Sth Australia: Suburban level crossing removals

 
Topic moved from South Australia by dthead on 24 Mar 2017 16:02
  Myrtone Chief Commissioner

Location: North Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria
Here in Melbourne, we have a programme to grade separate 50 level crossing within 8 years starting from the election of the Andrews state government.
The Adelaide suburban is another network with lots of level crossings, more than stations. There are even a few level crossings on sections of Quadruple track. There are even two level crossings with intersections, one next to Seaton Park station on the Grange line and another next to Emerson station.

At the latter, South Road is grade separated from Cross Road rather than the railway being grade separated from both.

Sponsored advertisement

  justapassenger Chief Commissioner

Welcome to the SA forum Myrtone, we appreciate your interest in learning about how things operate here.

Here in Melbourne, we have a programme to grade separate 50 level crossing within 8 years starting from the election of the Andrews state government.
Myrtone
Many of us in SA are already aware of the controversial scheme in the Melbourne area to prioritise road traffic by getting the pesky trains out of the way.

After Andrews gets dumped at the next state election, I'm sure the big players in the trucking industry will be keen to recognise his faithful service and buy his silence. He might even have shaken hands on a deal already, but he might be holding out so there's a bidding war.

There are even a few level crossings on sections of Quadruple track.
Myrtone
There is only one, at Leader Street. It is due to be upgraded in the next couple of years, the state and federal governments having agreed that an upgrade is the appropriate solution for that context where the level crossing helps manage traffic levels on a notorious rat run.

There are even two level crossings with intersections, one next to Seaton Park station on the Grange line and another next to Emerson station.
At the latter, South Road is grade separated from Cross Road rather than the railway being grade separated from both.
Myrtone
It has that configuration for good reason, at the time of its construction South Road was far more important than the railway. That is arguably still the case today, a year-long shutdown of the railway in 2013 having shown that it is redundant.

When the section of South Road from Kurralta Park to Tonsley Park gets upgraded, that intersection will get a complete revamp with the result being a three level configuration - the North-South Motorway in a trench, the Cross/South Road intersection (possibly a roundabout) at surface level and the railway on an overpass.

As for the crossing on the Grange line, the only prospect for that one being removed is when the line itself is removed.
  nm39 Chief Commissioner

Location: By a road taking pictures

There are even two level crossings with intersections, one next to Seaton Park station on the Grange line and another next to Emerson station.
At the latter, South Road is grade separated from Cross Road rather than the railway being grade separated from both.
Myrtone
It has that configuration for good reason, at the time of its construction South Road was far more important than the railway. That is arguably still the case today, a year-long shutdown of the railway in 2013 having shown that it is redundant.

When the section of South Road from Kurralta Park to Tonsley Park gets upgraded, that intersection will get a complete revamp with the result being a three level configuration - the North-South Motorway in a trench, the Cross/South Road intersection (possibly a roundabout) at surface level and the railway on an overpass.

"justapassenger"

What the final arrangement at Cross Rd/South Rd/Seaford Rail Line will be has not been decided and when it does get decided, it is possible (even probable) that it will change. Different scenarios that I have seen include realigning the railway to eliminate the tight curve between Edwardstown Station and the intersection. Various things with that realignment included grade separation (up and down), utilisation of the old Hills site, replacement of Edwardstown Station, and so forth. All these things are being considered now for future projects. There is NO hard and fast policy one way or another to set in concrete any one plan.
  Myrtone Chief Commissioner

Location: North Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria
Many of us in SA are already aware of the controversial scheme in the Melbourne area to prioritise road traffic by getting the pesky trains out of the way.
justapassenger
Remember that we have a no new level crossings policy. Does that give an idea of how much of a priority level crossing removal should be?
Level crossing removals do unlock capacity. For example, removing the Leader and Victoria Street level crossings will allow more train services to and from Adelaide through Goodwood. Are either of these level crossing quiet enough that they could simply be closed, at least after grade separation of the Cross Road ones?

There is only one, at Leader Street. It is due to be upgraded in the next couple of years, the state and federal governments having agreed that an upgrade is the appropriate solution for that context where the level crossing helps manage traffic levels on a notorious rat run.
justapassenger
One might wonder why it wasn't upgraded long ago. Quadruplication of railway track has been a reason for grade separation even before the growth of motor traffic. All sections of the Melbourne suburban with more than three tracks and Sydney suburban with more than two are all grade separated.

It has that configuration for good reason, at the time of its construction South Road was far more important than the railway. That is arguably still the case today, a year-long shutdown of the railway in 2013 having shown that it is redundant.
justapassenger
I know this may have been used as an excuse but since trains get priority at level crossings, surely a railway should be more important. It seems that a grade separation of existing level crossings should be prioritised over grade separation of road junctions as long as there is a commission not to build new level crossings.
Governments here in Victoria haven't been much better in this respect. Some have been too short-sighted to justify one-off costs that large.

When the section of South Road from Kurralta Park to Tonsley Park gets upgraded, that intersection will get a complete revamp with the result being a three level configuration - the North-South Motorway in a trench, the Cross/South Road intersection (possibly a roundabout) at surface level and the railway on an overpass.
justapassenger
See below.

As for the crossing on the Grange line, the only prospect for that one being removed is when the line itself is removed.
justapassenger
Suppose you convert the Grange Branch to light rail (possibly still keeping heavy rail services to Port Adelaide). That level crossing will still remain.

What the final arrangement at Cross Rd/South Rd/Seaford Rail Line will be has not been decided and when it does get decided, it is possible (even probable) that it will change. Different scenarios that I have seen include realigning the railway to eliminate the tight curve between Edwardstown Station and the intersection. Various things with that realignment included grade separation (up and down), utilisation of the old Hills site, replacement of Edwardstown Station, and so forth. All these things are being considered now for future projects. There is NO hard and fast policy one way or another to set in concrete any one plan.
nm39
If you realign the railway, that level crossing will go anyway.
  bingley hall Minister for Railways

Location: Last train to Skaville
Shouldn't this be in the Armchair operators thread Razz
  justapassenger Chief Commissioner

Remember that we have a no new level crossings policy. Does that give an idea of how much of a priority level crossing removal should be?
Myrtone
Your interest in asking questions and seeking the wisdom of others is quite appreciated.

As I have already noted, Leader St and other crossings are slated to get upgrades, not replacement/removal. That should answer your question about the level of priority placed on replacing/removing level crossings.

Neither SA or Victoria has a policy on removing level crossings, only one-off projects. Even the big Andrews vanity project is a one-off project, not a long-term policy, and the work will come to a halt when it is either completed or cancelled.

Level crossing removals do unlock capacity. For example, removing the Leader and Victoria Street level crossings will allow more train services to and from Adelaide through Goodwood. Are either of these level crossing quiet enough that they could simply be closed, at least after grade separation of the Cross Road ones?
Myrtone
If you look at a map, you will note that Leader St and Victoria St are necessary local access routes linking parts of the community which would otherwise be divided up into ghettoes if all level crossings were to be closed. Just because they are quiet does not mean they are unnecessary.

The level crossing signals at Leader St and Victoria St are activated far enough in advance that trains don't need to stop and wait for the gates to come down, so they do not constrain rail capacity through there. Motorists know that the railway has priority (as you noted yourself) and that there are many trains during the peak hours, so they generally avoid those crossings in favour of the major roads for through journeys.

One might wonder why it wasn't upgraded long ago. Quadruplication of railway track has been a reason for grade separation even before the growth of motor traffic. All sections of the Melbourne suburban with more than three tracks and Sydney suburban with more than two are all grade separated.
Myrtone
Just to clarify, the upgrades at Leader St are to improve the safety of the existing crossing for the increased use by pedestrians and cyclists in recent years, NOT grade separation.

The traffic volumes on Leader St do not justify grade separation.

Suppose you convert the Grange Branch to light rail (possibly still keeping heavy rail services to Port Adelaide). That level crossing will still remain.
Myrtone
I was thinking more of a bus route, or perhaps an extension of the proposed tram line to Adelaide Airport and Henley Beach, than conversion of the existing Grange corridor. The line is only still running because no politicians have had the guts to put it out of its misery.

I know this may have been used as an excuse but since trains get priority at level crossings, surely a railway should be more important. It seems that a grade separation of existing level crossings should be prioritised over grade separation of road junctions as long as there is a commission not to build new level crossings.
Myrtone
South Road is a far more important transport corridor than the Seaford line even today, and this was certainly also the case when the overpass was constructed back in the early 1980s. This was shown most effectively in 2013, when the line was shut down for just short of a year and everybody proved to themselves that they could cope without it.

By putting South Road through traffic on the overpass, both of South Road and the railway get an unhindered run through the junction - as you correctly note, the railway has priority there and does not need to take its turn at the intersection. Had the railway been put on an overpass back then, only the railway would get to go through unhindered while South Road through traffic would be held up at the intersection.

Traffic volumes on all three of the corridors meeting there have increased since then, and so it is correct that this will be slated for full replacement when the next section of the North-South Motorway is built. The current DPTI preferred option is to replace it with the railway going over the top, Cross Road and local South Road traffic at surface level and the North-South Motorway in the trench.

If you realign the railway, that level crossing will go anyway.
Myrtone
We are in agreement on this. The future of the North-South Corridor dictates that the railway will have to get grade separated there as part of the project, and it is at this point that any work to realign the railway would be done.

What the final arrangement at Cross Rd/South Rd/Seaford Rail Line will be has not been decided and when it does get decided, it is possible (even probable) that it will change. Different scenarios that I have seen include realigning the railway to eliminate the tight curve between Edwardstown Station and the intersection. Various things with that realignment included grade separation (up and down), utilisation of the old Hills site, replacement of Edwardstown Station, and so forth. All these things are being considered now for future projects. There is NO hard and fast policy one way or another to set in concrete any one plan.
nm39
I have it on good record that the DPTI preferred option is to build an overpass on the current alignment, considering that the likely arrangement of the North-South Corridor through the Edwardstown sector will be to have the grade separated Motorway in a trench and the local roads at surface level just like it is on the next grade separated sections to both the north (Anzac Highway underpass) and south (Darlington Upgrade).

I would be genuinely astonished if anything other than the DPTI preferred option were to be built there, any decision to reroute the whole rail corridor would have to involve considerable political interference as it certainly wouldn't have a better BCR than a simple overpass which gets the job done with minimum fuss and no more than a couple of weeks closure.

Shouldn't this be in the Armchair operators thread Razz
bingley hall
I'm not always in agreement with you but there's no doubt this time.

I've reported the OP for that purpose of being sent downstairs to dwell with the magtubes, since there is some doubt over the OP's willingness to engage on a rational basis.
  Myrtone Chief Commissioner

Location: North Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria
As I have already noted, Leader St and other crossings are slated to get upgrades, not replacement/removal. That should answer your question about the level of priority placed on replacing/removing level crossings.
justapassenger
But the Leader Street crossing is with four tracks. See below.

Neither SA or Victoria has a policy on removing level crossings, only one-off projects. Even the big Andrews vanity project is a one-off project, not a long-term policy, and the work will come to a halt when it is either completed or cancelled.
justapassenger
In my state there is a policy on not constructing new level crossings and here in Melbourne, there is a programme to remove suburban ones.

If you look at a map, you will note that Leader St and Victoria St are necessary local access routes linking parts of the community which would otherwise be divided up into ghettoes if all level crossings were to be closed. Just because they are quiet does not mean they are unnecessary.
justapassenger
Is road traffic light enough that the crossings could be protected by gates or barriers that are closed by default? There do exist level crossings that are worked in this way.

The level crossing signals at Leader St and Victoria St are activated far enough in advance that trains don't need to stop and wait for the gates to come down, so they do not constrain rail capacity through there. Motorists know that the railway has priority (as you noted yourself) and that there are many trains during the peak hours, so they generally avoid those crossings in favour of the major roads for through journeys.
justapassenger
I said that it would unlock, not increase capacity. While it is important that the level crossing signals are activated far enough in advance that trains don't need to wait for the signal to clear, this is also an obstacle. The headway between scheduled trains must be long enough that the level crossing signals don't stay activated between trains, except any two that pass each other in the activation zone. If the train frequency is high enough to block the road for extended periods, then either closure of the crossing or grade separation is justified.

Just to clarify, the upgrades at Leader St are to improve the safety of the existing crossing for the increased use by pedestrians and cyclists in recent years, NOT grade separation.

The traffic volumes on Leader St do not justify grade separation.
justapassenger
Even double track can already support high enough train frequencies to justify full-length grade separation. So high enough rail traffic to justify four tracks should, therefore, justify it.

South Road is a far more important transport corridor than the Seaford line even today, and this was certainly also the case when the overpass was constructed back in the early 1980s. This was shown most effectively in 2013, when the line was shut down for just short of a year and everybody proved to themselves that they could cope without it.
justapassenger
Why would the line be shut down for so long?

By putting South Road through traffic on the overpass, both of South Road and the railway get an unhindered run through the junction - as you correctly note, the railway has priority there and does not need to take its turn at the intersection. Had the railway been put on an overpass back then, only the railway would get to go through unhindered while South Road through traffic would be held up at the intersection.
justapassenger
Just because the railway has priority doesn't mean that the run is strictly unhindered. Scheduled trains must not run too frequently that the whole intersection is continuously blocked. Furthermore, even the safeworking procedures we have on our level crossings are unsuitable for long closure periods. Swing gates were because they covered the full road width, and the wicket gates, also being manually operated, didn't need to be supplemented by emergency exits. Such crossings could do without bells or claxons.

Traffic volumes on all three of the corridors meeting there have increased since then, and so it is correct that this will be slated for full replacement when the next section of the North-South Motorway is built. The current DPTI preferred option is to replace it with the railway going over the top, Cross Road and local South Road traffic at surface level and the North-South Motorway in the trench.
justapassenger
Had South Road been put in a trench rather than run over, and the railway could have gone over.
  justapassenger Chief Commissioner

But the Leader Street crossing is with four tracks.
Myrtone
Who cares? The amount of road traffic is quite low, and therefore the state and federal governments have agreed that it only needs minor upgrades rather than replacement.

There is the answer to your question about the level of priority for removing existing level crossings.

In my state there is a policy on not constructing new level crossings and here in Melbourne, there is a programme to remove suburban ones.
Myrtone
We have that policy in SA too, and just like in Melbourne we also have projects to replace crossings from time to time.

Is road traffic light enough that the crossings could be protected by gates or barriers that are closed by default? There do exist level crossings that are worked in this way.
Myrtone
Why would that be necessary? I use the Leader St LX (as both a road user and a train user) and it seems to be just fine just the way it is.

Drivers are well aware of the crossing and that they have various other options to use main roads for through journeys rather than dodging through residential streets. Maybe the drivers here are simply smarter than they are in Melbourne, and the improvements to be made from the big Andrews vanity project there could be made for a fraction of the cost through hiring an expert from Adelaide to organise a driver education campaign?

I said that it would unlock, not increase capacity. While it is important that the level crossing signals are activated far enough in advance that trains don't need to wait for the signal to clear, this is also an obstacle. The headway between scheduled trains must be long enough that the level crossing signals don't stay activated between trains, except any two that pass each other in the activation zone. If the train frequency is high enough to block the road for extended periods, then either closure of the crossing or grade separation is justified.
Myrtone
What a bizarre fantasy.

Capacity on all three of the rail routes through Goodwood is constrained by other factors, and so there is no capacity increase there to be made by removing the level crossing.

The only time the Leader St crossing stays down for anything you might call an 'extended period' is when a long freight train goes through. Even then, we're only talking about a period of no more than three minutes and only a handful of cars waiting for it, so no big deal.

A person using Leader St as a rat run to get into the city for work will encounter far greater delays along their way due to normal road congestion than at any level crossing.

Even double track can already support high enough train frequencies to justify full-length grade separation. So high enough rail traffic to justify four tracks should, therefore, justify it.
Myrtone
There are four tracks there because they are three separate routes (one double track, two single) and not because they have constant traffic. Even in the peak hour, the crossing is open for a longer amount of time than it is closed.

The amount of road traffic on Leader St is not high enough to justify grade separation. It is a local street, not a main road, and the level crossing actually works as a deterrent against rat running. The local community would be quite firmly opposed to any proposal for closing or replacing it.

This is the sort of local knowledge that you should be paying attention to, rather than making spectacular displays of ignorance.

Why would the line be shut down for so long?
Myrtone
Because the track replacement and electrification project was badly managed.

But people learned they could do without it, which was a good thing because the new Dandenong-built trains had a rough teething period. In another thread, I have advocated for Stadler EMUs built in Switzerland to be selected for our next order for their superior reliability and smarter design.

Just because the railway has priority doesn't mean that the run is strictly unhindered. Scheduled trains must not run too frequently that the whole intersection is continuously blocked.
Myrtone
No major level crossing in Adelaide is continuously blocked.

If drivers find level crossings a nuisance, they are more than welcome to pick a more suitable method of transport or a different route.

Had South Road been put in a trench rather than run over, and the railway could have gone over.
Myrtone
At the time of the South Road overpass being built, Cross Road and the railway both had far lower volumes of traffic which did not justify a lengthy closure of the railway to build an underpass and rebuilding the station.

Even today, the queues on Cross Road are no worse there than they are at a number of regular intersections. Congestion in Adelaide is due to cars, not to trains.
  Myrtone Chief Commissioner

Location: North Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria
The amount of road traffic is quite low, and therefore the state and federal governments have agreed that it only needs minor upgrades rather than replacement.
justapassenger
The amount of road traffic is quite low and the crossing is a necessary local route linking parts of the local community. I can't recall if the nearby tram overpass has walkways or not, but if so, this is a way of getting between different parts of the local community on foot.

We have that policy in SA too, and just like in Melbourne we also have projects to replace crossings from time to time.
justapassenger
But here we have a level crossing removal authority, which even has its

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCoeJ13Eg6UyVpW9xSD6yeAA/.

Why would that be necessary? I use the Leader St LX (as both a road user and a train user) and it seems to be just fine just the way it is.
justapasenger
But what about the residents who have to hear the bell every time a train passes? Have gates or barriers closed by default, which used to exist in this country when railway safeworking was done by double-line block telegraph. And it's still done in the U.K. You had to knock on the gatekeeper's door if you wanted to cross. Not that even most crossings were ever worked in this way, but it did exist here and still exists in the U.K.
If the boom barriers and pedestrian gates were closed by default, the barriers would cover the full road width and there would be no need for an emergency exit for pedestrians. And there would be no need for an audible waring while the gates or barriers are closed.

What a bizarre fantasy.
justapasenger
What is a "bizarre fantasy"? That level crossings are a limiting factor is a fact, not a fantasy.

Capacity on all three of the rail routes through Goodwood is constrained by other factors, and so there is no capacity increase there to be made by removing the level crossing.
justapasenger
Okay, if there are other factors constraining capacity, then the limits to train frequency over a level crossing can be safely ignored, but they are technically still there.

The only time the Leader St crossing stays down for anything you might call an 'extended period' is when a long freight train goes through. Even then, we're only talking about a period of no more than three minutes and only a handful of cars waiting for it, so no big deal.
justapasenger
Again, what about the residents nearby?

A person using Leader St as a rat run to get into the city for work will encounter far greater delays along their way due to normal road congestion than at any level crossing.
justapasenger
See below.

There are four tracks there because they are three separate routes (one double track, two single) and not because they have constant traffic. Even in the peak hour, the crossing is open for a longer amount of time than it is closed.
justapasenger
But multiple routes can share the same pair of tracks if traffic on each of them is light enough. If the line was originally built that way, could it have been far-sighted planning?

The amount of road traffic on Leader St is not high enough to justify grade separation. It is a local street, not a main road, and the level crossing actually works as a deterrent against rat running. The local community would be quite firmly opposed to any proposal for closing or replacing it.
justapasenger
And if the gates or barriers were closed by default, it would be even more of a deterrent.

This is the sort of local knowledge that you should be paying attention to, rather than making spectacular displays of ignorance.
justapasenger
The responsibility of getting the local knowledge lies in the locals. Especially taking their time to think through the knowledge and explaining it in detail.

But people learned they could do without it, which was a good thing because the new Dandenong-built trains had a rough teething period. In another thread, I have advocated for Stadler EMUs built in Switzerland to be selected for our next order for their superior reliability and smarter design.
justapasenger
Wasn't there equipment providing a replacement service during this time?

No major level crossing in Adelaide is continuously blocked.
justapasenger
If any were, they would be grade separated. Could it be that you already have grade separations wherever rail traffic at the busiest times is enough that level crossings would be open to road traffic (including pedestrians) more often than it is closed?

If drivers find level crossings a nuisance, they are more than welcome to pick a more suitable method of transport or a different route.
justapasenger
Yes, if private motorists find it a nuisance, they have that option. And if interstate drivers in Melbourne don't know how to perform hook turns, they are welcome to avoid right turns at the intersections where it is prescribed.

At the time of the South Road overpass being built, Cross Road and the railway both had far lower volumes of traffic which did not justify a lengthy closure of the railway to build an underpass and rebuilding the station.
justapasenger
But closure of a less busy railway is less disruptive and doesn't require as much equipment to replace trains.

Even today, the queues on Cross Road are no worse there than they are at a number of regular intersections. Congestion in Adelaide is due to cars, not to trains.
justapasenger
But one road is grade separated from another. And equally busy at-grade intersection with a level crossing would likely have worse queues than a regular intersection without one.
At a four-way intersection, there are at least two signal phases. One for traffic on one street, and another for traffic on the other. Two pairs of directions of traffic take turns at the intersection.
But if there is a level crossing, this cycle is interrupted whenever a train approaches, this being a time when all road traffic on both streets must stop.
  Nightfire Minister for Railways

Location: Gippsland
Give It a rest Myrtone

Your talking about Adelaide not busy Melbourne or Sydney.
  Pressman Spirit of the Vine

Location: Wherever the Tin Chook or Qantas takes me
The responsibility of getting the local knowledge lies in the locals. Especially taking their time to think through the knowledge and explaining it in detail.
myrtone


So why are you trying to thrust one cities ideas on another different city when you have no local knowledge?

Did you know Adelaide once had the handle "20 minute town" (currently requiring change to "25 minute town").......... if you don't understand what that means ........ find out!
  Myrtone Chief Commissioner

Location: North Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria
Rather than accusing someone from a neighbouring state of lacking local knowledge, since I have been to Adelaide, how about explaining things a local might not know.
I knew there was a level crossing with four tracks, but I didn't know of other factors limiting the train frequency over the crossing. Someone from another state isn't likely to know things like that. Another level crossing on the Outer Harbour line is one that I recall as having four tracks but apparently, it has only three.
  awsgc24 Minister for Railways

Location: Sydney
How many level xings will remain when the 50 are removed?
  Nightfire Minister for Railways

Location: Gippsland
In metropolitan Melbourne around 125 crossings thereabouts
  dthead Site Admin

Location: Melbourne, Australia
****** Now now South Australia Level Crossing talk only please......
  Myrtone Chief Commissioner

Location: North Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria
Saying that a road is more important than a railway is like saying that cars are more important than mass transit.
  Pressman Spirit of the Vine

Location: Wherever the Tin Chook or Qantas takes me
How many level xings will remain when the 50 are removed?
awsgc24
There are 65 level crossings on the Adelaide Metro Network (passenger)
And a further 21 on freight only lines (Between Belair and Penfield  / Pelican Point)
  don_dunstan Minister for Railways

Location: Adelaide proud
South Road is a far more important transport corridor than the Seaford line even today, and this was certainly also the case when the overpass was constructed back in the early 1980s. This was shown most effectively in 2013, when the line was shut down for just short of a year and everybody proved to themselves that they could cope without it.

By putting South Road through traffic on the overpass, both of South Road and the railway get an unhindered run through the junction - as you correctly note, the railway has priority there and does not need to take its turn at the intersection. Had the railway been put on an overpass back then, only the railway would get to go through unhindered while South Road through traffic would be held up at the intersection.

Traffic volumes on all three of the corridors meeting there have increased since then, and so it is correct that this will be slated for full replacement when the next section of the North-South Motorway is built. The current DPTI preferred option is to replace it with the railway going over the top, Cross Road and local South Road traffic at surface level and the North-South Motorway in the trench.
justapassenger
I would have thought that the best way of redoing that junction would have been to trench Cross Road and local South Road intersections and leave the railway and South Road flyover where they are. It would be a lot less work surely.
  Valvegear Dr Beeching

Location: Norda Fittazroy
Shouldn't this be in the Armchair operators thread
"bingley hall"
No; it should be in the recycle bin. He's been boring the asre off Melburnians for months, and now he's turned on a previously friendly neighbouring State. He has an unshakeable belief in his own infallibility and knows what's best for everyone else. You don't deserve him.
  Pressman Spirit of the Vine

Location: Wherever the Tin Chook or Qantas takes me
Shouldn't this be in the Armchair operators thread
No; it should be in the recycle bin. He's been boring the asre off Melburnians for months, and now he's turned on a previously friendly neighbouring State. He has an unshakeable belief in his own infallibility and knows what's best for everyone else. You don't deserve him.
Valvegear
He's been venturing to the SA forums  few times, the one I loved the most was when he was advocating that there should be grass between the tram tracks! (I think he was saying the wheels would edge the grass or sumfin Rolling Eyes )
Never taken anything he says since seriously
  Pressman Spirit of the Vine

Location: Wherever the Tin Chook or Qantas takes me
How many level xings will remain when the 50 are removed?
There are 65 level crossings on the Adelaide Metro Network (passenger)
And a further 21 on freight only lines (Between Belair and Penfield  / Pelican Point)
Pressman
Further to the above figures ......... there was actually 67 level crossings, one was recently closed and one will be grade separated within a few months (Gibson St & Park Tc on the Outer Harbor/Grange line)
Of the remaining 65, only 23 are on what you'd call 'Main Arterial" roads, the rest (42)on suburban minor streets
  True Believers Chief Commissioner

How many level xings will remain when the 50 are removed?
There are 65 level crossings on the Adelaide Metro Network (passenger)
And a further 21 on freight only lines (Between Belair and Penfield  / Pelican Point)
Further to the above figures ......... there was actually 67 level crossings, one was recently closed and one will be grade separated within a few months (Gibson St & Park Tc on the Outer Harbor/Grange line)
Of the remaining 65, only 23 are on what you'd call 'Main Arterial" roads, the rest (42)on suburban minor streets
Pressman
By these figure, looks like there isn't really need for such of a project to remove all at once. Just remove a few each year and eventually most of the busy ones would be gone in 10 years time.

Yeah Myrtone shouldn't be taken seriously, if you check the Upfield rail tunnel not viable forum, he keeps pushing for it despite the lack of patronage and priority of such of a project. I'm thinking of making threads in other areas, but I am quite foreign to other rail networks and would need to research quite abit to understand.
  Myrtone Chief Commissioner

Location: North Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria
@True Believers - I gave a reason for the low patronage that would cease if the line was diverted. Also, I'm sure the patronage would increase if the line were extended.

I'm not saying there is a need for a project to remove them all at once. In fact removing them all at once would be more complicated than it's worth.

He's been venturing to the SA forums few times, the one I loved the most was when he was advocating that there should be grass between the tram tracks! (I think he was saying the wheels would edge the grass or sumfin Rolling Eyes )
Pressman
No, that was in the trams and light rail forum, and that type of track is common in Europe, where there are a lot more tramways than in this country.

There are things I have pointed out that everyone else just ignores, yet some accuse me of arguing things that have been proven wrong, that's rich. For example I wrote:

"But what about the residents who have to hear the bell every time a train passes? Have gates or barriers closed by default, which used to exist in this country when railway safeworking was done by double-line block telegraph. And it's still done in the U.K. You had to knock on the gatekeeper's door if you wanted to cross. Not that even most crossings were ever worked in this way, but it did exist here and still exists in the U.K.

If the boom barriers and pedestrian gates were closed by default, the barriers would cover the full road width and there would be no need for an emergency exit for pedestrians. And there would be no need for an audible warning while the gates or barriers are closed."

And I get no response to that. And no, there is nothing (obviously) tangential about that. Just becuase no one else considers something I consider doesn't mean it's unimportant.
I can't read people's minds, how am I supposed to know the occupations of other posters here, let alone whether they work in the field if they don't say so?
  justapassenger Chief Commissioner

I would have thought that the best way of redoing that junction would have been to trench Cross Road and local South Road intersections and leave the railway and South Road flyover where they are. It would be a lot less work surely.
don_dunstan
Err, no.

The successful three week closure of the Outer Harbor line this January (in which time the old surface railway was removed, the bridge installed and the track brought into operation) would actually suggest that it's far easier to install a prefabricated rail bridge over a closed corridor than it is to burrow under an operating corridor. It's true that removing the old overpass was not a factor there, but that is work which would add no more than a day or two to the schedule for the removal of the spans while the ramps could be removed at the same time as the rail bridge is built.

Contrast that to the Park Tce grade separation - if burrowing under really was a lot less work then we would have the railway running underneath by now after a closure of two weeks. But we don't, because it's far more work even for the narrow Outer Harbor rail corridor with only two tracks rather than Cross Rd which would be 5-6 lanes wide! Total closure time for that one is likely to be around the six week mark by the time it is done.

Even if it was easier work, you wouldn't burrow Cross Rd underneath if you had an eye on the final result being the best it could be. The railway, despite being the only one of the three corridors there which does not need to interface with the other two, would still be running through at the middle level which is just plain silly.
  justapassenger Chief Commissioner

"But what about the residents who have to hear the bell every time a train passes? Have gates or barriers closed by default, which used to exist in this country when railway safeworking was done by double-line block telegraph. And it's still done in the U.K. You had to knock on the gatekeeper's door if you wanted to cross. Not that even most crossings were ever worked in this way, but it did exist here and still exists in the U.K.

If the boom barriers and pedestrian gates were closed by default, the barriers would cover the full road width and there would be no need for an emergency exit for pedestrians. And there would be no need for an audible warning while the gates or barriers are closed."

And I get no response to that. And no, there is nothing (obviously) tangential about that. Just becuase no one else considers something I consider doesn't mean it's unimportant.
I can't read people's minds, how am I supposed to know the occupations of other posters here, let alone whether they work in the field if they don't say so?
Myrtone
You have had plenty of responses to this on your many threads, perhaps a lesson to keep to one thread at a time so you don't lose track of them all.

But here are the same points in answer to this, reiterated in the same place so you cannot deny they have been answered.

1. People who live near railways get used to the various noises of the railway soon after moving in. Most of them consider it to be a price worth paying for having close access to rapid public transport.

2. The modern electronic 'bells' used in Adelaide whenever a level crossing is upgraded have the sound aimed along the roads, with them being very quiet once you're off to one side of the road corridor even without the sound being deflected or absorbed by fences or house walls.

3. A "normally closed" crossing would be a needless obstruction to local movement, one which would disproportionately target Active Transport at a time when that needs to be massively incentivised as part of strategies for targeting (a) the obesity crisis and (b) congestion on the roads and public transport.

4. Audible warnings would still be necessary every time the crossing closes, even if they stop when the barrier is down. As road traffic is spread out evenly rather than sticking to a timetable like trains do, the crossing would be closing and opening quite often so the bells could well end up going even more often than they do at present.

Sponsored advertisement

Display from:   

Quick Reply

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