Some further thoughts on the subject...........

An elevated track would solve many of the issues..................

Such low bridges are relatively cheap and its is very likely they will not have such a complex task as taking the line under the road entails. Such an elevated track could be built above the existing dual track (Note 1) with out to much difficulty. The rail reserve appears to be 30 metres wide through most of this area, so there would be no difficulty in making this elvevated track 15 metres wide enough to allow 4 tracks. Thus this elevated way would solve most of the line sproblems in on reasnably cheap installation.


Note 1: For various reason mainly oc health and safety, this can only be done when trains are not running.

woodford

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.

I would have thought quite the opposite.  Those same locals (and others, of course) are severely restricted by boom gates being down at frequent intervals, and for excessive lengths of time.  Surely they would welcome a change to that, whatever form it may take.

Some further thoughts on the subject...........

An elevated track would solve many of the issues..................

Such low bridges are relatively cheap and its is very likely they will not have such a complex task as taking the line under the road entails. Such an elevated track could be built above the existing dual track (Note 1) with out to much difficulty. The rail reserve appears to be 30 metres wide through most of this area, so there would be no difficulty in making this elvevated track 15 metres wide enough to allow 4 tracks. Thus this elevated way would solve most of the line sproblems in on reasnably cheap installation.


Note 1: For various reason mainly oc health and safety, this can only be done when trains are not running.

woodford

Are you suggesting that an elevated railway two tracks wide (15 metres) could be built above the existing two tracks, thus giving four tracks?  If so, what happens with the existing level crossings on the existing tracks?

Some further thoughts on the subject...........

An elevated track would solve many of the issues..................

Such low bridges are relatively cheap and its is very likely they will not have such a complex task as taking the line under the road entails. Such an elevated track could be built above the existing dual track (Note 1) with out to much difficulty. The rail reserve appears to be 30 metres wide through most of this area, so there would be no difficulty in making this elvevated track 15 metres wide enough to allow 4 tracks. Thus this elevated way would solve most of the line sproblems in on reasnably cheap installation.


Note 1: For various reason mainly oc health and safety, this can only be done when trains are not running.

woodford

Are you suggesting that an elevated railway two tracks wide (15 metres) could be built above the existing two tracks, thus giving four tracks?  If so, what happens with the existing level crossings on the existing tracks?

In Victoria the track spacing in the past was 12ft, ie one track takes up 12 ft (3.65metres, pass rolling stock have a maximum width of around 2.85 metres) (Note 1) of space so 4 tracks will fit in a space 15 metres wide, there would very likely be a lighter built walk way do one r both sides.

Note 1, On new installations ARTC uses 4.8 metres (16ft).

woodford

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.

I would have thought quite the opposite.  Those same locals (and others, of course) are severely restricted by boom gates being down at frequent intervals, and for excessive lengths of time.  Surely they would welcome a change to that, whatever form it may take.

Most of the population ONLY ever look at the bad side of anything, hence news services are always "doom and Gloom", the positive side of anything is rarely discussed. Look at what will be said of this project even the headline "Sky rail" is negative in nature. all we will get is, the cost blow outs and disruption to the suburbs. Even some on Railpage do not appear to understand getting rid of level crossings will help ALL people.

woodford

PS, it ha just hit 42c here, luckily its 28c inside.

Apologies for any misunderstanding, I wasn't sure if you were suggesting two tracks on each level, but your figures do indicate that 15 metres would fit four tracks comfortably.  The remaining question is if it would actually fit.  I seem to recall that the reservation is quite narrow around Carnegie and Murrumbeena, and on the Up side of the road overpass at Oakleigh, but am happy to be corrected on that.  Come to think of it, what would happen at Oakleigh, and at any similar road overpasses?  And how would you envisage the interface at Caulfield?

I currently have 42 outside and 27 inside.  No doubt we will hear of speed restrictions and/or buckled rails, and of course these will all be the operators' fault.

Apologies for any misunderstanding, I wasn't sure if you were suggesting two tracks on each level, but your figures do indicate that 15 metres would fit four tracks comfortably.  The remaining question is if it would actually fit.  I seem to recall that the reservation is quite narrow around Carnegie and Murrumbeena, and on the Up side of the road overpass at Oakleigh, but am happy to be corrected on that.  Come to think of it, what would happen at Oakleigh, and at any similar road overpasses?  And how would you envisage the interface at Caulfield?

I currently have 42 outside and 27 inside.  No doubt we will hear of speed restrictions and/or buckled rails, and of course these will all be the operators' fault.

No problems, you correctly asked for a clarification.

The rail reserve between the route 17 level crossing and Murrembeena appears to be 20 metres wide, its VERY likely the reserve is 1 chain (66ft or near 20 metres) wide, likely still enough room for a 4 elevated tracks (Note 1). Interestingly the track reserve out to Clifton Hill is only 14-15 metres wide, mind you Collingwood (In 1880 the whole area was known by that name) was all there prior to the railway, so they had to basicly "buldoze" there way through the suburb to create the formation so they probably took as little land as they could.

For the existing overpass's the obvious answer would be to keep the track as is, all suburban rolling stock an easily handle a 1 in 30 grade so the ramps to any elevated track need only to be around 240 metres long.

Note 1: This is what engineering counsulatances are for (to answer difficult design issues).

woodford

PS: time 1710 still 42c, and the change has only just entered western Victoria, will not reach here (NE Vic) till WELL after midnight, what a pain..............sigh!

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, On thinking about this I would like to make a point...........

While politicians may require a particular out come, in the end its up to the engineers working with the railways to decide what will be the best way and or method for each section.

One of the more serious problems in this is interference from the governement particularly them requiring to do the job ever cheaper. Most engineering stuff ups have cost cutting somewhere in there origin. An absolutely classic example being the collapse of the first Tay railway bridge, North British Railway who built the bridge constantly complaining bitterly to the engineer about the cost of the project.

woodford

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.
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

Doesn't matter what the people say. If something has to be done, It has to be done and Melbourne is 40 years behind on this already. As a Sydneysider it always scares me to see how many level crossings Melbourne and Adelaide still have.

The government needs to ignore the nimby's and do what ever is going to get things done quicker. To be honest I would have thought pre cast concrete is cheaper and easier then digging a hole under a road carrying vehicles.

The way I see it the elevation of the railway would only run from east of Caulfield to west of Oakliegh as there is 4 crossings close together and to claim any land for tunneling in that area would blow the cost out enormously. From Oakliegh there is sufficient space for 4 tracks with either road under or over for the next 5 crossings.

The way I see it the elevation of the railway would only run from east of Caulfield to west of Oakliegh as there is 4 crossings close together and to claim any land for tunneling in that area would blow the cost out enormously. From Oakliegh there is sufficient space for 4 tracks with either road under or over for the next 5 crossings.

So are you saying that from Caufield to Oakleigh station would by Sky Rail whilst the rest of the line beyond that, namely Huntingdale, Clayton would all be underground linking to the already underground Springvale station?

Possibly could work as I do not understand how the sky rails above the Clayton area would work...

Simple explanation for Clayton, all that carpark on the Carnish Rd side gets a bunch of plies placed and a bridge deck gets layed across them. The fun happens at Centre Rd, as there's a building that in the way of all track realignments north and going by the property boundary's Google maps has, might be partially built on crown land.

The other three crossings apparently has one that's a mandatory up due to a unshiftable underground object, I believe it's around Chandler Rd.

A building partially in the way?  Don't we call that a compulsory acquisition and then demolition?
Unmovable ground object. Must be the Mile Creek open drain on up side of Chandler Rd  that comes from the retarding basin in Sandown Racecourse. But unmovable?? Yes these can be moved. But is the cost of doing so just allowing some boffin to say they're unmovable?

Regards

I think an elevated track from Caulfield to Oakleigh is the only way to go. Sinking the railway at each crossing is going to make the line resemble a rollercoaster, sinking the entire line for that length into either a cutting or a cut and cover tunnel will be far too expensive, and that is before any consideration for future amplification is taken into account.

As for the NIMBY's, they need to understand that an elevated railway need not resemble the grimey, black-painted iron structures that were built in many Mid-Western American cities in the early 20th century. An elegant, appropriately high (2-3 stories would be appropriate) viaduct would allow the space underneath to remain light-filled, friendly and safe, while leaving ample clearance for any heavy vehicle that needs to access these Sub-arterial roads.

I think an elevated track from Caulfield to Oakleigh is the only way to go. Sinking the railway at each crossing is going to make the line resemble a rollercoaster, sinking the entire line for that length into either a cutting or a cut and cover tunnel will be far too expensive, and that is before any consideration for future amplification is taken into account.

As for the NIMBY's, they need to understand that an elevated railway need not resemble the grimey, black-painted iron structures that were built in many Mid-Western American cities in the early 20th century. An elegant, appropriately high (2-3 stories would be appropriate) viaduct would allow the space underneath to remain light-filled, friendly and safe, while leaving ample clearance for any heavy vehicle that needs to access these Sub-arterial roads.

This is a great proposal but do we REALLY think this will ever happen ?

An elegant, appropriately high (2-3 stories would be appropriate) viaduct would allow the space underneath to remain light-filled, friendly and safe, while leaving ample clearance for any heavy vehicle that needs to access these Sub-arterial roads.

Not sure If this can be achieved !

Go have a look under the Boltie Bridge, as residents fear It resembles a dark dingy urban ghetto.

Not a very happy place to be !

I think an elevated track from Caulfield to Oakleigh is the only way to go. Sinking the railway at each crossing is going to make the line resemble a rollercoaster, sinking the entire line for that length into either a cutting or a cut and cover tunnel will be far too expensive, and that is before any consideration for future amplification is taken into account.

As for the NIMBY's, they need to understand that an elevated railway need not resemble the grimey, black-painted iron structures that were built in many Mid-Western American cities in the early 20th century. An elegant, appropriately high (2-3 stories would be appropriate) viaduct would allow the space underneath to remain light-filled, friendly and safe, while leaving ample clearance for any heavy vehicle that needs to access these Sub-arterial roads.

This is a great proposal but do we REALLY think this will ever happen ?

Why not?

Though what about the rest of the track...? Trench beyond Huntingdale to Springvale then back up again? Wouldn't that resemble more of a rollercoaster? I see the precedent case of Springvale Station being the main obstacle, most NIMBY's (on the Dandenong-Cranbourne Line) will point to that and say why aren't we getting this? I can't think in my head how would they get around the Springvale being underground and accomodate this now...

It would be interesting whether sky rail or underground would be more appropriate around the Clayton area (Area I live in).

To be honest, I think most people I've talked to initially fell into the NIMBYs but after seeing some decent overseas examples and designs, have either swayed into the neutral (we'll see what designs they come up with) or actually swung into the pro-sky rail camp.

It all depends on how the design is going to work. Some modern cities have sky/elevated rails that look nice and I think even one in Adelaide...but the problem is that most of the people against this idea still conjure up images of decade old designs (think the USA ones or dirt piled ones near the CBD...).

I wouldn't mind a well designed parallel bike path underneath the sky rail...

When BART was constructed in the Bay Area (San Francisco) in the 70's-80's they put quite a lot of effort into landscaping under the many elevated track sections with good results. There's no reason to think the same can't be achieved in Melbourne.

When BART was constructed in the Bay Area (San Francisco) in the 70's-80's they put quite a lot of effort into landscaping under the many elevated track sections with good results. There's no reason to think the same can't be achieved in Melbourne.

Oh come on, don't be silly, this is Melbourne we are talking about!

Dave

The decision on elevated rail for this corridor has already been made.  The proposal will go to cabinet on Monday.  

Expect the NIMBYs to wage a bitter campaign against this project but we need to see the detail.

I also wonder how freight will cope as that task also gets a lot bigger.

The NIMBY's will always be upset !

I don't understand why these whingers fuss about noise, amenity and liveability if a sky rail is constructed. In fact, noise and amenity doesn't even have an effect on the running of public transport at all. I mean look at the corridor between West Richmond and Clifton Hill, no one is whinging there and they have houses and apartments in proximity with the rail line.

The decision on elevated rail for this corridor has already been made.  The proposal will go to cabinet on Monday.  

Expect the NIMBYs to wage a bitter campaign against this project but we need to see the detail.

I also wonder how freight will cope as that task also gets a lot bigger.

Do you know any further detail of that, whether it would involve more than two tracks on elevated structures? Retention of existing tracks/stations?

The Government has made no hints what so ever about extra tracks on the Dandenong line !
The current project under development Is all about helping out motorists, and jaming more trains services on the tracks.

Express train paths will vanish !

The Government cant put in any extra tracks until all crossings are eliminated but will make allowances for more tracks once these are built .
Otherwise nearly all Eastern Vline services would terminate at Pakenham and it would't matter which government was in, they wouldn't have a choice.
This practice happens in NSW between Goulburn/Mossvale and Cambletown then suburban train to the city.