I believe the answer to delivering the Clyde rail extension separate is probably due to budget set for the project as well as the state is at a limit how much construction it can manage all at once.

Anyways the most important thing is the duplication first. Anyways most of the development is to the east of Cranbourne, not south east towards Clyde. The only benefit of a Clyde extension currently is at Cranbourne East. Anyways the main issue in the area is the lack of planning of services, you need a really well connected bus network too.

This may have been covered previously and I am aware of the government's intentions to electrify and extend the line to Clyde, but surely it would make sense to do this now as part of the duplication project and the disruptions to the line.

The housing and growth around Clyde is continuing and the line is inadequate to terminate at Cranbourne. Once the line gets better frequency there will be more demand for travel and pressure on car parking at Cranbourne and Merinda Park stations, which would be assisted by an extension to Clyde.

The idea is to duplicate to Cranbourne so that the extension to Clyde, which has been effectively promised by Andrews, doesn't suffer from the same limitations that currently mess up the Cranbourne line. As you say, better frequency will increase demand but imagine trying to run an adequate service with only two passing loops, assuming Cranbourne became one, and if not then it would be impossible to maintain, or improve, the timetable.

Neil

Okay that makes sense, I agree that the line needs to be fully duplicated before any additional services are added. It makes sense from my view to do the works now, it will be cheaper now and the demand is there.

Not to mention it will completement the Metro Tunnel project by allowing us to make the most of the infrastructure.

Not sure what's wrong with my previous statement? After Cranbourne East it's just a bunch of fields and farmland. Not saying it isn't necessery to provide the railway to Clyde, it's just when is the perfect time to deliver it.

By the way the PTV plan doesn't even include the Clyde extension only the duplication, showing how this extension is not as much of a priority as other extensions to the network. Also a Cranbourne East extension was on the agenda back in 2008, but was pushed back due to other priorities like South Morang extension and Sunbury electrification.

These extensions/electrifications are definitely going to be essential to be delivered first:

Baxter - to provide the extra stabling post MM2 for the Frankston corridor

Melton spark - to provide the growing neighbourhoods of Caroline springs, Deer Park and Melton

Wyndham Vale spark - to provide the growing neighbourhoods of Wyndham Vale and Tarniet

The Clyde extension is to provide the neighbourhoods of Clyde and Cranbourne East. Recently Cranbourne got a revised bus network to serve the new growth. And Clyde is just a bunch of paddocks. By the time the Cranbourne line is duplicated there will be an economical case for an extension. Just extending for growing the network's sake isn't going to make a strong economical case.

Not sure what's wrong with my previous statement? After Cranbourne East it's just a bunch of fields and farmland. Not saying it isn't necessery to provide the railway to Clyde, it's just when is the perfect time to deliver it.

By the way the PTV plan doesn't even include the Clyde extension only the duplication, showing how this extension is not as much of a priority as other extensions to the network. Also a Cranbourne East extension was on the agenda back in 2008, but was pushed back due to other priorities like South Morang extension and Sunbury electrification.

These extensions/electrifications are definitely going to be essential to be delivered first:

Baxter - to provide the extra stabling post MM2 for the Frankston corridor

Melton spark - to provide the growing neighbourhoods of Caroline springs, Deer Park and Melton

Wyndham Vale spark - to provide the growing neighbourhoods of Wyndham Vale and Tarniet

The Clyde extension is to provide the neighbourhoods of Clyde and Cranbourne East. Recently Cranbourne got a revised bus network to serve the new growth. And Clyde is just a bunch of paddocks. By the time the Cranbourne line is duplicated there will be an economical case for an extension. Just extending for growing the network's sake isn't going to make a strong economical case.

Obviously TB you don't get out of the Western suburbs often enough.

The bunch of paddocks at Clyde are building sites all the way north to Berwick, back-filling west to Casey fields and 2km east along Pattersons Rd.
You think that the West burbs are big, look outside your bubble.

Sure South Morang and Sunbury got priority. That was then, and they are now finished, so Clyde is getting closer to the top of the list.

MM2 relevance to Baxter, or the Franston line in general . Rubbish. The need for Frankston end of line maintainence, stands on it own merit and is getting closer to urgent regardless of other lines.

cheers
John

Obviously TB you don't get out of the Western suburbs often enough.

The bunch of paddocks at Clyde are building sites all the way north to Berwick, back-filling west to Casey fields and 2km east along Pattersons Rd.
You think that the West burbs are big, look outside your bubble.

Sure South Morang and Sunbury got priority. That was then, and they are now finished, so Clyde is getting closer to the top of the list.

MM2 relevance to Baxter, or the Franston line in general . Rubbish. The need for Frankston end of line maintainence, stands on it own merit and is getting closer to urgent regardless of other lines.

cheers
John

I meant MM1 is relevance to Baxter, that was a mistype. Sorry I make minor mistakes like that sometimes when writing a post quickly.

I know they're starting the fill the urban growth towards Clyde. I'm just saying there are still other priorities which I stated previously that already need to start happening ahead of Clyde rail.

Clyde rail is definitely within the time-frame soon, but I guess I need to experience how it is like in person to make a true judgement.

And you're right, I should travel out more outside my area, but COVID prevents me from it. I've never actually travelled down to Cranbourne before. I do know from my experience how busy Williams Landing and Tarneit stations are. They can get really constraint. I wonder how busy Cranbourne station is due to the population boom, Hallam and Berwick stations probably also are busy too. Honestly there is way too much sprawl in Melbourne, I hope they figure out what they'll do when we have so many disconnected suburbs not near any viable means of public transport.

Presser about current and upcoming Major Works

https://www.railpage.com.au/news/s/major-works-underway-on-massive-cranbourne-line-upgrade

Clyde is definitely a priority and the amount of Precinct Structure Plans, and population growth and new housing in that area the line will be needed sooner rather than later.

Obviously Wyndham Vale and Melton electrification are required too in the short term but should be seen in the same category as Clyde.

Clyde is definitely a priority and the amount of Precinct Structure Plans, and population growth and new housing in that area the line will be needed sooner rather than later.

Obviously Wyndham Vale and Melton electrification are required too in the short term but should be seen in the same category as Clyde.

Clyde is planned as a follow on project after Cranbourne. No point extending the line, will only exacerbate the current capacity constraints.

Clyde is definitely a priority and the amount of Precinct Structure Plans, and population growth and new housing in that area the line will be needed sooner rather than later.

Obviously Wyndham Vale and Melton electrification are required too in the short term but should be seen in the same category as Clyde.

Clyde is planned as a follow on project after Cranbourne. No point extending the line, will only exacerbate the current capacity constraints.

Sure, well hopefully it is actually built after the Cranbourne line upgrade.

Clyde is definitely a priority and the amount of Precinct Structure Plans, and population growth and new housing in that area the line will be needed sooner rather than later.

Obviously Wyndham Vale and Melton electrification are required too in the short term but should be seen in the same category as Clyde.

Anyone here use Wyndham Vale or Tarniet? If I lived there, I'd love to have fast, clean V'los compared to the sparks people of a comparable distance from Melbourne have. The one drawback is that going into Melbourne, you might not get a good seat.

I can't complain because if I want to go to Melbourne, I get those V'los anyway, but from South Geelong.

However, Clyde has no trains, and last time I was out that way, I didn't recognize the place. It is extremely built up. They need something soon.

I'll retract my previous comments about the urban sprawl right up to Clyde.

Sorry. Surprised the urban growth has caught up to Clyde.

1 to 2 trains per day, each way. There was talks about BP and the Port of Hastings also using the potential line (that's where the actual justification comes from)

1 to 2 trains per day, each way. There was talks about BP and the Port of Hastings also using the potential line (that's where the actual justification comes from)

WOT. please explain

WOT. please explain

https://www.infrastructurevictoria.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Raylink_Consulting__John_Hearsch_Rail-Port_Interface_Facility_Preliminary_Concept_Investigation.pdf

Since the Evans Road bridge opened last month I decided to go to Merinda Park and check it out.
I was surprised by the how much work has been done building the new platform there.
There are plenty of columns for the rail overpasses at Greens and Abbotts Roads, and the first pair of beam for the second bridge over Abbotts Road have been installed.
I still can't figure out why the duplicated the rails all the way to Greens Road given that they'll have to rip up about 200 metres of it to build that rail overpass.

https://flic.kr/p/2k6g5Jw

https://flic.kr/p/2k6kupU

https://flic.kr/p/2k6jTE7

https://flic.kr/p/2k6jTyv

Can anyone explain why Merinda Park Railway Station had to be rebuilt In the opposite platform configuration  (requiring the most amount of work / expenditure) ?
The Railway Station was designed / built as an Island platform with a disused platform face (yes sure It would of needed a full refurbishment and extension)

Can anyone explain why Merinda Park Railway Station had to be rebuilt In the opposite platform configuration  (requiring the most amount of work / expenditure) ?
The Railway Station was designed / built as an Island platform with a disused platform face (yes sure It would of needed a full refurbishment and extension)

I keep questioning that as well, to the point where I'm angry at their decision. I can only conclusion that the LXRA didn't do any proper research on the station.

Can anyone explain why Merinda Park Railway Station had to be rebuilt In the opposite platform configuration  (requiring the most amount of work / expenditure) ?
The Railway Station was designed / built as an Island platform with a disused platform face (yes sure It would of needed a full refurbishment and extension)

I keep questioning that as well, to the point where I'm angry at their decision. I can only conclusion that the LXRA didn't do any proper research on the station.

The recently built Thompson road bridge has something to do with the change of decision, if the line was built in its current configuration there would be quite a sharp curve to align to the island design platform especially when considering the longer trains that will operate on the Cranbourne line.

Proper research would show you the station was built in the 1990s where they had built railway stations on the cheap, so it's not much of a loss in the overall progress to the railway network. If they did the electrification to Cranbourne in the 1990s with double track from the beginning then they would probably not needed to touch the station in the first place.

We've been "Jeff'ed" once again. You've got to give it to him; he has left us a lasting legacy (whether we want it or not!)

Neil

Can anyone explain why Merinda Park Railway Station had to be rebuilt In the opposite platform configuration  (requiring the most amount of work / expenditure) ?
The Railway Station was designed / built as an Island platform with a disused platform face (yes sure It would of needed a full refurbishment and extension)

And three lifts. And three lengthy ramps.

The additional ramp alone would probably be more expensive than the whole new platform.

*Ground level* island platforms have no benefits over side platforms these days. (Grade separated island platforms are different.)

The VR liked island platforms a lot for a while. In the days when stations were staffed they had a lot of advantages. You needed less staff if you wanted to cover both platforms. The staff could easily sell/check tickets and were more likely to do so. They were safer because staff didn't cross the tracks in the pit. One building did for both directions, and it had proper waiting areas and toilets. The only real disadvantage was 1) often a need for an overbridge or subway, and 2) a pain for customers if there was a lot of parcels traffic.

Post VR, island platforms still had advantages in those miminalist days. They were probably slightly cheaper. No staff at all, so this wasn't an issue. Minimal shelter was provided (but only one was needed). There were still guards, so boarding/alighting supervision was not a problem. Access was at ground level via a pedestrian crossing - in later times with gates or pedestrian booms - so the access cost was probably much the same.

Now they are pain.

They are more expensive to provide access to - ramps and lifts have to be provided at both sides of the line and to the island platform. They are less safe as the driver is on the wrong side to the platform and has greater difficulty supervising boarding/exiting (no guards or platform staff these days). They take up a lot more land due the need for straight platforms. They provide less passenger access capacity (with island platforms all passengers have to use the footbridge/subway to access the platform, with side platforms only half have to do so).

Really, the only advantage is that they might need fewer Myki machines/validators.

Why would they build a ground level island platform these days?

And three lifts. And three lengthy ramps.

The additional ramp alone would probably be more expensive than the whole new platform.

*Ground level* island platforms have no benefits over side platforms these days. (Grade separated island platforms are different.)

The VR liked island platforms a lot for a while. In the days when stations were staffed they had a lot of advantages. You needed less staff if you wanted to cover both platforms. The staff could easily sell/check tickets and were more likely to do so. They were safer because staff didn't cross the tracks in the pit. One building did for both directions, and it had proper waiting areas and toilets. The only real disadvantage was 1) often a need for an overbridge or subway, and 2) a pain for customers if there was a lot of parcels traffic.

Post VR, island platforms still had advantages in those miminalist days. They were probably slightly cheaper. No staff at all, so this wasn't an issue. Minimal shelter was provided (but only one was needed). There were still guards, so boarding/alighting supervision was not a problem. Access was at ground level via a pedestrian crossing - in later times with gates or pedestrian booms - so the access cost was probably much the same.

Now they are pain.

They are more expensive to provide access to - ramps and lifts have to be provided at both sides of the line and to the island platform. They are less safe as the driver is on the wrong side to the platform and has greater difficulty supervising boarding/exiting (no guards or platform staff these days). They take up a lot more land due the need for straight platforms. They provide less passenger access capacity (with island platforms all passengers have to use the footbridge/subway to access the platform, with side platforms only half have to do so).

Really, the only advantage is that they might need fewer Myki machines/validators.

Why would they build a ground level island platform these days?

You do make some points, though Island platforms have been built In recent years, Caroline Springs Railway Station development probably In the same category as of Marinda Park.

Can anyone explain why Merinda Park Railway Station had to be rebuilt In the opposite platform configuration  (requiring the most amount of work / expenditure) ?
The Railway Station was designed / built as an Island platform with a disused platform face (yes sure It would of needed a full refurbishment and extension)

Why would they build a ground level island platform these days?

I suspect that's not the reason at all.

For example Williams Landing and Caroline Springs stations were built island platform, but don't necessarily have 3 lifts involve, either they have ramps involve and some lifts too.

The LXRA team have upgraded stations with island designs before such as Blackburn and Essendon stations. Though I'm disappointed they didn't add some lifts to the Essendon station like they did in Blackburn (out of scope reasons they told me).

Honestly the alignment of the Bridge piers on the Thompson's road bridge favors a two track alignment straight in and platforms on each side. Honestly the blame is not typically the LXRA for rebuilding the station, it's more along the lines of: "every infrastructure being built needs to be built in mind of further enhancements".

The fact the Cranbourne line being electrified was essentially on Federal money and no state contribution meant we got a poor design outcome where they essentially didn't accommodate the future needs of the area. With state contributions by Jeff Kennett, could of duplicated the whole line in the same process, but now have to rebuild again.

Why did it even take 15 years to reopen Evans road, the state government could of resurfaced the road on the level crossing and reopened it many years earlier? Once again railway infrastructure was neglected for a very long time.

This is kinda why I'm so happy to finally see investment into the railway infrastructure, it's been neglected and built cheaply in the past. Now we can rebuild the network back to modern standards.

Neil

edit - gee this platform can make a mess of your post if you're not careful!

Caroline Springs, if I remember correctly, was originally going to be a single platform but half way through the build someone decided to change it to a dual platform station and so a second face was added to what they'd already built instead of a second platform, probably due to the fact that the platform face that was already well under construction was on the 'wrong' side of the rails. Doing a second platform so it was on the 'correct' side would have meant realigning all of the track through the station site causing more disruption than was desirable

Neil

edit - gee this platform can make a mess of your post if you're not careful!

Williams Landing on the other hand was designed as an island platform from the outset.

Caroline Springs, if I remember correctly, was originally going to be a single platform .......

Neil

edit - gee this platform can make a mess of your post if you're not careful!

Williams Landing on the other hand was designed as an island platform from the outset.

Horses for courses people. @historian gave a fair synopsis of why islands not usually any cheaper.

For Williams Landing, the complete opposite.
Starting point was a huge pedestrian bridge to cover the freeway and all tracks (including SG).
With that as a "must do", a simple single ramp* down to the platform was the easy bit, and keeping most facilities upstairs.

cheers
John

* "ramp down" these days = ramp + stairs + lift