50 level crossings to be removed

 
  ngarner Deputy Commissioner

Location: Seville
More news from LXRP.
Werribee St removal is going to complete by the end of this summer, which is quite a contrast to the originally proposed 2022
Werribee

They have another press release about road and rail closures over the next few months, which are going to affect Werribee, Craigieburn, Mernda, Lilydale, Frankston and Cranbourne lines, for a total of 20 LX being worked on

Summer Works

Got to hand it to the whole LXRP team for the consistent early completion of these works

Neil

Sponsored advertisement

  reubstar6 Chief Train Controller

More news from LXRP. Werribee St removal is going to complete by the end of this summer, which is quite a contrast to the originally proposed 2022 Werribee They have another press release about road and rail closures over the next few months, which are going to affect Werribee, Craigieburn, Mernda, Lilydale, Frankston and Cranbourne lines, for a total of 20 LX being worked on Summer Works Got to hand it to the whole LXRP team for the consistent early completion of these works Neil
ngarner

It's almost as if a seemingly guaranteed body of work into the future incentivises workers and contractors not to screw around trying eek out as much as possible from the government, instead actually focussing on getting the job done.
  Lad_Porter Chief Commissioner

Location: Yarra Glen
I'd merge Surry Hills + Mont Albert stations by placing the new station exactly halfway between each and extending the platforms a little to trick the eye. Doubt it would happen but they're really so close together that most people would only have to walk an extra minute or two considering that it's only around "12" minute walk between them currently.

The existing Mont Albert and Surrey Hills stations are located directly adjacent to activity centres, which provides convenient access to adjacent facilities.  Replacing the two existing stations with one in the middle would put the station within a residential area requiring people to walk to access either of the activity centres.

Note an ideal outcome in my opinion.

Ross
Rossco T
You would also need car parking big enough to accommodate both existing stations (where the parking is stretched already).  Again, in the middle of a residential area.  Probably it would need a multi-storey facility.  Or, leave the car parking where it is and expect people to walk?
  historian Deputy Commissioner

I'd merge Surry Hills + Mont Albert stations by placing the new station exactly halfway between each and extending the platforms a little to trick the eye. Doubt it would happen but they're really so close together that most people would only have to walk an extra minute or two considering that it's only around "12" minute walk between them currently.
Upven

Thinking through the options for Surrey Hills and Mont Albert - I'm glad I'm not in LXRA as there doesn't seem to be any good options.

The current standard is straight platforms, so neither station can stay on their current site.

You could relocate both to the straight sections. In the case of Surrey Hills this would be about 50 metres in the Down direction, and Mont Albert would be just north of Mont Albert Rd. But platforms also have to be (nearly) level. Both new locations would be on what are now 1 in 40 grades, so that adds to the excavation costs and makes the retaining walls taller (and more expensive). And I'm not convinced there is actually the width for a three platform station at Mont Albert Rd.

If you replaced both stations with one new station, that would reduce the cost substantially and simplify designing the grades.

But...

If you provided one station in the middle there will only be disadvantages for the locals and patrons. It might be only 6 or 7 minutes additional walk - but that walk is mostly on a 1 in 40 grade. And the LXRA is not good at designing pedestrian friendly pedestrian paths next to cuttings. You are plonking down a station in what is now quiet suburban streets - with the consequent road access problems. The only place to put carparking at the new station would be over the existing line - expensive - and road access would be via the existing suburban streets. Or you could ask the patrons to walk from the existing car parks. The station would be remote from the existing shopping centres/services. And from the bus route in Union Road. The single station is still on what is now a 1 in 40 grade which still means problems with the grades and depths of cuttings.

Given that all the locals would be really unhappy anyway, an option would be to simply close Mont Albert and provide one station at Surrey Hills. Mont Albert locals would be unhappy, but they would have been nearly as unhappy with a centrally located station anyway. You'd be able to use the existing station carparks, and it wouldn't be that much of an additional walk to the bus or station.

The other option is to simply forget about the requirement for straight platforms and put the stations where they currently are. None of the patrons will care or even notice, and you might be able to finesse the locations a bit to straighten out the platforms a bit. The problem with this will be an increase in risk to passengers boarding/alighting.

Which do you choose Minister?
  True Believers Chief Commissioner

I'd merge Surry Hills + Mont Albert stations by placing the new station exactly halfway between each and extending the platforms a little to trick the eye. Doubt it would happen but they're really so close together that most people would only have to walk an extra minute or two considering that it's only around "12" minute walk between them currently.

Thinking through the options for Surrey Hills and Mont Albert - I'm glad I'm not in LXRA as there doesn't seem to be any good options.

Which do you choose Minister?
historian

Keep the two stations, just rebuild them with 2 platforms and express tracks in the centre.

Easy it uses less room and locals are satisfied with their retained stations.
  kuldalai Chief Commissioner

More news from LXRP.
Werribee St removal is going to complete by the end of this summer, which is quite a contrast to the originally proposed 2022
Werribee

They have another press release about road and rail closures over the next few months, which are going to affect Werribee, Craigieburn, Mernda, Lilydale, Frankston and Cranbourne lines, for a total of 20 LX being worked on

Summer Works

Got to hand it to the whole LXRP team for the consistent early completion of these works

Neil
ngarner
Or is it part of the tactics, happens so often that these "dangerous and congested level crossings "  are completed early ?  Like get LXRA or RPV to give you estimated completion date, then Government adds safety margin onto that.  Then in 90 % cases one can claim finished early  !!!!  BUT was'nt that the expected internal outcome anyway ?
  TheMeddlingMonk Deputy Commissioner

Location: The Time Vortex near Melbourne, Australia
More news from LXRP.
Werribee St removal is going to complete by the end of this summer, which is quite a contrast to the originally proposed 2022
Werribee

They have another press release about road and rail closures over the next few months, which are going to affect Werribee, Craigieburn, Mernda, Lilydale, Frankston and Cranbourne lines, for a total of 20 LX being worked on

Summer Works

Got to hand it to the whole LXRP team for the consistent early completion of these works

Neil
Or is it part of the tactics, happens so often that these "dangerous and congested level crossings "  are completed early ?  Like get LXRA or RPV to give you estimated completion date, then Government adds safety margin onto that.  Then in 90 % cases one can claim finished early  !!!!  BUT was'nt that the expected internal outcome anyway ?
kuldalai
The whole point of the safety margin is to allow extra time in case something unforeseen comes up. If they're consistently finishing the majority ahead of time because they didn't need the buffer, then that actually says they're doing a good job anticipating what might go wrong. I would be much happier with this scenario than the alternative - not include a safety margin and then consistently have a percentage of projects go over time as a result.
  Lockie91 Assistant Commissioner

More news from LXRP.
Werribee St removal is going to complete by the end of this summer, which is quite a contrast to the originally proposed 2022
Werribee

They have another press release about road and rail closures over the next few months, which are going to affect Werribee, Craigieburn, Mernda, Lilydale, Frankston and Cranbourne lines, for a total of 20 LX being worked on

Summer Works

Got to hand it to the whole LXRP team for the consistent early completion of these works

Neil
Or is it part of the tactics, happens so often that these "dangerous and congested level crossings "  are completed early ?  Like get LXRA or RPV to give you estimated completion date, then Government adds safety margin onto that.  Then in 90 % cases one can claim finished early  !!!!  BUT was'nt that the expected internal outcome anyway ?
kuldalai
Its quite common to 'Under Promise and Over Deliver'
  historian Deputy Commissioner

I'd merge Surry Hills + Mont Albert stations by placing the new station exactly halfway between each and extending the platforms a little to trick the eye. Doubt it would happen but they're really so close together that most people would only have to walk an extra minute or two considering that it's only around "12" minute walk between them currently.

Given that all the locals would be really unhappy anyway, an option would be to simply close Mont Albert and provide one station at Surrey Hills. Mont Albert locals would be unhappy, but they would have been nearly as unhappy with a centrally located station anyway. You'd be able to use the existing station carparks, and it wouldn't be that much of an additional walk to the bus or station.
historian

And the answer was to close Mont Albert, move Surrey Hills slightly in the Down direction, and to spin this as a new
'centrally located' station.
  tayser Deputy Commissioner
  Carnot Minister for Railways

The Pakenham East Skyrail proposal looks quite good.  Especially the separation of V/line and Metro trains.

https://levelcrossings.vic.gov.au/media/news/two-new-stations-and-pakenham-boom-gate-removals-fast-tracked
  justarider Chief Commissioner

Location: Released again, maybe for the last time??
I'd merge Surry Hills + Mont Albert stations by placing the new station exactly halfway between each and extending the platforms a little to trick the eye. Doubt it would happen but they're really so close together that most people would only have to walk an extra minute or two considering that it's only around "12" minute walk between them currently.

Given that all the locals would be really unhappy anyway, an option would be to simply close Mont Albert and provide one station at Surrey Hills. Mont Albert locals would be unhappy, but they would have been nearly as unhappy with a centrally located station anyway. You'd be able to use the existing station carparks, and it wouldn't be that much of an additional walk to the bus or station.

And the answer was to close Mont Albert, move Surrey Hills slightly in the Down direction, and to spin this as a new
'centrally located' station.
historian
It looks better than initially sounded.
It may be 400m from the old station, but actually quite  close to Mont Albert Rd, where the majority of pax are interested.
https://levelcrossings.vic.gov.au/media/publications/surrey-hills-and-mont-albert-community-update-december-2020#6696



cheers
John
  Jordy33 Locomotive Fireman

I think we should make some noise to LXRP about provision for 4 tracks.
  historian Deputy Commissioner

I'd merge Surry Hills + Mont Albert stations by placing the new station exactly halfway between each and extending the platforms a little to trick the eye. Doubt it would happen but they're really so close together that most people would only have to walk an extra minute or two considering that it's only around "12" minute walk between them currently.

Given that all the locals would be really unhappy anyway, an option would be to simply close Mont Albert and provide one station at Surrey Hills. Mont Albert locals would be unhappy, but they would have been nearly as unhappy with a centrally located station anyway. You'd be able to use the existing station carparks, and it wouldn't be that much of an additional walk to the bus or station.

And the answer was to close Mont Albert, move Surrey Hills slightly in the Down direction, and to spin this as a new
'centrally located' station.
It looks better than initially sounded.
It may be 400m from the old station, but actually quite  close to Mont Albert Rd, where the majority of pax are interested.
https://levelcrossings.vic.gov.au/media/publications/surrey-hills-and-mont-albert-community-update-december-2020#6696



cheers
John
justarider

Google maps says that's about 275 metres between the two station entrances. Over 100 metres longer than a standard platform.

Presumably there is some additional horizontal distance to be covered between the entrances and the platforms...
  John E Locomotive Fireman

I hope they spend a bit more money to extend the decking over the rail trench, like they did at Cheltenham and Mentone station. In that instance it was the City of Kingston that contributed just over $2 Million to make it happen - https://www.kingston.vic.gov.au/About-Us/Media/Works-set-to-begin-on-Cheltenham%E2%80%99s-new-community-space.

Maybe Boroondara/Whitehorse Councils could contribute some money towards this.

Decking could be used as open space / extra parking, particularly from the Union Road end.
  True Believers Chief Commissioner

I think we should make some noise to LXRP about provision for 4 tracks.
Jordy33

In my opinion the 4 tracks should only go as far as Camberwell, as stated in the PTV network rail plan, helps segregate the Alemain corridor off the line and extra express services beyond.

You could extend the existing 3rd track from Box-hill to Blackburn, since the third track has full provision there.

I don't think there is a need to do anymore track amplifications afterwards, too costly by that point, may as well duplicate the Lilydale end of the line or duplicate some of the outer ends of the Belgrave corridor.
  loopy Junior Train Controller

Quite a MASSIVE day for LXRA announcements which means I have heaps of questions.

Surrey Hills and Mont Albert:
Deleting a station means that some trains will stop all stations after that new station or Box Hill. What will this new station be called? Surrey Albert, Mont Hills? LOL! When was the last time a station had been closed permanently? Will they have 2 track operations during construction like the Frankston line did in 2015 to 2016 and will they use UP, CENTRE or CENTRE, DOWN?

Pakenham and Pakenham East:
Perviously all the announcements about the new Pakenham station detailed that there would be 2 Metro platforms, 1 V/Line platform. But now that there's a new [very good] spanner in the works in the form of an extra station at Pakenham East to be closer towards the new train stabling, what will these configurations be at these stations? How many platforms? Will they be 6 carriages long [V/Line] and 10 carriages long [Metro]? Which station will V/Line stop at cuz I'm assuming they won't stop at both?
  railblogger Chief Commissioner

Location: At the back of the train, quitely doing exactly what you'd expect.
Quite a MASSIVE day for LXRA announcements which means I have heaps of questions.

Surrey Hills and Mont Albert:
Deleting a station means that some trains will stop all stations after that new station or Box Hill. What will this new station be called? Surrey Albert, Mont Hills? LOL! When was the last time a station had been closed permanently? Will they have 2 track operations during construction like the Frankston line did in 2015 to 2016 and will they use UP, CENTRE or CENTRE, DOWN?

Pakenham and Pakenham East:
Perviously all the announcements about the new Pakenham station detailed that there would be 2 Metro platforms, 1 V/Line platform. But now that there's a new [very good] spanner in the works in the form of an extra station at Pakenham East to be closer towards the new train stabling, what will these configurations be at these stations? How many platforms? Will they be 6 carriages long [V/Line] and 10 carriages long [Metro]? Which station will V/Line stop at cuz I'm assuming they won't stop at both?
loopy
My thoughts for Pakenham East that there would be 2 Metro and 2 V/Line, or 1 Metro and 2 V/Line, with the down V/line track crossing over the Metro depot access track, to avoid as many path conflicts as possible.
  John.Z Assistant Commissioner

I think we should make some noise to LXRP about provision for 4 tracks.

In my opinion the 4 tracks should only go as far as Camberwell, as stated in the PTV network rail plan, helps segregate the Alemain corridor off the line and extra express services beyond.

You could extend the existing 3rd track from Box-hill to Blackburn, since the third track has full provision there.

I don't think there is a need to do anymore track amplifications afterwards, too costly by that point, may as well duplicate the Lilydale end of the line or duplicate some of the outer ends of the Belgrave corridor.
True Believers
Quad track should be built to Box Hill. Would allow for a 24/7 local track pair for Box Hill and Alamein, giving Belgrave/Lilydale express trains their own path into the city (Glen Waverley could use either track pair into the city).

There's room on the northern side of Hawthorn for a track (no platform), and on the southern side of Glenferrie and Auburn, which would suggest that the middle two tracks would be the local tracks. Continuing this arrangement through to box hill (new island platforms at each station between camberwell and box hill) would allow for trains to easily terminate at box hill, similar to how the sydney metro terminates at chattswood with cross platform interchange.

Box Hill station and Camberwell Station would need 4 platforms. Camberwell and Burnley Junctions would need rebuilding (Burnley could be done as part of the level crossing removal at madden grove, switching the local track from the outside at east richmond to the inside at hawthorn)
  True Believers Chief Commissioner

Quite a MASSIVE day for LXRA announcements which means I have heaps of questions.

Surrey Hills and Mont Albert:
Deleting a station means that some trains will stop all stations after that new station or Box Hill. What will this new station be called? Surrey Albert, Mont Hills? LOL! When was the last time a station had been closed permanently? Will they have 2 track operations during construction like the Frankston line did in 2015 to 2016 and will they use UP, CENTRE or CENTRE, DOWN?

Pakenham and Pakenham East:
Perviously all the announcements about the new Pakenham station detailed that there would be 2 Metro platforms, 1 V/Line platform. But now that there's a new [very good] spanner in the works in the form of an extra station at Pakenham East to be closer towards the new train stabling, what will these configurations be at these stations? How many platforms? Will they be 6 carriages long [V/Line] and 10 carriages long [Metro]? Which station will V/Line stop at cuz I'm assuming they won't stop at both?
loopy
The new station is called: Mont Albury Hills, just kidding only a guess. The last station to be closed permanently to be merged into another station would be Princes bridge station next to Flinders street station. If you meant last closed station, would probably be the General Motors railway station. By the looks of the concept similar to the Frankston line.



The new station at Pakenham will be two platforms, the new station at Pakenham east would be the three platform interchange platform with V-line, this would reduce costs of a three track elevated platform, which is probably why it's a preferred option.
  True Believers Chief Commissioner

Quad track should be built to Box Hill. Would allow for a 24/7 local track pair for Box Hill and Alamein, giving Belgrave/Lilydale express trains their own path into the city (Glen Waverley could use either track pair into the city).

There's room on the northern side of Hawthorn for a track (no platform), and on the southern side of Glenferrie and Auburn, which would suggest that the middle two tracks would be the local tracks. Continuing this arrangement through to box hill (new island platforms at each station between Camberwell and box hill) would allow for trains to easily terminate at box hill, similar to how the Sydney metro terminates at Chatswood with cross platform interchange.

Box Hill station and Camberwell Station would need 4 platforms. Camberwell and Burnley Junctions would need rebuilding (Burnley could be done as part of the level crossing removal at madden grove, switching the local track from the outside at east richmond to the inside at hawthorn)
John.Z
To be honest, there isn't any huge benefit going from 3 to 4 tracks from Camberwell to Box-hill, unless you did it all the way to Ringwood which is completely not viable.

I'll have to admit defeat here, since I'd love a railway solution at Burnley, but realistically (not gunzel fantasy talk) Burnley one is likely a road solution and not impact the fly-over in any way, too close to stabling and costly for a rail grade separation solution.

A fourth platform at Box hill already exists, so I don't know why you said Box-hill needs four platforms, it already has it pre-built, just need tracks.

Box Hill isn't like a junction station like it is with Chatswood, Camberwell is the junction which is the perfect terminus of the 4th track, unless you want it go to Ringwood, which would not be viable.

A fourth track to Box Hill would only create room for more short-starters at Box-hill, but with Camberwell 4th track you'd already have most of the capacity unlocked with Alemain trains becoming the short-starters. If you want more express services, you just extend the 3rd track to Blackburn. A 4th track to Box-hill would be under-used and would not able to segregate any branches so it's benefits are not any significantly higher than a 4th track to Camberwell.
  railblogger Chief Commissioner

Location: At the back of the train, quitely doing exactly what you'd expect.
I think we should make some noise to LXRP about provision for 4 tracks.

In my opinion the 4 tracks should only go as far as Camberwell, as stated in the PTV network rail plan, helps segregate the Alemain corridor off the line and extra express services beyond.

You could extend the existing 3rd track from Box-hill to Blackburn, since the third track has full provision there.

I don't think there is a need to do anymore track amplifications afterwards, too costly by that point, may as well duplicate the Lilydale end of the line or duplicate some of the outer ends of the Belgrave corridor.
Quad track should be built to Box Hill. Would allow for a 24/7 local track pair for Box Hill and Alamein, giving Belgrave/Lilydale express trains their own path into the city (Glen Waverley could use either track pair into the city).

There's room on the northern side of Hawthorn for a track (no platform), and on the southern side of Glenferrie and Auburn, which would suggest that the middle two tracks would be the local tracks. Continuing this arrangement through to box hill (new island platforms at each station between camberwell and box hill) would allow for trains to easily terminate at box hill, similar to how the sydney metro terminates at chattswood with cross platform interchange.

Box Hill station and Camberwell Station would need 4 platforms. Camberwell and Burnley Junctions would need rebuilding (Burnley could be done as part of the level crossing removal at madden grove, switching the local track from the outside at east richmond to the inside at hawthorn)
John.Z
Box Hill has a fourth platform - it just isn't used.

That said I agree with True Believers. I'm pretty certain the Blackburn locals run close to empty (except for maybe in peak hour), as everyone at the major station opts for the expresses where they can. Quadding only to Camberwell and having everything towards Ringwood run express Burnley-Camberwell then SAS, whilst having the Alamein services stop all stations, is a much better distribution of the loads in my mind.
  Llib7 Station Staff

I’m annoyed they have been choosing rail under lately. That would have been an opportunity to create open space underneath and improve connectivity
  justarider Chief Commissioner

Location: Released again, maybe for the last time??
I’m annoyed they have been choosing rail under lately. That would have been an opportunity to create open space underneath and improve connectivity
Llib7
Do the station names "Mont Albert" and "Surrey Hills" not give a big enough hint regarding the elevation of the existing track?
Yet, suggest make it even higher.
  True Believers Chief Commissioner

I’m annoyed they have been choosing rail under lately. That would have been an opportunity to create open space underneath and improve connectivity
Llib7
The gradients at this particular location at Mont Albert and Surrey Hills favor a trench option.

You know in the same news they announced a rail bridge at Pakenham. There will be elevated rail at Preston and Hallam coming soon.

Sponsored advertisement

Display from: