50 level crossings to be removed

 
  Llib7 Beginner

From Union road it looks there is a small dip. Even if the area is quite high I am sure it will be able to climb these gradients. It also won’t affect neighbouring properties as much as the narrow corridor at Carnegie.

Sponsored advertisement

  Rossco T Chief Train Controller

Location: Camberwell, Victoria
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.
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.
don_dunstan
Yep, the same guy who said the tunnels were too narrow on the Bendigo Line to retain two tracks with VLocity trains!

I wouldn't put a lot of weight in what that guy said.

Ross
  True Believers Chief Commissioner
  ngarner Train Controller

Location: Seville
30th level crossing removed at Aviation Road Aircraft.

https://www.premier.vic.gov.au/gone-for-good-laverton-crossing-removal-takes-tally-to-30/
True Believers
Interesting that Andrews is claiming it 'done and dusted' when the LXRA don't appear to agree, based on their website. They know there is still work to do to complete removal of the crossing. It will be interesting to see if they wait until the pedestrian crossing that they intend to construct, at the same time as the Werribee and Hopper Crossing removals next year, is complete before they consider this one "complete".
On the basis that a closed crossing that is not going to be directly replaced can also be counted against the 75, I reckon you could argue that the Station St Carrum crossing could be counted as the 31st. It closed before the bypass track was completed and there is no intention, iirc, to have one at that point again in future.

Neil
  ngarner Train Controller

Location: Seville
And another announcement, this time the design for the Hallam Rd crossing

Hallam Rd

Neil
  lkernan Deputy Commissioner

Location: Melbourne
30th level crossing removed at Aviation Road Aircraft.

https://www.premier.vic.gov.au/gone-for-good-laverton-crossing-removal-takes-tally-to-30/
Interesting that Andrews is claiming it 'done and dusted' when the LXRA don't appear to agree, based on their website. They know there is still work to do to complete removal of the crossing. It will be interesting to see if they wait until the pedestrian crossing that they intend to construct, at the same time as the Werribee and Hopper Crossing removals next year, is complete before they consider this one "complete".
On the basis that a closed crossing that is not going to be directly replaced can also be counted against the 75, I reckon you could argue that the Station St Carrum crossing could be counted as the 31st. It closed before the bypass track was completed and there is no intention, iirc, to have one at that point again in future.

Neil
ngarner

Skye Road Frankston was counted the day they removed the boom gates, even though there were construction barriers blocking the road for months after!
  speedemon08 Mary

Location: I think by now you should have figured it out
30th level crossing removed at Aviation Road Aircraft.

https://www.premier.vic.gov.au/gone-for-good-laverton-crossing-removal-takes-tally-to-30/
Interesting that Andrews is claiming it 'done and dusted' when the LXRA don't appear to agree, based on their website. They know there is still work to do to complete removal of the crossing. It will be interesting to see if they wait until the pedestrian crossing that they intend to construct, at the same time as the Werribee and Hopper Crossing removals next year, is complete before they consider this one "complete".
On the basis that a closed crossing that is not going to be directly replaced can also be counted against the 75, I reckon you could argue that the Station St Carrum crossing could be counted as the 31st. It closed before the bypass track was completed and there is no intention, iirc, to have one at that point again in future.

Neil

Skye Road Frankston was counted the day they removed the boom gates, even though there were construction barriers blocking the road for months after!
lkernan
I mean technically that is closed Razz
  8077 Chief Train Controller

Location: Crossing the Rubicon
The government is very keen to promote their track record and I still recall the day the transport minster declared the MBRP a success and completed.  What is driving this behaviour where a government is desperate for good news?
  speedemon08 Mary

Location: I think by now you should have figured it out
The government is very keen to promote their track record and I still recall the day the transport minster declared the MBRP a success and completed.  What is driving this behaviour where a government is desperate for good news?
8077
Basically they realised they can win elections by going "Look what we actually followed through on"
  tayser Deputy Commissioner

Location: Melbourne
Hallam renders from LXRA's site





  Adogs Chief Train Controller

The government is very keen to promote their track record and I still recall the day the transport minster declared the MBRP a success and completed.  What is driving this behaviour where a government is desperate for good news?
8077

Literally every government talks up their achievements.  Can you show me an example of any that doesn't?

It's a vote winner - and regardless whether they were well-run or not, they had the advantage at the last election of being able to point at more completed PT projects than any other Vic state government in decades.
  True Believers Chief Commissioner

30th level crossing removed at Aviation Road Aircraft.

https://www.premier.vic.gov.au/gone-for-good-laverton-crossing-removal-takes-tally-to-30/
Interesting that Andrews is claiming it 'done and dusted' when the LXRA don't appear to agree, based on their website. They know there is still work to do to complete removal of the crossing. It will be interesting to see if they wait until the pedestrian crossing that they intend to construct, at the same time as the Werribee and Hopper Crossing removals next year, is complete before they consider this one "complete".
On the basis that a closed crossing that is not going to be directly replaced can also be counted against the 75, I reckon you could argue that the Station St Carrum crossing could be counted as the 31st. It closed before the bypass track was completed and there is no intention, iirc, to have one at that point again in future.

Neil
ngarner
I think the Reservior one will be completed before the one at Carrum, it looks like it's more progressed than the one at Carrum, already the station is in place and placing the bridge beams across the existing crossing.
  lkernan Deputy Commissioner

Location: Melbourne
Hallam renders from LXRA's site
tayser

No Battlestar Galactica lookalike stations for Hallam?
  ngarner Train Controller

Location: Seville
LXRA have caught up with the government's press releases; they're counting Laverton as done now.
I agree Reservoir should be ready long before the Carrum group are but the Station St crossing is effectively gone now; i.e #31. Reservoir will be #32 and the other Carrum ones be #33+ when they are completed in due time.

Neil
  Nightfire Minister for Railways

Location: Gippsland
And another announcement, this time the design for the Hallam Rd crossing

Hallam Rd

Neil
ngarner
This proposed solution surprised me, I assumed an elevated road bridge would be used, like Westall Road, though this would of made road access to the station car parks and close by businesses awkward.

I'm guessing the new design will be like Clayton and Noble Park Stations.
  Rossco T Chief Train Controller

Location: Camberwell, Victoria
And another announcement, this time the design for the Hallam Rd crossing

Hallam Rd

Neil
This proposed solution surprised me, I assumed an elevated road bridge would be used, like Westall Road, though this would of made road access to the station car parks and close by businesses awkward.

I'm guessing the new design will be like Clayton and Noble Park Stations.
Nightfire
I was expecting a road over rail solution too.  I thought that access to the carparks and adjacent businesses would have been provided via a service road style arrangement that would loop underneath the overpass.

I was expecting that the project would have been announced as part of a further duplication of Hallam Road, as the section between Princes Highway and Pound Road will be the only section left that has not been duplicated.  I hope that the new rail bridge allows plenty of room for the road to be widened in the future!

Ross
  AJW Chief Train Controller

Location: Melbourne
Re Hallam Rd

I am surprised that it is not a road over solution.  There is a lot of land for construction beside the existing crossing, from memory, most of the surrounds are a service road, rail carpark and access, light industrial factories and a sex shop - not residential etc.  This solution will build a bridge (rail) which is longer, a new station with two platforms (if you can trust the artistic views) and not an island, for seemingly little improved amenities.

I agree that the road needs duplication as it is already north and south of the crossing.
  toholio Station Master

Hallam renders from LXRA's site

No Battlestar Galactica lookalike stations for Hallam?
lkernan
There's no housing right next to the station so they probably don't see the need for the added privacy and fancy looks.
  Nightfire Minister for Railways

Location: Gippsland
Re Hallam Rd

I am surprised that it is not a road over solution.  There is a lot of land for construction beside the existing crossing, from memory, most of the surrounds are a service road, rail carpark and access, light industrial factories and a sex shop - not residential etc.  This solution will build a bridge (rail) which is longer, a new station with two platforms (if you can trust the artistic views) and not an island, for seemingly little improved amenities.

I agree that the road needs duplication as it is already north and south of the crossing.
AJW
Wouldn't an Island platform easier to build ? Like they are doing at Reservoir and had used at Murrumbeena (but using their U trough design)
  duttonbay Minister for Railways

Re Hallam Rd

I am surprised that it is not a road over solution.  There is a lot of land for construction beside the existing crossing, from memory, most of the surrounds are a service road, rail carpark and access, light industrial factories and a sex shop - not residential etc.  This solution will build a bridge (rail) which is longer, a new station with two platforms (if you can trust the artistic views) and not an island, for seemingly little improved amenities.

I agree that the road needs duplication as it is already north and south of the crossing.
Wouldn't an Island platform easier to build ? Like they are doing at Reservoir and had used at Murrumbeena (but using their U trough design)
Nightfire
Agree. I don't understand why, when the platform is a new-build on a viaduct, a two platform solution would be used. An island makes much more sense, with just one set of stairs, ramp, escalator and lift required instead of two.
  Rossco T Chief Train Controller

Location: Camberwell, Victoria
Re Hallam Rd

I am surprised that it is not a road over solution.  There is a lot of land for construction beside the existing crossing, from memory, most of the surrounds are a service road, rail carpark and access, light industrial factories and a sex shop - not residential etc.  This solution will build a bridge (rail) which is longer, a new station with two platforms (if you can trust the artistic views) and not an island, for seemingly little improved amenities.

I agree that the road needs duplication as it is already north and south of the crossing.
AJW
Found this article which confirms future duplication of Hallam Road.

Ross

[color=#6611cc][size=2][font=Arial, sans-serif]https://www.railexpress.com.au/designs-revealed-for-hallam-road-level-crossing-project/[/font][/size][/color]

Designs revealed for Hallam Road level crossing project

An artist's impression of the future elevated rail bridge over Hallam
Road. Image: LXRP.
Staff Writer
October 1, 2019

The design for the rail bridge that will replace the Hallam Road level
crossing in Melbourne’s south east has been revealed.

Site investigations and engineering assessments have determined that the
rail bridge design is the best way to remove the level crossing, which
currently sees 20,000 vehicles travel through the crossing each day.

The crossing boom gates are reportedly down for more than a third of the
two-hour morning peak and delays are expected to increase over time as
more trains run on the Pakenham line in the future.

State transport minister Jacinta Allan said the rail bridge design will
minimise disruption to road and rail users and enable the final section
of Hallam Road to be duplicated in the future.

“Building the rail bridge will get people home sooner and safer in one
of the fastest growing communities,” said Allan.

Other designs were ruled out due a high-water table, an increased flood
risk and impacts to the Hallam Main Drain. Alternatives would also
reportedly take a year longer to construct, require compulsory
acquisition of businesses, and have permanent impacts to the station’s
car park and bus stops.

The project will also see the construction of a new elevated Hallam
Station, featuring upgraded facilities and improved pedestrian and
cycling connections around the station precinct.

Upgrades to the Pakenham line have seen nine level crossings removed so
far, with another eight planned.

Works on the Hallam level crossing are planned to get underway in 2020,
while the level crossing itself is to be removed in 2022.
  AJW Chief Train Controller

Location: Melbourne
Thanks Rossco
"Other designs were ruled out due a high-water table, an increased flood
risk and impacts to the Hallam Main Drain. Alternatives would also
reportedly take a year longer to construct, require compulsory
acquisition of businesses, and have permanent impacts to the station’s
car park and bus stops."
What a patronizing and calculating statement!

I have seen the Freeway bridge (about 1K from Hallam), Frankston/Dande Rd bridge, George St bridge Dande,  Bennet St Bridge Dande, EastLink Bridge Dande/Yarraman, Westall Rd bridge, North Rd Bridge, Golf Links Rd Bridge Oakleigh, Warrigal Rd bridge Oakleigh, etc.  Yes, road over bridge was the answer in all these cases.  In many of these areas the layout was tighter and none needed a new station to be built.  I guess the earlier engineers looking at the level crossing eliminations didn't have the same "group think" as now.

I remember 2017 and 2018 closures of a big part of the carpark at Hallam for overhead work, cable relaying and directional drilling under Hallam Rd to do some thing that was avoidable.  Impact on station's car parks didn't worry them then.

I am not an engineer so I guess I will just defer to their reasons and they can justify the huge cost of a rail bridge, station build, dual platforms, etc and not affecting the local businesses too much, but the official dismissal of alternatives in the press release doesn't explain it.  

If you don't know the area, look at Google maps.  A busy area, but not a heavily built up locale.
  speedemon08 Mary

Location: I think by now you should have figured it out
Thanks Rossco
"Other designs were ruled out due a high-water table, an increased flood
risk and impacts to the Hallam Main Drain. Alternatives would also
reportedly take a year longer to construct, require compulsory
acquisition of businesses, and have permanent impacts to the station’s
car park and bus stops."
What a patronizing and calculating statement!

I have seen the Freeway bridge (about 1K from Hallam), Frankston/Dande Rd bridge, George St bridge Dande,  Bennet St Bridge Dande, EastLink Bridge Dande/Yarraman, Westall Rd bridge, North Rd Bridge, Golf Links Rd Bridge Oakleigh, Warrigal Rd bridge Oakleigh, etc.  Yes, road over bridge was the answer in all these cases.  In many of these areas the layout was tighter and none needed a new station to be built.  I guess the earlier engineers looking at the level crossing eliminations didn't have the same "group think" as now.

I remember 2017 and 2018 closures of a big part of the carpark at Hallam for overhead work, cable relaying and directional drilling under Hallam Rd to do some thing that was avoidable.  Impact on station's car parks didn't worry them then.

I am not an engineer so I guess I will just defer to their reasons and they can justify the huge cost of a rail bridge, station build, dual platforms, etc and not affecting the local businesses too much, but the official dismissal of alternatives in the press release doesn't explain it.  

If you don't know the area, look at Google maps.  A busy area, but not a heavily built up locale.
AJW
I wonder if they wanted to build a new station anyway?
  Adogs Chief Train Controller

Thanks Rossco
"Other designs were ruled out due a high-water table, an increased flood
risk and impacts to the Hallam Main Drain. Alternatives would also
reportedly take a year longer to construct, require compulsory
acquisition of businesses, and have permanent impacts to the station’s
car park and bus stops."
What a patronizing and calculating statement!

I have seen the Freeway bridge (about 1K from Hallam), Frankston/Dande Rd bridge, George St bridge Dande,  Bennet St Bridge Dande, EastLink Bridge Dande/Yarraman, Westall Rd bridge, North Rd Bridge, Golf Links Rd Bridge Oakleigh, Warrigal Rd bridge Oakleigh, etc.  Yes, road over bridge was the answer in all these cases.  In many of these areas the layout was tighter and none needed a new station to be built.  I guess the earlier engineers looking at the level crossing eliminations didn't have the same "group think" as now.

I remember 2017 and 2018 closures of a big part of the carpark at Hallam for overhead work, cable relaying and directional drilling under Hallam Rd to do some thing that was avoidable.  Impact on station's car parks didn't worry them then.

I am not an engineer so I guess I will just defer to their reasons and they can justify the huge cost of a rail bridge, station build, dual platforms, etc and not affecting the local businesses too much, but the official dismissal of alternatives in the press release doesn't explain it.  

If you don't know the area, look at Google maps.  A busy area, but not a heavily built up locale.
AJW

They mostly had a different group think back then (back then they pretty much always defaulted to road-over unless they couldn't).  But at any rate, from what I'm told, rail over at most crossings is actually a fair bit cheaper than the roadworks would be, plus the current station is pretty much cactus and needed replacement anyway.
  Adogs Chief Train Controller

The Caulfield-Dandenong Skyrail won an award at the Australian Institute of Landscape Architecture this week:

https://www.domain.com.au/news/sky-rail-and-bike-path-win-top-awards-for-landscape-architecture-891966/
I actually found this article while looking at a real estate site, which I thought was interesting.  Quote: "some residents opposed the replacement sky rail on the grounds of aesthetics or privacy.  But many locals have come around, saying it has not affected property values or sparked anti-social behaviour as feared."

Sponsored advertisement

Display from: