My optimistic assumption is that one day, there will be an express train from Bairnsdale to Flinders St, that only stops at 2 stations, obviously skipping Stratford.

Nothing wrong with optimism. A future express from Bairnsdale sounds good in theory, assuming everyone who gets on the train at Bairnsdale actually wants to go to one of the two stations that the train stops at. And until there's a more intensive service on the Bairnsdale line east of Traralgon, I'm pretty sure all Bairnsdale trains will be continuing to stop at Stratford, Sale and Rosedale.

Your estimate of what needs to be demolished is wrong. Also, there is no need to close the existing station. It is easier to keep the existing station and train line.

A bit hard to keep the existing station if the track is realigned away from it.

My estimate wasn't wrong. It was just based on a different alignment to your 1600m one.

I drew a 1600m radius curve using freemaptools.com. The 1600m curve actually crosses just above the intersection of McFarlane St and Dixon St. Then it goes through middle of Market Reserve. Rejoins existing line at approx 15 Industrial Ave.

On Google Earth, it looks like 4 industrial buildings have to be demolised. I will guess 4 industrial buildings cost no more than $3 million. (Plus some existing properties will have partial land resumption.) At the same time as easing the curve, the Princes Hwy will have to be rebuilt as 2 bridges over the existing line plus new line. The cost of building the road will dwarf the property acquisition cost.

As I mentioned, there are also new houses (to the north of Market Reserve) which do not appear on Google Earth.

The google images are out of date and streetview is far worse. I live 100m away from the site, so I see the realignment as being far more difficult than drawing a line on a map. For the foreseeable future, the cost of realignment could not be justified. Should higher speeds and express trains ever be needed at Stratford, building a new line bypassing the town itself would perhaps be a better solution.

So, based on assumption that there is an express train, it is worth while to build the eased line, and at the same time, remove the highway railway crossing.

And as there is no express train, and there is unlikely to be one for many years - if at all, then it's not worth it.
Sure, if some future government decides to throw the money into a major upgrade of the line with far more frequent services - which would require long passing loops / partial or full duplication, then I'm sure they will also have the money to realign that curve north of the (recently renewed and extended) station platform.

So TPWS overspeed sensors are being installed on the bridge in both directions to enforce the 10 km/h limit. They must be seriously concerned about its condition to go to that expense.

Is there any sign of work starting on the new Avon River bridge? It is supposed to start in 2019 and be completed in early 2021 (with the usual get out clause 'subject to planning and environmental approvals').

Is there any sign of work starting on the new Avon River bridge? It is supposed to start in 2019 and be completed in early 2021 (with the usual get out clause 'subject to planning and environmental approvals').

I took a day trip on the train a few weeks back, no sign of any on the ground work like survey pegs.
CPB Contractors has been appointed to build the new bridge - work to commence later this year.
It's interesting to note the Government has been pushing it as an increase in speed initiative rather than pointing out the old bridge was totally life expired and the line would have otherwise have been closed beyond Sale.

It's interesting to note the Government has been pushing it as an increase in speed initiative rather than pointing out the old bridge was totally life expired and the line would have otherwise have been closed beyond Sale.

You can't sell maintenance, it's not sexy. You have to sell the improvements or else the public won't give a toss (or worse still, throw rotten veggies at you because you're 'wasting taxpayer dollars on replacing a perfectly good bridge')

It's interesting to note the Government has been pushing it as an increase in speed initiative rather than pointing out the old bridge was totally life expired and the line would have otherwise have been closed beyond Sale.

You can't sell maintenance, it's not sexy. You have to sell the improvements or else the public won't give a toss (or worse still, throw rotten veggies at you because you're 'wasting taxpayer dollars on replacing a perfectly good bridge')

I would have thought the reality of the line closing was very real - in any case, a cursory inspection of the timber approaches on the Stratford side would demonstrate (even to a lay person) that the structure was in terrible condition.

It's interesting to note the Government has been pushing it as an increase in speed initiative rather than pointing out the old bridge was totally life expired and the line would have otherwise have been closed beyond Sale.

You can't sell maintenance, it's not sexy. You have to sell the improvements or else the public won't give a toss (or worse still, throw rotten veggies at you because you're 'wasting taxpayer dollars on replacing a perfectly good bridge')

They are doing the exact same thing with showing the rebuild of the culverts on the Morwell River as 'upgrades'.   The very same culverts that failed twice in recent history, from lack of said maintenance, due to 'flooding'.

Has anyone been keeping track of the scope for the pending 'upgrades'?  I am wondering if an earlier scope included duplication out of Traralgon toward Morwell.  Current scope would indicate not.  

I believe the only duplication we will see is Bunyip to Longwarry and the second platform at Morwell (read cheap extension of the crossing loop toward Traralgon).

In the light of V/Line performance, well, pretty much everywhere being poor (Murray Basin particularly), what are we getting for the investment?   The silk purse or the sows ear?

Has anyone been keeping track of the scope for the pending 'upgrades'?  I am wondering if an earlier scope included duplication out of Traralgon toward Morwell.  Current scope would indicate not.  

I believe the only duplication we will see is Bunyip to Longwarry and the second platform at Morwell (read cheap extension of the crossing loop toward Traralgon).

The proposed duplication between Tramway Road and Traralgon Station (about 9.5 km's) has been dropped from the scope (was probably needed If the proposed new train stabling depot / maintenance was to be sited at the GIFT precinct)  

The Morwell loop extension, Is only about 1 km, using the formation of the former briquette siding.

I asked that question a number of months ago, and just recently got this response from RRR

"The rail operation assessment found neither duplicated track at Moe nor between Morwell and Traralgon would contribute to facilitating a 40-minute off-peak train frequency to Traralgon."

I was also advised at an information session that, because of the complexitys with the stabling, it has been split into a separate project so they can move forward with the main set if upgrades.

Cheers Chris

I asked that question a number of months ago, and just recently got this response from RRR

"The rail operation assessment found neither duplicated track at Moe nor between Morwell and Traralgon would contribute to facilitating a 40-minute off-peak train frequency to Traralgon."

I was also advised at an information session that, because of the complexitys with the stabling, it has been split into a separate project so they can move forward with the main set if upgrades.

Cheers Chris

That's more or less exactly what they said at one of the community Information sessions at Morwell.

The one thing I forgot to ask them was, will there be any crossovers Installed as part of the Bunyip - Longwarry duplication.

I asked that question a number of months ago, and just recently got this response from RRR

"The rail operation assessment found neither duplicated track at Moe nor between Morwell and Traralgon would contribute to facilitating a 40-minute off-peak train frequency to Traralgon."

I was also advised at an information session that, because of the complexitys with the stabling, it has been split into a separate project so they can move forward with the main set if upgrades.

Cheers Chris

The duplication out of Traralgon would have helped immensely with reliability and recovery of the time table.   To enable services to depart on time to meet their slots.  To allow late services to reach Traralgon off their path.  Will see more of the same so far as number of services terminated at Morwell to meet the return path and late arrivals into Traralgon on account of being put away for the priority originating service I would imagine.

I asked that question a number of months ago, and just recently got this response from RRR

"The rail operation assessment found neither duplicated track at Moe nor between Morwell and Traralgon would contribute to facilitating a 40-minute off-peak train frequency to Traralgon."

I was also advised at an information session that, because of the complexitys with the stabling, it has been split into a separate project so they can move forward with the main set if upgrades.

Cheers Chris

The duplication out of Traralgon would have helped immensely with reliability and recovery of the time table.   To enable services to depart on time to meet their slots.  To allow late services to reach Traralgon off their path.  Will see more of the same so far as number of services terminated at Morwell to meet the return path and late arrivals into Traralgon on account of being put away for the priority originating service I would imagine.

It's not going to be the end of the world, If a down Traralgon bound train gets put away at Morwell for like 10 minutes (for an up service to clear the single line)

It's not going to be the end of the world, If a down Traralgon bound train gets put away at Morwell for like 10 minutes (for an up service to clear the single line)

That's exactly what Peter Batchelor's muppets said to him and look where that got us.

I asked that question a number of months ago, and just recently got this response from RRR

"The rail operation assessment found neither duplicated track at Moe nor between Morwell and Traralgon would contribute to facilitating a 40-minute off-peak train frequency to Traralgon."

I was also advised at an information session that, because of the complexitys with the stabling, it has been split into a separate project so they can move forward with the main set if upgrades.

Cheers Chris

The duplication out of Traralgon would have helped immensely with reliability and recovery of the time table.   To enable services to depart on time to meet their slots.  To allow late services to reach Traralgon off their path.  Will see more of the same so far as number of services terminated at Morwell to meet the return path and late arrivals into Traralgon on account of being put away for the priority originating service I would imagine.

It's not going to be the end of the world, If a down Traralgon bound train gets put away at Morwell for like 10 minutes (for an up service to clear the single line)

......and then it misses its return path (or in reality terminated at Morwell).   Or, it goes beyond to Sale or Bairnsdale with cascading delays compounded by capacity restraints.

The next subject for clarification is the use of Velocities on the Bairnsdale services.  The track is rated at 130km/hr.  What does the time table actually require?   The question is, how much fat is in the time table for a velocity to 'make time' by having a 115km/hr timetable and capacity to do 130km/hr.   If indeed the case.   I ask this question in regard to how much we pay for underutilised engineering capacity for the sake of poor reliability due to other issue on the line?

Of course its marketed to the punters as an 'upgrade', but are the punters actually being sold short of what is actually possible if the key reliability issues are addressed.

Received an email a a few days ago, stating that the contract had been awarded to CPB ( whoever they are), to design and build the new Avon river bridge, expected to be in use in 2021.
L1150.

Received an email a a few days ago, stating that the contract had been awarded to CPB ( whoever they are), to design and build the new Avon river bridge, expected to be in use in 2021.
L1150.

CPB Contractors are part of CIMIC, formerly Leighton Holdings.

I asked that question a number of months ago, and just recently got this response from RRR

"The rail operation assessment found neither duplicated track at Moe nor between Morwell and Traralgon would contribute to facilitating a 40-minute off-peak train frequency to Traralgon."

I was also advised at an information session that, because of the complexitys with the stabling, it has been split into a separate project so they can move forward with the main set if upgrades.

Cheers Chris

The duplication out of Traralgon would have helped immensely with reliability and recovery of the time table.   To enable services to depart on time to meet their slots.  To allow late services to reach Traralgon off their path.  Will see more of the same so far as number of services terminated at Morwell to meet the return path and late arrivals into Traralgon on account of being put away for the priority originating service I would imagine.

No.

Have a look at the timetables. Up services from Traralgon to Morwell are typically 9 minutes, Down services from Morwell to Traralgon are typically 12 or 13 minutes. None of this is due to terrain etc. as So, the 'fat' already built into the Down sector provides some timetable recovery and no doubt helps V-line avoid fines for slow running services terminating at Traralgon. It is cringeworthy to witness an on time Down service crawling the last few km into Traralgon though.

By comparison, extending the Morwell loop through the station and providing the extra platform there will result in real timetable improvements.

G'day all.
Having the second platform in allignment with the main line at Traralgon will certainly help with the slow running. The current platform is on a diverge, so all trains slow down to a crawl for signals to step up on approach.
Cheers all.

Is there any sign of work starting on the new Avon River bridge? It is supposed to start in 2019 and be completed in early 2021 (with the usual get out clause 'subject to planning and environmental approvals').

Like all projects, they are probably still looking for frogs, birds, plants, artefacts, etc. and coming up with plans to address more green tape.

G'day all.
Having the second platform in allignment with the main line at Traralgon will certainly help with the slow running. The current platform is on a diverge, so all trains slow down to a crawl for signals to step up on approach.
Cheers all.

Then all that really needs to happen is for the main line to be skewed, if needed at all. Again, Down trains heading for destinations further east DO NOT slow to a crawl approaching Traralgon.

Almost all of the time the arriving Down forms the next Up, with a layover of approx. half an hour. If the eventual frequency is 40 minutes, then trains will cross at Morwell. At the moment trains crossing at either Morwell or Hernes Oak loop adds minutes and passengers getting on or off at Morwell are inconvenienced.

Is there any sign of work starting on the new Avon River bridge? It is supposed to start in 2019 and be completed in early 2021 (with the usual get out clause 'subject to planning and environmental approvals').

Like all projects, they are probably still looking for frogs, birds, plants, artefacts, etc. and coming up with plans to address more green tape.

They have found plenty of environmental stop signs / no go zones In the Bunyip - Longwarry section, expect some silly questionable track designs as a result.

Is there any sign of work starting on the new Avon River bridge? It is supposed to start in 2019 and be completed in early 2021 (with the usual get out clause 'subject to planning and environmental approvals').

Like all projects, they are probably still looking for frogs, birds, plants, artefacts, etc. and coming up with plans to address more green tape.

They have found plenty of environmental stop signs / no go zones In the Bunyip - Longwarry section, expect some silly questionable track designs as a result.

You'd hate to see the enviro signs Ballarat line then.... but that follows the original alignment.

umm, what does ANY OF THIS HAVE TO DO WITH ECHUCA??

What does Echuca have to do with the subject "Gippsland Line Upgrade" ??

.

You'd hate to see the enviro signs Ballarat line then.... but that follows the original alignment.

The same as the Traralgon - Sale highway upgrade (that has run out of puff)

umm, what does ANY OF THIS HAVE TO DO WITH ECHUCA??

What does Echuca have to do with the subject "Gippsland Line Upgrade" ??

sorry, got in the wrong post, should have checked it first