Sky rail for Pakenham Cranbourne line outlined

 
Topic moved from News by bevans on 13 Jan 2016 16:51
  The Vinelander Minister for Railways

Location: Ballan, Victoria on the Ballarat RFR Line

Incidentally, the traffic at what was Clayton Rd LX is now as bad if not worse than it was then the LX was in place due to the necessary but awfully time-consuming roadworks going on to remove the rails. It's one lane each way, traffic was banked back well over the hill towards the Medical Centre and down past Centre Road the other way. It'll improve when they're done I know, but prime fodder for nay-sayers to turn up and point and shout about it.
raudteejaam

People like to have a whinge...in the overall scheme of things those old rails are probably already gone.

M.

Sponsored advertisement

  Myrtone Chief Commissioner

Location: North Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria
I'm glad they ditched the monorail concept In favor of trams on their own right of way light rail (with traffic light priority)
Nightfire
But a monorail if built, would be above ground, directly above existing traffic lanes. And monorails wouldn't need traffic light priority, being grade separated.
And with or without traffic light priority, there is a limit to the number of trams that can cross per minute. Without traffic light priority, it is limited by cycle. With traffic light priority for trams, the limit is on the acceptable vehicle frequency, just like level crossings with heavy rail.

The system works extremely well and well used (though they need to put a local shuttle on the Southport - Surfer Paradise section where passenger loading Is very high)
Nightfire
Like grade separated heavy rail, mass transit monorails like the one pictured above have higher capacity than street running light rail, the train frequency is limited only by other factors.
Any idea how well mass transit monorails overseas work.
  potatoinmymouth Chief Commissioner

There are not a lot of mass transit monorails for us to analyse. I wonder why that could be?¿?¿
  Myrtone Chief Commissioner

Location: North Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria
There's the Kuala Lumpur Monorail for one. And there are lots of mass transit monorails in Japan.
  Nightfire Minister for Railways

Location: Gippsland
I'm glad they ditched the monorail concept In favor of trams on their own right of way light rail (with traffic light priority)
But a monorail if built, would be above ground, directly above existing traffic lanes. And monorails wouldn't need traffic light priority, being grade separated.
And with or without traffic light priority, there is a limit to the number of trams that can cross per minute. Without traffic light priority, it is limited by cycle. With traffic light priority for trams, the limit is on the acceptable vehicle frequency, just like level crossings with heavy rail.

Myrtone
Well I don't think the Gold Coast Is ever going to need Swanston Street (Melbourne) like frequencies !

The trams clear the road Intersections quickly (other traffic light turning modes are used when a tram Is approaching)
  Myrtone Chief Commissioner

Location: North Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria
Even so, Gold Coast's modern image is well suited to monorail. Monorail beams can also be built with less disruption than what comes with laying of tram tracks in a street. Mass transit monorails exist in quite a few cities similar to the Gold Coast.

EDIT: See this big image. Note the T-intersection where a right turn into the trunk is not permitted. If there were a monorail here instead of light rail, there would be room for a right turn lane.
  Nightfire Minister for Railways

Location: Gippsland
Even so, Gold Coast's modern image is well suited to monorail. Monorail beams can also be built with less disruption than what comes with laying of tram tracks in a street. Mass transit monorails exist in quite a few cities similar to the Gold Coast.

EDIT: See this big image. Note the T-intersection where a right turn into the trunk is not permitted. If there were a monorail here instead of light rail, there would be room for a right turn lane.
Myrtone
The trams are much more accessible, being low floor with low platform stops (no staircases or lifts for people to contend with)

The trams are there In your face, gliding past shops and hotels, (that attracts people to them) and show passengers what shops they may want to get off and visit.

Surfers Paradise Boulevard Is now mostly a one way street for cars with no street parking, It's far from a dead zone (full of people and attractions)


Monorails are getting pulled down all over the world, their an Inflexible gimmick  ! they may work ok at Seaworld and other amusement parks.


This Is way off subject !
  The Vinelander Minister for Railways

Location: Ballan, Victoria on the Ballarat RFR Line
There's the Kuala Lumpa Monorail for one.
Myrtone

Don't you just love bleedingly obvious spelling errors..Question

....like I CBF looking up the correct spelling...Cool
  jakar Assistant Commissioner

Location: Melbourne
I love how everyone has completely ignored what John.Z has said which was:

There is no reason as to why the pillars could not have been designed similar to this allowing for two tracks per pillar, even if it were in the future.
John.Z
instead everyone has seen a picture of a monorail and got themselves all in a tizz.

He hasn't said build them exactly the same as what was in the image, but of a similar design which allows for two tracks on the one pillar. I absolutely agree. When (not if) the extra tracks are built we are going to end up with a ridiculous situation of each track being supported by its own pillars. Not only does this take up more space at ground level but will ultimately cost a lot more. Clearly the geniuses tasked to design the bridge sections did not care (or were told not to care) about future upgrades.
  Myrtone Chief Commissioner

Location: North Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria
The trams are much more accessible, being low floor with low platform stops (no staircases or lifts for people to contend with)
Nightfire
Level boarding to monorail vehicles is standard, and it always has been. All the monorails in Japan have always had platforms the same height as the train floors, as have Seattle, Disneyland and Disney World monorails. Those three in the U.S.A, and Tokyo-Haneda monorail all date from a time when low on conventional rail vehicles wasn't yet a thing, all trams in the world were high floor. Level boarding to light rail vehicles did not yet exist.

The trams are there In your face, gliding past shops and hotels, (that attracts people to them) and show passengers what shops they may want to get off and visit.
Nightfire
Monorail trains also pass taller buildings, but not the ground floor of those buildings, but higher floors. Level access to monorail stations from such buildings is possible. Access to a monorail station is otherwise no different from access to a heavy metro station.

Monorails are getting pulled down all over the world, their an Inflexible gimmick  ! they may work ok at Seaworld and other amusement parks.
Nightfire
Not mass transit monorails. Most mass transit monorails that have ever been built still operate today. And I really mean mass transit grade monorails (with walk-through trains), not theme park grade ones. And they are no less flexible than conventional heavy rail.
  TheMeddlingMonk Deputy Commissioner

Location: The Time Vortex near Melbourne, Australia
I love how everyone has completely ignored what John.Z has said which was:

There is no reason as to why the pillars could not have been designed similar to this allowing for two tracks per pillar, even if it were in the future.
instead everyone has seen a picture of a monorail and got themselves all in a tizz.

He hasn't said build them exactly the same as what was in the image, but of a similar design which allows for two tracks on the one pillar. I absolutely agree. When (not if) the extra tracks are built we are going to end up with a ridiculous situation of each track being supported by its own pillars. Not only does this take up more space at ground level but will ultimately cost a lot more. Clearly the geniuses tasked to design the bridge sections did not care (or were told not to care) about future upgrades.
jakar

There's a short section near Centre Rd where the two tracks are supported on a single pillar (due to space constraints, I suspect). I have to wonder why this design wasn't used for the majority of the elevated rail?
  BrentonGolding Chief Commissioner

Location: Maldon Junction
There's the Kuala Lumpa Monorail for one.

Don't you just love bleedingly obvious spelling errors..Question

....like I CBF looking up the correct spelling...Cool
The Vinelander
It's the world we live in Mike.

Like it or Lumpur it!

BG
  jakar Assistant Commissioner

Location: Melbourne
I have to wonder why this design wasn't used for the majority of the elevated rail?
TheMeddlingMonk
I've no doubt it wouldn't have been fun building over an existing line, but IMO they've taken the easy, and most likely cheapest option. An arched pillar design straddling the existing tracks would have made adding bridge sections a lot cheaper and easier in the future. It also would have allowed double track bridge sections to be installed (splitting to singles near platforms if absolutely required) and therefore saving valuable space by being able to remove two of the walkways and concrete edging etc that exists on the 'inside' of each single track bridge section.

I think i've said it before, but this could have been such a great a news story for the government if it was done properly and there were significant time savings etc, but i've no doubt we'll look back at it in years to come (if we're not already doing so) and viewing it as a huge wasted opportunity and a waste of money.
  Nightfire Minister for Railways

Location: Gippsland
I have to wonder why this design wasn't used for the majority of the elevated rail?
I've no doubt it wouldn't have been fun building over an existing line, but IMO they've taken the easy, and most likely cheapest option. An arched pillar design straddling the existing tracks would have made adding bridge sections a lot cheaper and easier in the future. It also would have allowed double track bridge sections to be installed (splitting to singles near platforms if absolutely required) and therefore saving valuable space by being able to remove two of the walkways and concrete edging etc that exists on the 'inside' of each single track bridge section.

I think i've said it before, but this could have been such a great a news story for the government if it was done properly and there were significant time savings etc, but i've no doubt we'll look back at it in years to come (if we're not already doing so) and viewing it as a huge wasted opportunity and a waste of money.
jakar
Ruled out due to excessive shadowing (Caulfield to Oakleigh)
  John.Z Chief Train Controller

Jakar, thank you for READING what I wrote instead of insinuating. I could not find a picture of what I know is at clayton (thanks the medelling monk for backing me up on that). It just seems so short sighted, even just building the stations (where there is room), with four tracks in mind within the station structure (either two side platforms with room for two middle tracks, or the room for an additional track on the outside within the shell). But that's your tax dollars at hard bureaucratic work for you.....
  Nightfire Minister for Railways

Location: Gippsland
Jakar, thank you for READING what I wrote instead of insinuating. I could not find a picture of what I know is at clayton (thanks the medelling monk for backing me up on that). It just seems so short sighted, even just building the stations (where there is room), with four tracks in mind within the station structure (either two side platforms with room for two middle tracks, or the room for an additional track on the outside within the shell). But that's your tax dollars at hard bureaucratic work for you.....
John.Z
The Caulfield - Oakliegh corridor was just too narrow to do anything more than what they came up with.

There Is Insufficient room down the middle, to accommodate 2 extra tracks (neighboring residents are screaming that the outer edge of the viaduct Is only about 200 mm clear of their back fences) the Inside edge of the viaducts overlapped the original ground level tracks (the emergency / maintenance catwalks each side of the viaducts chew up a bit of room)

Plus distance was designed between the two single track viaducts to mitigate the overshadowing problems on the proposed liner park (running underneath / between the viaducts) and neighboring residents properties.

If you want to have a look at the effects of overshadowing, look under elevated sections of freeway, like the Monash, West Gate, Tullamarine, etc where their a 30-40 metre wide viaduct, with no gap In the middle (funny the No Skyrails home page clearly has a background picture of underneath a freeway, the engineering design Is to light too be a railway)
  justarider Chief Train Controller

Location: Stuck on VR and hoping for better.
Maybe the thoughts for 4 rails finally has reached a stalemate. There is no room.
Time to move on and think outside the box, so here goes.

The major reason for another 2 tracks is to get express services for both regional and metro from dandenong to caulfield
Because express, then there is no need to go thru existing platforms nor indeed stations.
Does this not lead to conclude that there is not even a need to use the existing path.

I hate to say it, but the Nationals suggestion of a tunnel is sounding less silly.

Or

Since skyrail has been such a success and everybody now seems to love (or merely accept) it, then share the love around a bit further.

How about over the top of Dandenong Rd, then down Westall Rd. There is already a new need in this corridor for the tram to Rowville, so why not share.

Let the howls commence.

Cheers
John
  LeroyW Junior Train Controller

Location: Awaiting MM2
Maybe the thoughts for 4 rails finally has reached a stalemate. There is no room.
Time to move on and think outside the box, so here goes.

The major reason for another 2 tracks is to get express services for both regional and metro from dandenong to caulfield
Because express, then there is no need to go thru existing platforms nor indeed stations.
Does this not lead to conclude that there is not even a need to use the existing path.

I hate to say it, but the Nationals suggestion of a tunnel is sounding less silly.

Or

Since skyrail has been such a success and everybody now seems to love (or merely accept) it, then share the love around a bit further.

How about over the top of Dandenong Rd, then down Westall Rd. There is already a new need in this corridor for the tram to Rowville, so why not share.

Let the howls commence.

Cheers
John
justarider
Ok ok I've got an even better one for y'all...

Do the quadding from Oakleigh to Dandenong in the existing corridor.  Then (drum roll please)... tunnel from Oakleigh to Chadstone and plonk in a new station.

BUT THEN keep going with your wonder tunnel from Chadstone to... ALAMEIN ShockedShockedShocked

Run the VLines through Chadstone and onto Melbourne's least patronised set of double rails and they have an express path almost all the way to the city, pretty easy to slot them in between a 20min suburban frequency.

I drew a line on a map so it must be a good idea. You can thank me later Razz
  TheMeddlingMonk Deputy Commissioner

Location: The Time Vortex near Melbourne, Australia
Maybe the thoughts for 4 rails finally has reached a stalemate. There is no room.
Time to move on and think outside the box, so here goes.

The major reason for another 2 tracks is to get express services for both regional and metro from dandenong to caulfield
Because express, then there is no need to go thru existing platforms nor indeed stations.
Does this not lead to conclude that there is not even a need to use the existing path.

I hate to say it, but the Nationals suggestion of a tunnel is sounding less silly.

Or

Since skyrail has been such a success and everybody now seems to love (or merely accept) it, then share the love around a bit further.

How about over the top of Dandenong Rd, then down Westall Rd. There is already a new need in this corridor for the tram to Rowville, so why not share.

Let the howls commence.

Cheers
John
Ok ok I've got an even better one for y'all...

Do the quadding from Oakleigh to Dandenong in the existing corridor.  Then (drum roll please)... tunnel from Oakleigh to Chadstone and plonk in a new station.

BUT THEN keep going with your wonder tunnel from Chadstone to... ALAMEIN ShockedShockedShocked

Run the VLines through Chadstone and onto Melbourne's least patronised set of double rails and they have an express path almost all the way to the city, pretty easy to slot them in between a 20min suburban frequency.

I drew a line on a map so it must be a good idea. You can thank me later Razz
LeroyW
I'm afraid the Age beat you to that idea...

https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/rowville-rail-fits-the-bigger-transport-picture-20180522-p4zgrn.html
  jakar Assistant Commissioner

Location: Melbourne
Ruled out due to excessive shadowing (Caulfield to Oakleigh)
Nightfire
And the other sections?

I would have been more than happy as a tax payer to have had the government compulsory acquire the neighboring properties (yes I know its very easy to say that when its not my house) at well above market rates to keep everyone as happy as possible and do the job properly from the start.

I would imagine that two double track viaducts would create less shadow than 4 'wide' single track viaducts. Its a sad state of affairs though that we're more concerned about shadows on parks then actually shifting thousands of people per day.
  LeroyW Junior Train Controller

Location: Awaiting MM2
Maybe the thoughts for 4 rails finally has reached a stalemate. There is no room.
Time to move on and think outside the box, so here goes.

The major reason for another 2 tracks is to get express services for both regional and metro from dandenong to caulfield
Because express, then there is no need to go thru existing platforms nor indeed stations.
Does this not lead to conclude that there is not even a need to use the existing path.

I hate to say it, but the Nationals suggestion of a tunnel is sounding less silly.

Or

Since skyrail has been such a success and everybody now seems to love (or merely accept) it, then share the love around a bit further.

How about over the top of Dandenong Rd, then down Westall Rd. There is already a new need in this corridor for the tram to Rowville, so why not share.

Let the howls commence.

Cheers
John
Ok ok I've got an even better one for y'all...

Do the quadding from Oakleigh to Dandenong in the existing corridor.  Then (drum roll please)... tunnel from Oakleigh to Chadstone and plonk in a new station.

BUT THEN keep going with your wonder tunnel from Chadstone to... ALAMEIN ShockedShockedShocked

Run the VLines through Chadstone and onto Melbourne's least patronised set of double rails and they have an express path almost all the way to the city, pretty easy to slot them in between a 20min suburban frequency.

I drew a line on a map so it must be a good idea. You can thank me later Razz
I'm afraid the Age beat you to that idea...

https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/rowville-rail-fits-the-bigger-transport-picture-20180522-p4zgrn.html
TheMeddlingMonk
Wow that really is quite incredible, apologies to Stuart James former deputy mayor of Monash for blatantly stealing his iead by drawing the same line on a map.
  John.Z Chief Train Controller

Maybe the thoughts for 4 rails finally has reached a stalemate. There is no room.
Time to move on and think outside the box, so here goes.

The major reason for another 2 tracks is to get express services for both regional and metro from dandenong to caulfield
Because express, then there is no need to go thru existing platforms nor indeed stations.
Does this not lead to conclude that there is not even a need to use the existing path.

I hate to say it, but the Nationals suggestion of a tunnel is sounding less silly.

Or

Since skyrail has been such a success and everybody now seems to love (or merely accept) it, then share the love around a bit further.

How about over the top of Dandenong Rd, then down Westall Rd. There is already a new need in this corridor for the tram to Rowville, so why not share.

Let the howls commence.

Cheers
John
Ok ok I've got an even better one for y'all...

Do the quadding from Oakleigh to Dandenong in the existing corridor.  Then (drum roll please)... tunnel from Oakleigh to Chadstone and plonk in a new station.

BUT THEN keep going with your wonder tunnel from Chadstone to... ALAMEIN ShockedShockedShocked

Run the VLines through Chadstone and onto Melbourne's least patronised set of double rails and they have an express path almost all the way to the city, pretty easy to slot them in between a 20min suburban frequency.

I drew a line on a map so it must be a good idea. You can thank me later Razz
LeroyW
And where do they go after Camberwell?

A more well thought plan would include:
*Going back to the original Metro Tunnel (Footscray - Caulfield)
Quadding Caulfield - Pakenham

Now you have VLine with their own path Flinders to Pakenham.
  Nightfire Minister for Railways

Location: Gippsland
Ruled out due to excessive shadowing (Caulfield to Oakleigh)
And the other sections?

I would have been more than happy as a tax payer to have had the government compulsory acquire the neighboring properties (yes I know its very easy to say that when its not my house) at well above market rates to keep everyone as happy as possible and do the job properly from the start.

I would imagine that two double track viaducts would create less shadow than 4 'wide' single track viaducts. Its a sad state of affairs though that we're more concerned about shadows on parks then actually shifting thousands of people per day.
jakar
Politics !
  Nightfire Minister for Railways

Location: Gippsland
And where do they go after Camberwell?

A more well thought plan would include:
*Going back to the original Metro Tunnel (Footscray - Caulfield)
Quadding Caulfield - Pakenham

Now you have VLine with their own path Flinders to Pakenham.
John.Z
Yes the once proposed Metro tunnel to Caulfield,could go onto Chadstone and come out on the Dandenong line at Oakleigh / Huntingdale (to than form 4 tracks to Dandenong)

The Alamein line should extended to Chadstone (with an Interchange at East Malvern) (turnback at Chadstone)
  LancedDendrite Chief Commissioner

Location: North Haverbrook; where the monorail is king!
I would have been more than happy as a tax payer to have had the government compulsory acquire the neighboring properties (yes I know its very easy to say that when its not my house) at well above market rates to keep everyone as happy as possible and do the job properly from the start.
jakar

Why do you think that the State Government has a voluntary purchase scheme for adjacent property owners along the CTD/Skyrail viaducts?

Sponsored advertisement

Display from:   

Quick Reply

We've disabled Quick Reply for this thread as it was last updated more than six months ago.