Activity around Mitcham

 
  T411 Moderator

Location: Somewhere
The other thing to consider is that while 4 tracks may no be needed today, when you close the line to put a brand new bridge in, why not make the bridge large enough for 4 tracks? That way whenever the extra tracks are needed, it will be an easier (and cheaper) job.
"T411"


Space limitations.

When Springvale road grade separation (Nunawading) was Under construction, the railway was still In use up until the later stages of the project.

This grade separation could be expanded one day by boring under the road where the former railway tracks crossed the road.

No way this would be cheap at all.
"Nightfire"

Not saying it would be cheap but cheaper to do it now then to do it again sometime in the future. My view is that when doing grade seperations like this, plan for the future and make provision for future expansion.

Sponsored advertisement

  Heihachi_73 Chief Commissioner

Location: Terminating at Ringwood
But this is Victoria, nothing is made for the future down here... except roads. Even freeways are out of fashion now, because they discovered that tollways provided even more revenue alongside the random fuel price hikes which have gone 'unnoticed' under the carpet for so long (when was the last time you went past a petrol station displaying 130-odd CPL, then passing the same place the next day and it says 149.9 with diesel unchanged and yet cheaper at 145.9). Of course, the government and oil companies combined will deny this until they're blue in the face.

We still have mass amounts of level crossings, semaphore signals on the Hurstbridge line, historic staff and ticket working on many lines (also including Hurstbridge), low-grade jointed track on main lines (e.g. East Richmond, the Hurstbridge line yet again), wooden sleepers with dog spikes (as opposed to Pandrol clips), and single track sections, all run by companies, bureaucrats and politicians who haven't stepped foot inside a train for over 30 years (with the exception of publicity tours or company handovers e.g. Metro).
  AzN_dj Chief Commissioner

Location: Along route 69

The point is that if at the moment we run 13 trains out to Ringwood, and Ringwood and its sub regions are not expected to grow significantly as a result of there being no growth areas out there
"John_Proctor"

The problem is that as far as I can tell, a lot of those growth expectations assume out, not up. They make no allowance for thirty-storey residential apartments, or moving from our standard of about 12 residents per acre to a hundred or more residents per acre.

As far as I am aware, these growth expectations do.
Proof: There is NOWHERE to go out. The only way IS up. How can you project growth any other way? The only other way is DOWN (if that is the case, then you would have negative growth).


Still, let's assume that with a value of 55,000 people in 15 years and linear growth, by 2050 there will be about 650,000 residents in the Ringwood and surrounding areas.

You've made the wrong assumption. It would be logarithmic growth. We have an ageing population. There is nowhere to build. It would be at the very last stage of logarithmic growth.

Whereas if you compare to somewhere like Melton, or Tarneit, you would be at the very start of the logarithmic growth.

Deducting half for children and another few thousand for other reasons,
Which nobody wants these days anyways

Each train carries around 1,000 people, or with proper Metro rollingstock, 2,000.

9 car solution increases that.
That's a requirement of around 25 trains per hour from each direction; and because of the way I've obtained the numbers, having two tracks from Doncaster to Ringwood doesn't change that.


That's more than enough to prevent the running of a non-commuter express service, running Ringwood - Box Hill - Richmond - Flinders Street, from running on the same tracks in peak hour. And that's where the requirement for the extra two tracks comes from.

Erm..... mathematically it doesn't.


You say that Parramatta has taken decades to get to 90,000 jobs; I can only assume that either not enough investment was made (or it wasn't fast enough), or the promotion strategies weren't strong enough, or people in Sydney are more willing to accept a longer commute than I consider reasonable.


You n00b, Parramatta is the ONLY viable and logical example there is!
If Parramatta can't get more than 90,000 jobs, there is no way that Dandenong, Frankston, Ringwood, etc, could exceed that in a shorter space of time.


Even if all of the above fails in terms of tunneling costs a little project scope alternative for you.
"John_Proctor"

A tunnel over such a huge length will be very expensive, there's no doubt about it, and you've admitted as such.

If you have that many people using the system, then you can justify tunnelling, because the farebox revenue would exceed your capacity increase.



There is no doubt that Middleborough Road and Laburnam

Check your spelling.


If you went for a 9 car solution, you increase capacity by 50%, much more than the 10% proected growth with minimal infrastructure required. Extrapolate this, and you have flexibility to reduce stopping all station services for express services if you wish.
"AzN_dj"

I've been told that in a recent (i.e. last decade or so) timetable, Cityrail replaced a four-carriage train every 7 or 8 minutes with an 8-carriage train every 15 minutes, and claimed that the service was the same so people had no right to complain. That seems to align with what you're suggesting, which I consider completely unreasonable.

No, the point is you don't need to increase peak frequency from the current if you use 9 cars. I wasn't removing anything. I was saying you could extend platforms and leave the Belgrave/Lilydale lines to rot on their old timetable for the next 50 years, and you would have already provided more than enough capacity!


You've always had a problem with understanding the effect a single express train has on the headways between two stopping trains (or viceversa). Remind me to show you my paper train graph for the Caulfield/Northern group sometime.

I know the effect of an express train between two stopping trains. I just work around it with minimal infrastructure, you go for the more expensive, and less likely to happen option.
  tomohawk Chief Commissioner

Location: Getting The Met to get around
You would have extreme difficulty extending platforms on that line to 9 cars. The stations in the triplcated section are already squeezed into space and would require a total and costly rebuild to take nine cars, and the crossing loops on the Belgrave line simply could not take 9 cars without rebuilding. Add to that the fact that the Belgrave and Lilydale trains run through the 6 car length City Loop, and you realise you're fuqued.
  AzN_dj Chief Commissioner

Location: Along route 69
You would have extreme difficulty extending platforms on that line to 9 cars. The stations in the triplcated section are already squeezed into space and would require a total and costly rebuild to take nine cars, and the crossing loops on the Belgrave line simply could not take 9 cars without rebuilding. Add to that the fact that the Belgrave and Lilydale trains run through the 6 car length City Loop, and you realise you're fuqued.
"tomohawk"


Yes, I know that 9 cars is more difficult on the Belgrave/Lilydale lines, but how would the overall cost of such an exercise be in comparison to quadruplication?that's what I'm trying to get at

And if you did quadruplicate and rebuilt every station along the lline, wouldn't you also construct the new ones for a possibility of having 9 cars in the future anyways?
  SteamtoStay Chief Commissioner

Location: Building floorplates
The point is that if at the moment we run 13 trains out to Ringwood, and Ringwood and its sub regions are not expected to grow significantly as a result of there being no growth areas out there
"John_Proctor"

The problem is that as far as I can tell, a lot of those growth expectations assume out, not up. They make no allowance for thirty-storey residential apartments, or moving from our standard of about 12 residents per acre to a hundred or more residents per acre.
"SteamtoStay"

As far as I am aware, these growth expectations do. Proof: There is NOWHERE to go out. The only way IS up. How can you project growth any other way?
"AzN_dj"

What about north of Lilydale, east of Bayswater and between Dandenong Creek and Eastlink? (The last one might be a flood plain, but that hasn't stopped anyone in the past).

Besides, when we talk building up, are we talking eight stories, or thirty, or sixty?

Taller buildings and more people per square and cubic kilometre are things we'll just have to learn to live with.

The only other way is DOWN (if that is the case, then you would have negative growth).
"AzN_dj"

Well, you could build houses underground. Apparently that's done in deserts as a form of cheap airconditioning.

Still, let's assume that with a value of 55,000 people in 15 years and linear growth, by 2050 there will be about 650,000 residents in the Ringwood and surrounding areas.
"SteamtoStay"

You've made the wrong assumption. It would be logarithmic growth. We have an ageing population. There is nowhere to build. It would be at the very last stage of logarithmic growth.
"AzN_dj"

I wouldn't be surprised if the ageing population trend starts to reverse sometime in the next decade or two.


Deducting half for children and another few thousand for other reasons,
"SteamtoStay"
Which nobody wants these days anyways
"AzN_dj"

Idiot.

(You want to make overarching generalisations, then I will too!)

Each train carries around 1,000 people, or with proper Metro rollingstock, 2,000.
"SteamtoStay"

9 car solution increases that.
"AzN_dj"

But it also wastes money that would be better spent on providing a higher quality of service.

That's a requirement of around 25 trains per hour from each direction... That's more than enough to prevent the running of a non-commuter express service, running Ringwood - Box Hill - Richmond - Flinders Street, from running on the same tracks in peak hour. And that's where the requirement for the extra two tracks comes from.
"SteamtoStay"

Erm... mathematically it doesn't.
"AzN_dj"

To borrow from another thread - that's like arguing that there's no difference between a level crossing and a road intersection, when each has 30 minutes per hour of traffic in each direction.

In practice that isn't true, because the level crossing's wait period would be grouped into a small number of long delays whereas the intersection has a high number of short periods of delays.

You should really stop arguing about timetables until you learn the trade, lest you make yourself look even more foolish.

You say that Parramatta has taken decades to get to 90,000 jobs; I can only assume that either not enough investment was made (or it wasn't fast enough), or the promotion strategies weren't strong enough, or people in Sydney are more willing to accept a longer commute than I consider reasonable.
"SteamtoStay"

Parramatta is the ONLY viable and logical example there is!
If Parramatta can't get more than 90,000 jobs, there is no way that Dandenong, Frankston, Ringwood, etc, could exceed that in a shorter space of time.
"AzN_dj"

I'm sure there are overseas examples.

And even if there aren't, all the more reason to become a world-leader.

By the way, you didn't address my theories as to why Parramatta hasn't grown fast enough.

Even if all of the above fails in terms of tunneling costs a little project scope alternative for you.
"John_Proctor"

A tunnel over such a huge length will be very expensive, there's no doubt about it, and you've admitted as such.
"SteamtoStay"

If you have that many people using the system, then you can justify tunnelling, because the farebox revenue would exceed your capacity increase.
"AzN_dj"

Once you deduct finances relating to housing and look only at a pure transportation perspective, name six commuter passenger transport systems worldwide that generate a profit.

If you went for a 9 car solution, you increase capacity by 50%, much more than the 10% proected growth with minimal infrastructure required. Extrapolate this, and you have flexibility to reduce stopping all station services for express services if you wish.
"AzN_dj"

I've been told that in a recent (i.e. last decade or so) timetable, Cityrail replaced a four-carriage train every 7 or 8 minutes with an 8-carriage train every 15 minutes, and claimed that the service was the same so people had no right to complain. That seems to align with what you're suggesting, which I consider completely unreasonable.
"SteamtoStay"

No, the point is you don't need to increase peak frequency from the current if you use 9 cars. I wasn't removing anything. I was saying you could extend platforms and leave the Belgrave/Lilydale lines to rot on their old timetable for the next 50 years, and you would have already provided more than enough capacity!
"AzN_dj"

Do you honestly think that there won't be a service cut if such capacity were provided?

:sigh:

You've always had a problem with understanding the effect a single express train has on the headways between two stopping trains (or viceversa). Remind me to show you my paper train graph for the Caulfield/Northern group sometime.
"SteamtoStay"

I know the effect of an express train between two stopping trains. I just work around it with minimal infrastructure, you go for the more expensive, and less likely to happen option.
"AzN_dj"

No, you ignore or misunderstand the problem, and therefore your proposals would - safeworking aside - have trains slamming into each other every ten minutes.

Bit of a hint, that's kinda bad for business.

But hey, you won't listen to me. So why don't you try to write a timetable? You need capacity for 20-25 trains per hour stopping all stations and at least three, ideally five or six epress trains stopping Flinders Street, Richmond, Box Hill, Ringwood. Headways are two minutes.
  Sir Thomas Bent Minister for Railways

Location: Banned
This cat sums up what I think of the current bollockry being discussed:

  wongm GEEWONG

Location: Geelong, Victoria
They make no allowance for thirty-storey residential apartments, or moving from our standard of about 12 residents per acre to a hundred or more residents per acre.
"SteamtoStay"
Besides, when we talk building up, are we talking eight stories, or thirty, or sixty?
"SteamtoStay"

We can save money on architects by hiring whoever designed the human farms in The Maxtrix.

[img]http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5137/5546438242_d71756842a.jpg[/img]
  John_Proctor Train Controller



The point is that if at the moment we run 13 trains out to Ringwood, and Ringwood and its sub regions are not expected to grow significantly as a result of there being no growth areas out there
"John_Proctor"

Still, let's assume that with a value of 55,000 people in 15 years and linear growth, by 2050 there will be about 650,000 residents in the Ringwood and surrounding areas. Deducting half for children and another few thousand for other reasons, but assuming that Ringwood becomes the major employment centre for the local area (and there's the main difference between my vision for the future, and extrapolating the existing patterns), it should be reasonable to expect 150,000 to 200,000 people commuting towards Ringwood on a daily basis. Perhaps half of those would be on 9-5 jobs, so allowing for commuters not using heavy rail we need to be able to handle a spike of at least 25,000 people from each railed direction - Box Hill, Lilydale and Belgrave - towards Ringwood in the peak hour. Each train carries around 1,000 people, or with proper Metro rollingstock, 2,000. That's a requirement of around 25 trains per hour from each direction; and because of the way I've obtained the numbers, having two tracks from Doncaster to Ringwood doesn't change that.

You say that Parramatta has taken decades to get to 90,000 jobs; I can only assume that either not enough investment was made (or it wasn't fast enough), or the promotion strategies weren't strong enough, or people in Sydney are more willing to accept a longer commute than I consider reasonable.
"SteamtoStay"


ultimately 9 Car and quadding is a complete sideline to this argument as the capacity will never be warranted.

Re: Development potential.
As AZN said the VIF forecasts for these area are assuming growth through densification.  There isn't any unused greenfield land in these areas for subdivision.  The 55,000 extra population is through ~20,000 extra homes either in units, battleaxe subdivisions or brownfield redevelopments (eg. Boral Bricks corner Stud and High Street Knox).

I think Parramatta advertises themselves as a bigger CBD than Adelaide.  Parramatta has had wholesale re-deployment of NSW government departments, it is at the centre of Greater Sydney (5 million) and more realisticially is the centre of Western Sydney (2 million or more).

Ringwood is in the middle of 500,000.   And it will AT BEST be third in line for any state government redeployment (Dandenong, Footscray (and I'd prefer Box Hill ahead of it too)) and it isn't geographically competitive in a greater Melborune sense for a private sector industry to relocate.  Dandenong has Dandenong South Industrial Area on its doorstep (30% of Victoria's manufacturing), Footscray is very close to the CBD, close to Melbourne Airport, close to growing Laverton/Derrimut manufacturing hub and has a University campus.   Ringwood is close to a freeway and is the gateway to the Yarra Valley - not a great deal there!

You guestimation of jobs isn't even a scenario that would make it onto the whiteboard at a 'visioning' session of DPCD or Maroondah City Council.  It is fantasy land stuff and to be honest my initial offer of 50,000 jobs is unrealistic even with strong government intervention.  Even if Ringwood truly became the capital of its 500,000 people region Melbourne CBD would still be a major draw for high end white collar jobs (think partners at law firms, bankers, finaciers, senior public servants, Health Industry/Research, even engineering consultancies) and those regions contain reasonably high levels of blue collar employment that will continue to be employed in the Rowville/Scoresby, Bayswater and Dandenong industrial/logistics/manufacturing precincts.

the major difference between your vision for the future and mine is that I suggest a realistic but still stretch argument for increasing (job) density at Ringwood making it the major Hub for the outer eastern suburbs that doesn't get anywhere near justify doubling up twoards the city, where as your ill informed back of the envelope guestimates over simplify and overinflate the potential for Ringwood to become effectively a major competitor to the Melbourne CBD.

While (I expect) I would always defer to you on how a signal works or the voltage of overhead lines that is rail engineering...  Transport Planning is land use planning and that is what determines the number of tracks.


VIF Link - click on the VIF 08 Melbourne 4.7mb  under booklets in the table on this page...
http://www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/home/publications-and-research/urban-and-regional-research/demographic-research/victoria-in-future-2008/2009-urban-and-regional-forums-victoria-in-future-2008-population-projections

for comparison.

Dandenong is attached to Greater Dandenong, Casey and Caridina Shires...

Current Population: 485,000
2026 projection: 673,000

and unlike my inclusion of both Whitehorse (centred on Box Hill)Manningham (centred on Doncaster),  all three of those LGA's are focused on Dandenong.   even Yarra Ranges and Knox even though they can use the Belgrave train line are much more focused on the Burwood Highway/High Street bypassing Ringwood and using the Glen Waverley line (to the City) or driving (to eastern suburban business parks).
  SteamtoStay Chief Commissioner

Location: Building floorplates
There are a few things which I think I should clarify.

First off, that VIF link is very interesting, and I have a lot of reading to do. For what it's worth, extending the 2026 figures through to 2050 generally gives totals of around 870,000 residents in the Greater Ringwood area, of which a little more than half will be of working age (18-65). But there are two problems with that: it doesn't allow for an expansion of the definition of 'working age', which is long overdue now that people are living longer. What if the normal retirement age was redefined to 70 years old, or 75? Also, at 870k residents, that works out to around 1,700 per square kilometre. Apparently, Tokyo is at around 6,000 people per square kilometre. I'd like to think that in the very long term, 3000/sqkm is a reasonable goal?

Secondly, all my urban planning work is focussed on 2050, and how to get from where we are today, to how I think we should be in 2050. That's very different to what would happen if everything were left to its own devices.

Third, from a timetabling perspective, anything above thirteen trains per hour (stopping all stations) from Box Hill to Ringwood will block the ideal 3tph express.

Those thirteen commuter trains between Box Hill and Ringwood won't be able to carry more than 26,000 people towards Ringwood.

Yes, I'm still focussed on Ringwood as a central location, because it fits nicely with the 60min rule. Having peple west of Box Hill commuting towards the GPO, and people east of Box Hill commuting towards Ringwood, is the bestway to cut down travel times in the eastern corridor.

As AZN said the VIF forecasts for these area are assuming growth through densification. There isn't any unused greenfield land in these areas for subdivision. The 55,000 extra population is through ~20,000 extra homes either in units, battleaxe subdivisions or brownfield redevelopments (eg. Boral Bricks corner Stud and High Street Knox).
"John_Proctor"

The area I've got marked for 'Greater Ringwood' is around 430-470 square kilometres. It stretches from Box Hill to Mount Waverley, Scoresby, Knox, Belgrave, Lilydale, Warrandyte, Templestowe, Doncaster and back to Box Hill.

In that area a lot of the housing is still only one or two stories tall. There is a lot of capacity for vertical growth, not to mention the currently unused land west of Lilydale, and along Dandenong Creek. (No, I'm not worried about flooding - build the apartment blocks on stilts.)

And using my 30min by rail guideline, looking at door-to-door commute time as the only method of measuring you could justfiy including Yarra Glen as part of Ringwood's commuter base. That would bring the land within a 60min door-to-door commute of Ringwood central to around 500 square kilometres.

And it will AT BEST be third in line for any state government redeployment (Dandenong, Footscray (and I'd prefer Box Hill ahead of it too)) and it isn't geographically competitive in a greater Melborune sense for a private sector industry to relocate.
"John_Proctor"

That's the good thing about planning for 2050. I accept that Dandenong and Footscray (and Geelong, Ballarat and Bendigo) will be higher priorities, but once they're started then attention can be moved towards Frankston, Ringwood and Broadmeadows. Then a series of smaller cities can be included; possible examples might include Epping, Greensborough, Hastings, Werribee, Melton and Sunbury. These would only be included in the MBDs for one of two reasons: either travel times are over 60min, or there isn't enough room in the key cities to supply enough high-pay jobs. The latter is far less likely.

Aside from the main cities, there will also be a range of areas with a non-corporate-business, more commercial focus. I'm calling these MCDs. Examples (working clockwise from north) can include Reservoir-Bell, Wollert-Aurora, Mill Park, South Morang, Mernda, Heidelberg, Box Hill-Doncaster, Lilydale, Glen Waverley, Chadstone, Upper Ferntree Gully, Monash Clayton, Narre Warren, Berwick, Pakenham, Cranbourne, Carrum Downs, Southland, Edithvale, Langwarrin, Baxter, Mount Eliza, Mornington, Somerville, St Kilda, Newport, Laverton, Point Cook, Werribee South, Sunshine, Milleara, Deer Park, Sydenham, Tullamarine, Moonee Ponds, Craigieburn and/or Coburg.

Most MCDs fall on or near a border between MBDs, and would not be restricted to those boundaries. However, jobs within an MBD boundary, whether or not they are generated by the MCD, would be included in the job total for the MBD. So the total for the Ringwood MBD jobs includes those in the central area, plus those in Lilydale and Upper Gully, and about half of those in Box Hill and Templestowe and so on, along with all the small shopping strips and other jobs in that huge area.
  John_Proctor Train Controller

I'm not getting into a fantasy argument about urban planning.  because your suggestions are all pure fantasy...

if what you are suggesting happens we won't be worrying about 4 tracks Ringwood-Box HIll we'll be looking at a Ringwood Metro system with tube lines dotting the outer eastern suburbs.

Third, from a timetabling perspective, anything above thirteen trains per hour (stopping all stations) from Box Hill to Ringwood will block the ideal 3tph express.
"SteamtoStay"


Why do you need to run expresses between Ringwood and Box Hill?

the current timetable allows a 31 minute service between Ringwood stopping all stations to Box Hill then stopping Richmond, Parliament.   OR a 34 minute service running Ringwood stopping all stations to Box Hill then stopping Camberwell, Glenferrie, Richmond, Parliament

either of these stopping patterns are perfectly adequate for your needs and would only require 4 tracks Box Hill-CBD for you to run 24tph.
  SteamtoStay Chief Commissioner

Location: Building floorplates
Why do you need to run expresses between Ringwood and Box Hill?
"John_Proctor"

Well, I skipped over the bit about Box Hill to Richmond because we've already agreed to four tracks over that section.

Basically, there are three traffic patterns on the Ringwood corridor I want to allow for:
1. Box Hill to Melbourne (commuters; up to 2min frequencies in peak)
2. Box Hill to Ringwood (commuters; up to 2min frequencies in peak)
3. Melbourne to Ringwood (express; always 20min frequencies)

The third tier exists for intercity travel. Tourists, business trips and so on, but not commuters. While trains in the first two categories would be Metro stock - high capacity, lots of doors and few seats - the third category would have rollingstock much like the current VLocity fleet.
  John_Proctor Train Controller

so for three services an hour you want to spend $1 billion?
  SteamtoStay Chief Commissioner

Location: Building floorplates
so for three services an hour you want to spend $1 billion?
"John_Proctor"

Why not?

Yes, there are more important things to do, but that's the beauty of having a forty-year timeframe.

(Besides, I doubt the cost would be that high. We've already agreed to four tracks from Melbourne to Box Hill, and the cost from Box Hill to Ringwood depends on whether or not grade separations, like Mitcham, allow for four tracks; if not we may need to tunnel for large lengths of the line, and that's when it gets expensive.)
  Speed Minister for Railways


Today brought a press-release that the tender had been awarded for prelimary work.
[quote:1a4d5a0347]Mr Mulder said both Mitcham and Springvale projects would now commence preliminary signaling and service relocation works with these vital contracts awarded.

“The initial $8.8 million design and construct contract for the Springvale Road Level Crossing Removal Project has been awarded to Coleman Rail,” Mr Mulder said.
“The Mitcham Road and Rooks Road Rail Crossings Removal Project contract for $4.7 million to start preliminary signaling and service relocation works was awarded to O’Donnell Griffin and Haden. From late March, the community can expect to see works along the rail corridor between Rooks Road and Mitcham Station as well as at Springvale Road, Springvale. At Mitcham Road alone, about 22,000 vehicles pass through the level crossing each day, together with more than 200 trains,” Mr Mulder said.

Mr Mulder said the preliminary works would pave the way for major construction to start on the crossing removals later this year.

“Two proponents have been shortlisted to form an alliance for the major construction of each of the projects and are undergoing a selection process,” Mr Mulder said. “The alliances are expected to be formed in May this year with major construction starting immediately after they are established.”

When complete, the projects will include a staffed premium station at both Mitcham and Springvale for added security and customer service. Removing the rail crossings will also reduce congestion for motorists and other road users as well as improve safety and accessibility.

Member for Mitcham Dee Ryall welcomed the next step for the Mitcham project.

“This is fabulous news in bringing our community another step closer to better traffic flow and easing of the huge congestion that local motorists have endured for years,” Ms Ryall said.[/quote]http://www.premier.vic.gov.au/media-centre/media-releases/6348-the-bell-tolls-for-springvale-and-mitcham-boom-gates.html

  mk4c Station Master

As I understand it, the Senior Citizens' Hall on the SE side of the crossing has been acquired from Whitehorse Council and is available for demolition. The groups using it were given their marching orders last year and told to vacate by the end of December. Apparently that is the only building required from the little group along Brunswick Rd. I believe that the small car park there will be used as a depot during construction.
  Bullucked Assistant Commissioner

Without wanting to start a tish fight I saw a 'preliminary drawing' of the plans for Springvale and was very much dismayed when I saw it as showing only two platforms and tracks. I very much hope it is not the final plan.
  SteamtoStay Chief Commissioner

Location: Building floorplates
Without wanting to start a tish fight I saw a 'preliminary drawing' of the plans for Springvale and was very much dismayed when I saw it as showing only two platforms and tracks. I very much hope it is not the final plan.
Bullucked
In the short term, it's perfectly understandable (and to an extent, reasonable) considering the tight budget requirements.

Last I heard, which was a while ago, the plan was to build the new tracks north of the existing alignment, then demolish the current tracks? In that case, there should be room to add further tracks (under the current alignment) at a later date.
  mk4c Station Master

There is activity on the North side of the line now. The small car park on the NW of the crossing is blocked off and there was a excavator there yesterday digging away. On the NE side of the crossing there is bunting and various bits and bobs but no actual work that I could see.
  ChoooChoo Chief Train Controller

Metro website:

Works Alert
about 22 hours ago
Buses will replace trains between Blackburn and Ringwood all day Saturday and Sunday as a result of preparatory works for the grade separation (level crossing removal) in Mitcham. For those travelling to the football please allow an extra 45 minutes to your anticipated travel time.
  duttonbay Minister for Railways

Yes, we locals received notification of this about two weeks ago. An inspection at Mitcham a little after 5pm this afternoon (Sat 11 May) showed traffic lights off, three guys in hard hats working in a cabinet on the down side, and an excavator on the up side (near the substation) digging a hole, presumably related to the repositioning of the cabling. There was also activity further in the up direction, but it's a long way around from the end of the car park to the Rooks Rd level crossing, despite it being about 250m away along the tracks.  I found it interesting that the rail replacement bus stop was on Whitehorse Road, corner of Mitcham Road (outside the pub?). I thought that the rail replacement buses ran down Station St to the up side of the station, but I have never had to catch a bus instead of a train.

  duttonbay Minister for Railways

The Mitcham level crossing removal project can begin in earnest from tomorrow. The big car park on the southern side of the line, which is where the new station will be constructed, is to be closed as at midnight tonight (Friday 28th June) which means that once the fences, etc, are in place then the big hole can be dug.  Although, apparently the first step is relocation of the gas main (from where to where I do not know - I forgot to ask).

I attended the community information session last week. The plan is to excavate as much as possible between the down end of Mitcham back towards Rooks Road, build the station, lay the track, install the signalling, etc, between now and the end of the year.  Then during a three week shutdown of the railway the trench will be dug under Rooks Road (and then the bridge built over the top) back towards Nunawading, where the new line will diverge, and also dig the trench on the down side to the point of divergence.

The Mitcham Road overpass will be built on solid land, as they did at Nunawading, but that at Rooks Road will be built after they dig the trench, in what seems like a very busy three week shutdown.

There will be a net gain of something like 15 carparking spots when it is all done. but in the meantime we are expecting chaos with more and more cars parked along Mitcham Road and side streets, where there is no time-limited parking.
  Tribitaka Station Master

It surprises me they haven't aimed to install a two level carpark whilst excavating underground so much.

Are there any design plans available?
  duttonbay Minister for Railways

The new station is being built on the site of the large southern car park. The new car park will basically be on the site of the existing station and alignment. Building a multi-level carpark would not be possible without closing the car park for a significantly longer time, as they would not have access to that land until the three week shutdown in January.

How many stations in Melbourne have a multi-level car-park purely for the station (as opposed to Box Hill, for example, which is really part of a shopping centre)?

I haven't seen any "proper" design plans, but the information session did have representations of the new station and the new car park. All subject to change.  None of the handouts included the better drawings.
  Tribitaka Station Master

I am unsure what the local Mitcham area is like, as I come from Eltham, but I am sure your area, much like mine, loves their cars and find it much more better than public buses which are often infrequent and unreliable.
By beginning to build underground car parks (only one level) when re-doing stations, it would easily double the amount of parking spaces and provide a whole new space for potential commuters to travel from. Most people would be much more comfortable driving one or two minutes to their local station, park and take the train in, rather than mingling with buses.
Mitcham in fact has 47% of its commuters travel to the station via car, and is ranked around 40th in Melbourne for car travel.

Stations like this where they have the area, will have the resources during the rebuild and will also have the users of it, I think it would be a great addition.

Sponsored advertisement

Display from:   

Quick Reply

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