Bias in favour of viaducts

 
  BrentonGolding Chief Commissioner

Location: Maldon Junction
But this is a short term consideration, not a long term one. Also, rail under may keep open future options that are precluded by raising the tracks.
Myrtone
It's not a short term consideration for those using the line, catching RR buses from Coburg to the City for 12 months? No thanks.

Rail under precludes some future options that have been discussed for the Upfield line such as diverting V/Line trains via Upfield to free up paths on the Craigieburn line or heaven forbid re-opening the line for freight once more (highly unlikely)

Both of those use diesel trains which would not be allowed to use an extensive trench with underground stations in it.

BG

Sponsored advertisement

  Myrtone Chief Commissioner

Location: North Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria
It's not a short term consideration for those using the line, catching RR buses from Coburg to the City for 12 months? No thanks.
BrentonGolding
Construction costs, and disruption during the construction come under short term, the long term effects of the construction (which differ according to the method) come under long term considerations.
And diesel trains can use an open trench, or a tunnel may have ventilators which are activated on approach of a diesel train. But then again, running suburban services to Craigieburn via Upfield and keeping VLine services through Broadmeadows might be preferable.
  BrentonGolding Chief Commissioner

Location: Maldon Junction
And diesel trains can use an open trench
Myrtone
Hang on, a minute ago you were roofing over the trench and building North Chadstone on top of it, now it is an open trench?
  John.Z Chief Train Controller

And diesel trains can use an open trench
Hang on, a minute ago you were roofing over the trench and building North Chadstone on top of it, now it is an open trench?
BrentonGolding
But think about the long term considerations Laughing
  Myrtone Chief Commissioner

Location: North Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria
Hang on, a minute ago you were roofing over the trench and building North Chadstone on top of it, now it is an open trench?
BrentonGolding
But I was pointing out that a trench alone doesn't rule out diesel trains.
  Myrtone Chief Commissioner

Location: North Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria
@BrentonGolding You said that rail-under would preclude the use of diesel trains, that's not quite right, but decking over the cutting would unless ventilators are provided. I'm just saying I don't completely agree with elevated rail being better for connection. Yes, it may be better than an embankment or an open trench, but decking over a trench brings the same benefits, if not to a greater extent than raising the tracks.

On the whole, I prefer road based grade separations, where they can be done without building demolition, I mean like actually changing the level of the road before the area is built up over waiting for the area to develop before changing the level of the railway. This woud have been right for St. Albans had those two grade separations been carried out when the should have been.
  True Believers Chief Commissioner

@BrentonGolding You said that rail-under would preclude the use of diesel trains, that's not quite right, but decking over the cutting would unless ventilators are provided. I'm just saying I don't completely agree with elevated rail being better for connection. Yes, it may be better than an embankment or an open trench, but decking over a trench brings the same benefits, if not to a greater extent than raising the tracks.

On the whole, I prefer road based grade separations, where they can be done without building demolition, I mean like actually changing the level of the road before the area is built up over waiting for the area to develop before changing the level of the railway. This woud have been right for St. Albans had those two grade separations been carried out when the should have been.
Myrtone
Oh k let me get this straight there are 3 options.

Rail bridge
-full connectivity
-cheap
-diesel trains can use it without vents

Rail trench
-no full connectivity
-medium cost
-diesel trains can use it without vents

Rail full cut and cover
-full connectivity
-high cost
-needs vents to allow diesel trains to use it

Seems to me one option is superior if you wanna remove the level crossing all in one go and allow future provision for diesel trains. A rail bridge.
  Myrtone Chief Commissioner

Location: North Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria
Missed one, rail bridges are also very visible while a railway under is barely visible at all, not that being barely visible is always better, but it is a major difference and in some cases, a major consideration. And you just say "cheap" without specifying which of the two main types of cost.

Also, a trench doesn't have to be decked right after being dug, or even before the tracks are laid. It is possible to deck an existing open trench. So an open trench does keep to the future option of decking open. Also, if buildings are erected on top of a cutting, I'm sure it would be the builders of them who cover the costs, not the owner of the railway.

Okay, a trench under only Moreland road, Bell street and both streets in between would only need a gradient of 1%, but one viaduct over Moreland road and another over Bell street would mean a steeper gradient than that.
There are two elevated options that would also only need a gradient of 1% which would involve a viaduct also over many other streets south of Moreland road.

Yes, studies done by institutions such as universities can have ommissions, even those lead by transportation experts. That report, for example, doesn't explain the reason for the cost of decking, or whether the cost of decking would be ongoing, or who would cover the cost of the decking.
  ElliotProvis Junior Train Controller

Location: Melbourne, Victoria
My earlier post was taken down as I engaged in personal attacks.
My apologies if this was over the top, and for any offence caused.

Back to the issue at hand though:
Having opinions is not justification enough for a trench unfortunately. As others have pointed out, nobody is going to listen you if you claim the system is biased when it doesn’t agree with your opinions. Get better opinions if you want consensus.

Don’t write off academic research because it doesn’t agree with you. That’s also just plainly ridiculous.
  Myrtone Chief Commissioner

Location: North Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria
But a trench from Albion Street, Brunswick to Bakers road, Coburg, would indeed flatten some existing gradient, not add or steepen any gradients, which is part of the justification for a trench, another is the future option it keeps open, which I still predict will be viable later on.

Yes, academic research can have ommissions. For example, there has been academic research in Sydney that favours starting a metro line separate from their existing suburban network, which they are doing, but that has had considerable opposition, including from some rail experts.
  Valvegear Dr Beeching

Location: Norda Fittazroy
Myrtone, your post has noting convincing in it.
Gradients are not a particular problem on the suburban system, and will not impact on services here.
The trench and "future options" means nothing. You cannot just put a roof over the trench and then build on it later;you are ignoring vital civil engineering considerations.
All research will gather some objections; it's the nature of the beast - who are the "rail experts" to whom you refer?

It's worth noting that the thread is titled "Bias in favour of viaducts". In truth, it should be called "Myrtone's bias in favour of trenches." It's been said before, that bias is an unreasoning preference for one option over others and I'm afraid that you have gone down that track.

Skyrail has been a demonstrable success due, in part to the anticipated "noise problem" becoming a non-issue, and in part to the public open space it created.
  True Believers Chief Commissioner

But a trench from Albion Street, Brunswick to Bakers road, Coburg, would indeed flatten some existing gradient, not add or steepen any gradients, which is part of the justification for a trench, another is the future option it keeps open, which I still predict will be viable later on.

Yes, academic research can have ommissions. For example, there has been academic research in Sydney that favours starting a metro line separate from their existing suburban network, which they are doing, but that has had considerable opposition, including from some rail experts.
Myrtone
Sydney metro line is seperated from freight and regional trains, that's many times better than Melbourne's metro line which is not segregated from the existing system, which will cause issues in the longer term.

I think the academic research is correct, metro lines segregated from the network will mean delays will not spread across the whole system. I think anyone with a bright mind would agree. The opposition to it which is Nimbys or those who disagree with the double deck vs single deck scenario. But the outcome of having a metro system in Sydney is mostly positive. Anyways it's much better than our so called "metro (high capacity) line".

Anyways Melbourne's elevated rail had opposition too and all the seats had a huge positive swing towards Labor. I know there are other issues that also tie in with politics, but the level crossing removals are definitely bringing a positive vibe in the community despite the backlash from the minority nimby groups and those preferring trenches.

Nothing wrong having an unpopular opinion, but if you believe the people that have a different opinion is completely bias and don't have an argument to stand on, then I don't think anyone would take ur opinion seriously. Elevated rail has been shown a number of times being favorable on that section of the Upfield line. This is fact, cause the gradient maps allows this, the economics stack up and the area is perfect for elevated rail, especially connecting up the community. Honestly had enough disputing this in the forums.

I thought this topic was finished. I don't think I'm bringing anything new to the discussion anymore.
  Myrtone Chief Commissioner

Location: North Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria
Gradients are not a particular problem on the suburban system, and will not impact on services here.
Valvegear
This itself is not very convincing. My concern is adding gradients or increasing existing ones, and a solution that flattens existing gradients may still seem very welcome.

I think the academic research is correct, metro lines segregated from the network will mean delays will not spread across the whole system. I think anyone with a bright mind would agree. The opposition to it which is Nimbys or those who disagree with the double deck vs single deck scenario. But the outcome of having a metro system in Sydney is mostly positive. Anyways it's much better than our so called "metro (high capacity) line".
True Believers
First of all, metro style rail was originally designed to solve a problem that Sydney, like Melbourne, was able to avoid.
Secondly, railways have these things called loading gauges, and it is standard practice to build to these loading gauges or larger, not compromise the whole system by building smaller, and for good reasons.
Thirdly, Sydney pioneered double-decker trains and they are spreading around the world to the busiest heavy rail networks where they will fit. They have about 40% more floor space and about twice as many seats.
Fourthly, the opposition is coming from rail experts such as Colin Schroeder and Sandy Thomas, and a very knowledgeable enthusiast, Matthew Geier, among others.

Nothing wrong having an unpopular opinion, but if you believe the people that have a different opinion is completely bias and don't have an argument to stand on, then I don't think anyone would take ur opinion seriously. Elevated rail has been shown a number of times being favorable on that section of the Upfield line. This is fact, cause the gradient maps allows this, the economics stack up and the area is perfect for elevated rail, especially connecting up the community. Honestly had enough disputing this in the forums.
True Believers
What do you mean by the gradient maps allowing this? True or false? An elevated solution would increase existing gradients or add new ones. I don't like the idea of increasing existing gradients, the way I describe that is disorderly, is that understandable?

The bias I mean is the idea that an elevated solution should be considered wherever possible, as opposed to not thinking that any solution is the best default, in other words, thinking there is no best default.
  TOQ-1 Deputy Commissioner

Location: Power Trainger
On gradients: The LXRA has a strict policy of no gradients greater than 2%. Trains these days have a lot more power relative to their weight than steam trains did previously. Gradients are not an issue, in any solution.

The LXRA do not have a bias against any option. In fact, they normally list all four as they do their preliminary designs. The good part about having an authority such as the LXRA means that we have experts on the subject working in house. They have to consider a variety of factors in choosing which solution. In some cases they will choose elevated.

Looking at the Dandenong corridor, the work the LXRA have done on creating spaces for the community under the viaduct looks fantastic. I can imagine people in the inner North along the Upfield line who lack much public open space would appreciate this too.
  tom9876543 Train Controller

It is clear that Upfield line must be LOWERED.
I did a rough calculation. If apartments are built above the line, it would cost the Victorian Govt approx $450 million to lower Park St to Bell St.
https://www.railpage.com.au/f-t11398256.htm

I believe the Dandenong sky rail cost $1.6 billion. That included building new train stations, so comparison is not easy.
My estimate is Upfield sky rail would cost more than $450 million.
So Upfield line must be lowered.

Freight trains will always go via Sunshine. Vline trains can go via Sunshine or Essendon. So Upfield line does NOT need to deal with diesel fumes.
  reubstar6 Chief Train Controller

Good luck trying to convince people that apartment blocks are a better use of public space than an upgraded Upfield bike path...
  True Believers Chief Commissioner

The increasing gradients argument is BS. As a poster said above, there are already a policy in play that allows gradients no greater than 2%.

As I said above the metro opposition is mostly due with the single vs double deck argument. Like how double deckers don't board and unload as quickly as single decks but carry more people per train. So it's a case whether you want more frequency vs more capacity. Anyways I think regional services work better as double deckers since frequency isn't an issue.

Anyways despite what those rail enthuasist think, double deckers on Sydney, while they do carry more people are more expensive to run on Sydney's train network. It's a higher cost per passenger when you look at the figures.

I'm not saying metro has it's own problems to deal with, one being less capacity. But the pros outweigh the cons, it's cheaper to run (ongoing costs), faster service (less time boarding) & more frequent.

But it's something I don't wanna discuss in detail here.
  Myrtone Chief Commissioner

Location: North Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria
As a poster said above, there are already a policy in play that allows gradients no greater than 2%.
True Believers
Did you think "increasing gradients" meant increasing gradients above 2%? If so, this is a misinterpretation. If an existing gradient is 1% and changing the level of a section of track increases that gradient to 2%, that is an increase.

The idea is this if a level crossing is on top of a hill and the railway is uphill towards the crossing on both sides, then lowering the tracks is the obvious method of grade separation.

As I said above the metro opposition is mostly due with the single vs double deck argument. Like how double deckers don't board and unload as quickly as single decks but carry more people per train. So it's a case whether you want more frequency vs more capacity. Anyways I think regional services work better as double deckers since frequency isn't an issue.
True Believers
No, it is also about the new line being separate from the existing network and reducing the loading gauge, and also about reducing comfort and increasing the passenger carrying density.
  TOQ-1 Deputy Commissioner

Location: Power Trainger
I can't see how a full length trench could be cheaper.

- More rock excavation needed - more truck movements across the suburbs.
- Full line shut down needing longer bus replacements. As with the Dandenong Line, parts of the reservation could be done ahead of major shut downs for elevated.
- The Ormond development needed to be 13 stories tall to recover the costs of that small deck, 13 stories is still much higher than anything around most sections of the Upfield Line.
- A Trench just can't be decked over - you need to build the trench walls up to a standard that can hold a building.
- If you are fully decking the line, you are effectively creating a tunnel, which means you need to consider ventilation, emergency exits, probably a fire suppression system, emergency lighting.
- Maintenance in an underground trench is going to be a lot harder than on an elevated section.

And that's before the social costs of what are you doing with the bike path? The inner northern suburbs are densifying quickly without adding apartments over the Upfield Line. They need more open spaces more than they need new space for more apartments.
  Myrtone Chief Commissioner

Location: North Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria
A full-length trench may have advantages in some locations or at least be more desirable. Sometimes the advantage, or at least one of them, will be a future option they keep open, even if that future option is not currently viable.
  Valvegear Dr Beeching

Location: Norda Fittazroy
A full-length trench may have advantages in some locations or at least be more desirable. Sometimes the advantage, or at least one of them, will be a future option they keep open, even if that future option is not currently viable.
"Myrtone"
I'm afraid that your statement is basically meaningless. If it's not viable, it's not an option.
  BrentonGolding Chief Commissioner

Location: Maldon Junction
And that's before the social costs of what are you doing with the bike path? The inner northern suburbs are densifying quickly without adding apartments over the Upfield Line. They need more open spaces more than they need new space for more apartments.
TOQ-1
Not to mention moving every service that currently runs under all those little cross roads - gas, water, sewerage, telcoms and whatever else is hidden under the ROW

BG
  Myrtone Chief Commissioner

Location: North Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria
Apparently, that is one big reason for the elevation of the railway along the corridor to Dandenong, there is a gas pipeline along that line.
  Myrtone Chief Commissioner

Location: North Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria
Much of what I have pointed out has been ignored, as usual. For example, I said that the idea is this if a level crossing is on top of a hill and the railway is uphill towards the crossing on both sides, then lowering the tracks is the obvious method of grade separation. Nobody responds, so no indication as to whether it is true or false.
  TOQ-1 Deputy Commissioner

Location: Power Trainger
Much of what I have pointed out has been ignored, as usual. For example, I said that the idea is this if a level crossing is on top of a hill and the railway is uphill towards the crossing on both sides, then lowering the tracks is the obvious method of grade separation. Nobody responds, so no indication as to whether it is true or false.
Myrtone
There are more factors than grade involved. Your statement is only true if you are only considering grades, and then only the ones immediately adjacent to each side of the crossing.

Sponsored advertisement

Display from:   

Quick Reply

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