It's damn impressive that they've gotten this far with the project. I don't think many people expected all 50 to be removed, and it really looks like that's going to happen. I wonder what the total will be at by the next election. Considering the additional crossings that will be removed on the Mernda and Upfield lines I reckon it might be closer to 55 or even 60. You'd think that they'd keep going to remove 100 by 2030, which is very doable considering they've effectively already won the 2022 election so only really need to make sure they win the 2026 one. I wonder which crossings they would add. It would be very tempting to eliminate all remaining crossings on the Sunbury and Pakenham lines. You'd think that Macaulay Rd and Puckle St couldn't be ignored for much longer. It would be pretty easy to get rid of all the crossings on the Melton line with road-over bridges, meaning that the entire Sunshine-Dandenong group could run level crossing free.

By 2022 there should be 65 gone. Taking into account all of the promised ones, by 2025 there will have been 78 done, to which you could add three in Geelong if so inclined, although 2 of those are not expected to be completed until 2028.
Should the Baxter electrification project get up there would be another 5 done by whenever that gets scheduled for completion. Closure of the original line through Wallace and Bungaree removes 4 more, if you want to count them.
The Frankston line will have only 10 LX left after 2025; eliminating the two remaining tramway squares; Madden Gve in Burnley, one on the Vicroads high priority list; Coolstore Rd Croydon which had a business case done by the local council; Bedford Rd Ringwood which just begs for rail under to eliminate a steep grade on a tight curve; the remaining 4 or so on the Sunbury line; and those standouts remaining on the Pakenham line, as reubstar6 suggests, are all good candidates for consideration for another round of removals. There are probably others that I haven't looked at like Spotswood, Yarraville, Gaffney St on both Upfield and Craigieburn lines that could be considered.

Neil

Still is a fair few priority ones, you’ve mentioned most.
Both Macauley Crossings, Tooronga/Glenferrie Rds certainly warrant removal.
Strong cases for Puckle Rd Moonee Ponds and Webb St Narre Warren
Certain Sandringham Line LX most likely warrant removal but good luck working out what solution

Still is a fair few priority ones, you’ve mentioned most.
Both Macauley Crossings, Tooronga/Glenferrie Rds certainly warrant removal.
Strong cases for Puckle Rd Moonee Ponds and Webb St Narre Warren
Certain Sandringham Line LX most likely warrant removal but good luck working out what solution

With the Puckle St LX they would probably couple it with the Park St LX a few hundred metres up the track. The later doesn't get much traffic so they would probably just close it and it's a removal on the cheap.

Definitely agree on both Macaulay Rd crossings. They have been massive bottlenecks for a long time. Interested to see how they could remove the Kensington one though with the Rd gradient, the station nearby and the track quad and sidings right after

I can’t see any government Labor or Libs touching the Sandy Line. The pork barrelling happening out at places like Cheltenham and Edith Vale is ridiculous, this wouldn’t even touch the sides for residents along the Sandy Line.  

Can you imagine the NIBY’s on roids from Prahran to Brighton Beach!

Greville Street: not a high traffic area. The council has done a great job of closing parts of the street. It’s a big pedestrian area. Under or over? Under the heritage listed stations goes. Over, stations gets preserved. Apartments built on Porter Street can reach out touch the train. (A NIMBY friend of mine lives in one of those apartments and was telling me how the persuaded VicTrak to take out the original bells and replace them with quieter electronic bells. Apparently it was all too loud for them)

Similar situations around Windsor with Union street, over and they’d hang the government. Trench would be costly and tricky serval bridges and tight alignment going into Windsor Station & the Chapel Street bridge.

Glen Eria Road: Anyway keen to trench through the gardens and demo Ripponlea station? Not likely.

Bay Street Brighton & Church Street Middle Brighton: think they would need more than ‘open space’ or a new park to keep them happy. No hope or ‘sky rail’ through there.

New Street: Bloody mess of a crossing. But another low traffic residential area. Is it worth the money and the fuss?

South Road: I’m all for Sky Rail, it would be a beautiful view. Can’t imagine the residents of Brighton Beach would be happy. $1B could be spent of holding back the ocean if they trench it.

New Street: didn’t they spend millions reopening this crossing to save the local member?

Hampton Street: could go under, would be good for the local area.

Abbott Street, Sandringham: Sky Rail it right into the ocean. The locals have enough issues with the MAMALS on Beach Road. Good Luck getting them on board with any removal there.

No government is going to touch it at all.

I can’t see any government Labor or Libs touching the Sandy Line. The pork barrelling happening out at places like Cheltenham and Edith Vale is ridiculous, this wouldn’t even touch the sides for residents along the Sandy Line.  

Can you imagine the NIBY’s on roids from Prahran to Brighton Beach!

Greville Street: not a high traffic area. The council has done a great job of closing parts of the street. It’s a big pedestrian area. Under or over? Under the heritage listed stations goes. Over, stations gets preserved. Apartments built on Porter Street can reach out touch the train. (A NIMBY friend of mine lives in one of those apartments and was telling me how the persuaded VicTrak to take out the original bells and replace them with quieter electronic bells. Apparently it was all too loud for them)

Similar situations around Windsor with Union street, over and they’d hang the government. Trench would be costly and tricky serval bridges and tight alignment going into Windsor Station & the Chapel Street bridge.

Glen Eria Road: Anyway keen to trench through the gardens and demo Ripponlea station? Not likely.

Bay Street Brighton & Church Street Middle Brighton: think they would need more than ‘open space’ or a new park to keep them happy. No hope or ‘sky rail’ through there.

New Street: Bloody mess of a crossing. But another low traffic residential area. Is it worth the money and the fuss?

South Road: I’m all for Sky Rail, it would be a beautiful view. Can’t imagine the residents of Brighton Beach would be happy. $1B could be spent of holding back the ocean if they trench it.

New Street: didn’t they spend millions reopening this crossing to save the local member?

Hampton Street: could go under, would be good for the local area.

Abbott Street, Sandringham: Sky Rail it right into the ocean. The locals have enough issues with the MAMALS on Beach Road. Good Luck getting them on board with any removal there.

No government is going to touch it at all.

No government is going to touch it at all.

One reason I didn't even think of putting a Sandringham LX on any list of potential replacements; any other line, no worries.

Neil

Can you imagine the NIBY’s on roids from Prahran to Brighton Beach!

Greville Street: not a high traffic area. The council has done a great job of closing parts of the street. It’s a big pedestrian area. Under or over? Under the heritage listed stations goes. Over, stations gets preserved. Apartments built on Porter Street can reach out touch the train. (A NIMBY friend of mine lives in one of those apartments and was telling me how the persuaded VicTrak to take out the original bells and replace them with quieter electronic bells. Apparently it was all too loud for them)

Similar situations around Windsor with Union street, over and they’d hang the government. Trench would be costly and tricky serval bridges and tight alignment going into Windsor Station & the Chapel Street bridge.

Glen Eria Road: Anyway keen to trench through the gardens and demo Ripponlea station? Not likely.

Greville St is as you observe already a pseudo pedestrian mall.
I doubt the locals would be upset to just close the LX completely and finish off the gentrification.

Similarly I doubt a Union St LX closure would cause concern.

The real heavy traffic LX that needs attention is Glen Eira Rd. Good luck figuring out how - definitely in the too hard basket for now.

Down the line from there, "what a fine mess you got me in to Ockie" - nobody's going to touch that.

cheers
John

Can you imagine the NIBY’s on roids from Prahran to Brighton Beach!

Greville Street: not a high traffic area. The council has done a great job of closing parts of the street. It’s a big pedestrian area. Under or over? Under the heritage listed stations goes. Over, stations gets preserved. Apartments built on Porter Street can reach out touch the train. (A NIMBY friend of mine lives in one of those apartments and was telling me how the persuaded VicTrak to take out the original bells and replace them with quieter electronic bells. Apparently it was all too loud for them)

Similar situations around Windsor with Union street, over and they’d hang the government. Trench would be costly and tricky serval bridges and tight alignment going into Windsor Station & the Chapel Street bridge.

Glen Eria Road: Anyway keen to trench through the gardens and demo Ripponlea station? Not likely.

Greville St is as you observe already a pseudo pedestrian mall.
I doubt the locals would be upset to just close the LX completely and finish off the gentrification.

Similarly I doubt a Union St LX closure would cause concern.

The real heavy traffic LX that needs attention is Glen Eira Rd. Good luck figuring out how - definitely in the too hard basket for now.

Down the line from there, "what a fine mess you got me in to Ockie" - nobody's going to touch that.

cheers
John

you left out a word  (another).....think about it if u are attemting to quote Oliver Hardy on poor old Stan Laurel.

What are people's thoughts on removing the tram square on the Alamein line (Riversdale Rd is it?)? It's hard to justify any level crossing removals on that line, but then again the fact that tram squares exist is equally if not more ridiculous.

What are people's thoughts on removing the tram square on the Alamein line (Riversdale Rd is it?)? It's hard to justify any level crossing removals on that line, but then again the fact that tram squares exist is equally if not more ridiculous.

After the little incident not that long back when a 'thoughtful' car driver decided to cut off a tram to turn right causing the tram to stop on an un-powered section of overhead I say get rid of it. Lots of maintenance required with associated costs, low speed limits for both forms of rail, potential for the wrong voltage to be live (IIRC it's happened at least once resulting in the destruction of a tram) and little incidents like the one I started with. Two will have gone by 2025, why not ditch the other two while we have the opportunity? Alamein isn't a heavy use rail line but the benefits of removing all tramway squares outweighs leaving them where they are, hence my inclusion of them in an earlier post.

Neil

What are people's thoughts on removing the tram square on the Alamein line (Riversdale Rd is it?)? It's hard to justify any level crossing removals on that line, but then again the fact that tram squares exist is equally if not more ridiculous.

After the little incident not that long back when a 'thoughtful' car driver decided to cut off a tram to turn right causing the tram to stop on an un-powered section of overhead I say get rid of it. Lots of maintenance required with associated costs, low speed limits for both forms of rail, potential for the wrong voltage to be live (IIRC it's happened at least once resulting in the destruction of a tram) and little incidents like the one I started with. Two will have gone by 2025, why not ditch the other two while we have the opportunity? Alamein isn't a heavy use rail line but the benefits of removing all tramway squares outweighs leaving them where they are, hence my inclusion of them in an earlier post.

Neil

agreed,
but can we wait until a tram driver qualifies for the Olympic Ski Jump.

Cheltenham update.



https://youtu.be/KhIuipCVXYg

https://levelcrossings.vic.gov.au/media/news/cheltenham-and-mentone-crossings-to-go-in-winter-blitz
Now a Nine week shutdown for the Frankston line to do Cheltenham and Mentone, from the night of 23 May through to 27 July

https://levelcrossings.vic.gov.au/media/news/cheltenham-and-mentone-crossings-to-go-in-winter-blitz
Now a Nine week shutdown for the Frankston line to do Cheltenham and Mentone, from the night of 23 May through to 27 July

Lots of people will still be working from home during this time so this time it's not going to be too big an inconvenience.

Are there any other lines currently being shutdown for works? This would be good opportunity to do if possible.

https://levelcrossings.vic.gov.au/media/news/cheltenham-and-mentone-crossings-to-go-in-winter-blitz
Now a Nine week shutdown for the Frankston line to do Cheltenham and Mentone, from the night of 23 May through to 27 July

Lots of people will still be working from home during this time so this time it's not going to be too big an inconvenience.

Are there any other lines currently being shutdown for works? This would be good opportunity to do if possible.

Upfield is due to be shut down, from July 20 until October, for the four Coburg area crossings but they probably haven't done enough work to be able to bring that date forward. The cross-over at Anstey probably hasn't been installed yet to begin with.

Neil

Sandringham Line Level Crossings

The most cost effective plan for Sandringham line is below.
Quite a few railway crossings are simply closed to vehicles.
This is significant $$$ saving and the locals will survive.

Grenville St
Close to vehicles (make it a pedestrian crossing only). Vehicles forced to use Commercial Rd or High St.

Union St
Close to vehicles (make it a pedestrian crossing only). Vehicles forced to use Green St.

Glen Eira Rd
Close to vehicles (make it a pedestrian crossing only). Vehicles forced to use Grosvenor St or Hotham St.
Have to agree it is a large detour for vehicles. But this is inner city Melbourne, car drivers can live with it.

Bay St
Close to vehicles (make it a pedestrian crossing only). Vehicles forced to use Durrant St.

Church St / Well St / Roundabout
The train line will need to go under these roads. Middle Brighton Station rebuilt as underground station.

South Rd
Train line will have to go over the road. This will require rebuilding Brighton Beach platform at height above road level.
The original station building can probably remain unchanged at ground level.

New St
Close to vehicles (make it a pedestrian crossing only). Vehicles forced to use South Rd or Hampton St.
Have to agree it is a large detour for vehicles. But this is inner city Melbourne, car drivers can live with it.

Hampton St
A road bridge can be built over the railway here. I think it requires compulsory acquisition of only 1 property - 380 Hampton St.
On south side the road bridge would go east then curve north then over railway line and Service St.
On north side the road bridge drops back down to street level in car park (yes some car park spaces are lost) then new intersection at Thomas St.
Existing crossing made into pedestrian only crossing.

Linacre Rd
Close to vehicles (make it a pedestrian crossing only). Vehicles forced to use Hampton St or Bridge St.
Have to agree it is a large detour for vehicles. But this is inner city Melbourne, car drivers can live with it.

Abbott St
Close to vehicles (make it a pedestrian crossing only). Vehicles forced to use Bridge St or Bay Rd.
Have to agree it is a large detour for vehicles. But this is inner city Melbourne, car drivers can live with it.

The whole thing that strikes me about the proposals put up by tom876543, is the closing of some crossings to vehicular traffic and forcing it into other streets.

This defeats the entire objective of level crossing removal which is to make traffic flow easier and faster. It's not just about trains.

The whole thing that strikes me about the proposals put up by tom876543, is the closing of some crossings to vehicular traffic and forcing it into other streets.

This defeats the entire objective of level crossing removal which is to make traffic flow easier and faster. It's not just about trains.

I often drive over crossings on the Sandringham line & the reason that none of them are on the governments list of 75 is because mostly the traffic volume doesn't justify it. Unlike other lines away from the bay they do not have large cross suburban traffic flows.

The only two that I can think of that are even worth considering are Hampton Street & maybe South Road although even that would be marginal & I suspect difficult to design given its location.

I often drive over crossings on the Sandringham line & the reason that none of them are on the governments list of 75 is because mostly the traffic volume doesn't justify it. Unlike other lines away from the bay they do not have large cross suburban traffic flows.

Sure; and by the time that tom has closed Glen Eira Road, Greville Street, Union Street, Bay Street, New Street, Linacre Street and Abbot Street, a total of seven crossings, traffic on his alternative routes will be hell, thus creating the very thing we want to overcome. His plan will create far more problems than it solves.

Would it be possible to elevate Brighton Beach station while retaining the stabling? I'd say it would be pretty essential to do so since there is only room for what, 6 trains to be stabled on the line? Yes, it's some of the best land available, but I don't know where you could shift the sidings.

Would it be possible to elevate Brighton Beach station while retaining the stabling? I'd say it would be pretty essential to do so since there is only room for what, 6 trains to be stabled on the line? Yes, it's some of the best land available, but I don't know where you could shift the sidings.

Any new or rebuilt stations are now required to have straight platforms & I would imagine that would be impossible to achieve on such a sharply curved location as Brighton Beach.

Reckon there’s room between Gardenvale and Elsternwick for stabling. That’s a separate issue - How would you achieve straight platforms at Brighton Beach anyway

You’ve got to a) Acquire shops, homes, one of the sports grounds (that’ll cost you all up 60 million plus given how affluent the area, amount of houses (15-20) needed to be demolished and the value of the assets)

Then you have the issue of Were St, the rail line goes under Were St. Its pretty hard to send the rail line under Were St unless you place the platforms further south over South Rd as well, even that is hard given gradients and all of that.

Pretty hard to accomplish. Would a tunnel work, no. Is the cost worth it no, and you’d dig up the ocean while you’re at it. Maybe you could extend the elevated line to New St Roundabout but then you’re looking at serious $$ and more problems.


As for the other LX with some merit

- Glen Eira has some merit, could elevate the line there given its elevated only just down the line at Balaclava.

- Hampton St is a good candidate, relatively busy area, probably best to put it under

- Bay St North Brighton can actually get quite busy so some merit there but good luck again working it out. Surrounded by elevated rail on both sides the line descends into north Brighton from Sandringham and rises again towards Gardenvale. Elevated rail would be nimbys on steroids and probably wouldn’t suit the local area. Trench is quite hard to accomplish unless you’re digging a 700m trench, not worth the $$

Netter still, just leave it alone.  Cheaper..................

I often drive over crossings on the Sandringham line & the reason that none of them are on the governments list of 75 is because mostly the traffic volume doesn't justify it. Unlike other lines away from the bay they do not have large cross suburban traffic flows.

Sure; and by the time that tom has closed Glen Eira Road, Greville Street, Union Street, Bay Street, New Street, Linacre Street and Abbot Street, a total of seven crossings, traffic on his alternative routes will be hell, thus creating the very thing we want to overcome. His plan will create far more problems than it solves.

Apart from any of that, valid comment notwithstanding, pedestrian only crossings are still dangerous.  Pedestrians can and will do the wrong thing, and will get hit and possibly killed.  So that is only a half baked solution.

Subways or footbridges excluded, of course, but there is no mention of those.

Regarding the Sandringham line, my priorities were:
- ensure we don't have another car crash at a level crossing, similar to what occurred in Surrey Hills.
- do it at lowest cost possible.

Claiming the alternative roads will have more traffic after level crossing removal is obviously true.
But I suspect those roads are never at 100% capacity. We would need VicRoads traffic analysis to confirm the alternative roads would become jammed.

I admit I didn't realise how many stupid pedestrians live among us.
Surely if the pedestrian crossing has a gate, lights and a bell, it would be virtually impossible for an accident to occur.

Regarding Brighton Beach platforms, I think they could be rebuilt in a straight line without acquiring property.
The straight railway / platforms (160m length) would start at Menzies Ave and end at South Road, obviously west of current crossing.
Remember the new railway / platforms are above the road.
So railway would continue as a viaduct with sharp 160m radius curve, above South Rd and Beach Rd before getting back to original alignment.
I think the approximate length of the viaduct above Beach Rd would be 250m. This is a relatively simple solution to the problem.