Sky rail for Pakenham Cranbourne line outlined

 
Topic moved from News by bevans on 13 Jan 2016 16:51
  3l diesel

Hopefully any elevated railway will have sound attenuating features. I know it has been there since the late Permian era, but the elevated railway just out of Southern Cross going to Flinders street seems to have been made with a noise amplifier designed in. That area seems to make an awful racket when trains operate!

Sky rail for Pakenham Cranbourne line outlined

Sponsored advertisement

  LancedDendrite Chief Commissioner

Location: North Haverbrook; where the monorail is king!
I'm ok with elevated sections, so long as there's adequate provision for track quadruplication between Caulfield and Dandenong. That means either stacked rail decks or four-track-wide viaducts.

Noise may not be a big issue - there isn't much high-rise development out that way, so you could just deflect the noise upwards.
  Lad_Porter Chief Commissioner

Location: Yarra Glen
“There has been no real consultation with local communities and councils on this ugly sky option and its massive impacts including thunderous noise, wasteland spaces and slicing communities in half’’

Has there in fact been any consultation with local communities and councils?  If not, will there be?  Does there need to be?

The words "ugly" and "massive" are probably fair, especially considering that an elevated railway on this route would/should be more than two tracks wide.  "Thunderous noise" is an exaggeration, but noise impacts would need to mitigated, as noted above.  "Wasteland spaces" is quite wrong, because the former track land would be used for parks, shops etc. For that reason, communities would be "sliced in half" to a far lesser extent than the existing ground level railway does, because it can only be crossed at relatively few designated points.
  Carnot Chief Commissioner

I'm ok with elevated sections, so long as there's adequate provision for track quadruplication between Caulfield and Dandenong. That means either stacked rail decks or four-track-wide viaducts.

Noise may not be a big issue - there isn't much high-rise development out that way, so you could just deflect the noise upwards.
LancedDendrite
I tend to agree.  Probably less impact than the CityLink roadways.  Given that it's mostly fairly straight track, probably not too much of an issue with noise either.

Curious to know if the plans include provision for SG (i.e Port of Hastings link to the ARTC network).
  x31 Chief Commissioner

Location: gallifrey
Why not just put the tracks underground as overhead trains are unsightly!
  Carnot Chief Commissioner

Why not just put the tracks underground as overhead trains are unsightly!
x31
More expensive!  Although there is an argument that doing a "cut-and-shut" and selling the newly created real estate above it can offset the expense.  Can work well in high density inner-city suburbs, but not so much in the outer 'burbs.
  don_dunstan Minister for Railways

Location: Adelaide proud
I would prefer this to nothing being done. The Dandenong corridor is outrageously bad - two tracks from Caulfield is manifestly inadequate and it needs urgent improvement to attract city-bound peak users off the Monash.

LancedDendrite is also correct in that the design can deflect noise upwards. And what did the Liberal Party do about the congested Dandenong corridor with their four years in office? Sweet F.A.
  bingley hall Minister for Railways

Location: Last train to Skaville
Meanwhile the rest of the world just gets on with it.
  Valvegear Dr Beeching

Location: Norda Fittazroy
Meanwhile the rest of the world just gets on with it.
bingley hall
Sir; how dare you disparage our most dearly held tradition? We are experts at talking about things. Harrumph!
Yours etc.,
Hurtle Gunboat-Cheese,
Major (Ret'd.)
  Nightfire Minister for Railways

Location: Gippsland
Why not just put the tracks underground as overhead trains are unsightly!
More expensive!  Although there is an argument that doing a "cut-and-shut" and selling the newly created real estate above it can offset the expense.  Can work well in high density inner-city suburbs, but not so much in the outer 'burbs.
Carnot
Hasn't worked In Melbourne very well at all, to costs of "shutting" "lidding", "roofing", etc over the railway Is just to great and risky.

Architect and Artists every now and again come up with grand plans to roof over the railways In the Inner City area (Like Federation Square East) but when the amount of public funds needed to make It happen are reviled, the plans fade ways quickly !
  james.au Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney, NSW
What about a future dedicated/(SG?) freight corridor for Dandenong/Hastings?  How would this go with this raised idea?
  Nightfire Minister for Railways

Location: Gippsland
What about a future dedicated/(SG?) freight corridor for Dandenong/Hastings?  How would this go with this raised idea?
james.au
You have to workout how you would possibly get SG through the congested Inner City and out to Caulfield !
  james.au Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney, NSW
Yes thats a problem too - but if there is no room on the L, or under it, then its going to be that much more difficult to do...
  LancedDendrite Chief Commissioner

Location: North Haverbrook; where the monorail is king!
The answer to your queries about SG to Hastings is... dual gauge. Dual gauging of the RRL Freight Bypass lines, Flinders St Viaduct Through Lines (southernmost track pair), through Flinders St platforms 7 & 8, Richmond 5 & 6, Caulfield Local Lines, then onto a new dual gauge track pair from Caulfield to Dandenong. Would carry Gippsland BG freight + V/Line traffic as well.
  james.au Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney, NSW
In the Metro development plan, it mentions a dedicated freight line - what you're suggesting above seems to use the pax lines?
  LancedDendrite Chief Commissioner

Location: North Haverbrook; where the monorail is king!
Yes, the proposal does use passenger lines for part of it. But you can always schedule freight trains to run outside of the ~4 hours in every 24 hour period that has congestion problems.
During peak periods you'd terminate V/Line Gippsland services at Flinders St to avoid congestion on the Viaduct. Those 2 trains per hour should be able to slot into the Caulfield Local Lines between South Yarra and Caulfield given that they run express through the MATH stations just like Cranbourne & Pakenham trains. Then they get a good stretch on the new express tracks.
  Peter Spyker Train Controller

(David Davis): “There has been no real consultation with local communities and councils on this ugly sky option and its massive impacts including thunderous noise, wasteland spaces and slicing communities in half’’
Lad_Porter

Bloody Liberals. They had no intention of consulting with the community when they proposed to build the ugly "sky" exit from the East-West link, which would have ruined parkland at the exit in Parkville.

Never let them near power, ever again.
  james.au Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney, NSW
Yes, the proposal does use passenger lines for part of it.
LancedDendrite
Oh ok, Ill have to re-read the metro plan and see that.  Unless there is another doc you can point me to that is clearer? (I really don't mind reading these docs, there is a lot of good information in them)
  Valvegear Dr Beeching

Location: Norda Fittazroy
Overhead railway lines - overhead roads like Citylink - what's the difference?
  NSWGR8022 Chief Train Controller

Location: From the lands of Journalism and Free Speech
(David Davis): “There has been no real consultation with local communities and councils on this ugly sky option and its massive impacts including thunderous noise, wasteland spaces and slicing communities in half’’

Bloody Liberals. They had no intention of consulting with the community when they proposed to build the ugly "sky" exit from the East-West link, which would have ruined parkland at the exit in Parkville.

Never let them near power, ever again.
Peter Spyker

They only like freeways!

If the rail line is built above the ground what impact could this have on freight train services?
  mejhammers1 Chief Commissioner

(David Davis): “There has been no real consultation with local communities and councils on this ugly sky option and its massive impacts including thunderous noise, wasteland spaces and slicing communities in half’’

Bloody Liberals. They had no intention of consulting with the community when they proposed to build the ugly "sky" exit from the East-West link, which would have ruined parkland at the exit in Parkville.

Never let them near power, ever again.

They only like freeways!

If the rail line is built above the ground what impact could this have on freight train services?
NSWGR8022
As someone has said, elevated rail slices suburbs in half but at grade rail does not! David Davis is an absolute tosser!!!

Michael
  woodford Chief Commissioner

Query, whats wrong with the line between  West Richmond and Clifton Hill, spends most of this distance on an embankment 5 to 6 metres high with few level crossings!

There will always be people will whinge and moan about things, its easier than doing something constructive.

woodford
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

Skyrail doesn't split suburbs in two, it connects them as it move the train out of the path of the pedestrian. The NW metro in Sydney has a skyrail for the specific purpose of not splitting neighborhoods in two and to provide a greenway along the rail corridor.

If for some reason you don't want a full blown sky rail? Why not just elevate the line a small amount to build pedestrian underpasses to link suburbs and go over the road at level crossings.
  woodford Chief Commissioner



If for some reason you don't want a full blown sky rail? Why not just elevate the line a small amount to build pedestrian underpasses to link suburbs and go over the road at level crossings.
simstrain

There likely is anumber of things contributing to the problem..........

The line concerned (Dandenong) pass's mostly through well to do suburb's with a lot of people that do not like change if it restricts them in any way.

The roads concerend are a decent size, 4 to 8 lanes and VERY busy with a great deal of comercial traffic,this means any roads going under the line must have decent sized bridges.

Another point is most of these roads have a station next to them, this complicates the process no end.

What they have been doing so far is to take the line under the road, this means building a new station in the cutting, this is costing something like 100 to 120 million per road. The Melbourne metro area has something like 200 level crossings makes the total repacement costs in the range of 20,000 million, a cost most people do not want to pay. So the powers to be are looking for ways that will bring the cost into the tolerable region. This is something that a lot of the public SPECIALLY the media need to understand.

woodford
  davesvline Chief Commissioner

Location: 1983-1998
Query, whats wrong with the line between  West Richmond and Clifton Hill, spends most of this distance on an embankment 5 to 6 metres high with few level crossings!

There will always be people will whinge and moan about things, its easier than doing something constructive.

woodford
woodford
A valid point here.
Same goes for parts between Glenferrie and BoxHill. Terrain may have played a part in deciding that was the way to go, but I doubt anyone would consider the line being ground level along here would have been the better option??

Regards

Sponsored advertisement

Display from:   

Quick Reply

We've disabled Quick Reply for this thread as it was last updated more than six months ago.