50 level crossings to be removed

 
  Carnot Chief Commissioner

I can't see any alternative but to Skyrail it.  Steep grades are already a part of this line (the infamous 1 in 30 Jordanville Bank), so that's not really a big deal.

Funny how it's in the Opposition Leader's seat and he's already going berko over it:

Sponsored advertisement

  potatoinmymouth Chief Commissioner

I can't see any alternative but to Skyrail it.  Steep grades are already a part of this line (the infamous 1 in 30 Jordanville Bank), so that's not really a big deal.

Funny how it's in the Opposition Leader's seat and he's already going berko over it:
Carnot
It's just disgraceful. They lost an election in which one of the two major issues was infrastructure, and they still think trying to frighten people about the evil bridges is a good strategy.

It shouldn't take Einstein to see the massive swings TO Labor in Skyrail seats mean no one of any electoral significance is buying their crud.
  TheMeddlingMonk Deputy Commissioner

Location: The Time Vortex near Melbourne, Australia
I can't see any alternative but to Skyrail it.  Steep grades are already a part of this line (the infamous 1 in 30 Jordanville Bank), so that's not really a big deal.

Funny how it's in the Opposition Leader's seat and he's already going berko over it:
It's just disgraceful. They lost an election in which one of the two major issues was infrastructure, and they still think trying to frighten people about the evil bridges is a good strategy.

It shouldn't take Einstein to see the massive swings TO Labor in Skyrail seats mean no one of any electoral significance is buying their crud.
potatoinmymouth
I cannot understand how they expect to be taken seriously at this point. Are they completely blind to the evidence in front of them?
  Adogs Chief Train Controller

Regardless their view on this particular crossing, having now welded themselves to the idea that rail viaducts are somehow never acceptable anywhere ever, if they get back into power anytime soon they'll have painted themselves into a pretty unworkable corner.
  Nightfire Minister for Railways

Location: Gippsland
I can't see any alternative but to Skyrail it.  Steep grades are already a part of this line (the infamous 1 in 30 Jordanville Bank), so that's not really a big deal.

Funny how it's in the Opposition Leader's seat and he's already going berko over it:
It's just disgraceful. They lost an election in which one of the two major issues was infrastructure, and they still think trying to frighten people about the evil bridges is a good strategy.

It shouldn't take Einstein to see the massive swings TO Labor in Skyrail seats mean no one of any electoral significance is buying their crud.
potatoinmymouth
I tend to think Dan Andrews Is really rubbing salt Into the Opposition's wounds.

Building skyrail In Liberal heartland Is probably testing the waters, to see how well the locals accept It.

If It goes down ok with the locals, the same concept could be planed for other future level crossings removals on the Glen Waverley line.
  The Vinelander Minister for Railways

Location: Ballan, Victoria on the Ballarat RFR Line
I tend to think Dan Andrews Is really rubbing salt Into the Opposition's 'wombs'.

Building skyrail In Liberal heartland Is probably testing the waters, to see how well the locals accept It.

If It goes down ok with the locals, the same concept could be planed for other future level crossings removals on the Glen Waverley line.
Nightfire

Wombs are for gestating foetuses to grow in before being born Exclamation

Perhaps you are referring to the Oppositions 'wounds' Question

Moreover, the government governs for the whole state not just Labor electorates and it's likely many Labor voters drive that way anyway and will benefit from the improved infrastructure.

Mike.
  stooge spark Train Controller

Who wants to take the Glen Waverley rollercoaster?
  PE2010 Station Master

Location: Newcastle
They might still add on the other two crossings to the works as a variation. Just like when north road Ormond was announced and then McKinnon and center were added.
  Nightfire Minister for Railways

Location: Gippsland
I tend to think Dan Andrews Is really rubbing salt Into the Opposition's 'wombs'.

Building skyrail In Liberal heartland Is probably testing the waters, to see how well the locals accept It.

If It goes down ok with the locals, the same concept could be planed for other future level crossings removals on the Glen Waverley line.

Wombs are for gestating foetuses to grow in before being born Exclamation

Perhaps you are referring to the Oppositions 'wounds' Question

Moreover, the government governs for the whole state not just Labor electorates and it's likely many Labor voters drive that way anyway and will benefit from the improved infrastructure.

Mike.
The Vinelander
Thank you for picking up on my writing error.

Many say the Victorian Government governs for the whole State, but In practice this not the case ! outside the so called "Golden Ring" there are a parts of Victoria that are forgotten by the Government.
  True Believers Chief Commissioner

They might still add on the other two crossings to the works as a variation. Just like when north road Ormond was announced and then McKinnon and center were added.
PE2010
Just a little bit of history.
Though the Liberal government during 2010-2014 did little on improving transport infrastructure, they had been early planning work done at a few level crossing sites done by Vic Roads.

Those included:
North road Ormond, Burke road, Blackburn road, Heatherdale road, Main Road St Albans, the 2 Bayswater ones.

Meanwhile Labor was spruiking their 50 level crossing removal plan, about 1 year before the election. They already nominated 40 of them. So they had to nominate the last 10 before the election. One of them they nominated was Centre Road. Since Mckinnon was btw the North and Centre one, they eventually nominated that one, as it would make the most sense politically (marginal seat) and logically since they can be removed all together.

So Vic Roads continued working on those level crossing removals until the new LXRA was formed in 2015 and took over the works. And it was decided by the LXRA to do the Ormond one together with the newly nominated ones at both Centre and Mckinnon. This is why it seemed like the first 10 level crossings were removed so quickly in 2016, planning work was done as far as 2013-2014.

The difference here, is that McKinnon and Centre were pledged before an election. If these 2 were going be done at the same time. It would either be nominated before 2018 in their extra 25 level crossing list, or either rescope the works to include those crossings. Since the Frankston line has been rescoped to include an extra 2 level crossings, I don't think there's enough in the LXRA budget to stretch it out any further.

So unfortunately it has to wait till 2022, if Labor wants to future extension for the program to remove 100 crossings.
  ptvcommuter Train Controller

They might still add on the other two crossings to the works as a variation. Just like when north road Ormond was announced and then McKinnon and center were added.
PE2010


Tooronga Rd could actually be done as road over, one has to actually drive on that road to understand that it could or you could just elevate the three crossings
  Adogs Chief Train Controller

I don't think there's really any salt-rubbing going on - rail-over is the best solution at Toorak Rd, both environmentally and engineering-wise, and that's about it.  Salt is an added bonus at best.  

We keep seeing people say that they went rail-under to save votes in marginals, but two of the most marginal seats in the state were Frankston and Carrum - which got 3 Skyrail crossings between them (and which both swung to Labor, almost 10% in Franga's case and something like 12 or 13% in Carrum's).

Admittedly they really chickened out and bowed to the NoSkyRailers at Bonbeach-Chelsea-Edithvale (which people will massively regret within 20-30 years, if not sooner) as wisdom suggested the sandbelt was where the election would be won or lost.

But for the rest, Bentleigh and Fairfield etc you could argue the relative merits either way.  Bowing to NIMBY's went on to some degree, but still most of the time they've gone the best engineering solution.
  DirtyBallast Chief Commissioner

Location: I was here first. You're only visiting.
I don't think there's really any salt-rubbing going on - rail-over is the best solution at Toorak Rd, both environmentally and engineering-wise, and that's about it.  Salt is an added bonus at best.  

We keep seeing people say that they went rail-under to save votes in marginals, but two of the most marginal seats in the state were Frankston and Carrum - which got 3 Skyrail crossings between them (and which both swung to Labor, almost 10% in Franga's case and something like 12 or 13% in Carrum's).

Admittedly they really chickened out and bowed to the NoSkyRailers at Bonbeach-Chelsea-Edithvale (which people will massively regret within 20-30 years, if not sooner) as wisdom suggested the sandbelt was where the election would be won or lost.

But for the rest, Bentleigh and Fairfield etc you could argue the relative merits either way.  Bowing to NIMBY's went on to some degree, but still most of the time they've gone the best engineering solution.
Adogs
Well, Carrum had to be over, didn't it. Tunnelling under the river would have been problematic.

I'm very familiar with the crossing at Edithvale. It is a separate project to the crossings around Chelsea and IMHO I suspect that it is too far away from them to warrant a continuous skyrail with them; the ones around Chelsea however would be better served by it. But personally, I would trench Chelsea with a new station and permanently close the crossings at Swanpool and Argyle Ave and make the road bridge at Thames Promenade instead of Chelsea Rd. Also with Edithvale I would close the crossing at Lochiel Ave once the Edithvale project is complete.

Interesting that the Station St crossing just south of Mordialloc Ck is not on the list, but I guess that delays there are negligible due to the fact that trains cross there at speed.
  jdekorte Deputy Commissioner

Location: Near Caulfield Station
Just my 2c on the Toorak Rd crossing. I was expecting that Toorak Rd would be a hybrid - road raised, rail lowered. But that expectation was based  on a lack of knowledge about what lies under the ground. The Mayor of Stonnington, and the local MP (and Liberal Opposition Leader) have both come out criticising the plan saying it should have been like Gardiner. However, there are differences - trams, shops, buildings, and a different proximity to the freeway and creek, with a different topography. Yes, the freeway has been lowered beneath Toorak Rd. But also yes when Gardiner's Ck floods it also floods the freeway.

I think they picked the best option for this area. There is only a small amount of residences backing onto the railway in this area and the buildings on Milton Parade near Toorak Rd (as can be seen by the artists impression) are all commercial. This method will keep disruption to a minimum on Toorak Rd and on the railway as well. And it will mean the 9,000 telecommunication cables which are apparently in a trunk underneath Toorak Rd will not have to be moved.

As for doing Glenferrie Rd & Tooronga Rd at the same time, I would see some difficulties in doing so unless it was very carefully staged. The way the Glen Waverley line follows the valley it crosses North-South rd's and East-West rds in sequence. To have Glenferrie (North-South), Toorak (East-West) & Tooronga (North-South) all experiencing some sort of disruption at the same time due to level crossing works would be horrendous. It's better if they do one at a time to minimise gridlock on alternative routes. As for Tooronga itself, it is quite a busy road especially in the peaks and I've noted traffic banked up to Malvern Rd & beyond if there are a sequence of trains coming through the level crossing at once.
  TOQ-1 Deputy Commissioner

Location: Power Trainger
My thinking on this one has changed. I think if there was space to elevate the line CD9 style with the piers and spans being progressively placed either side of active running lines, and short spans over the road, it would probably be possible to do both at once. But given the reservation isn't as wide, both roads would probably have too many overlapping closures with the line being raised in essentially the same place as it is now.
  ptvcommuter Train Controller

With the whole elevated rail saga in Toorak Rd and wealthy area rubbish I did notice this

On the Sandringham Line the crossings at Chruch St, Middle Brighton Station and Bay St, North Brighton Station will be near impossible to trench

Both travel over elevated stretches of track before descending into their current stations.  
The line is elevated over Well St before it goes into Middle Brighton. The line also passes over Durrant St and is elevated for a few hundred metres before it descends into North Brighton
  historian Deputy Commissioner

With the whole elevated rail saga in Toorak Rd and wealthy area rubbish I did notice this

On the Sandringham Line the crossings at Chruch St, Middle Brighton Station and Bay St, North Brighton Station will be near impossible to trench

Both travel over elevated stretches of track before descending into their current stations.  
The line is elevated over Well St before it goes into Middle Brighton. The line also passes over Durrant St and is elevated for a few hundred metres before it descends into North Brighton
ptvcommuter

Neither descend into the station - the track in both cases is essentially level and the ground drops away.

At North Brighton there is about 240 metres between Durrant St and Bay St. At Middle Brighton there is only about 110 metres between Church St and Well St. Neither would be long enough for ramps.

For added fun, note that there is an overbridge (Allard St) about 100 metres north of North Brighton platform which would make ramps for an elevated rail challenging.

In both cases an overbridge is the only realistic option, with North Brighton relocated south of Bay St. Both would be very courageous overbridges, particularly over Durrant and Well Streets.

Almost all the level crossings on the Sandringham line would be challenging and contentious to remove. This is probably one reason why none have been scheduled for removal.
  mike49 Station Master

As someone who regularly uses the Sandringham line & drives in the Brighton & Sandringham area I would find it hard to justify the inclusion of any of the crossings in the area as being worthy of inclusion on a current priority list & that includes the end of South Road at Brighton Beach station. The only one that I would regard as even worth considering is Hampton Street at Hampton station.

Having said that though priorities might change after 2025 if Sandringham trains are through routed as planned with the Williamstown/Laverton/Werribee services after the tunnel opens & there is a significant increase in frequencies. That also raises the issue of the single platform terminus at Sandringham but that is a separate topic.
  trainbrain Deputy Commissioner

With the whole elevated rail saga in Toorak Rd and wealthy area rubbish I did notice this

On the Sandringham Line the crossings at Chruch St, Middle Brighton Station and Bay St, North Brighton Station will be near impossible to trench

Both travel over elevated stretches of track before descending into their current stations.  
The line is elevated over Well St before it goes into Middle Brighton. The line also passes over Durrant St and is elevated for a few hundred metres before it descends into North Brighton

Neither descend into the station - the track in both cases is essentially level and the ground drops away.

At North Brighton there is about 240 metres between Durrant St and Bay St. At Middle Brighton there is only about 110 metres between Church St and Well St. Neither would be long enough for ramps.

For added fun, note that there is an overbridge (Allard St) about 100 metres north of North Brighton platform which would make ramps for an elevated rail challenging.

In both cases an overbridge is the only realistic option, with North Brighton relocated south of Bay St. Both would be very courageous overbridges, particularly over Durrant and Well Streets.

Almost all the level crossings on the Sandringham line would be challenging and contentious to remove. This is probably one reason why none have been scheduled for removal.
historian
Gheaper option, is just leave them alone, Traffic in this area  flows fairly well. No action required. Simple .
  True Believers Chief Commissioner

So much news recently: (12 March -14 March)

-> 3 removals in Cheltenham/Mentone designs shown, removal by 2020

-> Evans Road level crossing (part of the additional level crossings) announces fast tracked removal by 2020.

-> South Gippsland Highway design announced (road over) removal by 2022.
  reubstar6 Chief Train Controller

Can they just do the Glenroy Rd crossing already? I'm getting worried.
  Nightfire Minister for Railways

Location: Gippsland
Evans Road level crossing Is an odd one, as the crossing Is blocked off to vehicle traffic (or It had been)

Housing development Is exploding In that area, so the through road link Is probably urgently required.


A simple solution Is proposed for the removal of the South Gippsland Highway level crossing at Dandenong, very similar to Dandenong - Frankston Road grade separation (done decades ago)
  True Believers Chief Commissioner

Can they just do the Glenroy Rd crossing already? I'm getting worried.
reubstar6
It's not the only one still waiting to be announced a design from the original 50. It's been 5 years out of the 8 year program for the original 50.

Let's recap.

-> 29 Level crossings are gone so far.

-> 6 Level crossing removal in construction (Aircraft, Reservior, 4* on the Frankston line)

-> 4 level crossing removal designs confirmed (Toorak, 2 on the Frankston line, South Gippsland Hwy)

-> 3 level crossing removal designs are most likely elevated rail (Coburg/Preston)
Delayed because of the extra level crossing removals added recently.

-> 8 level crossing removal designs are still unknown (2 on the Lilydale line, 2 on the Pakenham line, Glenroy one, 2 on the Werribee line, Williamstown one)

*excludes Park Road & Mascot Ave (not in the original 50) these are in construction.
  True Believers Chief Commissioner

Hello, anyone know if there has been studies have been completed to duplicate the Altona Loop?
If so, have these studies been published publically?

It was shown in the LXRA community update back in June 2016.

https://levelcrossings.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/215823/COMMUNITY-UPDATE-KOROROIT-CREEK-ROAD-JUNE.pdf

Also in the Age back in 2017:
'An investigation has begun into the feasibility of duplicating the loop, which deviates off the main Werribee line in Newport until it rejoins it on the approach to Laverton, about 7½ kilometres west.
The Andrews government has commissioned Aurecon, an engineering consultancy, to complete the study, though it has been quiet about this, perhaps anxious not to raise expectations."
  historian Deputy Commissioner

Hello, anyone know if there has been studies have been completed to duplicate the Altona Loop?
If so, have these studies been published publically?

It was shown in the LXRA community update back in June 2016.

https://levelcrossings.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/215823/COMMUNITY-UPDATE-KOROROIT-CREEK-ROAD-JUNE.pdf

Also in the Age back in 2017:
'An investigation has begun into the feasibility of duplicating the loop, which deviates off the main Werribee line in Newport until it rejoins it on the approach to Laverton, about 7½ kilometres west.
The Andrews government has commissioned Aurecon, an engineering consultancy, to complete the study, though it has been quiet about this, perhaps anxious not to raise expectations."
True Believers

I've not seen anything, but a cursory glance at google maps would show you that it would be a politically complex job, and probably end up being very expensive.

The core problem is that the line between Williamstown Racecourse (the station was on the north bank of the Kororoit Creek) and Altona was constructed by a private company as part of a private subdivision. They allocated the absolute minimum width of land for the railway reserve. Between Seaholme and Altona about half of the reserve is only just wider than the single track.

(Edit: the SLV has original sale advertising material  http://handle.slv.vic.gov.au/10381/209449 which indicates that the rail reservation was largely 33 feet wide, flanked by two 33 feet wide road reservations. (For those younguns, 33 feet is roughly 11 metres.) For comparison purposes, a normal suburban street width is 66 feet (indeed the other roads in the subdivision are this width), and the minimum Victorian rail corridor is the same, and most are wider.)

The cheapest approach would be to take land from both flanking roads in the narrow spots. Note that both roads are already narrower than standard and are already one way only. The adjacent land owners would not be happy, of course, nor probably would the wider community. I'm sure the community would also note that the expenditure would do nothing to eliminating the level crossings in that section, despite, presumably, increasing the train frequency.

At the other end, the expensive solution would be a continuous skyrail from before Seaholme to after Westona. A single narrow row of piers on the current alignment could support the two tracks, with part of the viaduct over the roads. Not cheap, probably just as locally unpopular, and hard to justify given the local population and road use. It would also require completely closing the railway for the entire construction.

Sponsored advertisement

Display from: