50 level crossings to be removed

 
  Adogs Chief Train Controller

Correct, imagine the Banana Alley vaults, but 16 km long, and you get the Berliner E-W S-Bahn viaduct Smile

Sponsored advertisement

  ptvcommuter Train Controller

Think the remaining LX should be done in groups to minimise disruption and shutdowns for lines in the next four years. Like for example

- Doing the Mernda Line Crossings at Reservior, Preston and Bell in one hit
- Doing the Frankston Line Crossings at Edithvale To Carrum in one hit, potentially even Cheltenham/Mentone

- Doing the Werribee Line Crossings at Werribee, Hoopers Crossing to Laverton in one hit
  Myrtone Chief Commissioner

Location: North Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria
Separations cost a LOT of money, even in the 1880's, and there was NO NEED.
At the time Mont Albert Rd and Union Rd were little more than farm access roads
justarider
I realise how quiet it was at the time, but that doesn't change the fact that a cutting through that location would have avoided both two gradients and a level crossing, and also a gatekeeper at Mont Albert road.
And I'm sure they would have made back the cost many times by now.

The IMPORTANT crossing have been done over the years as the need arose.
justarider
Not necessarily, if they were, there would be a lot fewer level crossings today if that were the case, Daniel Andrews himself has said that a lot more level crossings should have been removed long ago.

Burke Rd Camberwell was not done until 1919. Canterbury Rd in 1968. Station St in 1983.
The last remaining 2 have never rated in the importance scale. They still are minor.
Only now being done to complete the set and improve the time table.
justarider
They are the last two towards Box Hill and as Marcus Wong has explained in a blog entry mentioned before, there was a proposal to remove them back in the 1970s. Rail traffic is very heavy there during the busiest times.

As an aside, the NIMBY's do have valid concern with any grade separation.
With the last 2 LX gone, the traffic (which now avoids those LX like the plague) will become a horrendous rat race.
justarider
They won't have to hear the bells anymore.
  duttonbay Minister for Railways


Burke Rd Camberwell was not done until 1919. Canterbury Rd in 1968. Station St in 1983.
The last remaining 2 have never rated in the importance scale. They still are minor.
Only now being done to complete the set and improve the time table.
They are the last two towards Box Hill and as Marcus Wong has explained in a blog entry mentioned before, there was a proposal to remove them back in the 1970s. Rail traffic is very heavy there during the busiest times.
Myrtone
You clearly haven't read Marcus' blog. There was never any proposal to remove Mont Albert Road, only Union Road.
  justarider Chief Train Controller

Location: Stuck on VR and hoping for better.

Burke Rd Camberwell was not done until 1919. Canterbury Rd in 1968. Station St in 1983.
The last remaining 2 have never rated in the importance scale. They still are minor.
Only now being done to complete the set and improve the time table.
They are the last two towards Box Hill and as Marcus Wong has explained in a blog entry mentioned before, there was a proposal to remove them back in the 1970s. Rail traffic is very heavy there during the busiest times.
-Myrtone

You clearly haven't read Marcus' blog. There was never any proposal to remove Mont Albert Road, only Union Road.
duttonbay
and to QUOTE Marcus Wong
In the grand scheme of things both Union Road and Mont Albert Road aren't major thoroughfares - grade separating both will result in the latter becoming even bigger rat run than it already is.
Marcus Wong - March 26, 2016
couldn't have said it better - OH Yeah I did.

The Country Roads Board recommendation for massive flyover was their typical modus operandi -
When you do NOT want to do something, put up an outrageous proposal that every body will hate. THE END.

Rail traffic is busy BUT there is still not enough car traffic to demand removal, and valid arguments against.
It will happen to make the rail line more efficient, and appease guilty conscience for the unfortunate fatalities.

cheers
John
  Myrtone Chief Commissioner

Location: North Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria
The Country Roads Board recommendation for massive flyover was their typical modus operandi -
When you do NOT want to do something, put up an outrageous proposal that every body will hate.
justarider
And it is outrageous for another reason that most don't know. The railway is uphill for Canterbury to just past Mont Albert station.
Lowering the railway would remove the level crossings and flatten the gradients. One or the other alone might not be a reason to lower the railway, but this combination definitely seems like a case to lower the railway.

Rail traffic is busy BUT there is still not enough car traffic to demand removal, and valid arguments against.
It will happen to make the rail line more efficient, and appease guilty conscience for the unfortunate fatalities.
justarider
If grade separating them would make them a bigger rat run than currently, did replacement of the original gates make them a bigger rat run than they were before?
  reubstar6 Chief Train Controller

Why are gradients an issue on a line which solely sees EMU traffic? The Level Crossing Removal Authority obviously would not make these hypothetical gradients too great. The cheapest and most effective solution should go ahead.
  historian Deputy Commissioner

The Country Roads Board recommendation for massive flyover was their typical modus operandi -
When you do NOT want to do something, put up an outrageous proposal that every body will hate. THE END.
justarider

You've been watching too much Yes Minister.

The CRB weren't being cute. They meant to build the bridge. The proposal had gone through the due process of the time, the VR and the councils were on side, the Minister agreed, and the project had been funded. Then the local residents - people of no standing whatsoever - put a spoke in their wheel.

The text reproduced in Marcus' blog post is classic bureaucratese. The first half is self righteous justification - we were right and we'd done everything right. The second half is bureaucratic facing saving - although we were right, in the light of further evidence we've decided not to proceed. And we certainly won't admit that the locals beat us politically.
  historian Deputy Commissioner

And it is outrageous for another reason that most don't know. The railway is uphill for Canterbury to just past Mont Albert station.
Lowering the railway would remove the level crossings and flatten the gradients. One or the other alone might not be a reason to lower the railway, but this combination definitely seems like a case to lower the railway.
Myrtone

Actually, the effect on the grades is not so clear cut - grade separation is likely to make them steeper.

The goal is always to minimise earthworks. Even with modern earthmoving machinery, moving earth is expensive. This will be particularly so with these grade separations. The three tracks fill the reservation, so, just as with the Bentleigh grade separations, I would expect that nearly all the digging will need to occur in one massive shutdown. To reduce the duration of this shutdown I would expect the earthworks would be minimised as far as possible.

The only way to do this is to build right to the grade limit. I'd expect the grade to *rise* from Union St towards the city to reduce the extent of the cutting on this side. I'd also expect the grade on the down side of Surrey Hills to be right at 1 in 40 (currently 1 in 39/41) to minimise slightly the depth of the cutting towards Mont Albert Rd. Once under Mont Albert Rd the grade will be as steep as they can make it to minimise the depth of cutting through Mont Albert. Beyond Mont Albert the line might even rise slightly, again to minimise the depth of the cutting.

So, I'd expect the summit to be lowered somewhat - perhaps 5 or 6 metres - but the gradients to be increased to the maximum.
  duttonbay Minister for Railways

The Country Roads Board recommendation for massive flyover was their typical modus operandi -
When you do NOT want to do something, put up an outrageous proposal that every body will hate. THE END.

You've been watching too much Yes Minister.

The CRB weren't being cute. They meant to build the bridge. The proposal had gone through the due process of the time, the VR and the councils were on side, the Minister agreed, and the project had been funded. Then the local residents - people of no standing whatsoever - put a spoke in their wheel.

The text reproduced in Marcus' blog post is classic bureaucratese. The first half is self righteous justification - we were right and we'd done everything right. The second half is bureaucratic facing saving - although we were right, in the light of further evidence we've decided not to proceed. And we certainly won't admit that the locals beat us politically.
historian
It was definitely a roads project though. Would have had benefits for the north-south traffic on Warrigal Road, and also the east-west traffic on Canterbury Road. It would have absolutely decimated Surrey Hills - Union Road as a shopping centre would have disappeared I reckon. As someone who at the time of the proposal lived in Oakleigh and was doing a lot of jobs to the north it would have helped me. Then later when I moved to Mitcham and had an office in Hawthorn East it would have been beneficial too. But I remain glad the residents won.
  Myrtone Chief Commissioner

Location: North Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria
Why are gradients an issue on a line which solely sees EMU traffic? The Level Crossing Removal Authority obviously would not make these hypothetical gradients too great. The cheapest and most effective solution should go ahead.
reubstar6
The issue is not gradients alone, but the combination of level crossings and gradients. The solution that should go ahead is the one with the best outcome in the long term.

Actually, the effect on the grades is not so clear cut - grade separation is likely to make them steeper.
historian
It did make them less steep at Heatherdale and (I think) Mitcham too.

The CRB weren't being cute. They meant to build the bridge. The proposal had gone through the due process of the time, the VR and the councils were on side, the Minister agreed, and the project had been funded. Then the local residents - people of no standing whatsoever - put a spoke in their wheel.
historian
I know what they were meant to do, but it didn't make sense in that area, not just because they were already surrounded by buildings but also being in the hills. All other road-based grade separations in our metropolitan area are in flat places.

The goal is always to minimise earthworks. Even with modern earthmoving machinery, moving earth is expensive. This will be particularly so with these grade separations. The three tracks fill the reservation, so, just as with the Bentleigh grade separations, I would expect that nearly all the digging will need to occur in one massive shutdown. To reduce the duration of this shutdown I would expect the earthworks would be minimised as far as possible.
historian
In between Ormond and McKinnon, there was no choice but train unfriendly gradients because of some underground service that apparently was considered indivertible. Maybe rail over North Road and under McKinnon and Centre roads would have been a better choice but it is too late now.

The only way to do this is to build right to the grade limit. I'd expect the grade to *rise* from Union St towards the city to reduce the extent of the cutting on this side. I'd also expect the grade on the down side of Surrey Hills to be right at 1 in 40 (currently 1 in 39/41) to minimise slightly the depth of the cutting towards Mont Albert Rd. Once under Mont Albert Rd the grade will be as steep as they can make it to minimise the depth of cutting through Mont Albert. Beyond Mont Albert the line might even rise slightly, again to minimise the depth of the cutting.
historian
Are there underground services in that area that would need to be diverted if the gradients are flattened?

It was definitely a roads project though. Would have had benefits for the north-south traffic on Warrigal Road, and also the east-west traffic on Canterbury Road. It would have absolutely decimated Surrey Hills - Union Road as a shopping centre would have disappeared I reckon. As someone who at the time of the proposal lived in Oakleigh and was doing a lot of jobs to the north it would have helped me. Then later when I moved to Mitcham and had an office in Hawthorn East it would have been beneficial too. But I remain glad the residents won.
duttonbay
Hey, alternative history again! Noting what would have happened if the road had been raised. If I had lived, say, in Surrey Hills or Mont Albert at that time, maybe I would have called for rail-under, as the terrain in that area does suggest that would be the way to go.
  Valvegear Dr Beeching

Location: Norda Fittazroy
Hey, alternative history again!
"Myrtone"
Rubbish. It was duttonbay's ideas; no more and no less.
  Lad_Porter Chief Commissioner

Location: Yarra Glen
For the umpteenth time, there is no such thing as "alternative history".  History is a record of what happened in the past, NOT what might have happened if different decisions or different actions had been taken.  It is not changeable, and has no alternative - it happened, it's recorded in the history books, and now it's over, finished.   The present day mess of Australia's rail gauges is a perfect example.  You can speculate all you like on how that may have panned out had different decisions been taken at the time, but the historical facts remains and cannot be changed.

On the other hand, "alternative future" does exist, depending on what actions or decisions are taken now and into the future.  To use the rail gauge example again, the alternatives exist right now to do little or nothing about it, or to clean it up.  Whatever is done will at some definite date be recorded as history.  That's a record of what happened, and at that point the alternatives cease to exist.
  ngarner Train Controller

Location: Seville
On some factual news, the LXRA have updated their website to show that the Abbots Rd Dandenong Sth, the Caulfield Dandenong nine, Thompsons Rd Lyndhurst, and Melton Hwy Sydenham crossing works have finally been completed.
High St Reservoir works are gearing up with road and car parking space closures.

Neil
  Gman_86 Chief Commissioner

Location: Melton, where the sparks dare not roam!
Myrtone, you don't seem to get it, so I shall point it out clearly for you:

Nobody is interested in your alternative history.

It is rubbish.

Quit it, move on.

Back to reality please.
  ptvcommuter Train Controller

Anyone know if the Cheltenham and Mentone LX removals give provision for a third track ?

Triplication to Mordialloc would be beneficial especially now that the Glenhuntly LX is being removed and that major time delay for express trains is gone.

There is provision at between Mordialloc to Highett, space all the way to Bay Rd for a third and then it’s get hard at Southland, down platform moved and express track in the centre, perhaps. Bridges over Nepean Hwy, etc have provision for a third track.
  True Believers Chief Commissioner

Seems like the Toorak Road one at Kooyong will start construction soon.

In the update, says will start mid-end of 2019 and finish by 2021.

https://levelcrossings.vic.gov.au/media/publications/toorak-road,-kooyong-update

So what do you expect will be done at this location?
  reubstar6 Chief Train Controller

Certainly a rail based solution. I'd prefer rail over, however with the proximity of the apartments they might go for rail under.
  slowcoach Locomotive Driver

Certainly a rail based solution. I'd prefer rail over, however with the proximity of the apartments they might go for rail under.
reubstar6
I predict a hydrid solution of combining road-over and rail-under due to the west side of Toorak Rd on a steep incline
  Nightfire Minister for Railways

Location: Gippsland
Correct, imagine the Banana Alley vaults, but 16 km long, and you get the Berliner E-W S-Bahn viaduct Smile
Adogs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Stadtbahn
  Nightfire Minister for Railways

Location: Gippsland
Anyone know if the Cheltenham and Mentone LX removals give provision for a third track ?

Triplication to Mordialloc would be beneficial especially now that the Glenhuntly LX is being removed and that major time delay for express trains is gone.

There is provision at between Mordialloc to Highett, space all the way to Bay Rd for a third and then it’s get hard at Southland, down platform moved and express track in the centre, perhaps. Bridges over Nepean Hwy, etc have provision for a third track.
ptvcommuter
Probably built like for like, as has been done on every other level crossing project (Cheltenham will have a third platform)
  ARodH Chief Train Controller

Location: East Oakleigh, Vic
Oakleigh's third platform was removed & they've gone scorched earth on the removed track bed.
  ptvcommuter Train Controller

Oakleigh's third platform was removed & they've gone scorched earth on the removed track bed.
ARodH


Current Oakleigh Station has room between current platform 1 and 2 for a third track in the centre and you could put another track back where the bike path is now (old platform 1), relocate bike path closer to the road or somewhere else.

Honestly this project isn’t all too bad now, Quadruplication when it is done won’t be so complicated at Oakleigh, now that there is room to put two extra tracks. You may need a flyover or two but I’d say now the issue is working out how you can Quadruplicate at Springvale as well as sextuplicate between Caulfield and Soufh Yarra
  Lockie91 Train Controller

@ARodH

As has been discussed in the HCMT thread and agreeded or disagreed on. There is no need for the old third platform at Oakleigh Station.

The Majority of services will short start at Dandenong or West Footscray.
  tayser Deputy Commissioner

Location: Melbourne
..or Westall.

Sponsored advertisement

Display from: