50 level crossings to be removed

 
  ptvcommuter Train Controller

Although there are no plans for an Upfield rail tunnel, I want that future option kept open, also that section of the railway is higher than Sydney road, and a viaduct would just make it even higher. Note that it is possible to roof over a viaduct and put a bike path and a footpath on top of that. I have seen gradient diagrams for the Upfield line and it is uphill from Brunswick station to Moreland station, also downhill just past Batman. A trench would flatten those gradients or at least keep open the future option of flatting them. EDIT: A preference to raise a railway that is already (sort of) on top of a hill really does suggest a lot of bias in favour of viaducts, that both the government and the L.X.R.A share.
Myrtone


I like the upfield tunnel but only from royal park to parkville and then via metro 2
My proposal is for the Wollert extension to come from Cragieburn when the tracks are duplicated from Gowrie to Roxbrough Park and extend to Epping. This improves orbital connectivity, gives stations at Epping North and Wollert and gives reason for the upfield Line to go into tunnel at royal park. Otherwise the underground isn’t justified.

Your constant anti skyrail bias makes me think that you are David Davis. You list all these ridiculous benefits of Trench, oh the area supports it. There have been studies from universities that price elevated Rail is the way to go along upfield. It creates community spaces, new bike path and improves local amenity. Not to mention the cost for 3 TPH and future 6 TPH isn’t worth it. There is no preference by the government to elevated rail, that is another pathetic liberal party fan base claim. There are five ways to deal with a LX removal, Trench, elevated, road under, road over and close, all options have been used so far. Your underground obsession will not happen, you can spread your delusion among David Davis, netz Melbourne Twitter moron, the anti skyrail twitter accounts and Peta credlin.

Sponsored advertisement

  chomper Junior Train Controller

I just had a look at the preliminary design for the High/Cheddar removal. Why haven't the designers connected Broadway and Edwardes St???
  True Believers Chief Commissioner

Although there are no plans for an Upfield rail tunnel, I want that future option kept open, also that section of the railway is higher than Sydney road, and a viaduct would just make it even higher. Note that it is possible to roof over a viaduct and put a bike path and a footpath on top of that.
I have seen gradient diagrams for the Upfield line and it is uphill from Brunswick station to Moreland station, also downhill just past Batman. A trench would flatten those gradients or at least keep open the future option of flatting them.

EDIT: A preference to raise a railway that is already (sort of) on top of a hill really does suggest a lot of bias in favour of viaducts, that both the government and the L.X.R.A share.
Myrtone
I'm sorry there isn't a "bias" for elevated rail. It's just is the option that makes the most sense at that location.

Now to put an end to the gradient nonsense: check pages 14-19, believe it or not the elevated sections fit much better on the Upfield line than the trench options.
https://gallery.mailchimp.com/b38874b25e686137780eb836e/files/Booklet_Upfield_201610_CBR2.pdf

RMIT did a study on the Upfield line and found in conclusion elevated rail had better connectivity, more cost efficient and fits the needs of the community.

The southern section of the Upfield line may be underground, but it's future is uncertain. As for the majority of level crossings on the middle-northern parts of the Upfield line, a rail bridge is the better option.
  True Believers Chief Commissioner

I just had a look at the preliminary design for the High/Cheddar removal. Why haven't the designers connected Broadway and Edwardes St???
chomper
I was told by the LXRA the road configuration was Vic Roads responsibilty and therefore they only allowed passive provision for the future connection.

Despite LXRA already changing the whole Carrum road configuration, they won't do the same at Reservior. Well well.
  Adogs Chief Train Controller

I just had a look at the preliminary design for the High/Cheddar removal. Why haven't the designers connected Broadway and Edwardes St???
I was told by the LXRA the road configuration was Vic Roads responsibilty and therefore they only allowed passive provision for the future connection.

Despite LXRA already changing the whole Carrum road configuration, they won't do the same at Reservior. Well well.
True Believers

They had to do it at Carrum because they wanted to close two roads (Eel Race Rd crossing at the one opposite Mascot Ave).  This forced VicRoads to get involved, to create a replacement for the resulting traffic.

At Reservoir, they aren't closing any current road connections, and VicRoads won't initially do anything if they don't have to.
  Adogs Chief Train Controller

There's no real point in arguing about an Upfield line trench, but against my better judgement I'll point out that a viaduct is also capable of smoothing out gradients.  You just make the piers different heights...  See the section immediately down of Clayton station for an example.
  True Believers Chief Commissioner

I just had a look at the preliminary design for the High/Cheddar removal. Why haven't the designers connected Broadway and Edwardes St???
I was told by the LXRA the road configuration was Vic Roads responsibilty and therefore they only allowed passive provision for the future connection.

Despite LXRA already changing the whole Carrum road configuration, they won't do the same at Reservior. Well well.

They had to do it at Carrum because they wanted to close two roads (Eel Race Rd crossing at the one opposite Mascot Ave).  This forced VicRoads to get involved, to create a replacement for the resulting traffic.

At Reservoir, they aren't closing any current road connections, and VicRoads won't initially do anything if they don't have to.
Adogs
You have to admit the Promenade bit was added cause the seat was marginal and wanted to appease the community.

The station street bridge allows the Mascot ave level crossing to be closed. Correct.

However the realigned road crossing was considered in both options (Eal race road staying open or close). The reason why the realigned the road was since the railway was very close to the river and since the road did zig-zag, so moving the road connection south meant it enable a smoother descent of the railway and align the road to connect along the main arterial.

I still think Vic Roads would be involved with the road bridge over the river and putting in a new road connection towards the beach. Despite it involving the closure of level crossings around it. I also still think it's a missed opportunity to realign the roads at Reservior while they are disrupting the traffic to allow the crossing to be removed.
  Myrtone Chief Commissioner

Location: North Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria
I'm sorry there isn't a "bias" for elevated rail. It's just is the option that makes the most sense at that location.
True Believers
I don't think so.

Now to put an end to the gradient nonsense: check pages 14-19, believe it or not the elevated sections fit much better on the Upfield line than the trench options.
https://gallery.mailchimp.com/b38874b25e686137780eb836e/files/Booklet_Upfield_201610_CBR2.pdf
True Believers
I have seen that study before, but I'm still not sure I agree with elevated rail being better.

RMIT did a study on the Upfield line and found in conclusion elevated rail had better connectivity, more cost efficient and fits the needs of the community.
True Believers
I largely disagree with elevated rail being better in spite of that study, putting the rail under, still being considered in that location, also can offer the connectivity, it is just a matter of putting bridges over the cutting where the connectivity is needed.

It is possible to deck over the cutting, and as for the expense of decking, ongoing or not?

The southern section of the Upfield line may be underground, but it's future is uncertain. As for the majority of level crossings on the middle-northern parts of the Upfield line, a rail bridge is the better option.
True Believers
I doubt it, part of the railway is already higher than Sydney road, a viaduct would make it even higher. And if a rail bridge is an option, how come a trench is still being considered?
  True Believers Chief Commissioner

Ok Myrtone disagrees with a study done by the top universities led by experts with transportation. And with top civil engineering students.

And claims of a bias, despite the report being executed with factual reasoning and logical sense. Showing the gradients favoring a elevated option.

Honestly Myrtone argument is supported with no evidence suggesting like the railway is too high. The gradient diagrams in the report show it is totally possible and won't put the railway at a steeper alignment.

Trenches are well known to be less connective than a rail bridge. All trenches are never fully covered due to the cost already high just to get all the underground services moved and digging out all the soil. Adding concrete sections along the whole corridor plus the expensive trench makes it less economical sense than building the whole section elevated which is cheaper.

Anyways not like I'm against trenches or anything, they have their own places where it can work better. As for the Upfield and Mernda lines, elevated rail is a favorable solution, by the LXRA, the transport experts, the graduate civil students, and anyone that has common sense.

If you are disregarding the information available and the views made by the best of the transport field, and base ur arguments on ur feelings of the matter, then it's not gonna convince anyone but urself.
  Nightfire Minister for Railways

Location: Gippsland
Although there are no plans for an Upfield rail tunnel, I want that future option kept open, also that section of the railway is higher than Sydney road, and a viaduct would just make it even higher. Note that it is possible to roof over a viaduct and put a bike path and a footpath on top of that. I have seen gradient diagrams for the Upfield line and it is uphill from Brunswick station to Moreland station, also downhill just past Batman. A trench would flatten those gradients or at least keep open the future option of flatting them. EDIT: A preference to raise a railway that is already (sort of) on top of a hill really does suggest a lot of bias in favour of viaducts, that both the government and the L.X.R.A share.


I like the upfield tunnel but only from royal park to parkville and then via metro 2
My proposal is for the Wollert extension to come from Cragieburn when the tracks are duplicated from Gowrie to Roxbrough Park and extend to Epping. This improves orbital connectivity, gives stations at Epping North and Wollert and gives reason for the upfield Line to go into tunnel at royal park. Otherwise the underground isn’t justified.

Your constant anti skyrail bias makes me think that you are David Davis. You list all these ridiculous benefits of Trench, oh the area supports it. There have been studies from universities that price elevated Rail is the way to go along upfield. It creates community spaces, new bike path and improves local amenity. Not to mention the cost for 3 TPH and future 6 TPH isn’t worth it. There is no preference by the government to elevated rail, that is another pathetic liberal party fan base claim. There are five ways to deal with a LX removal, Trench, elevated, road under, road over and close, all options have been used so far. Your underground obsession will not happen, you can spread your delusion among David Davis, netz Melbourne Twitter moron, the anti skyrail twitter accounts and Peta credlin.
ptvcommuter
The hard basalt rock across the Northern Suburbs would more of less make trenches unviable.
  Myrtone Chief Commissioner

Location: North Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria
So if the hard rock makes trenches unviable, then how come rail-under is being considered for that location?

As for Reservoir, I do wonder if the decision to raise the railway has anything to do with the aqueduct next to the tracks even though it crosses the railway somewhere further south?
  Nightfire Minister for Railways

Location: Gippsland
So if the hard rock makes trenches unviable, then how come rail-under is being considered for that location?
Myrtone
What location ???????
  ngarner Train Controller

Location: Seville
Anyone wishing to compare trench verses elevated rail and how that affects connectivity of neighbourhoods should look at the Hurstbridge line between Watsonia and Greensborough in comparison to the recently elevated Dandenong stretch. The Hurstbridge trench is bridged only twice by road and once more by footpath over the whole length of the trench. I have relatives living in that area and the disconnect between east and west is huge, as the study referred to earlier indicates, although Greensborough Highway's six lanes of traffic does not help in any way between Watsonia station and Grimshaw St; only to be made worse by the North-East Link. North of Grimshaw St the disconnect is little better especially considering there is no major highway adding to the problem.
The trench also takes up far more width that any elevated rail would due to the required slopes of the cutting to prevent any collapses onto the track. Covering that trench would assist with neighbourhood re-connection but would be a massive and expensive job that few would consider when there are higher priorities for large expenditure elsewhere.

Neil
  True Believers Chief Commissioner

So if the hard rock makes trenches unviable, then how come rail-under is being considered for that location?
What location ???????
Nightfire
Nightfire, I think Myrtone is thinking of the St Albans grade seperation project. But to be honest that would of been better as elevated rail.
  Myrtone Chief Commissioner

Location: North Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria
On the whole, road based grade separation would have been even better for the St. Albans grade separation project, but it was too late by the time of that grade separation project, as the crossings were already surrounded by buildings. Maybe road based grade separation could have been done had it been done, say 30 years ago.

And given the advantages of elevated rail, how come there were no rail viaducts in suburban Melbourne until the construction of three between Caulfield and Dandenong?

And it appears are actually four bridges over the cutting between Watsonia and Greensborough. Even if decking would be very expensive, is there a possibility of building more footbridges over that cutting? And a more important question than how much it would cost is who would cover the cost and whether they can make back the cost in a reasonable amount of time.
  Gman_86 Chief Commissioner

Location: Melton, where the sparks dare not roam!
I don't think so.
Myrtone
I have seen that study before, but I'm still not sure I agree with elevated rail being better.
Myrtone
Your opinion is irrelevant.
The local councils opinion is irrelevant.
The Liberal parties opinion is irrelevant.
My opinion is irrelevant.

The LXRA are funded by the Victorian tax payer, via the Victorian State Government. The same government that just won a landslide election. This means that the LXRA have now got full authority to do it their way.

The LXRA have the runs on the board. They have shown that they can deliver multiple projects on time and under budget. So the LXRA will make the call.

In other words, the LXRA will build the thing using whatever method they find is the best.

It is highly likely that for both the Upfield and Mernda lines, this method will be elevated railway.


Railpage users squabbling over what they think is best is just pointless. The LXRA will just do it their way anyway, and it will work a treat.
  Gman_86 Chief Commissioner

Location: Melton, where the sparks dare not roam!
Maybe road based grade separation could have been done had it been done, say 30 years ago.
Myrtone
That is a pointless argument.

And given the advantages of elevated rail, how come there were no rail viaducts in suburban Melbourne until the construction of three between Caulfield and Dandenong?
Myrtone
Because most politicians are short-sighted cowards.

And it appears are actually four bridges over the cutting between Watsonia and Greensborough. Even if decking would be very expensive, is there a possibility of building more footbridges over that cutting?
Myrtone
Of course it may be possible to build more bridges over any railway cutting. Nobody is doing it though.
  Myrtone Chief Commissioner

Location: North Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria
That is a pointless argument.
Gman_86
It is not if you are into alternative history.

Because most politicians are short-sighted cowards.
Gman_86
Is it really credible that the large number of cuttings and embankments is due to so many politicians being short-sighted?

Of course it may be possible to build more bridges over any railway cutting. Nobody is doing it though.
Gman_86
But that doesn't mean none will do it.
  Lad_Porter Chief Commissioner

Location: Yarra Glen
.... given the advantages of elevated rail, how come there were no rail viaducts in suburban Melbourne until the construction of three between Caulfield and Dandenong?
Myrtone
So how would you describe the section between North Richmond and Clifton Hill?
  duttonbay Minister for Railways

.... given the advantages of elevated rail, how come there were no rail viaducts in suburban Melbourne until the construction of three between Caulfield and Dandenong?
So how would you describe the section between North Richmond and Clifton Hill?
Lad_Porter
Or that which includes Auburn and Glenferrie stations?
  justarider Chief Train Controller

Location: Stuck on VR and hoping for better.
.... given the advantages of elevated rail, how come there were no rail viaducts in suburban Melbourne until the construction of three between Caulfield and Dandenong?
--@Myrtone
So how would you describe the section between North Richmond and Clifton Hill?
Lad_Porter
or Richmond station
or Hawthorn to Camberwell
or Canterbury
or Toorak Rd Hartwell
or Jordanville or Syndal
or Balaclava
or the grandaddy of them all :  Flinders St to SCS

really @Myrtone, have a proper look around the network.

cheers
John
  True Believers Chief Commissioner

That is a pointless argument.
It is not if you are into alternative history.

Because most politicians are short-sighted cowards.
Is it really credible that the large number of cuttings and embankments is due to so many politicians being short-sighted?

Of course it may be possible to build more bridges over any railway cutting. Nobody is doing it though.
But that doesn't mean none will do it.
Myrtone
Alternative history, wow getting some sci-fi vibes. Seriously though, if you look into the past road bridges were built in grade seperations about the time when the car was popular in the 1950-1960s. Just look at Oakleigh. Anyways now a rail trench is built and actually is a fine outcome. If it was elevated it would not need to dip twice, as there are 2 trenches along the corridor. If elevated rail was chose it would of been possible to see the line elevated from Furlong road to Main road.

A large number of cuttings and embankments, Myrtone? You mean only 7 of them done in the last 20 years (2 along Springvale road, Mitcham road, Rooks Road, Middleborough Road, 2 at Boronia). Very short sighted. That minimal compared with 29 done in 4 years.

In the past when grade seperation were done at a fast pace, elevated rail was chosen (some projects removed multiple level crossings at one time). There are examples all over the network.

But that doesn't mean none will do it? Well it's expensive.
800,000 for a pedestrian bridge over the trench...

https://wongm.com/2016/10/box-hills-754000-footbridge-across-tracks/
  TOQ-1 Deputy Commissioner

Location: Power Trainger
On the whole, road based grade separation would have been even better for the St. Albans grade separation project, but it was too late by the time of that grade separation project, as the crossings were already surrounded by buildings. Maybe road based grade separation could have been done had it been done, say 30 years ago.
Myrtone
Recovering what has been said in the other thread: there are many more considerations than rail gradient that need to be considered. One of these considerations is how the railway line interacts with the community. St Albans station is right in the town centre. It is surrounded by shops, parks, housing. It is a place for people. Any changes to the road network would mean property acquisition. In places such as this, where the rail reservation is long and has plenty of room, it is more beneficial to the project and the community overall to modify the rail, and not the road. Looking up the line at Kings Road and Taylors Road, the road under grade separations have been done in a way that means it is very hard for pedestrians to cross the road and access the nearby stations.

By putting the station under, it still has good (arguably better) access for people going to the shops, home, or changing for buses. A road based solution would push these away from the station.

Given there was nothing on the reservation, the approaches to the trenches could be as long as needed to minimise the impact of gradients.

The focus on gradients to all other considerations is an obsession that needs to end.
  Myrtone Chief Commissioner

Location: North Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria
Alternative history, wow getting some sci-fi vibes. Seriously though, if you look into the past road bridges were built in grade seperations about the time when the car was popular in the 1950-1960s. Just look at Oakleigh. Anyways now a rail trench is built and actually is a fine outcome. If it was elevated it would not need to dip twice, as there are 2 trenches along the corridor. If elevated rail was chose it would of been possible to see the line elevated from Furlong road to Main road.
True Believers
First of all, alternative history is not science fiction. And those road bridges replaced level crossings that were already surrounded by buildings and so there was building demolition. You need to look at examples where the grade separation came before that development to find better ones.

A large number of cuttings and embankments, Myrtone? You mean only 7 of them done in the last 20 years (2 along Springvale road, Mitcham road, Rooks Road, Middleborough Road, 2 at Boronia). Very short sighted. That minimal compared with 29 done in 4 years.
True Believers
Yes, a large number across the metropolitan area.

In the past when grade seperation were done at a fast pace, elevated rail was chosen (some projects removed multiple level crossings at one time). There are examples all over the network.
True Believers
I can't think of any examples, but there are plenty of embankments.

But that doesn't mean none will do it? Well it's expensive.
800,000 for a pedestrian bridge over the trench...

https://wongm.com/2016/10/box-hills-754000-footbridge-across-tracks/
True Believers
Well, it was less than $1 mil so quite cheap compared, say, to a road or rail bridge or a building such as a house. And it is sure to cost less than a high school and not more per metre than a rail viaduct, this isn't Bairdland.

Recovering what has been said in the other thread: there are many more considerations than rail gradient that need to be considered. One of these considerations is how the railway line interacts with the community. St Albans station is right in the town centre. It is surrounded by shops, parks, housing. It is a place for people. Any changes to the road network would mean property acquisition. In places such as this, where the rail reservation is long and has plenty of room, it is more beneficial to the project and the community overall to modify the rail, and not the road. Looking up the line at Kings Road and Taylors Road, the road under grade separations have been done in a way that means it is very hard for pedestrians to cross the road and access the nearby stations.
TOQ-1
The rail bridge over Kings Road is not that near to any station. And as for both Kings and Taylors roads, is there room to add a footbridge, later on, to make it easier?

My point is that St. Albans and Ginnifer stations have not always been like that, and there was a time when the level crossings weren't yet surrounded by buildings.

By putting the station under, it still has good (arguably better) access for people going to the shops, home, or changing for buses. A road based solution would push these away from the station.
TOQ-1
A road based solution would if it were already there by the time it was done, but had it been done before those shops, houses and bus stops were in that place that would not have happened.
  True Believers Chief Commissioner

Myrtone:

This sci-fi thing was obviously a joke. XD

Anyways St-Albans is like Oakleigh, it's a community hub, with shops and retail. If the road bridge was built like before the development, there would be no local amenity and the shopping strip wouldn't exist.

Mernda station in an elevated station and will bring a new community hub and shops centred around the station and is very easy to access.
This is a good example of building infrastructure to connect communities.

In recent history not many level crossings removals happened. Only a few at a time, some road bridges, a road trench, and a few rail trenches.

If you look further back, a lot of embackments and trenches were built to remove level crossings. There are about as many elevated track as there are trenches. Believing there are more trenches than elevated track is not reasonable. Embackments are part of Elevated rail, Myrtone, jesus.

Elevated Rail consists of:
-> Embackments
-> Rail bridges

Even the so called "skyrail" has embackments, it just has more bridge, that's the only difference.

It's been done before, you make it sound like it's new to Melbourne.

Building a house is cheaper than that over expensive pedestrian bridge over the trench. It's not even a huge bridge and it costs 1 million. Just imagine covering the whole trench, oh dear that's many millions of dollars covering a trench.

That's why elevated rail is superior for connectivity, no-one can dispute this. it's just too expensive to cover a trench.

Sponsored advertisement

Display from: