More level crossings removed

 
  slowcoach Junior Train Controller

In a press conference earlier earlier this month, the government has hinted further level crossing removals as a possible re-election promise. Hence I've put up my list of level crossings not in the current 50 level crossings nominated for removal until 2022 that I believe warrants removal. Feel free to put in additional level crossings that you think warrants urgent removal.

WERRIBEE/WILLIAMSTOWN LINES
-- Old Geelong Rd, Hoppers Crossing
-- Hudsons Rd, Spotswood
-- Anderson St, Yarraville

SUNBURY LINE
-- Macedon St, Sunbury
-- Calder Park Dr, Calder Park

BALLARAT LINE
-- Fitzgerald Rd, Ardeer
-- Mt Derrimut Rd, Deer Park
-- Robinsons Rd, Deer Park West

CRAIGIEBURN LINE
-- Macaulay Rd, Kensington
-- Puckle St, Moonee Ponds
-- Park St, Essendon
-- Gaffney St, Pascoe Vale
-- Devon St, Oak Park

UPFIELD LINE
-- Arden St, North Melbourne
-- Macaulay Rd, North Melbourne
-- Park St, Brunswick
-- Brunswick Rd, Brunswick
-- Union Rd, Brunswick
-- Dawson St, Brunswick
-- Albert St, Brunswick
-- Victoria, Brunswick
-- Hope St, Brunswick
-- Albion St, Brunswick
-- Reynard St, Moreland
-- Munro St, Coburg
-- O'Hea St, Coburg
-- Gaffney St, Coburg North
-- Bakers Rd, Coburg North
-- Boundary Rd, Merlynston
-- Box Forest Rd, Gowrie
-- Barry Rd, Upfield

SOUTH MORANG/MERNDA LINE
-- Ramsden St, Clifton Hill
-- Arthurton Rd, Northcote
-- Cramer St, Preston
-- Muarry Rd, Preston
-- Regent St, Preston
-- Keon Parade, Thomastown
-- Settlement Rd, Thomastown
-- Station St, Thomastown
-- High St, Thomastown
-- Paschke Cres, Lalor
-- Childs Rd, Epping

HURSTBRIDGE LINE
-- Westgarth St, Northcote
-- Victoria Rd, Northcote
-- Station St, Fairfield
-- Yarralea St, Alphington
-- Marshall St, Ivanhoe
-- Chapman St, Macleod
-- Main Hurstbridge Rd, Diamond Creek

LILYDALE LINE
-- Union Rd, Surrey Hills
-- Mont Albert Rd, Mont Albert
-- Dublin St, Ringwood East
-- Coolstore Rd, Croydon

BELGRAVE LINE
-- Bedford Rd, Ringwood
-- Alpine St, Ferntree Gully

GLEN WAVERLEY LINE
-- Madden Gv, Burnley
-- Glenferrie Rd, Kooyong
-- Tooronga Rd, Glen Iris
-- High St, Glen Iris

ALAMEIN LINE
-- Prospect Hill Rd, Camberwell
-- Riversdale Rd, Camberwell

PAKENHAM LINE
-- Webster St, Dandenong
-- Webb St, Narre Warren
-- Cardinia Rd, Pakenham
-- McGregor Rd, Pakenham
-- Main St, Pakenham

CRANBOURNE LINE
-- Greens Rd, Dandenong South
-- Camms Rd, Cranbourne
-- South Gippsland Highway, Cranbourne

FRANKSTON LINE
-- Neerim Rd, Glenhuntly
-- Glenhuntly Rd, Glenhuntly
-- Wickham Rd & Worthing Rd, Moorabbin
-- Highett Rd, Highett
-- Latrobe St, Cheltenham
-- Warrigal Rd, Mentone
-- Parkers Rd, Parkdale
-- McDonald St, Mordialloc
-- Bear St, Mordialloc
-- Station St, Mordialloc
-- Station St, Aspendale
-- Lochiel Ave, Edithvale
-- Station St, Chelsea
-- Chelsea Rd, Chelsea
-- Argyle Ave, Chelsea
-- Bondi Rd, Bonbeach
-- McKenzie St, Seaford

STONY POINT LINE
-- McMahons Rd, Frankston
-- Baxter-Tooradin Rd, Baxter
-- Eramosa Road West, Somerville

SANDRINGHAM LINE
- Greville St, Prahran
- Glen Eira Rd, Ripponlea
- Bay St, North Brighton
- Church St, Brighton
- New St & Dendy St, Brighton
- South Rd, Brighton Beach
- Hampton Rd, Hampton

Sponsored advertisement

  Myrtone Chief Commissioner

Location: North Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria
That's more than 50 listed there, in fact, six are on country lines, three on the Stony Point line and three on the Ballarat line. However, the Stony Point line is currently single track without passing loops at most stations.
That list still only includes level crossings with roads, not with footpaths away from roads.
  x31 Chief Commissioner

Location: gallifrey
Box Forrest Road should really have been included in the initial list.
  railblogger Chief Commissioner

Location: At the back of the train, quitely doing exactly what you'd expect.
SUNBURY LINE
-- Macedon St, Sunbury
You mean Station St?
  True Believers Chief Commissioner

I'd remove the last two you've missed Merton Street and Champion Road. They get congested as well during peak along Werribee line. With these 5 crossings removed in next Batch the Werribee line has no crossings and is able to run as many train in without any congestion at the level crossings. The level crossings on Stony Point is for the future Baxter electrification project. And the ones on the future Melton line will be get removed whenever electrification happens. Upfeild will eventually become the Wallan line so has merits of removal. Only ones that need less priority are the ones on the Sandringham line, sure a few busy ones can get removed but not as many as listed.
  MetroFemme Assistant Commissioner

Station street deer park is obvious but not listed.
  Myrtone Chief Commissioner

Location: North Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria
I'd remove the last two you've missed Merton Street and Champion Road. They get congested as well during peak along Werribee line. With these 5 crossings removed in next Batch the Werribee line has no crossings and is able to run as many train in without any congestion at the level crossings. The level crossings on Stony Point is for the future Baxter electrification project. And the ones on the future Melton line will be get removed whenever electrification happens. Upfeild will eventually become the Wallan line so has merits of removal. Only ones that need less priority are the ones on the Sandringham line, sure a few busy ones can get removed but not as many as listed.
James974
You say that the Werribee line will have no level crossings at least with roads, but what about level crossings with footpaths? As for the Upfield line, one way to go is to replace the entire section south of Batman with a direct underground link with the city loop.
In the case of the Sandringham line, what about moving Sandringham station to the north side of a local east-west street so that the level crossing there would only be used by trains entering and leaving the sidings there. If there is another place to move the sidings, that level crossing could be removed.
  True Believers Chief Commissioner

I'd remove the last two you've missed Merton Street and Champion Road. They get congested as well during peak along Werribee line. With these 5 crossings removed in next Batch the Werribee line has no crossings and is able to run as many train in without any congestion at the level crossings. The level crossings on Stony Point is for the future Baxter electrification project. And the ones on the future Melton line will be get removed whenever electrification happens. Upfeild will eventually become the Wallan line so has merits of removal. Only ones that need less priority are the ones on the Sandringham line, sure a few busy ones can get removed but not as many as listed.
You say that the Werribee line will have no level crossings at least with roads, but what about level crossings with footpaths? As for the Upfield line, one way to go is to replace the entire section south of Batman with a direct underground link with the city loop.
In the case of the Sandringham line, what about moving Sandringham station to the north side of a local east-west street so that the level crossing there would only be used by trains entering and leaving the sidings there. If there is another place to move the sidings, that level crossing could be removed.
Myrtone
It is obvious this thread is about level crossings removal with road. Pedestrian crossings can be easily be replace with a footbridge or underpass. The current level crossing removals at roads actually try to remove pedestrian crossings and replace with bridges over the trenches.

As for Upfeild line, I rather see it duplicated and extended to allow Vline to use it and provide more upfield services. No need to redirect the route underground. First it's very expensive. Second it loses the interchange at North Melbourne. Third, not many people using the southern end of the Upfeild line would be in favour of it. Fourth doesn't add significant boost to the rail network from the high cost (bad cost vs benefit ratio)

Sandringham line to move the sidings to where exactly, it's in a built up area. Moving the station has merit but the level crossing will still be have to be removed at some point. So it's better just to remove the level crossing and provide a new station and a better bus interchange then doesn't need to be done twice.
  True Believers Chief Commissioner

That's more than 50 listed there, in fact, six are on country lines, three on the Stony Point line and three on the Ballarat line. However, the Stony Point line is currently single track without passing loops at most stations.
That list still only includes level crossings with roads, not with footpaths away from roads.
Myrtone
Stony Point line is not a country line. It is run by Metro, it is within Zones 1/2 and within the edge of the Metropolitian area. Only thing makes it country like is it uses Vline rolling stock, infrequent services, and goes through not many houses and mostly empty paddocks. It's like the outer end of the Hurstbridge line except it is not electrified and must change at Frankston (hopefully be at Baxter in the future).

As for the Ballarat crossing will be part of the future Melton line when it is electrify it will require grade separations along the route.
  Myrtone Chief Commissioner

Location: North Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria
It is obvious this thread is about level crossings removal with road. Pedestrian crossings can be easily be replace with a footbridge or underpass. The current level crossing removals at roads actually try to remove pedestrian crossings and replace with bridges over the trenches.
James974
I don't think it is, but it is generally assumed because many think of crossings between railways and roads on the same level when they think of level crossings. They don't realise that at-grade pedestrian crossings still count. There are still many such pedestrian crossings that are away from level crossings with roads.

As for Upfeild line, I rather see it duplicated and extended to allow Vline to use it and provide more upfield services. No need to redirect the route underground. First it's very expensive. Second it loses the interchange at North Melbourne. Third, not many people using the southern end of the Upfeild line would be in favour of it. Fourth doesn't add significant boost to the rail network from the high cost (bad cost vs benefit ratio)
James974
But it serves the northern suburbs, a popular living area for Melbourne University students and staff. By diverting it underground, it will gain a station at the University. The Craigieburn line, which passes Somerton Junction, will still keep that interchange. I think it would add quite a boost to the rail network because this new section of track would be completely grade separated. The entire southern end of the diverted line would be further from the Craigieburn line than is the current southern end.

Sandringham line to move the sidings to where exactly, it's in a built up area. Moving the station has merit but the level crossing will still be have to be removed at some point. So it's better just to remove the level crossing and provide a new station and a better bus interchange then doesn't need to be done twice.
James974
I don't know, but I am saying that the level crossing there could be removed if the station were moved north and the sidings are moved somewhere else. If the sidings must stay there, then the level crossing will remain but used fairly infrequently.
  mejhammers1 Chief Commissioner

It is obvious this thread is about level crossings removal with road. Pedestrian crossings can be easily be replace with a footbridge or underpass. The current level crossing removals at roads actually try to remove pedestrian crossings and replace with bridges over the trenches.
I don't think it is, but it is generally assumed because many think of crossings between railways and roads on the same level when they think of level crossings. They don't realise that at-grade pedestrian crossings still count. There are still many such pedestrian crossings that are away from level crossings with roads.

As for Upfeild line, I rather see it duplicated and extended to allow Vline to use it and provide more upfield services. No need to redirect the route underground. First it's very expensive. Second it loses the interchange at North Melbourne. Third, not many people using the southern end of the Upfeild line would be in favour of it. Fourth doesn't add significant boost to the rail network from the high cost (bad cost vs benefit ratio)
But it serves the northern suburbs, a popular living area for Melbourne University students and staff. By diverting it underground, it will gain a station at the University. The Craigieburn line, which passes Somerton Junction, will still keep that interchange. I think it would add quite a boost to the rail network because this new section of track would be completely grade separated. The entire southern end of the diverted line would be further from the Craigieburn line than is the current southern end.

Sandringham line to move the sidings to where exactly, it's in a built up area. Moving the station has merit but the level crossing will still be have to be removed at some point. So it's better just to remove the level crossing and provide a new station and a better bus interchange then doesn't need to be done twice.
I don't know, but I am saying that the level crossing there could be removed if the station were moved north and the sidings are moved somewhere else. If the sidings must stay there, then the level crossing will remain but used fairly infrequently.
Myrtone
But it serves the northern suburbs, a popular living area for Melbourne University students and staff. By diverting it underground, it will gain a station at the University. The Craigieburn line, which passes Somerton Junction, will still keep that interchange. I think it would add quite a boost to the rail network because this new section of track would be completely grade separated. The entire southern end of the diverted line would be further from the Craigieburn line than is the current southern end.

Myrtone there is no point of building an Underground section on the Upfield Line. 10 kms of tunnel and Stations, which would cost $10 Billion of thereabouts, For 3 trains an hour, really. True it serves the Nothern Suburbs but the Craigieburn line has far more patronage. Also by diverting the Upfield line underground will not allow for V/Line services from Seymour and Shepparton to be diverted to the Upfield line. Better getting rid of the crossing through SkyRail.

Michael
  John.Z Assistant Commissioner

Also @Myrtone, when removing level crossings, the only limiting factor on frequency are road crossings and signals. If there are still pedestrian crossings, trains can go at 30tph, if there are road crossings, they would be down 24/7 @30tph, and shut off roads. If a need arises for a seperated Ped crossing, it will be built. Also Upfield line services an important section of western melbourne, no need for it to be re-routed.
  Myrtone Chief Commissioner

Location: North Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria
If you run too many trains per hour over any level crossing, even with a footpath, it would need to be grade separated or closed. I understand that 30 trains per hour (on double track) is only possible with high capacity signalling, not with plain old automatic block signalling, which doesn't allow much more than 20 trains an hour.
30tph over a pedestrian crossing and a need for a grade separated one arises, no question about that. In order for it ever to have been worth constructing a level crossing with a footpath, there must be a wide enough gap between scheduled trains for pedestrians to cross, if there is not, then it needs to be grade separated.

EDIT: Note how close Macauley station is to Kensington and Flemington Bridge is to Craigieburn. And Macauley is quite an industrial area, amenity there isn't that great. With the Upfield line diverted, Flemington bridge and Macauley could be served be tram route 55, which would also be diverted.
  True Believers Chief Commissioner

If you run too many trains per hour over any level crossing, even with a footpath, it would need to be grade separated or closed. I understand that 30 trains per hour (on double track) is only possible with high capacity signalling, not with plain old automatic block signalling, which doesn't allow much more than 20 trains an hour.
30tph over a pedestrian crossing and a need for a grade separated one arises, no question about that. In order for it ever to have been worth constructing a level crossing with a footpath, there must be a wide enough gap between scheduled trains for pedestrians to cross, if there is not, then it needs to be grade separated.
Myrtone
Pedestrian crossings are getting grade separated at the same time as road separations. Both are getting done at the same time. Eventually both will be seperated. Pedestrian crossing are generally easy to separation compared with a road crossing, much cheaper and easier but when combined with the road level crossing removals adds lots of benefits.

I still disagree with your proposal since you point out how benefits connecting to Parkville. Wake up the Upfield line already connects with Parkville, its called the 59 tram from Flemington Bridge to Parkville. You want this tunnel plus the duplication and connection, that my friend not gonna happen, so many better rail projects such as Airport rail link and Clyde extension. The duplication and connection for Vline I fully support since it can future proof Wallan electrification. No point changing the Upfeild route although those level crossings under city link will be a hassle in the future to remove.
  Myrtone Chief Commissioner

Location: North Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria
Pedestrian crossings are getting grade separated at the same time as road separations. Both are getting done at the same time. Eventually both will be seperated. Pedestrian crossing are generally easy to separation compared with a road crossing, much cheaper and easier but when combined with the road level crossing removals adds lots of benefits.
James974
Wait a minute, the list includes both remaining road crossings on the Alamein line, but not the pedestrian level crossing at Hartwell and Ashburton. And all four of the remaining road crossings on the Glen Waverly line but not the pedestrian level crossing towards the terminus.

I still disagree with your proposal since you point out how benefits connecting to Parkville. Wake up the Upfeild line already connects with Parkville, its called the 59 tram from Flemington Bridge to Parkville. You want this tunnel plus the duplication and connection, that my friend not gonna happen, so many better rail projects such as Airport rail link and Clyde extension. The duplication and connection for Vline I fully support since it can future proof Wallan electrification. No point changing the Upfeild route although those level crossings under city link will be a hassle in the future to remove.
James974
Sorry, the 59 tram does not serve the University, which is the benefit here. The idea is that have a line that serves both the University and the northern suburbs.
  True Believers Chief Commissioner

Sorry, the 59 tram does not serve the University, which is the benefit here. The idea is that have a line that serves both the University and the northern suburbs.
Myrtone
Get of Jewel station and catch the tram 19 that serves the University, if I'm correct that tram also serves the Northern Suburbs
  Myrtone Chief Commissioner

Location: North Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria
That tram does serve the northern suburbs but it is a block away from the current railway. Melbourne University could do with being accessible by heavy rail, in which case the line or one of this lines serving the University might as well serve the northern suburbs.
  True Believers Chief Commissioner

That tram does serve the northern suburbs but it is a block away from the current railway. Melbourne University could do with being accessible by heavy rail, in which case the line or one of this lines serving the University might as well serve the northern suburbs.
Myrtone
Turning tram route 19 into Light rail fully accessible and longer trams would do the trick no need for expensive billions of dollars on a rail tunnel. I'd rather build Metro 2 tunnel it brings access from the South Morang (It is a northern line) to the University and able to untangle the Clifton hill group at the same time. South Morang is also on a growth corridor so it is nessarary to seperate it unlike the every 20 minute Upfeild line which is a single track dead end. Substantial works needed to make Upfield line even viable to be separated from the Craigeburn line.
  Myrtone Chief Commissioner

Location: North Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria
Tram route 19 shares the road with cars, much of it being on a road with only one lane each way. The minimum distance between intersections limits the length of platforms. The length of platforms and the related spacing between intersections limits tram length so that trams don't block intersections.
And because they share the road with cars, there is a limit to the frequency of trams. The reason is the same as the reason for limits to scheduled train frequency over level crossings with heavy rail, that is, to prevent disruption to road traffic crossing tram tracks. With the slower speed and shorter stopping distance of trams, this limit is about the same as the maximum frequency of heavy rail rolling stock on grade separated double track. Headways being equal, heavy rail has a higher capacity.
Suburbs served by the Upfield line are closer to the University than those served by the South Morang line, but still mostly not within walking distance. Yes, the outer section would be duplicated if service frequencies are to increase.
  True Believers Chief Commissioner

Tram route 19 shares the road with cars, much of it being on a road with only one lane each way. The minimum distance between intersections limits the length of platforms. The length of platforms and the related spacing between intersections limits tram length so that trams don't block intersections.
And because they share the road with cars, there is a limit to the frequency of trams. The reason is the same as the reason for limits to scheduled train frequency over level crossings with heavy rail, that is, to prevent disruption to road traffic crossing tram tracks. With the slower speed and shorter stopping distance of trams, this limit is about the same as the maximum frequency of heavy rail rolling stock on grade separated double track. Headways being equal, heavy rail has a higher capacity.
Suburbs served by the Upfield line are closer to the University than those served by the South Morang line, but still mostly not within walking distance. Yes, the outer section would be duplicated if service frequencies are to increase.
Myrtone
It's very possible to increase the capacity on the route 19. Accessible stops are used in narrow tram corridors and stops that are too close to intersections are removed or replaced. Light rail means road separation from the tram tracks. Traffic lights can have tram priority lights that actually goes green when a tram is near the intersection.

Not every single Upfield passenger is gonna head into the University. The capacity on the light rail is enough to accommodate those trying to get into the precinct.

As for the South Morang line it already as the frequencies required and also will become a Mernda line. It will get the most overcrowding and issues joining into the Clifton Hill intersection, removing this enable running this growth corridor from every 10 minutes to 3-5 minutes. It may not be as close but will serve more areas that are unaccessible from heavy rail. The extra length is so it can service a rail corridor desperate for more service and is under constraints and overcrowding. Upfield line as I said is running alright at the moment and doesn't need much in terms of capacity until it eventually becomes the  Wallan line which I may say won't happen soon. The connections between the Hospital precinct and Upfield line can be upgraded without the cost of a rail tunnel. Metro 2 rail tunnel should happen to enable the South Morang/Mernda line run more service and reduce the overcrowding there.
  Myrtone Chief Commissioner

Location: North Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria
It's very possible to increase the capacity on the route 19. Accessible stops are used in narrow tram corridors and stops that are too close to intersections are removed or replaced. Light rail means road separation from the tram tracks. Traffic lights can have tram priority lights that actually goes green when a tram is near the intersection.
James974
There isn't enough room in Sydney road for tram segregation unless street parking is removed. I'm not found of street parking anyway, and prefer off-street parking, preferably mechanical parking systems.

Not every single Upfield passenger is gonna head into the University. The capacity on the light rail is enough to accommodate those trying to get into the precinct.
James974
What matters is what portion of passengers on that line are going to head to the University. A lot more people living in the northern suburbs go to Melbourne University more often than to anywhere in Royal Park or especially anywhere in Flemington or Macauley.

As for the South Morang line it already as the frequencies required and also will become a Mernda line. It will get the most overcrowding and issues joining into the Clifton Hill intersection, removing this enable running this growth corridor from every 10 minutes to 3-5 minutes. It may not be as close but will serve more areas that are unaccessible from heavy rail. The extra length is so it can service a rail corridor desperate for more service and is under constraints and overcrowding. Upfield line as I said is running alright at the moment and doesn't need much in terms of capacity until it eventually becomes the  Wallan line which I may say won't happen soon. The connections between the Hospital precinct and Upfield line can be upgraded without the cost of a rail tunnel. Metro 2 rail tunnel should happen to enable the South Morang/Mernda line run more service and reduce the overcrowding there.
James974
If the Upfield line is diverted, many university students and staff who take the number 19 tram will instead take the train. What connection do you mean?
  True Believers Chief Commissioner

It's very possible to increase the capacity on the route 19. Accessible stops are used in narrow tram corridors and stops that are too close to intersections are removed or replaced. Light rail means road separation from the tram tracks. Traffic lights can have tram priority lights that actually goes green when a tram is near the intersection.
There isn't enough room in Sydney road for tram segregation unless street parking is removed. I'm not found of street parking anyway, and prefer off-street parking, preferably mechanical parking systems.

Not every single Upfield passenger is gonna head into the University. The capacity on the light rail is enough to accommodate those trying to get into the precinct.
What matters is what portion of passengers on that line are going to head to the University. A lot more people living in the northern suburbs go to Melbourne University more often than to anywhere in Royal Park or especially anywhere in Flemington or Macauley.

As for the South Morang line it already as the frequencies required and also will become a Mernda line. It will get the most overcrowding and issues joining into the Clifton Hill intersection, removing this enable running this growth corridor from every 10 minutes to 3-5 minutes. It may not be as close but will serve more areas that are unaccessible from heavy rail. The extra length is so it can service a rail corridor desperate for more service and is under constraints and overcrowding. Upfield line as I said is running alright at the moment and doesn't need much in terms of capacity until it eventually becomes the  Wallan line which I may say won't happen soon. The connections between the Hospital precinct and Upfield line can be upgraded without the cost of a rail tunnel. Metro 2 rail tunnel should happen to enable the South Morang/Mernda line run more service and reduce the overcrowding there.
If the Upfield line is diverted, many university students and staff who take the number 19 tram will instead take the train. What connection do you mean?
Myrtone
Sydney Road Parking can be removed to allow tram segregation. There are many modes of transport from Northern Suburbs to the University. Tram connection can be upgraded to Light rail status. Improvement to bus routes. More Cycling/Bike routes added. Most University students try to be walking distance to the University. The Upfield line serves many different people going to different destinations. But I believe that the connection Between the Upfield line and University are sufficient with some upgrades and improvement. The numbers won't justify a billions into a rail tunnel for Upfield line.

Also with Metro tunnel 1, You will see an increase of students living in Arden when it opens in 2026 which would distribute some students west to head into the University.
  True Believers Chief Commissioner

Yup looks like the government did announce 25 more level crossings before the state election in 2018.
  True Believers Chief Commissioner

In a press conference earlier earlier this month, the government has hinted further level crossing removals as a possible re-election promise. Hence I've put up my list of level crossings not in the current 50 level crossings nominated for removal until 2022 that I believe warrants removal. Feel free to put in additional level crossings that you think warrants urgent removal.

Now let's see which ones that were decided

WERRIBEE/WILLIAMSTOWN LINES
-- Old Geelong Rd, Hoppers Crossing [CONFIRMED]
-- Hudsons Rd, Spotswood
-- Anderson St, Yarraville

SUNBURY LINE
-- Gap Road, Sunbury [CONFIRMED]
-- Calder Park Dr, Calder Park

BALLARAT LINE
-- Fitzgerald Rd, Ardeer [CONFIRMED]
-- Mt Derrimut Rd, Deer Park [CONFIRMED]
-- Robinsons Rd, Deer Park West [CONFIRMED]

CRAIGIEBURN LINE
-- Macaulay Rd, Kensington
-- Puckle St, Moonee Ponds
-- Park St, Essendon
-- Gaffney St, Pascoe Vale
-- Devon St, Oak Park

UPFIELD LINE
-- Arden St, North Melbourne
-- Macaulay Rd, North Melbourne
-- Park St, Brunswick
-- Brunswick Rd, Brunswick
-- Union Rd, Brunswick
-- Dawson St, Brunswick
-- Albert St, Brunswick
-- Victoria, Brunswick
-- Hope St, Brunswick
-- Albion St, Brunswick
-- Reynard St, Moreland [CONFIRMED]
-- Munro St, Coburg [CONFIRMED]
-- O'Hea St, Coburg
-- Gaffney St, Coburg North
-- Bakers Rd, Coburg North
-- Boundary Rd, Merlynston
-- Box Forest Rd, Gowrie
-- Barry Rd, Upfield

MERNDA LINE
-- Ramsden St, Clifton Hill
-- Arthurton Rd, Northcote
-- Cramer St, Preston [CONFIRMED]
-- Muarry Rd, Preston [CONFIRMED]
-- Regent St, Preston
-- Keon Parade, Thomastown
-- Settlement Rd, Thomastown
-- Station St, Thomastown
-- High St, Thomastown
-- Paschke Cres, Lalor
-- Childs Rd, Epping


HURSTBRIDGE LINE
-- Westgarth St, Northcote
-- Victoria Rd, Northcote
-- Station St, Fairfield
-- Yarralea St, Alphington
-- Marshall St, Ivanhoe
-- Chapman St, Macleod
-- Main Hurstbridge Rd, Diamond Creek

LILYDALE LINE
-- Union Rd, Surrey Hills [CONFIRMED]
-- Mont Albert Rd, Mont Albert [CONFIRMED]
-- Dublin St, Ringwood East
-- Coolstore Rd, Croydon

BELGRAVE LINE
-- Bedford Rd, Ringwood
-- Alpine St, Ferntree Gully

GLEN WAVERLEY LINE
-- Madden Gv, Burnley
-- Glenferrie Rd, Kooyong
-- Tooronga Rd, Glen Iris
-- High St, Glen Iris

ALAMEIN LINE
-- Prospect Hill Rd, Camberwell
-- Riversdale Rd, Camberwell

PAKENHAM LINE
-- Webster St, Dandenong  [CONFIRMED]
-- Webb St, Narre Warren
-- Cardinia Rd, Pakenham [CONFIRMED]
-- McGregor Rd, Pakenham  [CONFIRMED]
-- Main St, Pakenham  [CONFIRMED]

CRANBOURNE LINE
-- Greens Rd, Dandenong South [CONFIRMED]
-- Camms Rd, Cranbourne [CONFIRMED]
-- South Gippsland Highway, Cranbourne [CONFIRMED]

FRANKSTON LINE
-- Neerim Rd, Glenhuntly [CONFIRMED]
-- Glenhuntly Rd, Glenhuntly [CONFIRMED]
-- Wickham Rd & Worthing Rd, Moorabbin
-- Highett Rd, Highett
-- Latrobe St, Cheltenham
-- Warrigal Rd, Mentone
-- Parkers Rd, Parkdale
-- McDonald St, Mordialloc
-- Bear St, Mordialloc
-- Station St, Mordialloc
-- Station St, Aspendale
-- Lochiel Ave, Edithvale
-- Station St, Chelsea [CONFIRMED]
-- Chelsea Rd, Chelsea [CONFIRMED]
-- Argyle Ave, Chelsea [CONFIRMED]
-- Bondi Rd, Bonbeach
-- McKenzie St, Seaford

STONY POINT LINE
-- McMahons Rd, Frankston
-- Baxter-Tooradin Rd, Baxter
-- Eramosa Road West, Somerville

SANDRINGHAM LINE
- Greville St, Prahran
- Glen Eira Rd, Ripponlea
- Bay St, North Brighton
- Church St, Brighton
- New St & Dendy St, Brighton
- South Rd, Brighton Beach
- Hampton Rd, Hampton

Not on the predicted list

MERNDA LINE
Oakover Rd, Preston [CONFIRMED]

PAKENHAM LINE
Racecourse Road Pakenham [CONFIRMED]
  ptvcommuter Train Controller

SANDRINGHAM LINE - Greville St, Prahran - Glen Eira Rd, Ripponlea - Bay St, North Brighton - Church St, Brighton - New St & Dendy St, Brighton - South Rd, Brighton Beach - Hampton Rd, Hampton
True Believers


You can just close Greville St and you could close Union St in Windsor too. South Rd in Brighton comes in the too hard category, water table and heritage station to deal with, as does the dangerous Church St in Middle Brighton, another heritage station and doing anything like road under would be met with fierce NIMBYism. Replace those with Station St in Sandringham with a new two platform terminus with a hybrid of elevated rail and road under, a trench is hard because of the water table and future/potential Suburban Rail Loop Terminus Station at Sandringham that would be underground. Move sidings to around Elsternwick, would be room to stable a few trains there.


  • As for Latrobe St in Cheltenham that’s a definite close
  • Ramsden St in Clifton Hill comes under the too hard, heritage station/major road next to it
  • Eramosa Rd in Somerville, not merit doing that as the Electrification is to Baxter, for 10 Trains a day
  • Coolstore Rd in Croydon, the council support elevated rail there believe it or not

  • Hudsons/Yarraville LX are perfect to do Newport Triplication as an interim solution before Werribee goes via Metro 2, as would the Highett Removals for Mordialloc Triplication, the Cheltenham/Mentone LX group has provision for third track I’m told

Sponsored advertisement

Subscribers: Myrtone, reubstar6

Display from:   

Quick Reply

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