Glenferrie Rd Level Crossing

 
  bevans Site Admin

Location: Melbourne, Australia
The Federal Government has committed $260 million towards the removal of the dangerous and congested Glenferrie Rd Level Crossing.

The first step to remove the Level Crossing was to provide $8 million to the Victorian State Government to produce a Business Case.

Over a year later the Business Case is still not complete.

Locals need to know what the options are for the removal and then to be consulted on the options.

Which has left us all asking… where’s the plan?

Sponsored advertisement

  speedemon08 Mary

Location: I think by now you should have figured it out
Jee I wonder why the level crossing removal in Josh Frydengburgs electorate had money funneled into it hoping the Vic Goverment would magically bump it up the priority list all of a sudden.
  True Believers Chief Commissioner

The Federal Government has committed $260 million towards the removal of the dangerous and congested Glenferrie Rd Level Crossing.

The first step to remove the Level Crossing was to provide $8 million to the Victorian State Government to produce a Business Case.

Over a year later the Business Case is still not complete.

Locals need to know what the options are for the removal and then to be consulted on the options.

Which has left us all asking… where’s the plan?
bevans
Ok so this suddenly needed a brand new thread to receive attention again, instead of the already existing level crossing removal thread.

I wonder who's in charge of the level crossing removal program, is the state government or the federal government?

And also who's funding the majority of the level crossing removal program?

Who makes the decision making process on selection of level crossings, is it suddenly the federal government now what should be investigated now?

The real question is why did the federal government politicise the level crossing pledge for their own advantage and why did they insist it had to be done rail under road? Why should the Federal government dictating transit infrastructure in Victoria, when it should be done under merit? That's what you should be asking.

Oh wait the federal government has already gotten away with some already: Melbourne Airport rail link and Geelong Fast Rail

Shouldn't we ask for a comprehensive integrated transport plan, instead of politics dictating what gets done, why should we let that happen at all Bevans, whether it's the state or the feds, they should do it under merits not for political gain.
  Gman_86 Chief Commissioner

Location: Melton, where the sparks dare not roam!
The Federal government made a promise to remove this crossing, so why are they passing it on to the state to do?

The State government is working through a large program of level crossing removals of their own, this wasn't one of them, why should they be responsible for following through on someone else's promise?

If the feds want to do it, then they should do it. If they can't do it, then they had no place in promising it in the first place.
  True Believers Chief Commissioner

The Federal government made a promise to remove this crossing, so why are they passing it on to the state to do?

The State government is working through a large program of level crossing removals of their own, this wasn't one of them, why should they be responsible for following through on someone else's promise?

If the feds want to do it, then they should do it. If they can't do it, then they had no place in promising it in the first place.
Gman_86
Exactly it should be investigated under merit, not from political pressure from the federal government.
  Upven Junior Train Controller

Does anyone here actually believe this level crossing should stay.......
  Lockie91 Assistant Commissioner

The Federal Government has committed $260 million towards the removal of the dangerous and congested Glenferrie Rd Level Crossing.

The first step to remove the Level Crossing was to provide $8 million to the Victorian State Government to produce a Business Case.

Over a year later the Business Case is still not complete.

Locals need to know what the options are for the removal and then to be consulted on the options.

Which has left us all asking… where’s the plan?
bevans
Why this needs its own thread is beyond me, considering it was discussed in the LX thread when The Hun published an article on this.

Anywhoo...

The business case has been completed by the state government who is laughing all the way to the bank. It is yet to reach the federal ministers desk which is code for the federal government didn't like what was in it.


$260m doesn't get you much for Glenferrie Road. The state business case said double and some.

Glenferrie Road and Kooyong Station are on a curve, the station would need to go and cannot be rebuilt in its current locations. Safety rules say it must be built on a straight section of track. So it will need to be rebuilt between Warra Street and the well to do Kooyong Tennis Club. There is virtually no space here, so a little bit of land is going to need to be stolen from somewhere. It is also not a case of trenching next to the current line keeping it active during construction. The limitations of the rail corridor mean it would need to be closed for months while the current corridor is trenched

Then they need to squeeze a new DDA compliant station in between the Tennis Club and the million dollar homes, which I'm sure the locals will love. All of the trees gone and replaced by a concrete trench. There is also limited staging space for any construction activities, no nearby land or park they could occupy and then reinstate, unless St Kevins College is feeling generous.

All in all the state said it would be more than $500 million to remove the crossing and rebuild Kooyong Station, which is why the Feds are mum on it. This is what happens when you go with the popular movement at the time and promise to trench a railway, rebuild a station without having a clue how to do it. The site is perfect for a rail overpass and elevated station.

The state won't touch it knowing how much it is going to cost, if the feds want it gone they will need to stump up the cash. Im sure Dan is more than happy to sit by and watch Josh get eaten alive by the locals.

Lockie
  John.Z Assistant Commissioner

Why this needs its own thread is beyond me, considering it was discussed in the LX thread when The Hun published an article on this.

Anywhoo...

The business case has been completed by the state government who is laughing all the way to the bank. It is yet to reach the federal ministers desk which is code for the federal government didn't like what was in it.


$260m doesn't get you much for Glenferrie Road. The state business case said double and some.

Glenferrie Road and Kooyong Station are on a curve, the station would need to go and cannot be rebuilt in its current locations. Safety rules say it must be built on a straight section of track. So it will need to be rebuilt between Warra Street and the well to do Kooyong Tennis Club. There is virtually no space here, so a little bit of land is going to need to be stolen from somewhere. It is also not a case of trenching next to the current line keeping it active during construction. The limitations of the rail corridor mean it would need to be closed for months while the current corridor is trenched

Then they need to squeeze a new DDA compliant station in between the Tennis Club and the million dollar homes, which I'm sure the locals will love. All of the trees gone and replaced by a concrete trench. There is also limited staging space for any construction activities, no nearby land or park they could occupy and then reinstate, unless St Kevins College is feeling generous.

All in all the state said it would be more than $500 million to remove the crossing and rebuild Kooyong Station, which is why the Feds are mum on it. This is what happens when you go with the popular movement at the time and promise to trench a railway, rebuild a station without having a clue how to do it. The site is perfect for a rail overpass and elevated station.

The state won't touch it knowing how much it is going to cost, if the feds want it gone they will need to stump up the cash. Im sure Dan is more than happy to sit by and watch Josh get eaten alive by the locals.

Lockie
Lockie91
If you're gonna shut down the whole line from Darling to the City, then you better do Burnley and Glen Iris at the same time. That would be the last 3 gone.
  Mr. Lane Chief Commissioner

Why this needs its own thread is beyond me, considering it was discussed in the LX thread when The Hun published an article on this.

Anywhoo...

The business case has been completed by the state government who is laughing all the way to the bank. It is yet to reach the federal ministers desk which is code for the federal government didn't like what was in it.


$260m doesn't get you much for Glenferrie Road. The state business case said double and some.

Glenferrie Road and Kooyong Station are on a curve, the station would need to go and cannot be rebuilt in its current locations. Safety rules say it must be built on a straight section of track. So it will need to be rebuilt between Warra Street and the well to do Kooyong Tennis Club. There is virtually no space here, so a little bit of land is going to need to be stolen from somewhere. It is also not a case of trenching next to the current line keeping it active during construction. The limitations of the rail corridor mean it would need to be closed for months while the current corridor is trenched

Then they need to squeeze a new DDA compliant station in between the Tennis Club and the million dollar homes, which I'm sure the locals will love. All of the trees gone and replaced by a concrete trench. There is also limited staging space for any construction activities, no nearby land or park they could occupy and then reinstate, unless St Kevins College is feeling generous.

All in all the state said it would be more than $500 million to remove the crossing and rebuild Kooyong Station, which is why the Feds are mum on it. This is what happens when you go with the popular movement at the time and promise to trench a railway, rebuild a station without having a clue how to do it. The site is perfect for a rail overpass and elevated station.

The state won't touch it knowing how much it is going to cost, if the feds want it gone they will need to stump up the cash. Im sure Dan is more than happy to sit by and watch Josh get eaten alive by the locals.

Lockie
If you're gonna shut down the whole line from Darling to the City, then you better do Burnley and Glen Iris at the same time. That would be the last 3 gone.
John.Z

There are 4 left aren't there along that stretch?

  • Madden Grove
  • Glenferrie Road
  • Tooronga Road
  • High Street


I actually think High Street is the biggest priority of those.
  historian Deputy Commissioner

There are 4 left aren't there along that stretch?

  • Madden Grove
  • Glenferrie Road
  • Tooronga Road
  • High Street


I actually think High Street is the biggest priority of those.
Mr. Lane

Indeed, particularly given the nasty accident there only a month or so ago. And it would be by far the easiest to do.

The other three crossings would be complicated (read expensive). Lockie has already discussed Glenferrie Rd, so let's look at the other two.

Madden Grove is immediately adjacent to the points into the Burnley stabling sidings (6 trains). Changing the level of the railway up or down would mean paying for relocation of the sidings. On the other hand, the intersection of Madden Gve is immediately adjacent to its intersection with Swan St. No room for road ramps. The only practical solution I could see would be to have a road bridge *and elevate Swan St as well*. Most likely move the rail crossing back towards Burnley and extend the existing Swan St overbridge, close to its former location.

It's not practical to change the road levels at Tooronga Rd, so you'll have to raise or lower the station. Tooronga station is on a sweeping curve, so it can't stay on its current site. But it's a long curve, so it will have to be moved a substantial distance. If you move it in the Down direction it will be half way to Gardiner. That's a non starter. If you move it in the Up direction it will be hard up against Toorak Rd. That's already the ramp to the existing grade separation, and it's still a long way from the existing site. Best wait for the next change of government and the Liberals can just close the station over the howls of their constituants. Grade separation would then be easy.
  bevans Site Admin

Location: Melbourne, Australia
Ok so this suddenly needed a brand new thread to receive attention again, instead of the already existing level crossing removal thread.
True Believers

This level crossing is not a part of the level crossing removal program at this juncture.
  Gman_86 Chief Commissioner

Location: Melton, where the sparks dare not roam!
Does anyone here actually believe this level crossing should stay.......
Upven
It would be nice to get rid of it, but honestly, if it is going to cost the taxpayer half a billion dollars, then it should probably stay as is.

I can think of a few better ways of spending $500,000,000.
  John.Z Assistant Commissioner

There are 4 left aren't there along that stretch?

  • Madden Grove
  • Glenferrie Road
  • Tooronga Road
  • High Street


I actually think High Street is the biggest priority of those.

Indeed, particularly given the nasty accident there only a month or so ago. And it would be by far the easiest to do.

The other three crossings would be complicated (read expensive). Lockie has already discussed Glenferrie Rd, so let's look at the other two.

Madden Grove is immediately adjacent to the points into the Burnley stabling sidings (6 trains). Changing the level of the railway up or down would mean paying for relocation of the sidings. On the other hand, the intersection of Madden Gve is immediately adjacent to its intersection with Swan St. No room for road ramps. The only practical solution I could see would be to have a road bridge *and elevate Swan St as well*. Most likely move the rail crossing back towards Burnley and extend the existing Swan St overbridge, close to its former location.

It's not practical to change the road levels at Tooronga Rd, so you'll have to raise or lower the station. Tooronga station is on a sweeping curve, so it can't stay on its current site. But it's a long curve, so it will have to be moved a substantial distance. If you move it in the Down direction it will be half way to Gardiner. That's a non starter. If you move it in the Up direction it will be hard up against Toorak Rd. That's already the ramp to the existing grade separation, and it's still a long way from the existing site. Best wait for the next change of government and the Liberals can just close the station over the howls of their constituants. Grade separation would then be easy.
historian
Don't overthink Madden Grove. Keep the road as is and build a rail bridge over the top. Keep the sidings where they are but access them from the Freeway side, build a siding over the freeway and river to allow trains to shunt into, before heading back on itself into the siding. Very crude diagram below.

  Gman_86 Chief Commissioner

Location: Melton, where the sparks dare not roam!
A fair idea, although, the question is would it just be easier (and cheaper) to just build new stabling capacity somewhere else?
  John.Z Assistant Commissioner

A fair idea, although, the question is would it just be easier (and cheaper) to just build new stabling capacity somewhere else?
Gman_86
Potentially, although I think it's sorely needed.
  True Believers Chief Commissioner

Ok so this suddenly needed a brand new thread to receive attention again, instead of the already existing level crossing removal thread.

This level crossing is not a part of the level crossing removal program at this juncture.
bevans
But you're arguing that it should be part of the level crossing removal program, hence why it's discussion could be made on that thread instead making a new one, I'm sure we've had this similar discussion before on the Glenferrie Road level crossing already on the level crossing removal thread as well as future intentions on future level crossings added onto the program.

I don't believe it really needed its own thread, we could be arguing for other level crossings that should be added onto the program, and that would make a bunch of irrelevant threads, maybe I should make a separate thread of removal of the Moonee Ponds or the Kensington level crossings, both also have merits. And yes have very little coverage or attention.

This good one at Kooyong only got the attention cause Josh, who is the Treasure of the Federal Liberal Government is in the seat of Kooyong, it's his own electorate, of course he wants to put attention to it. There are numerous of more dangerous level crossings that have more of a merit than the one at Kooyong.

Remember the time when Louise Asher in the prior state Liberal government tried to prioritise removing the New street level crossing in the electorate of Brighton? Same problem and yes they did backflip on that promise, since it would look suspiciously of pork barrelling.
  True Believers Chief Commissioner

Don't overthink Madden Grove. Keep the road as is and build a rail bridge over the top. Keep the sidings where they are but access them from the Freeway side, build a siding over the freeway and river to allow trains to shunt into, before heading back on itself into the siding. Very crude diagram below.
John.
Madden Grove is easier to be delivered as a road bridge than a rail bridge. All I can say is, reconfiguration of the Burnley junction is an another project for another day.

I would go with something like what's done already at Aircraft or Werribee, have a curvy bridge to utilise the space efficiently, and then do a loop around like what's done Fitzgerald road. It might not be the most pedestrian friendly solution, but I don't see many would go that route for walking. Or they could build a separate footbridge to replace the underpass at Burnley station, that would be a nice idea too.
  railblogger Chief Commissioner

Location: At the back of the train, quitely doing exactly what you'd expect.
Don't overthink Madden Grove. Keep the road as is and build a rail bridge over the top. Keep the sidings where they are but access them from the Freeway side, build a siding over the freeway and river to allow trains to shunt into, before heading back on itself into the siding. Very crude diagram below.
Madden Grove is easier to be delivered as a road bridge than a rail bridge. All I can say is, reconfiguration of the Burnley junction is an another project for another day.

I would go with something like what's done already at Aircraft or Werribee, have a curvy bridge to utilise the space efficiently, and then do a loop around like what's done Fitzgerald road. It might not be the most pedestrian friendly solution, but I don't see many would go that route for walking. Or they could build a separate footbridge to replace the underpass at Burnley station, that would be a nice idea too.
True Believers
Disagree with that one. Space on the north side is a problem.

Besides, why wouldn't you do both projects at once? Especially since a fourth track between Burnley and Camberwell is likely to be needed sooner rather than later.

As for stabling, I didn't think there was another suitable location?
  Dangersdan707 Chief Commissioner

Location: On a Thing with Internet
Don't overthink Madden Grove. Keep the road as is and build a rail bridge over the top. Keep the sidings where they are but access them from the Freeway side, build a siding over the freeway and river to allow trains to shunt into, before heading back on itself into the siding. Very crude diagram below.
Madden Grove is easier to be delivered as a road bridge than a rail bridge. All I can say is, reconfiguration of the Burnley junction is an another project for another day.

I would go with something like what's done already at Aircraft or Werribee, have a curvy bridge to utilise the space efficiently, and then do a loop around like what's done Fitzgerald road. It might not be the most pedestrian friendly solution, but I don't see many would go that route for walking. Or they could build a separate footbridge to replace the underpass at Burnley station, that would be a nice idea too.
Disagree with that one. Space on the north side is a problem.

Besides, why wouldn't you do both projects at once? Especially since a fourth track between Burnley and Camberwell is likely to be needed sooner rather than later.

As for stabling, I didn't think there was another suitable location?
railblogger
I highly doubt you could find another good spot for stabling along the Glen Waverley line. Some Armchair gunzels will probably disagree though.
  Nightfire Minister for Railways

Location: Gippsland
Madden Grove is immediately adjacent to the points into the Burnley stabling sidings (6 trains). Changing the level of the railway up or down would mean paying for relocation of the sidings. On the other hand, the intersection of Madden Gve is immediately adjacent to its intersection with Swan St. No room for road ramps. The only practical solution I could see would be to have a road bridge *and elevate Swan St as well*. Most likely move the rail crossing back towards Burnley and extend the existing Swan St overbridge, close to its former location.

historian
Wouldn't It be easier to sink the Swan Street / Madden Grove Intersection and keep the railway at the existing grade ?
  John.Z Assistant Commissioner

Wouldn't It be easier to sink the Swan Street / Madden Grove Intersection and keep the railway at the existing grade ?
Nightfire
Swan St is already elevated over the Camberwell lines, so it would be up over and then down. Maybe for cars, but don't think the trams could do it too.

The outbound GW line is already elevated on the approach to Madden Grove, it would be the least disruptive way to do it.

Building a shunt road over the freeway wouldn't be that hard to do either in order to keep the sidings in operation.
  Rossco T Chief Train Controller

Location: Camberwell, Victoria
It's not practical to change the road levels at Tooronga Rd, so you'll have to raise or lower the station. Tooronga station is on a sweeping curve, so it can't stay on its current site. But it's a long curve, so it will have to be moved a substantial distance. If you move it in the Down direction it will be half way to Gardiner. That's a non starter. If you move it in the Up direction it will be hard up against Toorak Rd. That's already the ramp to the existing grade separation, and it's still a long way from the existing site. Best wait for the next change of government and the Liberals can just close the station over the howls of their constituants. Grade separation would then be easy.
historian
How long have the current restrictions been in place to prevent the construction of new platforms on curves?  I understand that the reason for straight platforms is to minimise the gap between the train doors and the platform, but is placing an absolute ban on curved platforms the best solution given that this is a constrained location and not a brand new rail corridor?  Potentially the problem could be solved with the stroke of a pen.

Does anyone know what rules apply in relation to curved platforms in other Australian states?

Ross
  railblogger Chief Commissioner

Location: At the back of the train, quitely doing exactly what you'd expect.
The other option would be to straighten the curve, but it would be prohibitively expensive and likely require alterations to the road layout.
  trainbrain Chief Commissioner

Easy solution is just leave it alone.
  Duncs Chief Commissioner

Easy solution is just leave it alone.
trainbrain
In the end, that is most likely what will happen. If Glenferrie Road stays as a bottleneck, then so be it.

Sponsored advertisement

Subscribers: bevans, Duncs, Nightfire

Display from: