50 level crossings to be removed

 
  DirtyBallast Chief Commissioner

Location: I was here first. You're only visiting.
Good progress is being made on the South Gippsland Hwy project at Dandenong. Since my last journey past there a month ago, temporary road diversions are now in place as well as formwork for a couple of pylons. It is easy to imagine this project being completed ahead of time.

Sponsored advertisement

  ngarner Assistant Commissioner

Location: Seville
Things are starting to get serious on the Lilydale LX removals. A line closure from Ringwood between 11 and 20 December with another, week long, one near the end of summer.

Media release

Neil
  MetroManMelbourne Beginner

Location: Somewhere in Melbourne
They seem to have a hatred of inner city level crossing removals, kensington, macaulay, burnley and kooyong all still have their gates down 4 years after the first was removed. I wonder when they'll finally decide to remove them
  justarider Deputy Commissioner

Location: Free at last, free at last
They seem to have a hatred of inner city level crossing removals, kensington, macaulay, burnley and kooyong all still have their gates down 4 years after the first was removed. I wonder when they'll finally decide to remove them
MetroManMelbourne
Why ?. When the very busy/dangerous/packaging rating warrants.

number 9, 77, 76,75 on the 2008 ALCAM list. thanks Daniel Bowen
https://goo.gl/qFqlHS

With the notable exception of "too hard" Kensington , they are not as pressing as others..
When the announced 75 are done in 2025, then there may be another list.

NB 2 out of the current 4 being opened next week at Coburg didn't rate, but would have been stupid to leave out.

cheers
John
  TOQ-1 Deputy Commissioner

Location: Power Trainger
They seem to have a hatred of inner city level crossing removals, kensington, macaulay, burnley and kooyong all still have their gates down 4 years after the first was removed. I wonder when they'll finally decide to remove them
Why ?. When the very busy/dangerous/packaging rating warrants.

number 9, 77, 76,75 on the 2008 ALCAM list. thanks Daniel Bowen
https://goo.gl/qFqlHS

With the notable exception of "too hard" Kensington , they are not as pressing as others..
When the announced 75 are done in 2025, then there may be another list.

NB 2 out of the current 4 being opened next week at Coburg didn't rate, but would have been stupid to leave out.

cheers
John
justarider
All 4 will probably require significant property acquisition, or claiming of public open space, something that wouldnt be popular

Macauley Rd/Arden St will require some interesting engineering and property acquisition to maybe squeeze in a viaduct adjacent to City Link then get back under for Flemington Bridge. Not too much value in any land that can be sold back, and little value as open space.

Kensington - definitely in the 'too hard' basket because of heritage and siding access.

Burnely - looks relatively 'easy' from above but any road bridge or underpass would require taking over part of the golf course and/or the part to the north, neither of which I'd imagine being popular. Changing the level of the railway I'd imagine isn't practical because of the stabling, bridge over freeway or flyover all in close proximity.
  Adogs Chief Train Controller

Kooyong and Burnley might happen eventually.

Kensington and Macaulay will probably never happen.  Both would be engineering nightmares (for different reasons) and in the case of Macaulay probably straight-out impossible.
  kitchgp Chief Commissioner

Unless it's part of the Kooyong and Higgins pork-barrelling from last year's Federal election. Can't find any money for the MBRP but can come up with $250 - $300 million to dig a trench under Glenferrie Road. Don't mention SkyRail.

https://ministers.treasury.gov.au/ministers/josh-frydenberg-2018/media-releases/congestion-busting-glenferrie-road-level-crossing
  Lockie91 Chief Train Controller

Consultation has started for Glen Huntley removals.

Of insert is the acquisition of nine properties near Queens Ave & Neerim Road to facilitate a trench that contains 4 tracks, one additional then is currently there. The project boundary runs all the way from Caulfield to Ormond Station, with todays media release mentioning track & Signalling upgrades at Caulfield.

So, foamy questions. Will Glen Huntley get a fourth platform to accommodate the extension of the fourth track? Im not even sure what benefit if any this would add. And, What track upgrades are likely around Caulfield?

https://www.premier.vic.gov.au/have-your-say-glen-huntly-level-crossing

Lockie
  duttonbay Minister for Railways

What track upgrades are likely around Caulfield?
Lockie91

There have been discussions about removing all pointwork, so making it like Footscray, two tracks heading left, two tracks heading right, with no flexibility.
  historian Deputy Commissioner

Consultation has started for Glen Huntley removals.

Of insert is the acquisition of nine properties near Queens Ave & Neerim Road to facilitate a trench that contains 4 tracks, one additional then is currently there. The project boundary runs all the way from Caulfield to Ormond Station, with todays media release mentioning track & Signalling upgrades at Caulfield.

So, foamy questions. Will Glen Huntley get a fourth platform to accommodate the extension of the fourth track? Im not even sure what benefit if any this would add. And, What track upgrades are likely around Caulfield?
Lockie91

There are already four tracks from just north of Neerim Rd - the fourth track is the goods refuge track extending into Caulfield.

I read this as confirming that the refuge track will be retained in the grade separation. At the moment the goods refuge is hard up against the property boundry on the western side of the line between Neerim Rd and Lord St. Presumably the properties to be resumed are those on the western side of the line to provide space for the retaining walls.

It's not a cheap area. Each of those properties would probably be around $2 million, and the commercial property even more - so you could be looking at around $20 million. You could recover some of this by reselling the unused land after the project was completed.
  Galron Chief Commissioner

Location: Werribee, Vic
Quick progress update at Werribee St, Werribee.

They have just about finished placing the bridge beams, and with the earth embankments/approaches almost done as well i suspect they will be laying track over the upgraded section in the next 2 weeks.

On target to have the line re-opened by december.
  TOQ-1 Deputy Commissioner

Location: Power Trainger
Consultation has started for Glen Huntley removals.

Of insert is the acquisition of nine properties near Queens Ave & Neerim Road to facilitate a trench that contains 4 tracks, one additional then is currently there. The project boundary runs all the way from Caulfield to Ormond Station, with todays media release mentioning track & Signalling upgrades at Caulfield.

So, foamy questions. Will Glen Huntley get a fourth platform to accommodate the extension of the fourth track? Im not even sure what benefit if any this would add. And, What track upgrades are likely around Caulfield?

https://www.premier.vic.gov.au/have-your-say-glen-huntly-level-crossing

Lockie
Lockie91
Ormond/McKinnon/Bentleigh got very passive provision for a fourth track in that the third platform could be removed to put the fourth one in. I don't really think Glenhuntly would be any different, unless they want the refuge track to be extended further south.
  MetroManMelbourne Beginner

Location: Somewhere in Melbourne
Kooyong and Burnley might happen eventually.

Kensington and Macaulay will probably never happen.  Both would be engineering nightmares (for different reasons) and in the case of Macaulay probably straight-out impossible.
Adogs
I've actually seen a design, but it would definetely be expensive (Macaulay). Kensington i don't get what the issue is
  Gman_86 Chief Commissioner

Location: Melton, where the sparks dare not roam!
You don't get what the issue with Macaulay is?

Citylink is right above it, cancelling out any option involving elevating either the railway line or Macaulay Rd.

You could sink the railway into a trench, but as it is situated right beside the Moonee Ponds Creek, you would be inviting the railway to flood every time there is a slight shower. Yes, there are ways around this, but none of them are perfect either. Just look at the flooding issues that the Ormond trench has caused.

Sinking Macaulay Rd into an underpass that also passes under the creek is one option, but there is not really a lot of space either side of the crossing when you factor in access to important local side roads like Stubbs St for example.

Another option is to just close Macaulay Rd. It is a secondary road, as well as an alternative route for high vehicles that can't use Racecourse Rd, so that option is probably not realistically on the table.

So, you say you have seen a design for Macaulay Rd. Which of the above options did they choose? Blow up the toll road or re-locate a natural water course?

The best option in my mind is to just leave that one as it is.
  Gman_86 Chief Commissioner

Location: Melton, where the sparks dare not roam!
If Kensington is the one you don't see the issue with, I trust you haven't been there.

On one side of the crossing is the station itself, no big deal, on the other side of the road though is the Allied Mills Sidings. These sidings are still used by a few trains per week, carrying a similar amount of wheat as approximately 80 B-Double trucks. If you move elevate or sink the railway, those sidings will need to be closed. Permanently. The locals do not want another 80 B-Double trucks per week in their streets.

As for elevating or sinking the road. Now we get to the bit about where I said you mustn't of been there. The road to the west of the crossing takes a fair incline. Through a local shopping strip. That is very popular with the locals. Locals that don't want their pretty little village atmosphere destroyed by an unsightly road overpass.

And before anybody thinks of comparing Macaulay Rd Kensington with Koornang Rd, Carnegie or Murrumbeena Rd, Murrumbeena etc, don't. They are not the same thing. Those crossings are on flat territory, and there are no local goods sidings that need their connectivity maintained. Meaning that a simple rail overpass was achievable without destroying the local area (despite protests by ignorant anti-skyrail NIMBYs). They are not the same thing.

Again, as with Macaulay, Kensington is best kept as it is for now. There are still plenty of other crossings to keep the LXRA busy.
  Nightfire Minister for Railways

Location: Gippsland
If Kensington is the one you don't see the issue with, I trust you haven't been there.

On one side of the crossing is the station itself, no big deal, on the other side of the road though is the Allied Mills Sidings. These sidings are still used by a few trains per week, carrying a similar amount of wheat as approximately 80 B-Double trucks. If you move elevate or sink the railway, those sidings will need to be closed. Permanently. The locals do not want another 80 B-Double trucks per week in their streets.

As for elevating or sinking the road. Now we get to the bit about where I said you mustn't of been there. The road to the west of the crossing takes a fair incline. Through a local shopping strip. That is very popular with the locals. Locals that don't want their pretty little village atmosphere destroyed by an unsightly road overpass.

And before anybody thinks of comparing Macaulay Rd Kensington with Koornang Rd, Carnegie or Murrumbeena Rd, Murrumbeena etc, don't. They are not the same thing. Those crossings are on flat territory, and there are no local goods sidings that need their connectivity maintained. Meaning that a simple rail overpass was achievable without destroying the local area (despite protests by ignorant anti-skyrail NIMBYs). They are not the same thing.

Gman_86
The only practical way to eliminate this crossing (that would likely to be unpopular) Is to relocate the point where the local through road crosses the railway, like at Smith Street or Arden Street.

This Is how many level crossings In Metropolitan Sydney were eliminated (re-organizing the local Streets around the target level crossing)
  historian Deputy Commissioner

Just look at the flooding issues that the Ormond trench has caused.
Gman_86

The grade separation at Ormond has not caused any local flooding issues. There were a few local residents that thought this, but they were wrong.

Slightly longer answer.

One of the branches of the Elster Creek crosses the railway about half way between Ormond and McKinnon stations. On the eastern side this drains land almost all the way to Carnegie. This land  is steadily becoming more impermeable due to housing densification and so the run-off is increasing, particularly during intense rainstorms. About a decade ago there was a significant flood on the eastern side of the line when the capacity of the section of the drain under the railway proved to have a lower capacity than the drain approaching it.

During the grade separation works, they took the opportunity to replace the culvert under the railway with a one of greater capacity to solve this problem.

Unfortunately, this moved the problem to the next bottleneck downstream in the drain. The result was that in the next intense rainstorm, a couple of months after the grade separation was complete, the area immediately to the east of the railway stayed dry, but the area immediately to the west of the railway flooded.

Melbourne Water has since done work in the Elster Creek drain. They replaced the McKinnon Rd bridge (this was life expired and was being held up by props in the drain). They also put non-return valves in the street drains where the water ran the wrong way.

Ultimately, of course, there's nothing to solve the problem. With increasing run-off (climate change and densification) occasionally the capacity of the Elster Creek drain will be exceeded and it will flood. The flood report is quite clear that significant areas around the Elster Creek drain are subject to 1 in 100 year floods. I'm quite sure that most local residents don't realise this, but if you pay attention, you will note that new build houses are all on 1 metre tall artifical mounds.
  railblogger Chief Commissioner

Location: At the back of the train, quitely doing exactly what you'd expect.
Wasn't it Blackburn where the flooding issues were?
  Heihachi_73 Chief Commissioner

Location: Terminating at Ringwood
I always thought it was Windsor for the past hundred or so years. Smile
  MetroManMelbourne Beginner

Location: Somewhere in Melbourne
You don't get what the issue with Macaulay is?

Citylink is right above it, cancelling out any option involving elevating either the railway line or Macaulay Rd.

You could sink the railway into a trench, but as it is situated right beside the Moonee Ponds Creek, you would be inviting the railway to flood every time there is a slight shower. Yes, there are ways around this, but none of them are perfect either. Just look at the flooding issues that the Ormond trench has caused.

Sinking Macaulay Rd into an underpass that also passes under the creek is one option, but there is not really a lot of space either side of the crossing when you factor in access to important local side roads like Stubbs St for example.

Another option is to just close Macaulay Rd. It is a secondary road, as well as an alternative route for high vehicles that can't use Racecourse Rd, so that option is probably not realistically on the table.

So, you say you have seen a design for Macaulay Rd. Which of the above options did they choose? Blow up the toll road or re-locate a natural water course?

The best option in my mind is to just leave that one as it is.
Gman_86
The design was to put the railway line under and cover it completely, but i do think this would require significant changes to the moonee ponds creek, and this also will likely never happen. Macaulay is probably the hardest crossing to remove in Melbourne.


If Kensington is the one you don't see the issue with, I trust you haven't been there.

On one side of the crossing is the station itself, no big deal, on the other side of the road though is the Allied Mills Sidings. These sidings are still used by a few trains per week, carrying a similar amount of wheat as approximately 80 B-Double trucks. If you move elevate or sink the railway, those sidings will need to be closed. Permanently. The locals do not want another 80 B-Double trucks per week in their streets.

As for elevating or sinking the road. Now we get to the bit about where I said you mustn't of been there. The road to the west of the crossing takes a fair incline. Through a local shopping strip. That is very popular with the locals. Locals that don't want their pretty little village atmosphere destroyed by an unsightly road overpass.

And before anybody thinks of comparing Macaulay Rd Kensington with Koornang Rd, Carnegie or Murrumbeena Rd, Murrumbeena etc, don't. They are not the same thing. Those crossings are on flat territory, and there are no local goods sidings that need their connectivity maintained. Meaning that a simple rail overpass was achievable without destroying the local area (despite protests by ignorant anti-skyrail NIMBYs). They are not the same thing.

Again, as with Macaulay, Kensington is best kept as it is for now. There are still plenty of other crossings to keep the LXRA busy.
Gman_86
I actually haven't been there, and didn't know about those sidings. Well as long as the LXRA keeps removing crossings, i think they are doing what they were meant to, even if they are sometimes removing crossings 40km away from the city. the less level crossings the better
  True Believers Chief Commissioner

This is quite interesting news.

"The Level Crossing Removal Authority (LXRA) is preparing a business case for the removal of the Glenferrie Road, Kooyong and Tooronga Road, Malvern level crossings"

https://www.connectstonnington.vic.gov.au/lxra
  Op Kronos Station Master

This is quite interesting news.

"The Level Crossing Removal Authority (LXRA) is preparing a business case for the removal of the Glenferrie Road, Kooyong and Tooronga Road, Malvern level crossings"

https://www.connectstonnington.vic.gov.au/lxra
True Believers
It also notes that "[the] Council has asked the LXRA to investigate the removal of the level crossing at High Street, Glen Iris."

Here are some of my thoughts on what options might work best at these locations:
  • I think rail under is better at High Street as the line is going down into a trench in the up direction at Burke Road and also goes somewhat downhill towards Darling Station when leaving Glen Iris.
  • Tooronga Road has Gardiner being in a trench past the small pedestrian bridge nearby with the railway line also already being in a shallow cutting both being in the down direction of the station. The ramp for the elevated rail over Toorak Rd is a bit further away than it appears so rail under could work.
  • Glenferrie Road is interesting as the line is on an embarkment in the city direction next to the tennis courts towards a road underpass just as you reach the sports fields of St Kevin's and after that the railway line starts to drop down towards Heyington station. Going under is a bit more difficulty with the embarkment being quite narrow while going over means dealing with having the tram overhead possibly attached to the bottom of the bridge.
  • Both Tooronga and Kooyong stations have curved platforms which need to be built straight in accordance with current regulations so there will have to be some railway line alignment changes I think regardless of what option they choose for those two locations.


At neither of these three locations can I see a road option being feasible due to the layout with shops and side streets being nearby though I am happy to be proven wrong here.
Also, to those wondering why Madden Grove at Burnley near the stabling sidings is not included, the reason is that it falls under a different Council namely the City of Yarra and the news is from the City of Stonnington.
  GloriaKnudson Beginner

If Kensington is the one you don't see the issue with, I trust you haven't been there.

On one side of the crossing is the station itself, no big deal, on the other side of the road though is the Allied Mills Sidings. These sidings are still used by a few trains per week, carrying a similar amount of wheat as approximately 80 B-Double trucks. If you move elevate or sink the railway, those sidings will need to be closed. Permanently. The locals do not want another 80 B-Double trucks per week in their streets.

As for elevating or sinking the road. Now we get to the bit about where I said you mustn't of been there. The road to the west of the crossing takes a fair incline. Through a local shopping strip. That is very popular with the locals. Locals that don't want their pretty little village atmosphere destroyed by an unsightly road overpass.

And before anybody thinks of comparing Macaulay Rd Kensington with Koornang Rd, Carnegie or Murrumbeena Rd, Murrumbeena etc, don't. They are not the same thing. Those crossings are on flat territory, and there are no local goods sidings that need their connectivity maintained. Meaning that a simple rail overpass was achievable without destroying the local area (despite protests by ignorant anti-skyrail NIMBYs). They are not the same thing.

Again, as with Macaulay, Kensington is best kept as it is for now. There are still plenty of other crossings to keep the LXRA busy.
Gman_86
Is it not possible for Allied Mills to relocate and they can sell their existing land for redevelopment?
  railblogger Chief Commissioner

Location: At the back of the train, quitely doing exactly what you'd expect.
If Kensington is the one you don't see the issue with, I trust you haven't been there.

On one side of the crossing is the station itself, no big deal, on the other side of the road though is the Allied Mills Sidings. These sidings are still used by a few trains per week, carrying a similar amount of wheat as approximately 80 B-Double trucks. If you move elevate or sink the railway, those sidings will need to be closed. Permanently. The locals do not want another 80 B-Double trucks per week in their streets.

As for elevating or sinking the road. Now we get to the bit about where I said you mustn't of been there. The road to the west of the crossing takes a fair incline. Through a local shopping strip. That is very popular with the locals. Locals that don't want their pretty little village atmosphere destroyed by an unsightly road overpass.

And before anybody thinks of comparing Macaulay Rd Kensington with Koornang Rd, Carnegie or Murrumbeena Rd, Murrumbeena etc, don't. They are not the same thing. Those crossings are on flat territory, and there are no local goods sidings that need their connectivity maintained. Meaning that a simple rail overpass was achievable without destroying the local area (despite protests by ignorant anti-skyrail NIMBYs). They are not the same thing.

Again, as with Macaulay, Kensington is best kept as it is for now. There are still plenty of other crossings to keep the LXRA busy.
Is it not possible for Allied Mills to relocate and they can sell their existing land for redevelopment?
GloriaKnudson
It's possible, but you'd have to persuade them.
  Obzerva Station Master

Location: #6 / Glen Waverley line
This is quite interesting news.

"The Level Crossing Removal Authority (LXRA) is preparing a business case for the removal of the Glenferrie Road, Kooyong and Tooronga Road, Malvern level crossings"

https://www.connectstonnington.vic.gov.au/lxra
It also notes that "[the] Council has asked the LXRA to investigate the removal of the level crossing at High Street, Glen Iris."

Here are some of my thoughts on what options might work best at these locations:
  • I think rail under is better at High Street as the line is going down into a trench in the up direction at Burke Road and also goes somewhat downhill towards Darling Station when leaving Glen Iris.
  • Tooronga Road has Gardiner being in a trench past the small pedestrian bridge nearby with the railway line also already being in a shallow cutting both being in the down direction of the station. The ramp for the elevated rail over Toorak Rd is a bit further away than it appears so rail under could work.
  • Glenferrie Road is interesting as the line is on an embarkment in the city direction next to the tennis courts towards a road underpass just as you reach the sports fields of St Kevin's and after that the railway line starts to drop down towards Heyington station. Going under is a bit more difficulty with the embarkment being quite narrow while going over means dealing with having the tram overhead possibly attached to the bottom of the bridge.
  • Both Tooronga and Kooyong stations have curved platforms which need to be built straight in accordance with current regulations so there will have to be some railway line alignment changes I think regardless of what option they choose for those two locations.


At neither of these three locations can I see a road option being feasible due to the layout with shops and side streets being nearby though I am happy to be proven wrong here.
Also, to those wondering why Madden Grove at Burnley near the stabling sidings is not included, the reason is that it falls under a different Council namely the City of Yarra and the news is from the City of Stonnington.
Op Kronos

Agree with your point re High St, Glen Iris better for rail under, that would also assist if was ever decided to extend the #6 tram further than it's current terminus.

Sponsored advertisement

Display from: