50 level crossings to be removed

 
  bencdw2 Station Staff

It would be interesting as to which crossings (if any) get added to the list after the current pledged ones are done. Crossings like Madden grove Burnley, Glenferrie Road Kooyong and High St Glen Iris possibly, but perhaps others could be added too? Thoughts?

Sponsored advertisement

  Nightfire Minister for Railways

Location: Gippsland
It would be interesting as to which crossings (if any) get added to the list after the current pledged ones are done. Crossings like Madden grove Burnley, Glenferrie Road Kooyong and High St Glen Iris possibly, but perhaps others could be added too? Thoughts?
bencdw2
Probably all the crossings between Caroline Springs and Melton (Including Coburns Road) road congestion Is running off tap In that region with mass urban development South of the railway wanting to access the freeway (North of the railway)
  Valvegear Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Banned
It would be interesting as to which crossings (if any) get added to the list after the current pledged ones are done. Crossings like Madden grove Burnley, Glenferrie Road Kooyong and High St Glen Iris possibly, but perhaps others could be added too? Thoughts?
bencdw2
My initial reaction is that removal of these three would be beneficial; my second thought is that Kooyong and Glen Iris would probably need to be rail under road; both are on the side of hills with shopping centres. Madden Grove has the interchange with Swan Street and probably also should be rail under.
  Djebel Chief Train Controller

It would be interesting as to which crossings (if any) get added to the list after the current pledged ones are done. Crossings like Madden grove Burnley, Glenferrie Road Kooyong and High St Glen Iris possibly, but perhaps others could be added too? Thoughts?
My initial reaction is that removal of these three would be beneficial; my second thought is that Kooyong and Glen Iris would probably need to be rail under road; both are on the side of hills with shopping centres. Madden Grove has the interchange with Swan Street and probably also should be rail under.
Valvegear
How would rail under at Madden Grove fit in with the Burnley sidings?  And the flyover?
  John.Z Deputy Commissioner

Madden Grove can work if they install a turnback over the freeway and the yarra (ie trains from the city which are elevated over Madden Grove descend and once level can turn off into a shunt siding, then reverse back towards the city into the siding). This setup is what they installed at Wyndham Vale station, same thing but in a much tighter space.
  railblogger Chief Commissioner

Location: At the back of the train, quitely doing exactly what you'd expect.
Priority should be tram squares and those crossings on trunk sections of railway.
  historian Chief Commissioner

I'd suspect we'll see a winding down of the program.

But if it continues, the priority is likely to be arterial roads (black and red in Melways) as these would be expected to see a higher amount of road traffic.

As far as I can tell, arterial roads not currently planned for grade separation are:

Primary State Arterial Rds (Black): Brunswick Rd (Jewell); Childs Rd (Epping); Wattletree Rd (Eltham); Main St (Diamond Ck); Riversdale Rd (Riversdale); Madden Gv (Burnley); Glenferrie Rd (Kooyong); High St (Glen Iris); South Rd (Brighton Beach);

Secondary State Arterial Rds (Red): Maidstone Rd (Newport Sth); Gaffney St (Pascoe Vale & Fawkner); Boundary Rd (Fawkner); Barry Rd (Upfield); Normanby Rd (Thornbury); Settlement Rd (Keon Park); Westgarth Rd (Westgarth); Station St (Fairfield); Tooronga Rd (Tooronga), Glen Eira Rd (Ripponlea); Hampton St (Hampton).

Looking at that list, the obvious package is the Glen Waverley line (3 black & 1 red). The other easy one would be Riversdale Rd - that'd get rid of the last tram crossing as well.

Brunswick Rd is probably the busiest of all the rest, but that would probably require grade separating from Jewell to Anstey. A big project. South Rd is an interesting case. It's really not that busy atm, but there's a lot of traffic coming off the new Mordialloc freeway but do they want to encourage it along Beach Rd? It would also be hard to grade separate.

The crossings beyond Eltham don't really see enough trains to be worthwhile. Perhaps Diamond Creek.
  historian Chief Commissioner

It would be interesting as to which crossings (if any) get added to the list after the current pledged ones are done. Crossings like Madden grove Burnley, Glenferrie Road Kooyong and High St Glen Iris possibly, but perhaps others could be added too? Thoughts?
My initial reaction is that removal of these three would be beneficial; my second thought is that Kooyong and Glen Iris would probably need to be rail under road; both are on the side of hills with shopping centres. Madden Grove has the interchange with Swan Street and probably also should be rail under.
How would rail under at Madden Grove fit in with the Burnley sidings?  And the flyover?
Djebel

The obvious solution would be to do road over, and partially elevate Swan St around the intersection. This could be done as there is little property access required.
  historian Chief Commissioner

It would be interesting as to which crossings (if any) get added to the list after the current pledged ones are done. Crossings like Madden grove Burnley, Glenferrie Road Kooyong and High St Glen Iris possibly, but perhaps others could be added too? Thoughts?
Probably all the crossings between Caroline Springs and Melton (Including Coburns Road) road congestion Is running off tap In that region with mass urban development South of the railway wanting to access the freeway (North of the railway)
Nightfire

I'd agree. Particularly between Caroline Springs and Rockbank (Hopkins Rd, Troupes Rd, Leakes Rd) and Ferris Rd (Cobblebank) where there are already large subdivisions going in south of the line.

I'd suspect these would be part of a larger road package in the area (if built in conjunction with freeway interchanges, they'd appear relatively cheap). One advantage would be that this would be preloading the electrification project.
  mike49 Locomotive Driver

South Road has become busier since the Mordialloc freeway opened but most of the additional traffic turns in & out of the Nepean Highway at Moorabbin. The volume of traffic using South Road from there to Brighton Beach hasn't changed significantly & wouldn't in itself justify replacing the level crossing.

It would be an extremely difficult project with the line through Brighton Beach station being on a sharp curve. Hard to see it ever happening.
  bencdw2 Station Staff

I also wonder if crossings like the Highett ones and the Moonee Ponds one would also be worthy of removal- a benefit of doing the two in Highett would mean Frankston is fully separated until Cheltenham (intermediate terminating location in peak hour). Not living in these areas not sure on traffic volumes there.
Macaulay road lx would probably benefit from removal but as discussed earlier would likely to be too difficult.
  railblogger Chief Commissioner

Location: At the back of the train, quitely doing exactly what you'd expect.
South Road could be done by using a curved bridge and shifting the station to the other side of the crossing (at the end of the curve).
  mike49 Locomotive Driver

I also wonder if crossings like the Highett ones and the Moonee Ponds one would also be worthy of removal- a benefit of doing the two in Highett would mean Frankston is fully separated until Cheltenham (intermediate terminating location in peak hour). Not living in these areas not sure on traffic volumes there.
Macaulay road lx would probably benefit from removal but as discussed earlier would likely to be too difficult.
bencdw2
Highett Road & Wickham Road seem to be in the too hard category although arguably Highett Road is the busier of the two. Wickham Road is an odd setup with trains running through the middle of a roundabout, an arrangement also seen at New Street Brighton on the Sandringham line.
  historian Chief Commissioner

I also wonder if crossings like the Highett ones and the Moonee Ponds one would also be worthy of removal- a benefit of doing the two in Highett would mean Frankston is fully separated until Cheltenham (intermediate terminating location in peak hour). Not living in these areas not sure on traffic volumes there.
Macaulay road lx would probably benefit from removal but as discussed earlier would likely to be too difficult.
bencdw2

I don't see the two crossings around Highett as a particular priority. While neither would be a particular challenge, neither is particularly busy. I also don't think 'completism' is a particularly useful criteria either. The Frankston line already has a normal 10 minute service, with trains every 5 minutes in peak. It's highly unlikely that the service frequency will need to be increased any time soon, and there's no problem with level crossing blockages at these crossings at the moment.

Moonee Ponds is a different matter. It probably would benefit from grade separation; the problem here is that it is more difficult to work with. The railway reserve is narrow (probably a legacy of its origin as a private railway) and the station itself is on a curve. The station would have to be relocated south of Puckle St, but there doesn't appear to be the width in the reserve required. You might be able to get away with a Bell solution (build one viaduct while running on the original line, run single track while building the second viaduct and the station on the site of the original line). Cantilever the one platform over the adjacent roadway.
  kitchgp Chief Commissioner

If safety is one of the major benefits of the project, then High Street (Glen Iris) should be high on the list. It's had two major incidents in the last twelve months. The one involving the truck and trailer wouldn't have happened further up the line at Glenferrie Road (Kooyong), had circumstances been the similar.
  Rossco T Chief Train Controller

Location: Camberwell, Victoria
If safety is one of the major benefits of the project, then High Street (Glen Iris) should be high on the list. It's had two major incidents in the last twelve months. The one involving the truck and trailer wouldn't have happened further up the line at Glenferrie Road (Kooyong), had circumstances been the similar.
kitchgp
Agree, I think the wide spacing between the tracks at High Street increases the risk of a car being caught on the crossing.  That and the proximity to the traffic lights at Malvern Road.

Ross
  109portboi Station Staff

If safety is one of the major benefits of the project, then High Street (Glen Iris) should be high on the list. It's had two major incidents in the last twelve months. The one involving the truck and trailer wouldn't have happened further up the line at Glenferrie Road (Kooyong), had circumstances been the similar.
Agree, I think the wide spacing between the tracks at High Street increases the risk of a car being caught on the crossing.  That and the proximity to the traffic lights at Malvern Road.

Ross
Rossco T
... and of course a no-brainer to extend the tram down to the station then as well. While there's road closures going on, may as well do it at the same time.
  Heihachi_73 Chief Commissioner

Location: Terminating at Ringwood
How would rail under at Madden Grove fit in with the Burnley sidings?  And the flyover?
Djebel
A hybrid grade separation (lowered tracks/raised road) would probably be a better solution to allow for an easier grade towards Kooyong. Or trenching the siding with it, similar to how Ringwood will look once Bedford Rd is done (hopefully a concrete wall separates the stabling yard from the trenched Belgrave line, otherwise X'Traps will come in limited-edition rainbow flavour).

Or extending Loyola Grove north and tunneling it under the tracks like Buckley St in Essendon. Did someone say compulsory acquisition? Razz
  justarider Chief Commissioner

Location: Released again, maybe for the last time??
How would rail under at Madden Grove fit in with the Burnley sidings?  And the flyover?

Or extending Loyola Grove north and tunneling it under the tracks like Buckley St in Essendon. Did someone say compulsory acquisition? Razz
Heihachi_73
More like Fitgerald Rd, except the road goes under.
Use the Golf Club car park and probably part of the club house.

When finished, the residents get Loyola Gve back as a local street, and the Golf Club get a new car park and rooms on the now vacant Maddern Gve.
Might even extend a couple of holes. The course is very small.

NOT CHEAP.

cheers
John

PS the course is govt own anyways. Just imagine the locals outrage from people that never set foot on the course.
  railblogger Chief Commissioner

Location: At the back of the train, quitely doing exactly what you'd expect.
Given the existence of the rail flyover I would think a hybrid grade separation would consist of a raised track and lowered road.
  Nightfire Minister for Railways

Location: Gippsland
Given the existence of the rail flyover I would think a hybrid grade separation would consist of a raised track and lowered road.
railblogger
Just stick with a lowered road, 5.4 metres Is the required clearance for a major road, roads can have some pretty heavy grades.
  kitchgp Chief Commissioner

With the right design, the Burnley sidings could be extended to accommodate an additional 2 or 3 6-car sets.
  Carnot Minister for Railways

Josh Bull MP has posted some photos of Gap Rd Sunbury on his Farcebook feed.

Quite a lot happening atm.
  historian Chief Commissioner

The contractors doing the Glenhuntly grade separation hosted a couple of tours today - only outside the worksite, but they did discuss what they are planning. I didn't take any notes, so the following is from (fallible) memory.

The trench is to be similar in construction to those at Ormond/McKinnon/Bentleigh. The central section is to be bored piles, with the shallower extremities driven steel sheeting. I hadn't realised that the concrete bored piles are actually two types: soft and hard which alternate. The soft piles are without reinforcing and are bored/cast first. They then go back and bore the hard (with reinforcing) ones between the soft ones. A crescent shaped section is taken out of each soft pile; this locks all the piles together. The trench is to be watertight due to the high water table in the area. The new Glenhuntly station will be underneath and north of Glen Huntly road to minimise the length of the ramp south of Glen Huntly road. The ramps will be 2.3% and about 350 metres long.

The work up to now has been to relocate services and install intercepter drains. There will be an occupation this weekend. This will relocate the 22kV distribution lines into buried conduit. It will also install a service bridge at Neerim Road. This is a mini buried bridge - essentially a big concrete beam on abutments laid underneath the tracks parallel to Nerrim Road. The beam has conduit cast in it and this will be used to relocate services (e.g. Telstra) running along Neerim Rd. Eventually this service bridge will be incorporated in the main Neerim Rd bridge. They will also demolish some of the buildings to the north of Neerim Rd west of the line; this demolition is necessary to build cable runs west of the future trench.

At the occupation the Down line will be taken out of service to allow piling to commence on the east side of the line. This will start between Glen Huntly and Neerim Roads, and then progress south through the existing station. After that they'll restore the Down line and take the Up line out of use to do the piling work on the west side of the line. During the period of two track operation the current Express trains will be altered to stop all stations.

The current Glen Huntly station will close about a month before the big dig - say around May next year.

The 'big dig' will take about 60 days and will be around this time next year. Unlike Ormond/McKinnon/Bentleigh, the bridges at Glen Huntly Road and Neerim Rd(?) will not be constructed before the big dig; the deck will be constructed during the dig. This is because they couldn't reinstate the tram/rail crossing on the new bridge deck, so it cannot be removed until the crossing is closed for good. The stage work during the dig will be staggered to minimise the time both roads are closed (but I'd expect traffic chaos for the period)
  timboman Beginner

That's a secant pile wall. Better groundwater retention than a contiguous pile wall (small gaps between piles which you shotcrete over - sandy soils), or a soldier pile wall (which has larger gaps between piles with shotcrete arches between piles - clayey soils).

Sponsored advertisement

Display from: