No New Level Crossings

 
  Rossco T Chief Train Controller

Location: Camberwell, Victoria
Often I read comments on these forums that say things like if the railway between Cranbourne and Nyora was reopened that all the former level crossings would have to be grade separated due to current State Government policy of 'No New Level Crossings'.

Some how I seem to have missed that a new level crossing opened recently on the Ballarat to Ararat passenger line at Avenue Road.



Here is a link to the media release about the level crossing opening.

http://minister.infrastructure.gov.au/wt/releases/2015/April/wt103_2015.aspx

Apparently this level crossing was closed 20 years ago and has now been reinstated.  Given this has been permitted to occur so recently, surely it is ridiculous to argue that all the former level crossings on the South Gippsland line would have to be grade separated if that railway was to be reopened.  I wonder how the Burrumbeet crossing was able to get around the State Government policy?

Ross

Sponsored advertisement

  Nightfire Minister for Railways

Location: Gippsland
All In the wording

'No New Level Crossings'

This crossing Is not a new crossing !
  Gman_86 Chief Commissioner

Location: Melton, where the sparks dare not roam!
I often wonder how concrete the rule is. Is it an actual written rule,? Is it a law? Or is it simply a solid agreement that any new level crossings are unwanted? My suspicion is the latter but I don't actually know.
  Nightfire Minister for Railways

Location: Gippsland
I often wonder how concrete the rule is. Is it an actual written rule,? Is it a law? Or is it simply a solid agreement that any new level crossings are unwanted? My suspicion is the latter but I don't actually know.
Gman_86
A strong design guideline,

A new crossing In an urban area
Totally not on !

A new crossing out In the country where the rail traffic Is low and Its only a minor road with minimal traffic
Ok
  Gman_86 Chief Commissioner

Location: Melton, where the sparks dare not roam!
I figured as much, thanks Nightfire.
  Lad_Porter Chief Commissioner

Location: Yarra Glen
Interesting.....   When the Yarra Glen bypass was originally conceived, the plan was to extend the Melba Highway northwards, from near St Huberts Road, with a new bridge over the Yarra, a new crossing of the Healesville railway line, and rejoining the existing highway near Old Healesville Road.  This plan was eventually dumped in favour of what actually happened, which was to use the existing highway into Yarra Glen and then along the Yarra Glen to Healesville road.  The justification, as I recall, was the cost.  It avoided the need for both a new river bridge AND a grade separation on the railway.  The LX in Yarra Glen, being an existing crossing, could continue to be used by the bypass, but a new level crossing on a new road would not be permitted, even though the line was currently out of action (but would possibly resume as a tourist railway at some point).  That's how I recall it anyway.
  Turbo Thomas Assistant Commissioner

Location: Melbourne
I've always wondered the exact definition of "new" level crossing ?
Theoretically, if they decided to reopen the inner circle, would every road need to be grade separated or would they be simply classified as old/existing level crossings, not "new". Could such a principle be used in the extension of the South Morang line.
  Myrtone Chief Commissioner

Location: North Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria
It's because of this policy that I think a lot about grade separation. Given this policy, can the value of level crossing removal be exchanged for new extensions or new roads across existing railways?
  Lad_Porter Chief Commissioner

Location: Yarra Glen
I've always wondered the exact definition of "new" level crossing ?
Theoretically, if they decided to reopen the inner circle, would every road need to be grade separated or would they be simply classified as old/existing level crossings, not "new". Could such a principle be used in the extension of the South Morang line.
Turbo Thomas
I would think it would depend on whether a level crossing is currently in use by both trains and road vehicles.  If so, it can stay as is.  But if a railway line is to be crossed by an entirely new road, it must be grade separated.  Likewise, if a railway line is to be extended and the extension will cross a road, that too must be grade separated.  In the case of the Mernda extension, and reopening the inner circle, the old right of way is no longer a railway line, so where the new line crosses a road, it would need to be grade separated.  

But that raises an interesting question about Yarra Glen.  The crossing there is no longer in use by trains, but it was assumed that it will be in the future by the Yarra Valley Railway.  As it was an existing crossing on an existing road, the truck bypass could use it.  Not only that, but the bypass project included an upgrade of the crossing with boom gates etc.  Now don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting for a moment that this would or should ever be done - but just for the sake of the argument, I wonder what would be the requirement if the line from Lilydale were to be reopened now?  Would the crossings at Coldstream and Yering have to be grade separated?  I think so;  it would be like the Mernda extension.  On a slightly more realistic note, there is a vague suggestion of a Metro maintenance facility being built at Coldstream.  Would that require a grade separation at Beresford Road?
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE
Its probably falls in the category of context and commonsense.

Re-opening LX a lightly used regional line with a lightly used road in a farming area is one thing.

But reopening a former suburban line in suburbia on busy suburban roads is another.

And if thats not enough clarification, if the line has an O/H or considered a commuter line, no!
  B 67 Chief Commissioner

Location: Central Gippsland
Its probably falls in the category of context and commonsense.

Re-opening LX a lightly used regional line with a lightly used road in a farming area is one thing.

But reopening a former suburban line in suburbia on busy suburban roads is another.

And if thats not enough clarification, if the line has an O/H or considered a commuter line, no!
"RTT_Rules"



So, getting back to the original post and the South Gippsland line beyond Cranbourne. When the line closed, it was a country line in a rural area. If/when it reopens, it would be a suburban line in a built-up area. The crossings could be considered to be existing ones since they were already there in the past. Or they could be considered new as the rails have been removed from several. Also new roads have been built or existing ones duplicated.
  LancedDendrite Chief Commissioner

Location: North Haverbrook; where the monorail is king!
But that raises an interesting question about Yarra Glen. The crossing there is no longer in use by trains, but it was assumed that it will be in the future by the Yarra Valley Railway.  As it was an existing crossing on an existing road, the truck bypass could use it.  Not only that, but the bypass project included an upgrade of the crossing with boom gates etc.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting for a moment that this would or should ever be done - but just for the sake of the argument, I wonder what would be the requirement if the line from Lilydale were to be reopened now?  Would the crossings at Coldstream and Yering have to be grade separated?  I think so;  it would be like the Mernda extension.  On a slightly more realistic note, there is a vague suggestion of a Metro maintenance facility being built at Coldstream.  Would that require a grade separation at Beresford Road?
Lad_Porter
The Melba Hwy level crossing counted as in-use because it was a level crossing under the control of an operating railway. Didn't matter if it wasn't being used at the time, the YVR still holds the Order-In-Council for that section so they get the final say on what happens to the level crossing. Mind you, it took a lot of lobbying on their part just to keep that level crossing open, let alone get it upgraded as well. I can't wait to see those boom gates go down and hold up interstate traffic for miles and miles Laughing

Coldstream West Rd and MacIntyre Lane are a little different, because the rails have been asphalted over and the level crossing signage removed. There's a bit of a grey area with that, but I guess because the level crossing existed beforehand, it wouldn't count as closed.

All a bit of a moot point at this stage, because the Yarra Ranges Shire wants to turn the Lilydale - Yarra Glen section of the railway line into a bike path.
  davesvline Chief Commissioner

Location: 1983-1998
Perhaps the Shire of Yarra Ranges needs to understand,  that until the YVTR turns into something like SGR did, that what they want for a bike path doesn't  mean diddly squat. So much so,  I hope that YVTR not only survives but thrives. If for no other reason than to stick it right up these pricks.

Regards

ps.  The whole no new level crossing debate is a moot point until if/when the scheduled list is either done,  or a change of government here sees a reshuffle of the priority on which isnext etc or bumped off the list in favour of another . Time will tell.

Sponsored advertisement

Subscribers: Beta4Me, Nightfire

Display from:   

Quick Reply

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