50 level crossings to be removed

 
  True Believers Chief Commissioner

Removing the Sandringham line level crossings are not priority. I think it's better not to touch them at all (at this stage). I think common sense went out the window to suggest to close all the level crossings on the Sandringham line, first not a priority and second no discussion on impacts.

Any further discussion is fantasy talk. Not reality checking or seeking any engineering and economical thoughtful discussions here.

Let's focus on level crossings that are being removed, not the ones that probably never will get touched at all.

This grade separation program only is budgeted for 75 sites by 2025. And in the year 2020, someone is already considering a fantasy scenerio on the Sandringham line.

Let's be real the expanded project would first:

a) have bi-partisan support

b) make economical sense

If the project was expanded and bipartisan, the focus should the removing the remaining on the Werribee, Craigeburn, Frankston & Mernda lines. Also removing the remainder on the Sunbury/Pakenham corridor.

Even this is the strength of the imagination. So what you're proposing is totally out of the question. Even so, this is something that can't be considered for another 20-50 years.

Sponsored advertisement

  reubstar6 Chief Train Controller

Removing the Sandringham line level crossings are not priority. I think it's better not to touch them at all (at this stage). I think common sense went out the window to suggest to close all the level crossings on the Sandringham line, first not a priority and second no discussion on impacts. Any further discussion is fantasy talk. Not reality checking or seeking any engineering and economical thoughtful discussions here. Let's focus on level crossings that are being removed, not the ones that probably never will get touched at all. This grade separation program only is budgeted for 75 sites by 2025. And in the year 2020, someone is already considering a fantasy scenerio on the Sandringham line. Let's be real the expanded project would first: a) have bi-partisan support b) make economical sense If the project was expanded and bipartisan, the focus should the removing the remaining on the Werribee, Craigeburn, Frankston & Mernda lines. Also removing the remainder on the Sunbury/Pakenham corridor. Even this is the strength of the imagination. So what you're proposing is totally out of the question. Even so, this is something that can't be considered for another 20-50 years
True Believers

It's still an interesting point of discussion though considering it is a line unaffected by the programme and indeed many of the major infrastructure programs taking place at the moment. Also the programme itself is heavily politically based; I'd argue in many cases it trumps economic considerations with the sorts of crossings they have selected.
  Lockie91 Chief Train Controller

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.
Lets break this down a little shall we?
Union St Close to vehicles (make it a pedestrian crossing only). Vehicles forced to use Green St.
Grenville St Close to vehicles (make it a pedestrian crossing only). Vehicles forced to use Commercial Rd or High St.

This is one of the few I agree with you on. As I mentioned Stonnington has done a fantastic job of reducing through traffic on Greville Street. This was in part to reduce rat running though to Commercial Road. This could be closed tomorrow without much consequence.

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

VicRoads Classifies Union Street as a secondary arterial, one down from a main road. I agree it is not high in traffic, but these secondary route serve as detours during works and disruptions. A traffic study would need to be done to crunch the numbers. Saying Vehicles forced to use... doesn't cut much. Green Street as well as Albert Street are both residential streets, I'm sure the residents living in these streets would put up a fight if Union Street was closed and traffic diverted. Council at a minimum would need to invest in traffic claiming measures such as speed humps.

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.


Glen Eira Road AKA State Route 22 is VicRoads Arterial Route, it will never be closed. "its inner city Melbourne...' has to be one of the most flippant things I've ever heard on here. As has been stated by many on RP, the LXRP is a road based project. Yes it has many benefits to the rail user, upgraded stations and such, its primary focus is to reduce traffic congestion. Funnelling 20,000 vehicles & freight on to Residental streets is not a solution. It a cluster F**K.

Only solution is Rail Under Road, while protecting the heritage listed station and garden. No Property acquisition, but a lengthy shut down on the rail line. Similar to what is happening on the Frankston Line.

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

Another secondary route, feeding traffic from the Nepean Highway onto New Street and St Kilda Road as well as Brighton Grammar School and residential to the west of the rail line. Closing it is not a solution.

Rail Over is the only option here that could possibly avoid/reduce property acquisition. Station Building could be repurposed as has been done at Clayton. Allard Street will require reconfiguration.

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

Rail under is not a solution here, far to cost prohibitive. A billion dollar underground station for Middle Brighton is pie in the sky stuff.  Rail Viaduct is a solution. Once again requires protection on any heritage listed buildings. The Rail corridor already passes over Well Street, this again reduces any acquisition in a narrow section on the corridor. NBIYS will have a field day with overshadowing and privacy concerns.

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.

Agree, Rail over. Brighton Beach Station would need to be positioned over Were Street so this could be built with straight platforms as is required now. Stabling would not be feasible in the current location. If it is a critical requirement two roads could be built as part of any rail viaduct on the current curve. Similar to Victoria Park. If not trains could be stabled at Melbourne Yard. This would open up some very valuable land for development.

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.

This one is a simple closure, but as I mentioned several million dollars were spent on reopening it. $4.4 million spent in 2014 to sandbag the local member and shut the locals up.

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.
Road over wont work here, how do you propose to raise the Hampton Street over the rail line while still maintaining access to all the business along Hampton Street. Rail Under is possible, moving the station to the east of the current location. 10 & 6 Railway Cress, as well as 301 & 396 Hampton Street would need to be acquired for this. Another big spend and lengthy closure.

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.

Could possibly be closed depending on a traffic study. Bridge Street & Highett Road serve as the East - West route here. Locals might be up for if it would reduce traffic on there street.

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.

Abbott Street cannot simply be closed, this serves as local access into the Sandringham Activity Area for residents to the north of Abbott Road. Road Under Rail, similar to what has been done at Buckley Street Essendon is a solution here. This would maintain through traffic and local access to Beaumont Street & Station Street.


I think you really under estimate issues caused by simply closing LX's traffic in the area needs to be diverted onto other local streets, bus routes need to be rerouted, local access to shops and business for residents becomes more difficult. This all disrupts the 'fabric' of a local area. If someone has to do a 10 minute detour for a journey to a local business they may simply drive somewhere else. These are the many little things that go into LX's removals, as much as it is a road project a lot of effort and planning goes into improving the local area. I kind of trade of for the months/years of disruption. Its amazing what a dog park will get you.

You've also mentioned this is a 'budget' and massive savings. You haven't factored in improvements that would need to be made to surrounding roads to accomodate additional traffic.
  Lockie91 Chief Train Controller

Removing the Sandringham line level crossings are not priority. I think it's better not to touch them at all (at this stage). I think common sense went out the window to suggest to close all the level crossings on the Sandringham line, first not a priority and second no discussion on impacts.

Any further discussion is fantasy talk. Not reality checking or seeking any engineering and economical thoughtful discussions here.

Let's focus on level crossings that are being removed, not the ones that probably never will get touched at all.

This grade separation program only is budgeted for 75 sites by 2025. And in the year 2020, someone is already considering a fantasy scenerio on the Sandringham line.

Let's be real the expanded project would first:

a) have bi-partisan support

b) make economical sense

If the project was expanded and bipartisan, the focus should the removing the remaining on the Werribee, Craigeburn, Frankston & Mernda lines. Also removing the remainder on the Sunbury/Pakenham corridor.

Even this is the strength of the imagination. So what you're proposing is totally out of the question. Even so, this is something that can't be considered for another 20-50 years.
True Believers
Nothing wrong with having a robust discussion. Its not as if you haven't mentioned some pie in the sky stuff before.

I agree majority will never happen, but we can dream and talk.

Lockie
  TOQ-1 Deputy Commissioner

Location: Power Trainger
One of the reasons the Sandringham Line hasn't been touched also has to be it provides relief to the inner sections of the Franskton line while works are going on there. Having both lines shut simultaneously for an extended period would not be a good outcome.

Once the Frankston line is 100% Crossing free, then maybe the Sandringham line will get a look in.
  Valvegear Dr Beeching

Location: Norda Fittazroy
Lockie91's breakdown is a detailed and well considered analysis by somebody who obviously knows the area. I agree with what it says.
  Gman_86 Chief Commissioner

Location: Melton, where the sparks dare not roam!
The Sandringham line will not be touched.

It is reliable, trains currently are able to run at a good headway (9 minutes at peak from memory) and most of the roads on that line are quiet suburban streets with very high land values. Maybe South Rd could be justified, but not the rest in the short term.

When put into comparison with other crossings on other lines, it isn't hard to understand why they haven't been listed yet.



As for possible future candidates that may be added to the list in the lead up to the 2022 election, I suspect the Upfield line may be in for some more love.

A 2.3km long "Skyrail" section along the Upfield line starting immediately South of Park St and finishing immediately North of Albion St would require the replacement of Jewell, Brunswick and Anstey stations but would remove 8 crossings:
   Park St
   Brunswick Rd
   Union St
   Dawson St
   Albert St
   Victoria St
   Hope St
   Albion St

I think this would be a worthy project, and probably should have been done with the current 4 crossings from Moreland Rd to Bell St.

Although I am curious about the grade rising up from Royal Park Station to Park St and whether or not it could handle a further climb up to clear Park St, so maybe that particular crossing may require some sort of hybrid setup to get a suitable grade. Or maybe it isn't as steep as I'm thinking.
  reubstar6 Chief Train Controller

As for possible future candidates that may be added to the list in the lead up to the 2022 election, I suspect the Upfield line may be in for some more love. A 2.3km long "Skyrail" section along the Upfield line starting immediately South of Park St and finishing immediately North of Albion St would require the replacement of Jewell, Brunswick and Anstey stations but would remove 8 crossings: Park St Brunswick Rd Union St Dawson St Albert St Victoria St Hope St Albion St I think this would be a worthy project, and probably should have been done with the current 4 crossings from Moreland Rd to Bell St. Although I am curious about the grade rising up from Royal Park Station to Park St and whether or not it could handle a further climb up to clear Park St, so maybe that particular crossing may require some sort of hybrid setup to get a suitable grade. Or maybe it isn't as steep as I'm thinking.
Gman_86

You'd think that this would have to be part of some sort of "Upfield Line Upgrade" project involving duplication between Gowrie and Upfield and hopefully the Somerton link and an extension to Craigieburn. With the Metro Tunnel to be completed around 2025/26, it would be good to get more out of the Upfield line and prepare it for service levels of at least 6tph. I'm hoping that they'll announce the City Loop Reconfiguration because that's gotta be one of the projects with the best value for money. It would be interesting to see whether Craigieburn line trains would run via the reconfigured loop as planned to Frankston or if the Upfield line trains would go that way instead. Given the political importance of the Frankston line they might want to run services via Flinders Street out to Craigieburn, leaving the Upfield line to run through the loop to Sandringham.
But I can't be too optimistic given the current state of affairs!
  Valvegear Dr Beeching

Location: Norda Fittazroy
According to my Grade Book, Flemington Bridge to Royal Park starts as 1 in 50, easing out to 1 in 81. After Royal Park, the line is level for a short distance before a 1 in 50 climb towards Jewell. It is then basically level to Brunswick and a little beyond, when it climbs again at 1 in 50, easing to 1 in 125 to Moreland then level again until a short climb to Coburg.
  Gman_86 Chief Commissioner

Location: Melton, where the sparks dare not roam!
According to my Grade Book, Flemington Bridge to Royal Park starts as 1 in 50, easing out to 1 in 81. After Royal Park, the line is level for a short distance before a 1 in 50 climb towards Jewell. It is then basically level to Brunswick and a little beyond, when it climbs again at 1 in 50, easing to 1 in 125 to Moreland then level again until a short climb to Coburg.
Valvegear
Would these grades be enough of an obstacle to stop any rail over solution for the Brunswick crossings?

If so, is a rail trench a suitable solution? I mean, most importantly, is the 600m gap between Albion St and Moreland Rd enough space to make the climb out from a trench at Albion St to elevated rail at Moreland Rd?
  Gman_86 Chief Commissioner

Location: Melton, where the sparks dare not roam!

You'd think that this would have to be part of some sort of "Upfield Line Upgrade" project involving duplication between Gowrie and Upfield and hopefully the Somerton link and an extension to Craigieburn. With the Metro Tunnel to be completed around 2025/26, it would be good to get more out of the Upfield line and prepare it for service levels of at least 6tph.
reubstar6
If I was to have a major criticism of the LXRA and the brief the Andrews Government have given them it would be this.

They could have looked at the entirety of the Upfield line as a single major project. Removed all 20 crossings North of Park St while at the same time upgrading signalling, building new stations, duplication and re-connection with the Craigieburn line as one major project that would of course require major shutdowns, but when complete the line wouldn't need to be touched for another 40 years at least.

At the speed they are now knocking out their projects, a big build like this could have probably been done with only 12 months of disruption. It could have been something spectacular.

Instead we get the Camp Rd crossing done as a single project. Then we get the current Moreland to Bell project of 4 crossings with all its associated disruption. Then in a few years more we will get the Barry Rd project. And if that doesn't include connection to Roxburgh Park (and at this point, I wouldn't expect it will), then that will include another project of its own with all of its associated closures and disruptions. And that doesn't even address the 8 closely spaced crossings in Brunswick.

But no. They are given a very specific brief, they remove crossings, they don't improve anything else, they don't fix anything else, they just remove crossings.

I don't want to knock the LXRA, they have proven that they are very good at removing crossings, just look at how quick Toorak Rd has been dealt with. It's just a shame the whole picture can't be just that little bit bigger.
  ARodH Chief Train Controller

Location: East Oakleigh, Vic
LXRA not doing anything other than crossing removals...have you not seen the mess they've made at Oakleigh Station? The removal of platform 1 and the upgrading of the pedestrian underpass has LXRA on all the signage.
  Valvegear Dr Beeching

Location: Norda Fittazroy
Would these grades be enough of an obstacle to stop any rail over solution for the Brunswick crossings?

If so, is a rail trench a suitable solution? I mean, most importantly, is the 600m gap between Albion St and Moreland Rd enough space to make the climb out from a trench at Albion St to elevated rail at Moreland Rd?
"Gman_86"
I'm not an expert in this field, but I believe that a trench is not the solution. It is disruptive form of construction, and I suspect would need more width in the work area than a skyrail does. A skyrail all the way along this corridor is easier on gradients and eventually provides some good public open space beneath it.
I have often wondered, if a station is heritage listed, whether there is any good reason why the building itself cannot be retained at ground level, used as it is now, but with elevator/stairs/escalator access to overhead platforms.
  TOQ-1 Deputy Commissioner

Location: Power Trainger
Would these grades be enough of an obstacle to stop any rail over solution for the Brunswick crossings?

If so, is a rail trench a suitable solution? I mean, most importantly, is the 600m gap between Albion St and Moreland Rd enough space to make the climb out from a trench at Albion St to elevated rail at Moreland Rd?
I'm not an expert in this field, but I believe that a trench is not the solution. It is disruptive form of construction, and I suspect would need more width in the work area than a skyrail does. A skyrail all the way along this corridor is easier on gradients and eventually provides some good public open space beneath it.
I have often wondered, if a station is heritage listed, whether there is any good reason why the building itself cannot be retained at ground level, used as it is now, but with elevator/stairs/escalator access to overhead platforms.
Valvegear
That is the approach being taken on the Upfield Line https://levelcrossings.vic.gov.au/projects/moreland-road-brunswick/image-gallery#gallery-375674-2
With regards to the grades between Jewell and Royal Park, it is important to note that sections of that track run through a cutting - there is a bit of scope for Earth movements to provide a nice gentle grade to an elevated section starting at Park Street.
Given that Park St is only a local road, with the removing of the crossing on Brunswick Road, Park St could even become a pedestrian/cycling only link, meaning the elevated section could start declining from Brunswick Road.
  Valvegear Dr Beeching

Location: Norda Fittazroy
Given that Park St is only a local road, with the removing of the crossing on Brunswick Road, Park St could even become a pedestrian/cycling only link, meaning the elevated section could start declining from Brunswick Road.
TOQ_1"
Park Street actually carries a lot more traffic than one might expect. A lot of eastbound traffic diverts off Brunswick Road into Park Street in order to make a right turn into Sydney Road. There is also traffic to and from the Institution at the western end of Park Street. I couldn't see the powers-that-be closing it to vehicles.
  lkernan Deputy Commissioner

Location: Melbourne
They could have looked at the entirety of the Upfield line as a single major project. Removed all 20 crossings North of Park St while at the same time upgrading signalling, building new stations, duplication and re-connection with the Craigieburn line as one major project that would of course require major shutdowns, but when complete the line wouldn't need to be touched for another 40 years at least.

At the speed they are now knocking out their projects, a big build like this could have probably been done with only 12 months of disruption. It could have been something spectacular.
Gman_86
That's nothing compared to the Frankston line, in a constant state of disruption for years with no sign of being done yet!
  LeroyW Junior Train Controller

Location: Awaiting MM2
Gee all this talk about Upfield, grades, Park St and Royal Park... feels like we're sleepwalking into a Myrtone.

Nothing to see here, move along.
  Adogs Chief Train Controller

Gee all this talk about Upfield, grades, Park St and Royal Park... feels like we're sleepwalking into a Myrtone.

Nothing to see here, move along.
LeroyW

Not Myrtone territory yet, no one's suggesting putting the Upfield line underground.
  stooge spark Chief Train Controller

Location: My House
Gee all this talk about Upfield, grades, Park St and Royal Park... feels like we're sleepwalking into a Myrtone.

Nothing to see here, move along.

Not Myrtone territory yet, no one's suggesting putting the Upfield line underground.
Adogs
Lets put it underground and extend it south to Cora Lynn
  Valvegear Dr Beeching

Location: Norda Fittazroy
Lets put it underground and extend it south to Cora Lynn
"stooge spark"
Nah. Put it underground and extend it to Cowes.
  railblogger Chief Commissioner

Location: At the back of the train, quitely doing exactly what you'd expect.
Lets put it underground and extend it south to Cora Lynn
Nah. Put it underground and extend it to Cowes.
Valvegear
Why stop there? Let's send it to San Remo.
  DirtyBallast Chief Commissioner

Location: I was here first. You're only visiting.
Lets put it underground and extend it south to Cora Lynn
Nah. Put it underground and extend it to Cowes.
Why stop there? Let's send it to San Remo.
railblogger
Nah, go the other way and include a Port Philip Heads bridge.
  EmrldPhoenix Station Master

Location: Melbourne, VIC
Lets put it underground and extend it south to Cora Lynn
Nah. Put it underground and extend it to Cowes.
Why stop there? Let's send it to San Remo.
Nah, go the other way and include a Port Philip Heads bridge.
DirtyBallast
Go the whole hog. Make a brand spanking new rail loop around Port Phillip Bay, connecting Melbourne, Geelong and the Heads. We can call it the Bay Loop, and provide a connection with the future Western Port Bay Rail Loop.
  reubstar6 Chief Train Controller

Go the whole hog. Make a brand spanking new rail loop around Port Phillip Bay, connecting Melbourne, Geelong and the Heads. We can call it the Bay Loop, and provide a connection with the future Western Port Bay Rail Loop.
EmrldPhoenix
Don't forget the future third airport of Melbourne at Tooradin. It'll provide a nice interchange with the Gippsland loop line via Yarram.
  Valvegear Dr Beeching

Location: Norda Fittazroy
stooge spark; what have you started????Very Happy

Sponsored advertisement

Display from: