50 level crossings to be removed

 
  railblogger Chief Commissioner

Location: At the back of the train, quitely doing exactly what you'd expect.
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
It might look good, but is it actually good?

The question is why the need for a station at Pakenham East? They'd be mad to build it on the down side of the entrance of the Pakenham East maintenance facility as it would require unnecessary shunt moves for terminating trains, and then you might as well continue the short distance around the corner to Nar Nar Goon where there's plenty of room for car parking and existing access to the freeway. Its not going to be built on the curve under the freeway which then leaves the only location as just on the UP side of the freeway overpass which is within spitting distance of the existing Pakenham station anyway.

Now anyone with access to google maps can see that on the UP side of the freeway overpass on the North side of the line around Pinehill Drive and Ryan Rd, its all very low density housing and on the South side is small industrial area which isn't going to generate many trips. The large open area on the North side between the railway and the golf course is a reserve and water retarding basin, so that's not going to be developed anytime soon.

So after all that, my theory is that the new Pakenham East station is being built primarily for operational purposes for Metro and the HCMT. This thread from back in 2018  https://www.railpage.com.au/f-p2113207.htm  explains a bit that non-qualified drivers such as fitters can and will be moving trains around the Pakenham East facility and doing preps and so on. The new station would provide a transition point between qualified drivers and fitters etc and could possibly even be built within the facility to avoid any disputes of non qualified drivers driving on the mainline. Looking at google maps at the Pakenham East facility, at the West end there is a dam with two tracks just to the North that look very unusual in that just before they finish in a dead end they come close together as if there should be a point installed. Earth works also suggest that it was going to be or will be extended so maybe this was there plan all along?

Its a bit of different theory but I personally can't see any reason for a station at Pakenham East and details of the why's and where's seem to be non-existant.
You are correct.

A Metro Station Master has confirmed that the only reason PKE Station is being built is so drivers can get to PKE Depot. I imagine this to be more of a changeover, any remote/automatic shunting will be confined to the depot. Completion is marked for Q1 2023. It does have the added advantage of moving the track work away from Pakenham and I'm sure it will be surrounded by houses a year or so after it is built.

The station its self will most likely sit opposite the Depot to allow easy access for drivers. Where is the question as any new station would need an access road from Oakview Lane or Bald Hill Road. It's quite possible that like most 'Sky Rails' LXRP and Council may be looking to activate the station area with a new park or public plaza. This would make the new PKE Station prime for a large park and ride facility.

Lockie

The release says that 'metropolitan rail track will be extended by two kilometres', meaning from where it currently ends at Pakenham. This puts the new station on the up side of the Freeway.

The platforms are clearly operational only - Level Crossings does not want to build crossovers on the viaducts, and Metro wants somewhere to turn back the HCMTs without V/Line interference. Given that involves some track amplification, don't expect it to be any longer than it needs to be to save money.

There has never been any mention in any planning documents about a Pakenham East station, and the Pakenham East plan shared was done with no idea it was on the cards.

Really this is just another aspect of putting something that should be part of the Metro Tunnel project off to another authority to keep the books as light as possible. The real question is why Level Crossings aren't taking the same opportunity at Sunbury to try and remove some of the V/Line conflict there.
TOQ-1
It's not required at Sunbury as the location of the sidings makes it easy for Metro trains to shunt out of the way of those run by V/Line. The location of the sidings at Pakenham makes this move a lot more complex.

Sponsored advertisement

  Lockie91 Assistant Commissioner

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
It might look good, but is it actually good?

The question is why the need for a station at Pakenham East? They'd be mad to build it on the down side of the entrance of the Pakenham East maintenance facility as it would require unnecessary shunt moves for terminating trains, and then you might as well continue the short distance around the corner to Nar Nar Goon where there's plenty of room for car parking and existing access to the freeway. Its not going to be built on the curve under the freeway which then leaves the only location as just on the UP side of the freeway overpass which is within spitting distance of the existing Pakenham station anyway.

Now anyone with access to google maps can see that on the UP side of the freeway overpass on the North side of the line around Pinehill Drive and Ryan Rd, its all very low density housing and on the South side is small industrial area which isn't going to generate many trips. The large open area on the North side between the railway and the golf course is a reserve and water retarding basin, so that's not going to be developed anytime soon.

So after all that, my theory is that the new Pakenham East station is being built primarily for operational purposes for Metro and the HCMT. This thread from back in 2018  https://www.railpage.com.au/f-p2113207.htm  explains a bit that non-qualified drivers such as fitters can and will be moving trains around the Pakenham East facility and doing preps and so on. The new station would provide a transition point between qualified drivers and fitters etc and could possibly even be built within the facility to avoid any disputes of non qualified drivers driving on the mainline. Looking at google maps at the Pakenham East facility, at the West end there is a dam with two tracks just to the North that look very unusual in that just before they finish in a dead end they come close together as if there should be a point installed. Earth works also suggest that it was going to be or will be extended so maybe this was there plan all along?

Its a bit of different theory but I personally can't see any reason for a station at Pakenham East and details of the why's and where's seem to be non-existant.
You are correct.

A Metro Station Master has confirmed that the only reason PKE Station is being built is so drivers can get to PKE Depot. I imagine this to be more of a changeover, any remote/automatic shunting will be confined to the depot. Completion is marked for Q1 2023. It does have the added advantage of moving the track work away from Pakenham and I'm sure it will be surrounded by houses a year or so after it is built.

The station its self will most likely sit opposite the Depot to allow easy access for drivers. Where is the question as any new station would need an access road from Oakview Lane or Bald Hill Road. It's quite possible that like most 'Sky Rails' LXRP and Council may be looking to activate the station area with a new park or public plaza. This would make the new PKE Station prime for a large park and ride facility.

Lockie

The release says that 'metropolitan rail track will be extended by two kilometres', meaning from where it currently ends at Pakenham. This puts the new station on the up side of the Freeway.

The platforms are clearly operational only - Level Crossings does not want to build crossovers on the viaducts, and Metro wants somewhere to turn back the HCMTs without V/Line interference. Given that involves some track amplification, don't expect it to be any longer than it needs to be to save money.

There has never been any mention in any planning documents about a Pakenham East station, and the Pakenham East plan shared was done with no idea it was on the cards.

Really this is just another aspect of putting something that should be part of the Metro Tunnel project off to another authority to keep the books as light as possible. The real question is why Level Crossings aren't taking the same opportunity at Sunbury to try and remove some of the V/Line conflict there.
It's not required at Sunbury as the location of the sidings makes it easy for Metro trains to shunt out of the way of those run by V/Line. The location of the sidings at Pakenham makes this move a lot more complex.
railblogger
With 'Sky Rail' the chosen solution, current stabling at Pakenham will be removed. 30 plus roads at Pakenham East, there is no need to keep a couple at Pakenham.

Pakenham East, as mentioned, is operational. Firstly, this is to allow access to crew facilities and change overs for drivers at the PKE depot. More importantly it moves all the complicated track work back to ground level. LXRA didn't want to be putting crossovers and diverges 8m in the air. It will cost a fraction to have the same track work 2km further away.

As for Sunbury there is no operational conflict, DoT continues to allow V/line services to stop here due the the public 'backlash' hanging around from the original sparking. Current track work allows the bidirectional centre track to be used by V/line to bypass stationary EMU's. SLU work notices indicate the centre track at Sunbury is being extended towards the city, giving V/line an even clearer run through the station.

Lockie
  Heihachi_73 Chief Commissioner

Location: Terminating at Ringwood
What exactly was the point of replacing the rails on the up line at Mooroolbark last week? Couldn't they wait for 2-3 months for the entire thing to be demolished, or was it another "under the carpet" blank cheque for Metro and/or its contractors to make while the government wasn't looking? I bet those brand new rails, installed on the 17th-18th, will go straight to the scrapyard just like the Heatherdale tracks were (which were renewed in 2013, upgraded to concrete sleepers, and the whole lot removed when the station was trenched).

Edit for clarity and when the station is skyrailed: The new rails were installed in the pit at platform 1 between the down crossover and Manchester Rd. $$$$$$$$$$
  railblogger Chief Commissioner

Location: At the back of the train, quitely doing exactly what you'd expect.
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
It might look good, but is it actually good?

The question is why the need for a station at Pakenham East? They'd be mad to build it on the down side of the entrance of the Pakenham East maintenance facility as it would require unnecessary shunt moves for terminating trains, and then you might as well continue the short distance around the corner to Nar Nar Goon where there's plenty of room for car parking and existing access to the freeway. Its not going to be built on the curve under the freeway which then leaves the only location as just on the UP side of the freeway overpass which is within spitting distance of the existing Pakenham station anyway.

Now anyone with access to google maps can see that on the UP side of the freeway overpass on the North side of the line around Pinehill Drive and Ryan Rd, its all very low density housing and on the South side is small industrial area which isn't going to generate many trips. The large open area on the North side between the railway and the golf course is a reserve and water retarding basin, so that's not going to be developed anytime soon.

So after all that, my theory is that the new Pakenham East station is being built primarily for operational purposes for Metro and the HCMT. This thread from back in 2018  https://www.railpage.com.au/f-p2113207.htm  explains a bit that non-qualified drivers such as fitters can and will be moving trains around the Pakenham East facility and doing preps and so on. The new station would provide a transition point between qualified drivers and fitters etc and could possibly even be built within the facility to avoid any disputes of non qualified drivers driving on the mainline. Looking at google maps at the Pakenham East facility, at the West end there is a dam with two tracks just to the North that look very unusual in that just before they finish in a dead end they come close together as if there should be a point installed. Earth works also suggest that it was going to be or will be extended so maybe this was there plan all along?

Its a bit of different theory but I personally can't see any reason for a station at Pakenham East and details of the why's and where's seem to be non-existant.
You are correct.

A Metro Station Master has confirmed that the only reason PKE Station is being built is so drivers can get to PKE Depot. I imagine this to be more of a changeover, any remote/automatic shunting will be confined to the depot. Completion is marked for Q1 2023. It does have the added advantage of moving the track work away from Pakenham and I'm sure it will be surrounded by houses a year or so after it is built.

The station its self will most likely sit opposite the Depot to allow easy access for drivers. Where is the question as any new station would need an access road from Oakview Lane or Bald Hill Road. It's quite possible that like most 'Sky Rails' LXRP and Council may be looking to activate the station area with a new park or public plaza. This would make the new PKE Station prime for a large park and ride facility.

Lockie

The release says that 'metropolitan rail track will be extended by two kilometres', meaning from where it currently ends at Pakenham. This puts the new station on the up side of the Freeway.

The platforms are clearly operational only - Level Crossings does not want to build crossovers on the viaducts, and Metro wants somewhere to turn back the HCMTs without V/Line interference. Given that involves some track amplification, don't expect it to be any longer than it needs to be to save money.

There has never been any mention in any planning documents about a Pakenham East station, and the Pakenham East plan shared was done with no idea it was on the cards.

Really this is just another aspect of putting something that should be part of the Metro Tunnel project off to another authority to keep the books as light as possible. The real question is why Level Crossings aren't taking the same opportunity at Sunbury to try and remove some of the V/Line conflict there.
It's not required at Sunbury as the location of the sidings makes it easy for Metro trains to shunt out of the way of those run by V/Line. The location of the sidings at Pakenham makes this move a lot more complex.
With 'Sky Rail' the chosen solution, current stabling at Pakenham will be removed. 30 plus roads at Pakenham East, there is no need to keep a couple at Pakenham.

Pakenham East, as mentioned, is operational. Firstly, this is to allow access to crew facilities and change overs for drivers at the PKE depot. More importantly it moves all the complicated track work back to ground level. LXRA didn't want to be putting crossovers and diverges 8m in the air. It will cost a fraction to have the same track work 2km further away.

As for Sunbury there is no operational conflict, DoT continues to allow V/line services to stop here due the the public 'backlash' hanging around from the original sparking. Current track work allows the bidirectional centre track to be used by V/line to bypass stationary EMU's. SLU work notices indicate the centre track at Sunbury is being extended towards the city, giving V/line an even clearer run through the station.

Lockie
Lockie91
DOT/PTV never proposed removing Sunbury from the V/Line network completely. The backlash came because the station would have faced the same stop restrictions as other V/Line stops in the metropolitan area.
  Lockie91 Assistant Commissioner

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
It might look good, but is it actually good?

The question is why the need for a station at Pakenham East? They'd be mad to build it on the down side of the entrance of the Pakenham East maintenance facility as it would require unnecessary shunt moves for terminating trains, and then you might as well continue the short distance around the corner to Nar Nar Goon where there's plenty of room for car parking and existing access to the freeway. Its not going to be built on the curve under the freeway which then leaves the only location as just on the UP side of the freeway overpass which is within spitting distance of the existing Pakenham station anyway.

Now anyone with access to google maps can see that on the UP side of the freeway overpass on the North side of the line around Pinehill Drive and Ryan Rd, its all very low density housing and on the South side is small industrial area which isn't going to generate many trips. The large open area on the North side between the railway and the golf course is a reserve and water retarding basin, so that's not going to be developed anytime soon.

So after all that, my theory is that the new Pakenham East station is being built primarily for operational purposes for Metro and the HCMT. This thread from back in 2018  https://www.railpage.com.au/f-p2113207.htm  explains a bit that non-qualified drivers such as fitters can and will be moving trains around the Pakenham East facility and doing preps and so on. The new station would provide a transition point between qualified drivers and fitters etc and could possibly even be built within the facility to avoid any disputes of non qualified drivers driving on the mainline. Looking at google maps at the Pakenham East facility, at the West end there is a dam with two tracks just to the North that look very unusual in that just before they finish in a dead end they come close together as if there should be a point installed. Earth works also suggest that it was going to be or will be extended so maybe this was there plan all along?

Its a bit of different theory but I personally can't see any reason for a station at Pakenham East and details of the why's and where's seem to be non-existant.
You are correct.

A Metro Station Master has confirmed that the only reason PKE Station is being built is so drivers can get to PKE Depot. I imagine this to be more of a changeover, any remote/automatic shunting will be confined to the depot. Completion is marked for Q1 2023. It does have the added advantage of moving the track work away from Pakenham and I'm sure it will be surrounded by houses a year or so after it is built.

The station its self will most likely sit opposite the Depot to allow easy access for drivers. Where is the question as any new station would need an access road from Oakview Lane or Bald Hill Road. It's quite possible that like most 'Sky Rails' LXRP and Council may be looking to activate the station area with a new park or public plaza. This would make the new PKE Station prime for a large park and ride facility.

Lockie

The release says that 'metropolitan rail track will be extended by two kilometres', meaning from where it currently ends at Pakenham. This puts the new station on the up side of the Freeway.

The platforms are clearly operational only - Level Crossings does not want to build crossovers on the viaducts, and Metro wants somewhere to turn back the HCMTs without V/Line interference. Given that involves some track amplification, don't expect it to be any longer than it needs to be to save money.

There has never been any mention in any planning documents about a Pakenham East station, and the Pakenham East plan shared was done with no idea it was on the cards.

Really this is just another aspect of putting something that should be part of the Metro Tunnel project off to another authority to keep the books as light as possible. The real question is why Level Crossings aren't taking the same opportunity at Sunbury to try and remove some of the V/Line conflict there.
It's not required at Sunbury as the location of the sidings makes it easy for Metro trains to shunt out of the way of those run by V/Line. The location of the sidings at Pakenham makes this move a lot more complex.
With 'Sky Rail' the chosen solution, current stabling at Pakenham will be removed. 30 plus roads at Pakenham East, there is no need to keep a couple at Pakenham.

Pakenham East, as mentioned, is operational. Firstly, this is to allow access to crew facilities and change overs for drivers at the PKE depot. More importantly it moves all the complicated track work back to ground level. LXRA didn't want to be putting crossovers and diverges 8m in the air. It will cost a fraction to have the same track work 2km further away.

As for Sunbury there is no operational conflict, DoT continues to allow V/line services to stop here due the the public 'backlash' hanging around from the original sparking. Current track work allows the bidirectional centre track to be used by V/line to bypass stationary EMU's. SLU work notices indicate the centre track at Sunbury is being extended towards the city, giving V/line an even clearer run through the station.

Lockie
DOT/PTV never proposed removing Sunbury from the V/Line network completely. The backlash came because the station would have faced the same stop restrictions as other V/Line stops in the metropolitan area.
railblogger
When Sunbury was first sparked it did face these restrictions, with all weekday V/Line services 'setting down' at Sunbury. Only one or two peak services expressed through the station. The locals complained that they didn't want to ride 'dirty, crime filled' Metro services, even going as far to say that the new services would bring a crime wave to the area. The Government gave in and the current arrangement of all but a few peak services now stop to pick up passengers in Sunbury. There is roughly 6 services each peak that express Sunbury and stop at Watergardens or express to Footscray.
Pre Pandemic this was not sustainable, with Sunbury Pax crush loading several V/Line peak services to the horror of commuters from the country.

The new timetable being introduced removes another two V/line services from stopping at Sunbury, with these now setting down at Watergardens instead. Already there has been an angry article in the local rag about the 'Loss of V/Line trains for Sunbury Commuters' Never mind that Sunbury will have services every 10 minutes during the peak.

Watergardens is better set up to handle V/Line services setting down during the peak with its third platform. I can see this happening more often once MM1 opens.

Lockie
  railblogger Chief Commissioner

Location: At the back of the train, quitely doing exactly what you'd expect.
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
It might look good, but is it actually good?

The question is why the need for a station at Pakenham East? They'd be mad to build it on the down side of the entrance of the Pakenham East maintenance facility as it would require unnecessary shunt moves for terminating trains, and then you might as well continue the short distance around the corner to Nar Nar Goon where there's plenty of room for car parking and existing access to the freeway. Its not going to be built on the curve under the freeway which then leaves the only location as just on the UP side of the freeway overpass which is within spitting distance of the existing Pakenham station anyway.

Now anyone with access to google maps can see that on the UP side of the freeway overpass on the North side of the line around Pinehill Drive and Ryan Rd, its all very low density housing and on the South side is small industrial area which isn't going to generate many trips. The large open area on the North side between the railway and the golf course is a reserve and water retarding basin, so that's not going to be developed anytime soon.

So after all that, my theory is that the new Pakenham East station is being built primarily for operational purposes for Metro and the HCMT. This thread from back in 2018  https://www.railpage.com.au/f-p2113207.htm  explains a bit that non-qualified drivers such as fitters can and will be moving trains around the Pakenham East facility and doing preps and so on. The new station would provide a transition point between qualified drivers and fitters etc and could possibly even be built within the facility to avoid any disputes of non qualified drivers driving on the mainline. Looking at google maps at the Pakenham East facility, at the West end there is a dam with two tracks just to the North that look very unusual in that just before they finish in a dead end they come close together as if there should be a point installed. Earth works also suggest that it was going to be or will be extended so maybe this was there plan all along?

Its a bit of different theory but I personally can't see any reason for a station at Pakenham East and details of the why's and where's seem to be non-existant.
You are correct.

A Metro Station Master has confirmed that the only reason PKE Station is being built is so drivers can get to PKE Depot. I imagine this to be more of a changeover, any remote/automatic shunting will be confined to the depot. Completion is marked for Q1 2023. It does have the added advantage of moving the track work away from Pakenham and I'm sure it will be surrounded by houses a year or so after it is built.

The station its self will most likely sit opposite the Depot to allow easy access for drivers. Where is the question as any new station would need an access road from Oakview Lane or Bald Hill Road. It's quite possible that like most 'Sky Rails' LXRP and Council may be looking to activate the station area with a new park or public plaza. This would make the new PKE Station prime for a large park and ride facility.

Lockie

The release says that 'metropolitan rail track will be extended by two kilometres', meaning from where it currently ends at Pakenham. This puts the new station on the up side of the Freeway.

The platforms are clearly operational only - Level Crossings does not want to build crossovers on the viaducts, and Metro wants somewhere to turn back the HCMTs without V/Line interference. Given that involves some track amplification, don't expect it to be any longer than it needs to be to save money.

There has never been any mention in any planning documents about a Pakenham East station, and the Pakenham East plan shared was done with no idea it was on the cards.

Really this is just another aspect of putting something that should be part of the Metro Tunnel project off to another authority to keep the books as light as possible. The real question is why Level Crossings aren't taking the same opportunity at Sunbury to try and remove some of the V/Line conflict there.
It's not required at Sunbury as the location of the sidings makes it easy for Metro trains to shunt out of the way of those run by V/Line. The location of the sidings at Pakenham makes this move a lot more complex.
With 'Sky Rail' the chosen solution, current stabling at Pakenham will be removed. 30 plus roads at Pakenham East, there is no need to keep a couple at Pakenham.

Pakenham East, as mentioned, is operational. Firstly, this is to allow access to crew facilities and change overs for drivers at the PKE depot. More importantly it moves all the complicated track work back to ground level. LXRA didn't want to be putting crossovers and diverges 8m in the air. It will cost a fraction to have the same track work 2km further away.

As for Sunbury there is no operational conflict, DoT continues to allow V/line services to stop here due the the public 'backlash' hanging around from the original sparking. Current track work allows the bidirectional centre track to be used by V/line to bypass stationary EMU's. SLU work notices indicate the centre track at Sunbury is being extended towards the city, giving V/line an even clearer run through the station.

Lockie
DOT/PTV never proposed removing Sunbury from the V/Line network completely. The backlash came because the station would have faced the same stop restrictions as other V/Line stops in the metropolitan area.
When Sunbury was first sparked it did face these restrictions, with all weekday V/Line services 'setting down' at Sunbury. Only one or two peak services expressed through the station. The locals complained that they didn't want to ride 'dirty, crime filled' Metro services, even going as far to say that the new services would bring a crime wave to the area. The Government gave in and the current arrangement of all but a few peak services now stop to pick up passengers in Sunbury. There is roughly 6 services each peak that express Sunbury and stop at Watergardens or express to Footscray.
Pre Pandemic this was not sustainable, with Sunbury Pax crush loading several V/Line peak services to the horror of commuters from the country.

The new timetable being introduced removes another two V/line services from stopping at Sunbury, with these now setting down at Watergardens instead. Already there has been an angry article in the local rag about the 'Loss of V/Line trains for Sunbury Commuters' Never mind that Sunbury will have services every 10 minutes during the peak.

Watergardens is better set up to handle V/Line services setting down during the peak with its third platform. I can see this happening more often once MM1 opens.

Lockie
Lockie91
Interesting insight. I'm just picturing the outcry...
  Galron Chief Commissioner

Location: Werribee, Vic
Any chance of sumarising on the long quotes?

Also, new track section over werribee st, werribee remains booked out/not commissioned. May also impact when the SG track over the bridge is commissioned. Taking a stab in the dark that it wont be until they can also close cherry st crossing, which based on whats about to happen over the next 2 months may be March.

For those that missed the memo, there was a safety related incident at Cherry St in Late November/early December where a SG train went through the crossing without the booms and bells operating. This is now the subject of an ATSB inquiry. Axle Counters where hurriedly installed and configured for the crossing on defiantly the BG, and the SG as well at a guess. Traffic Flagman have been on all the local crossings 24/7 since.

Local road closures have been advertised 4 Jan to End Feb to reconstruct the Tarneit Rd and Railway Ave intersection. Imagine they will also do the remainder of the road on the overpass, as well as the Princess Highway/Wattle Ave/New Tareneit rd intersection next to Wyndham City council offices, thus finishing the roadworks, and probably closing the Cherry st crossing

Also, it looks like the LXRA have taken possession of the Monte Villa motel, with construction fencing going up just before Christmas. Imagine demolition to commence shortly. This will make way for the new roadway/crossing so as to close the old Melbourne rd crossing at Hoppers Crossing.

The framework for the concrete abutments for this bridge at hoppers crossing have started to be constructed.
  Upven Junior Train Controller

Does anyone know if the railway bridge over Mooroolbark Road is being replaced as part of the removal?
  Heihachi_73 Chief Commissioner

Location: Terminating at Ringwood
Probably not, unless they're actually going to bother duplicating the line. That said, it would be a waste of money if Mooroolbark to Lilydale was duplicated but not the Belgrave line where the real bottleneck is. Ferntree Gully is not a terminus, yet it's where the double track ends.
  Madjikthise Deputy Commissioner

It would make sense to duplicate to Lilydale while all the equipment is on site and there's nothing in the way, and the line will be closed for a while, that's why it's not being done.
  kitchgp Chief Commissioner

Only Manchester Road (Mooroolbark) and Maroondah Highway (Lilydale) are on the list:
https://levelcrossings.vic.gov.au/projects

As mentioned before, the LXRP is only about removing level-crossings, however, as both designs are dual-track, there is nothing that would impede future duplication.

PS: Cave Hill Road/Melba Avenue remains, but it doesn't get much traffic and, while it remains single-track, it will have a low hourly train movement rate.
  Upven Junior Train Controller

Probably not, unless they're actually going to bother duplicating the line. That said, it would be a waste of money if Mooroolbark to Lilydale was duplicated but not the Belgrave line where the real bottleneck is. Ferntree Gully is not a terminus, yet it's where the double track ends.
"Heihachi_73"



I think it is the only bridge I know of that has a traffic light and only allows one direction of vehicle travel at a time. My guess is that the Mooroolbark/Hull bridge won't be replaced until or when they build "Kinley" station at the former quarry

  ngarner Deputy Commissioner

Location: Seville



I think it is the only bridge I know of that has a traffic light and only allows one direction of vehicle travel at a time. My guess is that the Mooroolbark/Hull bridge won't be replaced until or when they build "Kinley" station at the former quarry

Upven
Having a traffic light still doesn't stop people from going against the flow of traffic, against the lights; seen it more than once there, which is a worry when you look at the narrowness of the roadway.

Neil
  Madjikthise Deputy Commissioner

I've seen people stop under the bridge and wonder why people are driving at them. I've also seen people stop way short of the line, so much so that they don't activate the lights and someone had to knock on their window.
  LeroyW Junior Train Controller

Location: Awaiting MM2
They just need a sign like this to terrify drivers:



Came across one of these while driving in the UK and did a double or nearly triple take. Cute way of saying "the road is two-way but maybe not quite wide enough for two cars, so good luck!!" Laughing
  Heihachi_73 Chief Commissioner

Location: Terminating at Ringwood
Two-way roads the width of one-and-a-half cars is standard issue in regional UK and Europe though. Complete with 60 mph speed limits. Smile
  Lad_Porter Chief Commissioner

Location: Yarra Glen
Only Manchester Road (Mooroolbark) and Maroondah Highway (Lilydale) are on the list:
https://levelcrossings.vic.gov.au/projects

As mentioned before, the LXRP is only about removing level-crossings, however, as both designs are dual-track, there is nothing that would impede future duplication.

PS: Cave Hill Road/Melba Avenue remains, but it doesn't get much traffic and, while it remains single-track, it will have a low hourly train movement rate.
kitchgp
Even with a single track, there is the potential for a train every 20 minutes in each direction, as happens now at weekends.  That's an average of a train every 10 minutes, not counting any additional peak hour movements.  The low volume of road traffic at that crossing could not (yet) justify removal anyway;  however, there is supposedly a long term plan for diversion of the Maroondah Highway through that area so as to bypass the Lilydale CBD.
  Carnot Minister for Railways
  kitchgp Chief Commissioner

..........however, there is supposedly a long term plan for diversion of the Maroondah Highway through that area so as to bypass the Lilydale CBD.
Lad_Porter

The Lilydale Town Centre Bypass has been discussed for many years. So much so that the Lilydale & District Historical Society has a webpage on it:
https://lilydalehistorical.com.au/lilydale-bypass-lilydale-district-historical-society/

To quote from a 2006 media release from the then Opposition Leader, Ted Bailleau:
……………………………
The 1.2-1.5km bypass would be constructed within the first term of a Liberal Government along the route currently set out on Melways Map 38, west of Anderson Street behind the shops to Maroondah Highway.
……………………………


It’s still just a dotted line on Melways, although it appears it is up again for discussion at Yarra Ranges Council.

Terrain will be a problem for the proposed route. The current climb out of Lilydale to the point where the bypass would meet Maroondah Highway is about 1 in 17 (6%). To achieve the same gradient, the bypass would have to start climbing from about Hutchinson Street, requiring some form of elevation. To achieve a gradient of 1 in 20 (5%) or less would require the whole bypass to be elevated from Anderson Street. Either way, connecting Cave Hill Road to the bypass to cross the railway line would be a problem. The bypass proposal appears to show the bypass crossing on a bridge and the level-crossing retained. As the low bridge at John Street will be removed, closing the crossing might be an option.
https://lilydalehistorical.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/RCA-Lilydale-By-pass-brochure-1988-sml.pdf
  Lad_Porter Chief Commissioner

Location: Yarra Glen
Thanks kitchgp, well thought out and those two links are very interesting.  Probably just of academic interest though?  I wonder how the locals would react to what you describe?
  trainbrain Chief Commissioner

..........however, there is supposedly a long term plan for diversion of the Maroondah Highway through that area so as to bypass the Lilydale CBD.

The Lilydale Town Centre Bypass has been discussed for many years. So much so that the Lilydale & District Historical Society has a webpage on it:
https://lilydalehistorical.com.au/lilydale-bypass-lilydale-district-historical-society/

To quote from a 2006 media release from the then Opposition Leader, Ted Bailleau:
……………………………
The 1.2-1.5km bypass would be constructed within the first term of a Liberal Government along the route currently set out on Melways Map 38, west of Anderson Street behind the shops to Maroondah Highway.
……………………………


It’s still just a dotted line on Melways, although it appears it is up again for discussion at Yarra Ranges Council.

Terrain will be a problem for the proposed route. The current climb out of Lilydale to the point where the bypass would meet Maroondah Highway is about 1 in 17 (6%). To achieve the same gradient, the bypass would have to start climbing from about Hutchinson Street, requiring some form of elevation. To achieve a gradient of 1 in 20 (5%) or less would require the whole bypass to be elevated from Anderson Street. Either way, connecting Cave Hill Road to the bypass to cross the railway line would be a problem. The bypass proposal appears to show the bypass crossing on a bridge and the level-crossing retained. As the low bridge at John Street will be removed, closing the crossing might be an option.
https://lilydalehistorical.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/RCA-Lilydale-By-pass-brochure-1988-sml.pdf
kitchgp
Speaking of a view of the terrain, if one is to visit the Lilydale Market place , there is a wide panoramic view of Lilydale taken from the top of the hill down into Lilydale taken in the early 1900's a magnificent view of Lilydale station. th old crossing at the Maroondah Hwy, follow the dirt oad and just above Anderso St, the original brdge of the Warburton Line.  It also show Lilydale yard full of rolling stock for those times. Of real special interest are the railline to Warburton and Healesville.  The Warby line disappears behing what is now the College.................. It shows the two quarries, Cave Hill and Coldstream, the house of the time  and bukldings of those days. A particular interest is the arrival tripe semaphore signal just near Maroondah Hwy...............I spent nearly an hour looking over it. I will try and get some photos taken..................... well worth a visit.
  True Believers Chief Commissioner

"There are some locations on the Mernda line that are too narrow for us to safely build sections of the rail bridge while trains are operating. To keep you moving while we work, the Mernda line will operate on a single line between Thornbury and Regent stations. Both Flinders Street and Mernda trains will use the one track in this section of the Mernda line. This will be for approximately three months. During this time there will be changes to the Mernda line timetable. We’ll be out with more information closer to the date"
https://levelcrossings.vic.gov.au/media/publications/preston-community-update-december-2020

Interesting to keep the Mernda line operating during the construction of the grade separation works in Preston, by singling the section of line to keep trains running while the rail bridge is under construction, due to the narrow corridor.
  Lockspike Chief Commissioner

"There are some locations on the Mernda line that are too narrow for us to safely build sections of the rail bridge while trains are operating. To keep you moving while we work, the Mernda line will operate on a single line between Thornbury and Regent stations. Both Flinders Street and Mernda trains will use the one track in this section of the Mernda line. This will be for approximately three months. During this time there will be changes to the Mernda line timetable. We’ll be out with more information closer to the date"
https://levelcrossings.vic.gov.au/media/publications/preston-community-update-december-2020

Interesting to keep the Mernda line operating during the construction of the grade separation works in Preston, by singling the section of line to keep trains running while the rail bridge is under construction, due to the narrow corridor.
True Believers
This temporary single line working is to be highly commended.
The concept of maintaining rail SERVICE has been lost.
It is all too easy for modern day rail managers to reach for the phone and order buses.
  TOQ-1 Deputy Commissioner

Location: Power Trainger
That is excellent - I wonder if the experience of installing the temporary turn back on the Upfield Line has informed this and it might become a little more common.

The maintenance facility at Epping and stabling at Mernda might have also informed this.
  Jordy33 Locomotive Fireman

It would be a 2.8km single track section. Considering Mernda Line is one of the most crowded and by that time crowding would likely be back to pre pandemic, they should supplement with additional trams route 11 and 86.

Sponsored advertisement

Display from: