke Cr and Childs Rd

- Sandringham Line Project Part 1: Station St, Linacre St, Hampton St, Dendy St Roundabout, Bay St and Glen Eira Rd
* This will be fun because some are untouchable, Prahran, Windsor, Brighton Beach and Middle Brighton all have LX near them and are heritage listed, will be the last line to be touched with removals

That’s about 60 maybe more LX in the next List, can do 30 and 30, makes the Werribee, Pakenham, Cranbourne, Frankston, Sunbury, Glen Waverley, Mernda and Upfield/Wallan Lines Level Crossings Free
  stooge spark Train Controller

I don't believe Windsor is untouchable,  the crossing isn't that close to the station.
  John.Z Chief Train Controller

That’s about 60 maybe more LX in the next List, can do 30 and 30, makes the Werribee, Pakenham, Cranbourne, Frankston, Sunbury, Glen Waverley, Mernda and Upfield/Wallan Lines Level Crossings Free
ptvcommuter
Gov needs to get smart. Do crossing removals line by line to allow for minimal shutdowns and maximum benefit. Can't increase peak hour frequency when there's still level crossings even if most are gone (looking at you Ringwood).
  Gman_86 Chief Commissioner

Location: Melton, where the sparks dare not roam!
Gov needs to get smart. Do crossing removals line by line to allow for minimal shutdowns and maximum benefit. Can't increase peak hour frequency when there's still level crossings even if most are gone (looking at you Ringwood).
John.Z
I couldn't agree more. Look at Ringwood for instance. Middelborough Rd, Springvale Rd, Mitcham Rd & Rooks Rd, Blackburn Rd and Heatherdale Rd. All done as seperate projects, all causing massive disruption, all costing too much and we still have Mont Albert Rd and Union Rd.

That's what made the recently completed CD9 project so much better than anything done previously. 1 big vision to do everything at once and just get it done with.

More of this is what Victoria needs.
  Heihachi_73 Chief Commissioner

Location: Terminating at Ringwood
And yet we still have trains every half an hour at night with no change to the timetable whatsoever after all these grade separations were done. The last major change was when the 10-minute weekend services arrived all across the network, or if that doesn't count, the abolition of the 40-minute Sunday night timetable under Connex - the weekday timetable has barely even been touched even going back to the 1939 VR working timetable. More trains to Mooroolbark and Upper Ferntree Gully (the irony being that it was basically that back in 1939 except the "short" run was to Croydon as Lilydale was only a country town), and fixing the mess that is Camberwell off-peak, would fix everything except for the ends of those lines, which only need a decent feeder bus service to compensate for the single track.

Giving the Kooyong tram square a head start for grade separation would also speed up the Burnley group as a whole (if they actually bothered upgrading the timetable), as most Lilydale/Belgrave trains end up going to Glen Waverley and vice versa. Getting Toorak Rd done would also give Yarra Trams the opportunity to extend the 58 beyond Glenferrie Rd, which is currently the shortest eastbound route in Melbourne (every other eastern route goes further than Glenferrie Rd). Extending the 58 to Deakin would be ideal, while also giving part of the 75 some low floor trams (even a D class is better than nothing for someone in a wheelchair).
  John.Z Chief Train Controller

And yet we still have trains every half an hour at night with no change to the timetable whatsoever after all these grade separations were done. The last major change was when the 10-minute weekend services arrived all across the network, or if that doesn't count, the abolition of the 40-minute Sunday night timetable under Connex - the weekday timetable has barely even been touched even going back to the 1939 VR working timetable. More trains to Mooroolbark and Upper Ferntree Gully (the irony being that it was basically that back in 1939 except the "short" run was to Croydon as Lilydale was only a country town), and fixing the mess that is Camberwell off-peak, would fix everything except for the ends of those lines, which only need a decent feeder bus service to compensate for the single track.

Giving the Kooyong tram square a head start for grade separation would also speed up the Burnley group as a whole (if they actually bothered upgrading the timetable), as most Lilydale/Belgrave trains end up going to Glen Waverley and vice versa. Getting Toorak Rd done would also give Yarra Trams the opportunity to extend the 58 beyond Glenferrie Rd, which is currently the shortest eastbound route in Melbourne (every other eastern route goes further than Glenferrie Rd). Extending the 58 to Deakin would be ideal, while also giving part of the 75 some low floor trams (even a D class is better than nothing for someone in a wheelchair).
Heihachi_73
Many smart things that could be done with the tram network with a little bit of time and thought.

The fact that we haven't seen the PTV Tram Network plan means one of two things:
1. The plan was overly ambitious and unrealistic in our current cliamte
2. The plan was overly conservative and offered no real improvement to the network

A short list of things that could be done:
1. Extensions to Ashburton, Malvern East, Darling and Murrumbeena Stations
  potatoinmymouth Chief Commissioner

The On-Road Network Development Plan was never completed. It’s unclear why, and as of 2015, the PTV top brass were unable to explain what their planning staff were actually doing.

One of Labor’s 2014 campaign promises was to release the Regional NDP. We can presume they were as bemused by the lack of progress as we are, because they had to get their new Department to finish it. It is a shadow of the Metropolitan NDP.

As is typical in Melbourne, there was, and still is, no political interest in the On-Road modes of public transport.

The short answer is that, as of 2016, there was no Tram plan. We know that in the last 2 years, TFV have produced a new rail plan of some description; it remains to be seen whether they have done the same for trams and buses.
  kitchgp Chief Commissioner

Even The Greens have given up. This 2014 (eg Routes 8 & 112) policy seems to have died and is no longer directly available on their website.

https://greens.org.au/sites/greens.org.au/files/140710%20trams%20connections%20backgrounder_FINAL.pdf
  Lockie91 Train Controller

Pick your next most marginal seat and then you have figured out where the last three are.

Deer Park to Melton I suspect will be done as part of the Melton sparking project. Keep in mind that money has only been announced for Planning et al.

Calder Park drive will be wrapped up with Vicroads or MRPA as plans already exist for this one, its just gathering dust.

Windsor and Prahran Crossings should be closed. Windsor is a little used side street which houses a mix of industrial and residential.

Greville Street is a definite close. Chapel, High and Commercial serve as the major connections. Part of Greville has already been "pedestrianised" and the remaining half is a quite residential street. The area sees little road traffic, its mainly pedestrians and cyclists. Win win for all the greenies in Prahran.
  ptvcommuter Train Controller

I don't believe Windsor is untouchable, the crossing isn't that close to the station.
stooge spark


Windsor is untouchable, heritage listed station, crossing is pretty close to the station, especially at platform 2. They’d probably close the crossing and Greville St too you would say.

Sandringham Line will get done last, too much political sentivity, NIMBYs and many of the stations would have heritage listing. What the hell would you do with South Rd LX given the curve of the station, you’d have to acquire business and possibly houses. The dangerous Church St LX is surrounded by shops and houses, can’t see a Buckley St style underpass working there. Then there’s Hampton St, the ridiculous roundabout New/Dendy St Crossing, Bay St which could only be elevated as the line rises and then comes to ground level and Glen Eira Rd.

The stations too, Brighton Beach, Sandringham, Middle Brighton, Ripponlea and Windsor are all quite beautiful and would have heritage listings on them.

Macaulay Rd - not a problem. Just contract the job to Transurban, they hyjacked the airspace so will have no problem solving. Just suspend the rail line underneath citylink. cherrs John
justarider


Believe there is space just next to citylink on the citybound side so you could elevate the line and run it there. Or you could have the Wollert Line via Upfield branch off from Cragieburn, run that via MM2 with Mernda and extend the Cragieburn Line to Wallan which would kill two birds with one stone. Removes the LX, gives the Upfield Line access to the Parkville precinct, allows for a future Wollert Line and has the Cragieburn Line extend to Wallan.
  ngarner Train Controller

Location: Seville
I think Google Maps begs to differ with you about space on the 'city bound' side of the Upfield line near Macauley Rd. There are a number of commercial buildings currently in the way. Buying them would add substantially to the cost and one feature of this project has been avoidance of property acquisition.
And I don't understand what you are trying to say with the rest of your post - there seem to be a lot of assumptions in your post about what connects with what that aren't clear to me. Could you explain your idea more thoroughly so others (e.g. me) can understand?

Neil

Sponsored advertisement

Display from: