50 level crossings to be removed

 
  GoldenGirl Station Master

I hope that they replace the level crossing with a large roundabout or two roundabouts like in some English towns. There are so many local rounds feeding in there that it would be kind of pointless having two sets of traffic lights where the crossing used to be. Roundabouts are logical, safe and efficient. We really do need more of them!
reubstar6
Except when the level of traffic reaches a certain point, at which time they become counter-productive. Like Thompson's Road and Western Port Hwy. Now the roundabout has been removed and replaced by traffic lights because the roundabout became saturated, especially at peak times and held up all the other roads.

Sponsored advertisement

  historian Deputy Commissioner

I hope that they replace the level crossing with a large roundabout or two roundabouts like in some English towns. There are so many local rounds feeding in there that it would be kind of pointless having two sets of traffic lights where the crossing used to be. Roundabouts are logical, safe and efficient. We really do need more of them!
reubstar6

Logical, safe, and efficient for whom?

Roundabouts, with any significant level of traffic, are terrible for pedestrians (*). Just what you'd want in the middle of a shopping centre.

(*) Pedestrians have no right of way anywhere at roundabouts, this means that cars don't stop and pedestrians have to wait for a gap in traffic. At busy roundabouts that can be a lengthy wait. Large roundabouts occupy a significant amount of space which requires lengthy detours for pedestrians - particularly as the practice is to put the pedestrian walkways a car length from the roundabout. The pedestrian walkways are often blocked by traffic waiting to enter the roundabout - forcing pedestrians to dodge between vehicles (if they can) or wait (if they can't). Because of the placing of the pedestrian walkways it can be extremely difficult for pedestrians to see turning traffic entering the roundabout from behind and to the right - which leads right back to the issue of right of way.

Actually, judging from the existing grade separation at Bentleigh (Centre Rd) what works well is a couple of signalled on demand pedestrian crossings. Forget about signalled intersections. In a busy shopping strip pedestrian crossings are continually being used, and they break up the flow of traffic along the main road. The resulting frequent short gaps in traffic make it easy to turn into and out of side streets. It's much easier to drive around the Bentleigh shopping centre than it used to be.
  Myrtone Chief Commissioner

Location: North Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria
Roundabouts, with any significant level of traffic, are terrible for pedestrians. Just what you'd want in the middle of a shopping centre.
historian
In some cases, walkways may simply be grade-separated from motor traffic, in which case roundabouts would work quite well. A footbridge or pedestrian underpass would make it really easy for pedestrians.
  duttonbay Minister for Railways

Roundabouts, with any significant level of traffic, are terrible for pedestrians. Just what you'd want in the middle of a shopping centre.
In some cases, walkways may simply be grade-separated from motor traffic, in which case roundabouts would work quite well. A footbridge or pedestrian underpass would make it really easy for pedestrians.
Myrtone
They're OK where there are really large roundabouts, with lots of space around them. At a typical intersection in Melbourne such a plan would require really long ramps for wheelchairs, making the distance to cross a road many, many times longer.
  Myrtone Chief Commissioner

Location: North Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria
An alternative to really long ramps is wheelchair lifts, these could even be stairlifts. Or these crossings could be between above-ground floors of buildings in different corners of the intersections.
  TOQ-1 Deputy Commissioner

Location: Power Trainger
Glenroy Station will probably be moved in the Up direction to be right on the road a la Ginifer. In which case, having roundabouts around the station would be terrible as outlined excellently by historian above. I don't know the area too well, but looking Dowd Place and Morgan Court look like they both only really still exist to service the same carpark, so I could see some road changes happening.
  reubstar6 Chief Train Controller

Logical, safe, and efficient for whom? Roundabouts, with any significant level of traffic, are terrible for pedestrians (*). Just what you'd want in the middle of a shopping centre. (*) Pedestrians have no right of way anywhere at roundabouts, this means that cars don't stop and pedestrians have to wait for a gap in traffic. At busy roundabouts that can be a lengthy wait. Large roundabouts occupy a significant amount of space which requires lengthy detours for pedestrians - particularly as the practice is to put the pedestrian walkways a car length from the roundabout. The pedestrian walkways are often blocked by traffic waiting to enter the roundabout - forcing pedestrians to dodge between vehicles (if they can) or wait (if they can't). Because of the placing of the pedestrian walkways it can be extremely difficult for pedestrians to see turning traffic entering the roundabout from behind and to the right - which leads right back to the issue of right of way. Actually, judging from the existing grade separation at Bentleigh (Centre Rd) what works well is a couple of signalled on demand pedestrian crossings. Forget about signalled intersections. In a busy shopping strip pedestrian crossings are continually being used, and they break up the flow of traffic along the main road. The resulting frequent short gaps in traffic make it easy to turn into and out of side streets. It's much easier to drive around the Bentleigh shopping centre than it used to be.
Historian

Thank you Historian for your informative comment. I have never considered the pedestrian inconveniences of roundabouts. Glenroy may appear to have several shops, but they are well divided by the several busy roads and the railway line. I would really like to see Glenroy become more pedestrian friendly. It is a shame that rail over was not possible, because it would have been a great outcome to the area.

Perhaps instead of the current situation where Dowd Place leads to Glenroy Rd, it could instead go over the railway line and into Hartington St, perhaps with a small roundabout or signalled intersection. All other current intersections then could be retained. This would condense all of those roads into one signalised junction, bar Station Rd and Waterloo Rd which I think do not permit right hand turns into Glenroy Rd anyway. These two roads could be merged into a single access point to Glenroy Rd, with one of them going over the railway line to achieve this.

I don't see any real need for the station to be moved in the up direction. Most of the car parks are near the down side so perhaps reinstating the down exit from the station would be more effective.
  NR61 Station Staff

When Clyde Road starts to get the chop, is a Berwick station rebuild a part of the plan? I reckon if Berwick does get rebuilt, a third platform should be built for terminating services from Pakenham, Flinders Street/Sunbury and Dandenong
  GoldenGirl Station Master

I hope that they replace the level crossing with a large roundabout or two roundabouts like in some English towns. There are so many local rounds feeding in there that it would be kind of pointless having two sets of traffic lights where the crossing used to be. Roundabouts are logical, safe and efficient. We really do need more of them!

Logical, safe, and efficient for whom?

Roundabouts, with any significant level of traffic, are terrible for pedestrians (*). Just what you'd want in the middle of a shopping centre.

(*) Pedestrians have no right of way anywhere at roundabouts, this means that cars don't stop and pedestrians have to wait for a gap in traffic. At busy roundabouts that can be a lengthy wait. Large roundabouts occupy a significant amount of space which requires lengthy detours for pedestrians - particularly as the practice is to put the pedestrian walkways a car length from the roundabout. The pedestrian walkways are often blocked by traffic waiting to enter the roundabout - forcing pedestrians to dodge between vehicles (if they can) or wait (if they can't). Because of the placing of the pedestrian walkways it can be extremely difficult for pedestrians to see turning traffic entering the roundabout from behind and to the right - which leads right back to the issue of right of way.

Actually, judging from the existing grade separation at Bentleigh (Centre Rd) what works well is a couple of signalled on demand pedestrian crossings. Forget about signalled intersections. In a busy shopping strip pedestrian crossings are continually being used, and they break up the flow of traffic along the main road. The resulting frequent short gaps in traffic make it easy to turn into and out of side streets. It's much easier to drive around the Bentleigh shopping centre than it used to be.
historian
"(*) Pedestrians have no right of way anywhere at roundabouts, this means that cars don't stop and pedestrians have to wait for a gap in traffic. "

The two roundabouts at either end of the Pakenham Main Street shopping strip have painted pedestrian crossing lines and give way signs in favour of the pedestrians, which goes completely against the general rule of cars having right of way. The pedestrians just launch themselves across the road with no idea that that car drivers have been educated to ignore them. In the event that a car exitting the roundabout stops, all traffic stops with them.
  Adogs Chief Train Controller

The LXRA has just announced that Glenroy Rd will be a trench under. No details yet, apart from there will be a new station.

(Yes, I know, what a surprise, given Oliver's bank).
A rail trench/cutting not Glenroy Road I assume?
Yep, rail trench
Many thanks.
Only reasonable (not to be regarded as a precedent, of course) choice.
YM-Mundrabilla

Seeing as Broadmeadows to Strathmore (or wherever it ends) is one continuous downhill run, how far back towards Jacana will the trench need to start to be within regulations?

Or will it be a case of easing the grade between Glenroy and Oak Park from 1:50 out to e.g 1:80, in return for the grade between Jacana and Glenroy becoming more severe (from 1:80 in to maybe 1:50)?
  reubstar6 Chief Train Controller

Seeing as Broadmeadows to Strathmore (or wherever it ends) is one continuous downhill run, how far back towards Jacana will the trench need to start to be within regulations? Or will it be a case of easing the grade between Glenroy and Oak Park from 1:50 out to e.g 1:80, in return for the grade between Jacana and Glenroy becoming more severe (from 1:80 in to maybe 1:50)?
Adogs

I doubt that the trench will go much further beyond the down end of the platforms. The crossing is a fair distance away from the up end so they will probably have the opportunity to gain some ground up the newly formed slope before the station.
  historian Deputy Commissioner

Seeing as Broadmeadows to Strathmore (or wherever it ends) is one continuous downhill run, how far back towards Jacana will the trench need to start to be within regulations?

Or will it be a case of easing the grade between Glenroy and Oak Park from 1:50 out to e.g 1:80, in return for the grade between Jacana and Glenroy becoming more severe (from 1:80 in to maybe 1:50)?
Adogs

Oliver's bank on the Up side of Glenroy is 1 in 50. At the level crossing it flattens to 1 in 123 rising, and immediately beyond the platform it resumes rising 1 in 68 round the curve to pretty much Jacana.

If the width of the reserve is sufficient, I reckon they'll move the station in the Up direction.

From memory, I think the required vertical distance is 7 metres - that means the cutting entry will be about 400 metres south of Glenroy Rd (including the required vertical curve). That's more than enough distance to put the new 160 metre Glenroy platform on the level immediately south of Glenroy Rd. This will allow them to transition to a new 1 in 40 rising (the maximum allowed) immediately north of Glenroy Rd.

According to Google maps, it's about 300 metres from the northern end of Glenroy Rd to the Down end of Glenroy station. At 1 in 123, there's currently a rise of 2.5 metres in this distance. At 1 in 40, the new track would rise 7.5 metres in this distance. Given a vertical curve, you'd still be in a, say, a 3 metre cutting at the Down end of the current platform.

If you kept climbing at 1 in 40, you'd need a further cutting of around 290 metres to meet the original formation (which is rising at 1 in 68). If I've done my sums correctly. That'd put the end of cutting around 120 metres north of the substation.

If you keep the station on the north side of Glenroy Rd, I reckon the cutting would run out quite close to Jacana.

If you want 1 in 50 instead of 1 in 40 (to match the bank south of Glenroy), you'd require about 570 metres on the 1 in 68 if the station was south of Glenroy Rd. That's pretty well all the way round the curve to not quite where the houses stop on the west side of the line. If the station was on the north of Glenroy Rd, the cutting would be about 1500 metres long. That's pretty well where the standard gauge flyover is on the Down side of Jacana - I wouldn't think that's financially feasible.
  duttonbay Minister for Railways

Seeing as Broadmeadows to Strathmore (or wherever it ends) is one continuous downhill run, how far back towards Jacana will the trench need to start to be within regulations?

Or will it be a case of easing the grade between Glenroy and Oak Park from 1:50 out to e.g 1:80, in return for the grade between Jacana and Glenroy becoming more severe (from 1:80 in to maybe 1:50)?

Oliver's bank on the Up side of Glenroy is 1 in 50. At the level crossing it flattens to 1 in 123 rising, and immediately beyond the platform it resumes rising 1 in 68 round the curve to pretty much Jacana.

If the width of the reserve is sufficient, I reckon they'll move the station in the Up direction.

From memory, I think the required vertical distance is 7 metres - that means the cutting entry will be about 400 metres south of Glenroy Rd (including the required vertical curve). That's more than enough distance to put the new 160 metre Glenroy platform on the level immediately south of Glenroy Rd. This will allow them to transition to a new 1 in 40 rising (the maximum allowed) immediately north of Glenroy Rd.

According to Google maps, it's about 300 metres from the northern end of Glenroy Rd to the Down end of Glenroy station. At 1 in 123, there's currently a rise of 2.5 metres in this distance. At 1 in 40, the new track would rise 7.5 metres in this distance. Given a vertical curve, you'd still be in a, say, a 3 metre cutting at the Down end of the current platform.

If you kept climbing at 1 in 40, you'd need a further cutting of around 290 metres to meet the original formation (which is rising at 1 in 68). If I've done my sums correctly. That'd put the end of cutting around 120 metres north of the substation.

If you keep the station on the north side of Glenroy Rd, I reckon the cutting would run out quite close to Jacana.

If you want 1 in 50 instead of 1 in 40 (to match the bank south of Glenroy), you'd require about 570 metres on the 1 in 68 if the station was south of Glenroy Rd. That's pretty well all the way round the curve to not quite where the houses stop on the west side of the line. If the station was on the north of Glenroy Rd, the cutting would be about 1500 metres long. That's pretty well where the standard gauge flyover is on the Down side of Jacana - I wouldn't think that's financially feasible.
historian
These days what trains run on this line? Sparks and railcars. We're no longer looking at loco-hauled "Spirit of Progress" operations. I don't think there is any necessary need to limit the gradient to those which existed previously.
  reubstar6 Chief Train Controller

There are still a handful of freight trains on the line.
  Heihachi_73 Chief Commissioner

Location: Terminating at Ringwood
In some cases, walkways may simply be grade-separated from motor traffic, in which case roundabouts would work quite well. A footbridge or pedestrian underpass would make it really easy for pedestrians.
Myrtone

In most cases however, the usual two minute wait at the traffic lights is the only way that Victoria knows how to do it. Make it three or four minutes if you have to cross two streets. A footbridge these days, due to DDA requirements, means a monstrosity similar to that between Heatherdale and Ringwood next to the Coach (formerly Coach & Horses), which takes just as long to cross, if not longer, than an actual signalised crossing.

My other favourite is the half-asred Ringwood to Box Hill bike track, from Ringwood it ends abruptly at Eastlink and then forces everyone to turn left and do a loop-de-loop to continue along Molan street towards Heatherdale - with the bike track being the south side footpath of the road itself, and then cross the road - at traffic lights (because a zebra crossing on a small street in a ghost town such as Heatherdale would be too convenient) - and then continue to Heatherdale station. May as well just use New St and turn at Molan St just like the old days.
  Galron Chief Commissioner

Location: Werribee, Vic
Re werribee, some "local" engineers have come up with a pie-in-the-sky option to lay an 8km tunnel from Galvin rd to some place between hoppers and williams landing. Judge for yourself here

They comment on a "$500m Commonwealth funded plan to move the standard gauge to the north" Whats this all about? must have missed that memo if anyone can clue us in.

https://www.facebook.com/wyndhamstarweekly/posts/2409481782467305
https://www.starweekly.com.au/news/tunnel-vision-for-trains/pub/wyndham/
  LeroyW Junior Train Controller

Location: Awaiting MM2
Headstocks are now being placed on top of the piers at Reservoir, starting near the Southern end.

Just to the naked eye, they didn't look particularly high - certainly not as high as the ones at Mernda and Hawkstowe. Presumably there will be enough clearance for whatever trucks are going underneath on High St... Confused
  potatoinmymouth Chief Commissioner

Re werribee, some "local" engineers have come up with a pie-in-the-sky option to lay an 8km tunnel from Galvin rd to some place between hoppers and williams landing. Judge for yourself here

They comment on a "$500m Commonwealth funded plan to move the standard gauge to the north" Whats this all about? must have missed that memo if anyone can clue us in.

https://www.facebook.com/wyndhamstarweekly/posts/2409481782467305
https://www.starweekly.com.au/news/tunnel-vision-for-trains/pub/wyndham/
Galron
I can't see anything about the comment you mention, but I wonder if it might have been an overly enthusiastic reference to the proposed SG route via Truganina. AFAIK there has not been a single cent allocated to that project by the Commonwealth.
  Adogs Chief Train Controller

Headstocks are now being placed on top of the piers at Reservoir, starting near the Southern end.

Just to the naked eye, they didn't look particularly high - certainly not as high as the ones at Mernda and Hawkstowe. Presumably there will be enough clearance for whatever trucks are going underneath on High St... Confused
LeroyW

As far as I know, the standard minimum clearance above a road (e.g. freeways etc expecting normal truck traffic) is a little over 5m.  Lower than that requires warning signage.

Not sure how high the Mernda and Hawkstowe viaducts are, but the Skyrail at Carnegie etc is closer to 9m high, in order to let more light through.  So it could be a fair bit lower than that and still be fine.
  historian Deputy Commissioner

From a LXRA email announcing the start of site investigations for the Surrey Hills/Mont Albert removals:

"Preliminary engineering advice indicates that the best way to remove these level crossings is to lower the rail line under the roads by building a trench."

I wouldn't have minded the consultancy fees for providing that advice.
  davesvline Chief Commissioner

Location: 1983-1998
Well put Historian.

Considering the rest along that path so far have been dropped, with a gradient up from Chatham and a fall into Box Hill at the road bridge at Elgar Rd, it's logical to dig the whole lot down.

Love to have seen the effluent storm had Skyrail been proposed here.

What's going to be interesting is the ensuing chaos of buses between Camberwell and Box Hill for the works duration.

Going to be a big job with 2 3platform stations in a trench.

I do actually wonder whether there was any thought put to getting rid of Chatham as this would allow for a more gradual drop into the trench from Canterbury.
Yes I acknowledge we don't close stations nowadays, but still......

Regards

Ps. Any merit to the thread being split along lines pertaining to LXRA works? Otherwise we could be talking over each other with sub groups of interest??
  Lockie91 Train Controller

Is there even a need to rebuild the third platform at these stations? How many services stop at the third platform. During peak period aren’t these stations served by Ringwood/Blackburn local services while Belgrave and Lillydale run express Richmond > Camberwell > Box Hill?

It’s a great expense digging a bigger trench to build a platform that might only see a train stop a few times a day.
  LancedDendrite Chief Commissioner

Location: North Haverbrook; where the monorail is king!
Going to be a big job with 2 3platform stations in a trench.

I do actually wonder whether there was any thought put to getting rid of Chatham as this would allow for a more gradual drop into the trench from Canterbury.
Yes I acknowledge we don't close stations nowadays, but still......
davesvline


There's a grandfathered low-clearance rail underbridge at Robinsons Rd between Chatham and Surrey Hills that gets in the way of that. They can still get away with 2.5% grades descending into Surrey Hills even if they start at the Down end of the Robinsons Rd bridge. Chatham will stay unaltered, I guarantee.
The real question to consider is how wide do they make the station pits at Surrey Hills & Mont Albert - 3 tracks or 4?

Surrey Hills is a semi-express stopping point during peak hour, so it will likely retain 3 platforms - maybe 4 if there's space for quadding built in. Mont Albert could easily be downgraded to a pair of side platforms with the express track(s) running through the middle.
  trainbrain Deputy Commissioner

I would be getting rid of Mont Albert and Surrey Hills and make one super station half way between them. Doing away with Chatham is a great idea.................
  davesvline Chief Commissioner

Location: 1983-1998
Thanks LD.
I forgot that bridge before Surrey Hills. My bad considering I lived there for 18mths.

I do like the idea of reducing Mont Albert to a buried version of Laburnum (except with the track in the middle). That has a lot of merit and would definitely save cost. The station doesn't warrant or use 3 platforms, and never will.

I had thought some time ago a single station between the Surrey Hills and Mont Albert would have been better. However, having travelled through there yesterday arvo, there's not enough space IMHO for a 3 platform station.

Better option is where they are now due to more space, and just do 2 platforms at Mont Albert.

Let's get on with it.

Regards

Sponsored advertisement

Display from: