See this page. I have noticed that the railway is uphill from Regent to Reservoir. So this level crossing removal will undoubtedly be rail under. Such that it will make for more than one road bridge over the cutting. One at the current level crossing and at least one on each side.
While the one at Keon Parade, Keon Park is not on the list, it ought to go too. Keon Parade has three lanes each way.

Reservoir must be rail under. The myriad of roads could not possibly go under the railway.

Keon Park will likely be rail under also. How about some sort of road connection between Settlement road, Station street and Keon Parade, so that one other level crossing further north, or both of them, might be closed?
Also, how about a connection between Broadway and Edwards street? Maybe another road bridge at the top of the current gradient so that the Regent street level crossing (Preston) can be closed, with the part between the railway and High street renamed?
A connection between Hughes Parade and Johnson street might also be helpful.

Rail over will probably be the go, along with changing and simplifying that notorious intersection.

The aqueduct runs along under there so any rail or road under would require an absolutely massive amount of work. Plenty of room to do sky rail and connect up Edwards & Broadway roads as a new intersection to simplify the spaghetti to the North.

Edit: For Reservoir I mean.

Remember that Reservoir is higher than Regent. Even Regent-Croxton is higher than Merri or Rushall. Rail under would be the way to go, think of the terrain.
Grade separation at Keon Parade will likely also be rail under. The idea would be to extend Hughes Parade to Johnston street. How about also moving Keon Park station to the North end of that new underpass, maybe halfway between Keon Parade and Settlement road?

Reservoir:

The major stormwater pipeline that runs under that intersection may limit any significant excavation required to put the railway in a trench, so a rail over bridge solution may be the only option here.

Keon Park:

This crossing is not on the list of 50, so it will not be done in the next 6 years.

But I did note that the Reservoir station is higher than any other station on the South Morang line further south. So better to divert the pipeline than raise the tracks.

Keon Park might not be on the list, but it is a level crossing with a six-lane parade, so it is busy enough to warrant grade separation. We should remove as many level crossings as we can.

But I did note that the Reservoir station is higher than any other station on the South Morang line further south. So better to divert the pipeline than raise the tracks.

In what way is that better?

It would cost a lot more and while Reservoir may be at a higher elevation than other stations, it isn't as if a further 8 meters of elevation will be a significant issue. Moving the underground services on the other hand will add significant work to the project that will only make it much more expensive, not to mention the added time and disruption it would add.

Keon Park might not be on the list, but it is a level crossing with a six-lane parade, so it is busy enough to warrant grade separation. We should remove as many level crossings as we can.

Of course we should remove as many as we can, 50 are on the list and that is going to cost a significant amount of money, if we could have them all done we would but 50 is what we are getting at this point in time. With any luck, when that 50 are done there may be another 50 to follow and then Keon Pde will likely be on that list. Until then we can worry about the ones that are actually being done.


You need to remember there are limited funds to work with here. In one breath you are advocating for the most expensive option at Reservoir, then in another breath you are requesting more crossings to be removed. How do you think this is going to work?

The pipeline is also an aqueduct for much of the region. It will cost tens of millions to divert it in that one location. It'll be rail over, even with a hill the gradient shouldn't be too bad.

They can do elevated rail without closing (that segment of) the line for months of work and they can reconfigure the intersection in a cheaper way with rail over. If it was rail under (ignoring the pipeline) they would probably be limited to one bridge deck covering the lines, so the intersection would remain messy.


Here is a crappy drawing. High street is straightened out (blue) while Edwards & Broadway are connected (yellow) while Ralph st and both sides of Cheddar Rd are also connected (pink). The station is built slightly to the north of the current location with a park/public square at the entrance where a section of Spring St is currently. The second of Spring St between Edwards and Kenilworth St is closed for general traffic and only the service lane is kept, possibly widened so carparking for shops is on both sides of the service lane.

The current station is then demolished and turned into carparking and lots more public space is opened up by removing roads/lanes which are no longer needed.

http://i.imgur.com/SKljoOF.jpg

Vicroads/LXRA, i'll be waiting for my cheque in the mail.

In what way is that better?

Think of the gradients. Rail over would leave additional gradients for an indefinite time after grade separation. Rail under would not.

It would cost a lot more and while Reservoir may be at a higher elevation than other stations, it isn't as if a further 8 meters of elevation will be a significant issue. Moving the underground services on the other hand will add significant work to the project that will only make it much more expensive, not to mention the added time and disruption it would add.

Have underground services been diverted as part of other grade separations? I would imagine that the cost of diverting an underground service alone would be a fraction of that of digging a trench. The main contributor to the cost of diversion of a pipe, or moving railway tracks, is the cost of contingencies that need to be made. Can everyone here see why water and gas mains are replaced a little at a time? See below for more.

You need to remember there are limited funds to work with here. In one breath you are advocating for the most expensive option at Reservoir, then in another breath you are requesting more crossings to be removed. How do you think this is going to work?

It's about a higher initial cost for a greater long term benefit. One way of covering costs that aren't ongoing, especially when income increases, ongoing costs decrease, or both after the cost of, say, construction, is to borrow money for it, then pay the loan with the money saved, extra money earned, or a combination of both.

The pipeline is also an aqueduct for much of the region. It will cost tens of millions to divert it in that one location. It'll be rail over, even with a hill the gradient shouldn't be too bad.

I have heard of temporary water mains run on the surface when and where underground water mains are being replaced, each building having their water line temporarily attached to it. By contrast, moving or replacing railway tracks involves equipment such as buses to temporarily replace trains.

They can do elevated rail without closing (that segment of) the line for months of work and they can reconfigure the intersection in a cheaper way with rail over. If it was rail under (ignoring the pipeline) they would probably be limited to one bridge deck covering the lines, so the intersection would remain messy.

The top of that gradient is a little south of Reservoir station, so I imagine that there could be a second bridge over the new cutting.

Rail over road means more connectivity on both sides this will have greater benefit than rail under rail and be much cheaper less disruptive and easier to reconfigure the junction. Relocating services do cost a lot of money as well as the trench itself these saving can go to further level crossing removals or improve the design (e.g. Carrum revitalisation plan). The benefit of elevated rail at this location is much better than a rail under solution unless you use cut and cover methods which are expensive and provide similar benefits. The hill gradients won't affect it going over, just mean's it'll be a longer section of elevated rail. Honestly rail under road works best at single crossings, but since its part of a major intersection the rail over solution means it'll greatly increase access on both sides which provide alot of benefit to community with less cost and disruption.

In what way is that better?

Think of the gradients. Rail over would leave additional gradients for and indefinite time after grade separation. Rail under would not.

Don't you realize that having a station at the top of a grade Is the most energy efficient !

The rising grade helps slow the the In coming train using gravity.

The descending grade helps speed up the departing train using gravity.

Having It all around the other way costs extra energy and generates extra noise through extra braking and acceleration.  


Heavy goods trains don't exist on this line.

But it wouldn't be as if the station is at the top of the gradient, it would be at a similar height to Regent station. But if the line were lowered under Keon Parade as well, then Ruthven station would be like this. Most of our stations are not at the tops of gradients, and if they are, there might well be some other reason for that. That seems reasonable if the station is at street level with the tracks dipping below in between.

Have underground services been diverted as part of other grade separations? I would imagine that the cost of diverting an underground service alone would be a fraction of that of digging a trench. The main contributor to the cost of diversion of a pipe, or moving railway tracks, is the cost of contingencies that need to be made. Can everyone here see why water and gas mains are replaced a little at a time? See below for more.

Caulfield to Dandenong is railover because the south east gas pipeline runs underneath/next to the railway line out to Sale/Longford. It was a significant issue in the decision to go rail over.

At least water isn't explosive or as vital so relocating wouldn't be as expensive, but it is still a major pipeline for water to that entire area as well as storm water removal and would be a large impact for services in that area which would require a complex workaround.

That linear park on Cheddar Road (actually called the Yan Yean Pipetrack Linear Park) carries the water supply to the Melbourne Water reservoirs, which give the suburb (and surrounds) its name and its water.

In what way is that better?

Think of the gradients. Rail over would leave additional gradients for and indefinite time after grade separation. Rail under would not.

Don't you realize that having a station at the top of a grade Is the most energy efficient !

The rising grade helps slow the the In coming train using gravity.

The descending grade helps speed up the departing train using gravity.

Having It all around the other way costs extra energy and generates extra noise through extra braking and acceleration.  


Heavy goods trains don't exist on this line.

Yes you are correct, check this out https://wongm.com/2016/05/furlong-main-st-albans-level-crossing-removal-project/ explains that uses more power going trench than if it was elevated rail at the two level crossing removed at St Albans

In what way is that better?

Think of the gradients. Rail over would leave additional gradients for and indefinite time after grade separation. Rail under would not.

Don't you realize that having a station at the top of a grade Is the most energy efficient !

Somewhat surprisingly, a lot of people *don't* seem to realise this.

Caulfield to Dandenong is railover because the south east gas pipeline runs underneath/next to the railway line out to Sale/Longford. It was a significant issue in the decision to go rail over.

Aren't there other reasons too? And you are referring to three viaducts that each replaces multiple level crossings? Had it been done when the catenary was extended to Morwell, then it would have been one long viaduct from Caulfield to Dandenong, with no road overpasses at Oakleigh, Westall and Hughesdale.
Also, you seem to be saying that the pipeline is along the railway.

At least water isn't explosive or as vital so relocating wouldn't be as expensive, but it is still a major pipeline for water to that entire area as well as storm water removal and would be a large impact for services in that area which would require a complex workaround.

But the aqueduct isn't along the railway it seems.

That linear park on Cheddar Road (actually called the Yan Yean Pipetrack Linear Park) carries the water supply to the Melbourne Water reservoirs, which give the suburb (and surrounds) its name and its water.

I have had the idea of running a tramline along it.

Yes. A 45cm diameter high pressure gas pipeline running from Morwell to West Melbourne (later extended to Longford/Sale when the refinery was built there) which runs along the rail reserve though the South Eastern suburbs. If you turn off that pipeline we get a gas crisis like the early 2000's when there was that explosion at Longford.

It was a major factor for why 'skyrail' elevated rail was chosen over a trench for these Caulfield to Dandenong level crossing removals. Plus the cheaper cost and no need to evict residents to build a trench when skyrail would fit.

Yes, elevated rail the whole way to Dandenong would be great, sadly due to the budget and the fact more crossings can be removed the CD9 removals are in 3 sections. Perhaps in a decade the Warrigal and North Road overpasses can be torn down and Oakleigh and Huntingdale stations rebuilt when the Rowville line is constructed but that's for another thread.


Anyway, I fixed Reservoir for you Vicroads/LXRA/City of Darebin, not too disruptive, shouldn't interfere with the water pipeline running under that spahgetti intersection which currently exists and it provides a ton of community benefits, open space, carparking and simplification:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1azD7L8gMTl_n2-yytGYHOZzzUkQ&usp=sharing
The longest span for the elevated rail is 60m, which can be cut in half to two 30m segments if a pylon is placed in the median strip/traffic island of the new Highst-Cheddar Rd intersection. Easily doable. I'll let the engineers deal with the specific details.

Again, I expect a cheque in the mail sometime soon.

Had it been done when the catenary was extended to Morwell, then it would have been one long viaduct from Caulfield to Dandenong, with no road overpasses at Oakleigh, Westall and Hughesdale.

I don't know where you get this Idea from ?

The Melbourne - Dandenong line was electrified back In the 1920's

When the line from Dandenong to Yallourn and Moe to Traralgon In the 1950's

The area from Oakleigh to Dandenong was outer suburban In the 1950's, roads had limited traffic.

Oakleigh and Westall had busy yards with many Industrial sidings branching off

The cost of a 20 km viaduct would of been outrageous !

The Melbourne - Dandenong line was electrified back In the 1920's

I didn't say that section was electrified any later, for what I did say see below.

When the line from Dandenong to Yallourn and Moe to Traralgon In the 1950's...

Yes, I did note that the line was electrified at that time.

The area from Oakleigh to Dandenong was outer suburban In the 1950's, roads had limited traffic.

I've heard that before, but there was a way to justify a rail viaduct.

Oakleigh and Westall had busy yards with many Industrial sidings branching off

I didn't know that. Were there (gated) level crossings with roads next to the mainline?

The cost of a 20 km viaduct would of been outrageous !

But not building it earlier was short sighted.

Myrtone, you are judging decisions made 70+ years ago based on the knowledge you have today. Do you understand how pointless this is?

The water pipeline shouldn't be a problem. You're all forgetting that to the south of Reservoir station, still on the east side of the railway, is a set of service reservoirs. That's where the pipeline leads. Another water pipeline then leads from them to the City, but it doesn't cross the railway until further south, well past the point at which a cutting would have to start.
Rail over doesn't make sense because the rising gradient as you cone from the City requires a much longer bridge.

drunkill,
Your plan doesn't fix anything. The reason the junction is so complicated is because the heaviest traffic flow is between Spring Street and High Street north of the junction. All you've done is terminated Spring Street in a T-intersection with Edwardes Street right next to the planned crossroads of High Street and Broadway / Edwardes Street. The volume of traffic trying to get through that dog-leg will make the current setup look good!

Anyway, I fixed Reservoir for you Vicroads/LXRA/City of Darebin, not too disruptive, shouldn't interfere with the water pipeline running under that spahgetti intersection which currently exists and it provides a ton of community benefits, open space, carparking and simplification:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1azD7L8gMTl_n2-yytGYHOZzzUkQ&usp=sharing
The longest span for the elevated rail is 60m, which can be cut in half to two 30m segments if a pylon is placed in the median strip/traffic island of the new Highst-Cheddar Rd intersection. Easily doable. I'll let the engineers deal with the specific details.

Again, I expect a cheque in the mail sometime soon.

I like your map, hopefully LXRA will consider your option.

If the aqueduct doesn't cross the railway, surely the railway could be lowered without any problem. The complexity of the junction raises the question of why that level crossing wasn't grade separated either when the Epping line was upgraded (which would have been sometime in the 1980s, when signal boxes along the line were closed) or before.