Boom Gates From Bell To Moreland Set To Go

 
Topic moved from News by bevans on 30 Oct 2019 13:28
  bevans Site Admin

Location: Melbourne, Australia
If the line is to close for 3 months then why not have the duplication works for the line to Upfield and also the reopening of the line from Upfield to Roxburgh park providing some much needed redundancy for services to the North and the line to Seymour.

I would have thought this would be a no brainer for the line and could be done with the line was closed for level crossing removal.

Am i wrong?

Boom Gates From Bell To Moreland Set To Go

Sponsored advertisement

  True Believers Chief Commissioner

If the line is to close for 3 months then why not have the duplication works for the line to Upfield and also the reopening of the line from Upfield to Roxburgh park providing some much needed redundancy for services to the North and the line to Seymour.

I would have thought this would be a no brainer for the line and could be done with the line was closed for level crossing removal.

Am i wrong?

Boom Gates From Bell To Moreland Set To Go
bevans

There has been no funding allocated for duplicating the line from Gowrie to Upfield. And the possible extension out to the North.

Anyways even if there was, there has been no site investigation or planning done prior, which would need to be done for that to happen to co-ordinate those works together.

Bevans, there was a preliminary business case to study the duplication of the Upfield line and the extension to Roxburgh Park, I believe it was done in 2017-2018. Funding was committed to this only. Go talk to the Department of Transport and see if they're able to give you those details and probably why they haven't progressed past that.

Altona duplication also had a business case delivered between 2017-2018, the Department of Transport has that too, would be nice to know more details on that.

But of course, they keep those documents not to the public and for good reason to. Probably tried to justify it wasn't feasible to proceed so to not upset the community they just kept quiet about it.
  John.Z Assistant Commissioner

But of course, they keep those documents not to the public and for good reason to. Probably tried to justify it wasn't feasible to proceed so to not upset the community they just kept quiet about it.
True Believers
Either tried to justify it but even with dodgy numbers couldn't get them to stack or your alternative.

Either way, the outcomes wasn't in the governments interests so has been buried.
  bevans Site Admin

Location: Melbourne, Australia
But of course, they keep those documents not to the public and for good reason to. Probably tried to justify it wasn't feasible to proceed so to not upset the community they just kept quiet about it.
Either tried to justify it but even with dodgy numbers couldn't get them to stack or your alternative.

Either way, the outcomes wasn't in the governments interests so has been buried.
John.Z

This line upgrade and the connection is in the transport futures report.
  tom9876543 Train Controller

Rail line should have gone underneath new apartment towers.
I'm guessing private developers would have built multi-storey apartments and put the rail line in the basement at no cost to Vic Govt.
Considering the 3 month shutdown, there really is no reason why they couldn't have built apartments above.
A missed opportunity by Vic Govt to get this job completed at minimal cost.
  True Believers Chief Commissioner

Rail line should have gone underneath new apartment towers.
I'm guessing private developers would have built multi-storey apartments and put the rail line in the basement at no cost to Vic Govt.
Considering the 3 month shutdown, there really is no reason why they couldn't have built apartments above.
A missed opportunity by Vic Govt to get this job completed at minimal cost.
tom9876543
It would have cost a fortune to build it cut and cover with apartments like you're suggesting. The full extra cost would not be offset by developing the land above.

It also would be just as disruptive, probably longer.

No that's totally incorrect, value capture just isn't that successful above the railway, first requires covering the trench which is costly and second the recovery of that cost is never fully realized. If it was so successful, you'd see more examples around Melbourne. Ormond is one that has been completed. But Mckinnon/Bentleigh and Gardiner development sites were stalled or postponed to a future date, or maybe never happen.

The Metro tunnel would be successful with value capture mostly due to it being right in the middle of the city. Also Fed Square too also successful due to its location, doing something like that in the suburbs, is just not that feasible economically. It's been proven time and time again that's the case.

Anyways a better way is to place apartments where the car-parks are located instead on top of railways, plenty of areas like that could be developed in this way, especially car-parks next to railway stations.
  freightgate Minister for Railways

Location: Albury, New South Wales
What apartment towers are you speaking about ? Is there a proposal to build on the rail reserve ?
  8077 Chief Train Controller

Location: Crossing the Rubicon
What apartment towers are you speaking about ? Is there a proposal to build on the rail reserve ?
freightgate

Suggested as a component of value capture idea but where?

If the corridor to Rox park is in the transport plan the perfect timing for the work to rebuild the line and electrify from Upfield should have been done.

The point missing is where is the planning which minimises the network disruptions but also provides additional capacity for services which is required to address the many capacity issues on the system right now.  What an opportunity lost.

The secondary path from the northern lines would also provide an ability to take some lines of out service for maintenance and still have the alternative path into Melbourne as they do now in Sydney for some of their lines.  Melbourne should look to remove the dead ended lines and integrate the network and add capacity.

Lastly the choice of skyrail for the line is not a good choice.  more consideration should have been made for rail over the top of the road which as Essendon which looks to have been accepted by just about everyone.
  True Believers Chief Commissioner

Lastly the choice of skyrail for the line is not a good choice.  more consideration should have been made for rail over the top of the road which as Essendon which looks to have been accepted by just about everyone.
8077

The choice of sky rail for the line is a good choice. It's easier going elevated rail than one long trench with the road crossings are clustered together.

https://www.rmit.edu.au/news/all-news/2016/november/student-designs-on-track-for-future-rail-crossing-removals

Case study one by RMIT showed elevated rail is well suited to the Upfield corridor. I'm sorry trenching individual crossings have merit but trenching long sections divides communities and is a blight on the suburb.

Cut and cover the whole trench (even with redevelopment), is very costly and not economically viable, otherwise, you'd see more value capture on top of railways. Value capture works extremely well in the city centres and areas where land can be developed without too much cost, like developing on top of vacant land/carparks or industrial land.
  YM-Mundrabilla Minister for Railways

Location: Mundrabilla but I'd rather be in Narvik
What apartment towers are you speaking about ? Is there a proposal to build on the rail reserve ?

Suggested as a component of value capture idea but where?

If the corridor to Rox park is in the transport plan the perfect timing for the work to rebuild the line and electrify from Upfield should have been done.

The point missing is where is the planning which minimises the network disruptions but also provides additional capacity for services which is required to address the many capacity issues on the system right now.  What an opportunity lost.

The secondary path from the northern lines would also provide an ability to take some lines of out service for maintenance and still have the alternative path into Melbourne as they do now in Sydney for some of their lines.  Melbourne should look to remove the dead ended lines and integrate the network and add capacity.

Lastly the choice of skyrail for the line is not a good choice.  more consideration should have been made for rail over the top of the road which as Essendon which looks to have been accepted by just about everyone.
8077
'Essendon which looks to have been accepted by just about everyone.'

Even I have to admit Buckley Street has been a good job.
Only shortcoming is that they should have extended platform 1 whilst on the job.
  TOQ-1 Deputy Commissioner

Location: Power Trainger
I'd imagine Upfield would have been a mess to trench - so many truck movements needed through small streets to get all the soil and rock out. With such a narrow reservation for most of the line, it would be a struggle to manage this. It will still be a struggle to manage the movement of trucks in and out with the elevated solution.

The Ormond deck required a 13 storey tower to make any money on what it cost to build a deck that was big enough for a building. To deck around the Upfield Line, with it being a narrow corridor, meaning the deck would either be a) very small, or b) very long, would probably require similar heights. Ormond was nowhere near ready for a 13 storey building, and realistically 4-5 storeys in that part of the suburbs are probably about right. In this section of the Upfield Line, 5 or 6 stories might be appropriate, but I would imagine the cost would be ridiculous, as well as potentially severing parts of the Upfield Cycle Path.

The elevated rail at least means that the path will remain, nearby residents have access to a little more open space, and all the mid rise buildings going in around the rail corridor already will benefit from the spaces.
  CraigieburnLineUser Locomotive Fireman


Lastly the choice of skyrail for the line is not a good choice.  more consideration should have been made for rail over the top of the road which as Essendon which looks to have been accepted by just about everyone.'Essendon which looks to have been accepted by just about everyone.'

Even I have to admit Buckley Street has been a good job.
Only shortcoming is that they should have extended platform 1 whilst on the job.
YM-Mundrabilla
They also should've made new DDA access ramps or lifts to the platforms (their DDA ramps are only to access the tunnel) and found a way to better integrate cycling and the buses. Having to walk from Mount Alexander Rd from the Mordialloc bound SmartBus is annoying at best and at worst you miss your train. Navigating the area in a car is also a pain in the butt.

Another thing is that the colouring of the car underpass is really bad. I still can't in good conscience say it was a good job
  bevans Site Admin

Location: Melbourne, Australia
'Essendon which looks to have been accepted by just about everyone.'

Even I have to admit Buckley Street has been a good job.
Only shortcoming is that they should have extended platform 1 whilst on the job.
YM-Mundrabilla

My father lives in the area and i do pass by and also agree it is a good implementation of a level crossing removal where minimal ability for graffiti and none visible.  Also Rose Street shops not affected and bus network still good.
  pvcommuter Station Master

Doing Upfield to Roxy while Bell-Moreland is closed is counter-intuitive. Upfield to Roxy can be done without disturbing the Upfield line, but it screws with the Craigieburn line. With Upfield line offline, the last thing you want to do is disrupt the Craigieburn line too.
  reubstar6 Chief Train Controller

Doing Upfield to Roxy while Bell-Moreland is closed is counter-intuitive. Upfield to Roxy can be done without disturbing the Upfield line, but it screws with the Craigieburn line. With Upfield line offline, the last thing you want to do is disrupt the Craigieburn line too.
pvcommuter
Agreed. You're better off duplicating the line to Upfield while the line is down, perhaps extending the duplicated track slightly beyond Upfield station (like 100m). Then whenever they rebuild Somerton Link they will only have to disrupt the Craigieburn line (assuming there will be conflicts, otherwise there will be minimal disruption). It's possible that they will just build the track pair to the right of the Craigieburn line. The only issue is space around Craigieburn station but with a handful of property acquisitions that shouldn't be too much of an issue. There would, however, probably be some disruption to the SG line, which would probably have to run to the right of the extended Upfield line unless they're going to have a weird interchange at Craigieburn (and Roxburgh Park, actually) with the SG line running through the middle.
  TOQ-1 Deputy Commissioner

Location: Power Trainger
One of the main benefits of linking the Upfield to the Craigieburn line is that you could run trains to and from the maintenance facility at Craigieburn, so you would definitely want the BG all on one side rather than split at Craigieburn.

Best way to do this IMO would be a dive under to the up of Roxburg Park, bringing the Upfield tracks back to level between the two Cragieburn ones. Creates a conflict free junction for trains to access either line. Might involve some slewing of tracks back towards Somerton Road, but I think there is enough space for it.
  CraigieburnLineUser Locomotive Fireman

Doing Upfield to Roxy while Bell-Moreland is closed is counter-intuitive. Upfield to Roxy can be done without disturbing the Upfield line, but it screws with the Craigieburn line. With Upfield line offline, the last thing you want to do is disrupt the Craigieburn line too.
Agreed. You're better off duplicating the line to Upfield while the line is down, perhaps extending the duplicated track slightly beyond Upfield station (like 100m). Then whenever they rebuild Somerton Link they will only have to disrupt the Craigieburn line (assuming there will be conflicts, otherwise there will be minimal disruption). It's possible that they will just build the track pair to the right of the Craigieburn line. The only issue is space around Craigieburn station but with a handful of property acquisitions that shouldn't be too much of an issue. There would, however, probably be some disruption to the SG line, which would probably have to run to the right of the extended Upfield line unless they're going to have a weird interchange at Craigieburn (and Roxburgh Park, actually) with the SG line running through the middle.
reubstar6
Well at Craigieburn station they only need to find the room for one more platform as there is already a bed for a third platform, it was just cut from the build and covered with a land bridge
  YM-Mundrabilla Minister for Railways

Location: Mundrabilla but I'd rather be in Narvik
Bell and Moreland are not even on the same line ???????????
  LancedDendrite Chief Commissioner

Location: Gheringhap Loop Autonomous Zone
Bell and Moreland are not even on the same line ???????????
YM-Mundrabilla
The Bell Street and Moreland Road level crossings are, however.
  YM-Mundrabilla Minister for Railways

Location: Mundrabilla but I'd rather be in Narvik
Bell and Moreland are not even on the same line ???????????
The Bell Street and Moreland Road level crossings are, however.
Moreland Road does not go anywhere near the railway that goes through Bell (according to my map anyway).
  True Believers Chief Commissioner

Bell and Moreland are not even on the same line ???????????
The Bell Street and Moreland Road level crossings are, however.
Moreland Road does not go anywhere near the railway that goes through Bell (according to my map anyway).
YM-Mundrabilla
The level crossings at Bell Street, Munro Street and Reynard Street in Coburg, and Moreland Road in Brunswick are being removed by raising the rail line over the road.

https://levelcrossings.vic.gov.au/projects/bell-street-coburg

These crossings will be removed by one elevated structure across the Upfield line. Known as the Bell-Moreland project. New stations at Moreland and Coburg.

Not to be confused with another planned section also to remove another 4 crossings with one elevated structure on the Mernda line, which includes Bell Street, Cramer Street, Murray Road and Oakover Road in Preston. On that section Bell and Preston stations will be rebuilt.

https://levelcrossings.vic.gov.au/projects/bell-street-preston
  Adogs Chief Train Controller

Bell and Moreland are not even on the same line ???????????
The Bell Street and Moreland Road level crossings are, however.
Moreland Road does not go anywhere near the railway that goes through Bell (according to my map anyway).
YM-Mundrabilla

Let's try again.  The project is from Bell Street to Moreland Road on the Upfield line.

You'll note that the crossing projects are generally named for the streets, not the stations.
  Valvegear Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Norda Fittazroy
Let's try again.  The project is from Bell Street to Moreland Road on the Upfield line.

You'll note that the crossing projects are generally named for the streets, not the stations.
"Adogs"
And look at the confusion that has just caused. Your addition of the line they're on at least adds clarity.
  Adogs Chief Train Controller

Let's try again.  The project is from Bell Street to Moreland Road on the Upfield line.

You'll note that the crossing projects are generally named for the streets, not the stations.
And look at the confusion that has just caused. Your addition of the line they're on at least adds clarity.
Valvegear

Well, that's true I guess.
  bevans Site Admin

Location: Melbourne, Australia
Given https://www.railpage.com.au/news/s/minister-puts-watchdog-back-in-the-box-over-sky-rail-demolitions is there any real reason why the signal box cannot remain?  It is skyrail overall should I would have thought it would be well above the roof line and offset?

Sponsored advertisement

Subscribers: bevans, reubstar6

Display from:   

Quick Reply

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