Lilydale Rail Crossing review and thus future of Meto rail returning to Helaesville

 
  justapassenger Chief Commissioner

Car parking at Lilydale covers a huge area, both sides of the tracks, and needs to be even bigger because it fills up early.  
Lad_Porter
Sounds like they aren't charging a high enough price for the current parking if it fills up early.

Increase the price of parking or franchise out the rights to operate it, and add more feeder bus services.

Sponsored advertisement

  ZH836301 Chief Commissioner

Location: BleakCity
Problem being ZH, that with the LX removal at the highway (rail over road), a lot of space will be need for the works to avoid huge disruptions.
justarider

There's no need for a grade sep - the station can just be rebuilt on the south side.

That also allows part of existing station site to be taken over for more stabling - separation for limited stabling movements isn't justifiable.
  TOQ-1 Deputy Commissioner

Location: Power Trainger
None of the Skyrail stations were built with bridge access across their roads, so Mernda is the exception to the rule here.

If the station is elevated to the south of the highway, there is the potential for the space between John St and the highway to become a carpark as well.
  LancedDendrite Chief Commissioner

Location: Trapped in a meeting with Rhonda and Karsten
Problem being ZH, that with the LX removal at the highway (rail over road), a lot of space will be need for the works to avoid huge disruptions.

There's no need for a grade sep - the station can just be rebuilt on the south side.

That also allows part of existing station site to be taken over for more stabling - separation for limited stabling movements isn't justifiable.
ZH836301
A platform on a 2.5% grade - towards the bottom of said grade for arriving trains, no less - with a level crossing at the end of it. Yeah, that'll fly - straight from the notepad into the office rubbish bin.
  potatoinmymouth Chief Commissioner

Yeah, that'll fly
LancedDendrite

I believe flying trains might be the problem Exclamation
  ZH836301 Chief Commissioner

Location: BleakCity
A platform on a 2.5% grade - towards the bottom of said grade for arriving trains, no less - with a level crossing at the end of it. Yeah, that'll fly - straight from the notepad into the office rubbish bin.
LancedDendrite
It's only worth being smug when you're right, otherwise you just look like a twat.

The descent into Lilydale from Cave Hill ends at John St.
  jdekorte Deputy Commissioner

Location: Near Caulfield Station
HI all. I've been reading this thread with interest. Over time I have seen documents mentioning a new train stabling facility at Coldstream. For those that are interested, I found a reasonably informative document from Yarra Ranges Council regarding future directions for Coldstream township - these ideas/plans are very well detailed.  This one is from May 2015 and the following points are from page 66:
https://www.yarraranges.vic.gov.au/files/assets/public/webdocuments/planning-building-health/strategic-planning/planning-building-strategic-planning/coldstream_sp_issues_and_opportunities_report_final.pdf

  • It is highly unlikely that a train station would be provided at Coldstream in the foreseeable future.
  • There is a need to build a stabling facility at Lilydale or nearby in Coldstream associated with 25 trains when the fleet is expanded.
  • Only preliminary investigations have been undertaken to date as the facility is likely to be 10 years away.
  • The only available space for such a facility would be north of Lilydale Station (around the industrial area), or otherwise adjacent to the former rail alignment in Coldstream. Although neither site is ideal, PTV need to conduct more investigations to consider issues and opportunities with both.
  • PTV cannot provide clear advice on the likely location until more detailed design investigations are undertaken.
  • A large footprint of approx. ??? m2 will be required for the stabling yards, which would include a maintenance building and required security fencing and lighting. The Facility is likely to be a 24 hour facility.
  • Noting potential noise and light issues, an amenity buffer would be required from sensitive uses – would need to be determined.
(Source: Coldstream Structure Plan : Issues and Opportunities Paper, 2015, pg. 66)

In this paper there is an indication of where a stabling yard at Coldstream might be located on page 11.

From this plan, and subsequent plans regarding Coldstream, there is no indication that planning for a stabling yard has evolved since 2015. In later papers there is mention of Yarra Ranges Council wanting to establish a Park'n'Ride facility in Coldstream for buses in order to build better connectivity with Lilydale using public transport.
  Lad_Porter Chief Commissioner

Location: Yarra Glen
Problem being ZH, that with the LX removal at the highway (rail over road), a lot of space will be need for the works to avoid huge disruptions.

There's no need for a grade sep - the station can just be rebuilt on the south side.

That also allows part of existing station site to be taken over for more stabling - separation for limited stabling movements isn't justifiable.
ZH836301
It would be interesting to know how many stabling movements occur in a day (both in and out), and at what times of day in comparison to traffic volumes on the highway.

This solution ignores the problems of the bus terminal and car parking.  If the existing car parks are retained there would need to be pedestrian access across the highway (footbridge or subway).  If not retained, where would a new one of similar capacity (or larger) be located?
  LancedDendrite Chief Commissioner

Location: Trapped in a meeting with Rhonda and Karsten
A platform on a 2.5% grade - towards the bottom of said grade for arriving trains, no less - with a level crossing at the end of it. Yeah, that'll fly - straight from the notepad into the office rubbish bin.
It's only worth being smug when you're right, otherwise you just look like a twat.

The descent into Lilydale from Cave Hill ends at John St.
ZH836301
Which changes bugger-all. You can't fit an Xtrap on level ground between John St and Maroondah Hwy - there's ~138m between the Maroondah Hwy road shoulder and the Down end abutment of the John St bridge. An Xtrap is 143.36m long and new-build platform standards are for 160m platforms. You've still got a ~22m chunk of platform on a 2.5% grade - and a vertical curve between the 2.5% grade and level track.

Having a vertical curve on a platform is expressly forbidden in Metro Trains Melbourne Engineering Standard L1-CHE-STD-013, section 12.3.2.2 (c):
The maximum track gradient at termini is documented in the MTM Track  Design and Construction Standard MCST 000002-01. Stations are not to be located on vertical curves.
STRUCTURES AND FACILITIES STANDARD METROPOLITAN RAILWAY STATIONS

The maximum permissible grade in MCST 000002-01 (listed in Metro's Document Management system as L1-CHE-STD-039) is listed in section 10.3, table 5:


0.667% maximum allowable track grade through a platform vs 2.5% actual grade over John St.

Moving Maroondah Hwy northwards as an alternative gives you barely enough extra room and requires a total rebuild of the level crossing and surrounding roads. That's the only remotely workable iteration possible. Even still, MTM Engineering Standard L1-CHE-STD-013, section 12.7.3.2 (d) also requires that new platforms have a provision for an extension to 230m, which is impossible to fit in with any iteration of your proposal due to the breach of the aforementioned engineering standards.

Lets move on to your retention of the Maroondah Hwy level crossing. If you only trigger it for stabling movements then the tolerances for overshooting the relocated station platform (very possible at the bottom of a 2.5% grade) and also fully activating the level crossing is nonexistent. Congratulations, you've just made a dangerous and congested level crossing even more dangerous by teaching road users to ignore it even if there's a train moving across the John St bridge. Worse still, the station building and any platform shelters or roofing will visually occlude that train so they are highly unlikely to notice it until there's no time to react.

Your half-pregnant proposal would create a deathtrap for road users and is forbidden by Metro's engineering standards. All to save a few cents compared to doing the job properly with elevated rail over Maroondah Hwy. And I do mean only a few cents - you're still building a new station which is the bulk of the level crossing removal cost anyhow.
  tom9876543 Train Controller


The maximum permissible grade in MCST 000002-01 (listed in Metro's Document Management system as L1-CHE-STD-039) is listed in section 10.3, table 5:


LancedDendrite

I find it very interesting that Line Type 1a has "Exceptional Maximum" of 1 in 28.5 (3.5%).
There must be existing track on the Metro network that has gradient of 1/28.5 (after curve compensation).
I guess it must be on the line between Upper Ferntree Gully and Belgrave.
Would anyone be able to 100% confirm where the 1/28.5 gradient exists?
Also, does anyone know if all Metro rolling stock is confirmed able to operate on 1/28.5 gradient?
Thank you.
  ZH836301 Chief Commissioner

Location: BleakCity
You'd be great in government, trying at all costs to force projects to be as expensive as possible.

Extending a platform over John St is not difficult, minor changes in elevation, again, not hard.

You've still got a ~22m chunk of platform on a 2.5% grade - and a vertical curve between the 2.5% grade and level track.
LancedDendrite

That is, of course, only about 40cm.

Which may not even exist, without detailed site mapping (over DELWP mapping) it's hard to tell.

In any case, the Cave Hill grades are only 1:40, which gives plenty of breathing room if grade alterations are required.

All to save a few cents compared to doing the job properly with elevated rail over Maroondah Hwy. And I do mean only a few cents - you're still building a new station which is the bulk of the level crossing removal cost anyhow.
LancedDendrite

That's complete rubbish, the bulk of level crossing removal costs are related to engineering costs (earthworks and bridge structures) and service replacements/diversions. - the costs of building and platforms are minuscule in comparison, which is readily evident if one looks at the comparative costs of various projects.

So once you've put rail over the highway, you'll have significant costs associated with needing to raise the entire stabling area on an embankment to meet the new station elevation.  All for a crossing with relatively small traffic volumes, on a relatively low frequency railway.

Since it's hard to justify given the lack of priority compared with other crossings, a rebuild to the south is the only economically rational option, and despite your protests, the reality is that it is a straightforward proposition.
  BrentonGolding Chief Commissioner

Location: Maldon Junction
I find it very interesting that Line Type 1a has "Exceptional Maximum" of 1 in 28.5 (3.5%).
There must be existing track on the Metro network that has gradient of 1/28.5 (after curve compensation).
I guess it must be on the line between Upper Ferntree Gully and Belgrave.
Would anyone be able to 100% confirm where the 1/28.5 gradient exists?
Also, does anyone know if all Metro rolling stock is confirmed able to operate on 1/28.5 gradient?
Thank you.
tom9876543
Type 1a is the Metro tunnel according page 16 of

https://documentportal.metrotrains.com.au/engineeringdocs/Standards/L1-CHE-STD-039.pdf

BG
  LancedDendrite Chief Commissioner

Location: Trapped in a meeting with Rhonda and Karsten
You'd be great in government, trying at all costs to force projects to be as expensive as possible.
ZH836301
At least I'd meet the brief - remove a level crossing.

My advice to you: join the rodeo, they've got plenty of use for clowns like you that roll around in bulldust.

That's complete rubbish, the bulk of level crossing removal costs are related to engineering costs (earthworks and bridge structures) and service replacements/diversions. - the costs of building and platforms are minuscule in comparison, which is readily evident if one looks at the comparative costs of various projects.
ZH836301

Prove it.

So once you've put rail over the highway, you'll have significant costs associated with needing to raise the entire stabling area on an embankment to meet the new station elevation.  All for a crossing with relatively small traffic volumes, on a relatively low frequency railway.
ZH836301

Now who's the one inflating project costs? You can easily fit a double or single track ramp within the existing Lilydale Yard limits without affecting the existing spark stabling roads. You need 186m of room. You don't even need to get to the end of the existing station at Lilydale before you reach the ground.
  ZH836301 Chief Commissioner

Location: BleakCity
At least I'd meet the brief - remove a level crossing.
LancedDendrite
Perfectly highlights the lack of thought and disregard for the realities of economics.

My advice to you: join the rodeo, they've got plenty of use for clowns like you that roll around in bulldust.
LancedDendrite
Is that supposed to be funny?  Insulting perhaps?  Neither, about as witty as a Herald Sun pun.  



Prove it.
LancedDendrite

Kororoit Road cost a similar amount to Laburnum and Boronia, despite the lack of a station.


Now who's the one inflating project costs? You can easily fit a double or single track ramp within the existing Lilydale Yard limits without affecting the existing spark stabling roads. You need 186m of room. You don't even need to get to the end of the existing station at Lilydale before you reach the ground.
LancedDendrite

Inflating costs?  You hadn't even considered it at all, had you, and it shows.  A ramp?  Exactly 186m?  Please.

As a major highway route, a bridge at Lilydale would need to have significant clearance, so you'd be looking at the rail level being at least 6m above ground.  So what you're insinuating is a ramp right after the crossing to the side of the station down to the existing yard level, with the new station sitting on an embankment, falling off at the end.

Well that's real handy, now you need to shunt forward and backward just to access the yard.  And you were whining about the potential of overshooting into a crossing, but seem fine with overshooting into a 6m drop off.  If you instead want a ramp down from the end of the station, well then now you have to rebuild most of the yard, along with wasting space on the ramp, and still have the problem of needing to shunt around to access storage up of the ramp.

All this hassle for a relatively light crossing, that would be less disruptive than the average set of traffic lights.  Really, it's just too obvious, rebuild to the south, or don't bother at all.
  billjohnston Station Master

I don't see why lowering the road would not be an option. There is room due to the side roads providing access to the properties. it would eliminate the messy entrance and exit from the current station and the ped crossing. It would be easier than Buckley street in Essendon and that seems to have worked out OK.
Bill Johnston
  potatoinmymouth Chief Commissioner

I don't see why lowering the road would not be an option. There is room due to the side roads providing access to the properties. it would eliminate the messy entrance and exit from the current station and the ped crossing. It would be easier than Buckley street in Essendon and that seems to have worked out OK.
Bill Johnston
billjohnston
Yeah... nah. Buckley St is a bit of a mess actually, the access to the side streets is awful, the pedestrian traffic to and from the schools has nowhere to go, and it's a genuine deathtrap for cyclists. I suspect based on how that went the LXRP will not be keen to try another road-under like that anytime soon.
  Lad_Porter Chief Commissioner

Location: Yarra Glen
If it really is " a crossing with relatively small traffic volumes, on a relatively low frequency railway", then why is this crossing on the list for removal?  Why does the LXRA website say "The Maroondah Highway level crossing is used by 29,000 vehicles each day and is a major safety hazard for pedestrians, cyclists and drivers."?

Duplication from Mooroolbark will happen in due course, and then the volume of rail traffic will increase.  Even before duplication, there will eventually (soon?) be an off-peak service frequency of 20 minutes in each direction, not 30 minutes as at present.  This 20 minute frequency is already operating at weekends.

If the crossing is retained for stabling movements, then it has not been removed and remains a hazard.  A fair bit of local flak would emanate from that.        
  potatoinmymouth Chief Commissioner

Kororoit Road cost a similar amount to Laburnum and Boronia, despite the lack of a station.
ZH836301

Kororoit Creek Road cost $48.5m including duplication of the road between Millers Road and Grieve Parade.

Laburnum cost $66m.

That’s a 25-30% difference in cost. I would very much like to live in a world where an extra $18m was nothing to write home about - maybe I need to switch banks.
  ZH836301 Chief Commissioner

Location: BleakCity
If it really is " a crossing with relatively small traffic volumes, on a relatively low frequency railway", then why is this crossing on the list for removal?  Why does the LXRA website say "The Maroondah Highway level crossing is used by 29,000 vehicles each day and is a major safety hazard for pedestrians, cyclists and drivers."?
Lad_Porter

Politics - Evelyn only needs a 3% swing to switch from Liberal to Labor.


Kororoit Creek Road cost $48.5m including duplication of the road between Millers Road and Grieve Parade.

Laburnum cost $66m.

That’s a 25-30% difference in cost. I would very much like to live in a world where an extra $18m was nothing to write home about - maybe I need to switch banks.
potatoinmymouth
I thought you would be intelligent enough to see that 'building a new station which is the bulk of the level crossing removal' is a fallacy.  Every separation is different, Laburnum was a significant project involving substantial service replacement costs, if you really think that comparison means a station replacement contributes 30% more to project costs (which in any case, wouldn't even constitute the bulk if it did) you really aren't all that good at analysis.

So then, how do you explain that Rooks Rd cost $98.5, despite no station replacement.
  railblogger Chief Commissioner

Location: At the back of the train, quitely doing exactly what you'd expect.
Wasn't that the total cost of Rooks Road and Mitch's Road together?
  ngarner Train Controller

Location: Seville
If it really is " a crossing with relatively small traffic volumes, on a relatively low frequency railway", then why is this crossing on the list for removal?  Why does the LXRA website say "The Maroondah Highway level crossing is used by 29,000 vehicles each day and is a major safety hazard for pedestrians, cyclists and drivers."?

Politics - Evelyn only needs a 3% swing to switch from Liberal to Labor.
ZH836301
Before the 2018 election, Evelyn was a "safe liberal" seat requiring a 9.6% swing to Labor for it to change hands. Post election it's now 2.6%. It was promised as one of the original 50 LX to be removed as part of Andrews election promises, prior to the 2014 election, when it was still a safe Liberal seat. Wasting money and resources on a, then, safe liberal seat is not 'politics' - ABC election website Evelyn
Evelyn has gone Labor three times in history, 1952 (Cain Snr), 1982 (Cain JR) and 2002 (Bracks) but only been held for one term each time. It is not a Labor voting seat.
Selective use of statistics does not support your case

Neil
  potatoinmymouth Chief Commissioner


Kororoit Creek Road cost $48.5m including duplication of the road between Millers Road and Grieve Parade.

Laburnum cost $66m.

That’s a 25-30% difference in cost. I would very much like to live in a world where an extra $18m was nothing to write home about - maybe I need to switch banks.
I thought you would be intelligent enough to see that 'building a new station which is the bulk of the level crossing removal' is a fallacy.  Every separation is different, Laburnum was a significant project involving substantial service replacement costs, if you really think that comparison means a station replacement contributes 30% more to project costs (which in any case, wouldn't even constitute the bulk if it did) you really aren't all that good at analysis.

So then, how do you explain that Rooks Rd cost $98.5, despite no station replacement.
ZH836301
Hmmm... Funny about that, I didn't actually draw any conclusions from my comparison but you've jumped right off the deep end.

You've really proven my point better than I could ever hope to, that you really just picked those two crossings at random and hoped they would support your argument. Then when challenged you pull out another one that might work better and try to shift the burden of proof to someone else.

None of this justifies your "plan" to spend a fortune moving a station while not removing a level crossing. That's a weirder logical leap than anything you've yet accused me of.
  Lad_Porter Chief Commissioner

Location: Yarra Glen
If it really is " a crossing with relatively small traffic volumes, on a relatively low frequency railway", then why is this crossing on the list for removal?  Why does the LXRA website say "The Maroondah Highway level crossing is used by 29,000 vehicles each day and is a major safety hazard for pedestrians, cyclists and drivers."?

Politics - Evelyn only needs a 3% swing to switch from Liberal to Labor.
ZH836301
Unlike some, I would hesitate to use pejorative terms such as "rubbish", but ......

As has been pointed out in this thread, the State seat of Evelyn is not "safe" for either party, and can change hands at any election, for reasons which have never had anything to do with the proposed removal of a level crossing.  It's also worth mentioning that many users of the Lilydale crossing neither live nor vote in the Evelyn electorate, and therefore have little interest in local politics.  

The crossing is on a major route from the eastern suburbs to the east and north, and locally among others it services traffic to and from Yarra Glen, Healesville and Warburton - none of which is in the electorate of Evelyn.  More broadly, it also forms part of an "alternative Hume Highway" from the eastern suburbs to and beyond Benalla, via Yarra Glen, Yea and Maindample.  If you don'r believe that, ask why the town of Yarra Glen was bypassed for trucks.  Such users have even less interest in local politics.  

In winter the Maroondah highway through Lilydale also services traffic from the eastern suburbs to Mt Buller and other snowfields, and once again many of those motorists do not live in Evelyn and have no interest in local politics.  On the other hand, they do have an interest in getting through an often congested crossing with minimal or no delay.
  ZH836301 Chief Commissioner

Location: BleakCity
Wasn't that the total cost of Rooks Road and Mitch's Road together?
railblogger
Correct, my mistake.

We also have Boronia, which had an adjusted cost of around $50 million, and Taylors Rd which was $54 million without a station.  Total expenses depend on a number of factors, but the assertion that the bulk of costs are related to station rebuilds, and not earthworks and service replacements and diversions is bunk.


You've really proven my point better than I could ever hope to, that you really just picked those two crossings at random and hoped they would support your argument. Then when challenged you pull out another one that might work better and try to shift the burden of proof to someone else.
potatoinmymouth

So how are station rebuilds 'the bulk of grade separation expenses'?


None of this justifies your "plan" to spend a fortune moving a station while not removing a level crossing. That's a weirder logical leap than anything you've yet accused me of.
potatoinmymouth

Station rebuilds do not cost a fortune - removing 95% of level crossing activations for a fraction of the cost of removing them all, whilst maintaining stabling space and heritage aspects, is a far superior option to spending a fortune on a crossing that really lacks the traffic, both road and rail to justify doing anything at all.

Again, expand your horizons and stop thinking in such an insular manner.


The crossing is on a major route from the eastern suburbs to the east and north
Lad_Porter

Which do you think causes more delays, the level crossing or the average set of traffic lights on the route?

Yet we don't hear calls to remove the road intersections at great expense.
  Valvegear Dr Beeching

Location: Norda Fittazroy
Yet we don't hear calls to remove the road intersections at great expense.
"ZH836301"
And how would you go about it if the calls were made?

Sponsored advertisement

Display from:   

Quick Reply

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