| home |
|
| news |
|
| discussions |
|
| content |
|
| site |
|
|
| technical support | Need Help? Lodge a support ticket!
Note: This is for technical support only. General questions about railways should be posted to the Forums.donation 
Please Donate!photo comp Have YOU voted yet on Photo of the Month?
Click Here!
Voting Closes 31/12search |
| |
| Author |
Message |
spottyrahr
Chief Commissioner
Joined: Jan 17, 2003
Last Visited: Nov 26, 2008
Location: St Albans Melbourne
contact
|
post
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 17, 2003 11:46 pm
|
hey atleast im older then some1 here  im 15, 16 in a few months but yeh anyway
i think it was kennett who wanted all this docklands crap yeh? anyway, whoever it was, was a bloody fool, there could/is some much money that could be gained in the dock rails, and destroying a peice of our history to build a gaint footy ground dats just concert and doesnt even look good, whats up with that, those yards could have been redone, and made into something more useful
but we'll never no now, that stadium didnt NEED to be build, docklands DIDNT need to be build (tho, it is ok looking n stuff) our econmy and our jobs and our history is more important than anything else dont you think?
|
|
 |
bevans
Site Admin
Joined: Jan 11, 2003
Last Visited: Dec 2, 2008
Location: Melbourne, Australia
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 18, 2003 7:29 am
|
Being an AFL fan, I loath going to the dockland statium. The stadium was Kennett's wet dream. " I need to plonk something down thee to get the docklands area started"
The traffic around the docklands area is now "out of control" the trucks journey's coming up from web dock are inceasing.
WA had no problems providing rail access to freemantle. Why did Victoria?
|
|
|
michaelgreenhill
Patron Saint of Alcohol
Joined: Jan 17, 1985
Last Visited: Dec 2, 2008
Location: Lost Somewhere In Time
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 18, 2003 8:14 am
|
I hate the AFL for getting rid of Waverley Park, that was such a good stadium. And living like 10 mins walk from it, its such a good location too  . But when they closed that they lost just about all their Gippsland members comin thru the gates
|
|
|
spottyrahr
Chief Commissioner
Joined: Jan 17, 2003
Last Visited: Nov 26, 2008
Location: St Albans Melbourne
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 18, 2003 11:34 am
|
well, they built the ring road (is it even a ring or the government just gave it a smeg name, anyway) cause there were so many trucks on the roads and they wanted people to feel safer or woteva, so they built it, and now they build all this docklands crap and its basically becoming a residentional area, but yet theres lots of trucks going thru there cause of the docks, if they replaced at least some of the tracks, maybe just abit further down from the apartments near the fruit market, then it wood be atleast an inprovement, and it would help get the trucks off the road, even tho the truckies woodnt be happy..
well screw them they can become train drivers
|
|
|
bevans
Site Admin
Joined: Jan 11, 2003
Last Visited: Dec 2, 2008
Location: Melbourne, Australia
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 23, 2003 9:18 pm
|
| michaelgreenhill wrote: | | Does anyone have any idea of the re-opening date? |
Michael, I think you will find it is feb 2003. So that makes it quite close to being finished. The line appears not to follow the original formation at the western end of footscray road. I seem to remember the line running almost to the end of the footscray road and then turning toward the west swanston dock area.
Will the line also connect east swanston dock?
|
|
|
michaelgreenhill
Patron Saint of Alcohol
Joined: Jan 17, 1985
Last Visited: Dec 2, 2008
Location: Lost Somewhere In Time
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 23, 2003 9:50 pm
|
|
Feb 2003, certainly seems right when you look at how far they've got
|
|
|
bevans
Site Admin
Joined: Jan 11, 2003
Last Visited: Dec 2, 2008
Location: Melbourne, Australia
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 24, 2003 11:36 am
|
| michaelgreenhill wrote: | | Feb 2003, certainly seems right when you look at how far they've got |
Will they be creating a rolling stock holding area or sidings down the western end of the line? I would imagine they would require a number of sidings prior to entering the dockyard?
Regards,
Brian
|
|
|
kuldalai
Chief Commissioner
Joined: Jan 14, 2003
Last Visited: Dec 1, 2008
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 24, 2003 12:50 pm
|
|
The private port operator is constructing sidings on land beyond the end of the line as now constructed. Boxes will then be lifted by straddle cranes from that holding area to ship side.
|
|
|
michaelgreenhill
Patron Saint of Alcohol
Joined: Jan 17, 1985
Last Visited: Dec 2, 2008
Location: Lost Somewhere In Time
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 24, 2003 2:17 pm
|
| bevans wrote: | | michaelgreenhill wrote: | | Feb 2003, certainly seems right when you look at how far they've got |
Will they be creating a rolling stock holding area or sidings down the western end of the line? I would imagine they would require a number of sidings prior to entering the dockyard?
Regards,
Brian |
Well there is a loop alongside Footscray road, anyone know the point of this?
|
|
|
freightgate
Chief Commissioner
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
Last Visited: Nov 12, 2008
Location: Albury, New South Wales
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 13, 2003 6:25 pm
|
| kuldalai wrote: | | The private port operator is constructing sidings on land beyond the end of the line as now constructed. Boxes will then be lifted by straddle cranes from that holding area to ship side. |
Hi, can anyone provide us with an update on the status of this rebuild? When will we see trains running again?
|
|
|
tayser
Deputy Commissioner
Joined: Feb 07, 2003
Last Visited: Oct 5, 2008
Location: Melbourne
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 13, 2003 7:57 pm
|
"Docklands crap" ? The whole Docklands development as a whole is, in my opinion, one of the best developments that could have ever happened to Melbourne. The Stadium, I agree is in the wrong spot, but it's removed 2/3rds of the unsightly tracks that were sitting wasting prime land. I don't know how this will go down with many people, however rail tracks are probably the most dividing piece of infrastrtucture in inner Melbourne today. No I'm not for getting rid of them at all, rail has proven to be the most efficient mover of people and freight in the past and it will continue to, but the infrastructure itself is so inefficient in inner Melbourne.
Don't get rid of them, make the land the tracks sit on more efficient by burying them underground or building over them.
Docklands is all about re-inventing the inner city, yeah definitely keep the heritage value stuff like the Good's Sheds etc, but THANK GOD the Melbourne City Council has the vision to build OVER the rail tracks between Richmond and Flinders Street - Federation Square is ONLY the beginning. The Spencer Street STation redevelopment is also perfect as it covers even more unsightly tracks between Collins and Dudley Streets (the station itself is only between Collins and Bourke).
re: Webb Dock / Port Melbourne rail: The state government last year were hinting at building another Yarra Crossing within the next 10 years, options were either a Tunnel or a duplicate bridge next to or near the West Gate - I think they're all for a bridge as a Tunnel would just be like CityLink tunnels - Hobson's Bay silt will just come back to haunt them. You can almost guarantee, what with the Government pushing / encouraging more rail (be it light or heavy) in their Melb Metro Strategy, it'll be a mixed use crossing (road and rail)...... likewise I firmly believe in the next 10 years there'll be more underground rail (for suburban / metro trains) in the inner city. Melbourne's core will be densifying over the next 30 years, and likewise major activity centres will also be densifying and keep this in mind:
Higher density development (commercial or residential) = push for LESS reliance on road infrastructure and MORE reliance on rail.
Classic example, I guarantee after the Chatswood to Parramatta rail link is complete, you'll see major high-density development spring up all along the route the tunnels take!
I sure as hell thank god I live in Melbourne to whitness all the developments in infrastructure, housing and offices which is going to happen over the next 30 years.
DISCLAIMER: just trying to dispell a few myths that seem to be prevalent in this thread
tays
|
|
|
John of Melbourne
The Ghost of George Stephenson
Joined: Jan 30, 2003
Last Visited: Oct 16, 2007
Location: Melbourne suburbs
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:00 pm
|
| tayser wrote: | | ...the unsightly tracks ...more unsightly tracks between Collins and Dudley Streets |
Ever heard that beauty is in the eye of the beholder? What you consider unsightly others might find beautiful.
| tayser wrote: | | I don't know how this will go down with many people, however rail tracks are probably the most dividing piece of infrastrtucture in inner Melbourne today. |
What about freeways? They divide far more than railways.
| tayser wrote: | No I'm not for getting rid of them at all, rail has proven to be the most efficient mover of people and freight in the past and it will continue to, but the infrastructure itself is so inefficient in inner Melbourne.
Don't get rid of them, make the land the tracks sit on more efficient by burying them underground or building over them.
|
How do you determine efficiency in this context? How can using land for an efficient mode of transport be inefficient? What abour the far greater use of land for roads? Shouldn't they be the priority for putting underground?
I'm not opposed to putting railway lines underground at all, but overdoing it could lead to the "out of sight, out of mind" syndrome where it doesn't get used as much because people forget it is there. This is probably one reason that trams get more use than buses; you can see that a tram goes along a particular road by the presence of its tracks, but it is nowhere near as obvious that a bus goes along a particular road.
|
|
|
tayser
Deputy Commissioner
Joined: Feb 07, 2003
Last Visited: Oct 5, 2008
Location: Melbourne
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 13, 2003 11:38 pm
|
| John of Melbourne wrote: | | tayser wrote: | | ...the unsightly tracks ...more unsightly tracks between Collins and Dudley Streets |
Ever heard that beauty is in the eye of the beholder? What you consider unsightly others might find beautiful. |
I respect that, but this is a forum I'm able to express my opinion on isn't it ? 
| tayser wrote: | elbourne]| tayser wrote: | | I don't know how this will go down with many people, however rail tracks are probably the most dividing piece of infrastrtucture in inner Melbourne today. |
What about freeways? They divide far more than railways. |
But we dont have freeways running right nextdoor to the MCG, Flinders Street, and Spencer Street do we ? I originally said "inner Melbourne" (yes I realise that could mean many places) however, apologies I meant the "core" of Melbourne.
| John of Melbourne wrote: | | tayser wrote: | No I'm not for getting rid of them at all, rail has proven to be the most efficient mover of people and freight in the past and it will continue to, but the infrastructure itself is so inefficient in inner Melbourne.
Don't get rid of them, make the land the tracks sit on more efficient by burying them underground or building over them.
|
How do you determine efficiency in this context? How can using land for an efficient mode of transport be inefficient? What abour the far greater use of land for roads? Shouldn't they be the priority for putting underground? |
Take Federation Square, the latest and best example. It's brought some efficiency to the land by making it multi-purpose area where people are moved underneath, and where people can walk around etc above, it's covered up tracks and opened up a new publicly and easily accessible plaza / complex - not to mention its proximity to the a station is probably going to work both ways, i.e the station being so near will bring more people to the square easily and quickly and likewise will encourage more people to use the trains. That's efficient use of land IMO.
| John of Melbourne wrote: | | I'm not opposed to putting railway lines underground at all, but overdoing it could lead to the "out of sight, out of mind" syndrome where it doesn't get used as much because people forget it is there. This is probably one reason that trams get more use than buses; you can see that a tram goes along a particular road by the presence of its tracks, but it is nowhere near as obvious that a bus goes along a particular road. |
I don't quite understand this "out of sight, out of mind syndrome". How do you mean ? Building on top of rail lines will undoubtedly bring more to people to use the trail lines - as seen by so many examples around the world, an example similar to Melbourne is Toronto. Their recent opening of the Sheppherd-Younge subway (5 station underground section running to the East of another major subway line) has already seen trains running at a frequency of 4 - 6 minutes, and as I mentioned with the Parra to Chatswood rail link, in Toronto on the route of this new subway line already they're seeing a development boom with apartment towers going up all along the route - one of the main sales perks is that they're within walking distance of a subway station!
The phrase "build it and they will come" certainly applies in Toronto!
And I wholeheartedly agree with you on Freeways dividing areas, but at-grade rail lines, although on a smaller scale to say a 4 or 6 lane freeway, do exactly the same thing. The major differences is building over a freeway is by far more costly, and it's an example of what will scar the land for a long time to come - however rail lines, I believe are far more adaptable than Freeways - again I'd use that above Toronto example, and that's exactly what the Melbourne Metro Strategy is going to encourage, heavily, building closer and higher to rail lines so as people are encouraged not to use cars. It's all about getting people out of cars and into trains.
After a few years we might actually see Melbourne's pathetic train frequency (I'm sorry, but trains every half hour in non-peak times IS pathetic ) become get more "useful" in terms of frequency. All these 1/4 acre blocks which in areas can be miles from a station with poor to non-existant bus services all relate to low-patronage use on trains (300,000 people per day use the trains, according to everytripcounts.net.au - and when you consider Melbourne is a city of 3.5 million people, 10% train usage is well, very low, even when you compare to some North American cities), suburbs encourage car use, but you can always change that, and again that's the way Melbourne's heading - heading for major change! After all isn't that what we all want to see on here ? More trains running on our lines ? I certainly do
cheers
tays
|
|
|
John of Melbourne
The Ghost of George Stephenson
Joined: Jan 30, 2003
Last Visited: Oct 16, 2007
Location: Melbourne suburbs
contact
|
post
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:17 pm
|
| tayser wrote: | | John of Melbourne wrote: | | tayser wrote: | | ...the unsightly tracks ...more unsightly tracks between Collins and Dudley Streets |
Ever heard that beauty is in the eye of the beholder? What you consider unsightly others might find beautiful. |
I respect that, but this is a forum I'm able to express my opinion on isn't it ?
|
True, and I mine . I just wanted to make clear that it was your opinion and not a given.
| tayser wrote: | | tayser wrote: | elbourne]| tayser wrote: | | I don't know how this will go down with many people, however rail tracks are probably the most dividing piece of infrastrtucture in inner Melbourne today. |
What about freeways? They divide far more than railways. |
But we dont have freeways running right nextdoor to the MCG, Flinders Street, and Spencer Street do we ? I originally said "inner Melbourne" (yes I realise that could mean many places) however, apologies I meant the "core" of Melbourne.
|
Fair enough.
| tayser wrote: |
| John of Melbourne wrote: | | tayser wrote: | No I'm not for getting rid of them at all, rail has proven to be the most efficient mover of people and freight in the past and it will continue to, but the infrastructure itself is so inefficient in inner Melbourne.
Don't get rid of them, make the land the tracks sit on more efficient by burying them underground or building over them.
|
How do you determine efficiency in this context? How can using land for an efficient mode of transport be inefficient? What abour the far greater use of land for roads? Shouldn't they be the priority for putting underground? |
Take Federation Square, the latest and best example. It's brought some efficiency to the land by making it multi-purpose area where people are moved underneath, and where people can walk around etc above, it's covered up tracks and opened up a new publicly and easily accessible plaza / complex - not to mention its proximity to the a station is probably going to work both ways, i.e the station being so near will bring more people to the square easily and quickly and likewise will encourage more people to use the trains. That's efficient use of land IMO. |
Okay, that is making it more efficient, but that doesn't suggest that it was inefficient in the first place
| tayser wrote: |
| John of Melbourne wrote: | | I'm not opposed to putting railway lines underground at all, but overdoing it could lead to the "out of sight, out of mind" syndrome where it doesn't get used as much because people forget it is there. This is probably one reason that trams get more use than buses; you can see that a tram goes along a particular road by the presence of its tracks, but it is nowhere near as obvious that a bus goes along a particular road. |
I don't quite understand this "out of sight, out of mind syndrome". How do you mean ? Building on top of rail lines will undoubtedly bring more to people to use the trail lines ... |
To some extent it depends on why they want to cover the rail lines, and also on what they cover the rail lines with. Moving the sidings out of Flinders Street and covering the remaining tracks wasn't done with the intention of making any improvement to the railway. In fact, it made it less efficient as now there is a whole lot of extra empty running of trains back out to Epping, Ringwood, Westall, etc. to stable during the day. On the other hand, your comments about Federation Square are fair enough and hopefully will bring extra patronage. At one stage, however, there was talk of covering the rail yards with a car park. That would hardly have attracted more rail users!
| tayser wrote: |
After a few years we might actually see Melbourne's pathetic train frequency (I'm sorry, but trains every half hour in non-peak times IS pathetic ) become get more "useful" in terms of frequency. |
Yes, and every 15 or 20 minutes is not fantastic either, but the only places that have half hour in the off-peak is beyond Ringwood, Eltham, and Dandenong.
| tayser wrote: | All these 1/4 acre blocks which in areas can be miles from a station with poor to non-existant bus services all relate to low-patronage use on trains (300,000 people per day use the trains, according to everytripcounts.net.au - and when you consider Melbourne is a city of 3.5 million people, 10% train usage is well, very low, even when you compare to some North American cities), suburbs encourage car use, but you can always change that, and again that's the way Melbourne's heading - heading for major change! After all isn't that what we all want to see on here ? More trains running on our lines ? I certainly do
cheers
tays |
Of course part of this 10% figure is not just the 1/4 acre blocks, but the radial nature of the railway system. If you look at traffic going to and from the city, rail has a higher percentage than that, I believe. I've long believed that there should be (just for starters) a railway connecting Ringwood, Dandenong, and Frankston.
|
|
|
tayser
Deputy Commissioner
Joined: Feb 07, 2003
Last Visited: Oct 5, 2008
Location: Melbourne
contact
|
post
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT + 10 Hours
|
You cannot post new threads in this forum
You cannot reply to threads in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB 2.0.6 © 2001 phpBB Group
Theme images and concept © 2004 by Michael Greenhill and Railpage, All Rights Reserved.
Version 2.0.6 of PHP-Nuke Port by Tom Nitzschner © 2002 www.toms-home.com
|
|
