50 level crossings to be removed

 
  True Believers Chief Commissioner

Something does not quite make sense here.  Among the valid arguments against road under rail at Lilydale are that there would be an impact on underground services, requiring extensive excavations, and that the road would have to be closed during construction.  Berwick is of course not Lilydale, but wouldn't the same constraints be applicable?

The blurb for Berwick says, in part,

"Other designs would take up to a year longer to complete, would require compulsory acquisition of private properties and significant underground service relocation, including the Longford gas main."

"Other designs" means designs other than road under rail.  Does not road under rail also imply significant underground service relocation, possibly including the Longford gas main?
The impression the pictures give me is that the rail line is elevated on both the approaches, suggesting more of a hybrid, but other than that I agree with you questioning their arguments. If the Longford gas line is near there going own is going to impact it one way or another.

Neil
ngarner
https://levelcrossings.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/387643/Clyde-Road-Technical-Brochure.pdf

It's not a hybrid, according to the technical brochure.

Also shows where the gas main is located in the brochure too.

Sponsored advertisement

  ngarner Train Controller

Location: Seville
Something does not quite make sense here.  Among the valid arguments against road under rail at Lilydale are that there would be an impact on underground services, requiring extensive excavations, and that the road would have to be closed during construction.  Berwick is of course not Lilydale, but wouldn't the same constraints be applicable?

The blurb for Berwick says, in part,

"Other designs would take up to a year longer to complete, would require compulsory acquisition of private properties and significant underground service relocation, including the Longford gas main."

"Other designs" means designs other than road under rail.  Does not road under rail also imply significant underground service relocation, possibly including the Longford gas main?
The impression the pictures give me is that the rail line is elevated on both the approaches, suggesting more of a hybrid, but other than that I agree with you questioning their arguments. If the Longford gas line is near there going own is going to impact it one way or another.

Neil
https://levelcrossings.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/387643/Clyde-Road-Technical-Brochure.pdf

It's not a hybrid, according to the technical brochure.

Also shows where the gas main is located in the brochure too.
True Believers
Thanks TB, good pick-up there

Neil
  True Believers Chief Commissioner

I prefer calling it elevated rail, cause that is what it is known around the world.

The confirmation of elevated rail on the Upfield line, has been announced before.

This announcement is basically the completion of the design of the open space and will be starting construction shortly (end of this year). And completion by 2020/2021.

Just as a comparison

Bell Moreland project



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BEDJbszWvo

Dandenong elevated rail project



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z54iLZozDWg
  Carnot Chief Commissioner

Some of the Upfield line Skyrail does look a bit "lightweight".  So will this be off-limits to future Seymour (and/or Shepp) V/line services?
  TOQ-1 Deputy Commissioner

Location: Power Trainger
Artists impressions looking "lightweight" are not the best thing to judge engineering from.

It seems to me that the piers are going to be closer together than the CD9 ones, which means the spans don't have to be as large to do the same job.
  Adogs Chief Train Controller

Some of the Upfield line Skyrail does look a bit "lightweight".  So will this be off-limits to future Seymour (and/or Shepp) V/line services?
Carnot

It'll be built to the same standards as the CD9 and Frankston line overpasses, won't be a problem for V/Line services to theoretically be re-routed in future.

Of course, the NoSkyRailers were circulating stuff during construction of the CD9 saying that the viaducts wouldn't be able to carry freight trains or V/Line passenger services, and that it was part of a secret plot to disconnect the Gippsland line.
  Rossco T Chief Train Controller

Location: Camberwell, Victoria
Some of the Upfield line Skyrail does look a bit "lightweight".  So will this be off-limits to future Seymour (and/or Shepp) V/line services?

It'll be built to the same standards as the CD9 and Frankston line overpasses, won't be a problem for V/Line services to theoretically be re-routed in future.

Of course, the NoSkyRailers were circulating stuff during construction of the CD9 saying that the viaducts wouldn't be able to carry freight trains or V/Line passenger services, and that it was part of a secret plot to disconnect the Gippsland line.
Adogs
The CD9 project was two separate single track viaducts, whereas the Upfield line project is one double track viaduct from what I can tell from the artists impressions.

Ross
  Adogs Chief Train Controller

Some of the Upfield line Skyrail does look a bit "lightweight".  So will this be off-limits to future Seymour (and/or Shepp) V/line services?

It'll be built to the same standards as the CD9 and Frankston line overpasses, won't be a problem for V/Line services to theoretically be re-routed in future.

Of course, the NoSkyRailers were circulating stuff during construction of the CD9 saying that the viaducts wouldn't be able to carry freight trains or V/Line passenger services, and that it was part of a secret plot to disconnect the Gippsland line.
The CD9 project was two separate single track viaducts, whereas the Upfield line project is one double track viaduct from what I can tell from the artists impressions.

Ross
Rossco T

I guess that might make a difference?  I would assume that the weight load tolerances would still be the same though.  The Upfield project will still be two  separate U-troughs, although both are carried by a single upright.
  duttonbay Minister for Railways

I guess that might make a difference?  I would assume that the weight load tolerances would still be the same though.  The Upfield project will still be two  separate U-troughs, although both are carried by a single upright.
Adogs
My memory was that they did CD9 with two separate single track viaducts to allow trains to continue to run underneath them during construction. Will trains be able to operate during construction with a single upright?
  Nightfire Minister for Railways

Location: Gippsland
I guess that might make a difference?  I would assume that the weight load tolerances would still be the same though.  The Upfield project will still be two  separate U-troughs, although both are carried by a single upright.
My memory was that they did CD9 with two separate single track viaducts to allow trains to continue to run underneath them during construction. Will trains be able to operate during construction with a single upright?
duttonbay
Some sections were double track viaducts.

The U Troughs were later adopted by LXRA, used on the Mernda line extension, and now a standard design.
  lkernan Deputy Commissioner

Location: Melbourne
I guess that might make a difference?  I would assume that the weight load tolerances would still be the same though.  The Upfield project will still be two  separate U-troughs, although both are carried by a single upright.
My memory was that they did CD9 with two separate single track viaducts to allow trains to continue to run underneath them during construction. Will trains be able to operate during construction with a single upright?
Some sections were double track viaducts.

The U Troughs were later adopted by LXRA, used on the Mernda line extension, and now a standard design.
Nightfire
They used the U troughs at Frankston on the Skye Road bridge as well.
  Adogs Chief Train Controller

I guess that might make a difference?  I would assume that the weight load tolerances would still be the same though.  The Upfield project will still be two  separate U-troughs, although both are carried by a single upright.
My memory was that they did CD9 with two separate single track viaducts to allow trains to continue to run underneath them during construction. Will trains be able to operate during construction with a single upright?
Some sections were double track viaducts.

The U Troughs were later adopted by LXRA, used on the Mernda line extension, and now a standard design.
They used the U troughs at Frankston on the Skye Road bridge as well.
lkernan

Also at Seaford Rd, but that's only a short bridge.
  True Believers Chief Commissioner

I guess that might make a difference?  I would assume that the weight load tolerances would still be the same though.  The Upfield project will still be two  separate U-troughs, although both are carried by a single upright.
My memory was that they did CD9 with two separate single track viaducts to allow trains to continue to run underneath them during construction. Will trains be able to operate during construction with a single upright?
Some sections were double track viaducts.

The U Troughs were later adopted by LXRA, used on the Mernda line extension, and now a standard design.
They used the U troughs at Frankston on the Skye Road bridge as well.

Also at Seaford Rd, but that's only a short bridge.
Adogs
Also at Kororoit creek Road and Abbots Road too, were a U-trough design.

Lower Plenty Road at Rossanna in the only elevated rail (other than the CD9), that isn't a U-trough design.
  chomper Junior Train Controller

Jeebus the LXRA and their contractors work fast, I hadn't been past the Reservoir level crossing site in about a month and just saw how much they have done since then. No pics, was driving through.
  Myrtone Chief Commissioner

Location: North Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria
I prefer calling it elevated rail, cause that is what it is known around the world.

The confirmation of elevated rail on the Upfield line, has been announced before.

This announcement is basically the completion of the design of the open space and will be starting construction shortly (end of this year). And completion by 2020/2021.
True Believers
And still, how about at least a short extension of the Morleand Road tram tracks across the railway, maybe at least as far as that private hospital?
  Heihachi_73 Chief Commissioner

Location: Terminating at Ringwood
Extending tram lines isn't fashionable right now, otherwise the 48 would have already been done and the people of Doncaster would be moaning about the non-accessible sardine cans known as A classes.
  Adogs Chief Train Controller

Extending tram lines isn't fashionable right now, otherwise the 48 would have already been done and the people of Doncaster would be moaning about the non-accessible sardine cans known as A classes.
Heihachi_73

Trams should really only be see as a high frequency, short distance option.  Extending the 48 to Doncaster would still take ages to get anywhere useful, so I can understand it not being done until (or if) the suburban loop is built.

Ideally, I think the priority should be to see tram extensions done to improve connectivity to railway stations (i.e. Carnegie tram terminus up Koornang Rd to Carnegie station, and Latrobe Uni tram extended to South Morang).  Allowing trams to serve as feeder into mass transit, rather than being seen as a 2-hour-trip-to-the-city option.
  Kirben Beginner

Why aren't escalators standard for elevated stations now? escalators were provided for the elevated stations along the Dandenong line, but won't be provide for more recent level crossings (i.e. Carrum, Reservoir). Escalators allow quicker access, and people who aren't disabled but can't handle stairs are left with lift as only option.

More stations are ending up with access only via lifts or stairs, which doesn't seem so good access wise.
  True Believers Chief Commissioner

Why aren't escalators standard for elevated stations now? escalators were provided for the elevated stations along the Dandenong line, but won't be provide for more recent level crossings (i.e. Carrum, Reservoir). Escalators allow quicker access, and people who aren't disabled but can't handle stairs are left with lift as only option.

More stations are ending up with access only via lifts or stairs, which doesn't seem so good access wise.
Kirben
DDA access is the standard. Escalators do not provide DDA access. To have proper access for people with disabilities, it's now standard to provide a ramp and lift or provide 2 lifts and no ramps per platform.

Escalators were provided to the CD9 project as an additional extra bonus, to appease the backlash of nimbyism in the South Eastern political seats.

Did you know the CD9 project went completely over budget, especially by changing the scope to add additional features through its design?

I do not doubt the benefits of the CD9 project by including the extra escalators and how it would benefit from other projects. But I don't really think to add a pair of escalators is the cost-effective answer to add additional capacity of throughout through the station.

Just simply having two separate entrances to stations really increases the capacity of entering the station and adds more ways to enter the station, therefore increasing its footprint of accessibility.

In the example of Reservoir having 2 entrances, each has a set of stairs and lift, is better than escalator/lift/stairs at one entrance.
  Llib7 Beginner

I don’t want to get to off topic but extending 48 would be great for the north east. Lots of shopping areas along there with counter peak flows to Doncaster shopping centre and provided you get a boost to connecting bus services it would be very handy to people in the area. Some examples would be Doncaster to Kew and Richmond and the other way around. Lots of offices and businesses also along Doncaster Road.
  True Believers Chief Commissioner

Looks like these level crossings are the next to go soon. Geotechnical works are underway, I'm just guessing planning completed by mid/late 2020, and construction may happen btw 2021-2023.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8IuTumrKTo
  Llib7 Beginner

Looks like these level crossings are the next to go soon. Geotechnical works are underway, I'm just guessing planning completed by mid/late 2020, and construction may happen btw 2021-2023.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8IuTumrKTo
True Believers
I hope they change their mind and go rail over.
  Rossco T Chief Train Controller

Location: Camberwell, Victoria
Looks like these level crossings are the next to go soon. Geotechnical works are underway, I'm just guessing planning completed by mid/late 2020, and construction may happen btw 2021-2023.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8IuTumrKTo
I hope they change their mind and go rail over.
Llib7

I generally favour the elevated rail solutions also as I think they are generally a better outcome for the community in terms of open space etc.  However in this case I think that the grade of the railway favours a trench solution due to Surrey Hills station being near the top of a hill when approaching from the City.

https://www.victorianrailways.net/grades/plan_section/hawthorn_lilydale.pdf

Ross
  don_dunstan Minister for Railways

Location: Adelaide proud
Extending tram lines isn't fashionable right now, otherwise the 48 would have already been done and the people of Doncaster would be moaning about the non-accessible sardine cans known as A classes.
Heihachi_73
I believe that it was floated under the Brumby government but killed off by then-transport Minister Bachelor who said the gradients were too steep.

Sponsored advertisement

Display from: