Sky rail for Pakenham Cranbourne line outlined

 
Topic moved from News by bevans on 13 Jan 2016 16:51
  slowcoach Locomotive Driver


One problem with 2 additional tracks between Caulfield and Dandenong, what happens at Caulfield ? a big bottleneck mess ?
Really another 2 tracks needs to be pushed trough from Caulfield to South Yarra (great fun planning that)Which is why, apart from cost, that I find it bemusing that the eastern Metro portal will be near South Yarra (where there is no congestion) rather than just east of Caulfield, where it would accept the 2 additional tracks that you speak of.

The new pair would cater for semi-express Cranbourne and Pakenham services, eliminating the need for new platforms to be built at most stations.
DirtyBallast
If any future government becomes committed to expanding the Dandenong corridor to 4 tracks, how will station design complement this inevitable proposal?
-- Will all stations between Caufield and Dandenong be rebuilt to have 4 platforms? (2 islands, 2 sides and 1 island)
-- Will only Premium stations (Oakleigh, Clayton, Westall, Springvale, Noble Park, Dandenong) have 4 platforms and the remaining stations retain the 2 platform outline but with an island platform and 2 express tracks running adjacent?

Sponsored advertisement

  simstrain Chief Commissioner

I understand the main oil and gas main pipeline from Longford goes to Long Island than onto Altona/Newport area via under the bay ?

Yes sure there could be a trunk gas main through Caulfield ?

There is a petroleum line which does across the bay into Altona and to Geelong.

Thinking more about the 4 story high rail line proposal (more facts about the proposed line are now coming to light as time goes on) this is going to be very hard to sell to the public.  1 story yes, but what is proposed will stick out like a sore thumb!
bevans
I agree with bevans in that the line doesn't need to be 9-13 metres high. It only needs to be about 3 metres high along most of the corridor until it gets to the crossing and then could elevate to about 5-6 metres.
  LancedDendrite Chief Commissioner

Location: Trapped in a meeting with Rhonda and Karsten
Extra height discourages trespassing and allows more sunlight to reach directly underneath each track.

Article in The Age today didn't seem to mention that the obvious place for extra track pair is directly to the south of the line.

PTV and VicRoads should do an assessment of alternative corridors for express tracks between Caulfield and Dandenong such as along highway medians (eg Princes Hwy, Monash Fwy) if quadruplication is going to be the headache it seems to be pitched as.
  Nightfire Minister for Railways

Location: Gippsland
An alternative corridor would be totally pie In the sky, as It does not exist !

Building along existing major roads would open crates and crates of cans of worms.

Building the two additional tracks between the proposed viaducts, could be an option, but would need careful planing In how they would design and build the 3 stations without the need to extensively rebuild the stations when the 2 extra tracks come through.
What at West Footscray and Tottenham stations could be possible layouts ? but with the Caulfield- Dandenong resembling.
Up express, Down express, Up local, Island platform, Down local.

To build this properly the 3 Island stations would need to be built along the far Northern boundary of the station railway reserve (on a slewed alignment) therefore curating a straight path past that stations for the express tracks and avid the sloppy alignment that exist at Middle Footscray.

Locals are going to be pissed off whatever they do.

Many of them are dreaming of a cut and cover tunnel, that Is never even an option.

The Government may end up buying out the properties of the residents adversely effected by the project and repurpose their former land (ether to their property developer mates or open parkland)
But that would be many years down the track as Its a long drawn out exicise to acquire property (a layers field day)
  melbtrip Chief Commissioner

Location: Annoying Orange
Extra height discourages trespassing and allows more sunlight to reach directly underneath each track.

Article in The Age today didn't seem to mention that the obvious place for extra track pair is directly to the south of the line.

PTV and VicRoads should do an assessment of alternative corridors for express tracks between Caulfield and Dandenong such as along highway medians (eg Princes Hwy, Monash Fwy) if quadruplication is going to be the headache it seems to be pitched as.
LancedDendrite

The third and fourth track will be place on the south side of the railway track between Caulfield and Dandenong .

RESIDENTS living near the Andrews Government’s $1.6 billion sky rail project could receive compensation or voluntarily sell their homes to the government. - http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/sky-rail-melbourne-premier-says-nearby-residents-to-be-compensated/news-story/00df6c90a8047697b7b011c797923a57

Why're they doing this - may be in the future, some of the house  may be taken by state government  for the third and fourth tracks between
Caulfield and Oakleigh.
  ossi2 Station Staff

Have watch the forum for years but this is only my second post.

A group of engineers and technical people have developed an alternative design to the Skyrail proposal. The information is available at: http://www.noskyrail.net/the-alternative.html

Comments and observations would be appreciated.
  speedemon08 Mary

Location: I think by now you should have figured it out
Have watch the forum for years but this is only my second post.

A group of engineers and technical people have developed an alternative design to the Skyrail proposal. The information is available at: http://www.noskyrail.net/the-alternative.html

Comments and observations would be appreciated.
ossi2
The corridor would need switches at every station or track re aligned to make that work since there is no room to build around train stations. Train stations would also need to be completely obliterated, dug up without the track being there and more space taken up than the 20m corridor width to move them downwards.

Also wait for the cost blowout when digging down especially with the fleet of dump trucks to truck it away to the middle of nowhere.

And don't foist the 4/6 track thing on Skyrail. The 2010's Springvale grade separation image renders showed it.
  Nightfire Minister for Railways

Location: Gippsland
Have watch the forum for years but this is only my second post.

A group of engineers and technical people have developed an alternative design to the Skyrail proposal. The information is available at: http://www.noskyrail.net/the-alternative.html

Comments and observations would be appreciated.
ossi2
Looking at this proposal (that the noskyrail mob are all cheering about) I would guess the cost would be extreme ! and there Isn't enough railway land to make their proposal work ?

Anyway the Government will dismiss the proposal !
  speedemon08 Mary

Location: I think by now you should have figured it out
By the way the pollution from a diesel train is a fraction from heavy car usage, and who said they couldn't use electric trains in the future. (IF the inland port thing ever happens......)

Oh, and I just noticed the noise issue comment. Legally there is a set limit (brought in by the last lot), the same as any new construction.

And from appearances, it doesn't seem like there is any more room gained by the proposal. The low level vibrations comment in the article is stupid, as I would take a large bet at it being much worse underground than a 9ish m pylon absorbing the brunt.
Plus, have you lot talked to Railway drivers on how the rules work regarding route qualification and signalling? Wink , and construction workers on how they operate in the near vicinity around railways with a train right next to them?

Right now what I get from the project that some people can't quite grasp that they don't live in a leafy suburb anymore. Melbourne's suburbs are going to change whether they like it or not.
  speedemon08 Mary

Location: I think by now you should have figured it out
Oh, and an advantage of "skyrail" or elevated rail is that you dont have to mess up all those clusterf*ck of stupid intersections by digging them up for extended periods of time.
  ParkesHub Chief Commissioner

I think the Grubbiment ought to put in high capacity signalling, leave the rail infrastructure at ground level (i.e. as is currently) and let the locals suck it up at the level crossings during peak times.
  Nightfire Minister for Railways

Location: Gippsland
I think the Grubbiment ought to put in high capacity signalling, leave the rail infrastructure at ground level (i.e. as is currently) and let the locals suck it up at the level crossings during peak times.
ParkesHub
That may be the state of play for the Frankston line level crossings through the sand belt suburbs.
  historian Deputy Commissioner

Have watch the forum for years but this is only my second post.

A group of engineers and technical people have developed an alternative design to the Skyrail proposal. The information is available at: http://www.noskyrail.net/the-alternative.html

Comments and observations would be appreciated.
ossi2

The proposed alternative design won't work because there isn't enough space between Caulfield and Oakleigh.

The absolute minimum clear width currently allowed for a double track railway is 10m, or 10.5m if the line is used for freight. This distance is measured between retaining walls, or between overhead masts or signal posts. It also assumes nothing between the double tracks - the minimum width would have to be increased if you put the overhead masts between the tracks as proposed.

The two level interim stage would consequently have an absolute minimum clear width of 21m (assuming both levels were designed for freight, as they'd have to be). This is without taking into account the width required for the retaining walls and for overhead and signal masts.

Considering the retaining walls. The sheet steel piling used on the Frankston line is at least 0.5m in width, and the cast in situ piles are even wider. Neither piling can be used right up to the property boundary - I'd estimate at least 1.5m is being left outside the piling. So this would give a minimum width for the lower double track of 13m. And this has no space for signal or overhead masts - these would have to be suspended from the walls.

The upper pair of tracks is more complex. As drawn, each track would need a minimum of 3m from the centre line, plus the width of the centre overhead mast. Say 0.5m (a bit generous). So the total minimum width of the upper pair would be 12.5m. If, on the other hand, you used side overhead masts, the width drops to 10.5m plus say 0.5m on each side for the masts, giving 11.5m.

So, as proposed, the absolute minimum width for a two level design would be 25.5m. As you note the corridor width is 20m, this would already be wider than the space available.

Of course, you'd need even more space as this allows no space for the pile driving machinery to work adjacent to an operating railway line.
  ARodH Chief Train Controller

Location: East Oakleigh, Vic
I find their believe the freight trains are going to be double stack & powered by a sole SD70 amusing, along with the lovely art of wxtre filling the blanks.
  Nightfire Minister for Railways

Location: Gippsland
Their whole group Is amusing with all their pie In the sky claims.

Any comments that don't fit In with their (or question their) general philosophy quickly get deleted !
  ossi2 Station Staff

Thank you to everybody for their comments.

I do not know how to quote previous comments other than the last comment. If somebody could let me know that would be great.

As speedemon08 was the first to ask, I will address his questions first.

The stations have some land available around them and are not restricted to just to the 20 metres corridor. Transition plans for each of the stations have been developed. Current stations will need to removed partially before any construction or during construction at various stages. The current stations cannot be retained. Some of the new stations can be built before the trains are switched over but platforms in one direction, probably up (city bound) are problematic to build beforehand.

Costing has included trucking the diggings to landfill and landfills fees. Some commercial operators have expressed an interest,  depending on composition, but we have assumed all going to landfill.

Think provision for a third and fourth track should considered and planned. Agree with your comment regarding fifth and sixth track.

Do you have any information/reports about vibrations? We are gathering some interesting information.
  S302 Spirit of Progress Station Master

Location: Murrumbeena
Hello.
For transparency I live beside the railway line in Murrumbeena, am involved with the group of residents with technical backgrounds who are responsible for the report "You Deserve to Know More" containing alternative engineering visions, have put my name out in the public arena in association with opposition to Skyrail, am not part of any formal group or association, like trains, have many, many years ago cleaned guano and lead paint off rolling stock at Steamrail, think that the original VR logo had a lot more going for it than any one since, think that the high point of VR was the official burgundy platform shoes of the 1970's and admit to personally meeting the man who filled the roof space above the signal box at Fairfield with 378 empty cans of Carlton Draught, on railway time.

Basically my opposition to Skyrail is because it is a crap infrastructure solution. I support 4 lines because 4 lines allow freight development that allows employment that allows young people to stop train surfing and start paying tax. I support 4 lines because the busiest Metro corridor cannot possibly be improved without increased track capacity and this will also stop Vline trains from crawling past my backyard as I stand in my underpants feeding Chumpy to the dog in the morning.

I am not so much a NIMBY as IYGWMBYYMAWDIP - If Your Gonna Wreck My Back Yard You May As Well Do It Properly.
Yes, I was happy in my rocking chair strumming the banjo and watching the trains go by until this happened.

Now you're going to hear from me.

I support a cut and cover solution because there is no other way you can develop Metro capacity and what will become the busiest freight line in the nation through pre-existing residential neighborhoods with elevated solutions. I support the government cutting back on soft toilet paper in Parliament and diverting the savings to more expensive infrastructure that will better meet the needs of the economy and the good people of Victoria.

Now Murrumbeena is like a country town. We look after each other. The fancy folks with their three button done up suits correctly think that we are a bit slow. But that's only because it takes a little time to dip your hat and say Good Morning using every vowel and consonant. Mr. Bolte would know how to talk to us : plainly.

So it is entirely offensive when an army of 23 year PR consultants descends upon you and kick starts a manure pump of half speak, half truth about what they really want to do to the asset which has taken you thirty years of hard work to own. It is entirely offensive when a circuit is tripped to drop a boom gate to allow a helicopter to film an artificially caused traffic jam. It is entirely offensive when you are shown pictures of what is going to be in your back yard and you are told you cannot take a photo of it. It is entirely offensive to be soothed with official words of voluntary acquisition and when you follow this up receive a letter saying there is no policy in place for this. It is entirely offensive to be door knocked in the peace of a weekend afternoon to be told that in the space of a few months bulldozers will roll and a 10m high structure will be built against your back fence but you have the opportunity to suggest the colour of the columns.

Mr Premier : this isn't the way to do infrastructure.

Now even my dog wants to get rid of level crossings. This is what I voted for. It's like ordering a clear Chicken Soup. Simple. The problem is that everybody with an agenda has come out to put something extra in the soup.

Does Dandenong Inland Port want freight now?
Does the DOT want to ensure that their southern freight corridor runs and Port Hastings runs?
Have some squirrels called Woodcock and Dovey convinced the government that putting 600,000 extra houses into metropolitan Melbourne is best done by multi story development along elevated rail?  
Are there 18 Skyrails set for Melbourne?
Have Lend Lease purchased the widget to erect Skyrails as a long term investment?
Has the VFT come out of cryogenic storage?

I don't know, no body is saying, but the clear soup has become Minestrone, and I didn't order Minestrone. I don't like Minestrone but the 23 year old PR person is asking if I would like a green funnel or a red funnel as it is pumped into me.

Please forgive me my rant. I do this by way of introduction and ask you to indulge me for this my first post.
I can handle being dissed but prefer it is done with a bit of flair, rather than plain old rude flame.

What I want to do is dissect the good critique that Historian has made of the dimensional aspects of the 4 track cut & cover alternative. I am a train passenger, not a driver or fettler. I can only work off the right documents or the right information, provided or confirmed by those in the know.

So :
1. Broad gauge = 1,600mm ( No 4 Irish Broad, Tim Fischer, where else?)
2. Dual track clearance = 4,300mm centre line to centre line (where's this from?)
3. Mast clearance = 3,000 (min 2,750mm) from centre line (PTC Train Overhead Design Standards 1997 Iss.3)

Can we agree on this, Sir?
  S302 Spirit of Progress Station Master

Location: Murrumbeena
I find their believe the freight trains are going to be double stack & powered by a sole SD70 amusing, along with the lovely art of wxtre filling the blanks.
ARodH
I understand that all rail infrastructure built today must allow 6,400mm overhead clearance to not preclude the use of double stacked freight in the future. Accordingly images of freight in "You Deserve to Know More" show representations consistent with this dimension.

All of the content is created by unpaid people working in the time between normal jobs and family commitments, self funded in terms of creating images.

Beyond criticizing Skyrail, these people are solutions driven, wanting to offer alternatives. The ideas may be naive, poorly resolved or incorrect. We would welcome any input, correction or advice or development of these ideas. We want infrastructure to be built, but we do not believe Skyrail is the appropriate solution.
  S302 Spirit of Progress Station Master

Location: Murrumbeena
Their whole group Is amusing with all their pie In the sky claims.

Any comments that don't fit In with their (or question their) general philosophy quickly get deleted !
Nightfire
I can only refer to noskyrail.net to say that to date, there is no function for posting of comments, therefore there is no way that comments, good or bad, can be deleted. The reason for this is that there are not the resources of time or money to establish an interactive website, though this can be looked at in the future.

Please understand that there are a number of groups that oppose Skyrail, in various suburbs and along various corridors.
From my perspective, these have arisen from genuine discomfort about the concept of Skyrails and particularly through clumsy introduction to the public.

I am OK for negative comments about the alternative solutions proposed to be ventilated here.
I would prefer constructive criticism that refines or resolves a thought path.
  Nightfire Minister for Railways

Location: Gippsland
.
I understand that all rail infrastructure built today must allow 6,400mm overhead clearance to not preclude the use of double stacked freight in the future.
S302 Spirit of Progress
The National standard Is 7100 mm clearance.

Though you won't see double stack container trains running through Caulfield due to the overhead wires and the hundreds of other obstructions In the way, but the extra clearance helps when stringing up the overhead wires.
  Nightfire Minister for Railways

Location: Gippsland
I you want to visit an see a railway trench built to today's standards, go to Wyndham Vale railway station.
(Has enough room for 4 tracks at one point)

It ain't really that pretty, but that's what the locals Insisted It be built like.
  historian Deputy Commissioner

What I want to do is dissect the good critique that Historian has made of the dimensional aspects of the 4 track cut & cover alternative. I am a train passenger, not a driver or fettler. I can only work off the right documents or the right information, provided or confirmed by those in the know.

So :
1. Broad gauge = 1,600mm ( No 4 Irish Broad, Tim Fischer, where else?)
2. Dual track clearance = 4,300mm centre line to centre line (where's this from?)
3. Mast clearance = 3,000 (min 2,750mm) from centre line (PTC Train Overhead Design Standards 1997 Iss.3)

Can we agree on this, Sir?
S302 Spirit of Progress

Most of the data comes from VRIOGS-001 2005 Structural Gauge Envelopes – Minimum clearances for Infrastructure adjacent to the Railway. It used to be downloadable from the PTV web site. You might be able to find a copy using google.

But in summary...

The minimum vertical clearance on the Caulfield - Dandenong section is 7100mm for bridges, and overhead structures. For signals it appears to be either 7100mm or 5260mm depending on which bit of the standard you are following.

The minimum horizontal clearance between parallel straight tracks is 4000mm, but 4500mm for freight tracks. Where standard overhead masts or signals are located between the tracks, the minimum clearance is 5500mm (*).

The minimum horizontal clearance to bridge abutments, retaining walls, etc is 6000mm. Where PTV agrees that parallel vehicle access is required this can be reduced to 4000mm. Where the track is concrete sleepered, or on a slab, this can be further reduced to 3000mm.

The minimum horizontal clearance to bridge piers is 3000mm. Where the piers are situated between the tracks, the minimum track separation is 6000mm plus the width of the pier.

The minimum horizontal clearance to overhead structures and signal gantries (bridges) is 3000mm.

The minimum horizontal clearance to standard signal posts and verandah eaves is 2400mm.

All these figures are for straight track. Curved track needs increased clearances.

As for the figures for the width to be allowed for retaining walls, property boundaries, etc, these have been estimated by eye from work currently underway on the Frankston line grade separations.

(*) I missed this special case in my first run through. My estimates of the minimum width now become:

With overhead power stanchions between the upper tracks:
0.5m space for signals
2.4m clearance to first upper track
5.5m clearance between upper tracks
3.0m clearance to worksite boundary fence (this also provides space for signals - 2.4m clearance, plus 0.5m space)
1.5m workspace for piling
0.5m width of retaining wall
3.0m clearance to first lower track
4.5m between lower tracks
3.0m clearance to retaining wall
0.5m width of retaining wall
1.5m workspace for piling

Total 25.9m width.

If you put the overhead stanchions outside the upper tracks:
0.5m space for stanchions
3.0m clearance to first upper track
4.5m clearance between upper tracks
3.0m clearance to stanchion
0.5m space for signals and stanchion (to worksite boundary fence)
1.5m workspace for piling
0.5m width of retaining wall
3.0m clearance to first lower track
4.5m between lower tracks
3.0m clearance to retaining wall
0.5m width of retaining wall
1.5m workspace for piling


Total 26m width

A final alternative would be for the power stanchions to be cantilever structures outside the upper pair of tracks. This would require more space for foundations (I'd suspect 1m based on the Frankston line), but save 0.5m between the pair of tracks.

You might be able to shave this width perhaps 2m based on lower speeds (i.e. smaller kinetic envelope) and what's been done on the Frankston line. But I don't think you'd be able to shave nearly 6m off to fit it within a 20m easement. It also doesn't provide much space for piling. As the Frankston line has shown it can be done - but the machines are very slow.
  historian Deputy Commissioner

Oh, and I also meant to say...

Even if you dropped the four tracks in one go, the minimum width final width would be:

1.5m space for piling
0.5m for retaining wall
3.0m clearance to first track
4.5m clearance between freight pair of lines
4.5m clearance between 2nd and 3rd track
4.0m clearance between passenger pair of lines
3.0m clearance to retaining wall
0.5m for retaining wall
1.5m space for piling

Total: 23m

This would provide little room for piling (so slow construction). No space for overhead masts or signals between tracks - they would all have to be suspended from the retaining walls which may require to be thicker with more space outside them.
  S302 Spirit of Progress Station Master

Location: Murrumbeena
Historian, Sir (or Madam),



Thank you for your detailed, positive critique. Your analysis is considered and thoughtful.



The imagery and conceptualizations provided in “You Deserve to Know More” are of necessity simplified to cater for a general audience. The devil is always in the detail.



20m is an absolute constraint for 2km.

Physical survey establishes this constraint. There is variability up to 20.3 but for the sake of simplicity 20m is taken as the design constraint.

This constraint primarily exists between Murrumbeena station and Cosy Gum Rd, near Grange Rd in Carnegie, a rounded up distance of 2,000 metres. The total 20 km engineering conception between Caulfield and Dandenong is essentially influenced by this 2km choke. The Alternative works for the 20km but incorporates a 20m wide resolution for the short 2km as well.



Temporary Protection Fences.

A 3,600mm corridor is required for the CFA piling system contemplated in Skyrail.

A 1,500mm frontal offset from the pile is required for bored piles contemplated in Cut & Cover. So both systems require the temporary use of some of the backyards of residents in the 2km choke corridor. Under Planning Law, no resident has the right to prevent the demolition of their back fence and the erection of a Temporary Protection Fence. Later, the LXRA must make good, but an espaliered apple tree on brick fence will be replaced with an apple sapling. The choice for residents here is whether the disruption will result in a 10 m high elevated structure with elevated freight and Metro trains on their back fence or the ‘disappearance’ of trains under a cover altogether. On behalf of the residents I can vouch for more support for the latter.  So the 20m absolute constraint has a temporary remedy for construction purposes only, that does not require compulsory acquisition.



In the Cut & Cover Alternative, the tie beam running along the top of the piling system effectively becomes part of the rear boundary fence of an abutting property in the choke corridor. This acts as a collision barrier in case somebody accidently accelerates in reverse in their carport. A thoughtful LXRA might offer residents thus impacted a set of steps and a gateway in their new back fence to bring their bike up to the new linear park behind them.



In two stage Cut & Cover, for Stage 1 two tracks, you only need Temporary Fencing on one side of the corridor. For a two track Skyrail solution, you are affecting both sides of the corridor, and you are still left with future works hanging. While the Alternative does allow a budget conscious, two track staged solution, it really asks for all four tracks to be put in at once. That is what the corridor needs for Metro and Regional passenger services to really improve and the economy needs in terms of freight.



Unless you correct me, 1,300mm from nearest rail is required for trackwork OHS, which is generally in line with the existing steel postwork supporting existing electrical supply. Columns for Skyrail have been spun inline with the elevated section, a weaker design outcome, grappling with this constraint. Thus any construction workzone can only be between this safety fencing and residential fencing, bringing us back to Temporary Protection Fences in this 2km choke corridor.  



Wall thickness

Springvale Station and Burke Rd Glen Iris are recent projects that exemplify what is possible. The tie beam, running along the top of shoring is 1,200mm at Springvale and 800mm at Burke Rd, based on 600mm diameter piles. Some say that Springvale is over engineered, being a first project for a contractor, and Burke Rd is optimized, based on an experienced contractor. The Alternative runs with experience, using the 800mm dimension for wall thickness.



Offsets – Rail centerline to Constraint.

Springvale up to Dandenong cutting shows an offset of 3,000 mm from wall to rail centerline, and this offset dimension is taken up in the Alternative model, based on track on slab and a straight run.



Centre line to CL clearance for Metro is 4,000mm. For freight, the Alternative ran with 4,300mm clearance, giving an overall 19,900mm for the Choke Corridor. We need to have a beer and work out where 4,500mm comes from, but accepting it means accepting 20,100mm, which allows us to slide a cigarette paper between Victrack and resident. I would contend that you would even have community support for 500mm of compulsory acquisition if the outcome was Cut & Cover rather than Skyrail.



Two Versions of Cut & Cover.



The  20km Version  of Cut & Cover is optimized for ‘Value Capture’ above. A central pier or shoring wall allows more load bearing for more options above. Even cyclists will need to stop and go to a café or toilet. The 20km solution needs 23m of space, which is available for 18 km. So your analysis of dimensions based on this Standard version is correct.



The 2km Version of Cut and Cover is developed within the 20m constraint in the Choke Corridor. The essential difference is no central pier or shoring wall and a segmented arch cover. It can only be used for grassed open area, playgrounds and blue sky bicycle tracks.



Both these variations will be posted on noskyrail.net over the weekend under a report called “The Choke Corridor”. You can find this under the tab "You Deserve to Know More". The capacity to comment via facebook or twitter has also been setup. There are reports there about how thoughtless station car parking options are, problems with gas pipes, and better bike tracks. They are intended to start a conversation, involve the community in the difficult process of compromise involved in the development of infrastructure in built up areas and hopefully generate better outcomes.



The Choke Corridor.



Constructing the Choke Corridor has some magnificent challenges. There are two ways to do this : the hard way and the easy way. The hard way means running existing services on two tracks. For the trades, it means playing a game of twister. It is doable, but you need a shot of grappa every time you clock off.



The easy way means running existing services, for 2km only, on a single, bi-directional track. You may bite the bullet and do this single bi directional Oakleigh - Caulfield. This is an easily accepted concept for road works, controlled by temporary traffic lights or flag men. For rail, this would require further refinement.



In simple terms there are three peak uses of the rail corridor ; (a) Metro am inbound, (b) Metro pm outbound and (c) Freight.



Managing this and keeping boom gates up as long as possible requires slotting Freight into an envelope outside of Metro am and pm peak. Then the Metro am inbound peak should use 100% of the single bi directional track while Metro am outbound, with lower demand, should terminate and use buses. There are enough buses to handle the lower demand in one direction and express back for more punters. The reverse in Metro pm peak.

All a pain, but doable, and nothing worse than attempting to drive down the Tullamarine Freeway corridor for the next 18 months.



All this Skyrail stuff is concocted by Daleks in Vicroads anyway.
Not much thought into the rail side of things.

Nice to see the Easter Bunny hanging out of Steamrail this morning.
  ARodH Chief Train Controller

Location: East Oakleigh, Vic
Problem; where are the morning trains going to come from and then be stored for the PM return?

Sponsored advertisement

Display from:   

Quick Reply

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